A question on fetishism, is it oppressive?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Now, I happen to have a fetish and there is a girl that I know that I'm pretty sure is into my fetish. Now while I would love to indulge myself,as a Maoist I believe in the unity of theory and practice. Now I know that there are alot of feminist criticisms of fetishism so I'd like to read a few. I personally can't think of a valid argument against consenting adults engaging sexual activity they find enjoyable, but of course anyone with a basic understanding of philosophy knows that "consent" implies freedom of will which is a logically absurd position. So if some one can provide a text that proves that engaging in fetishistic activities is oppressive then I'll adjust my practice accordingly and try to rid myself of it, if the feminist argument is nothing more than a rehashing of 13th century conservatism that the bourgeois echo just so they can make sure that their daughters don't lose their "precious chastity" then I'll disregard it and go on my merry way.

[Aurora]

I thought this was going to be about commodity fetishism...

What you find kinky isn't really anyone else's business, as long as you and she are both cool with it go nuts. It's as simple as that.


Ah hell here's some commodity fetishism anyways.
“A commodity appears, at first sight, a very trivial thing, and easily understood. Its analysis shows that it is, in reality, a very queer thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties. So far as it is a value in use, there is nothing mysterious about it, whether we consider it from the point of view that by its properties it is capable of satisfying human wants, or from the point that those properties are the product of human labour. It is as clear as noon-day, that man, by his industry, changes the forms of the materials furnished by Nature, in such a way as to make them useful to him. ...

“Whence, then, arises the enigmatical character of the product of labour, so soon as it assumes the form of commodities? Clearly from this form itself. The equality of all sorts of human labour is expressed objectively by their products all being equally values; the measure of the expenditure of labour-power by the duration of that expenditure, takes the form of the quantity of value of the products of labour; and finally the mutual relations of the producers, within which the social character of their labour affirms itself, take the form of a social relation between the products.

“A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men’s labour appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labour; because the relation of the producers to the sum total of their own labour is presented to them as a social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products of their labour. This is the reason why the products of labour become commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time perceptible and imperceptible by the senses. In the same way the light from an object is perceived by us not as the subjective excitation of our optic nerve, but as the objective form of something outside the eye itself. But, in the act of seeing, there is at all events, an actual passage of light from one thing to another, from the external object to the eye. There is a physical relation between physical things. But it is different with commodities. There, the existence of the things qua commodities, and the value-relation between the products of labour which stamps them as commodities, have absolutely no connection with their physical properties and with the material relations arising therefrom. There it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped regions of the religious world. In that world the productions of the human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into relation both with one another and the human race. So it is in the world of commodities with the products of men’s hands. This I call the Fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labour, so soon as they are produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the production of commodities. ...”

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Normally I would accept that as an answer, but many feminists have written on the subject and I'd be a hypocrite to call myself a feminist and do something that is directly opposed to the ideology. Personally I hope these arguments are invalid because well, I, er, well you know why. But if they are valid then I'll have to be a good revolutionary and keep it in my pants.

[RedAtheist]

I'm not the official representative for feminism and I don't have an article I could point you to, but here's my viewpoint.

I'm not against 'fetishism' in the general sense. If you find feet or ankles or some other part of the body that's not usually labeled as sexy by our culture, then that's fine. In fact I would lable attractive to large breast and absurdly thin waists as a fetish. It just happens to be the dominant fetish in our society, but that does not make it a more valid fetish than a fetish for any other body part.

What I am opposed to is fetishes that involve the domination of one person by another (and lets face it, its usually men dominating women, the fact that there are exceptions to the rule, doesn't counteract the general trend) and the labling of that kind of behaviour as sexy. This reinforces claims about 'human nature' and the nature of men and women. There are assholes out there who will insist that all women deep down have an innate desire to be dominated. People who practise anti-egalitarian fetishes validate these people's claims (whether they themselves believe them or not.)

Furthermore anti-egalitarian fetishes are not longer merely a private thing anymore. They are entering the popular culture, through books and films. There's a movement to try to make this behaviour societally acceptable.A public movement such as that is sure to influence society's understanding of how men and women should interract with each other and what love is about. People in this movement even claim that for one person to dominate another is an expression of love, because the submissive is expressing complete trust in the dominant person. When you promote this idea you are no longer making a personal statement about what turns you on, you are making a philosophical and ideological claim, a claim about the nature of love and I think claims such as that should be open to intellectual scrutiny.

In summary, I believe that in an ideal world, no adult human being should ever dominate another adult human being and do not see why I need to make a special exception for such relationships when they involve sex. I am not being anti-sex. I am critically analysing people's sexual behaviours the way I would critically analyse any other common behaviours.

When men dominate women in a non-sexual way (e.g. by getting them to wash dishes for no pay) I criticise that, even if the women consents and even if she claims that serving her husband is the most fufiling thing she could possibly do in her life and the most fufiling thing any women could do with their life. I do not see why sexual domination should not be open to criticism in the same way.

Before the people who practise these particular fetishes go nuts (once again I'm not talking about fetishes generally, but the fact that the term 'fetish' is used to mean 'a desire to be sexual dominated/sexually dominate other people' should tell us a lot about the influence of these sorts of fetishes on our society.) I should clarify a few things.

-Number one, what I am expressing is an opinion, not a government mandate that I am physically forcing you to comply with. I am not going to burst into your house at night and force you to do anything.
-Number two, I have never asked anybody to describe their sexual practises to me or stuck a camera in anyone's bedroom to find out what kind of sex they practise, so that I can criticise it. If you choose to express an opinion about what you find sexy, prepare to have that opinion critically analysed by me the same way I would critically analyse any other opinion. If you don't want me to do this, please don't give me the details of your sex life. I don't particularly wanna know.
- In summary, please don't accuse me of committing any violations against your freedom or your privacy when I quite plainly have not. If I have made you feel uncomfortable about what you do, I would count that as a point in my favour.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Consensual power exchange between consenting partners is not the problem - the problem is broader non-consensual relationships of domination. Honestly, I think an honest d/s relationship with clear communication is way less fucked up than the vast majority of hetero sex that occurs without any intentional discussion of broader heteropatriarchal dynamics that necessarily impact said sex.

Anyway, I suggest reading this (http://www.phillyspissed.net/node/32) and this (http://www.phillyspissed.net/node/18), accepting that your hetero sex is always going to be full-of-the-problematic as long as heterosexuality exists as such, and then working meaningfully to destroy heteropatriarchal capitalism outside the bedroom (which, ultimately, is where it's going to happen).

[GoddessCleoLover]

Some fetishes are relatively harmless while others are not. Since the fetish at issue is unrevealed one can't say much more than that IMO.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Some fetishes are relatively harmless while others are not. Since the fetish at issue is unrevealed one can't say much more than that IMO.

Sorry, what constitutes a "harmful fetish"?
In the context of heteropatriarchy, what constitutes sex that isn't, on some level, an expression of harmful dynamics? Why would the line be drawn at particular fetishes, rather than making a broader critique of sexuality?

[GoddessCleoLover]

I wasn't going for a profound in-depth critique of sexuality, although there is a great deal of validity to your hypothesis. That hypothesis leads into a highly complicated discussion that has be going on for decades and for which I have no special insights.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Some fetishes are relatively harmless while others are not. Since the fetish at issue is unrevealed one can't say much more than that IMO.

Valid point, fetishes are not all one the same. We are all big boys/girls/transfolk/comrades here I'll just tell you my fetish plainly and as you your opinion.
I have a weight gain fetish, nothing more than 20-30 pounds of course and I do know that it is important to protize health over sexual gratification. With the girl in question I once blind folded her, tied her to a chair, and feed her cupcakes. It was fun :)

And in regards to redathesist, you have provided a good, comradely response to my question and I admit that I can not respond to your point so for now I will concede that your position is correct. However now that I have provided you my fetish for dissemination you may analysis it in concrete terms and tell me what you think. And anyone else who has an opinion ought to offer their say so I can hear a wide range of opinions.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Moved to Discrimination because it's a question about if something contributes to oppression.

[DVRA]

This is bizarre. Oppression exists in terms of unequal social relations, such as pay disparity and preferential employment practices, and such things as the systematic dehumanisation of a social group. This does not include what you and a prospective sexual partner both enjoy and get off to. BDSM does not help the patriarchy.

Besides, are you really going to let some pseudo-intellectual dictate what you do in the privacy of your bedroom?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Thank you comrade, hopefully it will get some more fruitful discussion here.

[hetz]

Sorry, what constitutes a "harmful fetish"?
Scat can be harmful, also some violent fetishes.


In the context of heteropatriarchy, what constitutes sex that isn't, on some level, an expression of harmful dynamics? Why would the line be drawn at particular fetishes, rather than making a broader critique of sexuality?
What?

[zoot_allures]

If some motherfucker tells you that your fetish, which you engage in with a willing participant and which you both derive enjoyment from, is "oppressive", you need to tell them to get fucked.

[Jack]

Weight gain fetish....

https://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/sp/image/1339/95/1339952220991.jpg

But seriously what's with the attempt to politicize or analyze sex? As long as it's consensual it doesn't matter.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Many folks have fetishes, the feeding/weight gain fetish is harmless as long as both parties consent. I am sure there are some BBWs out there who might be willing to consent. Certainly there is nothing politically wrong with such a fetish. Good luck.

[Landsharks eat metal]

It definitely depends on the fetish. I'd say most fetishes I've heard about are fine, but people fetishizing a certain type of person can be problematic. I've seen it a lot, particularly with trans women. That is oppressive because it contributes to the othering of binary trans people. The exotification of certain races or cultures is similarly harmful.
What you're talking about sounds okay though

[Jesus Saves Gretzky Scores]

Normally I would accept that as an answer, but many feminists have written on the subject and I'd be a hypocrite to call myself a feminist and do something that is directly opposed to the ideology. Personally I hope these arguments are invalid because well, I, er, well you know why. But if they are valid then I'll have to be a good revolutionary and keep it in my pants.

Don't worry about what some feminists say. There's not one set of rules for what you need to do to be a feminist, besides of course being for women's rights and whatnot. Either way, as long as it's genuinely enjoyed and consented to by both, I can't see anything wrong with it.

[RedAtheist]

Valid point, fetishes are not all one the same. We are all big boys/girls/transfolk/comrades here I'll just tell you my fetish plainly and as you your opinion.
I have a weight gain fetish, nothing more than 20-30 pounds of course and I do know that it is important to protize health over sexual gratification. With the girl in question I once blind folded her, tied her to a chair, and feed her cupcakes. It was fun :)

And in regards to redathesist, you have provided a good, comradely response to my question and I admit that I can not respond to your point so for now I will concede that your position is correct. However now that I have provided you my fetish for dissemination you may analysis it in concrete terms and tell me what you think. And anyone else who has an opinion ought to offer their say so I can hear a wide range of opinions.

Sorry I didn't reply to this earlier. I lost access to the internet for a few days. Let me warn you, I'm going to be repeating myself a little.

I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with the fat fetish, but I think there are problems with the way it is sometimes practised. Aside from the health problems caused by excessive weight gain (I think a moderate weight gain is acceptable) there is also the tendency for the 'feedee' (or weight gainer) to be cast as the 'submissive' in the relation. I think this tendecy comes from the societal assumption that even moderate weight gain is a bad thing and that therefore the only reason someone would want to gain weight, is so that they can sexually please somebody else.

I don't think there's anything inherently submissive about gaining weight (after all being overweight has historically been associated with being part of the ruling class) and the assumption that feedees are submissive needs to be challenged not reinforced. I also would object to domination related elements, such as force feeding, being introduced into what could otherwise be an egalitarian fetish. If it is the thought of someone gaining weight that turns you on, rather than the thought of dominating another person, then I suggest you keep doing what you've been doing without the 'typing up and blindfolding' part.

The BDSM fetish on the other hand is by definition anti-egalitarian, it is about the domination of one person by another and declaring that to be sexy and part of the natural desires of men and women. No matter how you spin it, domination/submission does not equal equality.

Opponents of anti-egalitarian fetishes did not need to ‘analyse’ or ‘politicise’ anything in order to come up with their conclusion. The analysis and politicisation was already done by the people who advocate BDSM, when they decided to use terms like ‘domination’ and ‘submission’ and more recently ‘power’ to describe their sex acts. Nobody picked apart the motions involved in BDSM sex in order to discover that it was anti-egalitarian. Those who practise the fetish described what they do using anti-egalitarian and political words, because they recognised that their sex acts were about the domination of one person be another and that this inequality turned them on. Yet when you repeat to them the claims they themselves make using more negative sounding words, they accuse you of ‘analysing’ their fetish.

That said I am in favour of analysing things. After all, isn’t thinking about stuff and questioning assumptions about how men and women naturally behave a good thing? Let’s not forget that the claims of the BDSM movement play straight into the hands of the biological determinists and their rhetorical about how gender roles are part of ‘human nature’

Feel free to think about and to question you sexual practises the same way you would question other aspects of the society you live. In the end, whether or not you practise a particular sexual fetish is your choice. I only ask that when making such choices, you keep in mind that there are more important things than achieving maximum sexual arousal. I would argue that if somebody decides to slightly compromise their sexual gratification in order to remain consistant with their principles, this is a perfectly valid choice. Freedom and hedonism are not the same thing.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Let’s not forget that the claims of the BDSM movement play straight into the hands of the biological determinists and their rhetorical about how gender roles are part of ‘human nature’
1. How so? There are female dominants, female submissives, male dominants, male submissives, etc. Where is the biological determinism?

2. What's your personal experience within the BDSM community to come to such a conclusion?

[Os Cangaceiros]

The BDSM fetish on the other hand is by definition anti-egalitarian, it is about the domination of one person by another and declaring that to be sexy and part of the natural desires of men and women. No matter how you spin it, domination/submission does not equal equality.

Opponents of anti-egalitarian fetishes did not need to ‘analyse’ or ‘politicise’ anything in order to come up with their conclusion. The analysis and politicisation was already done by the people who advocate BDSM, when they decided to use terms like ‘domination’ and ‘submission’ and more recently ‘power’ to describe their sex acts. Nobody picked apart the motions involved in BDSM sex in order to discover that it was anti-egalitarian. Those who practise the fetish described what they do using anti-egalitarian and political words, because they recognised that their sex acts were about the domination of one person be another and that this inequality turned them on. Yet when you repeat to them the claims they themselves make using more negative sounding words, they accuse you of ‘analysing’ their fetish.

That said I am in favour of analysing things. After all, isn’t thinking about stuff and questioning assumptions about how men and women naturally behave a good thing? Let’s not forget that the claims of the BDSM movement play straight into the hands of the biological determinists and their rhetorical about how gender roles are part of ‘human nature’

Feel free to think about and to question you sexual practises the same way you would question other aspects of the society you live. In the end, whether or not you practise a particular sexual fetish is your choice. I only ask that when making such choices, you keep in mind that there are more important things than achieving maximum sexual arousal. I would argue that if somebody decides to slightly compromise their sexual gratification in order to remain consistant with their principles, this is a perfectly valid choice. Freedom and hedonism are not the same thing.


Yeah, BDSM is all about domination, submission etc. But it's exploring these things for the purposes of titilation. Some people fantasize about power and some fantasize about being powerless, and it's a way to explore those themes in a constructive manner with your partner. To equate that to things like real oppression in an institutional setting to me is being obtuse with the issue. It's like saying that shooting someone in a video game is similar in some way to going out and shooting people in real life.

But I don't really understand the part about the re-enforcement of gender roles. There are lots of men who like to get beaten up, and there are lots of women who like to do the beating.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I agree with the many other posts above; consentual sexual acts between adults that are enjoyed / desired by both parties is a-ok.

[A Sovereign Womb]

BDSM is literally the sexualisation of power and pain, eroticising the symbols of oppression. I'd definitely consider it an inherently patriarchal corruption of sexuality and therefore counter-revolutionary. That those involved all give "consent" ought to signify absolutely nothing in this regard.

[Os Cangaceiros]

BDSM is literally the sexualisation of power and pain, eroticising the symbols of oppression. I'd definitely consider it an inherently patriarchal corruption of sexuality and therefore counter-revolutionary. That those involved all give "consent" ought to signify absolutely nothing in this regard.

Way to counter the popular conception that communists want to hyper-manage every single aspect of the lives of adults, right down to their sexual preferences and whether or not those preferences are "revolutionary" or not.

[Yazman]

BDSM is literally the sexualisation of power and pain, eroticising the symbols of oppression. I'd definitely consider it an inherently patriarchal corruption of sexuality and therefore counter-revolutionary. That those involved all give "consent" ought to signify absolutely nothing in this regard.

Are you kidding me? You really think that it is our business as revolutionary leftists to interfere in what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom? It's none of your damn business and it's none of mine. The only people who need to be concerned are those participating.

What do you propose to do? Punish people into BDSM? Ban it?

It isn't any of our damn business if that's what somebody likes and it's how they want to explore their sexuality. If you want to analyse it, fine, but to say that consent signifies nothing, is dangerous ground, and I won't support any sort of politics that sees our job as revolutionary leftists as including monitoring and/or governing sexual activity between consenting adults.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

BDSM is literally the sexualisation of power and pain, eroticising the symbols of oppression. I'd definitely consider it an inherently patriarchal corruption of sexuality and therefore counter-revolutionary. That those involved all give "consent" ought to signify absolutely nothing in this regard.
My dirty socks are counter-revolutionary. My shirt is a fucking trotskyite spy. Let's dance, khar, or is that counter-revolutionary too?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

BDSM is literally the sexualisation of power and pain, eroticising the symbols of oppression. I'd definitely consider it an inherently patriarchal corruption of sexuality and therefore counter-revolutionary. That those involved all give "consent" ought to signify absolutely nothing in this regard.
What direct experience of BDSM do you have? What gives you the right to declare consenting adults counter-revolutionary because of what they enjoy sexually? What kind of feminist dismisses consent?

[A Sovereign Womb]

Way to counter the popular conception that communists want to hyper-manage every single aspect of the lives of adults, right down to their sexual preferences and whether or not those preferences are "revolutionary" or not.
The comrade asked for an assessment of this fetishism and whether or not it is conducive to a "revolutionary" lifestyle and, specifically, whether it is able to be reconciled with Maoism. He was open and honest in his question and so I believe he deserves an open and honest response. Whatever happened to the indispensability of self-criticism?


Are you kidding me? You really think that it is our business as revolutionary leftists to interfere in what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom? It's none of your damn business and it's none of mine. The only people who need to be concerned are those participating.
Please tell me what the purpose of this thread is then, for I seem to have misinterpreted it.


What do you propose to do? Punish people into BDSM? Ban it?
I am of the position that any glorification of hierarchy, no matter how consensual, should be identified and rooted out in both public and private life. I would consider this to be a fairly standard goal of pretty much any corner of the revolutionary left, and the comrade who started the thread would appear to agree with me; he has exhibited a willingness to examine his own thinking and behavior from a critical perspective so that he might adjust it in accordance with his principles. He ought to be commended for this and assisted to the fullest extent of his comrades' capabilities. Telling him that it's all okay because everyone consents is not at all helpful and certainly not any kind of analysis, feminist and/or Marxist and/or otherwise. I'm actually surprised that I need to point this out on a board like this.

[Yazman]

He said, and I quote:
"I personally can't think of a valid argument against consenting adults engaging sexual activity they find enjoyable"

I agree with him. There isn't a valid argument.


I am of the position that any glorification of hierarchy, no matter how consensual, should be identified and rooted out in both public and private life. I would consider this to be a fairly standard goal of pretty much any corner of the revolutionary left,

I don't. I consider that mentality to be counter-productive at best, and counter-revolutionary at worst. I want more freedom, not less. What happens in people's private lives is not our business to change. It's none of anybody's business but their own.

Even if I agreed with you that BDSM was a "glorification of hierarchy" and not just some people having fun in the bedroom, I still wouldn't agree that it should be a goal of ANY corner of the revolutionary to dictate to people how they can and can't have sex. That's absurd and it's a very authoritarian mentality. I'm not looking to build a damn police state, I'm looking to smash the state and abolish market & currency systems.


and the comrade who started the thread would appear to agree with me; he has exhibited a willingness to examine his own thinking and behavior from a critical perspective so that he might adjust it in accordance with his principles. He ought to be commended for this and assisted to the fullest extent of his comrades' capabilities.

Quit deciding what he thinks and what he plans to do. He posted because he wants to learn about what other people think. We know his position - he thinks there's no problem with it.



Telling him that it's all okay because everyone consents is not at all helpful and certainly not any kind of analysis, feminist and/or Marxist and/or otherwise. I'm actually surprised that I need to point this out on a board like this.

I do think it's ok because everyone consents. There isn't a necessity for analysis. They aren't doing anything wrong! It's people having consensual sex.

From what I understand of your views, you appear to feel that:

a) consent doesn't matter,
b) adults shouldn't be allowed to decide on their own how they have sex
c) it is the job of revolutionary leftists to decide how people can and can't have sex, and
d) the private lives of people should be regulated

I disagree on all counts.

[Aurora]

I'd hope it's pretty uncontroversial here that all aspects of human interaction are conditioned by the society we live and develop in, so sex like any interaction is open for analysis and analysis shouldn't be discouraged.

Sex will change alongside changing conditions like revolution and socialism, it may be the case that such practice like BDSM for example will seem unacceptable or outdated or maybe the opposite i don't know, but i don't think this should determine our attitude towards it in the here and now, sex is a private matter for those involved and all expressions of sex should be protected as long as there is consent between all parties, the state or other institution has no place restricting or interfering in the private practice or belief of individuals in this sphere or in any other like family or religion etc.

[Yazman]

I'd hope it's pretty uncontroversial here that all aspects of human interaction are conditioned by the society we live and develop in, so sex like any interaction is open for analysis and analysis shouldn't be discouraged.

I fail to see where anybody is discouraging analysis. It appears to me that A Sovereign Womb just seems intent on painting some of us with that brush because we disagree with the notion that people's private sex lives should be of our concern.


sex is a private matter for those involved and all expressions of sex should be protected as long as there is consent between all parties, the state or other institution has no place restricting or interfering in the private practice or belief of individuals in this sphere or in any other like family or religion etc.

I agree completely. I think this is particularly important, too.

[Aurora]

I fail to see where anybody is discouraging analysis. It appears to me that A Sovereign Womb just seems intent on painting some of us with that brush because we disagree with the notion that people's private sex lives should be of our concern.

I meant it more generally, these threads sometimes develop an atmosphere of 'sex is private, end of' my first post for example kind of gave that impression and i wanted to amend it.

[Yazman]

I meant it more generally, these threads sometimes develop an atmosphere of 'sex is private, end of' my first post for example kind of gave that impression and i wanted to amend it.

Fair enough. I think that atmosphere is entirely justified, but analysis doesn't have to mean disagreeing with the notion sex is private. One can analyse sex without supporting an authoritarian, invasive approach to it.

[Ocean Seal]

Do you directly see this as altering your attitudes towards women? Do you find yourself treating women differently in the home or work spheres?
If the answer is no, then proceed to the next set of questions.
Is the girl in question just as happy to indulge in this activity? Does she find the same level of meaning in the sexual act as you? Have her attitudes changed to make her feel frightened or alone in the home or work spheres?
If you answered yes,yes,no then you are pretty much in the clear from any feminist argument.

All that's left is reactionary fear of human sexuality.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I did not know fetishism was opressive!
I guess I must blindly follow my anarchist theory now and go delete all those pictures I have stored in my computer...

[Red Banana]

The BDSM fetish on the other hand is by definition anti-egalitarian, it is about the domination of one person by another and declaring that to be sexy and part of the natural desires of men and women. No matter how you spin it, domination/submission does not equal equality.

Wouldn't an exterior authority dictating how consenting adults choose to lead their sex life also play into that domination/submission complex?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Game, set and match to Real Democracy.:thumbup1:

[MEGAMANTROTSKY]

That said I am in favour of analysing things. After all, isn’t thinking about stuff and questioning assumptions about how men and women naturally behave a good thing? Let’s not forget that the claims of the BDSM movement play straight into the hands of the biological determinists and their rhetorical about how gender roles are part of ‘human nature’.
Another thing that "biological determinists" do is insist on looking at a certain area of study through the prism of another, and reduce it to the latter. This is what you seem to be doing; instead of treating sexual relations between people on their own terms, you are suggesting prescriptions for a new human sexuality drawn from politics, assigning labels to acts just as you would to the actions of a bourgeois state. I don't think that method will point ultimately point to a critical transcendence of sex under capitalism, it merely places band-aids on old wounds.

Whatever happened to "Nothing human is alien to me"?

[A Sovereign Womb]

He said, and I quote:
"I personally can't think of a valid argument against consenting adults engaging sexual activity they find enjoyable"

I agree with him. There isn't a valid argument.
And I'll agree that both of you lack awareness in the matter.


I don't. I consider that mentality to be counter-productive at best, and counter-revolutionary at worst. I want more freedom, not less. What happens in people's private lives is not our business to change. It's none of anybody's business but their own.
And if help is expressly asked, what then?

Interesting to note that you consider stamping out all vestiges of patriarchy to be counter-revolutionary either way.


Even if I agreed with you that BDSM was a "glorification of hierarchy" and not just some people having fun in the bedroom, I still wouldn't agree that it should be a goal of ANY corner of the revolutionary to dictate to people how they can and can't have sex. That's absurd and it's a very authoritarian mentality.
You keep insisting that I am being authoritarian here, but in what way exactly? The comrade volunteered this information and requested our help in understanding and dealing with it. Again, it is our duty to respond in such a situation and assist him for as long as he needs us. I do not see how that is being dictatorial or "invasive" or whatever.


Quit deciding what he thinks and what he plans to do. He posted because he wants to learn about what other people think. We know his position - he thinks there's no problem with it.
However, he has identified genuine concerns; his revolutionary principles have led him to suppose that eroticizing aspects of misogyny, slavery, imprisonment, rape and torture might in some way be oppressive. He is correct to do so and he has tasked us with helping him recognize this.

As you just stated, he wants to learn.

[Sea]

Normally I would accept that as an answer, but many feminists have written on the subject and I'd be a hypocrite to call myself a feminist and do something that is directly opposed to the ideology. Personally I hope these arguments are invalid because well, I, er, well you know why. But if they are valid then I'll have to be a good revolutionary and keep it in my pants.Never, ever, ever let an ideology or way of thought or whatever that you are not exhaustively versed in pop up in places where your knowledge of it is lacking and get in the way of the growth and flourishing of your knowledge of theory. Never ever. To do that is to stumble on a major building block of the horrible sectarianism that plagues our movement, and when you stumbe like that you're liable to fall flat on your face. A big mistake that we're probably all guilty of is resolving contradictions by placing the fault on whatever contradicts a pre-set line of thought.

[Yazman]

Interesting to note that you consider stamping out all vestiges of patriarchy to be counter-revolutionary either way.First of all I didn't say "stamping out patriarchy is counter-revolutionary" - you can make up lies all you want in an effort to make me look bad but anybody who has basic reading comprehension knows I was specifically saying that I think invading people's private lives is a bad thing (and in some circumstances could serve to be counter-revolutionary).


You keep insisting that I am being authoritarian here, but in what way exactly?You're being authoritarian in that you're advocating regulation of people's private sex lives by an authority, whether a state or non-state entity. As Real Democracy said earlier - you're advocating an exterior authority being able to dictate how people lead their sex lives. That is authoritarian. Furthermore, you said that "consent doesn't matter" - presumably this applies to your view regarding the formation of social and political policies, too.


However, he has identified genuine concerns; his revolutionary principles have led him to suppose that eroticizing aspects of misogyny, slavery, imprisonment, rape and torture might in some way be oppressive. He is correct to do so and he has tasked us with helping him recognize this.

As you just stated, he wants to learn.Firstly I think you're being awfully vain here. Quit speaking on his behalf. He asked a question because he wanted to know why some people think BDSM is bad. Nobody is trying to stifle discussion or stop him from asking. Anyway, I'm not sure why you keep bringing him up personally and rambling on and on at length about "oh, he wants to learn, oh, he agrees with me" blah blah blah. This isn't some sort of competition for the OP's attention.

Secondly I don't think BDSM is "a vestige of patriarchy" and furthermore, since when was BDSM an act of "man doing to woman" exclusively? It isn't a fetish of mine and even I know enough to know that it is extremely common for the woman to be in a dominant position and the man to be submissive, if not MORE common in some places. Furthermore, it isn't a strictly heterosexual fetish either. How can it be a vestige of patriarchy when it is a dominatrix dominating a man? Or two women? Or two men?

It is just an act of sexual pleasure and it doesn't necessarily have socio-political implications. How about this - YOU aren't into BDSM, so YOU don't practice it, and the people who do like it will practice it privately where you'll never know and you'll never see it.

It's much simpler than banning it persecuting people for their sexual fetishes, and giving the government the right to dictate and regulate people's sexuality. How can you show solidarity to the LGBT rights movement while at the same time supporting the government's right to dictate sexuality? It seems awfully contradictory.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

And I'll agree that both of you lack awareness in the matter.
From where I sit, you're the one running your mouth off about BDSM, a topic you have no clue about.

[A Sovereign Womb]

First of all I didn't say "stamping out patriarchy is counter-revolutionary" - you can make up lies all you want in an effort to make me look bad but anybody who has basic reading comprehension knows I was specifically saying that I think invading people's private lives is a bad thing (and in some circumstances could serve to be counter-revolutionary).
It's funny that you should bring up reading comprehension, as the position you so vehemently oppose has nothing to do with my own. If you want to talk about lies and character assassinations, we can look to your straw men.

I made the perfectly uncontroversial statement that one of the ultimate goals of socialism is the complete elimination of hierarchical deference. You, in turn, suggested this notion to be "counter-revolutionary" - it's right here in the thread; as you say, anyone can go and see which of us has displayed any intellectual dishonesty. The relevance of your "privacy" concerns can be just as easily determined.


You're being authoritarian in that you're advocating regulation of people's private sex lives by an authority, whether a state or non-state entity. As Real Democracy said earlier - you're advocating an exterior authority being able to dictate how people lead their sex lives. That is authoritarian. Furthermore, you said that "consent doesn't matter" - presumably this applies to your view regarding the formation of social and political policies, too.
I defy you to provide evidence of any such advocacy I've undertaken within my short time here, or even any instance in which I seemingly implied such a vision.


Firstly I think you're being awfully vain here. Quit speaking on his behalf. He asked a question because he wanted to know why some people think BDSM is bad. Nobody is trying to stifle discussion or stop him from asking. Anyway, I'm not sure why you keep bringing him up personally and rambling on and on at length about "oh, he wants to learn, oh, he agrees with me" blah blah blah. This isn't some sort of competition for the OP's attention.
So I'm fawning over the OP in addition to trampling his rights? Have you got any more innuendo you wish to throw my way?

The reason I keep referring back to the OP is to direct the thread back to its original topic. If you actually read his posts, you'd know that he isn't interested in just being told that "sex between consenting adults is okay" (as if that is news to anybody here) but that his concerns are of a theoretical nature that few people in this thread have even acknowledged.

But please forgive me for trying to address his problems. I didn't realize that, in doing so, I was smothering him or whatever.


Secondly I don't think BDSM is "a vestige of patriarchy" and furthermore, since when was BDSM an act of "man doing to woman" exclusively? It isn't a fetish of mine and even I know enough to know that it is extremely common for the woman to be in a dominant position and the man to be submissive, if not MORE common in some places. Furthermore, it isn't a strictly heterosexual fetish either. How can it be a vestige of patriarchy when it is a dominatrix dominating a man? Or two women? Or two men?
What a perfectly foolish question. Women are just as capable of enforcing patriarchal imperatives amongst themselves (and among men) as men are. It is precisely this fact that makes it so difficult to combat.

BDSM is oppressive to both women and men, whatever their combination or position in the practice. As I've already pointed out, it holds up the symbols of everything the revolutionary left stands against and associates them with sexual gratification. It's the power of sexuality that makes this particular internalization of patriarchy so effective: I would not expect any of you to object to ridding ourselves of a culture of hierarchical degradation and objectification, yet you have all been actively defending it under prescribed conditions of "sexual freedom". Why should we strive to be revolutionary in public, but not in private? What the hell is the point of that?


It is just an act of sexual pleasure and it doesn't necessarily have socio-political implications.
Sorry, but "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, so leave it alone" isn't going to discourage many feminist critiques.


It's much simpler than banning it persecuting people for their sexual fetishes, and giving the government the right to dictate and regulate people's sexuality. How can you show solidarity to the LGBT rights movement while at the same time supporting the government's right to dictate sexuality? It seems awfully contradictory.
Every argument I've ever had on this subject has always ended with some kind of insinuation that I'm homophobic, sometime after I've been accused of being a prude and/or a lesbian. Thanks for letting me know you've got nothing left.

As for the repeated assertion that I am looking to act as some form of Stasi agent for state-sanctioned sexual propriety, you still have all your work ahead of you in demonstrating that.


From where I sit, you're the one running your mouth off about BDSM, a topic you have no clue about.
You'd be surprised how familiar I am with BDSM.

[Yazman]

So I'm fawning over the OP in addition to trampling his rights? Have you got any more innuendo you wish to throw my way?

The reason I keep referring back to the OP is to direct the thread back to its original topic. If you actually read his posts, you'd know that he isn't interested in just being told that "sex between consenting adults is okay" (as if that is news to anybody here) but that his concerns are of a theoretical nature that few people in this thread have even acknowledged.

But please forgive me for trying to address his problems. I didn't realize that, in doing so, I was smothering him or whatever. You're missing the point. I'm not slandering you nor claiming that you're "fawning over the OP and trampling his rights" - I don't know how you came up with that. My point is that you've been making entire posts that ONLY discuss the OP themself - This entire post for example doesn't even say anything in relation to the topic: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2542351&postcount=40

If you want to discuss the topic, then do so, otherwise quit talking about the OP themself. We have all been discussing BDSM, and that is on-topic, so quit going on about a user on the forum. This isn't a thread for discussing Yet Another Boring Marxis.


I made the perfectly uncontroversial statement that one of the ultimate goals of socialism is the complete elimination of hierarchical deference. You, in turn, suggested this notion to be "counter-revolutionary" - it's right here in the thread; as you say, anyone can go and see which of us has displayed any intellectual dishonesty. The relevance of your "privacy" concerns can be just as easily determined. No, I did not say that elimination of hierarchical deference is counter-revolutionary. In fact I agree that one of the ultimate goals of marxism is the elimination of hierarchy. I said that invading people's private lives is counter-productive and support for which is a dangerous mentality that could, at worst be counter-revolutionary. I did not say that opposition to hierarchy is bad. Because it's not. I'm an anarcho-communist for christ's sake! Why would I consider anti-hierarchy politics to be counter-revolutionary? Jesus christ.

As far as BDSM itself goes - you keep going on about how it's a glorification of hierarchy, how it's part of the patriarchy, blah blah blah but you have yet to demonstrate how either of these are true.


I defy you to provide evidence of any such advocacy I've undertaken within my short time here, or even any instance in which I seemingly implied such a vision.
As for the repeated assertion that I am looking to act as some form of Stasi agent for state-sanctioned sexual propriety, you still have all your work ahead of you in demonstrating that.Sure. There's plenty of posts. First of all you consider consent to be irrelevant:


That those involved all give "consent" ought to signify absolutely nothing in this regard.

Irrelevant? How could consent ever be irrelevant? It fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship. How can something completely consensual be oppressive when a) both parties involved are enjoying themselves, b) both parties fully agreed to participate and can opt out at any time, and c) nobody loses anything from the act. How could it be oppressive in any way given these things? If consent isn't relevant, then what is? Your opinion? If, in a new society, we form laws and standards that don't take consent into account, we're building a system based on coercion. i.e. "Bondage is illegal. You cannot consent to BDSM. Anybody who participates will be punished because it's a hierarchical act of oppression."

Then you go on to suggest that BDSM is a glorification of hierarchy (lol), and as such it should be "rooted out in private life": emphasis mine.


I am of the position that any glorification of hierarchy, no matter how consensual, should be identified and rooted out in both public and private life.How do you propose to "root out in private life" sexual activities that you deem to be counter-revolutionary if not through an external authority like the government? Ask them nicely? "Please sir, would you stop enjoying being stood on by a woman in latex?" Please enlighten us all on how you propose to eliminate sexual activities in people's private lives without an external authority or any kind of coercion.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

BDSM is oppressive to both women and men, whatever their combination or position in the practice.
BDSM is oppressive, but you wanting to control what consenting adults do sexually isn't? Not only consenting adults, but consenting adult women. How feminist of you to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

You'd be surprised how familiar I am with BDSM.
Then I'm sorry your experience was so bad that you feel you now have the right to tell the rest of us we should think it's bad, too.

[GoddessCleoLover]

As long as BDSM activity is consensual IMO it ought to be left to the consenting parties to do as they wish. Leftists ought to oppose any use of the coercive power of the bourgeois state to invade our sexual privacy. If we should be so fortunate as to prevail, the post-revolutionary state ought to be concerned about economic restructuring and not intervene into the realm of consensual sexual activity.

[TheCat'sHat]

Once BDSM is rooted out I vote for the combating of masturbation. What is it, after all, beyond privatizing the processes of sexual gratification?

The really pressing theoretical issue is BDSM within the gay and bisexual male community. Would switches be considered class traitors?



[/sarcasm]

[hetz]

What about extreme fetishism like intentionally becoming morbidly obese or even cutting your legs and stuff? Such things unfortunately exist.
I mean, sure, it's not anyone elses' business if you want to cut your legs off because it turns you on, just don't expect the society to pay to preserve your standard of living.
Because you're not an actual invalid, you're someone who cut his own fucking legs off. Same's for intentionally eating to the point of morbid obesity.

[RedAtheist]

1. How so? There are female dominants, female submissives, male dominants, male submissives, etc. Where is the biological determinism?

I know there are exceptions to the rule, but that does not mean there isn't a general trend. Few trends are true in 100% of cases, yet we can establish that trends exist. The fact that you can point to a few dominants who are women doesn't mean anything. I can point to a few politicians and capitalists who are women, but the trend is clearly in favour of men being capitalists. Unless you can point to statistics showing that 50% or more of dominants are female (rather than appealing to your personal experience of having encountered such women in the BDSM community or, even worse, the communities own claims that such women exist), I think its safe to say that the practise promotes gender roles.

Even if it didn't promote gender roles, I don't belief any adult human being should ever dominant another adult human being no matter how hedonistically enjoyable the action may be. Conservative couples frequently claim to find joy in strictly conforming to their traditional gender roles, do you expect me to endorse such behaviour?


2. What's your personal experience within the BDSM community to come to such a conclusion?

Why do I need personal experience with the BDSM community in order to have opinions about them? As I stated earlier, I don't interrogate people about sexual practises and I don't attend meetings of the BDSM community where I'm clearly not wanted. I'm just responding to what I hear the advocates of BDSM saying on the internet and in the media.

I didn't even claim that the BDSM community itself promotes biological determinism, but it would be very easy for biological determinists to point to the BDSM community and say 'Look at all these sexy women who enjoy having men dominate them. Clearly submission to men is programmed into women's biological sex drives. If you feminists all just shut up and allowed men to tie you up and whip you like these sexy women do, you find that you deep down have also been genetically programmed to wanna be dominated.'

Furthermore, media reports praising 'Fifty Shades of Grey' brag about how women who read it and were turned on shared it with all their female friends. Clearly these women are assuming that because their friends had a vagina, they would automatically be into having a man dominate them. How does is that not evidence of biological determinist assumptions?

That's not to say that the entire BDSM movement has these assumptions or openly propogates biological determinism, but the two fit together really nicely. Imagine being a typical man and hearing some smug scientist guy talk about how women are programmed by evolution to submit to men and later hearing about a large group women how get sexual aroused by having men dominate them. You don't think the later would lend apparent creditibility to the former?

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think the bottom line is that even though you may say that you don't want to regulate sexual behavior such as BDSM (or any number of other fetishes), the fact that you link these behaviors with patriarchy etc lends itself to that sort of thinking. Unfortunately. You say that you don't "endorse" it but no one's asking you to. I don't have or "endorse" gay sex but I have absolutely no problem with anyone who partakes in it.

Of course there are some sexual preferences that are bad, such as pedophilia etc. But actually I think that the idea of informed consent works quite well as a litmus test, most of the time. Societal conditions inform our behavior and opinions, but that doesn't mean that individuals are completely incapable of making informed decisions for themselves. To say otherwise is to suggest that you or you and some collection of individuals know how individuals should behave sexually, a concept which is extremely offensive to most people for obvious reasons.

I'm not sure what the roots of sadism/masochism etc are, but I'm fairly certain that the roots of these modes of thought are deeply entrenched in the human psyche, and can only be repressed, never "cured". The love of pain and the desire to inflict it has probably been around as long as humans have been around...

[TheCat'sHat]

I know there are exceptions to the rule, but that does not mean there isn't a general trend. Few trends are true in 100% of cases, yet we can establish that trends exist. The fact that you can point to a few dominants who are women doesn't mean anything. I can point to a few politicians and capitalists who are women, but the trend is clearly in favour of men being capitalists. Unless you can point to statistics showing that 50% or more of dominants are female (rather than appealing to your personal experience of having encountered such women in the BDSM community or, even worse, the communities own claims that such women exist), I think its safe to say that the practise promotes gender roles.

Even if it didn't promote gender roles, I don't belief any adult human being should ever dominant another adult human being no matter how hedonistically enjoyable the action may be. Conservative couples frequently claim to find joy in strictly conforming to their traditional gender roles, do you expect me to endorse such behaviour?



Why do I need personal experience with the BDSM community in order to have opinions about them? As I stated earlier, I don't interrogate people about sexual practises and I don't attend meetings of the BDSM community where I'm clearly not wanted. I'm just responding to what I hear the advocates of BDSM saying on the internet and in the media.

I didn't even claim that the BDSM community itself promotes biological determinism, but it would be very easy for biological determinists to point to the BDSM community and say 'Look at all these sexy women who enjoy having men dominate them. Clearly submission to men is programmed into women's biological sex drives. If you feminists all just shut up and allowed men to tie you up and whip you like these sexy women do, you find that you deep down have also been genetically programmed to wanna be dominated.'

Furthermore, media reports praising 'Fifty Shades of Grey' brag about how women who read it and were turned on shared it with all their female friends. Clearly these women are assuming that because their friends had a vagina, they would automatically be into having a man dominate them. How does is that not evidence of biological determinist assumptions?

That's not to say that the entire BDSM movement has these assumptions or openly propogates biological determinism, but the two fit together really nicely. Imagine being a typical man and hearing some smug scientist guy talk about how women are programmed by evolution to submit to men and later hearing about a large group women how get sexual aroused by having men dominate them. You don't think the later would lend apparent creditibility to the former?


So women who find power-dynamics arousing should curb their sexual interests because of the possibility that somebody who has been listening to 'some smug scientist guy' might take their comments are confirmation of said smug scientist guy's assertion that women are programmed to be submissive to men?

Sexual penetration also can have a subtext of domination. So every woman who wants to have sex with a man but isn't into pegging is an unwitting pawn of patriarchy?

[RedAtheist]

I'm not sure what the roots of sadism/masochism etc are, but I'm fairly certain that the roots of these modes of thought are deeply entrenched in the human psyche, and can only be repressed, never "cured". The love of pain and the desire to inflict it has probably been around as long as humans have been around...

Thank you for proving my point entirely. Unlike you I don't believe the desire to hurt, dominate and oppress others is part of human nature, but I'll be perfectly happy to let others know that some advocates of BDSM think this way.

While we're on the subject of things being 'extremely offensive', isn't your claim that a desire to inflict/endure pain part of, not merely a few people's psyche, but 'the human psyche' more generally, highly offensive? I as a human, find it very offensive that you think I have a desire to dominated/submit to somebody else's domination. Also, your criticism of paedophilia is no doubt highly offensive to paedophiles. How dare you claim to know that a particular sexual fetish is bad! (sarcasm)

That's not to say that people who practise BDSM are the equivalent of paedophiles, but I don't think 'offending' people is always a bad thing.

[Os Cangaceiros]

You missed the point. I never argued that it's part of "human nature". I definitely do think that it's an outlier within the range of human sexual behavior, though.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The fact that you can point to a few dominants who are women doesn't mean anything.
In my experience, female dominants or switches are quite common (well, outside of gay male BDSM circles, at least). I can't put a percentage on it, but it's certainly far more than "a few."


Unless you can point to statistics showing that 50% or more of dominants are female
I don't know of any comprehensive and scientific census of the BDSM community.


Even if it didn't promote gender roles, I don't belief any adult human being should ever dominant another adult human being no matter how hedonistically enjoyable the action may be.
Thankfully, as an adult, I'm capable of consenting to sexual acts that I enjoy without asking for the approval of the Leftist Sex Police. And if you're not into BDSM, no one is forcing you to engage in it.

What's the difference between you saying "I don't believe people should engage in BDSM" and a right-winger saying "I don't believe people should engage in homosexuality"? Nothing.


Why do I need personal experience with the BDSM community in order to have opinions about them?
There's a difference between an opinion and an informed opinion. Not only do you not have personal experience, you dismiss the opinions of those who do.


I didn't even claim that the BDSM community itself promotes biological determinism, but it would be very easy for biological determinists to point to the BDSM community
Or they could point to the business world, or the sports world, or any number of spaces in our society (including leftist forums on the Internet), and conclude that because men tend to be in the majority, biological determinism is justified.


How does is that not evidence of biological determinist assumptions?
The fact that BDSM gives women an outlet whether they're a dominant, submissive, or switch, and whether they're straight, lesbian, or bisexual, and doesn't demand "you're a woman, therefore you must be submissive," makes it a poor excuse for those wishing to justify biological determinism.

I haven't read 50 Shades, nor do I care to, so I can't fairly comment on it.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'm not sure what the roots of sadism/masochism etc are
BDSM isn't necessarily about giving or receiving pain.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well no but people seem to use BDSM and S&M interchangably a lot.

[Yazman]

Probably because S&M is the "SM" part of "BDSM" (as well as a great Metallica album).

[Sea]

Probably because S&M is the "SM" part of "BDSM" (as well as a great Metallica album).And because if you want to say "S&M" you have to do some pinky finger gymnastics to reach that little & sign with the shift key (what idiot ever claimed that touch typing is perfect?) because you're afraid that SM without the & might also mean something even more worse and yucky, and let's face it, there's a different between being kinky and being a pervert so you don't want people to make that mistake. It's just less hassle to type BDSM even if you're not too keen on the BD.
Conservative couples frequently claim to find joy in strictly conforming to their traditional gender roles, do you expect me to endorse such behaviour? I expect you to oppose it, because endorsing such defenses would be endorsing gender rolls. Fetishes on the other hand aren't systemic and don't have the evil sinister aspect of evil sinister property relations that traditional gender rolls have. And on top of that, you can turn down an offer for kinky sex without being ostracized and / or having acid thrown in your face, so unlike patriarchy fetishes are neither mandatory nor non-consensual by nature. Straw herring anyway -- gender roles are a different beast.