“It’s the first time together and I’m feeling kinda horny
Conventional methods of makin love kinda bore me
I wanna knock your block off, get my rocks off
Blow your socks off make sure your G spots soft”
“I’m gonna call you Big Daddy and scream your name
Matter fact I can’t wait for your candy rain”
“So what cha sayin, I get my swerve on, bring it live
Make it last forever, damn the kitty cat’s tight”
“Mmm … daddy slow down your flow
Put it on me like G baby nice and slow
I need a rough neck nigga Mandingo in a sec
Who ain’t afraid to pull my hair and spank me from the back”
“No doubt, I’m the playa that you’re talkin about”
“But do you really think that you can work it out”
“I guarantee shorty it’s real, baby stick it out
Here comes the man of steel”
—LL Cool J, “Doin’ It”
While the debate regarding California’s “Yes Means Yes” law (henceforth referred to as YMY) rages on—something that, in my view, is definitely a good thing for reasons I should like to make clear in an upcoming essay—for this particular post I’d like to go a bit off the beaten path. You see, for me, I’ve always been interested in understanding the core ideological arguments driving any movement or, in this case, public policy move(s). YMY, in my view, draws its ideological “strength” from a sexual subculture that is a big hit with third-wave “sex positive” feminists.
What I’m about to put forward in this post is, at this juncture at least, mainly conjecture on my part; I have nothing in the way of hard and fast (pardon the pun), empirical, “smoking gun” proof—just a series of observations of the above-mentioned third-wavers over the past five years or so and my “connecting the dots” in terms of their actions over the past decade or so. If I happen to get this whole thing wrong, I will be more than happy to come back and indicate as such; by all means, correct me if I am wrong.
So, to my argument:
I argue that the current “Yes Means Yes” law—and attendant measures on the part of sex-positive, third-wave feminists to “redress grievances” in the arena of sexual politics in our time—draws its ideological “strength” from the BDSM (bondage & discipline/sadomasochism) sexual subculture.
I say this based on the fact that quite a few of the more prominent third-wavers—people like, for example, Jaclyn Friedman, Clarisse Thorn, Feminista Jones—have noted an expressed interest in, and advocacy of, key elements and aspects of BDSM culture as the way to address what they and their third-wave “sisters” see as problems or imbalances in the sexual arena between men and women. Indeed, they, and many a third-waver, will argue that a big problem is the “power imbalance” between men and women along these lines. Well, as it turns out, “power”—who has it, how it is to be used, and to what end—is a crucial feature of the BDSM subculture.
Moreover, the idea(s) of “enthusiastic consent” and its kissing cousin, “affirmative consent,” all have direct links and ties to BDSM subculture in the form of “safewords” and the ongoing “checking in” with your partner (usually, the “sub,” or submissive one) to see if she’s okay and wishes to continue. Given the nature of the often extreme and sometimes even dangerous “play” in BDSM, these measures developed in that community as a way to keep subs—usually but not always women, I might add—safe.
The aforementioned feminists have all written quite a bit about the “public benefits” of cherry-picking from the BDSM subculture for an ostensible better sexual all-of-us—and in some ways, they do make a point. The elaborate rules and rituals that permeate the BDSM subculture, which definitely involves the active and ongoing seeking of consent of its largely submissive and female participants on the part of its largely dominant and male participants during a sexual encounter or session, is something that, in theory, everyone could benefit from. Of all the feminists mentioned, perhaps the most prolific in this regard would have to be Clarisse Thorn, whose writings on the topic culminated in a book in which she argues that the Pickup community could stand to learn a bit from the BDSM one, particularly along the lines of female consent.
However, there are a number of serious flaws and problems I personally see with this approach, if indeed my surmise is correct.
For one thing, we already have laws on the books that protect the private, intimate lives of American citizens—the freedom of association, of being protected from illegal searches and seizures, and, if one buys into the ideological arguments that brought about the Roe v. Wade decision, the “right to privacy” are notable examples—to say nothing about the legal procedures bearing on questions of rape and sexual assault, like presumption of innocence and the conducting of criminal investigations by highly trained and experienced law enforcement professionals. Secondarily, I, for one, have problems with the notion of attempting to take the practices of a small sliver of the American population and making it the template for public policy—not just because that shouldn’t be the way that public policy should be made but for another, more practical reason:
Most people simply won’t have the “stuff” to be built for the BDSM lifestyle.
As I’ve noted in a recent discussion at J4G on what has become to be known in Manospherian circles as “Marriage 2.0″ (which encompasses relationships, dating, and so forth), a major “bug” in progressive thought in our time is the idea that “everyone” has the ability, interest, and resources to craft a “do-it-yourself” life script that is rich with high-abstract concepts and ideals—and this just isn’t the case for the vast majority of Americans. Most Americans, male or female, aren’t high-level negotiators or don’t have strong communication skills that would involve the kinds of “active listening” and give-and-take exchanges that Marriage 2.0, etc., would demand. Perhaps most especially, as it pertains to today’s discussion, most people—men and women alike—simply don’t have the kind of sexual skill and experience to compete with the average American’s “time of self-discovery”—a process that can take more than a decade between after leaving high school or college and meeting “the one,” during which time they are more than likely to encounter at least a few lovers along the way, and with which their intended will (inevitably) be measured against. (It should be noted that this “time of discovery” is even longer for Black Americans—and look at the results.) Indeed, on this score, evidence abounds throughout the Internet of just how much pressure both sexes feel to “perform up to par” to their partner’s “previous”—and the angst is palpable, again, on both sides. The conceit that everyone wants to, and is able to, achieve this Utopian mating ideal is just that—a conceit.
During that same discussion, I and J4G brother Ciaran noted something else that, ironically enough, is a strong parallel to today’s discourse, this time involving Game/Pickup: the majority of men, for a number of reasons, simply will not be able to apply it. Some will outright refuse to learn it, due to what they consider to be thoughtful, ideological reasons, or sheer laziness—but others because they simply won’t have the wherewithal to do so, despite their best efforts. Sure, we can quibble over the precise numbers in each camp, but in the end, it all comes out the same in the wash—the idea that “all” men can learn and implement Game/Pickup is a pipe dream, at best. And this is coming from someone who’s written in favor of the topic extensively for years. Indeed, among “seduction insiders,” it is well known and accepted that this is the case: most men will simply not “get it.” Theoretically, it is possible; in practical terms, out on the bricks in real time, not so much.
Another big problem with using BDSM as an ideological template for YMY is the fact that most people “in the life” are solidly middle-aged(!), whereas most people living on or near the college campus are in their late teens and early 20s(!). This is hugely important because of the implications here—BDSMers, if I can phrase it that way, arrive to their understanding of themselves through a lifelong process of introspection, acceptance, and, yes, trial and error; can we really expect, and assume, people barely out of their teenage years to be possessed of the same kinds of introspection, awareness, and so forth?
Then there’s the excellent point that RooshV brought up in his recent article on Social Justice Warriors: that many in their number are of the “alt sexuality” variety, of which BDSM is strongly represented, and that they wish to impose their notions of what constitutes “healthy” sexual mores and norms onto the society at large. Doing so will make them less “deviant.” This is a very strong feature of third-wave feminism, and when one understands the female mating mind, one can see the method behind the madness; please share with me the following, from the powerful read “A Billion Wicked Thoughts”:
The Cultural Detective
One of the more noticeable differences between male-targeted and female-targeted porn on the Web is the presence of political messages. On men’s porn sites – including gay porn – there is a complete absence of any kind of explicit politics. The only exception is the rare imploration to support free speech. Though there are far, far fewer numbers of female-targeted porn sites, those that do exist contain a relative abundance of political messages. “We do what we can to support the activists who fight for the awareness of cultural appropriation,” proclaims graphic porn site NoFauxxx, adding, “We follow an all-inclusive casting attitude: we do not take gender, size, race, or any other consideration into consideration when choosing our models.” The Web site Crash Pad Series says the actress and director Shawn “can be found in front of the computer designing digital landscapes of desire as well as in front of the cameras sharing her passion for the ‘personal is political’ lifestyle.” The East Van Porn Collective calls itself an “anarcho-feminist porn collective.” Especially common are female-targeted adult sites promoting “empowerment” and “positivity”, concepts men do not associate with erotica.
Social psychologist Roy Baumeister suggest that women’s greater sensitivity to cultural influences is rooted in brain mechanisms. “Women’s sexuality appears to be more plastic than men’s, relying on social framing and cultural conditions when making decisions regarding relationships. Men’s sexuality seems more driven by simple physiological mechanisms.” Keenly attuned to the cultural values and social rules, the Detective Agency asks: Which behaviors and relationships are celebrated – and which are frowned upon? What values should I endorse when it comes to sex and relationships? Women are sensitive to messages on magazines and television shows, even indirect messages, such as a model’s body weight, the car a politician is driving, or a celebrity’s views on mental health – subjects that elicit more online comments from women than men. Many more women than men report feeling social pressure on how to behave, dress, and look. Women are also much more likely to attribute sexual anxiety to social pressures.
Women’s cultural evaluation mechanisms appear to be especially concentrated in the middle prefrontal and inferior prefrontal cortex and the middle temporal cortex. These parts of the brain are social evaluation centers, considering what behaviors are appropriate and inappropriate in a given situation. They handle moral cognition (is this right or wrong?) and social judgment (what will other people think of me?).
Cultural information helps Miss Marple play it safe. Who does society value more, doctors or software programmers? Can I get away with wearing a tattoo on my back or will people think it’s a “tramp stamp”? Can I post photos on Facebook of me in a bathing suit or will guys think I look fat? Since women must always consider the long-term consequences of their sexual decisions, a woman’s brain is designed to evaluate the particular cultural conditions in which she finds herself.
(pp. 78-80)
Boom.
A final problem, for now at least, that I have with this notion of a BDSM-powered “Yes Means Yes” law is the idea of “importing” elements of the former into the latter, all the while ignoring the crucial contexts in which “affirmative consent” occurs in the first place. Ask anyone who is into BDSM and they will tell you that the idea of drunken, awkward, and oafish hookups is rare at least, alien at most. Committed relationships are in fact very much the norm in this lifestyle, which revolves tremendously around trust, communication, mutual respect, and comfort. Indeed, for many BDSM couples, their relationship deepened and got “kinkier” over the years they had been together—not over the course of a night or two. Even in the cases of professional dominatrixes, it is not at all unusual for them to have (largely if not exclusively male) submissive clients they’ve “been with” for years. Compare that with today’s hookup scene on the college campus, where people who barely know each other sexually collide into one another. Women who self-identify as submissive, for example, have very good reason to be very discerning about who they partner with, and it isn’t to their advantage in the least to get with someone in, say, a frat house party environment. In the BDSM culture, “first contact meetings” between largely submissive women and largely dominant men are, in fact, highly controlled, regimented, and codified—ALL for the safety and comfort of the sub women. Again, given the very nature of BDSM, this makes perfect sense. How “importing” elements of “consent” from such a tightly woven community and lifestyle into one which is, by definition, much more porous and transitory raises a heck of a lot of troubling questions for me.
In closing, I’d like to state for the record that I have nothing in the least against the BDSM sexual subculture—I am a strong believer in and advocate for freedom of expression, freedom of association, and the right to a private life.
But attempts on the part of third-wavers to make “the personal, political”— to take their freely chosen, private lifestyle choices and make them a matter of public policy that is then imposed on everyone else—IS something that deeply troubles me, for all the reasons I’ve indicated above.
And it should trouble you too—even if you’re inclined to get down like that.
