BDSM and conservatism (21)

BDSM as an 'idea' comes from Sade and Masoch, from 'transgressive' literature -- so no, there is nothing natural about BDSM. The sexual impulse to sadism and masochism may perhaps have 'primitive' origins -- but that's still a result of the social and it still results in a transgression, because the idea of something being primitive in itself must be set against the idea of the civilised, and transgress it. Do you honestly think every aspect of BDSM is the result of a 'natural' impulse? Is spending £500 on a kangaroo hide flogger 'natural'?

Railing against the tyranny of 'common sense'.
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk
http://www.kinkysalonlondon.co.uk

Edited 22 Jul 11, 10:47 AM by verte

Yeah sure, but they don't have to be conservative rules, do they ? You could have a very liberal Liberal polly society where in order to transgress you might have to enguage in Fascist or Racist type play for example.

"Yeah I like Kinky stuff,dirty dark pervy stuff,weird sex.... An' Yerself ?"
Award Winning Switch.

verte wrote: I'm the unsightly hairy armpit of IC.

Giggedy.

'Heaven bound' ...Young, Curvy and Pervy... LFS - mandapoo

Fascinating. Does that mean you're, in some senses at least, illiberal? Do you think many human freedoms should be controlled / limited by the state? Which freedoms?

P.S. Sorry if this is too much of a digression.

"Wisdom begins in wonder” (Socrates)
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" (Albert Einstein)
Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est. http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/posts/226772/

Edited 22 Jul 11, 5:21 PM by wonderer

Wrong end of the stick there. It's not an either/or. It means I'm critical of classical liberalism.

Railing against the tyranny of 'common sense'.
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk
http://www.kinkysalonlondon.co.uk

Edited 22 Jul 11, 5:35 PM by verte

I'm not sure I fully understand your use of the word "transgressive". @versswitch contrasts it with "natural", but I don't think that "unnatural" is the synonym you'd agree with.

The point about Sade and God is strong, though. A sexual proclivity which delights in ejaculating upon the host could not exist without a social idea of the host. "Transgressive" sexual activities are reactionary to the conditions around them. But I stop short of arguing that it's all for the shock factor. Sade doesn't ejaculate upon the host because it is transgressive (well, he might, he was just that sort of guy), but in response to the ideas of the host floating around at the time.

But I don't think that reactionary aspect of kink necessarily leads to conservatism. Admittedly, kink could not exist without conservatism, because it is reactionary, but I do not see how reactions to something necessarily reinforce that something.

If I say I don't like broccoli, am I reinforcing the fact that broccoli exists? Yes. Am I reinforcing the fact that it belongs on dining room tables? Eh, not convinced.

If Sade disavows God, is he reinforcing the fact that God (as a concept) exists? Yes. Is he reinforcing the fact that God belongs in French society and government? Eh, not convinced.

Or I could be reading the uses of "transgressive" and "conservatism" wrong. I remain unconvinced that reactionary = conservatism.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

I bet you don't like philosophers, do you? What with all their logic without real-life proof, and thought experiments that couldn't possibly exist....

FFS, dood.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

So I've discussed this with my beloved Sukebe, and he has presented a theory which I find most encompassing and which may reconcile both your and my theories.

To emulate (or the opposite) is inherently conservative, therefore BDSM is inherently conservative.

To explain:

my theory is that BDSM is reactionary to societal diction of what is "right". It takes what is "right" and goes in the non-mainstream direction, thus being called "perverse". It is entirely reactionary and dependent upon the socialital view of what is "right".

However, the human have been dictating what is "right" for eons. Back hundreds of years, people were presented with a "role model" of, say, Jesus. They were also presented with an (I don't know what the word for this is) "anti-role model" of, say, Satan. A person who followed Jesus was "good", and a person who followed Satan "perverse".

But the person who followed Satan was still FOLLOWING. And therefore has bought into the conservative idea that there are "role models". They just followed the "wrong" one and are labeled perverse by society.

I recognise the fact that there have been, are, and will be individuals who pursue their own course of action without regard or influence from other people, but I believe them to be the exception rather than the rule.

For the bulk of all other people, once you are even reactionary, you are following a mindset which says that you should emulate others. Emulation itself (and its opposite) is part of the conservative mindset. Therefore those who emulate (or the opposite), even those who emulate in perversion, are necessarily conservative, if not in final outcome, then in method.

The theory is linked to the saying "all you non-conformists are the same" and to my own personal belief that a Satanist is no better than a Christian. (hehe.)

Once a person reacts to a societal rule, either in favor of it or against it, they are acting in a conservative manner and are thus "inherently conservative" simply because they have taken their being from the group rather than from themselves.

What say you?

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Applied to BDSM, I have to say I think empirical research is a bit of a red herring anyway. Even the critical psychology ethnographic stuff that priivileges the subjective meanings participants apply to BDSM over the opinions of 'experts' is problematic as it's still going to be playing to the researchers' political agenda, privileging politically useful narratives over useless ones. And anyway, given the hostility most people on 'the scene' seem to have to any academic work on BDSM, I have some doubts as to the 'authenticity' of how participants frame their own narratives in that context. What about sexual practices that are illegal? No empirical research exists that touches specifically on edgeplay or BDSM 'beyond the law' at all, and that's perhaps understandable, but it means there are always going to be aching gaps in the kind of knowledge we can acquire about BDSM through empirical research. And anyway, this assumes empirical research is an effective means of 'truth production', which as a Foucauldian sort I very much question...

As to the rest, skyfox, very, very interesting indeed. I do contest some of what you say, but I'm going to go out now and come back to that later when my head's a little clearer. This pseudo-blog was just the drunken result of meeting up with a colleague I'm co-authoring with on the next mini-project, flinging an idea into the air rather than making any definitive statement. But I think there are two kinds of transgression, and only one allows for social transformation. In short. More later.

Railing against the tyranny of 'common sense'.
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk
http://www.kinkysalonlondon.co.uk

verte wrote: But I think there are two kinds of transgression, and only one allows for social transformation. In short. More later.

I eagerly await your definition/s. I was intrigued when you first posted, but decided to wait until you flushed some of it out. It is an interesting topic.

Though the topic of the anti-research thought prevalent among "the scene" is itself interesting as well. (Gotta love those "don't use me for research!" profile blurbs on fetlife.) I wonder why that is and what it stems from? Hm, ethics was never my strong point.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.