It's been interesting because I'm coming at this pretty cold and relatively late in life. While I have always had a sense of the pop culture view of dominant women (a dim view indeed) and the stereotypical dominatrix, I haven't been involved in the BDSM scene at all. Those views are pretty much what kept me from exploring my dominant side sooner. I remember in my very early twenties I started thinking about maybe sort of looking into being a "Mistress" and developing a dominant style (at least in the bedroom), but was put off by the stereotypical latex-clad, stiletto-sporting wank fodder that didn't represent my sexuality at all. So I just kind of dropped it - leading to some very unfulfilling sex and relationships (a story for another time).
Fast forward umpteen years. When I first started poking around the online community this year, I saw quite a bit that made me cautious to identify with DS and femdom, but also quite a bit that resonated with me enough to feel I was nearing home. On the home side, there's been reading through the archives at Male Submission Art, the glory that is Tumblr, and the writings of real flesh-and-blood dominants like Dev, and Ferns, and Stabbity, and Professor Chaos and Fizz.
On the caution side, I've read a lot from others who have much more experience than I do in the BDSM community, and I'll have to rely on their assessment of the privileging of doms, and the devaluing of submissive men that abounds. I don't doubt that these are real systemic issues within the community. It does, after all, exist within a larger overarching culture that is sexist and misogynistic, so I wouldn't expect the BDSM community to be magically immune to all of that crap. So yeah, color me absolutely unsurprised that traditionally "masculine" coded things like dominance are privileged, and that those who don't neatly fit the gender binary are marginalized and penalized.
Others have written about seemingly prevalent assumptions about dominance, and the various things that are wrong with femdom. I've read plenty of pieces disparaging the "true domme" "true sub" "one true way of DS" bullshit. But the thing is, I've never actually read any article/blog post or talked to anyone that seriously supported those claims to "truth." And I'm left wondering, who exactly are all these folks arguing with?
Maybe I'm just a young whipper snapper who has no memory of how things used to be with all the rules protocols, and formal hierarchies. Maybe it's just a reflection of the enlightened little corner of the DS Internet community that I've stumbled into (see blogroll to the right). Maybe the folks writing these pieces are distilling and aggregating the essence of a hundred different experiences they've had in person and online with "One Truers" and others who embody whatever aspect of DS or femdom they're critiquing. I don't know. I just know that I have no direct experience of these One Truers and others, and it's almost like I'm hearing a completely one-sided argument when I read these pieces. I tend to agree with them, but I have yet to come across somebody actually arguing the other side (e.g., taking the position that there is a right way/wrong way to do DS, dommes should be ice queens, subs can't have a sense of self-worth/take care of their own needs, etc.). Those people probably exist, but are they really that prominent, wielding any kind of influence in the community? Or are they just nobs on the Internet?
If I tried to take an anti-Truer position myself I'd just feel like I was addressing some boogey strawdom that only exists in some vague, theoretical sense. So instead of negatively defining my sense of what it means to be dominant by describing what it isn't or critiquing various femdom stereotypes to determine what it shouldn't be or how those don't fit for me, I'd rather frame it in a positive way. In that spirit...
For me, dominance is:
- Responsible control
- Drawn from strength, tempered with flexibility
- Facilitative (i.e., "holding the space"*)
- Creative
- Intimate
- Nurturing
- Loving
- Playful
- And above all, FUN
All the rest is details that vary according to taste - the sprinkles on the hot fudge sundae. It doesn't matter what color they are, or if the nuts and the cherry on top are absent - those things don't make it any less of a delicious summer treat as long as the core components of ice cream and hot fudge are there. That's my incredibly stupid and inartful way of saying it's not what you do but how you do it that makes DS, and nothing is inherently dominant or inherently submissive**. Giving a bj can be a dominant act, being served dinner can be a submissive act, and just because I don't like whipping or degrading someone doesn't mean I'm not a "true" dominant or whatever.
So forget femdom and all its baggage! It's a mythical beast as far as I'm concerned, anyway. From now on, I'm identifying as a practitioner of fundom, where the only rule is: if you're not having (enthusiastic, consensual) fun, ur doin it wrong.
* Kitty Stryker talks a little about "building a container" here, and I hope to write more about this conception of dominant-as-vessel in the future.
**Ok - maybe not nothing...I find it difficult to conceive how a kowtow could be done in a dominant way. Prove me wrong!
That's really interesting.
ReplyDeleteYou know, a while back I wrote a post called "Where Are All The Male Dominant Bloggers?" I was totally serious -- I couldn't find any. Then I started finding more. It turned out that there are a bunch of them, but I didn't find most of them originally, because they aren't linked by people I respect, because they're assholes.
If you're coming to this from a feminist perspective like I was, then it helps to remember that bloggers tend to link to other bloggers that they agree with. It may be that there are blogs with the perspective you're looking for, but none of the blogs you're looking at have any interest in them?
It may also be that smart, theoretical people who are serious enough about gender theory to write deeply about it just, you know, happen to usually be feminist. But I'm trying not to be biased here ;)
On another note ..., I think it's quite arguable that a lot of people who write on the internet often do it because they have trouble finding the conversations they're looking for in real life. People whose preferences align with the dominant culture presumably don't have that problem quite so much.
If you're coming to this from a feminist perspective like I was, then it helps to remember that bloggers tend to link to other bloggers that they agree with.
ReplyDeleteBefore RSS readers became more common, it was common to use your own blogroll in the side bar as a link aggregate - and who do you link to? Other bloggers that you like. I believe that this behavior hasn't changed much.
On another note ..., I think it's quite arguable that a lot of people who write on the internet often do it because they have trouble finding the conversations they're looking for in real life. People whose preferences align with the dominant culture presumably don't have that problem quite so much.
I think that you raised a good point. It's difficult to present alternative perspectives, and it's disheartening to be shot down whenever you try to do so. I've seen quite a few blogs just close the shutters over the years, simply because the people seem to think that nobody was listening. Hell, I often feel that way, myself at times.
@Clarisse Thorn - There's definitely an element of selection bias at play. When I come across a blogger I like, I tend to click on their entire blogroll and any links to other writers in their posts (and they rarely if ever link to people they disagree with - although Maymay usually does). That's probably a pretty standard way of building an info network on the web. So I do grant I've found myself in a tiny little niche of the larger community, but that's ok for me - it's a nice niche to be in. And as I venture out more into the local community, I'll probably run into what these folks have been talking about sooner or later.
ReplyDeleteIt may also be that smart, theoretical people who are serious enough about gender theory to write deeply about it just, you know, happen to usually be feminist. But I'm trying not to be biased here ;)
I would be utterly unsurprised to find such a correlation exists. :-)
PS - I really enjoy your writing, by the way. I'm kind of chuffed that you're here! Hope the neck's doing ok.
@Tom Allen -
ReplyDeleteI've seen quite a few blogs just close the shutters over the years, simply because the people seem to think that nobody was listening. Hell, I often feel that way, myself at times.
I think as an incurable introvert I feel better when I've convinced myself nobody (or very few) will actually read my stuff - it takes the pressure off. And even though shouting into the void can be disheartening, I'd probably continue to write because it's helping me clarify my own thoughts about this stuff and navigate through to wherever the hell I'm going.
:) Thanks for the praise. I got here because someone clicked through to my blog from here, so that's another example of how we tend to interlink ....
ReplyDeleteI think as an incurable introvert I feel better when I've convinced myself nobody (or very few) will actually read my stuff - it takes the pressure off.
ReplyDeleteFunny - I'm an INTP (if you believe in that kind of astrology), and for some reason when I get an internet connection, I become a complete attention whore. I shout into the void to attract attention :-)
@Tom Allen - Hey, I'm INTP, too! I kind of have a love/hate, approach/avoid relationship with attention. I want it, just in measured doses and on my terms.
ReplyDeleteI want it, just in measured doses and on my terms.
ReplyDelete>:-)
Sounds familiar to me.
I'm with Clarisse on all the points she raised.
ReplyDeleteAnd in addition to that, I will say that as I have aged I have absolutely noticed a lack of awareness among newer (not necessarily younger) entrants to the formal-ish community about "what things were like." This is not a surprise, it happens in all areas, I know. But that's why I write pieces like "Story of How to Improve the Future."
The problem with this tendency is that it creates a passion vacuum in which the less-blatant sexism, domism, homophobia, and so on gets a chance to regroup and ultimately reappear. What I mean is that when I'm in a space, and I get angry at something, you can be DAMNED SURE I'm angry because I've had to put up with and fight against the same or similar bullshit for years. So a casual, even good-natured remark like, "women are just way more fun to look at," might not seem like cause for fury from people who are still all starry-eyed about the nice niche community they've fallen into, but it sure as fuck is more than enough reason for me.
And more than just being a personal reason, it's important that this kind of "minor" bullshit gets treated with the kind of contempt it deserves, because if it does not get challenged, if the important of challenging it is forgotten or ignored, then the future is not going to be better, it's going to be worse. So yeah, that's basically why I get pissed off when people who haven't been dealing with this for as long as I have, regardless of their chronological age, tell me to cool off, and why I have enormous respect for the righteous fury of people who have come before me.
@Maymay-
ReplyDeleteWell, first let me say that I'm sorry if I pissed you off. It wasn't my intention to tell anyone to "cool their jets" over the crap that goes on - be it "major" or "minor." I agree that this shit doesn't happen in a void, and that the seemingly "minor" things make it possible for the "major" things to exist and continue. So the less blatant stuff does need to be challenged, and you and others do really important work around that.
What I was trying to say here (and maybe not saying it so well) was that:
a. Lots of people are critiquing DS and femdom.
b. I tend to agree with the points they raise. However,
c. I have no direct experience of the things they are critiquing. Therefore,
d. I'm not going to come at this from a "what's wrong and here's how it should be different" perspective, because I would be arguing from second- or third-hand information. And besides,
e. It's my preference to define it in a positive way (what it is) rather than a negative way (what it isn't) because that's helping me clarify my own thoughts about it right now.
So that's it. I agree with you, Maymay. And one day I may even stand in righteous, angry solidarity with you. It's probably inevitable that I'll eventually run into things that will infuriate me, but in the meantime please don't begrudge me my nice niche. The honeymoon will be short enough as it is. ;-)
Oh, whoa, hang on. I didn't feel like you were telling me to cool my jets; you didn't piss me off. :) Rather, some of the things you were saying reminded me of things I feel when (other) people tell me to cool my jets—the comment came backwards, from there. So, no worries, we're cool. :)
ReplyDelete@Maymay -
ReplyDeleteOk, good. I'm glad I wasn't the source of your ire.