Constructing a BDSM Experiential

Constructing a BDSM Experiential
Richard Birch
Sex Roles and Sexuality SOCI 3626
Professor Vardalos
Wednesday, Nov 23 2005

Constructing a BDSM Experiential
Oppression is a powerful force. Not so powerful as sexual oppression as formulated through the subjective experiences of the oppressed. As sexual subjects, we are attuned to the very importance of negotiating what is sexual as socially constructed parameters epistemologically formulate our own subjectivity. The subject, as the bearer of law, of language, of social synthesis, must also negotiate his or her own meanings through those available in the context of the social and of the Symbolic. As Judith Butler posits, “the Symbolic becomes possible by repudiating the primary relationship to the [body]” (Butler, 1999). Yet as law is oppressive in nature and in design, the body as contextual is thus also oppressed in how it uses social language in its subjective sexualization. Consider the concepts libido and desire. As individuals we may view the libido as defined through natural biology, chemical, hormonal, and that which depends on the fabric of procreation and the purpose of such activity. Desire can even be argued to be defined and set apart as problematic in the Foucaultian sense by juridical systems of power that generate people’s subjective meanings of their own experiential sexual frameworks. This is not merely on the basis that power, whether juridical or not, regulates political life in the Symbolic. In other words the limiting, control, and prohibition of everyday social experiences limits those it is designed to “protect” to the political structure social norms are intended to maintain. Control, power, regulation of everyday sexual life is the phenomenon of politicizing it as a commodification contingent on the retractability of choice. Yet, when thinking of libido and desire as socially problematic, they are now dependent variables in the social, akin to “libidinal chaos characteristic of that early dependency…now fully constrained by a unitary agent whose language is structured by that law” (1999). For BDSM theory, it is obvious that the reversal of retractability is key to understanding the subculture it is intended to explicate. The microsociological structure which is rooted deep in how it fosters and constructs its political visibility in the social is above all extremely important to take account of when considering the pervasive cultural conditions BDSM exists by. It is through the following direct observational ethnographical account of a BDSM fetish culture that this existential matrix will be explained as a systemic response to socially defined conditions of sexuality and desire. It is this experiential construct of BDSM culture that reifies its own existence.

As BDSM is a powerful phenomenon as a response to socially constructed notions of sexual authority and agency, it is not without a Hegelian dialectical existence. The sexual domain that excludes it from the Symbolic and exposes the Symbolic as hegemonic is a sort of difference-presupposition mediated by a male-mediated phallogocentric Hegelian economy (1999). But in order for there to be a difference, and thus signifier of difference in the social, there must be an antithesis positioned against the sexual epistemological normalcy. One such example of that, which signifies such a differential though subcultural in nature, is the BDSM Fetish culture that convenes regularly at Club 5 in Toronto, Ontario on the first Saturday of every month. This event held regularly in the heart of Toronto’s gay village signifies a subculture of sadomasochism. Here in this club one can directly observe the social behaviour of those engaged in pursuing and embodying masochistic sexuality. To define masochistic sexuality, one can argue that it exists to deconstruct “deliberate productions of sexual scenarios where the subject(s) can act on the far side of culturally determined identities” (Noyes, 1997). This is important to understand when turning one’s gaze towards fetishistic masochistic sexual subcultures. For BDSM as it relates to the social, is above all situated well within the realm of social constructionist sexual theory. The intent of this fetish event is predominantly spectacle. It is nothing if not spectacular. Every single nuance and aspect of it is performative in nature. Everyone in this social environment is sexually characterized to play a role that is something outside his or her normal everyday “vanilla” spheres of existence. To experience the alternative is to experience the fetish objects. In essence it is the players who are the fetish objects, not merely the leather, pleather, latex, plastic, rubber, metal, chains, whips, diapers, and other countless objects not immune to the creative methods actors in this social environment devise in the pursuit of objectified pleasure. Through subjective expression of desire and subcultural iconography, masochism possesses postmodern dimensions that perhaps reify that which leads the player to vanilla existential oppression. The enactment of heightened über-stereotypes allows the actors in this social a brief moment in time-space to have a sense of performative agency in their lives and how they develop and construct their own individual sexualities. This is an environment where free will is taken, not assumed. Masochism concerns liberal conceptions of free will, the universality of ethics, and the distribution of power among gendered subjects in the Symbolic sense (1999). In other words, masochistic performative sexuality explicates the fictionality of mainstream socio-sexual roles and makes drama of codified morality while also constructing micro-cultural appropriation.

As actors, they construct sexual masochism as a “theatrical appropriation of cultural stereotypes” under the guise of bodily pleasure (1997). One such example of this observed in this environment is the Uniform community. Examples of uniform characterizations performed at these events include policemen, army lieutenants, colonels, soldiers, war criminals, and prison guards. Clearly these specific roles signify dominance in the social. They signify as being iconographic of authority, punitive, muscular, unemotional, reserved, highly sexualized, and assertive. The attire typically worn, predominantly by men is dark, sleek, wet like in texture, and constrained. The only flesh an observer can see are portions of the wearer’s face not covered by a hat, visor, or dark glasses. There is a homogenic structure to this particular uniform icon characterization which is important and which makes this a unit of focus. Though on the surface it is dark and authoritarian, there is a haunting sensuality to the clothing and to the men who wear them. There is a generosity embodied in how they interact with their submissives. The sensuality of a warrior, the imagery of a soldier fighting for the pleasure of his submissive partner in a technocapitalist ethos is conjured when observing this group of actors. In listening to the communication between uniform men dominants and their submissive counterparts, not once is there any sense that the hierarchy is absolute. In other words, it is clear when examining the discourse within a binary of dominant / submissive interaction the uniform men as subjects represent opposition to master sexual status. In this socio-sexual environment they are aware of their role for their submissives, and their responsibility to protect and pleasure them. It is this generosity and heightened masculine sensuality that surprisingly is above all else the core character trait of these otherwise hardcore looking individuals. In observing their actions in play with their partners, the pain, the hurt, the physical communication is based on what Foucault called “the eroticisation of power [and] the eroticisation of strategic relations” (1999). In observing the technique uniform men specifically utilize in the flagellation of their submissives signify the rejection of strategic ruling relations in vanilla mainstream spheres of social power, and thus removes them from their institutional fundamentals. The flagellation that occurs with this group, the punishment and the punitive sensuality is observed to be more of a dissolving of mainstream sexual epistemology. The authoritarian is not feared here. Here he is used. He serves the interests of the submissive. His importance as an actor in this subculture is that of a purveyor of identity appropriation in this radical sex-play community. The uniform man is the icon of sexual social constructionism ideals of masculinity. Yet, as he codifies masculine power and authority in the Symbolic, he also embodies engendered sensuality and pleasure when challenging heteronormative thinking. Most of the uniform men played with other male submissives. There was little cross-gender interaction except for one instance. This raises questions about the social construction of masculinity in power positions. Like the sociology of sport and the social construction of masculinity in sport, so does BDSM theory raise questions about the “workings of power in society” (Messner, 2005).

One such interaction observed at this site was between a uniform male and a submissive male. The submissive, dressed completely in black leather and PVC tightly fitted to his extremely thin androgynous physique, was led to a Saint Andrew’s Cross apparatus of which he was strapped to. It is with this interaction where the observer can see BDSM play as based on the negotiation of differing degrees of power, as is much of everyday vanilla life. The negotiation of power is the alternative to the utopian abolishment of power. This negotiation between these two individuals was communicated through pain. With each hit on his body, on his buttocks, hips, legs, and back with the crop, the dialogue negotiating each other’s existence in this subculture becomes the most important discursive interaction in the room.

Pain is mystery. It can be a mystery to outside observers as well as to those inside in the culture. Yet, though interpretations of the uses and nature of physical pain in BDSM sex play varies depending on where one may be situated in the dominant / submissive continuum. To experienced leatherfolk and fetish event regulars pain is a path not a destination. Pain is a currency used by many in this culture who find both a sense of community and transcendence in leatherspace. “Leatherspace” is not solely the physical location of fetish clubs and dungeon bars where people convene to dress up in fetish clothing. “It is also the mental space which leatherfolk create in common. When traditional families and churches can’t fulfill [their] needs for communal and transcendental experience, many people will explore alternative…forms of bonding and ritual” (Tucker, 1991).

The Dionysian notion of indulgent sex, drugs, alcohol, and dancing as precursors to sexual interaction is sociologically a method of enacting initiation and rituals. Leatherfolk communities and fetish culture have forms of rituals and initiation that are aligned with this tradition. Yet, in observation rituals are linked heavily and are dependent on the commercialization of such activities. The result is a chaotic use of alcohol, drugs, and dance music that are all designed to cater to this Dionysian pleasure principle (1991). Though even in a sexual subculture like this people cannot completely transcend cultural and social bonds outside. It can be argued that this commercialization and adoption of mainstream products of techno-commercialism reifies BDSM as representative of assimilation (Rust, 2005). In other words, there is a buying into corporate sexual commodification through the use of alcohol, drugs and popular music in these clubs to generate an atmosphere of subcultural identity. Yet the identity exists because mainstream society exists. It is for this reason that BDSM will never transcend beyond the realm of taboo underground consensual sexuality. Technocapitalist culture prevents BDSM subculture to manifest its own iconography, its own cultural products, and its own original subjective meanings for global processes of oppression are ever present. This reification exists as long as sexual oppression of social minorities exists.

These are brief moments in time-space for BDSM participants that though reify their status and place in the Symbolic, they also reverse the discursive elements that structure their mainstream sexual codifications. The ritual of pain is no illusion in this scene. Pain is ritualistic. It is also discursive as can be demonstrated by the systemic use of code terminology. If pain is the currency in which relations and status is negotiated and commodified, then code stop words one hears at these events represent the rate of exchange. Stop codes serve as a purpose similar to an “acrobat’s safety net” (Noyes, 1997). Without the agency of the submissive and his or her absolute control over the play with dominant partners, there is no value in the pain. They no longer become valuable as subjective commodities, but then are reduced to simple sexual objects. That is why code terminology is so important.

Anomalies do occur in this regard. The neglect of a dominant was observed at one brief moment. An interaction between a male dominant and a female submissive performing the roles of teacher and school-girl was highlighted by the dominant’s ignoring of his sub’s code words during their performance. There was a moment when one was not sure if the ignoring of the codes was part of the pleasure, but it became clear that the mood in the room fell awkward. This dominant demonstrated a lack of knowledge regarding his role. His true purpose is to adhere to a flipped binary. He is the dominant, but he failed to address and obey the commands of his submissive. He was not acting BDSM. He was acting vanilla. He was not giving pleasure according to BDSM constructed notions of relations. He was reifying engendered oppression according to Symbolic social knowledge. Stop codes are typically borrowed from outside the sadomasochistic context to indicate the intent to stop a scene. In every other case at this event this was respected. But not all dominants and submissives interact and play with safety nets. The safety net is a theoretical construct at best, one set up to protect the players from harm and to shield the activity from vanilla mainstream epistemological ideas of sexual behaviour. If by definition BDSM is consensual sadomasochism then it seems it has to function outside the realm of mainstream society in order to achieve this agenda. Its weakness is not the risk of being perceived as deviant, violent, non-consensual, or harmful. The risk to BDSM culture is that at times it can fall back onto the normalcy of heterocentric patriarchal hegemonic principles. When the exchange of power becomes based on gender and defined by mainstream socially constructed hierarchies it falls short of its pleasure principle. If the power exchange is based on a blending and reversal of hegemonic gender, then real desire, exchange, love, friendship, kinship, community, and above all universal diversity is produced.

It is the experiential construct of BDSM culture that reifies its own existence. In observation BDSM interaction is best suited for a marginalized experiential matrix. It functions as marginalized because it displaces “attitudes promoted by the middle- and upper-class controlled media” (Rust, 2005). But it works in the context of marginalization to a social not engaged in laissez-faire concepts and ideas on tolerating alternative forms of sexuality and gender expression. Heterosexism maintains its position at the top of social hierarchies politicizing and policing all economic parameters of technocapitalist existence. Though BDSM theory and subcultural communities exist as experiential matrices opposed to global processes of gender and sexual oppression, it reifies its existence as well as reinforces mainstream hegemonic social hierarchies. There is no hope in thinking that appropriation of BDSM subculture is possible for it too serves technocapitalism. By moving the sexual experiential underground into the realm outside the vanilla it differentiates itself from normalcy. It acquires an identity of assimilation much like homosexuality has acquired this in postmodernity. It exists as long as technology and the means to produce fetishistic objects exist. It is from this movement to the underground that social life becomes complex. Much like heteronormative ideology regulates racial or ethnic minority sexual behaviour also regulates the need for underground taboo communal engagement (Rust, 2005). However, this is really only problematic if one chooses to believe that BDSM exists to challenge heteronormative hegemony. It does not. It serves to accommodate a commodified pleasure principle of agency and free will. As stated before free will is taken. It can also be taken back , and in some cases given freely. BDSM theory does not measure the impact of oppression in the social. It measures and attempts to explain true synthesis and synergy in socio-sexual communities. There is power to harm others in all social environments in regards to gender and sexuality hierarchies. But in this community there is no harm, only the hurt of consensual subjects. “Sadomasochism is embedded in our culture since our culture operates on the basis of dominance-submission relationships, and aggression is socially valued” (Kamel, 1995). Sexual oppression exists because sex, desire, lust, femininity, and violence are conflated in heteronormative society. This conflation allows not individuals as sexual entities to freely formulate how to become masochistic practitioners, members of masochistic social interaction, and to actualize masochistic sexual identity. In direct observation of BDSM culture, there is the ability to socially construct agency though subcultural and prone to mainstream vanilla reification.

That god forbid that made me first your slave
I should in thought control your times of pleasure,
Or at your hand th'account of hours to crave,
Being your vassal bound to stay your leisure.
O, let me suffer, being at your beck,
Th'imprisoned absence of your liberty;
And patience, tame to sufferance, bide each check
Without accusing you of injury.
Be where you list; your charter is so strong
That you yourself may privilege your time
To what you will; to you it doth belong.
Yourself to pardon of self-doing crime.
I am to wait, though waiting so be hell,
Not blame your pleasure, be it ill or well.
(Shakespeare, Sonnet No.58)
References:

Butler, J. (1999). Gender Trouble. New York, NY: Routledge.

Kamel, G. W. L. (1995). The Leather Career: On Becoming a Sadomasochist. In T. S. Weinberg (Ed.), S&M: Studies In Dominance & Submission. (pp. 51-60). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Messner, M. A. Constructing the Sexual Self: The Negotiation and Actualization of Sexual Identity and Behaviour. In T. L. Steele (Ed.), Sex, Self, and Society: The Social Context of Sexuality. (pp. 115-121). Toronto, ON: Nelson.

Noyes, J. K. (1997). The Mastery of Submission: Inventions of Masochism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Rust, P. (2005) The Impact of Multiple Marginalization. In T. L. Steele (Ed.), Sex, Self, and Society: The Social Context of Sexuality. (pp. 121-127). Toronto, ON: Nelson.

Shakespeare, W. (2001). Sonnet No.58. In R. Proudfoot (Ed.), The Arden Shakespeare: Complete Works. (p. 27). London, UK: Nelson.

Tucker, S. (1991). The Hanged Man. In M. Thompson (Ed.), Leatherfolk: Radical Sex, People, Politics, and Practice. (pp. 1-14). Boston, Mass: Alyson Publications, Inc.