The Plurality of BDSM

Time for a bit more on my Magnum Opus (yes, I know that means "large Irish cat", but it sounds cool!)

In my series of blog postings that I'm doing (basically to get the stuff off my chest) about BDSM, porn and feminism, I'm going to have a look at whether the relationship structures in BDSM relationships are compatible with feminist principles or not. I've already used a simple example from my own life to show how I believe that BDSM can be feminist-positive, although I am sure that example is open to being picked to pieces by those determined to believe that BDSM is evil badness and should not be tolerated. Now I'm going to have a quick look at the theoretical stuff that is often discussed by BDSM practitioners, and set the ground for my next post, which will analyse briefly how this works (in theory) in relationships.

As a general rule in these posts, "he" includes "she" and vice versa except where otherwise indicated.

BDSM is a multi-dimensional term. Most of these dimensions are independent of one another (despite many stereotyped views that persist out there in the Real World). The dimensions form the basis of the acronym, and are usually categorised as: bondage, discipline, dominance, submission, sadism, masochism. These are independent as follows:

1/. Bondage: an erotic thrill either from being tied up, or from tying someone up - there is no need for this to involve any element of discipline or power, or for it to involve any pain. I is only about being bound, and possibly helpless. In real life there are those who enjoy bondage in itself, and have no interest in any other area of BDSM - some of them enjoy sex while bound, others just enjoy the feeling of being bound without desiring any sex acts to take place during their bondage.

2/. Discipline: Sounds like it should carry a power element, and in real life it certainly tends to do so. However, theoretically it is possible to imagine a relationship in which discipline did not involve any of the other aspects of BDSM. Usually, though, it will involve either sadism and masochism, or dominance and submission, or a combination of these.

3/. Dominance and Submission: The only elements that can really be said to be intrinsically linked. Only when there is someone willing to take charge and dominate, is it possible to submit in the BDSM sense; only when there is someone willing to submit is it possible to dominate in the BDSM sense. However, the D/s relationship does not necessarily carry any bondage, sadism/masochism or discipline. It is simply a relationship of obedience and command.

4/. Sadism: Sexual pleasure from causing pain. For some, the natural partner of masochism, it is not necessary for a sadist's partner to be masochist. It is perfectly possible for a partner to be willing to endure pain for his lover's pleasure, without him needing to gain pleasure from it himself. This should not be confused with nonconsensual torturer-sadism (where the recipient of pain is neither willing nor able to refuse). Instead, it could be regarded as a very personal and intimate gift, willingly given at the giver's expense (like a personalised engraved jewellery, only much more intimate and personal!) There is no need for a sadist to be interested in being in charge as a dominant partner, and there is no need for a sadist to want to tie people up.

5/. Masochism: Sexual pleasure from receiving pain. As with sadism, there is no need for a masochist's partner to be the reciprocal sadist. Just as a sadist's partner might be willing to accept pain in order to make his sadist partner happy (without gaining any pleasure himself), so a masochist's partner might be willing to wield the crop in order to pleasure her, without gaining any pleasure from doing so. It is, in fact, a common complaint about first-time hitters (very often males hitting females) that they "don't hit hard enough" and "keeps stopping to make sure I'm alright, when I just want him to keep going!" Very often this happens when a masochist asks a non-BDSM (or "vanilla") partner to try something kinky.

Just as none of these imply any of the others, also none of them are exclusive of others either. In particular, it is possible to be both submissive and dominant, and it is possible to be both sadist and masochist.

Finally, there are two other important terms with which readers not of a BDSM persuasion may be unfamiliar: "Top" and "Bottom". These terms refer to a person's functional role within a relationship (as opposed to what the specific shared activities are).

In simple terms, a Top is the "active" partner. She is the one who does the tying up, he is the one who applies discipline, she is the one who takes the dominant role, he is the one who applies pain to a partner.

In similarly simple terms, a Bottom is the "passive" partner. She is the one who is tied up, he is the one who is disciplined, she is the one who takes the submissive role, he is the one who receives pain.

A Top cannot be a Bottom at the same time, but it is possible for a Top and a Bottom to swap roles halfway through a session - for example, if the partners wish to take it in turns to be tied up. It is also possible to have a situation where a person Tops under the direction of someone else, effectively, Bottoming to that third person.

There is a huge amount written about how these eight concepts relate to one another, and I'm not going to attempt to cover the whole of the history of BDSM relationship discussion in just one post - however, I will give some idea of where things stand now, and over the next few posts on the subject, I will attempt to address quickly the theory and practice of BDSM, and how those relate to feminist ideals.