Pick-up tips, feminism and the sadomasochist

This post is inspired by reading Hugo Schwyzer's The pro-feminist pick-up artist: rethinking a blind spot (found via Clarisse Thorn's Love Bites) and by reading Clarisse Thorn's post BDSM vs. Vanilla, Part 1: Why I Pretend I Don’t Date Vanilla-But-Questioning Men. (The "Love Bites" link is well worth a look in its own right, lots of useful links and interesting talk stuff there; apparently that and Hugo's post came out of a face-to-face meeting between those two bloggers.)

When Hugo writes in his post about

But in talking with Clarisse, I realized how often I’ve been unnecessarily contemptuous of those men who have sought out techniques and strategies for approaching women.

...

I have my strengths and weaknesses, and meeting people and finding lovers seems to have been one of the former.

But it’s almost axiomatic that folks who are good at something often have a hard time empathizing with those who aren’t. And I confess that I’ve often assumed the worst about those men who have sought guidance from “pick-up artists” and who are interested in learning seduction techniques. My feminism combined with my own lack of experience to make me reactively suspicious of any man who seems too eager for “tips” on “how to meet and mate.”

I am one of those men for whom talking to women - or specifically, bridging the gap from friendly conversation to "asking her out" and "romance" - was a problem. It still is, if I'm honest, that's how come all of my successful attempts to get involved sexually with another person have come through online dating services! (And when I have decided I'd like to ask a woman on a date in face-to-face communication, I have tended to spend at least a week preparing myself for it, planning how to pick the right words and the right moment!)

Regular readers will know that I am very critical of assumptions of male confidence and competence in approaching women, for example in my riposte to "He's Just Not That Into You".

There is, of course, another barrier for me, and that is the need (the sexual orientation, even) to have BDSM as part of the relationship structure. Dominance/submission, sadism/masochism, these are not optional extras for me. (Bondage is an optional extra for me, but it's also a huge amount of fun and keys into the control element of D/s, so I think that's worth having too!) Clarisse Thorn writes:

...guys in the BDSM community have already overcome their sexual stigma at least enough to actively seek the community out — which is a big deal, even if they don’t feel S&M as quite a core, innate desire the way I do.

For me, I'm writing from the flip side of that observation - as the guy who has "overcome [his] sexual stigma", but also, I see it from the other angle of gender - a woman who has sought out the BDSM community (at least online) has also had, to a certain extent at least, to overcome sexual stigma (and arguably there is a lot more stigma for her to overcome!) It makes broaching the topic of "relationship" and "sexual desires" that much easier for me to know that this barrier has already been crossed - both in terms of "we are both kinky, so we may have compatible desires", and also in terms of "the stigma/social barrier of talking about sex has already been crossed so I do not have to take that leap".

Saying that sounds horribly like the "horny net guy" (HNG) approach to kink websites (which is basically "hurhur, horny women, hurhur, they must be easy sluts, hurhur"). I must make the disclaimer here that women in fetish clubs, BDSM communities, and on BDSM websites have all the same rights as regards being picky about with whom they will discuss such topics (let alone actually do the stuff they talk about!) Respect and enthusiastic consent of course remain key concepts of good BDSM practice, even when you're still at the meeting people stage - i.e. if she's not enthusiastic about talking with you, there's a good chance you should stop bothering her! Incidentally, I have a vague memory of a video of a convention panel with (I think) Amber Rhea explaining how nerds can talk to women at conventions - with the classic line "we're nerds too!" - that covered a similar idea of making sure she's available and willing to talk first. I can't seem to find a link for it though.

The point is, a big social barrier to starting a conversation about "what are you after, would you like to try it with me?" has been lifted (if the answer is "no", or even "I don't even want to talk about it with you", then good manners mean you change the topic or back off entirely - although backing off entirely advertises the fact that you were only after one thing!) Ideally of course, you have a conversation about many things and then (because kink is a shared interest as well as a sexual preference) the subject will work its way around to BDSM anyway and - if it's going well - may get to specifics of "you and me, babe, how about it?" (although worded with a little less corniness, one imagines!)

I'm still shy (generally speaking, not just with approaching women!) so it's not even half the battle won - as I said, all my success with women has come from dating sites - specifically, BDSM personal ad/dating sites. However, acknowledging this side of me and knowing that it is acknowledged (because of meeting through the kink community, online or off) allows a certain level of confidence about myself and who I am. The whole stigma thing is much less of an issue.

As Clarisse writes, Vanilla<--->Kink is much more of a spectrum than a dichotomy (in fact, it's probably multi-dimensional, too, although whether it's orthogonal is debatable). Most people have some element of kink in their love lives and "vanilla" or "kinky" is relative to one's own perception of sexuality and one's own preferences. For some, the thought of fluffy handcuffs is incredibly kinky and naughty; for others, they are vanilla play and really not their thing. But (again, as Clarisse explains in her post) there's a mindset that goes with embracing kink as sexuality (even where it is expressed as preference rather than orientation) that makes the emotional engagement much easier to manage.

I like to make a statistics joke about my kink: "I'm not just deviant - I go way beyond the standard deviation!" (If people want, I can make a post all about how the mathematics ties in with concepts of kink, vanilla and whatnot, but I won't bother if it would just bore you all.) Being some distance away from what is considered "normal" with my sexuality, makes bridging the gap to those who have not explored this far from the average somewhat tricky and generally I would shy away from it, just as Clarisse writes: "Sometimes people ask me, 'Can you date vanilla guys?' That question has a very complicated answer." But essentially it's "no, because..." (her post explains about the "because", and all the exceptions to the "no" that she has). For me, it's "no" partly because I don't know how to bridge that gap and frankly, although vanilla sex can be fun, without the D/s element for me it quickly becomes boring. Just as, in Clarisse's experience, kink becomes boring or just off-putting, for those vanilla guys with whom she's tried to maintain a kink relationship: "Doing something new can be exciting, but if it’s extreme and a person isn’t personally drawn to it, then in my (sad) experience, that person won’t retain enthusiasm for it."

I feel like I've rambled to an awkward stop at this point, and there was probably some point I was going to make to round it all off. I can't remember what that might have been. I think, like Hugo, I am not "going to write a seduction manual for male feminists." (Kinky feminist men in my case!) I think that stuff about acknowledging and accepting if a woman doesn't feel like talking to you is as far as this post has gone in that direction! As (or if!) we move towards a more feminist social universe then I think it will become easier, just because that stigma about sexuality in general will help (that is, for both men and women, wanting to have sex with someone will become less awkward to communicate!) And vanilla doesn't mean "boring" if vanilla is what you like, and kink can be if it isn't. That's all I've got!