On Staci Newmahr's choices of language

Well, I am now on page 19 of Staci Newmahr's book, Playing On The Edge: Sadomasochism, Risk and Intimacy, and at least one of my issues/questions about her research (raised in my earlier post) has been answered, which is "why the use of 'SM' instead of 'BDSM'?"

Since I raised this specific question and find it dealt with concisely and in a self-contained manner, I will not wait until the end of the book to have my say on this one!

Newmahr writes:

I use the term "SM," instead of the newer and trendier "BDSM" which seeks to blur and subsume all SM activity under one overlapping acronym (Bondage/Discipline/Dominance/Submission/Sadism/Masochism).

I do not recognise the characterisation of BDSM as "blurring and subsuming", nor as "trendy". To me, "BDSM" avoids making invisible parts of the identity that are for some people more important than sadomasochism.

Newmahr writes that:

I have found the use of the term "BDSM" to engender some suspicion on the part of more veteran scene members. Additionally, in my experience, most people who use the term "SM" broadly are not excluding bondage, discipline, dominance or submission from their frame of reference, as evidenced by the context in which they use it, as well as by the activities in which they engage on a regular basis.

I am suspicious of any argument that "but X includes Y too!" Acknowledging that Newmahr is reporting on the usage and language within one specific community, I still feel that that this is not reflective of the way language has been used in communities I have frequented. It is worth noting that i would feel the need to "correct" someone who used "SM" when they meant what I mean by "BDSM" in general conversation. As noted above, and in my earlier post, I would feel as though the use of SM as the generalised term is making my kink and my identity "invisible" in the community. I don't care whether the usage includes my kinks under your label - I care about the fact that my kinks are not recognised in the label itself. I feel invisible. It is also worth noting that I have not, to my knowledge, encountered any such suspicion or reticence towards the term BDSM among veteran scene members in the UK (except a single discussion thread started by someone who asked why we needed the term BDSM when SM already existed), but maybe I have not been listening for it?

I had hoped that the answer would be based in relationship terms, perhaps based upon an observation that casual, public, play is less likely to be based around a long-term D/s dynamic and therefore that bondage and SM (my usage) are the focus of the book because it is focussed on the play scene. I am disappointed that it is instead based upon what I feel to be discriminatory language use and definitions.

Newmahr raises in her discussion of language another distinction, that I find intriguing, and hopefully that will be clarified later in the book:

I deliberately avid the perhaps more familiar term S&M, or "S and M," for two reasons. The separator "and" implies that SM activity hinges on two separate and distinct interests or practices, sadism and masochism. First, it is not my experience that these are in fact two distinct interests or practices among people who engage in these activities. Secondly, SM play may involve activities that are neither sadistic nor masochistic, in the clinical sense. The focus on the clinical dichotomy renders the term "S and M" less relevant to SM experiences that do not involve pain, bondage or humiliation.

Now, terminology is everything here. Since I only use "SM" to refer to sadism and/or masochism - specifically, the infliction or acceptance of pain as a source of sexual pleasure - Newmahr's second point seems utterly contradictory to me. But Newmahr uses "SM" to refer to all of BDSM. This lack of precision bothers me!

Newmahr's first point is really interesting to me. I identify as both sadist and masochist, and I call myself sadomasochist because of these two self-identifications. From my point of view, in my body and mind, sadism and masochism are absolutely different things, and "distinct interests and practices"! I need to know a LOT more about what Newmahr means by saying that sadism and masochism are not "separate and distinct". Every angle I have to approach the question leads me to conclude that there are clear separations and distinctions. Hopefully, this question will be resolved as I read the book.

Newmahr finishes discussion of language use in her book by choosing "top" and "bottom" as the terms to describe roles and "SM identities". I favour the term as the generalised version - as Newmahr notes, "sadist, "Dominant", "submissive" and "masochist" all have specialised meanings that do not always apply to an interaction within BDSM (or "SM" in Newmahr's usage). I was, however, surprised by this remark:

I would not subsume "master" and "slave" (also nouns) under the terms "top" and "bottom," for these terms in the community often refer to long-term and/or contractual relationships, or to identities understood as fixed, rather than as kinds of play

A few things leap out at me from this: the first is that "top" and "bottom" are here identified primarily as play roles, and not lifestyle/long-term roles (otherwise there would be no need for the distinction that Newmahr makes), and secondly that "dominant" and "submissive" are also not seen as potentially long-term relationships or as fixed identities.

Identifying as "naturally" or "orientationally" Dominant, I feel really unhappy about that. Bearing in mind that were I a part of the Caeden scene (instead of living in the UK and being part of a BDSM community here!), I would have been a peripheral person in Newmahr's research, due to not being inclined towards public play, I still feel troubled by it. The only way I can think around this is if this is talking purely about roles and not actually about people's identities. That way, it would make sense not to view them as fixed in my case (because I would be willing to play submissive for the occasional scene, even though I identify permanently and in a fixed way as Dominant). But, in the same was as my identity as Dominant is made invisible by being subsumed under the term "SM", such a treatment seems to ignore deeper personal identity in favour of roleplay identity, and ironically in that way would serve to make my self-identification as Dominant disappear.

For all that I am not really a part of any public play scene (let alone the specific scene in which Newmahr immersed herself!), and therefore maybe I have no right to expect to see myself (or more accurately, people like me) represented in Newmahr's work, I find it very bothering. After all, one big reason why I do not go to public play spaces is because I lack the means to get there and if I lived closer to the available venues, I might be more involved in that part of the local scene. And doing that would not change my self-identity or sense of who I am. So, I feel as though Newmahr's choices on language render me (or people like me) invisible.