Talk:BDSM

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sex.svg

This sexuality related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Copperbrain.png
This page is automatically archived by Archiver

Conflation[edit]

I think the section on the O-Ring falsely conflates "submissive" and "bottom", and "dominant" and "top", when it is in fact possible to have a submissive top or a dominant bottom (pretty rare as far as I know, but I partake in what I consider to be the former at least). Bear in mind though that this is where the definitions of terminology related to this start getting pretty fuzzy - there comes a point where you have to ask what precisely makes someone a top or bottom in a scene - submissive and dominant is usually more well defined but you can also get more equal-relation kink scenarios too. I wanted to raise this issue for discussion so people were aware of it, since this ambiguity exists in other terms as well, such as "Kinky" vs "BDSM practitioner" (as just explained). ⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ talk 05:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Extremist[edit]

Another extremist group I've seen speaking out against the practice are radical feminists. Their typical argument is that BDSM is simply domestic violence/rape under a different name and a variation/continuation of mainstream patriarchy. Female subs who explicitly and vocally insist that they like it (but only when performed on them by their loving spouse) and occasionally even like it harder than their loving spouse is easily willing to give are written off as "brainwashed", "groomed" or "emotionally wrecked", therefore unfit to make sane decisions and thus their "consent" is irrelevant, and their opinions don't count. Ignoring the opinion of women who disagree with you? Yay, double standards! Oh, how about female doms, then? Either they don't matter as they don't fit into the pattern, or they're "traitors to the cause" for "sanctioning the behavior of male predators". But how about gay and lesbian BDSM, then? Oh hey, don't distract from the real issue here, you male scumbag! Or so the circular logic goes. See here for a brainhurtingly tiresome leeeeeeeeeengthy discussion between BDSMers of all varieties and one-track minded radical feminists, and here for a reasonable self-declared feminist who's also into BDSM calling out the BS on behalf of the RadFems.--217.187.45.175 (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you saying? That feminists are boring, boorish, breastless bitches? MarcusCicero (talk) 11:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind reasonable feminists whose goal is for women to be equal to men in their freedom of choice. In that regard, I'd consider myself a (male) feminist. I oppose wingnut "radical feminists" (that's not just a descriptive term, it's a self-appointed title for an offshoot ideology of general feminism) who in their one-track minds see the whole world as one giant "patriarch conspiracy" and whose idea of "free choice" for women is to "choose what we want you to choose" or "choose what we would choose in your position". As you can see in the links I have provided, there are pro-BDSM women who view themselves as feminists, in a "reasonable women's rights advocates" sense. They oppose radical feminists as they unilaterally treat BDSM folks as either "male predators" (males) or patronize them as "misguided" at best, "brainwashed" at worst (females).--217.187.45.175 (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, your real hardcore radical feminists view all sex as brutal rape and not just D/s relationships. I find that many pro-BDSM sex therapists, writers or advocates prefer to rebrand their feminism as "sex positivity" so that it's more open and inclusive of all relationships. Regardless what you think about what "true" feminism is, there's no doubt it carries a massive stigma caused by the man-hating radicals, as well as the fact that the basic, female-centred terminology is imbalanced. So you get to the point where you have Em and Lo (who annoy the hell out of me, I'm just quoting them) saying "no, being spanked does not make you a bad feminist" because those connotations are there that feminism is incomparable with female submissives (I do recall someone talking about "third wave" feminism actually embracing it, though). It's a shitty situation to be in where you're told that you're being brainwashed and pathetic for giving into the dominant Patriarchy. To me that sort of attitude is on par with reparative therapy. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 13:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Ugh, there's so much bullshit surrounding BDSM coming from all sides, while our (yeah, my kinky userbox is legit, though I'm not really "out," so don't take this as coming from someone who's been "on the scene" for years) goal is just to be left alone about it. First, while BDSM is no longer considered a mental disorder, there are still some Freudian quacks running around claiming it's caused by child abuse, which is just wrong. Then there's the anti-BDSM feminists who claim female submissives are merely indoctrinated by the false consciousness of the patriarchy. Technically I'm a "switch" (someone who is both dominant and submissive), though probably 90% of the time I prefer to be sub. I see the same sort of stupidity coming out of the men's rights assholes (though no one really gives a shit about them) about male subs' orientation being due to indoctrination by feminazis in their eeeebil women's studies classes, so I know it's just as shitty for feminists to be doing that to female subs. Then there's the even dumber stuff about dominant females also being unwitting pawns of the patriarchy. Of course, there's all the religious bullshit as well. And there's the bigots (male and female) using it is a cover for bigotry. So all these assholes can fuck off. /rant (BTW, the link to Clarisse Thorn I put up is worth reading for a real perspective on BDSM that's not "ZOMGZ FREAKY FUCKERS!!" if anyone cares.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Goodpost.gifP-Foster (talk) 01:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit[edit]

Removing Gitmo and Abu Ghraib from see also...again. Equating BDSM with torture is a piece of rhetorical bullshit that's been used to marginalize it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Used to marginalise illegal torture or marlinalise BDSM? :P ADK...I'll calcify your fork! 07:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Used to marginalize torture. IF people start to equate torture with BDSM, then they'll start to think it's somehow okay when it most certainly is not! The Noisy Orchestra Oi! Oi! Oi! 08:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Language question[edit]

Is the plural of dominatrix dominatrixes or dominatrices? 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

dominatrices. (or Heaven as some would prefer). Jack Hughes (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Wiktionary says both, but the "c" does seem more appropriate. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 16:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
When in doubt, you can always go for "Stiletto wearing, ball-crushing Bitches (with a capped C of course)".Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 16:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The X-rated version can sound more appropriate.

Would the collective noun for these ladies be a whip-round? (And which was the MP who leased out a flat to Miss Whiplash - inadvertantly he claimed (but 'he would say that wouldn't he')? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Feminist schism section[edit]

The feminist schism section appears to be straw-manning a position without asserting any popular sources that take the position. It would be nice to see some sources on it before we turn into CP, whining about what some "Radical feminists and witches believe!". --ShadowofLords (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a general connotation people belief, otherwise Em and Lo wouldn't have to say "remember, being spanked doesn't make you a bad feminist". Definitely worth looking up sauces to sprinkle on it. Scarlet A.pngtheist 18:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I added a link to Against Sadomasochism, which includes most of the greatest hits. The last two sentences on the first page of the review are QFT: "As a whole, the essays are well-written and can be persuasive, especially if the reader does not have an understanding of the SM phenomenon. To those that do have an understanding, the book will probably be infuriating." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Link dump[edit]

Just a list cribbed from Google.

⏣sapient_cogbag⏣ talk 04:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)