General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What sexual acts do you consider to be violent? [View all]Xithras
(16,191 posts)I'm into BDSM (more "ropes and bondage" than "whips and chains", but it's really a matter of degree). If you saw the kinds of things that I engage in with my spouse and friends, you'd probably call it violent...and according to the dictionary, you would probably be right.
The difference, of course, is that in BDSM the "violence" is initiated by the recipient. Without getting too "TMI", some people get off by being spanked. When someone spanks them, it's NOT because the "spanker" gets off on being violent, or wants to hurt someone, but because the "spankee" enjoys the spanking and the "spanker" wants to please them. These are the power roles in EVERY SINGLE BDSM relationship I've ever seen. I've been doing this stuff for over 20 years, and I have NEVER seen a situation where a couple were into it because ONE partner wanted to abuse the other. BDSM is about pleasing your partner, not harming them. I get that the idea of people ENJOYING pain may seem alien to you, but we don't need your acceptance or approval. We just object STRENUOUSLY when people start talking about "regulating" what we do.
For the curious, this is what I actually do:
And to bring it back around to the topic that started it all... In all my years of doing BDSM, I've met precisely THREE couples who were into the whole "simulated rape" thing. In all three cases, it was initiated by the woman, because some women really DO get off on the entire power loss mindset (it's fundamentally the same reason that some women enjoy the kinbaku rope work that I practice). For them, rape is a fantasy, and their spouses play along. In two of the cases, it meant that the spouses used strong physical force during sex while the woman resisted (having previously consented to it, and with a safe word being present that could end it at any time). In the third case, they'd actually extended it even further so that the husband brought in other men who would "gang rape" her. I personally found the whole thing distasteful and don't understand the appeal, but I DO understand what the motivations were, and believe that they have a right to do that if it's their particular kink.
The problem with the word "violence" is that it conjures assumptions of anger and hate. When one person is "violent" with another, there's an automatic assumption that it's done to humiliate the other, to perpetuate a power imbalance, or simply because someone is depraved and enjoys inflicting pain. While the physical actions of many in the BDSM community may meet some of the technical definitions of "violence", our motivations aren't hatred or anger...we're motivated by love. I bind my wife for the same reason that some men give their wives cunnilingus...it gives me no direct pleasure, but it gives HER pleasure, and I enjoy pleasing her. Calling it "violent" assumes motivations that simply are NOT there. Calling it "violent" is an attempt to shame those who practice it, by perpetuating a perspective that is fundamentally incorrect.