cum-shots, spanking, and the role of blogging in feminist porn
Debate rages on the issue of feminist porn. Can porn be feminist, and if so, how? I'm not an expert on feminist theory, but I consider myself a feminist and I'm fairly obviously pro-porn. I don't think it's enough to naively state that being female makes anything one chooses to do a feminist act - I don't buy into the idea that because I find spanking hot I've been brainwashed by the patriarchy and internalised my oppression, but I do feel that because my sexual preferences are easily associated with misogynistic acts, I have a responsibility to make the distinction as clear as possible.
The key for me - as with most kinky people - is consent. And I'm not just talking about spanking, here. I'm talking about representations of any sexual act in porn. D. recently linked me to some blogs debating about whether blowjobs performed by women, and specifically the "cum-shot", have a place in feminist porn. It's an interesting debate, and if you'll bear with me I'd like to use it as an example.
Can the "money-shot" ever be feminist?
Some writers believe the overuse of the cum-shot in mainstream porn has rendered it so trashy and generic, with so little reference to the preferences and desires of the women involved, that it is now inherently degrading, and should be totally avoided by directors trying to create a more equality-focussed, sexually liberated pornography. Petra Joy, a film director who self-describes as "creating porn that is radically different, exploring what is taboo in mainstream porn: sensuality, intimacy; men as objects of female desire and male bisexuality", wrote the following provocative statement:
"Feminism is committed to equality of the sexes, so surely "feminist porn" should show women as equals to men rather than as subservient beings. A woman receiving head, a woman fucking a guy with a strap-on, a guy tasting his own cum and also to feature female ejaculation – those techniques that show a woman in control might be "feminist porn". If you want to show cum on a woman's face that's fine but don't call it feminist."
A number of responses sprang up from feminist bloggers challenging this view. Erika Lust sharply critiques any attempt to create a new orthodoxy about what kind of sexual act is or isn't feminist. Replacing one set of oppressive unequal standards with another isn't progressive; rather, porn should focus on the sexuality and desires of both its male and female participants:
For me "feminist porn" is porn that shows real women and real men having real sex, not just women obedient to men reproducing classic power structures, not just objectified women, not just women giving pleasure but also receiving pleasure. [...] For me feminist porn should portray women’s fantasies and desires – all of them. I certainly know that a woman can be a strong feminist and still wanting to be taken strongly by a man or enjoying blowing a man’s cock or having his cum all over her face.
So for Erika, it's all about the expressions of desire from both male and female characters in a porn film.
Ms Naughty expands on Erika's point, with a well-written, witty post about how context is everything. For Ms Naughty, a scene of a guy jerking off on a silent, empty-eyed model isn't hot. She'd be far more interested in a scene of a woman enthusiastically going down on her male partner, including shots showing the man's face and expressions of his pleasure, which ends with the woman excitedly saying "come on my face, I love that". Ms Naughty encourages us ...
... to think about the way mainstream porn gives priority to certain sex acts and the context in which they’re presented. [...] Choice, consent and desire are what makes the difference and if I’m not seeing that, I will tend to think negatively about certain sex acts in porn.
(Ms Naughty's site Penis Karaoke offers a more light-hearted take on the whole subject, which I'd heartily recommend.)
Waking Vixen takes this one step further. For her, the relevant point isn't the characters in the porn or what happens in the scene, but on how empowered the female models are in the production process:
What I do care about is: does that performer want to be there? Is the director/producer respecting her needs and paying her appropriately? Did she get blindsided by requests for acts she doesn’t want to do?
So what does this have to do with spanking?
Unsurprisingly, you don't read about spanking porn much in the feminist press. But I don't see that a scene of a woman being spanked by a man is any different theoretically from a scene of a man coming on a woman's face - in both scenes the woman takes a subservient role, and the focus is typically on the man's desire and the woman's body as an object of that desire.
In mainstream porn that isn't focussing on power play, it's possible for producers to focus more on female agency and desire in a way that reconstructs these tired pornographic tropes in a way that is both empowering and interesting. But in spanking and BDSM porn, this isn't so simple. The premise of much of the erotic material in this genre is non-consent. For both characters in the film to be empowered would be to kind of miss the point. While there are a lot of very inspiring erotic spanking movies featuring women who want to be spanked and explicitly request and enjoy it - and more power to the directors of these movies - can porn for us ladies who get off on non-consent scenarios ever be feminist?
I think the answer is yes, and the key lies in Waking Vixen's post about the desires and consent of the models, and how empowered and respected they are by the production process. It's okay for porn to feature women being hurt and degraded - but in material this edgy, it's crucially important that everyone involved in the film's production explicitly and actively consents to the content of the film. The desires of the models, not the desires of the characters, becomes the crucial factor. Those desires should be respected on set, by the tops and the photographers they're working with. There's a question of basic professionalism here: a model's limits should be respected; no model should be asked more than once to do anything she doesn't want to; a model's time should not be wasted. But there's also a question of kink. The characters clearly aren't enjoying what's happening. But are the models enjoying it?
And that's where blogging comes in. A lot of spanking models have started keeping blogs writing about their experiences and explaining what they get out of it. It's not just a good way of finding out more about your favourite spankee. It's absolutely essential if we want to promote spanking porn that is progressive, focussed on real-life sexual equality and not only on male agency and desire. Yes, it's important to portray men and women in a variety of roles - men being spanked as well as women, women and men both doing the spanking, characters who enjoy their spankings and characters who don't. But the content of the movie is a secondary issue to the consent and desire of the performers.
I'd love to see more models - male and female - adding their voices and telling the world why they do what they do, and what they get out of it. It's not enough for models to be respected and consulted in the production process - the choice and consent of the models needs to be made clearly and loudly explicit. Whether it's in a blog or in an interview at the end of the movie, for spanking porn to be feminist the models' voices need to be heard.
15 comments:
Well said, Pandora! Your distinction between performers and characters is dead on.
I've always shunned the label "feminist" because of the negative anti-male/anti-porn attitudes so many so-called "feminists" have displayed over the years. So count me as a feminist by YOUR definition - someone who clearly and loudly makes her desires and fantasies known, who lives out those fantasies with people she trusts and who doesn't have her limits violated.
I'll pick up the thread on my blog in a few days. Maybe we can get a round-robin post going!
I can understand your difficulty with the term - I frequently stumble into difficulties when people assume that by "feminist" I mean "anti-men". My gender politics are progressive rather than radical, I think, and I'm pro-equality, but I believe that although both genders are screwed over by the patriarchy sexism still hurts women more than men, so that's where there's most work still to be done. I'm aware that my analysis is shaped by my experience, though, so I tend to focus more on "let's stop sexism affecting anyone" than "omg women are so oppressed".
On the other hand, as a woman I feel more able to speak loudly about women's experiences than I do about male or trans experiences. I can't speak for non-kinky or straight or lesbian or butch or domme women either though, so I'm more in favour of encouraging a society where all these voices are listened to than in making sure my voice is loudest, if you see what I mean!
Thanks for the support, and I'd love it if you could pick up the thread :) I don't think it's possible to separate one kind of liberation from sexual oppression from another, so I'm hopeful that spankos will be inclined to listen to this kind of message.
I'm serious about wanting to read more blogs by male spankees as well. Maybe it's just my unfamiliarity with the F/m community that means I haven't discovered any?
dearest pandora -- excellent post! Normally i shy away from any debate driven posts because often, it is the rehashing of same 'ole, same 'ole. THIS, however, is just fantastic!
i intend on coming back to read it again and check out the links.
my point of view is simply this: the term feminist porn is just another matter of oppressive dictates. If i were directing a film, i would indeed show women as objectified and degraded because THAT is what turns me on! If that is my preference, aren't i acting on my own female liberation by expressing exactly my desires despite them being outside of mainstream feminist rhetoric?
i think empowerment of any kind starts with the self, not the gender. *S*
Kisses -- and again, i am thrilled to have found your blog!
--slave2bholed
www.dungeon-love.com
Good stuff, sweetie. Here's a question to debate after a glass or two: can spanking porn starring vanilla models ever be feminist, given that in no way does it reflect their particular kinks and desires?
My instinctive response is - yes, it can, as long as they are there through informed choice and are being fairly compensated, but I really don't know.
P.S. Man, is it good to see you blogging again :)
Thanks for this interesting and carefully considered post, Pandora!
I agree with what you say about both men and women being adversely affected by sexism, and, as a feminist woman, I also prefer not to frame the discussion as "us" against "them." After all, research clearly shows that women make judgments that undervalue women to exactly the same extent as do men.
The discussion become quite interesting with respect to pornographic pictures or short film clips, which have traditionally been focused on a male audience, in contrast to romance erotica, which has been written overwhelmingly for a female audience. I like the standard of the model's consent and the quality of her treatment, rather than the character's, as it allows room for pornography that appeals more, on average, to men than to women, while still paying attention to dignity and self-worth of the women who make it possible. I realy do think there's something biological that makes men more likely to respond to the up-close shots of genitalia than women. So I'm not buying those, but I don't see it as anti-feminist than many men are attracted to them.
Pandora,
One of the best F/m blogs is
http://spankedhubby.blogspot.com . There's some good links to other sites, too.
Your post has provided food for thought. In my case, my spanko urges arose from the evangelical subculture of the American South, with its relentlessly hierarchical view of life. While I have left this environment and have embraced liberal Enlightenment values, nevertheless I find that my fantasies retain elements of my upbringing. For example, one scenario is a spanking that takes place in a minister's study, accompanied with prayer, Bible reading, and hymn singing. I think scenes like this are the proverbial "monsters under the bed" for me: acting them out makes them have less power over me.
Given that background, I am more than a little weirded out by a handful of sites out there that purport to describe real-life domestic discipline among evangelical Christians. When a female blogger, apparently speaking in her own voice, says that she submits to spanking because "the Lord says the man is the head of the household", etc., etc., I cringe. Sure, some of these bloggers are probably like professional wrestlers who never appear in public out of character. But I wonder.
Oh, the dreaded F-word... I feel myself drawn into a long, verbose essay here. For those of you who actually read the whole thing, it will hopefully be interesting.
I agree with Adele and Niki here and strongly disagree with Pandora. Mind you, I think Pandora's idea of "promoting progressive spanking porn" and "clearing up misconceptions" is well-intended. But as soon as you start doing that, you have basically fallen for the fundamentalist anti-porn feminsists' line. As soon as you start to justify what you are doing, you are on the defensive, and you've give the other side a point of attack that they don't even deserve. The next thing they will ask is, "if spanking is so progressive and healthy and fun, why is there a need to constantly defend it as such? Doesn't that mean that, even by your own admission, there are certain valid doubts about that?"
There is nothing wrong whatsoever with erotic spanking, BDSM or anything that happens between consenting adults. It is also obvious to any thinking person that this sort of consent applies to the spanking movies we are talking about here - if it wasn't consensual, it wouldn't be around in all these public sites and blogs without apparent fear of persecution. Therefore, there really is no need and no duty for us spankos to defend what we do. I wouldn't feel the need to defend my having vanilla sex with a consenting adult, either.
As far as those who maintain that all forms of pornography and eroticism are degrading, exploitative and male-centered, or that BDSM is "violence", are concerned, you are not going to convince them with any amount of well-intended blogging. It's a bit like arguing about evolution with a creationist - no matter what evidence you present, they will not accept it, because they have a certain ideological agenda, and that's that. A comedian once said: "If you have to explain satire to someone, you might as well give up." Likewise, I would say: if you have to explain to someone that erotic spanking is not really abusive or violent, you might as well give up.
Feminism is great, because the central concern, the way I understand it, is to promote equal rights and equal opportunity for women. Women and men are certainly not "alike" (thank God, because that would be boring), but they are fully equal as human beings and should enjoy the same dignity and freedom. This is a good, natural view and a noble undertaking.
However, there is an unfortunate kind of radical feminism that originated, in the early days particularly, alongside this general movement. This is understandable, perhaps, because in most things that are "new" in history and try to break with old customs, you're going to have a radical faction that seeks a total break from the previous state and, as a result, develops certain totalitarian ideas. You're going to have a Martin Luther, and then you're going to have a John Calvin. The outcome is often frighteningly similar to the grievances which these people wanted to fight in the first place. "We have the one truth, and this is how everyone should live."
It can be argued, to paraphrase Clausewitz' famous sentence about war and politics, that "radical feminism is the continuation of the patriarchy by other means". (Yeah, I actually came up with this one myself once, and I believe it is very much to the point). In the old days, you had men telling women what they can and cannot do. You're not supposed to study at university, you're not supposed to walk the streets without the company of a gentleman, you're not supposed to wear trousers, and so forth. In radical feminism, you simply replace the men with a group of women who tell all other women what they can and cannot do. For instance, you're not supposed to participate in a porn film. No, not even if you happen to like it, because "a good girl doesn't do something like that".
So what you have here is pretty much the opposite of what feminism should really strive for, i.e. freedom for women. I have a hard time regarding this "one truth" position as feminism at all. In its dogmatic and ideological views, it is more akin to the patriarchy which it opposes. Fortunately, this radical position is becoming rarer. This is another common historical route which we've seen before - the pendulum starts at one extreme ("women are inferior"), it swings to the other extreme ("all men are pigs"), and then, for most people, it settles in the middle ("we have the same worth as human beings").
When you look at the younger generation of feminists, most of them seem to be a lot more open-minded about things like nudity, pornography or BDSM. Which is good for them, because most people who maintain the "porn is evil" line nowadays have a fundamentalist Christian or Muslim agenda, and as a feminist I'd feel very strange in such company. In the same vein, I think it is very telling that the social position of women tends to be a lot better and more advanced in countries where porngraphy is widespread (such as the US or Europe), while it is worse in those countries where porn is outlawed (like Iran or China). That's because porn and women's rights are tied to the same general issue, the question of freedom.
From the standpoint of freedom (of words, images and expression), no good argument can be made against porn, while a lot of good arguments can be made in favour of it. We may not always like the results. I don't enjoy a lot of what goes on in the average gonzo porn flick, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't exist. The main points here are that 1) Other people may find it erotic, just as I find spanking erotic while they don't, and 2) No one is forcing me to watch it. As long as it is consensual, it is no business of mine what other adults do. I may find it in bad taste, but a free society has to include the freedom of bad taste.
As soon as you introduce a "good taste police", you've abandoned freedom. And naturally, once you start with censorship, there will be no end to it - after you censor erotic corporal punishment, you have to censor "Gone With the Wind" because it contains a rape scene. Before you know it, you're going to have to censor a whole lot of things (including many famous works of literature, art and film) that could be construed as inappropirate to one sensibility or another. Which, mind you, is exactly what certain parties want. They are just using porn to get their foot in the door.
An interesting question here is, do "harmless" non-violent media really lead to a better society? This seems not to be the case. Nazi Germany had largely non-violent media - most films made during the period were trivial comedies and cute romances. While millions of innocent Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and other "undesirables" were being exterminated in the death camps. Actually, the "nice world" facade is a trademark of authoritarian regimes, while "media filth" flourishes mostly in free societies promoting humanitarian values. That is very telling, too.
It must be said that, even in an enlightened society, freedom needs certain caveats for the sake of the dignity of the individual. For instance, children deserve special protection because they can't protect themselves the way an adult can, and they can't give consent the way an adult can. Therefore, child porn is illegal, as it should be. Likewise, "consent" doesn't make everything automatically right. In Germany, we had the case of one man consenting to being killed and eaten by another man (Rammstein made a satirical song about it). A good argument can be made that these individuals were too psychologically unstable or damaged to be responsible for their own decisions.
Of course, this is a tactic employed by some anti-BDSM groups: people with sadistic or masochistic tendencies are "abnormal", therefore their choices and their consent cannot be taken at face value. Is there any ground for this thesis? I don't think so. Adele, Niki and Pandora all seem to be doing very well in "normal life". Psychology shows that erotic sadism and masochism are quite different from their "pathological" counterparts. And a good argument can be made that consenting to a vicious caning (even with welts and blood) is fundamentally different from consenting to having one of your body parts cut off and frying it in the pan.
The other famous argument against porn (since you apparently can't argue against it on the basis of "good taste" or "protecting people from themselves") is that it causes violence. The claim is that porn changes the way men see women, and it leads to rape. It's a similar argument to the one saying that someone who watches "Terminator" too often will eventually grab a machine gun and start mowing down pedestrians. It holds just as little water as the other argument.
Studies indicate very strongly that porn in itself doesn't really change the way men see women, because even men, believe it or not, are by and large able to tell the difference between fantasy and real life. If you're a misogynist, you have other things to blame. Likewise, studies show that the sex crime rate isn't any higher in those societies where porn is easily available and widespread. Actually, Japan, which has a lot of pretty intense "violent pornography", has one of the lowest sex crime rates in the industrialized world.
Since porn (even the "violent" kind) doesn't seem to lead to violence after all, what arguments are left against it? None, really. What additional sanctions do we need on top of the laws against child pornography, rape and cannibalism? None. Porn is adult entertainment, nothing more, nothing less. Some people like it, others don't, and that can be said about most media. It's a question of taste, not morality, and in a free society, you can't police taste.
For some of us, spanking is more than porn or entertainment, it's a part of our way of life. Which raises an interesting question. It goes beyond the subject at hand, but while I'm rambling on for ages, I might as well mention it, too. The question is, are spanking films really pornography? My answer would be, some are, but you can't generalize it.
On the face of it, spanking films are porn simply because they are treated as such by our laws. What you have are erotically charged images and activities, usually with a lot of gratuitous nudity, with the main goal of sexual arousal. Therefore, we treat, watch, produce and market it as porn. "Click the 'Enter' button only if you are 18 years of age or older." From a legal standpoint, with the goal of protecting people from images that they might find offensive and protecing minors from material that they probably won't be able to understand in context, this makes sense.
As a philosopher, though, I'm always curious about how words orginate and what they literally mean (or used to mean). "Pornography" comes from ancient Greek, "porne" and "graphos", and it literally means "writings about whores". Let's take it like that for a moment. The question then is, what is a whore? Whoring (or prostitution, if you prefer that term) is sexual activity in exchange for remuneration, usually money. That may not be the only motivation (a whore can enjoy her work), but it is the main motivation. You could also apply it to any situation where the sexual activity is "given" primarily for a gain or goal that lies outside of the activity itself (beyond the sheer pleasure of it) and outside of the person you give it to (because you like or love that person). "Let's give the President a blowjob so I can get into the newspaper!"
So for me, there is a strong element of materialism and also of pretension or dishonesty here. The implication is, it's not about the pleasure, the person or self-exploration, it is about money, fame or some other form of reward, and that is the main goal. "If it weren't for that, I wouldn't be doing it. Give me my paycheck so I can get the hell outta here." I think that this applies to most of the prostitution and porn out there, so "writings about whores" (or "images of whores") is indeed a fitting term.
Of course, there are exceptions. Nine Hartley seems to genuinly love what she is doing, which is why I'd call her an erotic actress / artist / performer or some such thing rather than a pornstar. And there are probably quite a few girls who also, in addition to the material reward, actually get a bit of real fun out of the whole thing. But my guess would be that, even for them, the money remains the prime goal, and that for the majority, it is indeed the only goal.
I don't think that there is anything wrong with that. It's a trade between consenting adults, "sex for money", so it's quite honest in its way (oops, I just contradicted myself - but I hope you see what I mean with "honest whoring"). At the end of the day, the chief motivation of most people for the work they do is money, and while that might be a sad state of affairs, pornography isn't really any worse. It's more intimate to sell your body, but it's not really a fundamental difference.
So how are things in the spanking world? Of course there are models whose prime or only motivation is money. To dismiss that possibility would be naive. But I believe that they are fewer in number than in "ordinary porn". And I believe that you can tell the difference between them and the non-whores fairly easily, with a bit of an eye for human nature.
The motivation of spankophiles like Adele, Niki or Pandora doesn't seem to be the material reward. Sure, the money and the fame are nice in their way - again it would be naive to deny that outright. But the main drive here, very obviously and genuinly, is for self-exploration, self-expression and the sheer fun of it. Making lots of dough isn't really the point. I'm fairly sure that they'd be doing their thing even if there weren't any videos to sell. They do what they do mostly for the sake of doing it, for the sake of itself - which is arguably the central attribute of art. That's what it is, really, erotic art. Not all of it is good art - that is a question of quality and success, not categorization. But it is certainly in the art category.
So for me, these gals are artists and their work is art. The fact that I masturbate to it doesn't make it any less so. Art doesn't have to be all abstract and intellectualized. It can celebrate pure physical beauty and arouse you with it (a lot of art does, even in the postmodern age). But that doesn't mean that there aren't deeper, more complex and thought-inspiring levels to it, too. I get a lot more out of a good spanking film than basic sexual arousal, and I spend a lot more time thinking about it and the human beings involved than I do with vanilla fucking videos.
The main reason for that is, I think, that you are watching (not in all cases, but in many) another individual's quest for self-exploration and self-expression, which is way more interesting than watching someone earning a paycheck. The reason, in other words, is that many spanking films are more than "images of whores". So I don't regard them as porn, really, and I don't regard the models as whores (I'm sorry, Niki, I know you like the term - but you simply aren't one!).
These self-exploring models are also feminists in the best sense of the word, because they are women who do what they enjoy without making excuses for it. No excuses are needed. Especially not in front of radical pseudo-feminists who believe that they have the world figured out and insist on forcing their own personal values and tastes on the rest of humanity.
Manifesto signed,
Ludwig
Slave - It's lovely to meet you! Thankyou for reading and responding :)
I think you're right that empowerment does start with the self. But I'm not sure that personal equals political. One can be personally empowered without being politically empowered. And to be the latter, as well as expressing your own desires regardless of mainstream expectations (feminist, patriarchal or otherwise), I think one has to contextualise that expression within the ongoing dialogue. I'm not exhorting everyone to be political - that's not everyone's role to play, and some people can contribute by being an inspiration to others through their personal empowerment. But if you're trying to make political statements - which is, I think, how I'd distinguish "feminist porn" from any porn that empowers its participants - there does need to be discussion about how it relates to the mainstream and what it's doing differently. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise though - this debate has got me thinking, and that can only be a good thing :)
Adele - good question! I don't know either, and since I'm not a vanilla model, I don't really see it as my place to impose an answer. If the vanilla models ever come out of the woodwork and own up to their choices, I will gladly listen to what they have to say :) Unfortunately there seems to be a certain amount of shame attached to doing spanking modelling only for the money - people either pretend they're actually into spanking, or they don't engage in discussion at all. Or maybe it's just good business sense.
I'm not sure that the latter follows, though - look at the success of Caned4Cash and other explicitly "just for the money" spanking productions. There seems to almost be a whole kink arising out of the illusion of exploitation. Given that, it wouldn't actually contradict the reality constructed in the film for the models to be upfront about their lack of personal interest.
New question: can a kink revolving around exploitation ever be feminist? Again, I'd say yes, as long as the models are empowered in their choices to take the money. But it's a tricky grey area. There's quite a few example in history of exploited people thinking they've got a good deal - but I'm not sure it's up to me to decide whether someone else is empowered or not. Tricky!
Indiana - thankyou for your response! It's lovely to meet you :)
One of the great things about "feminist porn" is the focus on catering to a female audience. Historically, more erotic fiction may have been purchased by women and more visual imagery by men, but how much of that was the content rather than the format? I know lots of women (myself included) who are interested in erotic pictures and video, and I think it's fantastic that the market is expanding to cater to a broader variety of tastes.
One of the reasons I wrote the above is that it's quite clear, to me, that a lot of the spanking material produced is by women for women. Not exclusively for women, of course, as all of the paysites have a substantial male membership. But sites like Bars for Stripes and Northern Spanking cater explicitly to the tastes and preferences of the models or the female site owner. Not that the site owner ignores the preferences of its male membership - but a lot of those men are members because they get something out of the sincerity of what they're watching. They like knowing that the girls are into it. (Lucy and Leia may be able to correct me on this, but that's the impression I get.)
So feminist spanking porn certainly exists, by any common-sense definition, in the form of these model-driven, sincerely kinky sites. What bothers me - and continues to bother me - is how little dialogue there is between feminism and femsub spanking/BDSM even on a conceptual level. A lot of kinky girls treat "feminist" as a dirty word - and one of the things that's been so amazing about this post is finding out how many kinky feminists there are out there! And even pro-porn feminists often baulk at the kind of thing we find erotic - that's if they think about it's existence at all. I'm proud to be a member of both communities, and I'd like there to be more crossover and dialogue between the two. Which is the main reason I wrote this post. Blogging is a very useful tool in getting the word out that it's possible to integrate our gender politics and our sexuality :)
Southern Expat - Thankyou for the link! I have seen Spanked Hubby before, but it never got added to my blogroll. (I've rectified that now - I've just glanced back through the last few pages and some of it is really quite hot.) However, as far as I can tell Mike isn't a male spanking model - just a male spankee. The only male spanking models I've seen in the blogosphere are Razor (who comments in Adele Haze's blog a lot) and Tomas of http://www.punishedbutts.com, who is a photographer as well as a model.
I think scenes like this are the proverbial "monsters under the bed" for me: acting them out makes them have less power over me.
Yes - that's an amazing way of putting it. I can't speak for others (and I don't think this is behind any of my own kinks) but I've heard a lot of women speak about their (say) rape fantasies being a way to reconstruct their experiences of being a victim in a way that empowers them. I think your experiences aren't unusual, and it's absolutely fascinating. I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with it!
I know what you mean about being creeped out by religous DD blogs. I fear that far more of them are genuine than I would prefer. Part of it is taste, of course - I feel similarly about the Gor subculture. It's just not my thing. But I think the thing that's worrying about the religious DDers isn't their personal actions, it's their evangelical attitude to it - their belief that this is right and necessary for all men and all women. I'm happy for anyone to indulge in whatever consensual kinks they want - if it doesn't harm anyone who isn't consenting, that's fine. I get a bit creeped out by practices that appear to be institutionalised. I mean, if these women are coming to this as informed adults, fine - not my thing, but fine. But if they're brought up into it? That seems worryingly close to brainwashing.
And of course I baulk at anything that makes any statement about what I should be doing. You do your thing, and I'll do mine; no-one claiming to be liberated should be making any blanket statements or claiming any moral absolutes.
Ludwig - I agree with you on many counts, and there's far more material in your essay than I have time to respond to directly.
I have to disagree with you, though, on the suggestion that defensiveness suggests guilt, and if there's nothing wrong with what we're doing we shouldn't try to explain ourselves. As feminists, (or spankos against the patriarchy, or however we want to define ourslves) I think it would be naive to suggest that the erotic material we enjoy isn't problematic. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it raises questions. I don't think there's anything wrong with opening discussion about those questions and attempting to provide answers. I have no interest in operating in a vacuum, a self-selected cocoon of spanko-friendly people who see nothing wrong with what I do. That's fine, of course, and the support of such a community is invaluable. But I'm interested in talking to people outside it, as well - trying to engage with some of the misconceptions and myths vanilla people have. Particularly vanilla feminists whom I engage in discussion about gender, sexuality and porn, and who aren't at all clued up about the things I'm into and how they relate to female empowerment. If you don't want to engage in such debates, that's fine - but I don't think my wanting to do so is a suggestion that there's anything wrong with being a spanko!
I see where you're coming from, Pandora. As I said, I think your intention is good, and if carrying the discussion to people outside of the spanking community is what you feel like doing, then it's a good thing.
But I disagree with you on two main points, so let me try and make them clearer. It's another long post, but these issues require a certain space, so bear with me!
The first point of contention is the suggestion that erotic spanking is *especially* problematic from a female / feminist point of view:
"But I don't see that a scene of a woman being spanked by a man is any different theoretically from a scene of a man coming on a woman's face - in both scenes the woman takes a subservient role, and the focus is typically on the man's desire and the woman's body as an object of that desire."
Notice that you are using the example of a *woman* being spanked *by a man*. This is important, I'll come back to it shortly.
And in your latest comment, you write:
"As feminists, (or spankos against the patriarchy, or however we want to define ourslves) I think it would be naive to suggest that the erotic material we enjoy isn't problematic."
So the emphasis here is that spanking erotica aren't so much problematic per se, they are problematic for you *as a feminist*.
I'd like to break the question down into two parts. Are spanking erotica problematic? Secondly, are they especially problematic for the feminist point of view?
The only potential problems (i.e. misconceptions) I can see with erotic spanking is that, as a non-erotic activity, spanking is usually associated with 1) Something that is done to children, so there is an "under-age" vibe to the word itself, and 2) Genuine punishment, something that is painful, uncomfortable and, most importantly, non-consensual. In other words, there is an association with violence and abuse.
Obviously, erotic spanking among consenting adults is neither under-age nor is it abuse or violence. I daresay that this is pretty common knowledge even among vanilla people nowadays, so no long-winded educational work is needed. Many vanilla people (thanks to all the sex reports on TV and in magazines) know what the letters "BDSM" stand for and realize that it is a kink among adults who happen to like that kink.
Among the vanilla friends I have who know about my spanking fetish, many are quite curious ("You're into that? That's a surprise! Well... Tell me about it!"). Many think it's an amusing quirk. Some don't get the attraction of it at all, but I have yet to meet a single one who regarded it as problematic. The usual attitude is: "Hey, if you like it, that's great!" As a sidenote, there seems to be no discernable difference between male and female reactions here.
So let's move on to the second part of the question: is erotic spanking problematic from a feminist point of view? Remember that you used the example of a man spanking a woman as a situation that is, apparently, especially prone to raising questions.
Of course, you can argue that such an image enforces certain patriarchal stereotypes: father and daughter, male teacher and female student, dominant husband and subservient wife. Indeed that is the classical feminist claim. Personally, though, I think it is a very superficial reading and doesn't hold much water.
It's like the other old debate about violent movies breeding real violence (or not). I for one don't think they do. Human nature is more complex than that, and phenomena like violence or the oppression of women have a lot of complicated causes - historical, political, social, educational, and so forth. I don't think images on the cinema screen feature prominently among them.
Most people are quite able to tell the difference between real life and fantasy / fiction. There are some interesting studies which show that many children, at an amazingly early age, already figure out that advertising spots on TV aren't neutral statements. The skill of telling fact from fiction improves more and more as we approach maturity.
The average adult uderstands that a movie brawl isn't real violence, and they also understand that there is a difference between an asbusive father / husband and BDSM play, even when that play portrays an "abusive father" or "husband" (just like the movie brawl portrays "real" violence, in the context of the story).
So I don't believe that there is any truth to "erotic spanking enforcing patriarchal stereotypes". Unless you want to make a very superficial, naive reading of it that even most vanilla people nowadays wouldn't make. The point is that the vast majority of people recognizes these images as *stereotypes*, not as depictions of the real female or male character.
To me, the notion that "porn films change the way men view women" or "action movies cause real violence" implies a primitive, mechanical view of human nature ("what goes in comes out") that is just not valid.
Of course, there are rapists who have porn films at home, and there are spree killers who have violent computer games at home. But when you examine these cases in depth, you will find that the causes for the behavior of these truly disturbed individuals are a lot more varied and complex. 99% of porn viewers don't rape, and 99% of the people who play "Doom" don't run amok with chainsaws.
One interesting question that your choice of example raises is, what about a woman spanking a woman? Or a woman spanking a man? Or, in a gay film, what about men spanking each other? Are these situations less "problematic" than a man spanking a woman, and if so, why?
I've just discarded the "patriarchal stereotype" argument. The only other one I can think of is that, for some reason, "women need special protection" (like children, I suppose). The implication is that women have been exploited for so long in history, and maybe they can't take care of themselves the way a man can, so it raises more questions when a woman engages in erotic BDSM than when a man does. Of course, this argument is even worse, because it is inherently patriarchal and chauvinistic - much more so than any spanking film could be.
If erotic spanking is problematic at all, it is so regardless of gender - because of the common associations with non-erotic spanking (abuse, usually of minors). But again, as I have argued above, the danger for "misconceptions" here is pretty small in my view.
The bottom line (pun!) is, I don't see any reason why a *man* spanking a *woman* would be an especially hard problem in the context of erotic spanking, or why erotic spanking should be especially problematic for a feminist.
As a result, the second main point of yours I disagree with is:
"I do feel that because my sexual preferences are easily associated with misogynistic acts, I have a responsibility to make the distinction as clear as possible."
Obviously, I don't share the premise that the association with misogyny is "easy", so I don't share your conclusion, either. I don't see this responsibility. If you want to engage in this debate with vanillas, that is great, but you should do it because you find it interesting or stimulating, not because you feel a "duty".
Maybe I'm being naive or I've just been lucky in my acquaintances with vanilla people. But I haven't met one who condemned erotic BDSM. Not even the ones where you might expect it. One female friend of mine is a Catholic who is pretty conservative in her views on sex, and I've had a discussion with a German feminist blogger that started about "ordinary" porn and moved on to BDSM. Turns out neither of them had anything against BDSM.
The only people whom I see equating erotic spanking with misogynistic acts are in the staunch, dwindling group of radical feminists, who are nowadays not only out of touch with how most women feel, but also with most of their feminist colleagues.
And they won't be convinced by any amount of educational blogging - you're a woman engaging in what is (for them) a typically "male" erotic fantasy, hence an exploitative fantasy, and no evidence or description you present about how you really feel or why you do it is likely to change that view. If anything, they will use whatever they can in your writing as their own angle of attack.
So my conclusion is that, while your intentions are good, I'm not sure that the debate is really necessary. Most of the people who can be convinced are already convinced - as the German feminist blogger wrote to me, "don't get worked up, you're trying to kick down an open door with me here!" And those who aren't yet convinced, well, you're not likely to win them over.
If you want to blog about erotic spanking in the context of feminist issues, that's wonderful. It's a thing you want to do, and it's an interesting subject - God knows it made me write a whole lot. But I'm obviously not in the intended target audience.
dearest Pandora -- yes, well, i avoid politics at all cost. *S* But i'll listen because what you have to say, what you stimulate and generate in discussion is very engaging.
i just got done reading Ludwig's comment and wow! Ludwig, could you come over and comment on my blog? *S* Some absolutely excellent points and provocative, too -- i'd love to post this dissertation actually. And now i'm definitely ready for bed. *S*
Kind regards!
--slave2bholed
www.dungeon-love.com
Ludwig - I definitely agree with you that that empowered women should act on their desires without feeling defensive. But I don't think dialogue, or opening dialogue, implies defensiveness. True, this post doesn't constitute dialogue as I don't have any vanilla feminist readers ... my intention was more to alert my kinky readers to some of the issues I perceive in reconciling my political affiliations with my sexual ones. If you're trying to tell me that my experiences are in some way invalid or irrelevant, then your attitude doesn't support your argument very well!
I guess my point is that I'm trying to be realistic where you're idealistic. I agree with your ideals - they are fine things to strive towards. But for me, this kind of discussion is necessary to achieve those ideals. You seem to feel that they have already been achieved, and there I have to disagree. Until our sexuality is perceived as acceptable by the majority, and there aren't laws trying to brand what we do as illegal or "obscene", and the voices of kinky women (and men!) are represented in the media, and these topics are discussed and acknowledged fairly and tolerantly in public spaces, not just on personal blogs - until then, the more people are talking about this, the better. And I'm not going to feel bad about that.
"If you're trying to tell me that my experiences are in some way invalid or irrelevant, then your attitude doesn't support your argument very well!"
No, I don't want to paint your experiences as invalid. I guess what I was trying to say in all my ramblings is that I fear that maybe you are getting your hopes up too high for such a discussion. But trust me, no one will be happier than me if you prove me wrong and manage to convince large numbers of insecure kinky people and feminists that what we are doing is okay. I admire your idealism, but as much as I'd want to, I don't share it myself - not to this extent, anyway.
"I agree with your ideals - they are fine things to strive towards. But for me, this kind of discussion is necessary to achieve those ideals. You seem to feel that they have already been achieved, and there I have to disagree."
You know, I believe we are both right in our way. We just have different ideals - not really different as such, but yours are going farther than mine. Mine have already been achieved to a large extent, while yours haven't. That's why I'm arguing that no discussion is needed, while you rightfully feel that it is very much needed.
Here is what it comes down to:
"Until our sexuality is perceived as acceptable by the majority, and there aren't laws trying to brand what we do as illegal or "obscene", and the voices of kinky women (and men!) are represented in the media, and these topics are discussed and acknowledged fairly and tolerantly in public spaces..."
I must admit that I'm something of a cultural pessimist, and I wouldn't dare to dream of such a world. I don't believe that, given human nature, we can ever expect to have a world where things like homosexuality or BDSM are truly, fully accepted by "the majority of people".
That's because the majority isn't homosexual and isn't into BDSM, either. And because these sexual desires are so ineffable, immediate and fundamental, we can talk for ages about them - but there will always remain a fundamental barrier between the man who lusts after other men and the (more frequent) man who lusts after women. They will not "get" it. And therefore there will always remain groups of society (probably substantial) who view the homosexual as "unnatural".
I think the best thing we can realistically hope for is a society pretty much like the one which we have now in the Western world: where homosexuality and BDSM people are regarded as acceptable by the law - while "the majority" still regards us as "weirdos", but at least we are sort of "accepted" as weirdos and not burned at the stake. And while groups remain who want to outlaw what we do as obscene, at least they aren't all that successful.
Is that a terrible attitude? It's an honest question, not a rhetorical one - I'm looking for the answer. You tell me. But I can't help myself, I'm really quite pessimistic about that.
Thanks for reading my blog post Pandora. I think your comments on feminism and spanking are well worth reading and a welcome addition to this whole "feminist porn" debate.
Interestingly, I've never really had a problem with spanking or BDSM porn because to me it's all about catering to a community that is very knowledgeable about consent, female pleasure and boundaries. I've always thought that there was an implicit understanding of consent involved. And degredation is the whole point.
My issue has been that mainstream porn so often moves this kind of powerplay into vanilla sex and makes it part of the standard dynamic, so it's always assumed that the woman is the submissive partner, even if the sex is basically vanilla. That's why the facial cumshot has so much baggage attached to it.
Indeed, if we think about how choking and gagging have also become mainstream and standard (but only applied to women), I think it raises real issues about how the "normal" sex act in porn depicts the status of women.
OK... I'm not sure if that's come out right and there's an entire essay that I need to write on my blog... again. Once more, thanks for your thoughts.
Post a Comment