bdsm vs vanilla sex
This started out as a comment over at the hub, in response to Cherry’s latest post. It got too long though, so it gets to be its own post.
Cherry writes about bdsm, and the reason why women often report bdsm as being the most intense sex they ever experience, and how it is a patriarchal set-up.
This got me thinking in general terms why women may prefer bdsm.
Bdsmers appear to place a lot of importance on sexual ethics. There is a consensus in the community that “ethical bdsm” requires a lot of safety nets. It requires constant negotiation of boundaries and consent, the use of safewords, aftercare, lots of discussion with your partner, no assumptions that any particular activity will occur during any particular encounter etc. Something like half of everything ever written by bdsmers covers these topics and How! Important! They! Are!
I have no idea if bdsm as practised by individuals involves such an emphasis on these safety nets. But this is the public image that bdsmers cultivate. These safety nets are considered necessary, because bdsm is recognized as being emotionally and physically risky sex.
Vanilla PIV is risky sex too. For women. But we’re not entitled to safewords or constant negotiation. On the contrary, rape laws are written in a way that assumes women are in a constant state of sexual consent. And sex = PIV.
This is all very convenient for men of course. What we have here is a devil’s baragin.
If you want sex with negotiable terms, that’s cool. But the sex must be explicitly dom/sub.
If you don’t want explicitly dom/sub sex, then sorry! You don’t get to negotiate your terms. It’s mandatory PIV. And don’t even think about safewording halfway through. It’ll only take me a minute to finish, babe!
In the supposedly “sexually liberated” 21st century, these are the options available to heterosexual women.
The phenomenon of women who experience sexual abuse and who then later engage in bdsm as submissives is interesting to think about here.
Very often women with these narratives describe enjoying bdsm because it allows them to work through their sexual trauma in a controlled situation. I’ve always assumed that the “working through the sexual trauma” part is the significant bit. But what if it is the “controlled situation” part instead?
Vanilla sex is not a controlled situation for women, culturally or legally. It’s therefore quite logical that women with a history of sexual trauma might prefer bdsm, which (IN THEORY) gives them greater control over the situation, because it has negotiable terms. Compared to vanilla sex, where the negotiable terms often amount to little more than “lights on, or off?”
Like this:
Filed under: bdsm, PIV, rape | 14 Comments
Tags: bdsm and sexual trauma, sexual consent
-
COMMENTS
I think you’re onto something here!!
“It’ll only take me a minute to finish, babe!”
Yes this is what women have to navigate in a sexual relationship. (and LOL at that sentence)
“But what if it is the “controlled situation” part instead?”
Yes. And there is something called “topping from the bottom” which means that the “Sub” is actually the one that dictates everything that goes on. Some BDSMers sneer at this concept, but I can see how a woman desiring complete control would want this. Or, of course, she could become a domne herself, but most women have been conditioned to masochism by virtue of their life-experiences to date.
There is a third alternative, and that is no sex, but for many women that’s not a viable option, not least because women crave physical affection and companionship.
Ah yes, the old “topping from the bottom” issue. I’ve heard female doms complain about this issue re male subs – essentially being a female dominant means you must pander to submissive male fantasy – and turn yourself into a stereotypical dominatrix, like catwoman or something.
So even female dominants, who are often assumed to be subverting patriarchal norms, are actually reinforcing them.
yes i think you are onto something here too. everything you wrote about “ethics” is exactly whats missing from “vanilla PIV” (or even regular old violent het sex thats not contextualized as BDSM). the “aftercare” one is particularly striking, knowing how many women have the morning-after meltdown when dood doesnt call. sexual ethics is completely missing, as is any recognition that PIV is risky and damaging both emotionally and physically (FOR WOMEN). radfems are the only ones who care about this enough to name it.
That little analysis there makes mighty fine sense to me, Miska.
So simple, yet it’s so hard to see through all the penis-centric propaganda. Thank you for putting it plainly.
“Vanilla PIV is risky sex too. For women. But we’re not entitled to safewords or constant negotiation. On the contrary, rape laws are written in a way that assumes women are in a constant state of sexual consent. And sex = PIV.”
This is very interesting — had not thought of the juxtaposition here. Also, BDSM has a degree of hipster cred; BDSMers are often contemptuous of “vanilla” sex and those who practice it because it isn’t “daring” or “risky” — but it sure as hell is, for women.
Yeah, even though they deny it, we all know “vanilla” implies safe, dull and unchallenging.
But chronic UTIs aren’t “safe”. Pregnancy scares arent “dull”. Feeling obligated to supply mandatory PIV when you are in a het relationship isnt “unchallenging”. FAR from it.
Thanks, Sar. Glad you like the post!
@FCM
And even with “sexual ethics” PIV wouldnt be safe for women. This is just harm minimization stuff of course. But it’s telling that women arent even entitled to that. It’s also telling how men take pride in “unethical sex” – they brag to their mates about picking up a chick in a bar, fucking her and then not calling her. Getting away with being as unethical as possible makes them a hero.
yes true. PIV will always be harmful to females specifically. im not sure BDSM can be made safe either, for “humans” male or female no matter the “ethics” considering trauma-bonding and the chemistry involved in releasing endorphins etc. which is even more ironic: under the P, even something thats inherently harmful and dangerous can be done “ethically” according to men. like the laws regarding torture and medical experimentation perhaps? theres a lot of it thats ok too, under their rules. it makes my stomach turn.
Ethical BDSM is as ethical as the holy wars.
The control word is just an illusion, a joke to trick the sub into believing she’s in control, she consents to it. In reality, the one who controls is the one doing the harm – he/she tells the sub what to do at all times, thinks, plans and organises the torture from beginning to end. They push the sub’s boundaries so far so that she can tolerate any degree of violence, which makes the stopword irrelevant, because the point is to be tortured anyway. BDSM can only work on people who’ve already suffered and know no other way of relating to people sexually – just like prostitution.
I’ve had a partner (in my old het times) try to groom me to BDSM. Every amount of sexual encounter was orchestrated, chosen, controlled by him. He had me believe I wanted it, I was in control, I could say stop at any time. But the reason I was with him in the first place is because I had no control of my body. He would constantly push my mental and physical boundaries so I would accept more and more dangerous, humiliating and harmful practices.
There are countless cases where the doms ignored the sub’s control word. As far as I know, the safetynets are just a façade. The word itself is a joke. No amount of BDSM is safe.
Yes, I am not convinced that the “ethical” public image bdsmers project is actually reflected in bdsm as practised by individuals.
And further to that, I dont actually think that bdsm and “vanilla” comprise discrete categories anyway. It’s yet another false binary that serves a male agenda. “Vanilla” sex often incorporates dom/sub and bdsm elements. But labelling it “vanilla” makes it difficult to name and discuss these elements. Gee, I wonder who might benefit from that kind of framing?
What has been interesting to me, is that “dick-centric sex” (as they call it in BDSM circles) is *not* seen as the only way to do sex.
]
Well… this is *almost* in the realm of radical feminism. [I said "almost"
No risk of pregnancy (and death from that), no risk of AIDS or what have you.
They even go so far as to call PIV/dick-centric sex “vanilla”
Women’s attraction to BDSM becomes even more obvious, when you see it in this context.
IN one blog for example, a BDSM “agony aunt” gives advice to a woman who is not interested in PIV because her partner has a small dick. This is the answer she got:
“If you truly want to move away from pen-opoly to BDSM, try playing some new games”
*Pen-opoly* !! .
This was apparently a completely reasonable question for a woman to ask a BDSM agony uncle/aunt. Whereas if she’d approached a mainstream magazine or website and asked the same question, she’d have been coaxed to have PIV with him, one way or another, and urged to make sure she didn’T make him feel inadequate.
yeah, Cherry it’s true, Bdsm IS less dick-centric than vanilla. PIV is one of the negotiable terms of bdsm sex, along with many other activities. But then, I do believe that in ongoing bdsm relationships especially where the woman is the sub that PIV is probably just as non-negotiable as in vanilla relationships.
Very often women with these narratives describe enjoying bdsm because it allows them to work through their sexual trauma in a controlled situation. I’ve always assumed that the “working through the sexual trauma” part is the significant bit. But what if it is the “controlled situation” part instead?
This was quite the brilliant point. Stunning, actually. Extremely mind-blowing and hey for what? For naming the thing what it is. We’re so blinded by layers upon layers of male-centric conditioning, that we can look at reality five billions times in a row and never see it for what it is.
Cherry said: What has been interesting to me, is that “dick-centric sex” (as they call it in BDSM circles) is *not* seen as the only way to do sex
hmmm, really sorry, I don’t think so. I meant your next point, that “hey isn’t it exciting that this other group over here also finds non p-i-v to qualify as SEX”. I think it was you who said in your own post that the whole point of bondage porn is humiliation in a sexual context? Those doms don’t care what particular sex act they are performing on a woman, the entire point is to humiliate her in a sexual context, to “put her in her place” as inanimate sex vessel for his rage.
Actually it’s even worse. What they’re going after is sexual context. If any body part of a woman is considered sexualized, then they want to inflict pain on that body part. They don’t have SEX, instead they have PAINFUL DOMINATION but refer to it as sex.
Being an asexual with seriously no libido, I’ve always thought the whole set-up weird. They might as well focus on pounding the femur into oblivion and then orgasming.