#cultural values
I’m never sure quite where to start when discussing BDSM because it’s a topic I’ve examined a lot - first in literature, with East of Eden in high school, but then through an examination of “deviant” sex cultures (I’m fascinated by sex cultures and have looked at a number of different facets of American, Chinese, and Japanese cultures in particular). In particular, I stumbled upon some BDSM fiction - which, frankly, is better written than 50 Shades of Gray, I’m sure, though it was rather stomach-churning to read some of the scenes… and, as a researcher, I must admit that unfortunately I ultimately could not finish the work… I didn’t even get halfway… What was intriguing to me though, was the discovery that the writer was a guy. And then finding the site the author wrote about how to get started with BDSM.
That was what shocked me. Diving into the material was… rough… to say the least, but looking at the approach to it was really astonishing. Perhaps because the activities are so stigmatized, there has been a need to make it “safe, sane & consensual” but roofies are also rather stigmatized and there has yet to be a community that makes that at all anything near safe. There was such an emphasis on relationship and communicating with your partner(s), and making sure everyone was comfortable. The openness and communication that Newmahr discusses is just as present in the online communities I’ve seen as the ones she studied. Because communication and developing skills is so huge, there are many blogging communities (though it should be noted that generally more women blog, focusing on their experiences, mentality, etc. while men who blog more often write about techniques, etc.) around BDSM, which often cite fellow bloggers, all by their web pseudonym, which may or may not be their name in the club, in events or activities - the clubs that Newmahr talks about where the public physical scenes happen.
There’s so much that these people discuss, some of which is directly related to our class’s discussions, such as the idea of edgework and boundaries. There’s a lot of discussion about how far, and how to go farther, a lot of advice and shared experiences: one post (I’d cite it, but I never saved the links) discusses the idea of a submissive being made to do edgework as a good thing. From his perspective, there’s two types of boundaries, which I think he called boundaries and borders, one which is crossable and the other which is not, and that it is the dominant's responsibility to know which is which, and only push because he/she thinks it is in the submissive’s best interest, i.e. the submissive will be thankful later (like the idea that I want to go skydiving, but I’d need someone to shove me out of the plane).
It’s a very supportive, open community, with a lot of acknowledgement of personal shortcomings and how to deal with them - not just aftercare, but what happens when a submissive won’t submit. Descriptions like that are where there’s a sharp distinction between “physical abuse” and the type of play that occurs in public and in private in these individuals’ lives. Whereas in a stereotypically abusive environment, any flak is met with physical retaliation, when a submissive won’t submit, there’s often a great deal of gentleness and firmness in the response. And aftercare. As with edgework, it’s all seen as in the other person’s best interest; the relationship is seen as mutually beneficial, because it is contingent on the D/s being by choice and by preference.
The decision to have a “power imbalance” by choice may seem strange to most people in today’s post-feminist society. But having power, and thus responsibility, is actually very draining. Maintaining an equal-power household is also very draining. Where you have two leaders, it’s difficult to achieve any peace. Most “equitable” relationships are actually built on compromise, whether it is the idea of separate spheres of influence or shared responsibility. There is usually some degree of yield. Yet not everyone wants to lead. Some people want to give up power. It’s just a personal preference. Everyone wants to be respected, which is an entirely different issue. And both sides are respected in the SM community, and because the activities are framed as mutually beneficial, all the identities are framed as positive.
When you get to know the BDSM community (even like me, which is more like a stalker/voyeur of the online community), honestly, I think it’s very hard to dislike them. We can discuss the probability of their statuses as social outcasts and the stereotypical association with “goths” and “emos” but as people, they really look out for each other - not only their partner, but others in their community, which, is a lot better than those of us in the “normal/dominant” scene can say, not only in terms of physical but also emotional wellbeing.
NOT UNDER MY ROOF : The Fine InBetween of Love-Lust-Sex
Amy Schalet examines an interesting “dichotomy” between the Netherlands and the United States regarding teenage sex: how the one normalizes it while the other dramatizes it. While parents in the Netherlands approach sex as a natural aspect of love (which they believe is a natural part of growing up), and openly approach the subject with their children - to the extent that Lulu says they watch almost pornographic media together, and that she, a foreign exchange student, was given condoms - parents in the United States approach it through this idea of “not under my roof.” Though it’s something that both parents and children in America know is happening, it’s something that is denied: the white elephant in the room.
Given the statistics of teenage pregnancy and abortions, as well as the stress around sex during and post-puberty in America and the rift it creates between parents and their kids, it is very easy to lean towards the Dutch perspective (though Schalet was, I believe, herself originally Dutch) as the “better” of the two. But are those the only two options? Or is there a fine line between normalizing and dramatizing?
The back-drop of the two “cultural scripts” are very different, as Schalet points out. One is much more religious, and there are socioeconomic factors complicating matters. There are also different philosophical ideas about children and the maturation process. The American model of maturation ends with separation of the parent and the child; it is almost a dreaded scenario for the child to move back in with the parent. Many of the American parents talk about a fine line of independence for their children, while the Dutch model values the relationship between parent and child and acknowledges the antagonism (puber), but transitions through negotiations. But both subscribe to an “incremental growth model”, wherein there are stages of maturation by age, which children pass through on their way to “adulthood.” The commercial industry has made these stages particularly salient, through “collaboration” with contemporary psychoanalysis. Throughout the book, parents on both sides discuss their children being “ready” for certain stages.
Yet being the contentious idealist I am, I’d like to disagree with both models by disagreeing with the idea of there being stages to development in the first place. I know most psychologists will disagree with me, as will most people, because we’ve been indoctrinated with this idea of seniority and a linear model of development, but after reading We’re Friends, RIght? by Bill Corsaro, I’ve really started to question the standard progression model of growth. Due to the familial conflict in my life, and the roles I took on in childhood, many of the adults I spoke to often told me I was “grown up for my age”. Indeed, I got along more with teachers than peers (I suppose I still do)and while I don’t believe I perceived others as more juvenile, there was certainly a sensation of a divide between those around me and myself.
Many individuals who have experienced trauma may relate to that experience, whether it be growing up in times of war, going through several homes, etc. Grief makes the soul old. Yet not all children who experience grief become bitter, nor do they remain so. In college, my friends joked that I frequently switched between acting 7 and acting 40. I think it’s really about resources that determine our “enacted age”, while experiences/knowledge determine our “comprehensive age”. As a child, I did not have the resources to ‘goof off’ the way my friends did. In college, I did. I was allowed more irresponsible moments in college than at home, where I learned to take care of a considerable amount of the housework by high school. That was simply my situation. I don’t resent it nor regret it, and I’ve learned a lot from it, but in many ways I was not “permitted” by my circumstances to be a child. I think this is an increasingly stark divide in upcoming generations: that there are those who are spoiled with instant gratification even as they are being denied their innocence, which causes very interesting behavior and understandings to develop.
I won’t bore you with a full-fledged account of my model for youth development, but as someone currently in a committed relationship and about to get married, I really don’t think age is the big issue. We make a big deal about teenagers, but honestly, there are many young parents that have been amazing, and many much older parents who have been rather juvenile with their relationships. Why? Because when you have more resources, you don't have to grow up. You’re never forced into responsibility as a necessity in the way that underprivileged families are: where the older children must work to support their siblings and their (often) single mother. Many books and articles, such as Guyland, discuss this prolonged adolescence.
Which is why I think the idea of “enacted age” vs. “comprehensive age” is more useful. I strongly agree with the Dutch that love and sex are a natural part of life and that teenagers should be given as many resources as possible. But I don’t agree with what a lot of parents saw as this necessary “exploration age” where a lot of parents expressed that they wanted their children to try more things with more people rather than settling down. I think in some ways its still making the decision for their children - just the opposite decision that American parents make.
I really believe that teenagers can fall in love and get married and all that. I think people of any age can really fall in love. But it’s about empowerment, where I fall in between both cultures. I think there is a degree of separation and independence, as well as a need for continued community support. I “aged” due to what some may call unfortunate resources and experiences. I took love seriously because I knew the cost of divorce and marital strife. But I hope that if I have children, they will take love seriously because they have the resources and understanding to do so. I believe they already have the capacity to. So there is no “not under my roof” or “only if…” for me. I want my children to understand the decision they’re making when they make it and be able and willing to live with the consequences. Which I do believe is something that’s distinct from both sides that Schalet presents.
Post link
I find Cancian’s analysis to be very helpful and insightful in understanding the transition of values with regards to love and how it’s been heavily influenced by government and economics. In particular, it’s funny to note that even within the Protestant religion, the argument about what marriage looks like has shifted in response to cultural values, and used as justification for both dual responsibility as well as separate responsibility (cultural toolbox indeed). But because I personally remain convinced that some models are better than others, I do feel like there can be some objectivity about what we should be striving towards. Cancian leans towards interdependence and androgynous love, and I think I agree but it’s also true that I think it’s the best option available now. I wonder if earlier models were “better” in the sense of actually being more natural.
Certainly there is more “freedom” of expression, but the question with openness and liberty should be tapered with questions of “liberation FROM what?” and “liberation TO what?” I’m grateful that Cancian states first and foremost that she is focused on middle class love, because in all honesty, androgynous love and interdependence are not always possible in certain economic situations. There is a shocking number of children in single-parent households. How does love work in that circumstance? Does it even? I know that her focus is on couples, but there are so many different living situations where people still have to create their own definitions and constructions of love, and I’d be interested in knowing how her analysis can give us insight into those situations.
Even among couples though, there is so much pressure on women to have a career, to want to be more than “just mothers.” More than just “dependent”. I don’t think that’s right either. While liberation from role constraints is “freeing” in one sense, it also adds pressure to individuals to “make the right choice” and places the burden of responsibility on them. Your happiness is on your own shoulders. That’s the message we’re given. In that situation, I almost prefer more traditional models, where your parents find a suitable candidate for your marriage. The Chinese drama that I mentioned in my last post is an interesting twist on that, where two mixed-up arranged marriages actually lead to romantic love. But what creates companionate love? Isn’t it generally pursuing the same goals? In Fiddler on the Roof, there’s a scene towards the end, I believe, when the couple tries to figure out if they “love” each other. And the conclusion is that they do, clearly, because they’ve done life together.
Am I sanctioning girls being sold into marriage? No, but maybe? I’m just saying, is that really such an awful system as we believe? Or is it solely because we have learned to value SEX as an individual’s prerogative? That they should decide who their partner(s) is/are? I’m not condoning rape at all, but I am arguing that if people truly believe that sex is simply for procreation, then why does it matter if young girls are having sex. Personally, this is not my perspective on sex, but if this is the value our culture places on sex, it seems interesting that we think about it in this way. But that’s a separate issue…
I think the problem in society is less that women should be this or love should be this or whatever. Rather, I think it’s the fact that we claim to value one thing but actually praise another. We praise love yet we condemn the feminine. That’s the real issue. I like if we embraced the feminine in society (since EQ is actually extremely important to business), there would be a greater equalization period. But that’s probably just because I’m feminist.
Plato suggested the theory of complementarity, wherein opposites are necessary to define each other. In that sense I agree that we need both “masculine” and “feminine” love and roles and that they should be fluid and flexible. But I also wonder if there’s a better classification than by gender. Rather than using terms like androgynous, I think the idea of the 5 Love Languages is much more useful (even though I still don’t think it’s all encapsulating).
