Be heard on the issues that matter most to you!
A few days ago, on her blog, the inimitable Mistress Matisse described her and her partner's BDSM play as "anarchist kink," meaning the typical dom/sub hierarchies don't really apply in their play. (Things are different with her clients, I'm sure.) In other words, as she writes, they switch a lot and are very kinky. Later she posted some video of some friends of hers that "take it to another level."
So, what do you think of anarchist kink as a concept? Some would say BDSM is anarchistic by nature, or at minimum subversive, a obvious rebuke to traditional social institutions and mores. Those who try BDSM realize that it's actually incredibly formal, as freaksexual has written, a level of intense formalization that says a lot about power in society and raises interesting questions about consensual power play.
What are the implications of kink that flies the black flag? I don't think Matisse was intending a political statement, btw, but as BDSM players often seem, to me, to reproduce a lot of troubling social constructs (although freaksexual sees in this reproduction progressive and regressive possibilities) in fairly unreflective way, I like the idea of play dedicated to *not* formalizing, to *not* endowing the other with your authority, to *not* seeking the norm and the new master, just like the old master.
RC McCloud also writes at The Safe Word
What a great forum topic, RC! Thanks for posting it!
I don't have a lot of time to write a long response now, and I'm actually very curious to know what others thing, but I can say that I, myself, identify with the idea of 'anarchistic kink,' thoough I don't think I'd have chosen that phrase to describe it. I'd have chosen something that suggested "flexibility" more than "no rules."
Part of what is so intriguing to me about BDSM play is, in fact, the codification of roles and rules. But I very much like to push the boundaries of rules and to change roles with some frequency.
I've got to get back to some work, but I'll definitely check in on this thread later. I'd love to read what others have to say!
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
I think the safest way to approach this subject is to say that BDSM, like anything else, has liberating and oppressive possibilities.
For instance, I really try to avoid the "Your kink is not okay," thing, but goddamned if there aren't some people in the kink community who creep me out. I'm a little disturbed by het guys who are exclusively tops, for instance. I think that most liberating, subversive experiences come from transgressing boundaries and experimenting with new roles, rather than finding one and sticking with it. Curiosity, not education, is the key to genius, and I think that applies to kink as well as more intellectual pursuits. And frankly, I find that a lot of kink folk have an unimaginative, humorless streak that borders on puritanism.
What's really lovely about the videos that Mistress Matisse shows on her site is the sense of raunchy humor which is often completely suppressed by the nature of rigid roles, either gendered roles or "power play" roles. Sex is too important to take seriously. That might sound glib, but it's true.
So in short, I really like what Mistress Matisse is talking about here, in the sense of giving and taking power in a fluid way. I think that it transgresses an awful lot of what we're frequently taught both in vanilla culture and in kink groups.
Blog: Literate Perversions
“Writing is like prostitution. First you do it for love, and then for a few close friends, and then finally y
There's an interesting post on figleaf's Real Adult Sex this morning about being "half-bound." It's part of his half-nekked Thursday series, but I thought the questionsort of fit in here where we're tlaking about challenging the "typical" rules of BDSM play.
Check it out. Leave comments. Come back. Discuss. :)
Note: Most of the comments so far are comments on the photo he posted, but one commenter talks about the eroticism of "playing it both ways," which seems to fit neatly into our discussion. Anyway, just thought it might be a good link.
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
Thanks for the comments. We can always count on figleaf for a fresh, erudite angle on a question. I do think there many ways to play and there will be creepy ones, and exciting ones, and liberating ones, and oppressive ones. I posted this thread because "anarchy kink" got me thinking about this site (SitPS) and my own conviction that sex does belong in the public square in some ways, and that I want to push against the cultural and legal frameworks that insist on it being private or contained (within particular expressions in the commercial sphere)...but also my experience among sex-pos/kink/bdsm types that often display a kind of libertarian attitude: to each his own, your kinks okay-my kinks okay, stay out of my business, I'll stay out of yours, etc. This doesn't really work for me either, though I hesitate to say state it so baldly. (I also feel like I have to give the caveat that 95% of my experience has been in Texas, so factor that in.) But, does the whole sex-pos project suffer (or even work) if the practices of public discourse and engagement aren't there? Is there a relation at all?
I think the anarchist rejection of representation is connected here - the people that matter are the people in the room, the people that show up. A lot of people find that pretty naive as a way of organizing a society, but it fits the BDSM ethos - you have to show up, communicate, put your self out there. There's a widespread assumption that this is happening whenever kinky people are playing. I hope so. But we don't know, really. Is that a problem for"sex in the public square"?
ps - I'm traveling for a few days sans computer. I'll catch up with you fine folks later...
RC McCloud also writes at The Safe Word
...because public space really matters!
Elizabeth
