I have posted a copy of Between BDSM and the DSM: The Relationship of BDSM and Psychology, By: Doron Mosenzon (Instructed by: Dr. Otniel Dror) Seminar Paper for the Course “Gender and Science” 2013-14.
You can read the full paper at: https://goo.gl/HK3r1F
Dominant
Views in Psychology and Psychiatry
What
is Sexual Deviance?
Early
Sexology and the Creation of the Deviant
"Sex and sexuality
were always an inflammatory subject, and every religion, ideology, and
discipline has an interest in the way people relate and operate with their
sexuality. More specifically, trying to decide what sexual acts and dispositions
are “normal”, “healthy”, “natural”, and “moral” is an important part of any
philosophy or area of study that deals with human sexuality.
That which lies
beyond the lines of “normal” and “healthy” sexuality is the perverse. Delineating
the normal and acceptable sexual expressions in contrast to those which are
unacceptable and deviant creates a “hierarchy of sexual values”, which tends to
have a moral accent (Weeks, 2003:70) - more explicitly so in religious and
political fields, and more subtly in scientific accounts. Masturbation,
homosexuality, rape, pedophilia, and others all had been marked and
investigated at one period or another as harmful, immoral, and unnatural sexual
perversions that are important concerns for the population’s health and moral
hygiene.
The second half of
the 19th century is an important turning point in our relation with
sexual perversions, as a shift was made in the modern western world from
viewing sexuality and sexual deviance from a Christian religious perspective of
morality and immorality, sin, and acts against god to a more scientific medical
view that tries to distinguish between normality and pathology, health and
sickness (Schaffner, 2011:3-5).
The new field of
sexology was the main arena where these inquiries took place. Since its
inception with the publication of Krafft-Ebing’s “Psychopathia Sexualis” in
1886 sexology has obsessed over the causes, prevalence, and harm of all the
various sexual perversions, from bestiality to transvestism, in sharp contrast
to “normal” sexuality, which was not investigated as vehemently as its
abnormalities (Weeks, 2003:70-71). Not dissimilar from the religious discourse
of sexual perversity, sexology saw the perverted as a dangerous force both
socially and medically, as “viruses of the social corps- polluting its national
strength and purity” (Schaffner, 2011:8-9).
Krafft-Ebing, as one
of founders of the new science of sexology, had an enormous influence on the
way we view sexual deviance to this day. He was the first to systematically
define the phenomena of homosexuality, fetishism, voyeurism, sadism, masochism,
and many others (ibid., pg. 2), and his “Psychopathia Sexualis” marked the
shift between understanding sexual perversion as a consequence of weak will or
defective biology but rather as a fundamental psychological component of the
pervert’s personality and being (De Block and Adriaens, 2013:280). Importantly,
Krafft-Ebing’s view shifted the role of the pervert from a sinner or a criminal
to that of a patient. Sexology, as a science, tries to understand and research
abnormal sexual behaviors so that they may be controlled or even cured. This
view, even with the sexologists’ advocating of a usually empathic and benevolent
treatment of the perverts, easily translates for the wider community as
positioning the sexual deviants as dangerous and contemptible others
(Schaffner, 2011:12-13).
Later sexologists
like Magnus Hirschfeld, Havelock Ellis, and Iwan Bloch, have tried to downplay
the harmful aspects of sexual pathology. Even though they saw sexual normalcy
as procreative (and thus penetrative, heterosexual, and coupled), they viewed
sexual activities that didn’t conform to the natural procreative urge to be
relatively harmless, and though these early sexologists’ explanations of sexual
abnormality were mainly as hereditary biological traits, they did not view them
as degenerative and dangerous to civilization or society (De Block and
Adriaens, 2013:283-284).
Freud
An innovative and
influential view of sexual perversion was provided in the early 20th
century by the father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud. Freud differs
dramatically from the sexological explanations of perversions that focused on
biological and hereditary causes as he viewed early childhood as the major site
for the development of sexual perversion (Schaffner, 2011:138). Even more
radically, he suggested that “perversions, far from being the unique property
of a sick or immoral minority, are the common property of us all” (Weeks,
2003:72).
In his view, the
child begins in a state of polymorphous perversity and innate bisexuality, from
which both a normative and a pathological adult sexuality may develop (De Block
and Adriaens, 2013:282). A successful process of socialization will result in
the child becoming a healthy sexual individual and abandon the perversities of
childhood by means of repression and sublimation. This achievement is by no
means stable and static, and is part of a conflictual process of restriction
that generates neurosis (Dollimore, 1991:175-177). This process of maturation
and abandoning the polymorphous perversities of childhood is akin to a grander
civilizing process of the entire human race that shifted from primitive
promiscuity to reproductive monogamous heterosexuality- hence positioning the
latter as preferable, healthy, and mature (Weeks, 2003:74).
But sexual
perversity sometimes does persist into the adult’s life, as they deviate from
the reproductive act of copulation. Freud differentiated between those
perversions that deviate from the natural sexual object (A mature person of the
opposite sex)- which include homosexuality, bestiality, and pedophilia, and
those that deviate from the natural sexual goal (penetration and
procreation)-which include those that focus on non-procreative regions of the
body such as fetishism, anal sex, and oral sex, and those that linger on
activities that may be precursory to genital penetration such as sadomasochism,
voyeurism, or frotteurism (Schaffner, 2011:139-140).
It is important to note
the subversive power that Freud attributed to sexual perversions. The sexual
repression of infantile perverse sexuality is a staple of modern civilization
and is paramount to its stability and social order, yet sexual deviance continues
to reappear and threaten the organization of normative and civilized sexuality
on which the social order depends (Dollimore, 1991:180-181). The pressure for
suppression of sexual instincts may actually intensify and produce deviant and
perverse sexuality that undermines mainstream sexual morality and social
institutions like marriage (ibid., pg. 186-187). Perversity, therefore, is
inescapable: “No healthy person, it appears, can fail to make some addition
that might be called perverse to the normal sexual aim” (Freud, cited in Weeks,
2003:72).
The
DSM
As psychology and
psychiatry became more widespread, organized and institutionalized, a need
arose to create uniform and standardized disease categorizes for the purposes
of diagnosis, treatment, and research. The “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders” (DSM) published by the American Psychiatric Association is
perhaps the most influential international document devoted to the clinical
description of the various mental illnesses (De Block and Adriaens,
2013:284-285).
Since the first
edition of the DSM from 1952 it has featured sexuality related disorders. In
the DSM-I they were classified as part of the “sociopathic personality
disturbances”, charting “sexual deviance” as disorder of the personality and
using the language of “deviation” from “some implicitly understood norm”
(Hinderliter, 2010:242-243). The DSM-II from 1968 created a separate category
for the “sexual deviations” and listed eight ones in particular: homosexuality,
fetishism, pedophilia, transvestism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, sadism, and
masochism. They were set aside other “non-psychotic mental disorders” such as
alcoholism and were divided into those who describe sexual interest toward
objects that are not people of the opposite sex, toward sexual acts not
associated with coitus, or toward coitus under “bizarre” circumstances (De
Block and Adriaens, 2013:286-287).
The DSM-III from
1980 marked an important shift from etiological approaches to diagnosis (fueled
from the psychoanalytic tradition) that try to search for the causes of the
various mental disorders to a more symptomatic approach that focuses on the
consequences of the condition (fueled by the growing biological psychiatric
approach). Relatedly, an attempt was made for the first time to define what
mental disorder actually is, and the definition was based on two major criteria:
the subjective distress and the functional impairment it causes to the sufferer
(ibid., pg. 289). This definition aided the historical removal of homosexuality
from the DSM: “since many homosexual individuals were socially functional and
not distressed by their homosexuality, homosexuality per se was not a mental
disorder” (Hinderliter, 2010:244).
And yet, most other “sexual deviations” reappeared
under the new name of “paraphilias”, which are defined as conditions in which
“unusual or bizarre imagery or acts are necessary for sexual excitement”
(American Psychiatric Association, 1980:266) and that are “characterized by arousal
in response to sexual objects or situations that are not part of normative arousal-activity
patterns and that in varying degrees may interfere with the capacity for
reciprocal affectionate sexual activity” (ibid., pg. 261), even though many of
the actual diagnostic criteria for the specific paraphilias do not align with
these general definitions as they mostly required that the paraphilic object be
repeatedly preferred for sexual excitement (Hinderliter, 2010:247). The revised
version of the DSM-III even changed the criteria for paraphilias so that
“according to the DSM-III-R some urges and fantasies needed only to be acted
upon to indicate disorder” (De Block and Adriaens, 2013:291), even without the
presence of distress.
The view presented in the first four editions of
the DSM simply assumes that normophilic (non-paraphilic) sexual desire and
behavior involves positive affection, intimacy, and reciprocity in contrast to
paraphilic desire and behavior, even though this assumption is not empirically
grounded and relates to a certain ideal of sexuality rather than any specific
behavior (Steward, 2012).
The current, fifth edition of the DSM has
differentiated between a “paraphilia”, which is “any sexual interest greater
than or equal to normophilic sexual interests” that is not pathological by
itself, and a “paraphilic disorder” which is “a paraphilia that is currently
causing distress or impairment to the individual or a paraphilia that had
entailed personal harm or risk of harm, to others” (American Psychiatric
Association, 2013:685-686). This distinction helps “emphasize that nonnormative
sexuality need not necessarily be a mental disorder” (De Block and Adriaens,
2013:293), even though the criterions for distress and impairment are
problematic as will be discussed in the next chapter.
Sadism
and Masochism in Psychiatric Writing
Alongside
perversions like homosexuality and exhibitionism, two of the most discussed
sexual abnormalities were sadism (sexual pleasure by means of inflicting pain
and humiliation) and masochism (sexual pleasure by means of receiving pain and
humiliation). Even though practices eroticizing pain and humiliation are
present in many parts of human history and across many cultures, both western
and non-western, it is only with the emergence of the sexological science that they
have started to attract attention from the medical professions and the general
public (Taylor, 2002:108-109). Both in literature and popular culture and in
psychology and psychiatry from the sexological writings of Krafft-Ebing to the
latest edition of the DSM we can find attempts to describe and explain both
sadism and masochism.
Sadism
and Masochism in Early Sexology
Both terms were
coined and popularized in their sexual context by Krafft-Ebing in his
“Psychopathia Sexualis”. The origins of the terms stem from two historical
writers of the 18th and 19th century: Leopold Ritter von
Sacher-Masoch, who wrote the novel “Venus in Furs” which featured themes of his
submission, humiliation, and pain inflicted by a mistress he is infatuated
with, and the Marquis de Sade, who wrote many stories and essays depicting
sexual cruelty and violence in a shocking and pornographic manner (Weinberg,
2006:18).
Krafft-Ebing’s
theory of masochism and sadism was inherently gendered: he viewed it as
intensification of the normal (hetero)sexual tendencies of men and women
(Weeks, 2003:88), sadism being a pathologically intensified masculine
character, and masochism as an intensification of the feminine sexual character
(Beckmann, 2001:67). A gendered view of sadomasochism was also taken up by
Magnus Hirschfield, who viewed male sadism and female masochism as simply an
escalation of normal sexuality, while the male masochist and female sadist were
sexual inverts that switch between the appropriate gender roles of masculinity
and femininity and “become complete metaphoric deviations from normality”
(Taylor, 2002:110).
This approach to
sadism and masochism is part of a larger tendency among the early sexologists
to create an image of normal sexuality that rests upon essentialist assumptions
of appropriate heterosexuality, masculinity, and femininity (Schaffner,
2011:17). Krafft-Ebing and his associates’ explanations of sadomasochism
suffered from the same biological reductionism and hereditary explanations as
most of their other depictions of sexual deviance, and have been shown to lack
empirical grounding having been based only on clinical and forensic populations
of patients and criminals (Taylor, 2002:109), in addition to being soaked with
a moralistic Victorian outlook with a very specific view on what consists
normal, natural, and mature sexuality. Even though, their ideas have had a
great impact on our contemporary views and understandings of sadism and
masochism (Beckmann, 2001:67; Weinberg, 2006:18).
Freud
and Sadomasochism
For Freud, Sadism
and Masochism have a special place in the exploration of sexual perversions as
he viewed them as the most common and most significant of them all. In a way
quite similar to the early sexologists, he viewed sadism as an exaggeration of
the aggressive aspect of sexuality, while masochism was sadism whose object
became the self, even though he didn’t necessarily connect this to gender roles
and sexual expectations. Interestingly, Freud saw sadism and masochism as undividable,
as all sadists are also masochists and all masochists are sadists, with one
side of the sadomasochistic tendency simply more prominent and developed than
the other (Schaffner, 2011:140).
Another important
area where Freud’s exploration of sadomasochism differs from his predecessors
is in his etiological explanation of the phenomenon. While Krafft-Ebing and
Hirschfield ascribed to hereditary models of explanation, Freud focused on the
way early childhood experiences can cause sadomasochistic inclinations in an
adult. As described above, Freud saw sexual perversity as a quintessential
aspect of childhood which is repressed in the process of maturation by the
cultural principals of shame and disgust (Dollimore, 1991:179-180).
More specifically,
Freud explained sadism and masochism through his instinctual theories of the
pleasure instinct (that which seeks pleasure and gratification) and the death
instinct (that which seeks self-destruction). According to Freud,
“primary sadism and
masochism represent neurotic distortions of instinctual drives resulting from
regression or fixation, due to unresolved Oedipal conflicts, to a pre-Oedipal
anal-sadistic stage of sexuality” (Taylor, 2002:111)
The origin of
deviant sexuality such as that of a sadomasochist can be found, in Freud’s
conceptualization, in certain experiences of early childhood that could have
possibly sabotaged his progression into normal and civilized sexuality due to a
certain fusion between the pleasure and death instincts (ibid.). This idea
regarding the origin of sexual psychopathology in general and sadomasochism
specifically still echoes today, as some researchers view sadists and
masochists as victims of childhood abuse that has caused them to deviate from
sexual normality and implant them with feelings of guilt and rage with a lack
of boundaries between themselves and others (Weinberg, 2006:18-19).
Sexual
Sadism and Masochism in the DSM
As described above,
the first two editions of the DSM only featured general descriptions of sexual
deviation, and though the DSM-II had specific subdivisions for the most common
sexual disorders- including sadism and masochism- they did not have any
specific diagnostic or clinical information (American Psychiatric Association,
1968:44).
The DSM-III broke
from this tradition and devotes a section for each of the “psychosexual
disorders”, including sexual masochism (sexual excitement from the individual’s
own suffering) and sexual sadism (sexual excitement from the infliction of
physical or psychological suffering on another). Both diagnosis require either
that the sadomasochistic activities be the preferred or exclusive means of
sexual excitement- demanding not just sadomasochistic fantasies but behavior,
or that the activity has caused serious bodily injury in order to achieve
sexual excitement. Sexual sadism may also be diagnosed if it was done on a non-consenting
partner (American Psychiatric Association, 1980:273-275).
In strike contrast
to the aforementioned attempt to base mental illness classification on distress
and dysfunction, the diagnosed sexual sadist or masochist need not feel
distressed about their sexual activities and preferences, and they may
similarly be perfectly functional. The reasons given for this inclusion is that
having a paraphilia was considered by itself an impairment in social
functioning, as it was assumed that sadist, masochists, and the like could not
possibly achieve mutual affectionate relationships (De Block and Adriaens,
2013:290), even though there is no empirical reason to believe that masochists
will have more difficulties in their interpersonal relationships than
normophilic people (Stewart, 2012).
The fourth edition
of the DSM added a criterion to all paraphilias including sexual sadism and
masochism, which requires that the individual be distressed or functionally
impaired by their paraphilic sexual urges. In both descriptions it is the
possible harm of the actions that raises the most alarm and attention- the
section on masochism describes “hypoxyphilia” (sexual arousal through breath
control) as a major example of the dangers of sexual masochism, and the section
on sadism had the situation of a sadist acting on their urges with a non-consenting
partner as the potential dangerous outcome of the disorder (American
Psychiatric Association, 2000:572-574). But besides these extreme examples, it
is not clear why or how sexual sadism and masochism may cause distress or
impairment in the individual.
In the current
edition of the manual, both diagnoses were retained despite evidence that
sadomasochism can occur in perfectly functioning and mentally healthy parts of
the population (described in depth in the next chapter), due to the small
number of cases of sexual masochism that do result in severe harm, the
prevalence of sexual sadism in offender populations, and to facilitate further
research (Krueger 2010a; 2010b).
Thus, the diagnostic
criteria for both sexual sadism and masochism were left as is from the last
edition of the DSM, while the description that followed was slightly altered.
With the DSM-V’s differentiation between paraphilias and paraphilic disorders there
is an attempt to make more explicit the difference between unusual sexual
interest and a mental disorder (De Block and Adriaens, 2013:293), and
consequently the descriptions of both disorders state more explicitly what
distress may entail, and that without it the diagnosis cannot be made. They
also state that they apply to individuals that freely admit to their paraphilic
interests, with the exception of a sadist with a non-consenting victim. Such a
sadist need not profess any sexually sadistic fantasies or distress regarding
sexual assault, theoretically allowing any sexual assailant to be diagnosed as
a “non-admitting sexual sadist”. Another interesting addition of note is that
the DSM-V admits that knowledge about the prevalence, development, and
functional consequences of sexual sadism or masochism are scant (American
Psychiatric Association, 2013:694-697).
We can see through
this rough sketch how the clinical approach in psychology and psychiatry to
sadism and masochism has shifted slightly over the years, and yet they still
seem to retain their status as pathological and deviant to normal and healthy
sexual desire and behavior, even against challenging both from within and from
without the medical community, which we will explore in the following chapter.
Challenging
the Dominant Paradigm
Challenges
From Within the Psychological Disciplines
Assessing
the Psychology of BDSMers
As noted, most of
the psychological and psychiatric theories of sadomasochism were not based on
empirical research, but rather on literary representations and clinical or
criminal populations that cannot represent the entire community of
practitioners, and are therefore based on unchallenged assumptions regarding
sadomasochists’ well-being and psychological functioning (Taylor, 2002:116). A
few recent studies have tries to fill this empirical blind spot to better
understand and help people who engage in sadomasochistic, and more broadly BDSM
activities.
The prevalence of
BDSM activities is tricky to measure. Kinsey’s famous (yet empirically
problematical) study in the 1950s found a very high rate of people that were
aroused by sadomasochistic stories (24 percent of men and 12 percent of women),
while studies from the 1970s found between 2 to 4 percent that enjoyed
inflicting or receiving pain, bondage, or master-slave sexual role-play (ibid.,
pg. 108-109). Two more recent studies found that approximately 2 percent of the
population have participated in BDSM activities or have used pain in a sexual
context, while another study found that relatively large numbers (16 percent of
men and 12 percent of women) agree that pain and pleasure “go together” in sex,
though this does not necessarily imply any actual sadomasochistic activities
(Santtila et al., 2006:22; Wismeijer and van Assen, 2013:1944).
The persistent
pathologization of sadism and masochism would imply that people who engage in
BDSM behaviors should have psychopathological traits and behaviors. Yet when
assessed, studies have found that sadists are not antisocial or psychopathic
and masochists are not more prone to mental instability and disorders or
engaging in escapist behaviors (Cross and Matheson, 2006:145-147), that BDSMers
do not have anxious or avoidant attachment styles (Wismeijer and van Assen,
2013:1948) or clinically significant levels of neuroticism, psychoticism, or
obsessional characteristics (Taylor, 2002:117), they are not more depressed,
anxious, borderline, or obsessive-compulsive than the general population, and
have lower trauma related phenomena and paranoia (though they do appear to have
higher narcissistic and dissociative features) (Connolly, 2006:94-100), and are
generally well adjusted (Santtila et al., 2006:22). It seems that BDSM
practitioners do not have a higher propensity for psychopathological traits
despite the dominant psychoanalytic and psychiatric explanations and theories
about the nature of sadomasochism.
Another important
finding is that most BDSMers continue to engage in non-BDSM sexual activities
(only 5 percent do not), though some report that they are only satisfied by
sadomasochistic sex (Weinberg, 2006:21; Santtila et al., 2006:24). This data
undermines the ideas concerning the definition of paraphilia as the necessary
or exclusive path to sexual arousal, which would warrant much higher numbers of
BDSMers that do not engage in non-BDSM sex. It also negates theories that would
assume that sadomasochistic tendencies would cause sexual dysfunction and hurt the
ability to function in a “normal” sexual scenario.
BDSM activities are
not generally associated with higher levels of distress or sexual difficulties
(Wismeijer and van Assen, 2013:1944), and almost all of the practitioners had a
positive emotional reaction to their first sadomasochistic sexual experience,
as they wanted to do it again, felt happy, and stated that the experience was
good. Interestingly, about one fourth of the practitioners in the sample also
reported negative reactions to their first SM experience such as guilt, fear
for the future, or feeling troubled (Santtila et al., 2006:25).
This may show us the
ambivalent relation between distress and BDSM activities. Though a significant
amount of BDSMers reported negative feelings along with positive ones, we must
ponder whether feelings such as guilt or fear for the future are elicited due
to the nature of the activity itself or the harsh social stigma and taboos that
are attached to it. The previously mentioned studies that do not find a link
between BDSM sex and psychological distress or pathology would support such a
hypothesis. Additionally, many BDSMers are shown to be secretive about their
sexual habits due to fear of job loss, child custody issues, and harm in
interpersonal relationships (Meeker, 2011:156), which undoubtedly might cause
feelings of emotional distress concerning their sexual behavior (as will be
expanded upon below).
It should be noted
that BDSMers have scored better than the general population on attachment
styles, openness to experience, conscientiousness, subjective well-being
(Wismeijer and van Assen, 2013:1948-1949), intelligence, and imagination (Taylor,
2002:118), while scoring lower than the general population on trauma related
phenomena, paranoia (Connolly, 2006:96-100), neuroticism, and rejection
sensitivity (Wismeijer and van Assen, 2013:1949). These results may point to
ways in which BDSM activities or identity might not only be harmless, but also
be helpful to one’s psychological health. Although, as stated above, the same
studies show that BDSMers may also have more narcissistic traits and
dissociative features (Connolly, 2006:98, 100), along with lower agreeableness
(Wismeijer and van Assen, 2013:1949).
Concerning gender
differences, most studies find slightly more men than women that practice BDSM
(ibid., pg. 1946; Cross and Matheson, 2006:139; Meeker, 2011:155; Richters et
al., 2008:1662), and that there is a significant amount of LGBT practitioners
of BDSM (ibid., pg. 1663; Connolly, 2006:89; Cross and Matheson, 2006:143-144),
which can be explained by the prominent leather and BDSM gay and lesbian
subcultures (Langdridge, 2006:302). In general, the studies also find strong
and significant connections between gender, sexuality, and BDSM role- most tend
to find that more women prefer the submissive role while more men prefer the
dominant role (Wismeijer and van Assen, 2013:1947; Connolly, 2006:89), and
there is a higher proportion of dominants\sadists among gays and lesbians in
contrast to heterosexuals (Santtila et al., 2006:28).
Sexual orientation
also appears to affect preferences of sexual activities: gay men emphasized
BDSM practices that have been coded as relating to hypermasculinity, such as
rimming, fisting, enemas, or water sports, in addition to other activities that
might be viewed as masculine like uniform scenes and wrestling. Straight men,
on the other hand, preferred practices that have been coded as related to
humiliation, such as verbal humiliation, gagging, and flagellation, in addition
to activities like cross-dressing or rubber outfits that downplay the masculine
aspects of sexual practice. The pain-related practices of BDSM were more
intense and real for gay men while they were more symbolic for heterosexual men
and for women (such as the increased use of flagellation and humiliation)
(ibid., pg. 29-30; Weinberg, 2006:23).
These correlations
certainly show that gender roles play a significant role in BDSM, just as they
do in non-BDSM sexuality, as we see that women are relatively more inclined to
take submissive and masochistic roles while men tend to take more dominant and
sadistic roles, similar to societal expectations of female and male sexuality.
The fact that gay men were more involved in practices that emphasized
masculinity than straight men may be because both groups use BDSM as a means of
escaping their effeminate and masculine sexual gender roles. Though this may clash
with the aforementioned preference of dominance among male BDSMers. Further
demographic studies about BDSM, gender, and sexuality may help provide a
clearer view of this issue.
Arguments
for Depathologization
These empirical
inquiries to the psychological nature and characteristics of BDSMers that have
shown that their functioning and well-being is usually high and healthy, in
addition to more theoretical critical arguments regarding the place of
paraphilias in psychiatry, have fueled an attempt to remove sadism and
masochism (and the paraphilia category more broadly) from the DSM.
Such a move to do
away with the category of paraphilia has a number of practical and theoretical
reasons behind it: classifying certain sexual behaviors as pathological can
cause bias and discrimination in legal contexts (Moser, 2009:323; Weinberg,
2006:31-32), therapeutic contexts (Kolmes et al., 2006:303-304), and can more
generally cause the individual to be stigmatized and shamed (Moser and
Kleinplatz, 2005:92; Meeker, 2011:158-159), sometimes to the point of violence
(ibid.). On a more theoretical level, including certain sexual behaviors as
pathological (or potentially pathological) while excluding others reinforces an
imagined boundary between what is normal sexual behavior and what is deviant
(Hinderliter, 2010:259; Stewart, 2012).
Just because an
activity is dangerous, painful, or illegal does not warrant its inclusion as a
mental disorder (Moser and Kleinplatz, 2005:95), and that carries over to the field
of sexual behavior. Similarly to extreme sports that might cause harm or even
death, sadism and masochism need not be viewed as an indication of mental
instability or dysfunction. The whole concept of dysfunction that is part of
the definition of mental illness according to the DSM-V is problematical:
“A mental disorder is a
syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s
cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the
psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental
functioning” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013:20)
The idea of what
constitutes “functional” psychological, biological, and developmental processes
is hard to disentangle from cultural norms and social values (Singy,
2010:1231). Can we truly say that becoming aroused from pain or humiliation is
a universally wrong and dysfunctional trait, despite its potential harmlessness
and historical ubiquity in human culture, rather than being something that is simply
socially unacceptable and deviant from sexual norms (Taylor, 2002:108)?
Continuing to include paraphilias in the DSM as has been suggested (and later
accepted) by the paraphilia workgroup for the DSM-V transforms “psychiatrists
into the guardians of cultural values. The pathological would simply be
whatever society deems bizarre and morally unacceptable” (Singy, 2010:1232).
While a person’s
sexual interests and activities can be related to mental problems, these can be
tied to an expression of another disorder rather than a problem of the sexual
interest itself. If someone is obsessed or addicted to a certain sexual
behavior, it is an obsessive or addictive disorder, not a sexual disorder
(Moser, 2009:323). And most individuals who have “deviant” sexual interests
can, and do, control their sexual behavior, including BDSMers who, as we have
seen, have no more psychological dysfunctions than the general population.
For example, if a
sadist hurts others due to their being psychopathic or antisocial, it is a
problem of psychopathy or antisociality, not a problem of sexuality which is
simply the medium of expression for these psychopathological characteristics
(Hinderliter, 2010:258-259). The paraphilias do not represent a unique type of
dysfunction, and “just having an unusual sexual interest is not pathological anymore
than having an unusual hair color is” (Moser, 2009:324).
Regarding the second
component of mental disorder, that of distress, the DSM itself acknowledges
that distress regarding paraphilias is rare and the problematic aspects of
sexual behavior and interests usually comes to the fore when it clashes with
societal norms that are expressed by their environment, family, and partners.
The extensive stigma, isolation, and discrimination of those with non-normative
sexual interests can also cause distress, but that should not cause the
individual to be diagnosed with mental illness. Such a diagnosis has more
chances of causing more distress than alleviating it (Moser and Kleinplatz,
2005:100-101), and serves to reinforce the behavior’s status as deviant and
pathological and thus less deserving of equal rights and treatment in everyday
life (Brouwers, 2011:16).
There seems to be a
difficulty defining what constitutes “healthy” versus “unhealthy” sexuality,
without falling into value judgments that simply categorize all non-normative
sexual practices as a priori pathological, while problems arising from
non-deviant sexual activities and interests are given a different, non-sexual
diagnosis and treatment (Moser and Kleinplatz, 2005:96). The DSM fails to apply
its own criteria for mental disorders to the paraphilias (Brouwers, 2011:15).
Thus, the DSM and
the psychological professions hang on to certain idealistic views of “pure” and
“correct” sexual behavior, namely one that is procreative, heterosexual, and
genital-centric (Stewart, 2012; Moser, 200:324) - which effectively reinforces
the constructed boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable sexual modes of
expression and identity by positioning the paraphiliac, in this case the sadist
and the masochist, as pathological others to the unnamed normative sexual
person (Brouwers, 2011:18-20).
We must remember
that the processes of pathologization and depathologization are not simply
objective scientific advancements but rather social constructions inspired by
political, economic, and cultural factors, and that the field of psychiatry
serves as a major locus of social control that defines the “normal” and the
“deviant” forms of thought and expression (Taylor, 2002:120). Sexuality always
has been and always will be political, but the use of “objective” scientific
terminology and discourse obscures these moral and political aspects (Weeks,
2003:90).
These problematic
constructions of the paraphilic disorders in the DSM and in psychiatry in
general, combined with numerous factual errors regarding prevalence,
demographics, and potential for injury or harm (Moser and Kleinplatz,
2005:103-105) lead a significant group of psychologists, psychiatrists, and
sociologists to call for the removal of the category of paraphilia from the DSM
in order to help those with non-normative sexual interests like BDSMers to be
treated in a nonpathological light and to help end their discrimination in
legal, professional, and interpersonal settings (ibid., pg. 106-107;
Hinderliter, 2010:256-261; Singy, 2010).
BDSM-Conscious
Therapy
Trying to put these
critical understandings about BDSM and its problematical place in psychology, a
few researchers and therapists have tried to examine ways to help BDSM clients
in therapy by helping shift the attitude and informing more psychologists, social
workers, and psychiatrists about the correct way to deal with BDSM in the
context of therapy.
While in most cases
BDSM and sexual practices have no relation to the issues that bring clients to
therapy (Kolmes et al., 2006:312), there are many incidents where the therapist
may have a negative attitude towards BDSM practice, and consider it as
unhealthy, confuse it with abuse, or require the client to give it up in order
to continue treatment, and clients also tend to find themselves in situations
where they have to educate and explain to the therapist what BDSM is and why it
is harmless (ibid., pg. 314).
These attitudes stem
from misconceptions about BDSM: that it involves exploitation of the submissive
by the dominant; that it is not consensual; that it escalates to dangerous
extremes; that it is self-destructive; that it originates from childhood abuse
or other trauma; or that it serves as a mechanism of avoiding intimacy. All
these assumptions have been proven to be false and unfounded (Nichols, 2006:283-284).
Most texts and courses for therapists do not deal with BDSM or bother to
shatter these prevalent myths (Barker et al., 2007:112).
It is safe to assume
that some BDSM clients might hide this important aspect of their life from
their therapist due to this rational fear of being judged and shamed for their
sexual desires and activities. This can significantly harm long-term treatment
(Nichols, 2006:288). The stigma attached to BDSM can have immense negative
effects on therapy, as clients report almost equal amounts of negative and
positive responses (Kolmes et al., 2006:320; Hoff and Sprott, 2009), and thus
they cannot know what response they will get. Since negative responses can
cause termination of treatment or having the therapist adamantly try to “fix”
their BDSM orientation and/or present it as “sick”, “harmful”, or “immoral”,
many BDSM patients hide their sexuality from their therapist (ibid.).
But even beyond
theoretical misconceptions about the harm or nature of BDSM, many therapist who
are strangers to this sexual domain may have direct averse emotional reactions
to it as it can seem frightening and weird, and can cause the therapist to feel
shock, disgust, fear, and general discomfort (Nichols, 2006:286), even without
any judgments about the morality or harm of BDSM. Some have named this
“uncontrollable physical revulsion that includes no moral judgments” “being
squicked” (Nichols, 2011:28-29). Becoming “squicked” by the seemingly strange
sexual practices of the client can cause negative countertransference that
cause the therapist to be convinced that these behaviors are a sign of
self-destruction, low self-esteem, or any other speculative psychological
theorizing concerning the damaging causes and effects of BDSM (Nichols,
2006:286-287).
This phenomenon of
“squiking” can be fought by having the therapist try to fully understand what
it is in BDSM activities that might cause pleasure, even though it may seem at
first as painful and bizarre (Nichols, 2011:28-29). At the same time, the
therapist should learn how to distinguish between harmless and enjoyable BDSM
behavior and behavior that is abusive or problematic, by focusing on issues of
mutual enjoyment, consensually, compulsivity, and interference with everyday
functioning to correctly assess the potential harm of a situation and avoid
unnecessary blame, guilt, or even legal consequences (ibid., pg. 29-30;
Nichols, 2006:297-298). By using processes of self-reflection and relational
reflexivity the therapists can work beyond their preconceptions and prejudices
regarding sexuality to help better the treatment of BDSM clients and avoid the
negative consequences of these deeply imbedded biases (Barker et al.,
2007:117-119).
Another significant
area which should be considered in creating more helpful therapy for BDSM
clients is by connecting to the BDSM community. Many BDSMers are involved in a
BDSM organization and go to BDSM-related events to become part of a larger
community of fellow BDSMers, as well as acquiring relevant skills and seeking
personal relationships. Many cities as well as internet sites have groups
dedicated to BDSM and there is a wealth of educational books and websites
explaining the subject (Meeker, 2011:157-158). Connecting BDSM clients to these
resources, especially when the client is new to the world of BDSM and is only
now acknowledging their kinky sexual inclinations, can greatly alleviate the
prospective shame and self-hatred that may arise from having an interest in
non-normative sexual behaviors (Nichols, 2006:290-291). Support groups are an
important empowering tool to deal with social stigma and potential distress
regarding one’s BDSM orientation (Moser and Kleinplatz, 2005:100-101).
Awareness to these
possible pitfalls in therapy of BDSM clients can help therapists to develop
more beneficial attitudes and habits regarding such treatment: for example by
asking non-judgmental questions about BDSM, creating a BDSM friendly
environment in the therapeutic space, being open minded and accepting, helping
the patient overcome issues of shame and stigma, and being well informed about
BDSM practice and its complexity (Kolmes et al., 2006:317). This will aid the
institution of therapy overall, BDSMers who seek clinical aid regarding or
regardless of their sexual behavior, and help widen the acceptance of
non-normative sexual practices in the psychological fields.
Challenges
From Without Psychology: Pro-Sex Feminism
Challenges to the
dominant views on BDSM did not only come from within the psychological
disciplines. Feminists also had some important social criticisms regarding
BDSM. During the 1980s there were important and deep disputes and debates in
feminist circles regarding sex-related issues such as pornography, sex work,
lesbianism, and BDSM. According to the anti-pornography feminist camp, led by
figures like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon, male sexuality and
heterosexuality are based on unequal power relations that subordinate women and
keep men as the dominant gender. Thus, institutes like pornography and
prostitution are an unredeemable part of the larger exploitation of women in
the patriarchal system (Richardson et al., 2013:143-144).
Similarly, BDSM in
this view is just a ritualized version of the existing power relations between
men and women. It is a mere extension of heterosexuality in a more direct
fashion- “business as usual” (ibid.). It follows that according to the
anti-pornography school of thought BDSM is antifeminist and fundamentally
misogynistic as it celebrates the culture of violence towards women. Even if
the dominator is a women, BDSM subscribes to the patriarchal dogma of tying
degradation, pain, and unequal power relations to sex (Cross and Matheson,
2006:135-136), and eroticizes this tradition of gender hierarchy and control-
thus reinforcing it (Ritchie and Barker, 2005:3-4). Women who seek
sadomasochistic enjoyment are viewed as internalizing misogyny into self-hatred
to the point that they seek out their own abuse (ibid.).
The opposing camp of
the feminist sex wars is that of pro-sex feminism, whose primary spokespersons
included Pat Califia and Gayle Rubin, members of the lesbian-feminist BDSM
organization Samois. The connection to lesbian sexuality is important- the
figure of the lesbian, though accepted by the feminist National Organization of
Women, was highly desexualized by positioning it as affection-centered
“women-identified women”, rather than a woman who has libidinal impulses and
sexual desires towards women (and acts upon them!), which may be viewed as a
masculine property that mainstream feminists of the time wanted to abolish and
exile from their circles (Hart, 1998:40-43). This can also be seen
significantly in the panic regarding transsexual women, whose essential
biological masculinity had them barred from certain venues in feminist and
lesbian groups, such as the “Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival” (Hale, 1997:225).
This group of
feminists has a very different view of BDSM: they see it as a way to play with
power. BDSM is “ridiculing, undermining, exposing and destroying patriarchal
sexual power” (Ritchie and Barker, 2005:4). BDSM can challenge traditional
gender roles by having the woman be the ‘top’ and the man the ‘bottom’, or
having them switch between being dominating and dominated, while also deviating
from heteronormative sexual scripts that focus on penetration and reproduction
(Barker et al., 2007:110). BDSM involves a direct and open playing with notions
of power and power relations that turns power into a toy of pleasure rather
than a tool of oppression.
A paramount aspect
of the subversive power of BDSM that is constantly emphasized by pro-sex
feminists is that of choice. The fact that the sexual scenes in BDSM are
negotiated beforehand, that there are safewords to stop in case something is
unpleasant to one of the parties, and that one can choose and switch between
the position of dominant and submissive according to their preferences is
highly contrasted to heteronormative “vanilla” sexuality and violent sexual
assault in particular (Califia, 2000:171-173). Even if a woman chooses to
submit to a man, this may be an empowered choice that she does out of her free
will and with the aim of her sexual gratification (Ritchie and Barker,
2005:16-18). This idea is heavily repugnant to anti-pornography feminists who
see such “free and empowering choice” simply as women who are repressed and
need to be freed from their internalized oppression and ritualistic enslavement
(Hart, 1998:56-59).
The fact that people
can switch between roles in and between scenes, combined with the ability of
anyone to take on any role regardless of their gender, race, or sexual
orientation can dislodge fixed categories of sexuality and accentuate the
fluidity and performativity of sex and sexual desires (Barker et al.,
2007:110). BDSM and its plethora of roles and activities “reflect rich and
subtly nuanced embodiments of gender that resist and exceed and simply
categorization into female, male, woman, man, and thus into homosexual,
bisexual, or heterosexual” (Hale, 1997:223, original emphasis).
Another insight of
pro-sex feminism is breaking the myth that a submissive has no power and thus
is used and abused by the dominant partner. The BDSM scene is negotiated to
fulfill the desires and pleasures of all parties, and some even say that the
submissive effectively holds more power than the dominant (Ritchie and Barker,
2005:12-13), as the top must care for and nurture the bottom, be aware of their
limits and be attentive to their reactions (Hart, 1998:78-79). Yielding
yourself to another can be a process of healing and growth in an almost
therapeutic manner, as the top is the one who must assess and control the flow
of the scene, they do so only in accordance with the bottom’s needs (Califia,
2000:165-166). Being restricted and bound (both literally and metaphorically)
can allow the bottom to relieve their stress and responsibility and enter a
state of being taken care of and expressing vulnerability (Califia, 2002:387).
In sum, this branch
of pro-sex feminism views BDSM not as a part of a system of oppression, but
rather as a queer practice that can fight and weaken the heteronormative gender
hierarchy. BDSM’s manipulation, exaggeration, and parodying of power relations
do not strengthen but weaken them. Through this perspective, BDSM can thus
become a radical tool of sexual revolution.
BDSM
as Experience
A
Sexual Experience
When we examine the
experiences and narratives of BDSM practitioners, one of the strongest
recurring themes is that of consent. BDSMers a quick to differentiate their
activities of pain and humiliation from those who are done without consent, and
the premeditated negotiation of a sexual scene’s contents and safewords is
paramount to the BDSM experience. Those who do not respect others’ boundaries
and limits are quickly marked as dangerous and refused from BDSM gatherings
(Taylor and Ussher, 2001:297-298). Parties and gatherings have strict rules of
behavior and play regarding behaviors which are allowed or banned in both the sexual
and the social parts of interaction. Alcohol and drugs, for example, are
commonly banned from BDSM parties (Weinberg, 2006:28-29).
Explicit open
communication regarding sexual desires and limits is a hallmark of the BDSM
scene, sometimes even in the form of legal contracts (Langdridge and Butt,
2004:46-47). Even in the extreme situations of 24/7 master-slave relationships,
where the use of safewords is not common, many slaves report being able to
refuse orders and most say that their master or mistress will not force them to
do things that will damage them physically or psychologically, and they can
leave relationships when they feel unsafe or that their limits are not
respected (Dancer et al., 2006:90-92). BDSMers can find this relational aspect
of BDSM makes their sexual experiences much more meaningful, with a heightened
sense of trust and safety (Beckmann, 2001:81-82).
The related issue of
safety is also an important part of BDSM, as much attention is given to “safe
play”, which includes the physical and the psychological safety of those
involved in the scene. The elements of consent featured above such as safewords,
planned scripting, and negotiation are an important part of this adhering to
safety, in order to avoid physical injury or psychological distress and abuse
(Langdridge, 2006:304). These are complemented by technical expertise regarding
various techniques used in BDSM scenes ranging from appropriate use of tools
like whips and canes to emotional skills of reading the partner’s ability to
endure. Those who are more capable of following the rules of safe play are
awarded community prestige and those who do not are shunned and have difficulty
finding new partners (Lindemann, 2013:172-173; Newmahr, 2010:319-321; Weinberg,
2006:34).
These emphases on
consent and safety are part of the popular BDSM mantra “Safe, Sane and
Consensual” (SSC) which is used by many BDSMers as a central pillar of their sexual
philosophy that requires no harm done to any party during play. Others use the
term “Risk Aware Consensual Kink”, which accentuates that every BDSM scene is
always entered in full awareness and consent of potential risk and unsafe
consequences of the included activities (Richardson et al., 2013:146-147).
Issues of security and responsibility regarding sexual endeavors which are
important in mainstream sexual practice are given even more attention and
stress in BDSM contexts (Beckmann, 2001:83-85).
These slogans
represent a type of sexuality that does not completely reject the ideals of
vanilla sex, but rather extends them and builds upon them, as safety and
consent are important in both BDSM and non-BDSM sexual activities (Langdridge
and Butt, 2004:42-44). This is in stark contrast to conservative views of
sadism and masochism that view them as radical perversions from normative
sexuality, while keeping in line with the findings that most BDSMers do not
completely abandon vanilla sexual practices (Santtila et al., 2006:24).
Another important
aspect in the sexual experience of BDSM is the distinction between fantasy and
reality. Sadomasochistic behavior is explicitly in the realm of fantasy- which
can be seen very clearly by the terminology of “play”, “roles” and “scripting”
that are prevalent in the BDSM community. Inside the BDSM scene the actors can
take roles that they cannot in their everyday lives- whether these are specific
role-plays like parent and child, boss and employee, or owner and pet, or simply
the more generic roles of dominant and submissive. Through the rigorous
scripting and consent to certain roles and activities the scene participants
engage in a collective illusion of power exchange, and clothing, language,
bondage, and pain are utilized to reinforce this illusion (while the safeguards
of agreed upon limits and safewords are positioned to set its boundaries)
(Weinberg, 2006:33-35).
Giving and receiving
pain and humiliation along with being restricted physically and psychologically
help sustain the fantasy of helplessness, dependency, and domination. This play
of power is the heart of BDSM experience (Taylor and Ussher, 2001:298-300). The
creation of an authentic and believable fantasy is crucial to the sexual
enjoyment of BDSM, as it allows the participant to immerse themselves in the
scene and its pleasures. The intense sensations and activities of BDSM, which
involve pain, concentration, sound, and many other embodied experiences, help
maintain the feeling of being “in the scene”. Its position as fantasy and not
reality also allows feeling safe from “real” physical harm and emotions of
guilt and shame, and the carful cooperative construction of the scene ensures
the satisfaction of all parties involved (Turley, 2011:253-255, 263-264;
Newmahr, 2010:327-328). In the previously mentioned example of 24/7 slavery,
many symbolic devices such as collars, responsibility for household chores, and
being bound while sleeping are used to help sustain the constant fantasy of the
master-slave relationship, while these symbolic forms of control were altered
and downplayed in certain predetermined public and social situations to ensure
the participants’ safety (Dancer et al., 2006:93-95).
Situations which
would never be accepted by BDSMers in reality (domestic violence, incest,
slavery, rape) are sharply contrasted with their illusory reenactments in BDSM
scenes, especially by invoking the intentional and consensual choice that
exists in the latter but not in the former (Ritchie and Barker, 2005:14-18).
Behaviors of cruelty, control, and passivity in a BDSM setting need not be
related to the players’ characteristics and behaviors outside the fantasy, in
the “real world”: “Outside the sadomasochistic scene, dominants are not cruel,
nor are submissives necessarily passive. It is only within the sexual context
that such behavior is perceived as appropriate” (Weinberg, 2006:33).
These elements of
consented fantasy are vital to the sexual experience of BDSM. They show us that
BDSMers are more sensible than presented in pervasive psychiatric literature
and popular imagination- they are heavily concerned with safety and the
well-being of their partners and themselves, and the creation of scenes who
might have disturbing overtones is always part of a highly elaborate fantasy
that is not confused with an affirmation of such behaviors in “real life”.
A
Therapeutic Experience
Moving beyond the
sexual dimensions of BDSM, in many cases people who engage in BDSM practices
report therapeutic effects resulting from their sessions. This is especially
evident in the reports of pro-dommes (women who exchange their professional
sexual dominatrix services for money), who have seen how their clients’ sexual
submissiveness helps them in various ways. Many clients let loose of their
sexual desires instead of repressing them, giving them an important sexual
outlet. Others use them as a penance for their mistakes and misdeeds in their
life, thus relieving themselves from their guilty conscious. Still others use
the pro-domme’s dungeon as a place to heal past traumas by gaining control and
reappropriating the causes of their anxiety. This is also related to the
psychological process in humiliation scenes where the submissive is torn down
and shamed only to be rebuild and reaffirmed later (Lindemann, 2011a:156-162).
Even beyond the pro-domme’s dungeon, BDSM can be characterized in many cases as
being a cathartic process, more so than other forms of sexuality due to the
intense emotional and sexual energy invested in it. The powerful stimulations
of BDSM help revitalize and provide a source of release (Newmahr, 2010:324).
These insights might
explain some of the positive findings from the recent psychological research
discussed previously, as they help us understand the ways in which giving power
away and submitting to another have a beneficial effect on the submissive’s
psyche. BDSM can thus be seen as a potentially useful as an outlet for people
who feel that their sexual urges are repressed or have a great amount of
responsibility in their day to day lives, or part of dealing with guilt and
trauma. It is crucial to note that this view can confine BDSM as a practice for
people who are “defective”- have something wrong in their lives or their
psychological growth and cannot deal with everyday stress, past trauma, or
feelings of guilt without the use of BDSM (Lindemann, 2011a:162-163), in a way
which reminds the more dominant Freudian and psychosocial explanations for BDSM
that still see it as part of the realm of the deviant and the ill.
There are, though,
other beneficial aspects of BDSM. The BDSM scene provides for many of its
members a nonjudgmental space and thus a sense of sexual freedom and release,
allowing a more authentic expression of their selves and their desires, however
deviant they may seem to the general population (Beckmann, 2001:85-87). BDSM
allows people to escape “the ordinariness or alienation of everyday life” and
to dispel boredom and loneliness by entering the sexual fantasy world of BDSM
(Taylor and Ussher, 2001:304-305). For some, BDSM can serve as a catalyst for
self-exploration and self-growth by experimenting with different sensations,
sexualities, gendered positions, and more (Hale, 1997:227-229), to a point
where it can be understood as a transcendent, even spiritual experience of
enlightenment and change (Taylor and Ussher, 2001:305-306 ). BDSM can also give
players a sense of accomplishment and empowerment, for example by enduring or
delivering a high amount of pain, by honing specific skills, or by seeing the
influence one has on their counterpart (both physically and psychologically)
(Newmahr, 2010:322-324).
This facet of the
BDSM experience gives us a glance of its emotional powerfulness and
psychological potency. BDSM does not only help handle stress, trauma, or
repression, but functions for many as a tool of self-development and individual
expression in a fashion that cannot be grasped with the statistical and
analytical methodologies of the research presented in the previous chapters.
It also points us
towards the important social aspects of the BDSM experience. The aforementioned
spaces of sexual freedom are created as part of a BDSM community of like-minded
individuals who gather to celebrate and indulge in their sexual diversity and
mutual interests. Gathering together allows the BDSMers not only to socialize
with others or experiment with BDSM play, but also to feel a sense of belonging
and normality in contrast with their difference from mainstream society
(Weinberg, 2006:29). BDSM can thus become a community that gives its members a
sense of belonging, and many different centers emerge, each with distinct
norms, practices, and levels of commitment, allowing people with different
social needs regarding their BDSM to find their answer (Lagndridge,
2006:301-303). The BDSM community provides a social solution to many who do not
feel comfortable and able to express themselves in public, mainstream society,
as well as serving other social functions such as facilitating social
interaction and serving as places to find sexual and romantic partners
(Newmahr, 2010:325).
As we see through
these explorations of the BDSM experience, BDSM indeed serves many important
functions for its practitioners. This encapsulates intra-psychological
functions such as personal and spiritual growth, self-empowerment, or dealing
with negative emotions and experience, and also social and interactional
functions such as finding people with similar sexual interests or creating a
sense of belonging and acceptance. Though these benefits of BDSM are definitely
related to some of the positive results found in the psychological studies in
the second chapter, they go beyond them to show us the significant positive
personal impact the BDSM has on many of its participants and the way it shapes
their psychological experiences beyond the aspect of mere sexual gratification.
A
Transgressive Experience
Lastly, attention
must be given to the transgressive potentials of BDSM as championed by pro-sex
feminists. For many BDSMers, vanilla sex was simply not as enjoyable and
satisfactory as BDSM sex (Turley, 2011:265). BDSM is experienced as more
varied, more meaningful, less limited, and all around better than non-BDSM
sexual activities (Beckmann, 2001:81-83). Vanilla sex is seen as “conformist,
uninteresting, unadventurous, and unerotic” (Taylor and Ussher, 2001:303). At
the most basic level, the sexual experiences of BDSM seem to those involved as
superior to normative sexual expression, which can explain why many find
vanilla sex to be unsatisfying and have positive reactions to their first BDSM
experience (Santtila et al., 2006:24-25).
For some, the
disparity between BDSM and vanilla sexuality is not only about its superior
eroticism, but rather about the conscious rejection of normative sexual ideals
which are resisted through BDSM’s “deviant” sexual expression (Langdridge and
Butt, 2004:44-45). This may be part of an explicit or implicit feminist
undermining of patriarchal heteronormativity by using BDSM to expose, exploit,
and parody the gendered power imbalances in society (Taylor and Ussher,
2001:302-303; Ritchie and Barker, 2005:19).
This type of
feminist resistance is achieved by opening up the body to pleasures that go
beyond the genital- and orgasm-centered paradigm of heteronormative sexuality,
along with increased openness to active feminine sexuality, non-monogamy, and
bisexuality. Additionally, participants in BDSM activities can frequently play
with genderbending techniques that transgress norms of sexuality and gender,
for example by cross-dressing, acting a different gender (including many non-binary
genders), or taking roles usually ascribed to another gender (e.g. a submissive
male or a dominant female) (Turley, 2011:266-268).
More generally, BDSM
expands and explores taboo, foreign, and alternative embodied sensations and
affects and thus breaches both the individual and society’s boundaries and
limits of sexual behavior and emotion. The fact that BDSM roles and activities
are prescribed solely according to one’s interest and desire in them rather
than one’s gendered, sexual, or racial position exacerbate its potential
transgressive power and pleasure in a way that disrupts preconceived notions of
gender, sexuality, and sexual identity (Richardson et al., 2013:145-148;
Beckmann, 2001:86-88; Monceri, 2009:131-132).
This subversive
performance of gender and sexuality is not unequivocal throughout BDSM
practices. Significantly, many BDSMers do not switch between a multitude of
roles and activities, but rather stick with a particular role that they may
feel is a fixed and innate part of their sexual being (Sullivan, 2009:443), a
situation that substantially hinders the transgressive affects mentioned above.
Even in cases where there is a clear insubordination of normative gender
scripts, such as the pro-domme and her male client seemingly reversing the patriarchal
power dynamics by making the man submit to the women, the pro-dommes must rely
on conventional gendered appearance and behavior: their normative feminine
beauty, the use of scripts valuing “manners” similarly to heteronormative
courting, or withholding sexual favors as part of their womanly power. Thus,
they are both subverting and reinforcing gendered norms (Lindemann,
2011b:28-33).
We can thus conclude
that though BDSM certainly has transgressive potential due to its diverse
sexual practices and destabilization of gender and sexual identities, this
potential is not necessarily always realized, as different applications of its
practices and social restraints on BDSM activities and participants can curb
its subversive influence by preventing them from deviating too far from the
established norms of sexual and gendered conduct.
Conclusion
We have seen through
this exploration of BDSM and its relationship with psychology and psychiatry
the great discrepancies between recent research and the actual experience of
BDSMers and the official psychological treatment of BDSM. While the latter see
sadism and masochism as potential catalysts of distress and dysfunction,
insisting on retaining their place in psychiatric diagnosis- which fuel both
professional the popular imaginings of BDSM as dangerous, twisted, and
unhealthy, the former find that BDSMers emphasize safety and healthy enjoyment
of their sexual activities, and do not exhibit significant psychopathological
tendencies compared to the general public. BDSM can sometimes even have a
helpful, freeing effect on its practitioners, aiding them rather than harming
them- especially when one becomes part of a BDSM community that grants support,
training, and a sense of belonging.
Though there are
slight movements that reduce the perceived severity of BDSM, both in the latest
edition of the DSM-V and in public interest and acceptance of the BDSM
subculture, they are not sufficient, and the arguments to remove sadism and
masochism (along with the other paraphilias) have not been adequately answered.
More importantly, the voices of BDSMers themselves have not been given
significant weight in the legal and medical approaches to the subject, which
can have devastating effects in therapeutic and juridical treatment (not to
mention the discrimination and violence from the general public). Examining the
actual experience of BDSM as I have in the third chapter can illuminate and
expand upon the findings of recent psychological research and therapeutic viewpoints
of the subject as described in the second chapter.
Lastly, we should
consider the possible radical aspects of BDSM that were acknowledged by pro-sex
feminists. Comparing these revolutionary philosophies with the actual BDSM
subculture show that claims of the consciousness-changing potential of BDSM
must be regarded carefully. Though the technologies of BDSM practice definitely
have strong subversive elements that destabilize heteronormative and
patriarchal ideas of sexuality and identity, they do not necessarily translate
into the everyday practice of all BDSMers. Continuing to investigate how the
transgressive capacities of BDSM can be realized will help this critical
feminist endeavor.
Though I have tried
to show the problematic and complicated treatment of BDSM in the psychological
sciences, this paper is far from encompassing the entire intricate relationship
between BDSM and psychology, and as more research- both psychological and
ethnographic- is done on this subject we could help fight discrimination and
open up sexual alternatives to the wider public. We must remember to be
critical of the ways cultural norms and values regarding sexuality impose
themselves upon us by using scientific venues of social control, and the ways
that this can harm and repress us. By opening up and accepting BDSM as a
healthy and viable manifestation of the infinite possibilities of human
sexuality we can perhaps help release ourselves from restricting preconceived
notions of normality and deviance.
No comments:
Post a Comment