From: dbshapco@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Brad Shapcott)
Subject: Re: Roy's "consenting" slave
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:36:08 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Dec14115653@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <s882916.724315458@otto> s882916@otto (Vikki POLLARD) writes:
>
>> You men just don't get it huh?
>
>We *people* "get it"; we just don't *agree* with it.  I'm also a woman,
>in case no one has noticed...*grin*.
>
>Muffy
>--

Well, to interject MHO.

A few weekends ago, I was defending (or at least explaining) the whole S&M
or Sm thing or whatever to an acquaintance, which is odd since I'm not into
much more than what I would describe as light B&D, so my opinions are that
of an observer (I tend to think the separation between B&D and S&M is quite
wide, psychologically, even though physical elements are shared).  I suppose
the same elements apply to a master/slave relationship.

Certainly what is usually overlooked is the distribution of power in such a
situation.  There is a implicit sexual contract between the players in an
S&M scene or master/slave situation that grants power to both sides.  By
this contract, the bottom yields as much or more power in the S&M situation
as the top, as the boundaries of exploration (through the device of the
safeword) are within the bottom's domain.  The top has a set role to play,
which if violated treds on the territory of rape and exploitation.  As
long as S&M is practised safely and with full consent, the power aspect of
acting on another person is partly an illusion, as the person acted on does
so with consent.  The contract of the game is fulfilled in this way.

Applies equally to a master/slave situation.  In a role playing or sexual
context the sexual (and social) contracts give the slave the power to
exit the situation at will.  The power of the master over the slave is
mostly illusion, as the master has no more power than the slave will permit.
If the master violates the implicit (or better yet, explicit) contract
between the participants, they begin to exploit.

Most clearly of all is the situation of rape, in which the sexual and social
contract is clearly violated, in that one participant improvises with the
instument of violence the forced participation of another.  In such a situation
the power imbalnce is very real, and in now way part of the game or sexual
experience.

I think the problem here is confusing real slavery and real violation of
humane contracts (which exceed social and sexual ones) with the role
playing situation that has been established.  In the real world the person
acted upon is usually powerless and victimized.  In "good" sexual or
social role playing the person acted on is usually vested with a good
deal of power to buffer this situation from a real life one.

The things that decried are the illusionary ones.  You have to look deeper
into the power politics of the situation and Roy's very particular situation
before you can criticize it, if indeed at that point you are inclined at
all to criticize.

At that level though the criticisms open are the same ones that could be
used against a television drama.  Roy's situation can be seen as some
artistic interpretation of a real life situation, and the question then is
whether that offends on artistic grounds.  If you still feel so, then I
would offer that you are politicizing the artistic component of the
situation, rather than looking for the deeper message (and perhaps it
is a bad, and a commentary on the unequal distribution of power in our
society as a whole).

Roy plays with a lot of dangerous elements in our society in the way that
S&M play with dangerous elements of physical abuse.  Exploitation, violation
and so on.  But if one understands S&M and the politics of consent, it may
be easier to realize these as parodies of the real thing.


Brad

Well, MHO just happens to be a long one ;-).