From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Reconciling BDSM and Pagan Beliefs
Organization: QQQCLC
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:47:10 GMT

In article <2AF9AC3D.15536@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.063434.17211@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>In article <2AF71F00.22548@news.service.uci.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>>>When it comes to BDSM, I don't want to say to anyone, "You shouldn't do
>>>that because . . . " since it makes me feel like morals police.
>>>HOWEVER, I do think that it is one hell of an indicator of what's going
>>>on in a society when people can link submission and sex.
>>
>>	But suppose there really is a link, an innate psychological
>>link, between sex and dominance/submission? 
>
>[various reasonable remarks deleted]
>
>Saying, "But how do you know it's not innate?" in this instance can be
>construed to mean, "But that's just they way things ARE," which is a
>nonsense argument.  Biology/psychology has been used over and over and
>over and over and over and OVER to justify all sorts of things that we
>now know to be culturally determined -- like the fact that more women
>are concerned with their appearances than men, and more black men are in
>jail than college.  Using this argument to justify somethnig that holds
>for only our culture and has in the past been used to oppress people is
>very dangerous.

	I'm not trying to justify anything, especially. As I said first
time out, I judge by effects, not causes, and the origins of the BDSM
impulse don't affect my judgement of it.

	But I'm unsure what you are referring to when you say "holds for
only our culture..." What _is_ "our culture"?

>>Without a coercive
>>man-dominant, woman-submissive preconception, where's the harm?
>
>There is none.  But, with people growing up in a culture like ours,
>where the immediate assumption is man/dominator woman/submissive,
>getting out of that rut is impossible.  You don't break a bad habit by
>flirting with it.

	As was discussed earlier, these gender stereotypes aren't
apparent in the BDSM community. So there doesn't seem to be this
assumption you speak of there.

>>	It's worth thinking about, because there's a lot more and better
>>evidence for such a link than just the existence of BDSM.
>
>You ask me in a few lines what are my references.  By what justification
>do you make this hazy claim about "evidence" for a psychological limk to
>sex and domination/submission of any kind?

	I didn't ask you for references, I just asked what societies
you were thinking of, to compare ours to. And I made "link..." an
offhand reference because my followup already ran nearly 100 lines
without getting into detail about this, and I consider it a
(potentially large) digression; as I said above, I'm not primarily
interested in causes. But we can discuss it if you like. I was thinking
about things like the fact that rape is known in every large society
where we've enough information to know, and that epinephrine, the
"fight-or-flight" hormone, is released in sexual arousal as well as in
situations of anger or fear.

>>>I just have to shake my head a little when I
>>>see how other societies regard sex, and how so much of it has gotten
>>>caught up in domination in the west. 
>>
>>	Who are these other societies?
>
>Look past what you see of other cultures on TV.  Read as a basic text
>Haviland's _Anthropology_.  Read as much archaeology as you can,
>specifically about Minoan Crete and early India.  Read Merlin Stone's
>works, and the works of the early Greek, Etruscan, and Suerian poets and
>those who study and analyze their work.

	Is this a canned paragraph? As I mentioned in our last
discussion, I've read Stone, and a lot about the Minoans. I would point
out that rape is a common element in the myths and stories of the early
Greeks and Etruscans, and some old Indian cultures (there are a lot of
ancient cultures in India's past). We can't tell with the old Minoans,
since we can't translate their writings, of course. As a general rule,
though, it seems that all large, agricultural societies are quite
familiar with rape, and rape is surely the obvious example of a
negative association between sex and domination/submission.

	One of the things that interests me about BDSM is that it seems
to be a somewhat modern phenomenon. Sadism and masochism can be deduced
even in old civilizations from their records, but the closest analogs
of modern BDSM I can think of from 'way back, with its consensuality
and its sometimes-distant connection to sex, would be flagellants and
similar mystic/ecstatic types. This may not seem connected to sex, but a
peek at the writings of someone like Saint Theresa of Avila may make you
decide it ain't all that different :-).

>Your use of the words predator/prey are revealing.  Are you sure you
>aren't just so convinced that everyone thinks of it this way that you
>fail to examine the evidence because, "it's bound to show you right"?

	I don't think so. Maybe it's just confusion over what "our
culture" is. Every time you use that phrase in a negative way, I first
assume you're referring either to late 20th-century America, or to late
20th-century urban culture, generally. But I'm starting to think that
you use "our culture" to refer to _any_ culture containing what you
feel are objectionably patriarchal elements. If so, then perhaps we
agree; it seems a circular definition in that case, and I can't but
agree that a society which has objectionable patriarchal elements, has
objectionable patriarchal elements :-).

	Maybe it'd be easier to work from the other end: can you give an
example of a society where you feel there's no connection between sex
and dominance/submission suggested in their customs, and an idea of what
those customs are like?

>>	I'd agree that the sexual mores of our culture are far from
>>ideal, but I don't think you'll be able to separate out bad or sexist
>>impulses from healthy or instinctive ones in BDSM, by cross-cultural
>>comparisons, because there are no well-documented non-sexist societies
>>to compare us to. Late 20th-century America seems, if anything, one of
>>the least sexist societies in existence.
>
>Way wrong, bud.

	Proof by vigorous assertion?

>By this single comment ALONE, you have showcased
>yourself as one of those people who took Psych 101 and Anthy 1A in
>college a while back and think you know it all.

	Is categorizing me important to your argument?

>If you can still
>seriously argue that 20th century America is the most egalitarian
>culture of all time, you quite simply don't know what the hell you are
>talking about. 

	Fine. Offer a counterexample, and briefly describe the features
of that culture which make you think it's less sexist. Whether we agree
or not, I'll at least get a better idea of what you count as "our"
culture and "another" culture, and what features you associate with
coercive gender roles. If you know of any, the best choice would be a
modern, urban culture, since its general similarity to our own culture
would highlight the specific differences you wish to illustrate. And
please take this suggestion in the spirit intended - it is not a
put-up-or-shut-up challenge, just an attempt to get a better handle on
what you're comparing to what. I can think of 4 countries, myself, that
I think are less sexist than the US, based on my limited knowledge of
their cultures. All I said was that "we" (the US) are _one_ _of_ the
"least sexist cultures in existence", not that it's the ultimate.

-  Nothing fails like success  -             Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:                             barry@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.pagan