"Power Exchange" wadda f***?

[Pure]

Hi ed,

You said, in reply to RR


hm, but does he really enjoy beating her or does he just think he loves it, having never sufficiently questioned the degree to which he is conditioned by the patriarchy?

Yes, there are a lot of humorous takes on these issues. Netzach gave an example of whipping with electrical cords, and, in the
professed 'enjoyment' scenario, RR questioned the 'reality' of the enjoyment.

As you indicate, the sword cuts both ways. This is the problem with all 'objective tests', and a certain large faction of 70s and 80s feminists promoted them. Objective tests invalidate such statements as a prostitutes or porn star's claims that she's happy with the work, and not coerced.

I'd hate to see the issue limited to 'patriarchy', since it's broader.
Since Lark likes examples close to bdsm, one might consider the following. At one website, a fellow describes how he castrated himself with a view to pleasing his mistress. He's pleased with the results and shows them in pictures.

The 'brainwashing' issue, also known as the 'cultural issue' is quite alive these days. How many of us with feminist sympathies would approve of a Saudi princess's wearing of a chastity belt
(to which she says she consents)? Yet as relativists --power exchange enthusiasts-- we are supposed to be quite happy for someone in the bdsm community who professes to be happy, wearing one.

Now, SM folks talk about how they hate the judges' reasoning in the 'Spanner' and related cases--that in law you cannot consent to serious bodily harm (in and of itself, apart from such purposes as life saving surgery that requires amputation of a leg); in this case, to having your testicles crushed.

The reasoning has some merit, imo; the judges simply said [my paraphrase], "You cannot consent to that, and your professed enjoyment is irrelevant; you have been assaulted. The crusher of your testicles has committed a crime [assault]." **

They even took the further step of saying to the 'crushed' fellow, "You committed a crime too, in setting up and furthering the crime of the one who did this to you."

I believe Netzach also would want to say, in some cases, that 'professions' (of enjoyment, of consent) have to be discounted. Not all abused spouses cry at night.


----
**Please note the parallel to what judges say in domestic abuse cases.

 

[lark sparrow]

I'd hate to see the issue limited to 'patriarchy', since it's broader. Since Lark likes examples close to bdsm, one might consider the following. At one website, a fellow describes how he castrated himself with a view to pleasing his mistress. He's pleased with the results and shows them in pictures.

And, so? If he and his Mistress decide that's what they wish to do, realize it's against the law, and will not be socially accepted in being too extreme by a large majority of kinky folks - they're his balls. If he is willing to do it despite all the reasons not to, he does have that power - he has the choice to give that power to his Mistress whether you, or a judge or the BDSM community at large agree or not. All he needs is some time in a secluded spot and the cutting object - easy enough.

Would I personally recommend it - no, but he DOES have the power to do it despite law or peer pressure or cultural conditioning. He might bleed to death, he might go to jail, he might end up institutionalized - but none of that takes away his power to actually do it - it only discourages doing it. In the case presented, he is not acting out on anyone other than himself. If he wants to start cutting off other people's balls too unwillingly, then I have a real problem with him.

Would I wonder about his sanity a tad - yep, but I'd be willing to hear him out, and in the end, it truly doesn't matter what I think about his decision. He may not have the "right" to do it, but he does have the "power" to do it. I'm not a cop or a judge or a lawyer or a psychaitrist or a doctor. I have not choosen a role that must uphold those decisions and deliver consequences. I don't need to figure it out for him. Until he starts a campaign that all male subs MUST be castrated I'm not going to oppose him. If it was up to you (and it's not) would you tell him he couldn't?

So much for the "sexual outlaws" around here!

If you think terms like "safe, sane and consensual" and "erotic power exchange" are trite and unreasonable (lacking depth), it's probably because they are marketing tools. Is there some truth in them as well - yes, they usually have to have some sort of truth or easy logic into what people want, wish, or believe - it's how one person or group of people wish to influence, enagage or reason with another.

And no, I still don't want you to shut up, punkin.

 

[Pure]

Ah shucks (feels all warm and fuzzy)

 

[Netzach]

The wrench in the mechanism of Spanner, though, and I find it possibly one of the best avenues towards legal protection for consensual SM:

I have a play partner who has had:

His nose broken
A near brush with permanent paralysis
His hip ruined
His knee broken
and almost constant pain in one form or another, which he kind of enjoys.

Through extreme SM? No. Through a long and successful, ongoing involvement in wrestling and martial arts, all injury, pain, and suffering completley undertaken voluntarily and with pride.

So basically, if you elect to mix your masochism with sex it's not Ok, if you mix it with machismo, it is.

 

[Pure]

Yes, Netzach, an apposite point. It has been noted that 'we' in several settings, authorize assaults on ourselves: fights and sports are well known examples.

The judges in 'Spanner' and other cases always take pains (!) to deny the analogy with SM. Something about sports being a cultural tradition!....

I believe the analogy is a good one, in legal terms, even in terms of motivation: an assault situation with the body in peril has an undeniable excitement. (Even without the assault, as in skiing, here's excitement in danger to body.)

That said, the fellow in one of the Spanner scenes getting his balls or cock pierced, crushed etc is somewhat different from normal sport! But I guess the adrenaline rush is not that different from the skier's. Having undergone such an episode, I see the analogy: so long as death and serious injury are not that likely, the pain and uncertainty can be a turn on.

On the 'exchange' question: the masochist gets his pain; usually the deliverer in NOT a sadist: she does it 1) because she loves him and it's requested, or, 2) because she doesn't love him and is paid. She thus obtains, 'in exchange', in the respective cases, either 1) the satisfaction of seeing her lover come hard, or 2) $100 bucks to spend on some new shoes.

In any case, all parties are happy, so the 'exchange' is presumably fair: indeed it recurs. As to the seat of the 'power', in the case 2), it's clearly in the guys wallet.

In case 1), hmmm... it's unclear to me whether any 'power' was transferred at all: he simply said 'will you?" and she said "OK, since you ask." Is it different from asking your partner if s/he would mind picking up the dry cleaning on the next trip out?

[Added, 3-24: ]

Case 3) The Sadist

Yes, there was a lucky time with a sadist who was aroused by my pain and her power to inflict it. Call this case 3). In such a case, the exchange seems relatively clear: she gets her arousal and jouissance, and I get mine. Was 'power' transferred to her? She had it before and after, in the same amount; though it's true, in the episode she had consent to exercize it.

 

[rosco rathbone]

hm, but does he really enjoy beating her or does he just think he loves it, having never sufficiently questioned the degree to which he is conditioned by the patriarchy?

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I suppose.