Avoiding Toxic Masculinity in BDSM

[twister947]

Good opinion piece in the Washington Post, but it's guarded by a paywall.

 

[Primalex]

Good opinion piece in the Washington Post, but it's guarded by a paywall.

https://12ft.io/

 

[IrisAlthea]

Good opinion piece in the Washington Post, but it's guarded by a paywall.

Don’t sure which one you mean but this nugget from one written by Molly Roberts, is very on point:

Society has separated into so many groups with so many identities that sometimes we spend more time scrambling to ensure we’re aligned with whichever we consider ours than we do figuring out what we actually believe.

 

[twister947]

Don’t sure which one you mean but this nugget from one written by Molly Roberts, is very on point:

That's the one.

 

[twister947]

The person who is owed an apology has yet to receive it. Crickets.

 

[BadMoonRisingX]

I see examples of toxic masculinity in daily life and our culture is growing less and less accepting of this behavior. But I see the same things promoted and often aspired to in the BDSM community.

What are some ways we can grow and mature and embrace our men in BDSM without the toxic traits?

Some examples:

• the need to be/or be perceived as tough always

• heterosexism or the inability to share space non-sexually with queer people

• emotional insensitivity

• the need to dominate women (in a non sexual way)

• stoicism/arrogance

Just curious if this is on anyone else's radar?

None of the toxic traits you describe are masculine traits. Traditional masculinity has always centered around courage, competence, physical and emotional strength, integrity, and the willingness to self sacrifice for others when needed.

The traits you describe are usually attempts by someone who isn't masculine to appear masculine. One of the challenges of women is to understand what healthy masculinity is in order to screen out those men who are pretending to be masculine.

The masculine and feminine are complimentary and mutually attractive natures. Neither is toxic. However, there are a lot of toxic men and women who pretend to be masculine or feminine.

 

[stxjimmy]

Traditional masculinity is no excuse, there are no fixed nature's. Physical advantage needs to be tempered and not used to bully others. We all need to foster respect for the viewpoints of others.
Ds, being based on consent and choice, has the potential to be at the forefront of that process. It's practice, one would hope, depends on real consideration of a complementary need. And what relationship wouldn't benefit from enhanced communication, and examination of motives.

 

[AlexBailey]

One problem with communicating about “toxic masculinity” is that many people react to that term as though someone is trying to label all masculinity as toxic.

There is a contingency of the US population who believes that feminism is a movement that believes all masculinity is toxic.

What is the truth? And how can it be more effectively shared?

(There’s that word ‘effectively’ again )

 

[IrisAlthea]

Does the BDSM community glorify toxic masculinity?

I can't come up with anything right now (then again, my sleep wasn't the best). But that's the problem again, what is the sign? If I watch her crying from pain and don't comfort her (yet), is this "toxic stoicism" or part of the scene? In how many pictures of "BDSM role model man pinning the woman against the wall" do we see a guy that is actually only putting on an act? We don't know if he thinks:"Yeah, look at me bitches, I'm an alpha male!"
The BDSM communities are already fighting the "Dear vanilla person, the symptom you are seeing is not a sign of abuse." I have no idea how this could be successfully combined with the complete opposite message without ending BDSM.



Does the BDSM community tolerate toxic masculinity?

Well, this thread has shown that the answer is:"Yes, if it comes from the right persons". If more people in the community complain about me using the "f" word than about someone using gender subversion it seems to be a logical conclusion. Or is using the "f" word more toxic than gender subversion, because swearing is active aggression, while gender subversion is more passive-aggressive and so...less masculine and less problematic? I have no idea what the train of thought is of someone who wants to fight toxic masculinity but then refuses to call it out when it jumps in your face. And not even just refuse to call it out, but even "like" it. And not even just like it, but ridicule the one person calling it out.
This is the most alien thing for me. You can suck my cock and eagerly swallow all of my cum and I will still call you out five minutes later if I think you've done some bullshit. And if this means no more soft wet mouth for me and to jerk off for a month, so be it then. Maybe it's the wrong approach, I could use more oral sex in my life. Maybe I just frame my self destructive ability to destroy meaningful connections as something positive. Who knows.


Do we have slippery slopes? Definitely, in my opinion.

The whole degradation / misogynistic field is fertile soil for toxic masculinity and I'm pretty sure that it's able to radicalize some men, did so in the past and is going to do so in the future. What can we do about it? We can't really call it out, because we can't distinguish it from the BDSM scene. I guess the only option is something like the "smoking kills" stickers on cigarettes to raise or maintain awareness. Do we reach the persons we want to reach with this or are we just preaching to the choir with this? I have no idea.

Came to think about this discussion as I saw that a subreddit r/churchofman had been closed down. Apparently it had come to light that the top mod was active in some actually misogynist contexts, despite claming that the closed one was just kink.

It kind of illustrates how hard it is to separate the places/people that find it hot from those that find it true.
So yes, perhaps something like the warnings on packs of cigarettes and I still hope that an open discussion about how people are radicalized and a slippery slopes, will be helpful. Not that it seems very promising, based on the political discussion climate online(I was kind of thinking about making a post about something in that direction, when this happened), but I’m fresh out of other ideas.

 

[IrisAlthea]

If you are American, you probably know about this fucker already. If you're not and/or don't, you can look him up and see what I mean pretty quickly. This was the cultural response.

Thanks! I did know some of the historical background for the American ideas about gender roles, but I learned new things.

I find it interesting how ideas about gender equality have changed things differently in different countries and yet, in another way still stay the same.
For example, I was gobsmacked when I first heard that women in the US were required to get an agreement from their husbands to have their tubes tied.
In Sweden, it is brought up as a thing to be considered, before you choose to have the procedure and it is the same for vasectomies. You also have to be 25 years old. After that it is a personal desicion.
When I thought about it though, it is the first thing that comes up when someone mentions wanting a tubal ligation: But what if you divorce and meet a new guy who wants kids?
So the way of thinking is perhaps still not that different.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Thanks! I did know some of the historical background for the American ideas about gender roles, but I learned new things.

I find it interesting how ideas about gender equality have changed things differently in different countries and yet, in another way still stay the same.
For example, I was gobsmacked when I first heard that women in the US were required to get an agreement from their husbands to have their tubes tied.
In Sweden, it is brought up as a thing to be considered, before you choose to have the procedure and it is the same for vasectomies. You also have to be 25 years old. After that it is a personal desicion.

It wasn't always, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden

 

[IrisAlthea]

It's a legal paternalism thing. If a married woman desires tubal ligation, she defers to the paternalism of her husband.

Yes, what I find interesting is how deep this paternalism and ”go forth and multiply” still resides, in so many people - here where the law actually sets a different standard.

Then there is the medical paternalism. Doctors act based on the idea that they have the patient's best interests in mind, which is generally true, but it can go wrong in cases like this where some women want something that is being withheld from them. E.g., "What if you are too young to know right now? What if you haven't had all the children you want to have yet? What if you are in the wrong frame of mind to make this decision?"

It’s a dilemma that is hard to get around, since we do want to make sure the person really is giving informed consent to the procedure.
Here the law states that a doctor can refuse to do a tubal ligation or vasectomy if there is doubt whether the patient understands the mandatory information given. They then need to put the reasons in writing and the case goes to an advisory board.
You might still not get the procedure if the advisory board agrees with the doctor, but it will at least not be because of the opinion of one random individual.

It's sad, too, how tubal ligations and hysterectomies have simultaneously evolved as this intense demand among one group of more privileged women, and this tremendous and looming threat to reproductive freedom among another group of less privileged women. So, both are screwed by medicine and the failings of law, but differently. (But this is just a whole nother topic entirely...)

Yes. It’s payed by the national health insurance here, so that helps.

Hysterectomies is also another interesting topic. There are so many.

 

[IrisAlthea]

It wasn't always, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilisation_in_Sweden

No, of course not.

The part about requiring sterilisation for a gender reassignment is shamefully recent and as for the eugenics, we are still in the process of returning measured skulls with appologies to descendants all over the world.

At least it is talked about more openly now. When I was a kid this was very taboo and the view of Sweden as the ultimate moral highground country, especially during WW2 was challenged at your own risk.
I learned the hard way in school that not every thought in my head or topic discussed at home, needed to exit my mouth.

 

[seela]

we are still in the process of returning measured skulls with appologies to descendants all over the world.

This is an interesting topic. Some of our skulls are in Karolinska and they have been denied repatriation. The official reason behind that decision has been for years that Finns aren’t a minority in Finland, so they’re not going to send our skulls back, and instead only send back the skulls of the Sami minority collected from the territory that’s considered Finland these days.

If they send back Finnish skulls, it opens the Pandora’s box of what other stolen goods of independent nations should be sent back.

I wonder if the discussion has moved forward from that. Not that it has anything to do with this topic.

 

[IrisAlthea]

This is an interesting topic. Some of our skulls are in Karolinska and they have been denied repatriation. The official reason behind that decision has been for years that Finns aren’t a minority in Finland, so they’re not going to send our skulls back, and instead only send back the skulls of the Sami minority collected from the territory that’s considered Finland these days.

If they send back Finnish skulls, it opens the Pandora’s box of what other stolen goods of independent nations should be sent back.

I wonder if the discussion has moved forward from that. Not that it has anything to do with this topic.

Yeah, it’s a shit show. I wondered when thei started with the project, if they had any idea about the things that hang around in university archives. I’ve seen some pretty interesting things in the basements of some institutions.

And if they are kept at Nya Karolinska (another shit show), they are probably gone for good. They misplace even their actual living patiens and coworkers.

 

[Bramblethorn]

No, of course not.

The part about requiring sterilisation for a gender reassignment is shamefully recent and as for the eugenics, we are still in the process of returning measured skulls with appologies to descendants all over the world.

It's a bit depressing how many of the statistical tools I've used in various kinds of research were originally developed for skull measuring purposes :-/

 

[IrisAlthea]

It's a bit depressing how many of the statistical tools I've used in various kinds of research were originally developed for skull measuring purposes :-/

Yes, it’s not good PR for them exactly. And a lot of people manage to dislike them even without knowing the background.

 

[seela]

Hey, reminds me of how the British Museum refuses to return anything, skulls or artifacts or otherwise, and condescends to any nation who asks by claiming that they take better care of them!

(Even though there are numerous confirmed reports of the British Museum damaging what they stole.)

But yeah wow this is a tangent lol. I could talk about the evils of public history / museology all day.

The British Museum also has a mean blocking finger on Twitter. It’s kinda hilarious.

Tangents
Museums

 

[IrisAlthea]

I mentioned that Masculinity problem because it is domineering in two different ways, where the person receiving services is either being exploited or is being condescended to and denied service altogether. Service providers aren't always male, but not everyone in certain place in a hierarchical structure is going to be the exact same identity. How the field of [reproductive] medicine & science was founded was on these ideas.

I have a hard time putting words to this, but I’ll try.

I think one of the biggest problems about these discussions, lies in just what you pointed out here: It’s not about providers being male, or masculine but it is often talked about, as if toxic masculinity is something men or masculine people do to others
While there certainly are behaviours exhibited (mostly) by men that are toxic and need to be called out, I think the problem is cultural, part of a much bigger system and something everyone needs to work on.

When we are in contact with medicine, we are usually in a vulnerable place, so it is easier to see the problems perhaps.
For myself, especially in reproductive medicine, I’ve had way more ”doctor knows best” or ”good girl for not needing more painkillers” and general patronizing behaviour towards me as a patient from female nurses and doctors than from males.
I’m also well aware that the moment people hear the way I talk or have an idea about what I work with, things change and that it’s worth the few extra moments and energy to look a bit more put together and assertive in body language when going to urgent care with self or loved ones. It’s (as you pointed out elsewhere) as much about class, age, etnicity etc as it is about gender.

There are a lot of parallells in other parts of society. I just feel it more when I’m tired and weary.

As to fighting these problems and others, I find that the characteristics that are often called masculine and sometimes scorned as toxic, come in pretty handy.
When my health care center fucked up royally recently, it was for sure not my most feminine side that got it sorted. But again, it might be more about class then gender, because I know that my husband was raised to accept authority way more in cases like that, rather than going ”I know this is not your personal fault, but I need the person in charge to contact me today so we can solve the problem, because the situation is just not acceptable” which is what I was raised to do.

In short, it’s way more complicated than masculinity, we are all complicit and need to use our critical, analytical thinking on both ourselves and society and we can all benefit from claming a wider range of traits/behaviours/characteristics than prescribed by traditional roles(based on gender or other things).

 

[IrisAlthea]

This really hits the nail on the head of what I'm getting at. Sociolinguistics are moving in the direction of viewing gender as only one of numerous components in determining how people speak and behave, and this is a perfect anecdote to describe how that plays out.

Women or people with a more feminine presentation can be assertive. They can be stubborn, if you will. They can make demands. They can refuse to back down from their desires. They can be blunt! These are gender-neutral traits. I mean, how many times have we seen those public humiliation videos of "Karens"?

And to that question I just raised, the actual biggest difference in the linguistic experience between men and women specifically, after controlling for all other social identities and peer group factors, is how men and women are viewed. Women are far more likely to be chastised, demeaned, and ridiculed for the same speech patterns and behaviors that men also commonly exhibit (such as vocal fry and assertiveness).

The reason is not because of some half-brained excuse invented by pop psychologists about high-pitched voices or other inane Mars vs. Venus bullshit you may have seen before. The reason is misogyny. A familiar and depressing story.

If you are intrigued by what you see here, read up on Deborah Cameron. She's a British feminist linguist who focuses on linguistic anthropology and sociolinguistics.

Some wordpress articles she has written, since I don't pretend her studies are available to people without paying:

Bullshit: the struggle goes on
Speakin while female
Assertiveness: just say no

Thanks for the links. I’ve read and think I might have some comments when I’m less tired.

As for John Gray and as for how much us culture and how much gender, you might have fun with these:

His Scandinavian Tour didn’t do very well…

 

[Diosax]

There are a lot of men disguising abusive and violent behavior under the excuse of it's BDSM and it's just gross.

 

[IrisAlthea]

John Gray is 100% on that Mars & Venus train! Hahaha. You can see it in full force here!

He was the one who literally wrote the book on it, back in the day.
To be fair, I think it was useful to some. I just think those differences he points out are more socialization that nature.

Women or people with a more feminine presentation can be assertive. They can be stubborn, if you will. They can make demands. They can refuse to back down from their desires. They can be blunt! These are gender-neutral traits.

I agree. As I said above and earlier in the thread too though, socialization does have a big impact.
Watching the Skavlan interview you can see Gray being unable to grasp the concept of a wife coming home later and from a just as/more high-pressure job than her husband, because it’s just not relevant in his cultural experience.
On the other hand you have 4 Scandinavians, not socialized to handle someone who is behaving so far outside of what is accepted from a grownup in a group, in their cultural experience.

And to that question I just raised, the actual biggest difference in the linguistic experience between men and women specifically, after controlling for all other social identities and peer group factors, is how men and women are viewed. Women are far more likely to be chastised, demeaned, and ridiculed for the same speech patterns and behaviors that men also commonly exhibit (such as vocal fry and assertiveness).

And I think a big part of it is that women are percieved as not conforming to societal expectations in those cases.
Personally, I find that I catch flack at times (mostly from women) when I’m not consensus oriented enough for example and I see it more as coming from not behaving as expected and consensus orientation being seen as both feminine and the desired behaviour.
I don’t think men behaving the same are being tolerated because it is seen more positive when they do it, but rather because it is more expected.

I’m not saying that there is no misogyny involved ever, but a lot of the time I think it lies in those societal expectations rather than in the people.

I also have to add that while men are less likely to be demeaned and ridiculed the way women are, for assertiveness for example, the certainly can be for not being assertive enough or otherwise ”feminine”. I’d say, that you are seeing John Gray being a bit ridiculed for being percieved as an overly emotional chatterbox, even if it is (I hope) mostly because his behaviour kind of invalidates what he is saying.

When it comes to immediate and dire consequences of actually being percieved as too assertive/harsh/out of bounds, I’ve seen that hit men way worse - all the way to the unemployment line actually.

 

[IrisAlthea]

Speaking of unemployment, there was a shitty study done on women, vocal fry, and hirability. It caused a huge stir. You can easily google it and find the Daily Mail's misogynist headline for it. Basically, it found that women with vocal fry were less likely to be hired.

I had to google vocal fry anyway. It’s not a thing here. There seems to be a lot of Millenial bashing involved too. Seems like a popular passtime for many.

Well, I think that's why I would refer to misogyny or maybe to "emphasized femininity," or traditionally traits "organized as an adaptation to men's power… emphasizing compliance, nurturance, and empathy as womanly virtues."

And... how does this match up with a study that showed that women who show traditionally masculine traits at work get more promotions than men and other women?

Back to what you said about being demeaned for femininity. I think femininity is demeaned, period, regardless of gender.

Femininity is certainly policed from two
directions.
When I started one of my first real fulltime jobs after university, I was rather badly and publicly, chewed out by an old man working there, because he thought I’d been way too aggressive and confrontational and that I should use my feminine qualities instead.
I thought I’d handled the situation reasonably well and was rather certain it was way past diversions or smiling the bad stuff away when I got involved.
New and young though and having heard that the old guy was a bit of a star, I was standing there thinking about if there still might have been a better way to handle it, when I saw 2m gymrat, male collegue sauntering over.
I thought ”Oh great, here comes the next one”, squared my shoulders and straightened my spine getting ready for the next dressing down.
He’d come over to tell me to ignore old dude though and confirmed that I’d handled it as effectively as possible. He said that old guy was just getting too old to handle situations like that and that if I’d been more ”feminine” about it, he could just as well have flipped about that instead.
I’m really greatful for that talk and I’ve seen a sad amount of examples of the double bind he was talking about over the years.

I know from spending a lot of time discussing with male coworkers, how to best get a point across, how to handle a workplace conflict etc, that men worry too about how to behave to be percieved the way they want. I think they are generally less socialized to expect (of themselves and of the world) to have a friction free relationship and acceptance though.
Not many female high plains drifters around.

I think it is interesting how femininity is at the same time treated as less worth as you said, in a lot of situations and at the same time put on a pedestal and held up as an example of goodness. Neither is very helpful.