Avoiding Toxic Masculinity in BDSM

[StockingGirlJ]

I’m an older Gen X, too. And I was absolutely raised and surrounded by people who expected boys and girls to conform to traditional gender roles.
I don’t see that as much in the parents of kids today. Which is a good thing.

It's not about taking offense at all. It's about fuzzy thinking and a mistaken view of generational change. The world is any a constant state of change. Being specific about what is changing, how and why are important.The 1920s and '30s were politically and sexually progressive beyond imagination and at the same time horribly oppressive in other ways. Women won the right to vote in 1920. In the 1930s, the Teamsters and Communist League of America, among others, literally fought in the streets to establish the 40hr work week, which finally became law in 1938 with the passage of the FLSA. At the same time lynchings were still happening.

And included in the boomers are a group loosely referred to as the hippies, a group whose progressive impact is light years ahead of anything since. In fact, the MAGA movement is the last gasp of the group that is still pissed off at the US giving up on Vietnam, on cvil rights, on equal rights for women.

So if anyone thinks a change will come when the boomers are gone, they are undoubtedly right. But the change will likely not be the one expected. A greater part of the public may have a more live-and-let-live attitude, but there are many who do not. And their numbers are growing. And they have the Supreme Court on their side. If you want more male toxicity, stay tuned.

 

[StockingGirlJ]

"There is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9. Are we really debating the existence or definition of toxic male behavior? Apparently some of you are unaware that women are still not truly treated as equals, that the mark left by centuries of patriarchal BS is far from gone, and that, in fact, the backlash against women for having the guts to stand up for themselves is growing ever more ferocious.

The BDSM community has always had to grapple with what the OP is essentially describing as abusive, and at its worst misogynistic, behavior. This is hardly surprising given, as is reflected in this thread, the BDSM community exists within and is plagued by the same ills as the greater society in general.

Treating women as inferior; seeing them as purely sexual objects, whether for purposes of procreation or gratification; and expressing violence toward women has been and still is commonplace. This has always posed a problem for the D/s community because so many mistakenly see the role of the submissive as an object to be used by the Dom.

However, treating anyone like crap is not OK in any context and it is not at all what a real D/s or any other relationship is about. Communication, trust, respect, etc. are at the center of any successful relationship.

The social and historical dynamic makes heading down the path especially tricky for male Doms and female subs. Intention and consent are everything. And control always must always remain with the one who gives it up in order for the act to not be abuse or the relationship to not be abusive.

I see the the OPs observations as reflecting more that certain groups are trying to drag the world backwards than a change in the BDSM community.

 

[midwestyankee]

Sigh.

I know what I said. Most of these qualities were encouraged by the older generation.

As a card-carrying member of that generation, I’d like to remind you that it was my contemporaries who formed and fought to birth the feminist movement against fierce opposition by our elders but, and this is what matters, also by the Dick Cheneys and the Pat Robertsons of our own generation. Ours is the generation that fought for the legislation in the early 1970s that enabled women to get credit cards in their own name and, eventually, to get to sign for a mortgage in their own name. Misogyny does not define my whole generation.

I know it’s a sad cliche to mutter “not all men” but I am sick and tired of being attacked for the actions of my contemporaries (“Okay, boomer.”) who were misogynistic assholes then and have remained so to the present day. That the conservative part of my generation chose to perpetuate the beliefs and practices of their misguided parents and forebears is shameful. I’d be lying, though, if I said that I was not seriously disappointed to read this comment that suggested I went along with and continued to extend those medieval attitudes to my own children.

 

[wicked woman]

...

So if anyone thinks a change will come when the boomers are gone, they are undoubtedly right. But the change will likely not be the one expected. A greater part of the public may have a more live-and-let-live attitude, but there are many who do not. And their numbers are growing. And they have the Supreme Court on their side. If you want more male toxicity, stay tuned.

I fought in the feminist movement in the 70s and 80s. It pained me years later to see women who didn't see the point of the feminist movement, in fact didn't see the need for it. I thought, that's because you aren't old enough to remember what it was like before the advances. The ability to have choices. I told them you've only lived during the result of the movement...but women aren't as safe as you think they are. There are people who don't like the changes and will fight to take our progress away. I was told that will never happen. They were your live and let live...don't rock the boat...types.

I would never say that no progress has been made, but it pains me to see in roads to turn the clock back. Take away the right of a woman to control her own body is just one example. They thought it couldn't happen. They were wrong.

So just a personal experience that you might be right. I like to think positively though that their are enough people to continue fighting for a better world.

 

[wicked woman]

…and it’s so scary.

Agreed.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Is there a middle ground where you just encourage them to not give a fuck about the code? I feel like that's where my kid is at.

That's a way of fighting against it, IMHO. It only exists and self-perpetuates because people give a fuck about it and teach their kids to do the same.

 

[sweettalk4u]

…and it’s so scary.

I was a local leader with Indivisible, a resistance group, and the vast majority were women. We stopped congressional district offices from functioning. A woman does so many things better than a man in the world today.

 

[IrisAlthea]

This article (from Psychology Today) takes a stab at explaining what toxic masculinity is, in regards to the general society.

A man should suffer physical and emotional pain in silence.
A man shouldn’t seek warmth, comfort, or tenderness.
A man should only have the emotions of bravery and anger. Any other emotions are weaknesses. Weakness is unacceptable.
A man shouldn’t depend on anyone. Asking for help is also weak.
A man should always want to win, whether in sports, work, relationships, or sex.

How does it play out in the BDSM community (and specifically in Dom/Sub relationships)?

It manifests itself when the male in the relationship doesn't offer compassion and tenderness to the female because they think it will be perceived as weakness and they're an ALPHA dammit, seek compassion and tenderness elsewhere.

The emotion of anger becomes the primary emotional response to the female not behaving as the male wants. (This one is rampant in online communities where it goes like this: "I'm a dom, you're a sub, now serve me!" "Uh, no thanks" "Fuck you slut, you're not a real sub, you're just a poser or a fucking newby who doesn't know what a sub is!"

Or, in male to male communications "You need to straighten your sub out or I'll take her away cause I'm a real man and you're just a beta!" Weakness is unacceptable and anger is the only response - real men should get angry at weak men and women.

It also plays out when the toxic males (and the women who buy into the toxicity) spout things like - "Him: I'm not sure how far you want to go with this" "Dude, never ask your sub what she wants" or the female version "If you were a real Dom you'd know and I wouldn't have to tell you".

Within the BDSM community to part that always entertains me is the whole "I'm a lone wolf alpha, I don't need anyone". (Uh, the whole concept of "alpha male" comes from biological studies of group behavior. No group, no group behavior. You can't be the alpha male or female unless you have a pack, a pride, or a group. In the wild, aggressive males not associated with a pack or pride or group are considered sick and shunned for the behavior.)

And finally, I think it can be observed in the whole "winning at any cost" mentality which defines everything as win or lose, is or is not. That costs relationships or gets people stuck in bad relationships.

When folks, in general, talk about toxic masculinity the emphasis is on the word toxic - poisonous, damaging to the health and well being on the male and the people around him.

Yup.
The bolded part is why I dislike the fake/real tropes som much.

Is there a middle ground where you just encourage them to not give a fuck about the code? I feel like that's where my kid is at.

It’s worth shooting for at least.
When I look at my offspring, they seem to be constructing more boxes to fit into.
My idea that we are not cats and hence not obliged to sit in boxes, have been politely listened to…
Perhaps we need to be content as long as they are free to choose and change boxes as they need.

It's not about taking offense at all. It's about fuzzy thinking and a mistaken view of generational change. The world is any a constant state of change. Being specific about what is changing, how and why are important.The 1920s and '30s were politically and sexually progressive beyond imagination and at the same time horribly oppressive in other ways. Women won the right to vote in 1920. In the 1930s, the Teamsters and Communist League of America, among others, literally fought in the streets to establish the 40hr work week, which finally became law in 1938 with the passage of the FLSA. At the same time lynchings were still happening.

And included in the boomers are a group loosely referred to as the hippies, a group whose progressive impact is light years ahead of anything since. In fact, the MAGA movement is the last gasp of the group that is still pissed off at the US giving up on Vietnam, on cvil rights, on equal rights for women.

So if anyone thinks a change will come when the boomers are gone, they are undoubtedly right. But the change will likely not be the one expected. A greater part of the public may have a more live-and-let-live attitude, but there are many who do not. And their numbers are growing. And they have the Supreme Court on their side. If you want more male toxicity, stay tuned.

I fought in the feminist movement in the 70s and 80s. It pained me years later to see women who didn't see the point of the feminist movement, in fact didn't see the need for it. I thought, that's because you aren't old enough to remember what it was like before the advances. The ability to have choices. I told them you've only lived during the result of the movement...but women aren't as safe as you think they are. There are people who don't like the changes and will fight to take our progress away. I was told that will never happen. They were your live and let live...don't rock the boat...types.

I would never say that no progress has been made, but it pains me to see in roads to turn the clock back. Take away the right of a woman to control her own body is just one example. They thought it couldn't happen. They were wrong.

So just a personal experience that you might be right. I like to think positively though that their are enough people to continue fighting for a better world.

Yes, there is always a force and a counter force and in the middle of feminism and ”make love not war” there was also Anita Bryant and Marabel Morgan.
And the pendulum keeps swinging.

There are always going to be authoritarian forces and forces that are opposed. The first group values respect for elders, good manners, obedience and compliance with norms where the other prefers independence, curiousity, self-reliance and tolerance.
As for BDSM, it certainly attracts people who prefer authoritarian/traditional types of relationships but also has deep roots with those who want to shape their own styles beyond norms and traditions. Then there are those just looking for some romance, getting off etc
To the outside we may all look like the same kind of freak but it does clash wildly at times. It is inevitable that we are going to end up face to face with the tolerance paradox at times.

 

[Mkmydaze]

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?

This is an interesting thread with lots of great discussion. I am adding my own thoughts for consideration.

I am not sure that what is really toxic are traits, so much as behaviours. I think somewhere in the discussion competitiveness was listed as a male trait (possibly even as a toxic masculine trait) but I don't think being competitive in itself is masculine or toxic for that matter. What might make comptetiveness appear toxic is someone who constantly competes with others in a variety of circumstances where that is not necessary, or where cooperation/collaboration would be a more appropriate response. The toxicity, as some have pointed out is indicated by the impact the behaviour has on others, and the person demonstrating the toxic behaviour.

In considering the concepts being discussed, I don't believe it is helpful to present them as an "either/or" proposition. I don't believe things are often just black and white - things are often more complex than that, and sometimes there is more than just two choices or two answers that might work. In this sense, sometimes concepts like masculinity and femininity are presented as opposites (choose one or the other), and in similar fashion sometimes dominance and submission are presented in the say way. Would it not be more accurate though to say that these are not "all or nothing" propositions; that in fact they exist on a continuum where an individual can exhibit traits, behaviours, etc. that one associates with one end of the continuum or the other? It seems to me that someone who identifies as being "dominant" will not be dominant in all aspects of their lives or in all relationships, just as a "submissive" will not submit to everyone in their lives or to everything someone may want from them in a D/s relationship.

I think much of the toxicity that we are talking about is tied up with the exercise of power and control, which is implicated in some views on masculinity, but also with patriarchy. If patriarchy values men exercising power and control in a variety of spheres (but primarily political and economic spheres of public life) then perhaps is it normal (though not necessarily desirable) that a masculinity that supports (or even overemphasizes) exercising power, controlling others has evolved along with patriarchy? Would they not be reinforcing one another?

Which leads us to acknowledging that often that toxic, controlling-type of masculinity shows itself in BDSM, which only seems natural because as a community it is a microcosm of our society, and also because the relationships within it are based primarily on dynamics of power and control.

So to the question of how to "grow and embrace" non-toxic men in BDSM, as asked above. I don't have all the answers, but I like that the questions are being raised.

I think we need to keep doing "this" - asking questions, sharing ideas, dialoguing back and forth respectfully. I think we need to examine the concepts of masculinity and patriarchy, and try to understand how those elevate the concepts of exercising power and control to such a high level that those who embrace that path are walking down a toxic road. Men need to become more self aware, more reflective perhaps, more open to questioning themselves and their identities. I think a healthy masculinity is open to possibilities, is open to challenges, is strong enough to show vulnerability, fallibility and humility. And I agree with many previous posters who have talked about the importance of communication and respect in all relationships, here and elsewhere.

 

[midwestyankee]

I didn’t say you. I said the older generation holds fast to traditional gender roles AND that’s changing.
And I completely agreed with stocking’s points.

What you said was that change in gendered behavior patterns would improve “as the boomers die off.” This boomer was fighting for the very change you hope for before you probably got your first kiss and I’m not at all ready to die off. Then you back-pedaled and changed your reference to “the older generation.” You’re better than this.

Absolutely, there’s a generational component to this but that’s not the whole story. Today’s young men who behave badly with respect to women are being encouraged by their age cohort peers, and even plenty of women. Both inside and outside the world of BDSM.

 

[naughtymind]

Very interesting thread. One of the things that I pick out of a good number of these responses is that we have done a very poor job culturally at defining what it means to be a man. The pure definition of masculinity simply meaning the portrayal of male gender traits; which is obviously heavily skewed by what we have been conditioned to view as "manly". I personally have never subscribed to most of the stereotypical traits that supposedly show the world that I am a man. When I think of toxic masculinity, above all else I think of the behaviors of those who are going above and beyond to try and display a persona they perceive to be masculine (and thus desired or admired by others). That's just not how I was raised, and so to me I find such displays of toxic masculinity to be dead giveaways to underlying insecurities. I don't need to be hyper competitive, aggressive, rude, condescending, or drive some hugely oversized truck with balls hanging from the bumper and chrome women on the mudflaps to show that I'm a man. I know who I am, and have nothing to prove to anyone.

I grew up looking at the male role models in my life, and the traits that I always noticed were things like:
-physical strength, as that makes a pretty big impression at a younger age
-intelligence/wisdom
-good at solving problems (aka "fixing things")
-emotionally stable, and strong enough to own up to their mistakes when and where appropriate
-confidence in themselves
-responsible, followed through with projects started
-made few promises, but kept ALL of them
-helpful to others when possible
-said what they meant, and meant what they said!
-the respect and admiration of others
-lead by example
-always sought to learn more and do better

Those are all qualities that help define what being a man means to me, though obviously those traits are not exclusive to men in any way. I guess that for the next generation of men, the harder they try to exude masculinity they more difficult it is for them to just find the man that exists inside every one of them and to be the best version of that man that they can. I think we as a society need to give them all the support and encouragement that they need to do just that. Sadly pop culture has helped support a lot of really bad ideals, and plenty of men and women have helped reinforce that.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

It occurs to me that the discussion has slid somewhat away from the original question. Things like manspreading are at best peripheral to the OPs question.

Ignoring sexual toxicity in either gender, the essential core of even the most ethical BDSM play is a power imbalance in a sexual context. No matter how much the couple love and respect each other, the discussion is complicated by one surrendering power and the other (unhappy with the phrase, but it will serve as I cannot right now think of a better) taking advantage of that surrender.

To be sure, there are doms/dommes who do not play fair, who view the other as a victim vice a fellow-player and there are entire elements under the big BDSM tent I personally find distasteful, eg humiliation. Yet even discounting those, we're still going to be challenged at any portrayal of one person tying another up, spanking them, teasing and denying, whatever - it's a shadow away from real abuse. Without a caring dom/domme and consent, the very same acts would be abusive.

So how does one tell the difference?

 

[wicked woman]

It occurs to me that the discussion has slid somewhat away from the original question. Things like manspreading are at best peripheral to the OPs question.

Ignoring sexual toxicity in either gender, the essential core of even the most ethical BDSM play is a power imbalance in a sexual context. No matter how much the couple love and respect each other, the discussion is complicated by one surrendering power and the other (unhappy with the phrase, but it will serve as I cannot right now think of a better) taking advantage of that surrender.

To be sure, there are doms/dommes who do not play fair, who view the other as a victim vice a fellow-player and there are entire elements under the big BDSM tent I personally find distasteful, eg humiliation. Yet even discounting those, we're still going to be challenged at any portrayal of one person tying another up, spanking them, teasing and denying, whatever - it's a shadow away from real abuse. Without a caring dom/domme and consent, the very same acts would be abusive.

So how does one tell the difference?

You answered your own question. Consent is the difference. It's key. That's why the need for consent is stressed so much. Doesn't matter if it might look like abuse. It isn't with consent. That's all that matters.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

You answered your own question. Consent is the difference. It's key. That's why the need for consent is stressed so much. Doesn't matter if it might look like abuse. It isn't with consent. That's all that matters.

Yes, of course.

That still begs the question and I think internet BDSM has been mentioned - how can one tell? Pick a scene, say a woman in bondage, being spanked by a man. Is an introductory interview showing her agreeing necessary in every such case? If not, then what? The look on her face as she'd being spanked is probably not going to be a happy one. A bound man being subjected to a ruined orgasm is probably not going to be making happy sounds.

 

[MeekMe]

Yes, of course.

That still begs the question and I think internet BDSM has been mentioned - how can one tell? Pick a scene, say a woman in bondage, being spanked by a man. Is an introductory interview showing her agreeing necessary in every such case? If not, then what? The look on her face as she'd being spanked is probably not going to be a happy one. A bound man being subjected to a ruined orgasm is probably not going to be making happy sounds.

What does porn have to do with the topic at hand? All porn, BDSM included, is staged.

The women in “regular” porn isn’t usually enjoying herself. The men aren’t either. Because they’re putting on a show and usually getting paid for a performance. I wouldn’t use porn as the basis for my examples of what looks and doesn’t look like consent.

 

[wicked woman]

Yes, of course.

That still begs the question and I think internet BDSM has been mentioned - how can one tell? Pick a scene, say a woman in bondage, being spanked by a man. Is an introductory interview showing her agreeing necessary in every such case? If not, then what? The look on her face as she'd being spanked is probably not going to be a happy one. A bound man being subjected to a ruined orgasm is probably not going to be making happy sounds.

We were talking about the actual people involved. They know. That's all that matters. I don't recall internet BDSM being mentioned in the way you're talking about it.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

OK, point taken.

 

[KimGordon67]

It occurs to me that the discussion has slid somewhat away from the original question. Things like manspreading are at best peripheral to the OPs question.

Ignoring sexual toxicity in either gender, the essential core of even the most ethical BDSM play is a power imbalance in a sexual context. No matter how much the couple love and respect each other, the discussion is complicated by one surrendering power and the other (unhappy with the phrase, but it will serve as I cannot right now think of a better) taking advantage of that surrender.

To be sure, there are doms/dommes who do not play fair, who view the other as a victim vice a fellow-player and there are entire elements under the big BDSM tent I personally find distasteful, eg humiliation. Yet even discounting those, we're still going to be challenged at any portrayal of one person tying another up, spanking them, teasing and denying, whatever - it's a shadow away from real abuse. Without a caring dom/domme and consent, the very same acts would be abusive.

So how does one tell the difference?

I get your point here, but the same is true of any sexual activity. If there's no consent, it's abuse. You don't have to leave bruises or make someone cry. The difference to a casual observor isn't that BDSM looks like 'abuse' - it's more that it *doesn't* look like what they consider 'real sex' to look like.

I do wonder, however, if those internet representations of bdsm, d/s, etc are what attracts men who exhibit toxic masculinity. What they're seeing is something devoid of all the talking, agreement of boundaries, working out safe words, checking in, aftercare ... all the stuff that isn't really part of their version of masculinity. My last BF and I used to talk about this - if someone walked in on us at certain times, it would *look* like he was raping me. Three minutes of video of that would look very non-consensual, and would miss all the talking etc we did before and afterwards. And the whole relationship in which that activity was embedded, that was one of mutual trust, clear lines of communication, etc.

 

[naughtymind]

I get your point here, but the same is true of any sexual activity. If there's no consent, it's abuse. You don't have to leave bruises or make someone cry. The difference to a casual observor isn't that BDSM looks like 'abuse' - it's more that it *doesn't* look like what they consider 'real sex' to look like.

I do wonder, however, if those internet representations of bdsm, d/s, etc are what attracts men who exhibit toxic masculinity. What they're seeing is something devoid of all the talking, agreement of boundaries, working out safe words, checking in, aftercare ... all the stuff that isn't really part of their version of masculinity. My last BF and I used to talk about this - if someone walked in on us at certain times, it would *look* like he was raping me. Three minutes of video of that would look very non-consensual, and would miss all the talking etc we did before and afterwards. And the whole relationship in which that activity was embedded, that was one of mutual trust, clear lines of communication, etc.

Quite possibly so, on the other hand there's the question of how that is affecting the ideas of more impressionable young men and women in terms of their attitudes about what traits may be desirable. A bit of a "chicken or the egg" question, and probably a bit of both I'd guess. While I've never put much into the notion that watching porn changes anyone on a fundamental level, or turns an otherwise loving individual into an abuser, it is an evolving matter and it certainly can play a part in shaping attitudes towards what is "extreme" vs what is "sexy". For one thing, I think that the internet at large is just such a bigger influence on young adults than any other media I can think of for previous generations.
I'm not knocking anyone's kinks, or tastes in porn for that matter; but this whole thread really suggests to me that we need to be better at getting the rest of the story out there. For instance, highlighting things you mention like trust, boundaries, communication, respect, etc. I believe that the OP was more pondering about potential changes within the immediate BDSM community, but I think it's also pretty much intertwined with how we ended up with this much toxic masculinity to begin with.
It would be enormously helpful to have many more conversations such as this in the mainstream, and in sex education classes too for that matter.

 

[naughtymind]

It would. We aren’t ready yet. If we can’t talk about stuff like this or act accordingly here, I don’t trust the mainstream world to listen.

I can't disagree with you there, as much as I'd like to.

 

[Primalex]

There's more than one way to "protect" a child. You can teach them to conform to the code, or you can help them fight it.

Oh, I really would like to see what your "help to fight it" is going to be, when the parents of your child's friend decided that they are not allowed to meet or hang out anymore. Maybe you can make a motivational poster about "true friends" or something like that while he or she lives a life in misery.

The latter is a harder road, but often the better choice.

I doubt that there is even anecdotal evidence which supports this statement.

 

[Primalex]

This seems like over-interpretation. Katie's only listing one example on each side probably means that she was trying not to write a TLDR, rather than that she thinks the only acceptable model for masculinity is an undead-commanding monarch.

It doesn't matter whether she thinks that there are other "acceptable" role models or not, the point is that consciously or subconsciously a certain character out of about 750 different LOTR characters was picked as example for masculinity and it was not by chance.

 

[Primalex]

"There is nothing new under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9. Are we really debating the existence or definition of toxic male behavior?

No, because the thread was not about "toxic male behavior" but "toxic masculinity". Examples of "toxic masculinity" were given, like stoicism. And then it was about the BDSM community promoting toxic masculinity and what do about it (and where I'm still waiting for an actual example to narrow down what we are talking about).

Apparently some of you are unaware that women are still not truly treated as equals

When someone uses "apparently", it's often not.

The BDSM community has always had to grapple with what the OP is essentially describing as abusive, and at its worst misogynistic, behavior. This is hardly surprising given, as is reflected in this thread, the BDSM community exists within and is plagued by the same ills as the greater society in general.

That is an oversimplification. The BDSM community is not just a reflection of society, but the BDSM community actively supports a certain expression of behavior within certain constraints as acceptable that does _not_ reflect society - this is the problem.

Expressing violence towards women is part of the BDSM kink.
Treating women as inferior is part of the BDSM kink.
Objectifying women is part of the BDSM kink.

The question is, if this also means, the portrayal of these activities are inherently displaying toxic masculinity, as outside the BDSM context, they would be - and whether there needs to be done something about it and what that would be.

 

[Primalex]

As a side note - we can reword the question with other discrimination attributes:

Does the portrayal of raceplay promote and aspire racism?

 

[IrisAlthea]

Oh, I really would like to see what your "help to fight it" is going to be, when the parents of your child's friend decided that they are not allowed to meet or hang out anymore. Maybe you can make a motivational poster about "true friends" or something like that while he or she lives a life in misery.



I doubt that there is even anecdotal evidence which supports this statement.

Yes, while it is easy to admire Malala Yousafzai, few of us want our kids to take the risks she took and suffer the consequenses she did. Even seeing them not invited to a party is painful.
On the other hand we don’t want them to turn themselves to something they are not and we don’t want them to feel they have to make nice and agree with all and sundry.
Also, however much you try, other people around you, school, media etc are going to have a huge influence too. Howevermuch my daughter loved the chess club, it was difficult when her two friends wanted her to stay in the art room with them.

Having a conversation about these things will make a difference though, by creating an awareness about different possibilities and their consequences.

No, because the thread was not about "toxic male behavior" but "toxic masculinity". Examples of "toxic masculinity" were given, like stoicism. And then it was about the BDSM community promoting toxic masculinity and what do about it (and where I'm still waiting for an actual example to narrow down what we are talking about).



When someone uses "apparently", it's often not.




That is an oversimplification. The BDSM community is not just a reflection of society, but the BDSM community actively supports a certain expression of behavior within certain constraints as acceptable that does _not_ reflect society - this is the problem.

Expressing violence towards women is part of the BDSM kink.
Treating women as inferior is part of the BDSM kink.
Objectifying women is part of the BDSM kink.

The question is, if this also means, the portrayal of these activities are inherently displaying toxic masculinity, as outside the BDSM context, they would be - and whether there needs to be done something about it and what that would be.

I generally think there is a big difference when it’s done within the BDSM context between informed and consenting partners. To me, that is kind of the point of BDSM - that it lets me integrate some rather conflicting stuff with at least a little bit less mental contortions.
I don’t think this is the case for everyone in the big BDSM tent though.

As long as there are places where we can have this kind of discussion and talk about real life BDSM outside of Erenischverse/Sardaxverse and with lots of different perspectives, I think we are doing something right.
There are still going to be pepople telling newbies about the one twue way, that they are not alpha or submissive enough with a generous helping of HNGs and asshats of all kinds but there will be other voices too at least.