Avoiding Toxic Masculinity in BDSM

[twister947]

I was part of a group discussion on the toxic culture in law enforcement this weekend. Much of what has been said here resonated.

 

[Paul_Chance]

I was part of a group discussion on the toxic culture in law enforcement this weekend. Much of what has been said here resonated.

The general concept of "toxic behavior" applies to many fields, not just in a BDSM sexual context.

The best description I've ever heard for identifying toxic behaviors is a pragmatic one. Does the cultural/environmental behavior aid in the attainment of the cultural/environmental goal?

Back within our BDSM context, both in real life situations and in online BDSM communities the question is equally as valid. If the purpose of the community is for people of like minded needs and desires to gather, establish a level of trust, and share so they can continue to grow - then does the behavior favor or impede the attainment of that goal?

Toxic behavior is a two-edged sword. First, does it hurt/hamper/discourage other people within the community and second, does it hurt/hamper/discourage the individual engaging in the behavior?

Take them example of stoicism and emotional detachment. If it prevents or impairs a persons ability to establish and maintain a loving, caring, compassionate and empathetic relationship it hurts both the person and their partners.

 

[policywank]

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?

I think that the Dom role in BDSM has many parallels with leadership more broadly. Many people associate leadership roles with the exercise of power and indulgence of privilege without much regard for how that power ought to be utilized and why those privileges exist. A good leader uses that power in the best interest of those they lead as much as themselves and recognizes that having that power isn't license to be a selfish dick - quite the opposite power is ceded to them precisely because they are entrusted not to abuse it. Meanwhile the privileges that come with the role are reward for assuming the burden of leadership.

When we look at leadership in daily life we know that a good leader earns the confidence of those he/she leads. They know that just arbitrarily treating people like shit or barking pointless orders will lose them loyalty. They know that being rigid or arrogant or sexist will undermine their role. And we see that when people abuse a leadership position they frequently lose it - whether through peaceful means or because they end up with their head on a stick.

Being a Dom is a non-traditional leadership role. Both Dom and Sub enjoy a certain performative aspect to how the Dom leads his/her Sub. To an outsider those dynamics might look aggressive or even abusive. Dom and Sub know otherwise because they have agreed on a different standard of conduct than that which regarded as "normal" NOT because they have dispensed with any standards of conduct.

I think that people who engage in toxic behaviour in a BDSM setting have a similar mindset to poor leaders. They confuse leadership with the exercise of power and are drawn to the role primarily because of the desire to exercise power and indulge privilege for selfish purposes without understanding the responsibilities and burden that come with it. There is very little positive correlation between the desire to have power and the ability to lead. In other words, if you strip away the toxic behaviour you will find someone who is not suited to lead and needs to be removed from the role.

The role of a Dom in a BDSM context is a very tempting thing to someone of this mindset. It looks on the surface like an ideal combination of power that they can seize and a willing subject over whom to exercise that power. In my view, that person, that so called Dom who engages in toxic behaviour is not a Dom at all. He/she is just an asshole looking to exercise power. The issue isn't getting them to revise their behaviour so much as it is recognizing them for what they are or in this case what they are not. You aren't dealing with a toxic Dom. You are dealing with a toxic poser. A fraud. The solution is to see them for what they are and eject them from the role.

 

[IrisAlthea]

The general concept of "toxic behavior" applies to many fields, not just in a BDSM sexual context.

The best description I've ever heard for identifying toxic behaviors is a pragmatic one. Does the cultural/environmental behavior aid in the attainment of the cultural/environmental goal?

Back within our BDSM context, both in real life situations and in online BDSM communities the question is equally as valid. If the purpose of the community is for people of like minded needs and desires to gather, establish a level of trust, and share so they can continue to grow - then does the behavior favor or impede the attainment of that goal?

Toxic behavior is a two-edged sword. First, does it hurt/hamper/discourage other people within the community and second, does it hurt/hamper/discourage the individual engaging in the behavior?

Take them example of stoicism and emotional detachment. If it prevents or impairs a persons ability to establish and maintain a loving, caring, compassionate and empathetic relationship it hurts both the person and their partners.

Yup, I think that is a good way to identify when a behaviour has become a problem in an organization or for an individual, but I don’t think it is as useful in a community as diverse as BDSM.

Often I think it is less about behaviours or traits that are toxic and more about them being out of balance with what is needed and appropriate for the situation.
The examples of stoicism and emotional detachment can get in our way like in your last paragraph but at the same time be useful and even necessary to get our jobs done or to handle a crisis.
In some professions where we ask and train people to do this more than the general ”don’t slap your stupid co-worker/client/customer”, I think we have an obligation to help people, as far as possible, find a way to debrief, turn it off, be aware etc so it doesn’t create problems in other areas.

So do we promote these traits in BDSM? I think that it kind of goes with the territory that a person being allowed to use violence and restrain others etc is held to a higher standard when it comes to being in control of their feelings for example. I don’t see is as toxic nor linked to masculinity but I guess some might?
For me it is more linked to the responsibility.
I would actually want to see more discussion about the need to be mutually responsible for the informed consent and communication, because the dominant as mindreader, submission as gift thing is something I think does create problems or become toxic if it means that the dominant feels the need to carry the responsibility alone at all times.

 

[KimGordon67]

Allowing PC/Feminist nonsense like "toxic masculinity" to infiltrate sexuality, and particularly kinky sexuality - is the real problem.

Suggesting that feminism has no place in sexuality, and especially in kink, is the best example of toxic masculinity I've seen in quite some time.

 

[KimGordon67]

The original posting begins with: "I see examples of toxic masculinity in daily life..." and ends with "Just curious is this on anyone else's radar?"

Yes, sexism is on my radar. The term "toxic masculinity" is uninformed amateur/pseudo-psychology that is sexist. It isn't implicitly sexist; it's overtly sexist, sexism per se. Bad behaviors are neither masculine nor feminine; they are neither expressions of masculinity nor femininity.

I might concede that pissing on toilet seats is a toxic behavior that is masculine, but even that fails on two counts. First, urine is non-toxic, but it contains urea and other substances that can be toxic. Second, and more importantly, I've cleaned enough public rest rooms separately designated "Men" and "Women" to know that women's bathroom habits are no better than men's are. Women leave body waste on toilet seats with the same frequency that men do, and urine only slightly less frequently than men do.

There is nothing masculine about the behaviors identified in the original posting as being expressions of masculinity. The use of the sexist term "toxic masculinity" is a recent fad, but there's nothing new or temporary about being ignorant of one's own biases while claiming to be intensely aware of bias in others. It's very common.

Identifying being outed for sexist hate speech to be just one more example of toxic masculinity adds another layer to the willful self-deception indicated in the original posting.

The term "toxic masculinity" was coined by a psychologist, but it came out of a study he did of men in prison. He wasn't studying the behaviors of prisoners in general; he studied only men. There was no corresponding study of incarcerated women, and the term has been misused by the uninformed for sexist purposes ever since.

You've done a great job of *sounding* like you know what you're talking about here.

Firstly, the example you pose is ... well, weird. I've never heard leaving pee on toilet seats described as particularly masculine, let along an example of toxic masculinity. Basically, you've chosen an example that fits your argument, even though the term being discussed has never (to the best of my knowledge) been related to that behaviour.
Secondly, you've conflated 'things men do' with 'masculinity'. That's not how the concept of masculinity works - it doesn't describe every behaviour undertaken by a man simply because he happens to be a man. Your example works here - it may be that men do leave pee on toilet seats more often than women (although I'm yet to see the peer reviewed research). That doesn't mean it's masculine. It's just something men do.
Thirdly, my admittedly very brief bit of research (because my experience suggests that spending any more time doing research would be wasted, because no one in Lit ever actually looks at the evidence you provide for an argument) suggests that Kupers, to whom I assume you're referring, didn't 'coin' the term - it was actually part of a particular kind of men's movement. And before then, the concept, if not the specific term, was very much part of Raewyn Connell's theory of hegemonic masculinity. Connell's research is not based in prisons, and deal with femininity as well.

Some behaviours simply ARE understood as masculine, while others ARE understood as feminine ... and it's understanding them as such that makes the masculine or feminine respectively, because masculinity and femininity are social constructs, and hence are created through that understanding. And some of the behaviours that are masculine ARE toxic (as is the case with some of the behaviours that are feminine). This isn't to say that ALL masculinity is 'toxic' ... I'm not sure if you're saying that happens, but your argument is sort of veering in that direction.

 

[cocktaildress21]

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?

I have to say, I feel like this has to be challenged. Not because I'm pro-toxicity - I consider such a thing to be basically unimaginable - but because it's one-sided, unnuanced and frankly sexist.

• 'Tough' guys really shouldn't have to worry about how you perceive them - if they're fine with how they are, how about you focus on you instead.
• What in the name of the lord is heterosexism? Being straight and not sorry? I feel that absolutely everyone can and should be exactly as they are, and must be given the space and freedom to be so - but I don't have any queer friends, and I doubt I ever will. Not because I mind at all, but simply because I've met quite a few, and we have zero anything in common at all.
• How do you tell the difference between 'emotional insensitivity' and 'introvert'? What gives you the right to judge?
• Being dominant out-of-bed can be exactly as consensual as in-bed. I .... really hope you are aware.
• Why is stoicism bad? Why in good god's name would you conflate it with arrogance???????

All this, as a submissive female.

 

[KimGordon67]

I have to say, I feel like this has to be challenged. Not because I'm pro-toxicity - I consider such a thing to be basically unimaginable - but because it's one-sided, unnuanced and frankly sexist.

• 'Tough' guys really shouldn't have to worry about how you perceive them - if they're fine with how they are, how about you focus on you instead.
• What in the name of the lord is heterosexism? Being straight and not sorry? I feel that absolutely everyone can and should be exactly as they are, and must be given the space and freedom to be so - but I don't have any queer friends, and I doubt I ever will. Not because I mind at all, but simply because I've met quite a few, and we have zero anything in common at all.
• How do you tell the difference between 'emotional insensitivity' and 'introvert'? What gives you the right to judge?
• Being dominant out-of-bed can be exactly as consensual as in-bed. I .... really hope you are aware.
• Why is stoicism bad? Why in good god's name would you conflate it with arrogance???????

All this, as a submissive female.

So much about this is based on assumption and erroneous understandings. But just with respect to the bolded bit ... it's a really good idea to Google things sometimes, rather than just making stuff up based on what you think the word sounds like.

 

[cocktaildress21]

So much about this is based on assumption and erroneous understandings. But just with respect to the bolded bit ... it's a really good idea to Google things sometimes, rather than just making stuff up based on what you think the word sounds like.

Every word I said is just flipping the OP's statements on their head.

Because this sort of discussion is all about assuming the truth without question, and giving zero thought to the other point of view.

Also, I know exactly what heterosexism means, please don't fucking patronise me. My interpretation differs from yours, which shouldn't surprise you given the rest of my post.

 

[KatieDoes]

Every word I said is just flipping the OP's statements on their head.

Because this sort of discussion is all about assuming the truth without question, and giving zero thought to the other point of view.

Also, I know exactly what heterosexism means, please don't fucking patronise me. My interpretation differs from yours, which shouldn't surprise you given the rest of my post.

’being straight and not sorry’ does not meet the definition of heterosexism.

That being said, it’s sad for you that you aren’t able to be friends with gay people. Not sad for them, sad for you.

 

[cocktaildress21]

’being straight and not sorry’ does not meet the definition of heterosexism.

That being said, it’s sad for you that you aren’t able to be friends with gay people. Not sad for them, sad for you.

Did I say that? Please quote where I did.

Being straight and not sorry is a very valid interpretation of the long string of nonsense that makes up the term 'heterosexism'.

Please consider A) I'm bi, and B), I have zero problem with anyone else's sexuality - I simply reserve the privilege to not give a damn. I struggle to explain, because the gap is so wide, it's beyond mere words. I'll try, tho: As little as I care about your income, your clothes, your politics or religion or color of skin, ethnicity, favourite color, handedness, your eyebrows, your cat or where you put the remote for your tv - as little do I care about your sexuality. I simply am not interested. All that drama that people attach to it? I quite simply am not interested. Like, at all. I don't know why people seem to think I should care. To me, it seems a private matter, and not one I should concern myself with unless it seems like we're likely to have sex.

See?

Likely not, right? So ... maybe this is all just a waste of time.

 

[KimGordon67]

Every word I said is just flipping the OP's statements on their head.

Because this sort of discussion is all about assuming the truth without question, and giving zero thought to the other point of view.

Also, I know exactly what heterosexism means, please don't fucking patronise me. My interpretation differs from yours, which shouldn't surprise you given the rest of my post.

Words don't just mean whatever you want them to mean ... 'heterosexism' has a specific meaning, and it's not based on whether you have any queer friends. You can 'interpret' it however you like, but if you do that, then you are not reading the OP's post to mean what it was intended to mean, and hence your response isn't really engaging with what PLP said, but what you'd 'like' her to have said so you have something to argue with.

 

[KatieDoes]

I have to say, I feel like this has to be challenged. Not because I'm pro-toxicity - I consider such a thing to be basically unimaginable - but because it's one-sided, unnuanced and frankly sexist.

• 'Tough' guys really shouldn't have to worry about how you perceive them - if they're fine with how they are, how about you focus on you instead.
• What in the name of the lord is heterosexism? Being straight and not sorry? I feel that absolutely everyone can and should be exactly as they are, and must be given the space and freedom to be so - but I don't have any queer friends, and I doubt I ever will. Not because I mind at all, but simply because I've met quite a few, and we have zero anything in common at all.
• How do you tell the difference between 'emotional insensitivity' and 'introvert'? What gives you the right to judge?
• Being dominant out-of-bed can be exactly as consensual as in-bed. I .... really hope you are aware.
• Why is stoicism bad? Why in good god's name would you conflate it with arrogance???????

All this, as a submissive female.

- genuinely ‘tough’ guys don’t worry about how they‘re perceived. Toxic masculinity is performative, not genuine. A man that is confident in himself doesn’t need to perform for others. Tough doesn’t equal toxic masculinity

- covered elsewhere

- emotional insensitivity and introversion are not remotely the same thing

- She’s not referring to men that are in relationships in which open communication and respect has led to a dynamic in which both parties are comfortable with their roles, and the man may be dominant in that relationship. She’s referring to men that behave as though they are dominant over all women, without that woman agreeing and consenting to give him her submission

- stoicism as an aspect of toxic masculinity IS bad. Its the performative lack of emotion that prevents men from being honest and forming real connections with each other and their partners.

 

[KimGordon67]

Did I say that? Please quote where I did.

Being straight and not sorry is a very valid interpretation of the long string of nonsense that makes up the term 'heterosexism'.

Please consider A) I'm bi, and B), I have zero problem with anyone else's sexuality - I simply reserve the privilege to not give a damn. I struggle to explain, because the gap is so wide, it's beyond mere words. I'll try, tho: As little as I care about your income, your clothes, your politics or religion or color of skin, ethnicity, favourite color, handedness, your eyebrows, your cat or where you put the remote for your tv - as little do I care about your sexuality. I simply am not interested. All that drama that people attach to it? I quite simply am not interested. Like, at all. I don't know why people seem to think I should care. To me, it seems a private matter, and not one I should concern myself with unless it seems like we're likely to have sex.

See?

Likely not, right? So ... maybe this is all just a waste of time.

Unbelievable. I'm straight. I'm not sorry about that. And I don't consider myself heterosexist (and judging by what my everyday life looks like, I don't think other people perceive me as heterosexist either). Be heterosexist doesn't mean you don't 'care' about homosexuality (or whatever it is that your post above is trying to say). Seriously, you should read a book, instead of just rambling.

 

[KatieDoes]

I have to say, I feel like this has to be challenged. Not because I'm pro-toxicity - I consider such a thing to be basically unimaginable - but because it's one-sided, unnuanced and frankly sexist.

• 'Tough' guys really shouldn't have to worry about how you perceive them - if they're fine with how they are, how about you focus on you instead.
• What in the name of the lord is heterosexism? Being straight and not sorry? I feel that absolutely everyone can and should be exactly as they are, and must be given the space and freedom to be so - but I don't have any queer friends, and I doubt I ever will. Not because I mind at all, but simply because I've met quite a few, and we have zero anything in common at all.
• How do you tell the difference between 'emotional insensitivity' and 'introvert'? What gives you the right to judge?
• Being dominant out-of-bed can be exactly as consensual as in-bed. I .... really hope you are aware.
• Why is stoicism bad? Why in good god's name would you conflate it with arrogance???????

All this, as a submissive female.

 

[KimGordon67]

Did I say that? Please quote where I did.

Being straight and not sorry is a very valid interpretation of the long string of nonsense that makes up the term 'heterosexism'.

Please consider A) I'm bi, and B), I have zero problem with anyone else's sexuality - I simply reserve the privilege to not give a damn. I struggle to explain, because the gap is so wide, it's beyond mere words. I'll try, tho: As little as I care about your income, your clothes, your politics or religion or color of skin, ethnicity, favourite color, handedness, your eyebrows, your cat or where you put the remote for your tv - as little do I care about your sexuality. I simply am not interested. All that drama that people attach to it? I quite simply am not interested. Like, at all. I don't know why people seem to think I should care. To me, it seems a private matter, and not one I should concern myself with unless it seems like we're likely to have sex.

See?

Likely not, right? So ... maybe this is all just a waste of time.

Puzzled as to how you find anyone who's dom, given that you're submissive ... you obviously have SOME interest in people's sexuality (unless you're a non-practicing submissive, which is of course entirely possible).

 

[slutindianwife]

what is

Toxic Masculinity in BDSM??​

 

[Lady2020]

Aside from the usual intellectualism of toxic masculinity in bdsm or anything else on Lit, it's been my experience that most men have a hard time giving up control. They have to be in control and that entails no flexible power play because God forbid the man let's himself be tied up so his partner can relieve him of the pressure of control, then tease him to explosion.

 

[KatieDoes]

what is

Toxic Masculinity in BDSM??​

Toxic masculinity is performative masculine behaviors, that insecure men do to posture for themselves and others that they are ‘real men’.

in a BDSM context, it can be especially dangerous. A genuinely masculine man as a Dom places the safety and well being of his sub as a priority. A toxic man exploits her willingness to submit to him, which can place her in danger, physically, mentally, and emotionally.

 

[slutindianwife]

Toxic masculinity is performative masculine behaviors, that insecure men do to posture for themselves and others that they are ‘real men’.

in a BDSM context, it can be especially dangerous. A genuinely masculine man as a Dom places the safety and well being of his sub as a priority. A toxic man exploits her willingness to submit to him, which can place her in danger, physically, mentally, and emotionally.

ohhh am shocked. thanks

 

[KatieDoes]

I actually came across this before with a Dom and sort of scared me away from the whole experience. He wanted to do what he wanted and didn't care about my needs or what I wanted. He told me that I couldn't tell him what I needed, that he would do what he thought was needed for me. When I kept trying to talk with him about it, he told me that I needed a therapist and that I was crazy. I pretty much stopped talking to him right after that.

He was no Dom. He was a Dommy McDomPants. I’m sorry that you had to experience that. Shitty faux doms ruin it too often.

 

[policywank]

Toxic masculinity is performative masculine behaviors, that insecure men do to posture for themselves and others that they are ‘real men’.

in a BDSM context, it can be especially dangerous. A genuinely masculine man as a Dom places the safety and well being of his sub as a priority. A toxic man exploits her willingness to submit to him, which can place her in danger, physically, mentally, and emotionally.

And I think that it is insecure men who validate this behaviour for other insecure men. They get together and agree that these various performative masculine behaviours prove their masculinity. With these parameters supposedly agreed to by all "masculine" men whom they imagine to be the ultimate authority on the matter they cannot conceive of why others might disagree. It is then against this imagined "standard" of "truth" that they judge and blame others including women or men who don't think a big truck, a big gun and a big mouth are what makes the man.

 

[jerryb1966]

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?

I am dominant in the bedroom only…I find this is the true me. A true Dom is sensitive to the needs and emotional well-being of his partner (my viewpoint).

 

[Primalex]

A man that is confident in himself doesn’t need to perform for others.

"doesn't need to" or "is not allowed to"?

Humans like to compete and perform for others.

 

[KatieDoes]

"doesn't need to" or "is not allowed to"?

Humans like to compete and perform for others.

A man that is confident in his masculinity has no need to perform for others to prove his masculinity to them or himself.

People are, of course, ‘allowed to’ perform whatever legal behaviors they choose to.