sigelphoenix

There's a discussion on BDSM going on in feminist. It's getting a little angry. (The group on average is young and generally sex-positive, but this just goes to show you how sex can be as touchy a subject as religion or politics.) One of the best points made so far, which really cuts to the heart of the conflict, uses this quote from Amber L. Hollibaugh's My Dangerous Desires:

"The truth is that our current state of feminist affairs has demanded that women live outside power in sex. We seen to have decided that power in sex is male because it leads to dominance and submission, which are in turn defined as exclusively masculine. Much of our theorizing has suggested that any arousal form power felt by women is simply false consciousness. In real life this forces many feminists to give up sex as they enjoy it and forces an even larger group to go underground with their dreams. For the many women who have no idea what they might eventually want, it means silencing and fearing the unknown aspects of their passions as they begin surfacing. Silence, hiding, fear, shame - these have always been imposed on women so that we have no knowledge, let alone control, of what we want. Will we now impose these on ourselves?"

Power relationships in sex has been a big issue in feminism -- Andrea Dworkin's Intercourse is a notorious indictment of heterosexual sex, while some radical lesbian feminists formed strict rules about lesbian sex in an attempt to erase power dynamics from sex. Even The Beauty Myth talks about the eroticization of power, and how it contributes to a rape culture. To me, though, that's all about blaming power for the crimes of oppression -- basically conflating power with the abuse of power.

Let's face it: power is sexy. Someone who's in control of him/herself is sexy. Someone who evokes respect or obedience through his/her competence is sexy. This has nothing to do with someone who has power but is a jackass. Jackasses are not sexy. Okay? Okay.

I don't doubt that the eroticization of power has felt the influence of society. I just hate the idea that, just because I might like someone to act in a dominant manner on occasion, that this is inherently some sort of internalized oppression. I am not submitting as a female to someone because he's male. Submission and obedience are not necessarily weaknesses -- whether that is actual, D/S style submission, or just the decision to listen to your partner's opinion. (This is especially the case when the people involved are equals, and there is the possibility of reversal of roles.) So long as the parties involved are consenting, where is there an actual inequality of power? I'll say it again: equality does not mean sameness. Consenting to acknowledge someone else's power requires trust, and trust can be pretty damn sexy.

(The comment itself is specifically about how power relationships relate to domination and submission, so it's not as generally applicable. :P But it's interesting on its own.)

~~~~~~~~~~

On a completely unrelated note: watch the commentary of "War Stories" by Nathan Fillion and Alan Tudyk. The actual relevance of their commentary to the episode is ~5% (unlike, say, "Out of Gas," which had explanations by the director and writer, Nathan and Alan spend time mocking themselves and commenting on Gina Torres' hotness), but the hilarity is worth it. Includes such memorable quotes as "Headless Wash!" and "I think you can tell just by looking at my face that I have the legs of a dancer," and the insightful, "Is 'essence' the root word of 'essential'?"