With special thanks to the following women who contributed to this presentation: Gayle Rubin, Carole S. Vance, Sally O'Driscoll, Mickey, Michele Buchanan, and Lolita Wolf.
For the past six years I've been a member of NOW and an S/M activist. Through this, I've come to understand that people don't understand the subject of S/M. One example is the situation at the State University of NY at New Paltz, where the President is threatened with dismissal by the Chairman of the Academic Standards Committee for allowing a Women's Studies Conference to proceed with workshops on sadomasochism and sex toys. Though Governor Pataki jumped on the anti-S/M bandwagon, many others who were not S/M activists or practitioners pointed out how fears of S/M are being manipulated to attack feminism, gay rights, and women's studies. Even a recent NY Times editorial on New Paltz stated that "given that the S&M subculture exists, an academic conference on sexuality seems a suitable forum to discuss it."
How can NOW, given their anti-S/M resolution, respond appropriately to attacks on personal choice and first amendment rights? How can we make an informed judgment about anything when all we know are the myths and the stereotypes? I know I felt the same way about S/M as some of you before I learned the difference between abuse and consensual sexual expression.
When we talk about S/M practices, the main problem lies in the definition of our terms. NOW uses the classic conception of "S&M" as violence and brutality. However, safe, sane and consensual "S/M" practice is exactly the opposite. In this discussion, I will explain the current definition of S/M practices which relies on a foundation of trust and consensual agreement.
NOW's position against S/M is contained in the Delineation of Lesbian Rights Issues 1980, passed in the midst of the so-called "sex-wars." It states: "Whereas, sadomasochism is an issue of exploitation and violence, not affectional/sexual preference/orientation... since to do so would violate the feminist principles upon which this organization was founded."
In our research it appears that those who passed the resolution were assuming a consensus which was premature, or attempting a preemptive strike to codify a position which had barely been explained, much less debated. Scapegoating sexual minorities has contributed to the splintering of feminism, and many women refuse to join NOW or do so only under protest, feeling excluded or like "second class" members within the organization.
That resolution was passed almost two decades ago, and NOW's current policy doesn't reflect the reality of how much the discussion on sexuality has been expanded. Specifically, as in examining lesbianism, feminists determined that one must consider not the form of the practice but the content and whether an act is consensual and loving. S/M practice is consensual and loving. S/M is also not an exclusively lesbian issue, and is practiced by people of different orientations and genders. There is no reasonable explanation for why S/M was specifically vilified under Lesbian Rights Issues.
Just like being gay or lesbian, my sexuality can't be changed by conscious effort. Yet I, like many other people, was at first caught up in the guilt caused by NOW and anti-S/M feminists who say it's "wrong" to have the fantasies and desires I have because it involves what they consider "abuse." I had every reason to believe I was wrong from the claims of the media and my friends' disapproval, yet I finally trusted in my own feelings and made my own choice about my own sexuality. Now if that isn't self-determination, what is? In spite of the risks involved, when I got past my guilt and fear and took control of my own body, then was I able to take control of the rest of my life. Exploring my sexuality has empowered me.
NOW currently advocates that we don't discuss S/M, and that education shouldn't be done to teach people what safe and consensual S/M is. That means that NOW has helped force this issue back into the dark, which has contributed to the mystification and continuing stereotypes surrounding S/M. I have no doubt that mis-informed people justify their abusive actions in the name of S/M because all they and their partners know are the stereotypes. But the desire to do S/M as a form of sexual expression is not going to go away because some people are uncomfortable with it. What we ask is that NOW stop labeling S/M as violence, stop opposing S/M as a choice of sexual expression, and step forward in a responsible way to help clarify the issues surrounding consent and abuse.
I want to make it clear that pornography is not a consideration in this discussion. S/M portrayals in pornography are a mixed bag - many of the stereotypes of S/M are perpetuated by some forms of pornography, while the necessary S/M educational literature is threatened by anti-porn censorship actions. Pornography is a topic for another time and place because it is not a part of the S/M Policy Reform Statement. This statement only concerns sexual behavior between consenting adults.
Based on my knowledge of the facts, and my own personal experience, I began this project to see if NOW members felt the same way as I do. From the number of supporting statements, you can see many do. We are backed by professional testimony - physicians, psychiatrists, and anti-violence & abuse counselors - who all confirm that S/M is not violence nor detrimental to a woman's mental or physical well-being.
Historic Context
Historically, the concept of sadomasochism was widely disseminated in the early twentieth century by Freud and Krafft-Ebing. This term was derived from the names of two men: the French count, the "Marquis" de Sade (1740-1814) and the Austrian novelist Leopold von Sacher-Masoch (1836-1895).
The practice of S/M existed long before that. As stated in the Prehistory of Sexuality, a respected archeological text, starting around 5,000 years ago it is possible to document great variation in human sexuality in Eurasia, including homosexuality, transvestism, hormone treatments and sadomasochism. Going even further back to the ice age - 40,000 to 12,000 years ago - among the 200 statuettes known as the Venus figurines, there are 2 that show distinct bands of fur binding the women's breasts and their wrists.
Today, the term "S&M" is still widely used except within the "S/M" community who removes the "and" in order to lessen the confusion between sadism and masochism and their medical definitions. Even Robin Ruth Linden, one of the editors of a collection of essays in "Against Sadomasochism" states that "it is necessary that feminists divorce our political criticism of sadomasochism from the medical model. Psychiatric diagnoses and political analysis ought not to be confounded, especially by feminists. To confuse the two is to descend into psychological determinism, a methodologically invalid and a politically indefensible stance."
More recently S/M has come to stand for a group of sexual minorities, which includes a number of sexual practices such as cross-dressing, fetishes like foot worship, consensual exhibitionism, etc. For our discussion, there are two practices that are important: dominance and submission which is role playing - learning to switch roles around, and experimenting with the ways in which we take roles on and how to step out of them. Contrary to anti-S/M feminist assumptions, there are many women who enjoy being sexually dominant, and many more who enjoy switching roles. As the Stanford Prison experiment proved - when roles are forced on people without their consent, that is when problems arise. The Delineation of Lesbian Rights Issues, in essence, tries to force individuals to adhere to politically-correct roles rather than letting them choose for themselves.
The other practice we're concerned with is S/M - in essence, sensory stimulation that is not interpreted as pain but as pleasure. People have widely different tolerances to stimulation of the skin, and many enjoy a build up in intensity, invigorating the body safely without injury. The endorphin release of stimulation causes an accompanying euphoric state. The sensation is comparable to that of runner's high - and NOW isn't out there trying to stop the NYC marathon despite the real self-abuse involved in running 26 miles.
S/M is a Feminist Concern
Some leaders within NOW claim that NOW doesn't have an "S/M policy." This is true - their anti-S/M stance is contained within the Delineation of Lesbian Rights Issues. Nevertheless, these anti-S/M statements were adopted as NOW policy as part of the entire resolution. It's like the Congress passing a bill on water rights, and in a clause, inserting a pay raise. For some feminists, this hidden clause embodies the attitudes which cause their existence to be a nightmare of shame, guilt, and pain.
NOW policy consistently states that we don't restrict what women want to do, yet there is an inherent contradiction in their condemnation of S/M. We know that personal responsibility should start with one's own body, so the anti-S/M contradiction does much more harm than good.
Feminists should be concerned about this issue because S/M discrimination happens every day to people just like you. Discrimination ranges from job loss to family pressures which force people to hide their interest in consensual sexual expression. There are also brutal attacks on S/M practitioners. According to the Female Trouble Survey of 1994, over a third of the 500 lesbians polled had been attacked by other lesbians because of their S/M orientation.
If feminists want to attain safety and nondiscrimination for all women, then anti-S/M policies must be taken into consideration. How empowered are we if we are afraid to acknowledge our own sexuality at a NOW meeting for fear of other people's negative reactions? I would propose that this S/M discussions strikes to the heart of self-determination and the rights of women to chose for themselves - clearly the most fundamental concerns of feminism.
Safe, Sane and Consensual
The credo safe, sane and consensual has permeated S/M literature and lore far beyond the subculture of the organized community. Go on the internet in Liberty, Missouri or Calcutta, India - and alternative sex practitioners all acknowledge the basic creed of safe, sane and consensual S/M. This differentiates it from the stereotype of nonconsensual sadism and masochism.
This creed was developed to encourage standards of play for our own protection and pleasure. We constantly discuss issues of consent which are the basis of S/M education. As you can see in their statement in the handouts, the Anti-Violence Project of NYC applauds the S/M community for the safe and responsible way in which we explore our sexuality.
To define the creed, I would first say: who defines an activity as safe, sane and consensual? The answer: each individual must determine what is safe, sane and consensual for themselves. If someone else is deciding that for you - then it is not safe, sane, and certainly not consensual. If you are psychologically oppressed by an individual, then you are incapable of making informed consent. However, if you examine your own feelings, your own motivations, and most importantly, your own desires, then you are capable of making a choice of whether an activity is safe, sane and consensual for you.
Safe -
Safe is as basic as you have to protect yourself. You should never engage in intimate activity with someone you don't trust. Before you can achieve mutual trust, you must have communication - a free exchange of opinions and beliefs as to what is desired and what is not desired. There can also be technical considerations, such as certain sensitive parts of the body that shouldn't be stimulated like the joints or the neck and face. The stereotype of S&M is that people are bloody and bruised with every encounter - but in fact, first aid is rarely called for in S/M play, and emergency-room visits are far, far less frequent than even non-contact sports such as scuba diving.
Sane -
Sane is knowing the difference between fantasy and reality. The things you read in books and magazines are fantasy, and fantasy is often extreme. Anti-S/M feminists mistakenly equate fantasy with reality when they quote from the "Story of O" or other accounts of S/M about horrific whippings or all-night gang rapes or forced abductions. The issue here is consenting adults engaging in sex play, and even if the terms "slave" and "dungeon" are used, the context is understood.
Consensual -
One common delusion is that individuals are stuck in their sexual roles. In actuality, the type and parameters of control are agreed upon in each scene, and the people involved agree to be in that particular situation. Even in dominance and submission, equality is maintained between the partners because the person being stimulated has the ultimate say in what happens to them; they have the veto power.
This is maintained through what is known as a safeword - a designated word that signals the scene must slow down or stop immediately, even if it's as simple as the bottom just wants to pause for a moment to scratch her nose. You have to remember that we're talking about are sexual games, with a beginning, middle and end, guided by rules and governed by everyone involved.
The Difference Between S/M and Abuse
The Delineation for Lesbian Rights says S/M provides a premeditated structure for abuse: that is not true. People do violate agreements - we too have problems with abuse within S/M relationships, just as heterosexuals and homosexuals do. You can find all the other complexities of human sexual interaction from disagreements and misunderstandings to violent situations. The point is that S/M practitioners aren't intrinsically more prone to those things, and that there is a difference between chosen and coerced interactions, no matter what behaviors, words or sex toys are involved.
The S/M community is probably one of the most aware groups about the difference between consent and abuse. On the other hand, the people who support NOW's anti-S/M policy have no real understanding of safe, sane and consensual S/M. Instead, they take passages from people who have engaged in S/M and encountered abuse, and hold that up as a reason we should condemn all S/M. Well, then, statistically there is more abuse being done by men against their wives in heterosexual marriages - does that mean NOW should condemn heterosexual marriage? Of course not - the very suggestion is absurd. NOW, as a responsible organization, takes special care in educating society about the dangers of abuse within relationships. We should also take great care to educate society about stereotypes of S/M versus safe, consensual sexual expression. We must condemn the violent abusive acts, not the setting in which it occurs - or the partner (often the male) who commits the abuse.
The final argument used by anti-S/M proponents is so outrageous that I couldn't believe it when I first heard it. Anti-S/M feminists claim that because of our socialization by the patriarchy in certain roles, we don't know our own minds. It's the catch-22 argument that was used against women before the suffrage movement began. The male-dominated society told women they were incapable of making decisions, just as NOW tells S/M practitioners they are incapable of deciding their own form of sexuality.
NOW is trying to protect us from choosing a role that they feel is bad for us. They are policing our sexuality based on their opinion - not the opinions of professionals, but their own personal beliefs. Well, isn't that why NOW was started in the first place? To fight for women's right to chose for themselves - to chose their own careers, their own lifestyle, and their own forms of sexual expression.
If you want to start policing roles, then NOW would have to go into bedrooms and order couples to stop engaging in the missionary position - because that implies dominance on the part of the one on top. These roles are out there. What role playing does is free you from roles that have been imposed on you. When I was free to play with my submissive tendencies, that released my dominant sexual side as well. Now I play with both roles in various situations, depending on what I want and who I'm with, not what anti-S/M feminists or society wants from me.
In light of Foucault's philosophy on sexuality, we cannot assume that our modern way of thinking about sex - either biologically or socioculturally - is necessarily any more objective than any other way of thinking about sex. Western tradition of thinking about sex, from Plato to Pat Califia, makes it clear that no one has ever had a monopoly on the truth about our bodies. Nor is there any single overarching definition of what constitutes sexual behavior in humans, apes or higher mammals. Instead of telling women what they can and can't do - let's assure other women that they are in control of their own bodies and they shouldn't be ashamed of their desires by not opposing any form of safe, sane and consensual sexual expression, including S/M.
Apter, Emily and William Pietz. Fetishism as Cultural Discourse. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1993
Cooper Davis, Peggy. Neglected Stories: The Constitutional and Family Values. New York: Hill and Wang, 1997.
Duggan, Lisa, and Nan Hunter. Sex Wars: Sexual Dissent and Political Culture. New York: Routledge, 1995.
Echols, Alice. Daring to Be Bad: Radical Feminism in America 1967-1975. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989.
--. "The New Feminism of Yin and Yang," Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality, ed. Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell, and Sharon Thompson. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1983.
--. "The Taming of the Id: Feminist Sexual Politics 1963-1983," Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality, ed. Carole S. Vance. London: Pandora, 1989.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, Vol. 1. New York: Random House, Inc, 1978.
Nestle, Joan. "My History with Censorship." A Restricted Country. Ithaca: Firebrand Books, 1987.
Samois, a lesbian/feminist S/M organization. Coming to Power. Boston: Alyson Publications, Inc., 1981.
Taylor, Timothy. The Prehistory of Sex. New York: Bantam, 1996.
Vance, Carole S., editor. Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. New York: HarperCollins, 1989.
Willis, Ellen. No More Nice Girls: Countercultural Essays. Hanover: Wesleyan University Press, 1992.
Human Rights Organizations Psychiatrists and Physicians
Policy Presentation Quotes from Authors Form for Support Links
For more information on the S/M Project e-mail NOW SM@AOL.COM