disease" and "bottom's disease" in butch/femme sexual role-playing and lesbian sadomasochism. 85 As in heterosexual relationships in which one sexual partner is dominant and one is submissive, Astuto and Califia warn against the top's demanding more than a bottom wants to give and against a bottom's feeling so insecure that she believes any top will do no matter how coercive or unsatisfying the sex. For a sex radical feminist, this is hardly an admission that no such sex is caring, attentive, or affectionate. On the contrary, a sex radical would argue that being on the lookout for such abuses belies a sensitivity and consideration for how each partner defines her role in sex as well as what each partner can expect from the other.
|
Astuto and Califia also point out that some consensual sadomasochistic sex is plainly unsafe, harmful, or unhealthy. Neck clamps can be too tight, time spent in bondage can be too prolonged or unmonitored, penetration can be with sharp or unclean objects. However, before any practice begins, partners can share with each other their sexual concerns, limitations, and needs, from emotional discipline such as humiliation and verbal abuse to the physical discipline of whipping, abrasion, and bondage. Code words that mean "Stop now!" are agreed to beforehand, so that begging to stop or refusing to stop can be incorporated into the erotic play of power; yet each partner maintains control of the encounter by defining the code and the roles played. 86 For a sex radical feminist, stop codes are themselves symbols of an attentiveness that each partner contributes to the sexual play. While a sex radical does not demand the intimate loving relationship that a cultural feminist does, a sex radical feminist nevertheless demands that there be the kind of care respect for each partner that turns the harm in sadomasochism into a mutually directed and mutually pleasurable drama of erotic discipline, quite the contrary from a unilateral perpetration of violence. From a sex radical's point of view, such discipline is intentionally not gentle, not sweet, and not romantic, because as I pointed out in chapter 2, sex radical feminists are skeptical of any version of sexual intimacy that imitates or reinforces patriarchal norms of romantic love. However, the practitioner of s/m protests that her practices should not be equated with rape, torture, and murder simply because her sex is not "vanilla" sex. Nor should her practices be equated with social pathology due to cultural feminists' belief in the essentially intimate and bonding nature of women's sexuality. If the burden is on a sex radical to show that her sex is truly liberating, there is an equal burden on cultural feminists from a sex radical's perspective to show that lesbian or heterosexual "vanilla" sex is not just another instance of an oppressive patriarchal norm.
|
Thus, a sex radical claims that she cannot be accused of encouraging violence against women since, she would argue, she is not being cruel or vicious to women at all. On the contrary, sex radical feminists would assert that cultural feminists encourage violence against women by restricting women to traditionally repressive romantic norms and by refusing to see the radical reclamation of dominant/submissive sex as anything other than the mirroring of women's sexual victimization by men. According to a sex radical, if the public mistakes legitimate attempts to reclaim women's sexuality as encouraging violence against women, that mistake is due to a lack of public sensitivity to sexual practices that deviate from the sexual norm, not to the practices themselves. The solution is public education about the methods and aims of a variety of sexual practices, not social ignorance and public ridicule.
|
|