Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hypatiainc.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Hypatia, Inc. and Blackwell Publishing are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Hypatia.
http://www.jstor.org
RethinkingSadomasochism:
Feminism,Interpretation,
andSimulation
PATRICKD. HOPKINS
not women who believed that male dominationwas a good thing. They were
not reactionaryanti-feminists.These women were lesbians and radicalsand
feminist activists and scholarswho claimed that one could be botha radical
feminist committed to the liberation of women and a sadomasochistwho
enjoyed sexual activity basedon the dominant/submissivemodel.
An unusual kind of altercation ensued-a battle among feminists about
whatfeminismmeantandwhatsadomasochismmeant,with tremendousanger
and hostility and incredulityon both sides. Although the so called feminist
"sexwars"were at their most pitched duringthe late 1970s and firsthalf of the
1980s, it is not an issue that has been settled (if any issue is ever settled).2
Radical feminists, and other feminists, continue to deplore and reject the
arrival of "feminist,""lesbian"sadomasochism,though fewer articles are
publishedon the subject these days.Lesbianfeminist sadomasochistson the
other hand, undaunted, have moved on to developing and articulating a
sadomasochistcommunity, culture, and literature. Prominent lesbian SM
advocatesand theoristshave publishedpornographicnovels, magazines,his-
tories of SM, and how-to sex manuals, as well as joining a broaderSM
communityin some publishingprojects,editing new volumes on SM culture
and practice in conjunction with SM advocates in gay male, bisexual,even
heterosexualcommunities.3Why haven't anti-SM radicalfeminists kept up
their active resistance?Perhapsbecausethey feel they have said all that can
reallybe said. Perhapsbecausethey feel it wouldbe a waste of feminist energy
to continue workingagainstSM, energythat would be better spent on other
feminist projects. Perhaps, as one radical feminist teacher of my own has
suggested,becausethey believe lesbianSM is a fadthat will eventuallygo away.
The decline of publishedresistanceto lesbian SM and the rise of pro-SM
literature,theory,andhistorymightleadone to think that SM is moreaccepted
in the 1990s. I doubt this is true althoughperhapssome people have become
habituatedto the presenceof SM. I think that amongmanyradicalfeminists,
lesbian or otherwise, it is not the case that SM has become more acceptable.
Rather,it just does not seem worthwhileto wasteenergyon SM when so many
other feminist tasks remain. The SM advocates have basically the same
libertarianarguments,while all the radicalcounterargumentsstill stand.
Butdo the anti-SMargumentsstill stand?Did they ever stand?Can anti-SM
feministsrest secure in their position?
It is true that SM advocatesstill use many of the same argumentsthat they
usedduringtheirpolitical inception-basically libertarianargumentsfocusing
on personalfreedom,the right to privacy,anti-censorship,etc. However,SM
defendershave not merelybeen repeatingthe same old message,and as such,
the old anti-SM defensesmay no longerbe adequate.SM has moved beyond
its initial focus on absolute,personalprivacy,in which SM was defendedas a
privatesexual activity which was strictlylimited to the bedroom(metaphori-
callyspeaking)and has moved into the realmsof political identity,spirituality,
118 Hypatia
I. ANTI-SMFEMINIST
OPPOSITIONAL
STRATEGIES
Diana Russell:
JudithButler:
What is problematicis that sm takes a non-reflective attitude
toward sexual desire. Professing to embrace "consensual
choice,"andabstractingthemselvesfromthe real,sharedworld,
sm lesbians leave behind the possibilityfor concrete personal
and political choice.... That sm requiresconsent does not
mean that it has overcome heterosexual power dynamics.
Womenhave been consentingto heterosexualpowerdynamics
for thousandsof years.(Butler 1982, 172)
Audre Lorde:
Sadomasochismis an institutionalizedcelebration of domi-
nant/subordinaterelationships.And, it preparesus either to
accept subordinationor to enforcedominance.Evenin play, to
affirmthat the exertion of power over powerlessnessis erotic,
is empowering,is to set the emotional and social stage for the
continuation of that relationship,politically,socially and eco-
nomically.(Lordeand Star 1982, 68)
Diana Russell:
CONTEXTS OF SM
II. REPLICATIONVERSUS SIMULATION:INTERPRETIVE
duringthe scene to slow down or stop the action if it gets too intense, or too
fast, or if it's just not stimulatingenough. Often, safe wordslike "yellow"for
slow down, or "red"for stop, areused (Weinberg,Williams,and Moser 1984,
385). Trueto the context of performanceand simulationhowever,sometimes
the safe wordis simply"safeword,"a self-reflectivesignificationof simulation
(Truscott1991, 19).
In real slavery,the slave is commodityand possession;the mastermayneed
fear,but not approval.The slave is capitalresource,and often a threat-to be
purchased,or bred, and acted upon. In SM "slave"and "master"scenes,
however,the "slave"mayrejectthe "master"(or "mistress")becauseshe is not
dominantenough, not experiencedenough, not skillfulenough to satisfythe
"slave's"desires.6The "slave"may establish a time limit on her "slavery"
becauseshe has to get up and go to workat six o'clock the next morning.The
"slave"may compliment (or criticize)the "master's" whippingtechnique and
set up a time to meet her again next weekend.
It is certainlynot absurdthat criticsof SM see replicationof patriarchalroles
and activities in SM. The surfacesseem similarto out-groupobservers.But
thoughpatriarchalviolence mayappearto parallelSM "violence,"the parallel
is unstable.The interpretivecontext is different.The materialconditions are
different. All the behaviors I mentioned-negotiation, safe words, mutual
definition-take place in a self-definedcommunity.SM communities,in their
diversity-lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual-have their own gathering
places, their own publications,their own rules, their own senses of identity.
This context of community is one aspect of SM that makes the charge of
replicatingpatriarchalactivity contestable.
In fact, SM scenes gut the behaviorsthey simulateof their violent, patriar-
chal, definingfeatures.What makesevents like rape,kidnapping,slavery,and
bondageevil in the firstplace is the fact that they cause harm,limit freedom,
terrify,scar,destroy,and coerce. But in SM there is attraction,negotiation,the
power to halt the activity, the power to switch roles, and attention to safety.
Like a Shakespeareanduel on stage, with bluntedbladesand actors'training,
violence is simulated,but is not replicated.
But what about another level of the problemof possiblereplication?Even
if some critics of SM might agree that the material conditions and the
interpretivecontext of SM are significantlydifferentfromgenuine violence,
perhapsthey would suggestthat this in no way eliminatesthe initial problem
that the SM practitioneris attractedto violence, revels in the dominant/sub-
missive model of sexuality,and derivespleasurefrom the sufferingof women
(herself or others). Even if such sufferingis only simulated, not actually
replicated,the sadomasochiststill exhibitsfalseconsciousness,still engagesin
anti-feministbehavior,and still takes pleasurein abusingwomen or in being
abused(albeit simulated).
PatrickD. Hopkins 125
or collide with another train?Is it the case that she genuinely desiresto be
crushedagainst the ground,but because the law and conventional morality
attempt to prevent it, alas, she is not able? Is riding a roller coaster just a
matter of settling for the weaker imitation, for the copy of plummeting to
her death?8
Of course not. In fact, the experience desiredby the roller coasterrideris
preciselythesimulationof those lethal experiences-not becausesimulationis
all she can get, but becausethesimulationitselfis thrillingand satisfying.There
is no actualdesireto die, or fall, or crash.The simulationitself is the goal, not
a lessercopy of the goal. So in the same way the rollercoasterridermay find
actually falling to her death repugnantand horrible,but finds simulationof
that event thrillingand exciting, the SM practitionermayfind actualviolence
andhumiliationrepugnantandhorrible,but findsthe simulationof that event
thrilling and exciting-not as stand-inbut as a goal in itself. It is simplynot
justifiedto assumethat an SM participantfinds real violence, real sexism,or
real domination and submissiondesirable.As the lesbianfeminist SM advo-
cacy/supportgroupSamois'sMinistryof Truthput it: "Callingan S/M person
sexist is like calling someone who playsMonopolya capitalist"(Samois 1987,
151).
V. CONCLUSION
NOTES
REFERENCES