Hypatia, Inc.

Rethinking Sadomasochism: Feminism, Interpretation, and Simulation

Author(s): Patrick D. Hopkins
Source: Hypatia, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter, 1994), pp. 116-141
Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of Hypatia, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3810439
Accessed: 19/01/2010 00:49

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

In reexaminingthe "sex war" debatesbetweenradicalfeministsand lesbian

feministsadomasochists, I find thatthe actualpracticeof sadomasochism provides
the basisfor a philosophically
morecomplexpositionthanhas beenarticulated.In
responseto theanti-SMradicalperspective,I developa distinctionbetweensimula-
tion and replicationof patriarchaldominant/submissive activities.In lightof this
importantepistemological and ethical I
distinction, claim that the radicalfeminist
opposition to SM needs reassessment.

Sadomasochismhas often been considered by feminists to be a major

epistemologicaland behavioralstructureof male dominatedsocieties.' Most
often, this structurehas manifested itself in the form of dominant males
coercing and controlling femalesfor their own aims. This manifestationhas
not been limited to blatant sexual activity, but has included, even more
importantly,pervasive,hidden beliefsaboutthe proper,"natural"relationships
between men and women-beliefs which have allowed men to control the
behaviorand attitudesof women for their own economic, political, religious,
as well as sexual purposes.It has been one of the primarygoals of feministsto
articulate,and then eradicate,the model of dominance and submissionupon
which so much of humanbehaviorin patriarchalsociety is based.In particular,
radical, separatist,and lesbian feminists have focused on eliminating this
model as key to any hope for women's liberation,resistinginstances of the
dominance/submissionmodel as expressedin pornography,rape,battery,and
various'malestream'media.
It was then both shocking and horrifyingfor many radicaland politically
active feminists in the late 1970s and early 1980s to discoverthat there were
women who called themselvesboth feministsandsadomasochists.These were

Hypatiavol. 9, no. 1 (Winter 1994) © by PatrickD. Hopkins

 PatrickD. Hopkins 117

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

and epistemology.Previousradicalcounterargumentsreactingto the absolute

privatizationof sexual experience and to traditional liberal claims of the
inviolabilityof consensualsexual activity are unlikely to be adequate,if they
ever were, for counteringevolving SM.
In what follows, I want to engage the originalcriticismsof sadomasochism
put forth by radical anti-SM feminists, assessingtheir relevance for dealing
with contemporarySM epistemologyand ethics as I see them. My premisein
this paper is not that current SM activists have developed stunning new
defenses of SM which sweep away the formerradical critiques.Rather, my
premiseis that with the increasedradicalizationand communitizationof SM,
it becomesapparentthat SM activitymustbe interpretedwith a greaterdegree
of subtlety and attention to context, both internal and external, than has
previouslybeen employed.To that end I will firstlook at the argumentsagainst
traditionalconcepts of SM. I will reinterpretSM in light of its recent articu-
lation, and in turn,questionthe applicabilityof establishedcounterarguments.

I. ANTI-SMFEMINIST
OPPOSITIONAL
STRATEGIES

Generally,radicalfeminist opposition to lesbian SM can be characterized

in terms of three primarystrategies: 1. Lesbian SM replicates patriarchal
relationships;2. Consent to activitieswhich eroticizedominance,submission,
pain, and powerlessnessis structurallyimpossibleor ethically irrelevant;3.
LesbianSM validatesandsupportspatriarchy,thoughperhapsunintentionally.
First:The claim with which most anti-SM feminists begin, and which is
probablythe firstreaction to hearingabout the practiceof lesbian "feminist"
SM, is that SM replicatespatriarchy.It seems an obvious inference to make,
at least at first.Patriarchalsociety allowsor encouragesthe sexual,economic,
and psychologicalabuseof women, largelyat the hands of men and for men's
purposes.Lesbianswho derive pleasurefrom humiliatingor causing pain to
other women seem blatantlyto be reproducingthe implicit values of patriar-
chal cultures,probablyas a resultof having internalizedthe view that women
aresexual objects to be used for pleasure.Pleasureis to be had at the expense
of women'spain.
The emphasisin this criticismis clear.Sadomasochismis a core structureof
male-dominatedculture. The fact that women engage in SM with other
women does not obscure this fact. Indeed, it brings it into greater relief.
Women,lesbians,even purportedfeminists,can internalizethe degradationof
women into sexual objects as a value without realizingthat they have bought
into patriarchalculture.
Bat Ami Bar-on:
The primaryclaim of [feministopposition]is that the erotiza-
tion of violence or domination,and of pain or powerlessness,is
 PatrickD. Hopkins 119

at the core of sadomasochismand, consequently, that the

practiceof sadomasochismembodiesthe samevaluesas hetero-
sexual practicesof sexual domination in general and sexually
violent practiceslike rapein particular.(Bar-On 1982, 75)
JessieMeredith:
When women practice dominance and submission in their
sexual relationships, does this perpetuate the values of the
patriarchalrulingclass,whose stock-in-tradeis dominanceand
submission?I believe that it does. (Meredith 1982, 97)

Diana Russell:

Sadomasochismresultsin partfromthe internalizationof het-

erosexual dominant-submissiverole playing. Sadomasochism
among lesbians involves, in addition, the internalizationof a
homophobicheterosexualview of lesbians.(Russell 1982, 176)
Second: SM advocatesoften claim that since participantsin an SM activity
consent to the act, they are not doing anything wrong. It is something that
they themselves desire, even seek out. But radical feminists disagree.They
claim that consent has long been used to justify treating women as lesser
creatures,and the fact that women often say that they consent to certain
patternsof male dominationdoesnot provethat they areactingfreely.Women,
like men, typicallylearn and internalizepatriarchalvalues and think of them
as natural.Consent to abusecannot be consideredjustificationof abuse.The
purported"consent"is just an example of how deeply the interalization of
oppressiongoes. In fact, even if a certainwoman'sassentto engagein a painful
sexual activity can be consideredconsent, this does not mean that it can be
considereda feminist activity,nor even can it be considerednon-oppressive.
The fact that an activity is merelyconsensualdoes not suggestthat it should
be consideredmorallypermissible,non-pathological,and certainlynot polit-
icallypractical.Consent, therefore,can be seen as either a structuralimpossi-
bility in the context of eroticizeddominance/submissionor as a hopelessly
conflated irrelevancy.
Diana Russell:

Women have been rearedto be submissive,to anticipate and

even want domination by men. But wanting or consenting to
domination and humiliation does not make it nonoppressive.
It merelydemonstrateshow deep and profoundthe oppression
is. Many young Brahmin women in the nineteenth century
"voluntarily"jumpedinto the funeralpyresof their dead hus-
bands.What feminist would arguethat these women were not
120 Hypatia

oppressed?... such consent does not mean that powerhas not

been abused.(Russell 1982, 177)
KarenRian:

I think the issueof "mutualconsent"is utterlybesidethe point.

The pro-sadomasochismargumentoften justifieslesbian sado-
masochismas a matterof mutualconsent and therefore,beyond
reproach. However, I find this argument as irrelevant and
unconvincing as the anti-feministargumentfromwomen who
claim that theirgreatestsatisfactionis in "consenting"to sexual
subservienceto men. Since oursexualityhas been for the most
partconstructedthroughsocial structuresover which we have
had no control, we all "consent"to sexualdesiresand activities
which are alienating to at least some degree.However,there's
a vast difference between consent and self-determination.
(Rian 1982, 49)

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)

Third:As a result of replicatingpatriarchalvalues, desires,and behaviors,

and by employing a naive conception of consent as defense, promotingand
practicing sadomasochismactually ends up supportingpatriarchy.SMists
validatepatriarchy'sactivities and undercutthe powerof feminist opposition
by claiming that enjoying women'spain and humiliation can be conjoined
with feminismitself. This is strongerthan merelythe claim that SM replicates
patriarchy;this is the claim that SM actually furtherspatriarchy,promotes
patriarchy,and as such, inhibits the development of feminism and actively
interfereswith the liberationof women. Lesbian"feminist"SM reinforcesthe
oppressionof women.
Hilde Hein:

To degradesomeone,even with that person'sexpressedconsent,

is to endorsethe degradationof persons.It is to affirmthat the
abuseof personsis acceptable.
Forif some people maybe humil-
iated and despised,all may be. (Hein 1982, 87)
 PatrickD. Hopkins 121

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:

Proponentsof sadomasochismespouseviolence, pain and tor-

ture as long as they areconsensual.But imagesof women being
bound, beaten and humiliatedfoster ideas that this behavior
maybe acceptable,or at leastexciting andlegitimate,regardless
of whether or not the recipientsof this violence are portrayed
as consenting. (Russell 1982, 179)
I thus find that the charges of replicatingpatriarchy,the irrelevancyor
impossibilityof consent, and the validation of patriarchyare recurringargu-
ment strategies.But arethese chargesaccurate?Are they even applicable?Are
radicalcritics even talking about the same things that the SM advocatesare
talking about?
Before making any interpretivesense of these questions or indeed of the
supposedobject of interest-SM-it will be necessaryto explore the internal
interpretivecontext of sadomasochisticactivity.This will be criticalin answer-
ing the question of whether or not SM replicatespatriarchyand will situate
questionsof the relevancyof consent and the validationof patriarchy.In terms
of the questionof replication,I find two parallel,apparentlysimilar,but largely
discontinuous discourses operating regarding SM-one interpreting the
"internal"context of SM encountersfromthe perspectiveof non-participating
spectator,the other interpretingthe "internal"context of SM encountersfrom
the perspectiveof participant.

CONTEXTS OF SM
II. REPLICATIONVERSUS SIMULATION:INTERPRETIVE

Radical critics often treat SM activities as if they were contextually and

performativelyidentical with any other "sadistic"or "masochistic"act occur-
ring anywhere, anytime. The working assumptionseems to be that within
patriarchalcontext' (and perhaps beyond it), certain behaviors possess an
"essence"of their own, an intrinsicmeaning,that cannot genuinelybe altered
by participantconsent, community specification, or conscious negotiation.
Diana Russell says: "I consider the infliction or receiving of pain and/or
humiliation for sexual pleasure,even within a consensual relationship, as
122 Hypatia

incompatible with feminism, because a 'master-slave'. . . relationship or

encounter is inherentlyunequal. Feminism rejects unequal sexual and love
relationships"(Russell 1982, 177) [italicsadded].
Activities that eroticizesubmissionand dominanceare interpretedas oper-
ating exactly on the model of submission/dominancecharacteristicof male-
dominated cultures. Any such activity, therefore, is thought to replicate
patriarchalvalue, patriarchaldesire,patriarchalbehavior.That such activity
might include the participationof lesbiansdoes nothing to alterthe interpre-
tation-it still replicatesthe structureof masculinistdesire. SM behavior is
essentiallyno differentfromany other occurrenceof the rape,beating,humil-
iation, exploitation, or degradationof women.
Sarah Hoaglandwrites:"What I've found quite jolting in severalcommu-
nities is the impulseto silence andostracizeLesbianbattererswhile at the same
time providing a forumfor Lesbiansadists.This is significant because most
batterersdo not think that beating and humiliating another Lesbian is a
positive thing to do, while sadistsnot only think it is alrightbut advocate it
in the name of feminism,sisterhoodand trust"(Hoagland 1982, 156). But is
it the case that SM thinking and activity is really indistinguishablefrom
apparentlysimilarbehaviorin coercive, patriarchalcontext? Is it reallyeven
"apparentlysimilar"?Is the meaning of the activities the same in SM and
lesbianbattery?SarahHoaglandseemsto think so, andby implicationsuggests
that SM lesbians are encouragingthe kindof activity that occurs in lesbian
domesticviolence.
SM advocates,as one might predict,explicitly reject any notion that they
support or condone such violence. They don't even consider what they
practiceas violent. The problemis, they say,radicalshave no sense of context.
In their drive to expose the universaland eternal gripof patriarchyon every
aspect of human experience, they ignore obvious differencesin experience.
Forinstance, in criticizinga slide presentationmadeby feminist anti-pornog-
raphygroup,Pat Califiasays:
Their definition of porn was circular and sloppy. They
definedany sexist or violent imageas pornography,then turned
aroundand used that assumptionto "prove"that all pornogra-
phy wasviolent and sexist. Lesbiansexualitywasnot discussed.
Some vague distinction was made between "erotica" and
"porn,"but no examples of "erotica"were shown. This made
me especially uncomfortablesince many heterosexualswere
present, and one of the favoriteimagesof "violent"pornogra-
phy wassoft-core,glossyimagesof womenkissingor goingdown
on each other. The presenters'definition of violence was as
tautological as their definition of pornography.There was no
sense of context or scale. The lesbian porn was presented as
 PatrickD. Hopkins 123

being just as violent as a womangetting stabbed.Wearinghigh

heels or being tied up was describedwith as much horroras
getting raped. Corsets were condemned with as much vehe-
mence as wife-beating. Anal sex was apparently a violent
practice. Teenage girls apparentlycouldn't have sex without
beingviolated. And women in the sex industrywereapparently
being rapedby the camera,not by the vice squad.... Anybody
who questioned [the anti-porography activists']definition of
por or violence wasaccusedof havingbadconsciousnessabout
violence againstwomen. (Califia 1987, 256-257)
The oft-repeateddefense of SM that is supposedto demonstratethat SM
activity is not just like patriarchalviolence is that SM activity is consensual.
Consent to beating, humiliation, or role-playingis thought to justify such
activity.Radicalsquestion both the existence or relevance of consent. But is
consent the only defense?I think not. I think that SM practitioners,as well as
their radicalcritics,have not readwith sufficientsubtletythe dynamicsof SM
encounters. The interpretive context of SM has much more to offer as a
defense.
That defense is this:SM sexualactivitydoes not replicatepatriarchalsexual
activity. It simulatesit. Replication and simulationare very different.Repli-
cation implies that SM encountersmerelyreproducepatriarchalactivity in a
differentphysicalarea.Simulationimpliesthat SM selectively replayssurface
patriarchalbehaviorsonto a differentcontextual field. That contextual field
makesa profounddifference.
SM participantsdo not rape, they do rape scenes. SMists do not enslave,
they do slave scenes. SMists do not kidnap, they do capture and bondage
scenes. The use of the term "scenes"exposes a critical, central aspect of SM
culture. SM is constructed as a performance,as a staging, a production, a
simulationin which participantsare writers,producers,directors,actors,and
audience. Importantly,this is a simulation recognizedas such. Participants
know they are doing a scene. They have sought out other performers.
As with other kinds of performances,other kinds of simulations, there
appearto be many similaritiesbetween the "real"activity and the staged
activity.In the case of SM, there is strongemotion.There is tension. And there
may be real, genuine pain.4
But similarityis not sufficientfor replication.5Core featuresof real patriar-
chal violence, coercive violence, are absent. In real rapes,the victim is not a
participant.She is not a subject.She is object, sport,commodity,disposable.
She has little or no power.In an SM rape scene, however, the "victim"of a
"rapist"is no replicationof the victim of a rapist.This "victim"has negotiated
with her "rapist"ahead of time to establishthe design,production,duration,
and performanceof the "rape."She might establish"safewords"she can use
124 Hypatia

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

But this criticismwould fail to take the power of simulationinto account.

Certainlysome people who enjoy the genuine sufferingof women may make
foraysinto the SM communitybeforethey areferretedout. Butit is not obvious
that takingpleasurein the simulationof violence, domination,and submission
is the same as or even indicative of taking pleasure in genuine violence,
domination, and submission.Sexual desiresdo not always,perhapsnot even
predominantly,take as their objects isolated acts or isolated bodies. The
context of the body and the act in an environment establishes the erotic
interpretation.Thus, desireis not simplydirectedat certainspecifiablebodies,
but also at certain relativelyspecifiableenvironments.An entire context can
be the "object"of desire.Not justan act, not justa body,not justa physiological
reaction,but ratherthe entiretyof bodiesandcircumstanceand interpretation
is desired.One can lust aftera scene.7
In the case of SM therefore,it shouldnot be assumedthat SM participants
actuallyfind pleasurein the tortureof slaves,nor in the criesof a rapevictim,
nor in the humiliation of women, nor in the relentlessassaultof an attacker.
In fact, it is a centralethical andpoliticalvalueof those SMistswho alsoprofess
to be feministsthat such events areindeedevil, deplorable,and repugnant.At
the same time however, it is possibleto desirethe simulationof those events,
to lust after the context of a negotiated and consensual "submission"or
"domination."This does not mean that simulation is the closest the SM
practitionercan get to her realdesires.This does not mean that the simulation
of rape is a legal stand-in for the real thing. Neither should it be taken for
grantedthat the participantsget theirpleasurebygettingso farinto the fantasy
that they feel like it is the real thing. Rather,the sadomasochistcan desirethe
simulationitself,not as inferiorcopy of the real thing, not as copy of anything
at all, but as simulationquasimulation.There is a specificsexualcontext. The
real events of rape and attack may be the object of intense hatred, intense
sorrow,intense resistance.Lesbiansadomasochistsmarch in Take Back The
Night marches,volunteer in rape crisiscenters, and may even be victims of
sexual assaultthemselves and speak out against it, bringingcharges against
their assailants.But this is not contradiction.Forthe actual desireof the SM
participantmay not be any form of real abuse. The desire may be for the
simulationitself. Without limits, consent, ethical codes, safe wordsand com-
munity connection, the simulation would not be simulation. It would be
replicationor imitation-not the desiredexperience,and thus not erotic.
In significantways, SM scenes parallelthe experience of being on a roller
coaster.There is intense emotion-fear, tension, anticipation,thrill. There is
physiologicalarousal-adrenaline rush,headiness,gut twisting, a body high.
All this becauseone has placedherselfin the position of simulatingplummet-
ing to her death,of simulatingflyingoff into space,of simulatingthe possibility
of smashinginto trees or metal railings.But is the best interpretationof the
rollercoasterrider'sdesirethat she reallywould like to plummetto her death
126 Hypatia

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).

III. CONSENTAND CONTENT

FormanySM practitioners,the belief that SM is not or cannot be genuinely

consensual is part of a pervasive and false psychological stereotype of SM
participantsand encounters-an exampleof the kind of falsestereotypesoften
attributedto minoritygroups.Experiencesof their own autonomyand asser-
tiveness in sexual scenes prove to SMists that they do in fact consent to SM
activity and that their consent is not problematic.Gayle Rubin (herself a
feminist scholar and sadomasochist)says:"The silliest argumentsabout S/M
have been those which claim that it is impossiblethat people really consent
to do it.... [T]he overwhelmingcoercion with regardto S/M is the way in
which people are preventedfromdoing it. We are fightingfor the freedomto
consent to our sexuality without interference,and without penalty" (Rubin
1987, 224-25).
Rubin does not providean argumentdefendingthe presenceof consent in
SM activities;she seemsto think that she doesnot have to. Rubinlargelytreats
the SM community like any other cultural minority,and suggeststhat the
problemof questioning consent in SM lies not with SM practitioners,who
experiencethe fullnessof consent in everysought-afterscene, but ratherwith
radical feminist critics who are intent on attributinga set of unwarranted
psychologicaltraitsto SMists.ForRubin, the case is no differentfromthat of
heterosexualswho claim that lesbiansand gayscan never be trulyhappy,even
if they say they are.
 PatrickD. Hopkins 127

This speakingfrompersonalexperience about the obviousnessof genuine

consent is quite at oddswith radicalcritics.Radicalsrecognizethat "consent"
has been used againstwomen many times-a claim with which SM feminists
completely agree.Rubin acknowledgesthat "socialrelationsof class, gender,
race, and so forth in fact do limit the scope of possibledecisionswhich can be
made"(Rubin 1987, 224). What she disagreeswith however,is that SM is an
obvioussite at which the possibilityof consent has been compromised.
In addition to the defense of personalexperience in which masochistsand
sadists both have complete trust in their own consent, some SMists have
claimedthat the contractualnatureof SM not only ensuresconsent but allows
it to flourish.In fact, SM is thought to providea radicallyhonest, democratic
model of consent that can be beneficiallyapplied to other situations. Carol
Truscottstates:
The startingpoint of all S/M relationships,then, is talk of
the most intimate kind. The talk is about what S/M play gets
the potential partnersoff;who will assumewhich role;whether
other people maybe included... ; what each person'slimits are;
whether or not "safewords"are allowedor required,and if so,
what they are;the health of the partners.. .; and, more mun-
danely,whether one or the other has to leave for work at five
the next morning . . . traditionalrelationshipsdon't usually
begin with this intimate a discussion.Most couples never talk
openly about what they want and what they are preparedto
give in theirsexualrelationships.Communicationaboutsexual
activities is largely nonverbal: incoherent sounds combined
with one partnerseeking to move partsof the other'sbody in
the hope that the "offending"partner will understandthat
somethingis amiss.... It is this, the negotiationpreparatoryto
the new S/M relationship,that is the most importantgift of
contemporaryconsensualsadomasochismto the largersociety.
(Truscott1991, 19)
Truscottgoes on to say that the experience of many SM participantsis that
SM activity has taught them betterhow to handle conflicts and negotiations
outsidetheir sexualactivities,suggestingthat the skillsof consent mayactually
be trainedand improved.
But though this talk about consent soundshonest and arisesfrom the kind
of context feminists normally value-personal experience-there is still
strong,gut-level resistance,A feminist cannot listen to claims about the joys
of consenting to be tied down, whipped or urinated on, and claims that
pretending to be a slave or a rape victim help teach independence and
assertiveness,without remembering-rememberingimagesof Chinese moth-
ers "consenting"to have their daughters'feet bound, images of young girls
128 Hypatia

"consenting"to be marriedto older men, images of women "consenting"

unquestioninglyto their husbands'will out of religiousconviction, imagesof
battered wives "consenting"to stay with their abusive husbands,images of
fashion-consciouswomen "consenting"to endless and dangerousdiets. Per-
sonal experience, while a powerfulsource of feminist insight and political
truth, is also a potent site for the twisting of women'sdesires.Domination is
not always achieved through physical and economic coercion alone. The
imagination can be colonized as well. The personalitycan be coerced into
constructingdesires that serve other'sinterests.For some radicalcritics, the
structureof certain choices themselvessuggestthat consent is doubtful.
Bat Ami Bar-Onsays:"The erotizationof violence or dominationand pain
or powerlessnessnecessarilyinvolves a violation of the rightto determinewhat
can be done with and to one'sbody"(Bar-On1982, 76) [italicsadded].It seems
that for Bar-On,violence, domination,pain, and powerlessnessaresuch clear
and presentevils that any notion of one "consenting"to such events mustbe
read as the colonization of desires, not as the expression of autonomous
attraction.Bar-On'sclaim is centralto the argumentsof feministdetractorsof
SM. Forher, this claim is the one that must be challenged if the defendersof
SM are to make a successfulcase for genuine consent. She says:"Thispremise
must be shown to be false in orderto reject the opposition'sargument.The
burdenof proof is on the vindicatorsof sadomasochism... if one is to reject
the opposition'sargument,one must show that it is not necessarilythe case
that a sexualpracticeinvolving the erotizationof violence or dominationand
of pain or powerlessnessdoes not therebyalso involve a violation of the right
to determinewhat can be done with and to one'sbody"(Bar-On 1982, 77).
Perhapsin light of what I have saidaboutSM as simulation,a challenge can
be broughtforth. If it is possible,or maybeeven probable,that SM participants
desirethe simulationitself, then the derivativeeroticizationwould not be of
"violence or domination and of pain or powerlessness"but of simulated
violence, simulateddomination,and simulatedpowerlessness.I leave out the
term "pain"in this speculationbecause the pain experienced in SM can be
very real indeed. While some role-playingactivities use soft cloth "whips"or
loose bondage, many activities involve real whips, restrictivebondage, and
genuine pain (see footnote 4).
Ifthe eroticizationof simulated violence, domination,andsubmissionis what
is going on in SM scenes, then Bar-On'sclaim would not seem to apply.
Although the SM theoristswhom I have readappearnot to have thoughtabout
their sexual activities explicitly in termsof simulation,I think much of their
rhetoricsuggeststhat they wouldagreewith Bar-Onthat eroticizingviolence,
domination, and submissionnecessarilyinvolves a violation of the right of
bodily determination.However,many reject the claim that what goes on in
SM relationshipsis violence. CarolTruscottrejectsthe claim that the notion
of violence is even applicableto SM:
 PatrickD. Hopkins 129

The most common accusation leveled at practitionersof

sadomasochismis that we are "violent."Consensualsadomas-
ochism has nothing to do with violence. Consensualsadomas-
ochism is aboutsafelyenactingsexualfantasieswith a consenting
partner.Violence is the epitome of non-consensuality,an act
perpetratedby a predatoron a victim. A rapistlurkingin the
bushes is not going to ask me if I want to be raped.A person
bent on killing me is not going to ask whether I have any
objection to dyingat her or his hands.... Consensualsadomas-
ochism neither perpetuatesviolence nor serves as catharsisof
the violent in the humanspirit.Despite appearances,consen-
sualsadomasochismhas nothing to do with violence. (Truscott
1991, 30)

Interestingly,not only does Truscottclaim that SMists do not equate their

sexual activity with violence, but also that their sexual activity is not even a
way to achieve catharsisof some desiretowardgenuine violence. This is quite
similarto my earlierclaim that an SM practitionermay be attractedto the
simulationitself,and not at all attractedto genuine violence. The same line of
thought may be appliedto submissionand dominance.
It is thus crucial in consideringclaims about consent in SM to ask the
following question:What is a sadomasochistconsenting to? If the character-
izationof SM scenes as simulationis accurate,then one cannot claim that a
sadomasochistconsents to genuine powerlessness,genuine domination, or
genuine submission.The SMist is insteadconsenting to particularsimulative
performancesnegotiatedbeforehandamongperformerswith equal powerand
equalsay.As such, the radicals'critiqueof consent fails to applyto the claims
of consent employed in consensual SM relationships.This is not a circular
argument-consensual SM is by consent so it is consensual.This is instead a
re-cognitionof the context of SM as a practiceof simulationin a specific and
knowledgeablecommunity.9It maybe truethat one cannot genuinelyconsent
to powerlessnessand domination,but this is not an argumentagainstconsent-
ing to simulatedpowerlessnessand domination.The practicesare different,
the contexts are different,the participantsare different.

IV. VALIDATION, ASSIMILATION,AND PUBLICRELATIONS

But even if we are to understandSM activity in terms of simulation and

recognize that consent to simulation is less problematic than consent to
genuine violence or powerlessness,SM still occursin a patriarchalcultureand
cannot be uncomplicatedlyextractedfromthat cultureand analyzedor expe-
rienced strictly in its own terms.The fact remainsthat genuine violence and
dominationdo occur,and most representationsof such are not subjectto the
130 Hypatia

kind of consent ethics presentin the SM community.The explicit character-

ization of fantasy, the self-conscious theatric model of the "scene," prior
negotiation, sexual training,safe words,attention to safety,and the potential
switching of roles are rarelypresent in conventional media. When filtered
through patriarchal interpretation, the simulative nature of SM may be
ignored,thus contributingto the generalcontext of the disempowermentand
degradationof women by reinforcingthe belief that all women'sinnermost
erotic desire is to be dominated,controlled-a theme commonly echoed in
violent, and even non-violent, films.Obviouslythis wouldinterferewith most
feminists' goals. There is a largercontext to think about in regardto the
presenceof SM, a context which affectsall women.
The fear, and often primarycriticism, of most radical critics is that SM
actually validates and supports the degradationof, and violence against,
women. It is not obviousthat this claim has been challengedby characterizing
SM as consensualperformancesin contexts of simulation.The validation of
violence againstwomen, of seeing women as fantasyfodderand sexualfodder
for heterosexualmen, does not rest in any internal interpretationof an SM
scene, but rather in the situatednessof that "scene"in broaderpatriarchal
cultural context. Lesbian SM, like any other SM, still operates within the
relativelyuncriticallargerfield of sexismand the oppressionof women. Can't
it thereforestill function,even unintentionally,as a representation,and thus
validation, of the non-consensualdominationmodel?This could occur in at
least two ways.First,even if SM is primarilysimulativeratherthan replicative,
SM couldvalidatepatriarchyby condoning(perhapsunwittingly)the ideology
of coercive sexual domination. Second, SM could be a destabilizingforce
within feminismitself, interferingwith relationsamongfeministsby scattering
energyneeded for specific projectsand presentingfeminismto the worldas a
movement of infightingand dissension.
In the firstcase, that of condoninga patriarchalideologyleadingto violence
againstwomen, it should be made clear that this does not have to mean that
any SM participant deliberatelydoes this. Rather, just by taking place in
patriarchalculture/context,SM will be seen as condoning the objectification
of women's bodies, even if the dominant is herself a woman. It makes no
differenceif it really is simulation,even self-characterizedsubversivesimula-
tion.
SarahHoagland:
The idea that nazi/Jew,master/slavescenes parodythe Holo-
caustandslaveryandthereforedo not contributeto the context
which allowssuch institutionsto flourish,indicatesa failureto
understanda fundamentalprincipleof separatism:to parodyan
institution is neverthelessto reinforceits worldview (its Welt-
anschauung)andhence to validateit. To parodynazismaytake
 PatrickD. Hopkins 131

some of the pompousnessout of their ceremony,but the parody

still validates nazismby perpetuatingthe languagegame, the
conceptualframework,andtherebyallowsthose who workwith
deadly earnest and intelligence towardfascismand slaveryto
exist in an ideologicalframeworknecessaryfortheirgrowthand
development. It holds their foundationintact, feeds it. (Hoag-
land 1982, 159)
The radicals'claim is that such imageryis not seen by viewers as rigidly
compartmentalizedinto a self-consciousfantasy,separatedfrom male-domi-
nated culture,but is insteadan uncriticalreinforcementof the fetishizationof
female submissionand powerlessnesscentral to the structuresof patriarchal
sexual desire. LesbianSM providesa particularlyinsidiousreinforcementof
that desire-it providesan image of assertive,even "feminist"women, who
say that it really is their desire to be dominated, and that sex based on
dichotomiesof power is what reallyturnsthem on. Perhapsin a worldwhere
feminist critical insights aboundedand where a robustnotion of simulation
wasactive, a contextual interpretationof such claimswouldnot be so danger-
ous, in the sense of validatingsexualdesirefocusedon coerciveormanipulative
sex. But in a worldwherefeministcriticalinsightsandself-consciouscinematic
metaphoricity are the possession of a relatively small group, lesbian SM
functions merely as a dumpingof images into masculinistcontext. One can
easily imagine that those masculinistmen who might have access to such
imageswill have little morecriticalinsight than to defendtheir sexualdesires
or their version of women'ssexual desiresby grunting"Well,she's a woman
and she likes it" or "Well,she'sa feministand she likes it."
The second way that lesbian SM is purportedto validate patriarchyis by
hurtingfeministsand feministprojects.Again, this is not a chargeof deliberate
harm,but of inevitableharm.AudreLordeworriesthat "sexwars"in feminism
disperseenergyneeded for other, importantprojects.She says:"The question
I ask, over and over, is who is profitingfrom this?When sadomasochismgets
presentedon center stage as a conflict in the feminist movement, I ask, what
conflictsarenot beingpresented?"(Lordeand Star 1982, 68), and later,"isthis
whole questionof s/msex in the lesbiancommunityperhapsbeingusedto draw
attention and energies away from other more pressingand immediatelylife-
threateningissuesfacingus aswomenin this racist,conservativeand repressive
period?A red herring?A smoke screen for provocateurs?"(Lorde and Star
1982, 70).
In her short narrativeA Letterof theTimes,Alice Walkerdescribesa class
in feminist theology in which studentshave been studyingslave narratives.
Studentsareencouragedto imaginewhat it wouldbe like to be enslavedor to
be a mistress.Near the end of the classa television specialon sadomasochism
airsin which a white "mistress"and her black "slave"arepresented.Walker's
132 Hypatia

characterwrites:"All I had been teaching was subvertedby that one image,

andI wasincensedto think of the hardstruggleof mystudentsto ridthemselves
of stereotype,to combat prejudice,to put themselves into enslaved women's
skins,and then to see their strugglemocked,and the actualenslavedcondition
of literallymillions of our motherstrivialized-because two ignorantwomen
insisted on their right to act out publiclya 'fantasy'that still strikesterrorin
black women'shearts"(Walker 1982, 207). Again, the chief indictment of
lesbian SM is that it has the result of interferingwith feminist projectsand
reinforcesa patriarchalworldview.
I think it is clear,historically,that the presenceof lesbian SM has created
dissensionand animosityamongfeminists.It has not, however,been demon-
stratedthat SM, if acceptedas an ethicallypermissibleformof sexualactivity,
would in fact reinforcepatriarchalbeliefs aboutwomen'ssexualityin the way
radicalcritics claim it would. After all, sadomasochistswho advocate under-
standingof and tolerancefor the freeexerciseof their sexualityareconstantly
making it clear that consent, playfulness,safety, and the option of "role
reversal"are central to their sexuality.But for purposesof this essay,let us
assumethat acknowledgedSM sexualitydoesreinforcepatriarchalbeliefs in a
significant number of persons as well as create problems for interfeminist
relations-in spite of feministSMists'attemptsto prevent these effects.What
political stance shouldfeministSMiststake as a resultof this knowledge?I do
not think the answeris obvious.
Certainly the option radicalsoffer is that SMists renounce SM and stop
living out their fantasies.10But this answer is politically, personally,and
theoretically problematic,particularlyfor women informed by the critical
insightsof lesbian/radicalfeminismitself. In general,it soundslike SMistsare
being admonishedto renounce,or at leasthide, their sexual/politicalactivities
becausethey hurt "the movement"or because they "makethings worse"by
being so blatant and weird.FormanySMistssuch a claim soundssuspiciously
like the admonishments made by so-called "assimilationists"-admonish-
ments radicalfeminists,and particularlylesbianfeminists,typicallyreject.
Consider the advice given in the book After the Ball, which maps out a
marketing/advertisingstrategyby which lesbians and gay men can achieve
equalityand acceptance in the US. The strategyfocusesprimarilyon public
relationsfor lesbiansand gays and calls for the withdrawalof "fringegroups"
that disturb the unity of the gay rights movement and reinforce harmful
stereotypes.In describinga media campaigndirected towardthe goal of gay
rights,MarshallKirkand HunterMadsenstate:
Personsfeaturedin the media campaignshould be whole-
some and admirable by straight standards,and completely
unexceptional in appearance;in a word,they should be indis-
tinguishablefrom the straightswe'd like to reach. In practical
 PatrickD. Hopkins 133

terms, this means that cocky mustachioed leathermen, drag

queens, and bull dykes would not appearin gay commercials
and other public presentations.... One could also arguethat
lesbiansshould be featuredmoreprominentlythan gay men in
the earlystagesof the mediacampaign.Straightsgenerallyhave
fewerand cloudierpreconceptionsaboutlesbiansand mayfeel
less hostile towardthem. And as women(generallyseen as less
threateningand more vulnerablethan men), lesbiansmay be
more credible objects of sympathy.(Kirk and Madsen 1989,
183-184)"
Of course,most radicalfeministsand especiallylesbianseparatistfeminists
vociferouslyrejectthe notion that they want to join mainstream(malestream)
U.S. culture (especially by making lesbiansseem less threatening) and that
SMists are interferingwith that goal. But this is not my claim. Instead,I want
to suggesta parallelbetween the kind of emotional/politicalreaction SMists
have to claims that they hurtfeminismand reinforcepatriarchalculture,and
the emotional/political reaction separatistsand other radicalshave to the
claim that they hurt the cause of lesbian and gay liberationby disruptingthe
unity of "the movement."In both cases,membersof the impugnedgroupsfeel
that their experiences,identities,and political aimswill be ignored,repressed,
or co-opted for the "greatergood,"with little or no good for them. And in the
waythat a mainstream,"assimilationist" gayrightsmovementwouldnot serve
the political goals of radical lesbian feminists, an "assimilationist"radical
lesbianfeministmovementmaynot servethe goalsofsadomasochistfeminists.
It is not by accidentthat the leadinglesbianSM activistgroupSamoischose
as their slogan "The LeatherMenace."The slogan is a play on wordsof the
phrase "The LavenderMenace" that was used to describe the presence of
lesbiansin the National Organizationfor Women when NOW was tryingto
purgelesbiansfromits membership(Califia 1987, 264). The parallelforSMists
is obvious. NOW membersthought that lesbianswere hurtingfeminismand
feminist projects and sought to expurgate them for purposes of political
expediency.And of course,NOW wasnot merelybeingreactionary.There was
a contemporarypolitical reality to face. Lesbiansreally did pose more of a
threatthan straight,liberalfeministwomenandreallydidpossessthe potential
to disrupt NOW's political goals and public relations campaigns. But the
question for lesbians at the time was whether or not it was somehow their
"feministduty"to shut up and get out, at least until society had been changed
enough to permit their presence later on. Obviously,many lesbians did not
take it as their feminist duty to shut up and get out. Many lesbians did not
simplyinterprettheir own situation as that of being feministswho happened
to like having sex with other women, and thus did not feel that they were
merely positing a liberal claim to sexual freedomsomewhat beyond that of
134 Hypatia

NOW. Instead,they sawtheirsexualityintimatelyentwinedwith theirpolitics,

identity and culture. They formedradicalpolitical associationsof their own
because they no longer saw that the "feministmovement" was particularly
benefitingthem and realizedthey had to formtheirown theoriesandpractices.
Sadomasochistshave been and are in a similarposition.12
Gayle Rubin, in her influential paperThe LeatherMenace:Commentson
PoliticsandS/M makesit clear that she does not see activist sadomasochismas
just another liberal call for sexual freedom.She says:"Sex is one of the few
areasin which culturalimperialismis taken as a radicalstance.... The idea
that there is one best way to do sex afflicts radical as well as conservative
thought on the subject. Culturalrelativismis not the same thingas liberalism"
(Rubin 1987, 226) [italicsadded].13 Rubintakessadomasochiststo be structur-
ally similarto other culturalminorities.As such, any groupwhich repudiates
SMistsor seeksto silence them orchangethem will be seen as a culturalenemy.
Hearingfeminists decrySMists is strikinglysimilar,for feminist sadomasoch-
ists, to hearing feministsdecry lesbians.And although many sadomasochists
stronglyfeel that they are feminists,just like lesbiansin NOW felt that they
were feminists, many SMists have come to see radicalfeminists as agents of
oppression.Rubin writes:
When I came out as an S/M person,I got an unexpectedlesson
in how my gay ancestorsmust have felt. My youth as a sado-
masochist has been spent at a time when, as part of a more
generalreconsolidationof anti-sexand anti-gayideology,a new
demonizationof S/M is takingplace.... Now that largeparts
of the feministmovementhave similarlydefinedS/M as an evil
product of patriarchy,it has become increasinglydifficult for
those of us who are feminists to maintain our membershipin
the women'scommunity.... I used to read the feminist press
with enthusiasm.Now I dreadeach new issue of my favorite
periodicalswondering what vile picture of my sexuality will
appearthis month.

There are manyreasonswhy S/M has become such a betenoire

in the women'smovement, and most originateoutside of fem-
inism. With the glaringexception of monogamouslesbianism,
the women'smovement usuallyreflects the sexual prejudices
prevailingin society. (Rubin 1987, 211-213)
It appearsthat in the context of an interpretationof SMists as a sexual
minoritydevelopingandexpressingtheirown culture,an appropriateresponse
for SMists to the claim that SMists are hurtingfeminismis not necessarilyto
renounce SM, but to develop a politics which addressestheir own needs and
perspectives, including the continued identification as both feminists and
 PatrickD. Hopkins 135

sadomasochists.Partof such a politics, as in other movements, would be the

continuing education of the public. SMists can provide informationon the
nature of consent, the nature of sexual play and fantasy,and information
regardingstereotypesof SMists, therebyassuringthat informationabout SM
fromSMists would be reflective of actual,consideredpractice,and not easily
interpretedby others as a reinforcement,validation,or replicationof patriar-
chal practice.

V. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I would like to say somethingabout the developmentof my

own interestin SM as a philosopherand gendertheorist.SM initiallydrewmy
attention becauseit seemed to be a site for the (partial)performativesubver-
sion of gender-one of the rarepractices in which such subversionis often
explicit (dragbeing another). Since I take great personalpleasureand great
political hope in acts of gendersubversion,SM seemed worthyof study.
Gender subversionappearsto be taking place in a variety of ways. First,
positions in a scene are determinedby factors other than the "sex"of the
participant.Pat Califiasays:"We'vemadea majorimprovementon heterosex-
ist moresby insisting that the bottom can be a man or a woman, has control,
has the right to consent or refuse, and should alwaysget off" (Califia 1991,
230). In terms of representation to the more general public, the pairing of
a female dominant and a male submissive (a common occurrence in
heterosexual and bisexual SM culture) could be an image subversive to
patriarchalsexual ideology,one perhapseven more subversivethan lesbian
imageryin general.14
Second, even though the appearanceof a powerdichotomy is maintained
in sex, it is not the same kind as in non-SM relationships.It is simulative,
playful, funny, and all self-consciouslyso. Weinberg,et al., relate: "at one
commercialestablishment,a scene put on for a male audience involved one
dominantwomanplayingthe role of interrogatorand two submissivesthe role
of captured spies. To obtain their 'secrets' the dominant tied the two
submissives to a post and threatened punishment. The scene collapsed,
however, as the two submissiveshad a fit of giggling and continued laughing
no matter what script the dominant tried"(Weinberg,Williams, and Moser
1984, 384).
Third,the explicitlycontractualandnegotiativeaspectof SM mayrepresent
a kind of postmodemdemocraticurgein which sex is treatedas both a mutual
contractingfor sexual/emotionalservicesand a self-consciousperformance.I
think that manynon-SM sexual activities could use a heavy dose of this kind
of democracy,honesty and negotiation.Needless frustration,abuse,and disap-
pointment might be avoided. Sarah Keeperswrites:"To me vanilla sex is as
much abouttrustas leatherfolksattributeto S/M. In fact, I use safewordsand
136 Hypatia

I keep clear boundariesof do's and don'ts.The vanilla communityshouldget

hip to the fact that just becauseit'svanilla doesn'tmean that safewordsaren't
necessary"(Keepers1991, 7).
Fourth, the structureof the SM encounter seems to me to be, if not
indicative of, at least consistent with the generallate 20th centuryepistemo-
logical shift in a variety of culturestowardexperiencesof simulation,virtual
realities,cinematic performances,appliedmythologies.To the extent that sex
and genderand sexualidentitiesthemselvesarecapturedand manipulatedand
exposed by the "scene,"they are made to seem less natural,less definite, less
compulsory.
This is not to saythat SM is the ultimatesite of the finalsubversionof gender
categories,nor that I find SM to have escapedtraditionalsexual categories.
Many SMists still tend to be essentialists, interpretingtheir performative
experiencesin termsof their "SMsouls"or "SMnatures."SMists still tend to
cling too stronglyto binarystructuresas an intrinsic element of physical or
biologicalrealitywhich SM mirrors.15 And of course,manySMistshave made
the predictablemove into identity politics. Although I have said very little
aboutidentity in this essay,the veryconcept of an identitybasedpolitics is rife
with difficulty-difficulties that an SM identitypolitics would share.
But SM is in no way a static site. Pat Califia herself criticizes SM and
acknowledgesthat it can be a dynamicsite for the reconstructionof sex and
desire:"But I sometimes wonder if we have not transferredmany of our old
genderpatternsto the top/bottom dynamic.... We still assume that being
penetratedis a submissiveact and sticking it in is dominant. Pleasureis still
assumedto degradeand disenfranchisewomen.This soundstoo much like the
values of the New ChristianRight.... I think we should be challenging the
very meaningsthat we assignall sexual acts. This is the trulyradicalpotential
of S/M. Are we frightenedby the idea of having that much freedom?"(Califia
1991, 230)
It does seem to me that SM is a particularlyheuristic site for sexual
subversionand to the extent that patriarchyrequires(natural)sexual catego-
ries,perhapseven a site for oppositionto patriarchy.I find sites of hope in the
epistemology of sadomasochism.I find freedom in the simulation. I find
method in fetishism.
One last point:JudithButler,in discussinghow compulsoryheterosexuality
tends to assumethat there arepregivensexes which areexpressedfirstthrough
gender and then through sexuality,has suggestedthat the reversalof these
assumptionsmight be usefulfor subvertinggender.In seeing sex, gender,and
sexualitiesas categoriesmaintainedby compulsoryperformancesratherthan
the reverse,she asks:"How then to expose the causallines as retrospectively
and performativelyproducedfabrications,and to engage gender itself as an
inevitable fabrication .... Perhapsthis will be a matterof workingsexuality
againstidentity,even againstgender"(Butler 1991, 29).
 Patrick D. Hopkins 137

I find a similar subversive possibility in the method of SM-to work

sexuality against identity. It is a method worth evaluating.

NOTES

I would like to thank MarilynFriedmanfor her helpfulcommentson this paperand

forher considerabletime in discussingthe issueswith me. My thanksalso go to Jennifer
McCrickerd,VirginiaIngram,and PerryStevens for theirsuggestionsand comments.
1. One passionateandeloquentexampleof this iscertainlyMaryDaly'sGyn/Ecology:
TheMetaethics of RadicalFeminism(1978), particularlyin her descriptionsof Sado-Ritual
Syndrome,GoddessDismemberment,and of the "necrophilic"attractionmaleshave for
females.
2. I borrowthe term "sexwars"fromAnn Ferguson(1984). The "sexwars"issues
continue to arise,lately in discussionof whetherwomen'sevents such as women'smusic
festivalsshouldban SM groupsfromparticipation(Saxe 1992).
3. Forexamplesof SM fiction, see Pat Califia'sbooks,MachoSluts(1988) and Doc
andFluff(Califia 1990). Fortheoryand historysee MarkThompson'sedited anthology,
Leatherfolk: RadicalSex, People,Politics,andPractice(Thompson1991). The use of the
term"radical"in the title of this secondbook points to the recentdevelopmentin SM
writingof conceiving SM as possessinga cultural/politicalidentity.Fora wide rangeof
commentary,photography,and fiction see the magazines/journals On Our Backs:Enter-
tainmentfor the AdventurousLesbian,Bad Attitudes,OutrageousWomen:A Journalof
Woman-To-Woman S/M, and Quim.
4. CarolTruscottwantsto makeit veryclearthat realpain does occur in some SM
situations.However,she also notes that an essentialcomponentof SM is the reconcep-
tualizingof pain as "sensationsof changing,sometimesincreasingintensity,ratherthan
consideringit somethingto be avoidedas we do underordinarycircumstances"(Truscott
1991, n. 24).
5. In no way do I present any full-fledged"theory"of simulation (as a broad
construct)in this paper.I am not surethat I wouldeven want to. I do, however,want to
makesomedistinctionbetweenthe kindof simulationI amtalkingaboutfromsomeother
theorists'use of "simulation."Forexample,when Baudrillardclaims that "Of the same
orderas the impossibilityof rediscoveringan absolutelevel of the real,is the impossibility
of stagingan illusion.Illusionis no longerpossible,becausethe realis no longerpossible,"
he wants to demonstratesuch by eliciting intuitionsabout a "simulated"theft and a
"simulated" hold up. He says:
How to feign a violationand put it to the test?Go and simulatea theft
in a largedepartmentstore:how do you convince the securityguardsthat
it isa simulatedtheft?There isno "objective"difference:the samegestures
and the samesignsexist as fora realtheft;in fact the signsincline neither
to one sidenorthe other.As faras the establishedorderis concerned,they
arealwaysof the orderof the real.Go andorganisea fakehold-up.Be sure
that yourweaponsare harmless,and take the most trustworthyhostage,
so that no life is in danger(otherwiseyou riskcommittingan offence).
Demandransom,and arrangeit so that the operationcreatesthe greatest
commotionpossible-in brief,stay close to the "truth,"so as to test the
reactionof the apparatusto a perfectsimulation.But you won't succeed:
138 Hypatia

the web of artificialsignswill be inextricablymixedupwith realelements

(a police officerwill reallyshoot on site .. .)-in brief,you will unwit-
tingly find yourselfimmediatelyin the real, one of whose functions is
preciselyto devoureveryattemptat simulation,to reduceeverythingto
some reality-that's exactly how the establishedorder is. (Baudrillard
1983,38-39)
Baudrillardis certainlyright in claimingthat the "repressiveapparatus" does reactto
the simulationas though it werereal. In relationto SM this has been demonstratedby
the responsesof both radicalfeministsandthe judicialsystem.GayleRubinhas reported
that SM activity has sometimesbeen prosecutedunder sexual assault laws. Because
"sexualassault"is a felony,the statecan presschargeseven when the purported"victim"
of the assaultobjects.As a result,some tops/sadistshave been convictedof sexualassault
andsentencedto prisoneven when theirpartnersprotestedthat the sexualactivity(e.g.,
a riding-cropspanking)wasconsensual(Rubin 1987, 199-200).
The disanalogybetweenSM and the examplesBaudrillard gives restsin the degreeof
participation.In the fake theft and the fakehold-up,not everyoneinvolvedknowsthat
the robberyis not real.The securityguardsdo not know,the bankemployeesdo not know,
andso on. In SM, however,all participantsarefullyawareof the simulativenatureof the
activities.This is one of the primarypointsof significancein realizingthat SM occursin
a communitysetting-not necessarilymeaningthat participantsbelong to formalSM
organizations,but that participantsareawareof othersidentifyingas sadomasochistsand
are awareof communitysupportstructuressuch as magazines,books,political debates,
etc. In fact, most SM sexual partnersmeet through some kind of SM community
channel-bars, dungeon parties, phone connection lines, computerbulletin boards,
magazineads.Thus, while Baudrillard's examplesclearlymix the signsof the realand of
the simulative,this occursbecausesomepeople in the event know the gunsarenot real,
for example, while other people do not know. In consensual SM, however, all the
participantsshare an interpretationof the signs and so everyone knows that what is
happeningis not "real"-"real"meaningnot that what is happeningis false, but that it
is not the sameas the "original"fromwhich it drawsits imagesand scripts.
6. Pat Califiadiscussesthe way in which tops'sexualandemotionalneedsareoften
ignoredby thoughtlessbottoms.She admonishestops to "stopacting like a bunch of
victimizedcodependentsheld hostage by rapaciousbottoms"(Califia 1992, 19). It is
revealing of the internal context of SM relations that bottoms can be considered
manipulative,assertive,or insensitive,while tops.can be consideredinadequatelyassert-
ive or inattentiveto their own sexualsatisfaction.
7. See Gilles Deleuzeand Felix Guattari(1977). Also see Alphonso Lingis(1985).
LingisdescribesDeleuzeand Guattari'spositionas one in which "sexualdesiredoes not
have as its objects personsor things at all. It is invested in whole environments,in
vibrationsand fluxesof all kinds;it is essentiallynomadic.It is alwayswith worldsthat
we makelove" (Lingis1985, 90).
8. My thanksgo to PerryStevensfor this illuminatinganalogy.
9. The notion of community as applied to SM may be empiricallysomewhat
problematic,at least in non-urbanareas,for the simplereasonthat SM is still extremely
villifiedand as such, communityvisibilityis dangerous.It is not, however,theoretically
more problematicthan any other communitythat servespersonswhose "identifying"
traitsare stigmatized,unobviousbehavioraland emotional interests,such as lesbians,
gays,bisexualsetc. Havingsaidthat, the verypresenceof a personin an SM community
 Patrick D. Hopkins 139

setting (providedit is not accidental)suggestsa mutualrecognitionof desire.This is not

to say that merepresenceimpliesconsent to anyspecificact, but a presencedoes suggest
communityaffinity.Gayle Rubinsays:
I cameout asa lesbianin a smallcollegetown thathadno visiblelesbian
community.... There was one mostlymale gay bar called the Flame.I
had heardforyearsit wasthe kindof placeyou wantedto stayawayfrom.
There were vague implicationsthat if you went there, something bad
wouldhappen.But it wasthe only gaybarin town, and I wasdrawnto it.
I finallyscrewedup my courageand walkedin. The minuteI got pastthe
frontdoor I relaxed.It was full of very innocuouslookinggay men and a
coupleof lesbians.I instantlyrealizedthat these weremypeople,and that
1 was one of the peopleI had been warnedagainst .... Seven yearslater,
I was again sweatingin frontof anothertabooedthreshold.This time it
wasthe door to the PleasureChest in New YorkCity. I musthave walked
up and down Seventh Avenue twenty times beforeI finallygot a friend
to go in with me. It took a little longerto get usedto the S/M worldthan
to the gay world.But by now I feel as at home in leatherbarsand sex toy
shopsas I do in lesbianbarsand gay restaurants.Insteadof the monsters
and slimy pervertsI had been led to expect, I found another hidden
community.The S/M communityis not as largeas the gay community,
but it is complex, populated,and quite civilized.Most partsof the S/M
communitytakea responsibleattitudeto newcomers,teachingthem how
to do S/M safely, S/M etiquette, and acquiredwisdom. Preconceived
chimerasdisappearin the face of actual social practice. (Rubin 1987,
219-220)
10. SandraBartkyhas an interesting,but I think ultimatelyunsatisfactory analysisof
this option. She believes that sadomasochisticdesire is incompatiblewith feminist
principlesbut that it is extremelydifficult to teach women how to "decolonizethe
imagination."She seemsto think that womenwho have SM desiresbut want to remain
consistentwith feministprinciplesaredoomedto living out a life of "existentialunease"
(Bartky1990, 60-62).
11. I do not intend to make any judgmentin this paperwhatsoeverregardingthe
desirabilityor undesirabilityof Kirk'sand Madsen'sposition.Such a discussionis worthy
of, at the veryleast, a separateand lengthypaper.I only use theirworkas an exampleof
what radicallesbians/gays/feminists often considerassimilationist.
12. It maybe claimedthat this analogyonly holds in the end if SM reallyis harmless
forfeminism.The problemwith such a claim is knowingwhatshouldand shouldnot be
consideredto "harmfeminism."One could makethe claim that the presenceof lesbians
really did harm the kind of feminism NOW was promotingat the time by giving
conservativessupportfor their claims that feminismthreatenedthe traditionalfamily,
promotedhomosexuality,etc. NOW'seventualmove was not to defendtheir particular
brandof feminismforever,but to altertheirfeminismto includethe strugglefor lesbian
visibility and rights. Sadomasochists,not surprisingly,could call for the same sort of
inclusion, or at least a halt to resistance,by claiming that their sexuality is no more
harmfulto a certainkind of inclusivefeminismthan lesbiansexualitywas harmfulto a
certainkind of inclusivefeminism.
13. Gayle Rubin'sclaim concerning"onebestway to do sex"maybe a strawperson,
but only in the sense that she might be attributingthe notion of the "one best way"to
140 Hypatia

all radicals.Certainlytherearesomeradicalswho wouldallowa varietyof sexualactivity

while still rejectingSM as an ethically permissiblesexual activity. However,Rubin is
respondingto radicalswho have chosen to publiclyrenounceher sexualityand fight its
acceptance.Some of these radicalsdo seem to claim that the only ethically/politically
permissiblesexualactivity fora feministis egalitariansex with anotherwoman-where
"egalitarian" is specifiedin termsof necessary,formal,physicalrequirements,rulingout
the possibilityof consensualSM activityregardlessof the participants'interpretationsof
such activities.
14. And as MarilynFriedmanhas pointed out, it is no accident that this staple of
undergroundheterosexualpornographyand professionalSM sex servicesalmost never
appearsin popularpornographicmaterials.It is curiousthat an activity that seemsto be
the fantasy of a significant numberof heterosexualmales is so underrepresentedin
mainstreamheterosexualmagazinesand videos.
15. See againCarolTruscott(1991, 32).

REFERENCES

Bar-On,Bat Ami. 1982. Feminismand sadomasochism:Self-criticalnotes. In Against

sadomasochism: A radicalfeministanalysis.See Lindenet al. 1982.
Bartky,Sandra.1990. Femininity anddomination. New York:Routledge.
Baudrillard, Jean. 1983. Simulations.
New York:Semiotext(e).
Butler,Judith.1982.LesbianS & M:The politicsofdis-illusion.In Againstsadomasochism:
A radicalfeministanalysis.See Lindenet al. 1982.
.1991. Imitationand genderinsubordination.In Inside/out:Lesbiantheories,gay
theories,ed. DianaFuss.New York:Routledge.
Califia, Pat. 1987. A personalview of the historyof the lesbian S/M communityand
movementin SanFrancisco.In Comingtopower:Writings andgraphicson lesbianS/M.
See Samois 1987.
1988. Machosluts.Boston:Alyson Publications,Inc.
.1990. Doc and fluff: The distopiantale of a girland her biker.Boston: Alyson
Publications,Inc.
. 1992. The limits of the S/M relationship,or Mr. Benson doesn't live here
anymore.In LeatherfoUc: Radicalsex,people,politics,andpractice.See Thompson1991.
Daly,Mary,1978. GynlEcology: Themetaethics of radicalfeminism.Boston:BeaconPress.
Delueze,Gilles andFelixGuattari.1977.Anti-Oedipus. Trans.RobertHurley,MarkSeem
and Helen R. Lane.New York:Viking.
Ferguson,Ann. 1984. Sex war:The debate between radicaland libertarianfeminists.
Signs10 (1): 106-112.
Hein, Hilde. 1982. Sadomasochismand the liberaltradition.In Againstsadomasochism:
A radicalfeministanalysis.See Lindenet al. 1982.
Hoagland, Sarah Lucia. 1982. Sadism, masochismand lesbian-feminism.In Against
sadomasochism: A radicalfeministanalysis.See Lindenet al. 1982.
Keepers,Sarah.1991.Letterto the editorin On ourbacks:Entertainment for theadventur-
ous lesbian,May/une.
Kirk,Marshalland HunterMadsen.1989.Aftertheball:HowAmericawillconqueritsfear
of gaysin the1990s.New York:Doubleday.
 Patrick D. Hopkins 141

Linden,RobinRuth,DarleneR. Pagano,DianaE.H. Russell,andSusanLeighStar.1982.

Againstsadomasochism: A radicalfeministanalysis.San Francisco:FrogIn The Well.
Lingis, Alphonso. 1985. Libido:The Frenchexistentialtheories.Bloomington:Indiana
UniversityPress.
Lorde, Audre and Susan Leigh Star. 1982. Interviewwith Audre Lorde. In Against
sadomasochism: A radicalfeministanalysis.See Lindenet al. 1982.
Meredith,Jesse.1982.A Responseto Samois.In Againstsadomasochism: A radicalfeminist
analysis.See Lindenet al. 1982.
Rian, Karen. 1982. Sadomasochismand the social constructionof desire. In Against
sadomasochism: A radicalfeministanalysis.See Lindenet al. 1982.
Rubin,Gayle. 1987. The leathermenace:Commentson politicsand S/M. In Comingto
power:Writings andgraphics on lesbianS/M. See Samois. 1987.
Russell, Diana E. H. 1982. Sadomasochism:A contra-feministactivity. In Against
sadomasochism: A radicalfeministanalysis.See Lindenet al. 1982.
Samois. 1987. Comingto power:Writingsand graphicson lesbianS/M. Boston:Alyson
Publications,Inc.
Saxe, LorenaLeigh. 1992. Sadomasochismand exclusion.Hypatia7(4): 59-72.
Thompson,Mark,ed. 1991. Leatherfolk: radicalsex, people,politics,andpractice.Boston:
Alyson Publications,Inc.
Truscott,Carol.1991.S/M:Some questionsanda fewanswers.In Leatherfolk: Radicalsex,
people,politics,andpractice.See Thompson1991.
Walker,Alice. 1982. A letter of the times, or should this sadomasochismbe saved?In
Againstsadomasochism: A radicalfeministanalysis.See Lindenet al. 1982.
Weinberg,MartinS., ColinJ.Williams,andCharlesMoser.1984.The socialconstituents
of sadomasochism.SocialProblems 31(4): 379-389.