Happy Thanksgiving to all of you!

Tomorrow, I am making use of the American so called Black Friday. I’m going to get two dresses from House of Bias and some other lovely thing, and since the dollar is so weak + the sale is on, it’s going to feel so good. And I’ve got something very blasphemous ordered yesterday.

Essays are getting written and I don’t really have the attention span to write on two blogs in the same time.
But I would like to make a quick note of a couple of awesome experiences that I’ve had lately:

A very rewarding beginners bondage workshop with London’s own Esinem. A full day of ropetalk and tying. What not to like is there, really?!
Esinem works from the codex of ‘tie people, not parcels’. That means that it is the interaction with the involved that matters, actions and reactions. Tying people, not on armlenghts distance but being close. Expressing, with rope, the connection. Not talking about Two Knotty Boys here, but the oh so wonderful ways of connecting with ropebunny.

So, while he was learning us single and double column ties, he also spoke and showed us ways to keep the connection, keep it flowing and basically, keeping it hot and exciting. There was tricks there that suddenly fell into place, but at some points I also fell flat. Because suddenly a two column tie seemed like the toughest thing in the whole world. I react in the same way when going to a dance class. I concentrate so much on following the steps that I can’t do it at all. Very frustrating.
But as the day went on and more and more jute fluff flew around in the room I relaxed. A very nice relaxed lunch was topped with some videos with the work of Osada Steve, but also some of the work that Esinem himself has done. Here is an example of what I see is a very strong performance, using bondage in a provocative,political, thoughtful, creative and downright amazing way.

Anyhow, after some well deserved lunch we continued, and in the end of the day there was even some time to try out a chest-harness. Before that I decided to do some self-bondage and it became something really nice that I know enjoy a lot as an activity. In regards to the chest-harness I must admit that I only came halfway, but that halfway through a chestharness gave me more thoughts and insights that any other has done so far.
I can recommend the course, and if you feel that a beginners course is a bit to simple for you ( I would love to do the same again so I could frame everything better and practice with more supervision!) there is alos a intermediate course and a advanced.  It’s well worth the money, Esinem teaches very well, give you tips, insights, inspiration, and you will have a lot of fun.

A couple of days later I attended a peer-rope workshop. Which was also amazing. A sunday afternoon and evening and the hours flew by all to fast. Watched some wonderful ropework being done, including a lot of suspensions.  Did again some self-bondage, got some help with that, then had a really beautiful spiderharness done, and in the end having very fun with an amazing woman. We hid a bit, found a calm space with dimmed lightning and sat down on the floor. And this is where I keep coming back to. Those 20, 30 minutes with her. Because afterwards, my legs were shaking, I was giggly and calm in the same time. And I had been the one doing the tying. Not since this summer I had felt anything like it (yes, I miss Korrosion) and it made me love the event even more. So, if you are in London, like rope, not busy on a sunday,  check if the peer-rope is happening and go.

Last, but certainly not least. A new shining star on the club sky in London. Crimson is so fucking good. With a focus on the playspace, they must be the most well-equiped playclub in th U.K with at least two suspensionframes, numerous crosses, spankingbenches, a spitroast, bondagebed, medical play area, etc, etc. There is always space to play, but still very easy to be social and feel relaxed. All in all, it feels like a very, very big houseparty that is so kinky that it would make your jaw drop. Next one will be in february and I will be there.

//

V

You heard of the exgay movement? About the ex-sm movement? Take a look at this, but be warned, it is very painful.

This is slightly different than you might see in general from an ex-gay movement. This is a man who by his own choice wishes to stop being a pro-dom.  It is a story of a man who has been abused from the early start of his life, from bullying to living with his father who, according to him, had ‘deviant desires’, using dogs as sexual instruments on women, involving his son in pornographic movies, the son became a ‘lap dog’. The dad took his own life, and  the rest of this man’s story is one of abuse (rape, abuse from people he trusted, violence, etc). As the documentary goes on, it becomes clear for me as a viewer that this is exploitative documentary.

At one point Rick says, after some type of fisting session that involves removing feces from the bottom of the submissive, ‘This is all a part of the human cycle, don’t judge me’.
And I kinda don’t want to judge him. His past life catch up with him, and the grim reality of lonelyness is a harsh one. The harshest. And Rick is honest.  The documentary is called ‘Me and my slaves’ but it should be called ‘Me and my pain’. It is hard to watch a human being in pain.
This is him, trying to perform his own absolution saving himself. The christian concept of absolution,attracts to those who are in so much pain, to those who cannot see any way out of a life they consider as doomed.

“I’ve lost myself…I’ve given it up, there is nothing there that I can do.”
Rick

And for that, I will not go through the whole documentary here with you. There is so much to say about this man. But I’m already exploiting him enough.

In the movie Bruno, with Sasha Baron Cohen as the austrian fashionista/reporter/celebrity, there is a specific favorite part of mine He reaches a decision to become straight, because all of the other male celebrities in the U.S are straight.  So he finds someone who can make him straight.  This is in no way on the same levels of Rick, in terms of despair, but it still says a lot about those people who seek out or get forced in to the ex-gay movement. The despair felt, because ones sexual and emotional level is not on the same as the normative society’s. A  society that can punish you, shun you, kill you, ignore your very existence. What then does that mean, this whole regiment of becoming straight? By being around men and being socialised into becoming a straight man, not thinking about men in a sexual sense, the gay or bisexual man is supposed to become liberated from what is seen as a troublesome practice and instead find a woman to marry.Being gay according to the ex-gay movement is something that you choose to do, it’s a choice in terms of sexual practice, and this practice is wrong.  The impure thoughts of a broken individual that is becoming healed through therapy. For this movement, they do seem to have very little appreciation of  any possible emotional links to a person of the same sex, and if there is, they are taught and can be re-wired.
So here we are then. Bruno is going to be rewired. Or is he?

Can we apply the same concept to BDSMers? That we ‘are’ sadomasochists, that our bodies inhabit the lust as a essence and there is nothing more? What would that stance actually mean in terms of fighting for BDSM-rights, or queer rights? These are important questions. Is BDSM something that we are or something that we do? I can’t answer that for you, but this is where I am coming from.
My personal stance is that I am a queer person.  With certain tastes of sexual practices. I can’t define my self as a submissive or as a bottom.  Those are not a direct, linked part to my identity.  It’s something I do.  But also, by doing, I can reclaim it, bit by bit, becoming more, going further in to myself and getting to know parts of me. Parts that are not constant, but ever so changing. Parts that I maybe have not been able to reach.

I think I might be looking for something. I don’t know really what, and if there is ever a final point in which I can rest, or if I even want there to be one, but in the meantime, I can rest in those discoveries I’ve done about myself today, in this minute. It is not about being essential. It is about exploration and appropriation of feelings, practices and structures.

Here is a clip of one of the ways in which Bruno is supposed to become straight.

I know, I know, the mockery of the military is brilliant on so many levels but there is one more reason why I’m posting this. Because the ex-gay movement exist and it needs to be meet and challenged for what it is.

I don’t want to pass judgement on those who seek council in the hands on the ex-gay movement. We live in a world that is homophobic, sexist, racist, misogynist, etc, and it can be so fucking lonely. What I will pass judgement on is those who exploit the fears that they themselves manage to maintain.
They are, in short:

Utter Fucktards.

I know it’s a bit late, but the first week in november 2009, the first openly lesbian bishop was ordained in Uppsala. This is just weeks after the Swedish Church took the decision to allow same-sex marriages.

This is Eva Brunne, the new bishop, who lives with Gunilla Lindén and their three year old son.

With this, the Swedish Church continues to clearly express the simple, but yet so controversial statement, that everyone is included and welcome within their church and for that, I lift the glass and drink a toast.

Interview with the bishop

http://www.thelocal.se/23148/20091109/

//

V

We have Zxenu Cronstrom Beskow onboard as our guestblogger. He examines the radical feminist claims abut ‘lies’ told by BDSMers.

The first part
Second part

Part 3: “Sadomasochism versus Radical Feminist dogma”

If Farley had openly accused sadomasochists of not conforming to the dogmas of her particular brand of radical feminism, then she had been correct. But this is not what she is doing. Instead, she’s exploiting mainstream society’s contempt for BDSM in an attempt to establish her very special discourse as if it was a objective reality or consensus viewpoint. She’s establishing a world view where society itself is “sadomasochistic” and where her own brand of radicalism is the ONLY valid resistance against mainstream society. Lets take a look at the remaining four points.

2. Sadomasochism is love and trust, not domination and annihilation.

Good relationships, sadomasochistic and vanilla (conventional/mainstream) alike, are based on love and trust. Of course, there are also bad relationships. There are also sexual relations that are based on mutual lust rather then love. Such a relationship can still be mutual and non-abusive if it contains enough trust and respect.

Farley’s examples are not even examples, merely shallow propaganda. David Koresh was a destructive religious cult leader, not a sadomasochist. Of course HIS kind of dominance was bad – and so was his heterosexuality and masculinity. If he is being to be used as an example of sadomasochism being bad on a general level, then he can just as well be used as an example of heterosexuality being bad on a general level, or of men being bad on a general level. Then again, there are radical feminists who would agree with that kind of argument.

Farley also uses some sexual fantasies as examples. And indeed, these particular fantasies certainly do not seem loving. Then again, they are fantasies. The love and trust is not about the fantasies themselves, but about how they are handled. Also, there are a lot of sadomasochistic fantasies that are very much about love, and many heterosexual and homosexual fantasies that have nothing to do with love.

4. Sadomasochism is consensual; no one gets hurt if they don’t want to get hurt. No one has died from sadomasochistic “scenes.”

Regardless of her sexuality, a victim of abuse is a victim period, not a masochist. She may or may not ALSO be a masochist, but this is entirely beside the point. By the definitions that sadomasochists typically use, abuse (sadistic or otherwise) is not sadomasochistic. The word sadomasochism include the word masochism, and this word implies that the person on the receiving end is there as a masochist, not as a victim.

Thus, BDSM and sadomasochistic sex can never be abusive, but only in the same way as vanilla lovemaking can never be abusive: If it turns abusive, then it is no longer lovemaking.

Of course, there are many sexual relations – vanilla and BDSM alike – that have started out consensual, but later turned abusive. This is a real problem, but it doesn’t men that all sadists (in the BDSM sense of the word) are abusers, and it does not mean that all heterosexual men are abusers either.

Furthermore, there are people who have died from vanilla lovemaking, so of course there are also people who have died from consensual BDSM play. Heart attacks are a common cause in both cases, but when it comes to advanced forms of BDSM there is also the issue of people being inexperienced and lacking proper safety education. Just as with mainstream sexuality, porn is NOT a good teacher for how to do it in real life. Even in its advanced forms, BDSM can be LESS dangerous then vanilla sex – but only if people know what they are doing.

Deeper in her argument, Farley practically claims that it is impossible to consent to BDSM – that the masochist is a brainwashed victim who does not know what she really want or an addict unable to say no. While a convenient excuse to disqualify the experiences of women who don’t share Farley’s dogma, it is simply not true for masochists in general, regardless of gender. (Farley’s argument seem to assume that the submissive is always female and the dominant is always male.) Of course there are individual masochists and victims of manipulative sadists who fit this stereotype, just like there are destructive vanilla relationships that contain addiction or cultlike tendencies.

6. Sadomasochistic pornography has no relationship to the sadomasochistic society we live in. “If it feels good, go with it.” “We create our own sexuality.”

Mainstream society is most definitely not sadomasochistic in any definition of “sadomasochism” that EITHER the sadomasochists themselves OR the mainstream society would agree with. Farley is taking theoretical constructs of radical feminism for objective reality here.

10. Sadomasochism is political dissent. It is progressive and even “transgressive” in that it breaks the rules of the dominant sexual ideology.

Seen from a non-totalitarian perspective, this statement contains an obvious truth. Although sadomasochism, just like homosexuality, is becoming more and more accepted, it is still far from mainstream.

To deny this, one must reduce reality to two groups. On one side, the one and only true resistance (in this case radical feminists) and on the other side the evil conspiracy and all its minions, including all resistances that do not conform to the orthodoxy of the one and only true resistance.

Of course, this only covers the matter of dissent. Far from all dissent is constructive, progressive or transgressive in any good sense of any such word. If one can reasonably consider BDSM and sadomasochism to be good things depends on your point of view.

In BDSM, dominance and submission is optional and not based on gender. One can be dominant, submissive, both or neither, regardless of whether one is a man, woman, intersexual or a gender-undefined queer-person. Being a dominant doesn’t give you any right to dominate someone who doesn’t want to be dominated by you or in a way that he doesn’t want to be dominated. Being a submissive gives you a right to chose who to submit to, when, how and to what extent.

From a queer-feminist perspective, this is very liberating and a useful tool in the struggle for freedom and diversity. From most other feminist perspective, it is neutral: Neither a good thing and a help, nor a bad thing and a threat.

From a totalitarian conservative or radical feminist perspective however, it is inherently evil. It is, by definition, a lie – Or at least a contradiction in terms. One core belief shared by patriarchal conservatism and radical feminism is that men are, by definition, dominant/oppressive, while women are, again by definition, submissive/oppressed. While the conservatives consider it good and the radical feminists consider it evil, both sides agree that That’s Just The Way It Is. Thus, the dominant women and submissive men of BDSM must be explained away for their worldview to remain intact. And an all-out attack is always the easiest defense.

By Xzenu Cronström Beskow

The author is a  queerfeminist veteran, active both in struggles against sexual abuse and  for the rights of sexual minorities. Xzenu has  academic degrees in psychology and sexology.

First part by Xzenu Cronström Beskow can be found here.

To recap, the ten lies that Melissa Farley claims to uncover, are:

1. Pain is pleasure; humiliation is enjoyable; bondage is liberation.
2. Sadomasochism is love and trust, not domination and annihilation.
3. Sadomasochism is not racist and anti Semitic even though we “act” like slave owners and enslaved Africans, Nazis and persecuted Jews.
4. Sadomasochism is consensual; no one gets hurt if they don’t want to get hurt. No one has died from sadomasochistic “scenes.”
5. Sadomasochism is only about sex. It doesn’t extend into the rest of the relationship.
6. Sadomasochistic pornography has no relationship to the sadomasochistic society we live in. “If it feels good, go with it.” “We create our own sexuality.”
7. Lesbians “into sadomasochism” are feminists, devoted to women, and a women-only lesbian community. Lesbian pornography is “by women, for women.”
8. Since lesbians are superior to men, we can “play” with sadomasochism in a liberating way that heterosexuals can not.
9. Re-enacting abuse heals abuse. Sadomasochism heals emotional wounds from childhood sexual assault.
10. Sadomasochism is political dissent. It is progressive and even “transgressive” in that it breaks the rules of the dominant sexual ideology.

Part 2: The Strawman Sadomasochist
To some extent, all ten points listed in part one are to some extent a “Strawman Political” version of sadomasochists. In this part I will focus on six points where this “Strawman sadomasochist” is the main problem, while the next part will instead deal with the four points where the main problem is radical feminist dogmatism.

1. Pain is pleasure; humiliation is enjoyable; bondage is liberation.

For some people, the RIGHT kind of pain in the right degree and context can indeed be enjoyable. Same thing goes for humiliation and for being tied up with ropes – which is what the word “bondage” refers to in a BDSM context. (BDSM stands for sadomasochistic sexual practices: Bondage & Discipline, Dominance & Submission, Sadism & Masochism.)

During my decades of experience with the BDSM scene, I have *never* encountered a person who claims that all pain is enjoyable. However, I have often encountered this stereotype among people who are prejudiced against sadomasochists and their BDSM practices.

It is also worth noticing that this first point of Farley’s is homage to the novel 1984 and the propaganda of the evil regime in that novel: “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.” The problem here is not the homage itself, but that she attributes it to the sadomasochists. The strawman sadomasochist she is “exposing” have more in common with the villains of children’s comic books, standing on mountaintops shouting “Muahaha, I’m EVIL!” to the raging thunderstorm, then it has in common with actual people. I assume that Farley has made up the ten points herself, incorrectly presenting her prejudice against sadomasochists as if it was the actual opinions of actual sadomasochists. If the list actually do come from someone who claim to be a sadomasochist, and Farley has not twisted the words or ripped them out of context, then Farley has indeed been extremely lucky with finding a source that is easy to mock.

3. Sadomasochism is not racist and anti Semitic even though we “act” like slave owners and enslaved Africans, Nazis and persecuted Jews.

Most sadomasochists do NOT play such games, and the small minority that do play them have them as role-playing games, not as expressions of actual opinions. If someone wears a Soviet uniform to one masquerade or fetish party, a Nazi uniform to the next and a American army uniform to the third, it means that she thinks the uniforms look cool – not that she have militaristic opinions but are confused about her loyalties. Furthermore, uniforms worn at parties are almost always officer uniforms. Someone who truly respects a certain army is unlikely to pretend to have officer status in it without having earned the rank for real.

5. Sadomasochism is only about sex. It doesn’t extend into the rest of the relationship.

The implied message here is much different from the literal message. When sadomasochists talk about limiting their BDSM to scenes or having it as a part of everyday life, they are talking about consensual expressions on the terms of everyone involved.

However, Farley implies that sadomasochism is inherently abusive: That an extension into the rest of the relationship would automatically be an abusive extension.

While manipulative individuals can certainly use “BDSM” as their excuse to be a jerk, this is no better then the “because I’m a man”/”because I’m a woman” excuse, and it does not say anything about BDSM as such.

Furthermore, the dichotomy is false. It is not either “only about sex” or “extends into the relationship”. Instead, it is either “limited to sessions” or “extends into the relationship”. The “limited to sessions” variant doesn’t have to be all about sex, it can also be an expression of affection, love, or similar.

7. Lesbians “into sadomasochism” are feminists, devoted to women, and a women-only lesbian community. Lesbian pornography is “by women, for women.”

This statement is often true, assuming that one defines lesbian as a woman who is only attracted to women. However, many radical feminists have quite different definitions of lesbianism, so that they include heterosexual women who chose celibacy for moral/political reasons and only share their lives with each other, but exclude many actual lesbians on the ground of not being radical feminists.

Farley argues that certain individual sadomasochists are bisexual rather then homosexual, and this might very well be true. However, there are also female sadomasochists who are exclusively attracted to women.

8. Since lesbians are superior to men, we can “play” with sadomasochism in a liberating way that heterosexuals can not.

Does this argument even exist at all, or is it squarely Farley’s own construct?
The opinion that lesbians are superior to heterosexuals is sometimes attributed to (and in some cases expressed by) radical feminists, but this is the only time I have ever seen this opinion attributed to sadomasochists.

Some feminist sadomasochists do worry about that heterosexual sadomasochistic couples with male dominant and female submissive might reinforce misogynous gender roles. This worry is often not extended to same-sex couples and heterosexual couples with female dominant and male submissive. However this is about cultural/structural pressure, and has nothing to do with superiority.

9. Reenacting abuse heals abuse. Sadomasochism heals emotional wounds from childhood sexual assault.

Again with the generalization, that “sadomasochism” must be either salvation for all or damnation for all. In reality, to most people, it is neither.

Among sadomasochists, a huge majority have NOT been victims of childhood sexual abuse. Thus, in most cases, sadomasochism has potential neither for opening old wounds nor for healing them.

As for the minority who DO have traumas, well: If a certain individual have a certain trauma, then that’s one more thing to be careful about. Sadomasochism can be used in destructive/selfdestructive ways, and that needs to be avoided. However, that doesn’t mean that if a person have some bad memories then that person is automatically selfdestructive or unreliable.

Does Farley’s strawman sadomasochist, who believes that reliving sexual abuse is always a good idea, exist at all? Probably not, and hopefully not. Surely sadomasochists in general can agree that reliving abuse is not for everyone. But let us rephrase into something more nuanced.

“Reenacting abuse in a controlled setting can sometimes help healing the wounds abuse, if done in a non-destructive way where the ‘victim’ doesn’t actually have to take more then she’s comfortable with. Such sadomasochistic play can sometimes heal emotional wounds from sexual assault if done right AND the persons involved are right for it.”

On this issue, there are at least two sides. On one side, those who agree. This side can point out that using heights, spiders et cetera in controlled settings has proven very effective for curing acrophobia, arachnophobia and similar phobias. On the other side, those who believe that such treatment should be left in the hands of neutral trained professionals. Not attempted by friends, much less lovers, and especially not in a sexualized setting.

Even in its more nuanced forms, the idea of using BDSM as a way to heal old wounds remain a controversial issue within the BDSM subculture.

In conclusion, what Farley’s article really shows is that sadomasochists are subjected to prejudice and misrepresentation. The article is one good example, among many.

To be continued

By Xzenu Cronström Beskow

The author is a  queerfeminist veteran, active both in struggles against sexual abuse and  for the rights of sexual minorities. Xzenu has  academic degrees in psychology and sexology.

Ve: When I first read Melissa Farleys piece ‘Ten Lies about Sadomasochism’ I wanted to respond.  I did not know how, but kept the text in the back of my head.

Then, time went by, and I did not give a proper response. Instead, a couple of weeks ago I saw the text was mentioned in a discussiongroup. Closely following, I realised a fellow sex-positive activist who is also an acquaintance of mine was saying all that I never managed to express when it came to Farley’s badly informed rants.

So here, we proudly present our first guestblogger; here is Xzenu Beskow and the first part out of 3, with an examination of the claims made by Melissa Farley.

Part 1: Totalitarian categorism in Radical Feminism

It is said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this metaphor is very true for totalitarian branches of radical feminism. Tough everyone divides things and people into categories, it is all too easy to make the categories into prisons instead of tools. This is the point at which categorization turns into what I call categorism: When categorization by skin color or ethnicity turns into racism, where categorization by gender turns into sexism or transphobia, where categorization by sexual orientations turns into homophobia, heterophobia or paraphobia.

Feminism focuses on the categorization of people into men and women, and on the oppression of the second category. At best, this focus is liberating by fighting oppression and by making oppression visible. At worst, however, feminism can be misused to lock people into narrow categories of what it means to have a certain gender or sexuality. And thus, certain branches of radical feminism are infamous for prejudice against gender identity minorities (notably transsexuals, for example with Raymond’s book The Transsexual Empire) and against all sexualities that do not fit their narrow normative orthodoxy.

Such orthodoxy can be relatively harmless when it is very far from what the mainstream believes. If a debater claims in the name of feminism that all heterosexual women are brainwashed victims of male rapists, then the debater is unlikely to accomplish anything other then giving antifeminists an opportunity to ridicule feminism as such. But if the same debater instead claims that all masochists are brainwashed victims of sadistic rapists, then the debater has a chance to cause real harm to real masochists since this sexual minority is already viewed with mistrust and prejudice by many in the mainstream.

One good example is Farley’s “The Ten Lies of Sadomasochism”. In this text, the author makes the claim that there are ten claims that sadomasochists usually make about themselves. She also claims that these ten statements are lies, and that she has successfully exposed them as such.

Three things are wrong about this statement. First of all, her list is highly questionable. Some claims are twisted into generalizations, others are outright outrageous. It is obvious that it is the list of a radical feminist who want to portray sadomasochism in a bad light, not a list that the sadomasochist subculture would agree on. Thus, her whole argument is based on a “Strawman Political”. (See http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawmanPolitical )

Second, not only does she use heavily ideological definitions of what certain words mean, but she also pretends that sadomasochists agree with her definitions of these words.

Third, she generalizes in ways that very consistently imply the word “all” without using the word itself. She talks about how all sadomasochists are, without ever using the word “all”, taking for granted that all sadomasochists form one coherent group. This kind of generalization is a hallmark of categorism.

The ten so-called lies are:

1. Pain is pleasure; humiliation is enjoyable; bondage is liberation.
2. Sadomasochism is love and trust, not domination and annihilation.
3. Sadomasochism is not racist and anti Semitic even though we “act” like slave owners and enslaved Africans, Nazis and persecuted Jews.
4. Sadomasochism is consensual; no one gets hurt if they don’t want to get hurt. No one has died from sadomasochistic “scenes.”
5. Sadomasochism is only about sex. It doesn’t extend into the rest of the relationship.
6. Sadomasochistic pornography has no relationship to the sadomasochistic society we live in. “If it feels good, go with it.” “We create our own sexuality.”
7. Lesbians “into sadomasochism” are feminists, devoted to women, and a women-only lesbian community. Lesbian pornography is “by women, for women.”
8. Since lesbians are superior to men, we can “play” with sadomasochism in a liberating way that heterosexuals can not.
9. Reenacting abuse heals abuse. Sadomasochism heals emotional wounds from childhood sexual assault.
10. Sadomasochism is political dissent. It is progressive and even “transgressive” in that it breaks the rules of the dominant sexual ideology.

In the next two parts we will take a closer look at each of these claims. I have divided this into two chapters: The Strawman Sadomasochist and Sadomasochism Versus Radical Feminist Dogma.

To be continued

By Xzenu Cronström Beskow

The author is a  queerfeminist veteran, active both in struggles against sexual abuse and  for the rights of sexual minorities. Xzenu got  academic degrees in psychology and sexology.

The story about the bound hugfriend:

He is quite dominant, my hugfriend. So I tied him up. Not really like that maybe, but basically.

I’m not the ma/ist/e/ress of ropes at all, and he isn’t either, so I figured we should play around and workshop a bit in a nonsexual way to see what we could accomplish with our 10 metres of rope. Turns out that “nonsexual” was not one of the things.

I started out tying his feet together and attaching that to a rope I then attached to a leg in each corner of the bed (two lower corners, you know). He couldn’t move much, but a little. There was enough space though for me to put a knee between his thighs and force his legs apart (fun!). After checking he got blood to his feet and everything was tied securely enough I tied up his arms in a way that he could get out of with a little work, but that would feel sturdy enough. Took some work, but I had a lot of fun (fun!). Turned out he had to. Or well, fun might not be the right word here. But he did like it. I never heard anyone so angrily ask pretty please to get to fuck me.

Had fun, got a bit unsecure about my role and dropped out of dommie headspace, loosened up the knots. Then my turn. He tied me up in some strange kneebending way that was actually both quite comfy and good, I was impressed. And much closer to a good subspace than I’ve been with anyone in ages. Interesting change is that when he untied me, I was the opposite of what I would have thought. I wasn’t all Oh THANK you LORD mighty HUGFRIEND of supersexay sir whatever, but what I said was “I’m not finished, fuck me with your hand, now”. And he said “oh, ok”. And there was light (possibly fireworks). I came out of subspace into a new and improved silia deluxe. I sort of liked that. I usually never asks for things sexually, but I realized that if I want those orgasms, I better tell. Even if he gives them often enough, I can’t just wait around like some christian girl hoping jesus will fulfill her wishes anyway. If the prophet isn’t coming to the mountain, the mountain will have to shape up and move it’s ass to the prophet.

Good night it was anyway. And I’m gonna think about it for a while longer, since it’s a month until I see him again and I just can’t bring myself to go out and pick up random person for sex in the meantime. I’m getting old and lazy.
Speaking of no sex for me, anybody have any good altporn links?

Daddy, I’ve been so bad. Not updating the blog…

No, not really. I’m just saying that all those updates I’m planning takes a bit more time than I thought. It’s worth waiting for, because we are going to be speaking about needles. We are going to look at a radical feminists argument against BDSM and pick it into pieces. And furthermore, in hopefully a not too distant future, more interviews with perverts.

So, what then?

First of all: did you know that keeping a slave makes you stay healthy?
Another site that is a bit better on keeping up to date is Island of Pain.
They report on the Sharon Warner Case, which is one of those brilliant, fucked up things that makes me sad, mad and frustrated.  I’m not going to try to put it better than it is already written:

Chavez, on the other hand, as the situation is described by Warner, seems to have mixed work ethics and lifestyle behaviour beyond what could be seen acceptable, even within the BDSM community. My opinion is that you are definitely on thin ice when you involve your graduate students in your lifestyle behaviour – Not moral reasons, but because certain dependencies issues are created, as the lines between work and lifestyle are blurred.

So, yeah, what is wrong with people who can’t see the power dynamics at play here?  Go ahead and be as kinky as you want, but let’s dwell for one second on consent. Consent, power and trust.  Thinking about those terms, that we are often playing with and then just not realising the implications of involving your students is just plain stupid. No one is judged yet, but I don’t care and have a really hard time feeling sorry for Chavez. Furthermore, as it’s said in the comments, this is not about kink. It could be, but it’s not about kink-rights.

Another stupidity is Julie Bindel’s latest rant on how horrible the trans-people are, or rather, the mutilation and distortion of gender that they portray; as well as how loud and threatening they are.  I can’t feel sorry for her. At all. She has been advocating many a important issues, but not understanding that her stance on transgendered people is so insensitive and out of touch is deserving of the award ‘Nutter of the week’.

Moving on to something completley else; the fact that we know nothing or very little about HPV (human papilloma virus). Poundcake explains it very clearly and it is indeed important to keep updated about all of these things. I want to stay healthy and do regular check-ups about every half year. It feels like a  total overhaul, like beeing a car that goes in on service. And even though I am careful it is always nervous doing the three-minute HIV test.

Tomorrow, at Trafalgar Square there will be a candle light vigil for Ian Baynham, who died after an attack in the end of september.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2009/10/16/vigil-planned-for-gay-man-murdered-in-trafalgar-square/#
There will also be a march against homophobia in Liverpool, sometime in the end of November, following after recent homophobic attacks.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=162737774775&ref=mf

And a very hardhitting blog-entry on how the case is still not won in regards to LGBTQI-rights can be found here.

Ok, people, a question for you:

How the heck do you ever manage?

I find myself constantly mixing up my roles and getting even more confused. So please, pretty pretty readers, tell me how you do to separate that subby little person inside of you with the one who is supposed to have a normal functioning relationship.
I know that if it wasn’t for the fact that I’m intelligent (enough intelligent, at least) and can see through myself (a bit) I’d end up in an abusive relationship where I’d just succumb to this deep desire to just you know, be punished for being me. Since according to me, I’m always wrong. And probably needs to be punished. Possibly killed.

To be sexually submissive (switchy, really, but mostly submissive) and combine that with a mind that constantly tells me that I’m horrible, is not the best of ideas.

I really just want to tell the hugfriend “Take away my rights, control everything, and please hurt me a lot.”. I’m not doing that though, because I’m not a teenager and I do understand that I’d only get even more fucked up in the process. Please note that I’m not a painslut, so I would more suffer than enjoy myself anyhow most of the time.

Can anyone else reckognize themselves in this? I’m aiming for the overkill while writing this, but you know, the general feeling.

I mean, how normal is it to oh-gazm while thinking of your hugfriend drowning you, because you accidentically woke him up by calling to early. (The calling did happen in real life, and popped up in my mind while working my way towards the Oh.)

I know normal might not be a concept we really aim for here, but I’d say even a very liberal therapist would think that’s over the line.

So how do you do it people? How do you keep yourself sane and functional, without turning into a complete doormat, when the option is within reach?

(Ok, hugfriend would never let me go doormat on him, but if I’d lowered my standards far enough, I’m sure there’s plenty of middle aged men with redeveloped babyfat that would just love to assist me on my road to doom.)

If I'm gonna be a doormat, this is the doormat I want to be.

//Silia

So yeah, I’m not religious and have been having a hard time to understand why people would want to be a part of a structure that through so many years clearly expressed a anti lgbt- attitude. I left the Swedish church in my late teens and even if I look back sometimes and think it was not the most constructive thing to do, I am very proud today. But not because I’ve left but because I used to belong to a structure that today has shown that it can change. Not only a semi-change (civil partnership) but also a full change GIVING SAME SEX COUPLES THE FULL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the light of queer activism around the world this is amazing news. Change can happen, take place and mean something rather than nothin. Empty words can become filled with a meaning. I’m not fooled in the fact that the meaning not always itself is the best one ( how come marriage is continued being viewed as the goal of love, as the ultimate manifestation of love?) but I do acknowledge single individuals want to enter such an agreement and manifestation and think they should have the every right to.
And now, finally, in Sweden you can