Skip to content

Patriarchy and Kink

February 12, 2009

Because it seems to be a fad to respond to the stated views on BDSM of one Nine Deuce, I shall do it also. Actually, the reason I’m writing about it is because this is the second time I’ve run across her expounding her views on kink, via Subversive Sub, and I took a pass the first time. The thought of actually having the kind of conversations that resulted in her comments section in real life, with someone I’m trying to live with and be friends with, just made me unutterably weary.

I am at a very lonely stage in my life, where I am geographically separated from the friends I love and call my family, with the reality that even if I get to visit them, I am probably going to be separated from them for quite some time yet. This means I’m going to have to go make new friends in non-kinky spaces, among people who may be hostile to kink, and the thought of having to fight for my right to be accepted as a sane and compassionate individual even if someone might not like how I have sex just makes me feel tired. I have had to do this once so far. I know I will have to do it again.

I will not defend Kink dot com, since it is profoundly stupid and does not give me what I want for porn anyway.

I understand where Deuce is coming from. The very first kinky person I ever made friends with (to my knowledge), was a submissive woman feminist, and I honestly thought she was being abused, and that her boyfriends were abusive, sexist assholes. We had many discussions about it, with the premise that we agreed to disagree. I continued to believe she was being abused. Fortunately for me, she put up with me anyway. This was, naturally, a good long time before I was even close to admitting I was dominant and sadistic. Surprise surprise.

I have had it suggested to me that by being dominant, I am somehow subverting the patriarchy, and being radical and revolutionary. This is not true. Similarly, throughout Deuce’s several posts on kink, there seemed to be an implicit idea that dominant women (and therefore submissive men?) somehow got a free pass, that our kink is somehow fundamentally different from mandom/womsub d/s. Which I think is bullshit. I won’t speak for anybody else, but I know that my sexuality is directly derived from patriarchal oppression of myself and my gender, and my reaction to it. My sexuality is a gender polarized image of patriarchal oppression, as formulated by my childhood mind. It is not any different.

Are there differences? Yes. Is it fundamentally different? No. Though many kinky people probably disagree most vehemently with me, I do believe that BDSM has its roots in patriarchal oppression. I also believe, however, that as long as we understand the paradigms we’re working with, that we have ownership of our sexuality, and not the patriarchy.

In a comment on a post at S-M Feminist responding to her kink rant Deuce defends her decision to marry:

Marriage, as it is constructed and construed by society at large, is financially, legally, and socially restrictive/detrimental for women. But that takes no account of how it might be approached by those of us who are capable of thinking about things and doing things our own way.

I think she makes an excellent point, one that I think is a perfect parallel for what I’m saying above.

Beating people and telling them what to do, as it is constructed and construed by society at large, is detrimental/restrictive for women (and everyone else). But that takes no account of how it might be approached by those of us capable of thinking about things and doing things our own way.

My ability to have a functioning sexual relationship and orgasms has zilch to do with keeping the patriarchy in business. Submissive women’s ability to have a functioning sexual relationship and have orgasms does exactly
nothing to keep the patriarchy alive. Dominant men giving up their horrible mandommy ways and entering into unfulfilling mainstream sexual relationships and being miserable and not having orgasms will not undermine the patriarchy one iota. It will just make them miserable.

Every mandom and womsub (and womdom and mansub, and others) could suddenly stop thinking about doing kinky things and stop being sexually fulfilled, and the patriarchy would still exist. It wouldn’t even be hurting. Because the men out there who are actually abusing, raping, and enslaving women are often completely unaware of why they do what they do, and they probably don’t give a fuck. Unlike all the mandoms I know. Capitalism, industrialism, ‘resource management,’ high technology, science, and empires do, however, keep the patriarchy in business, so I would suggest we busy ourselves dismantling those. I say this as someone who uses a computer daily and will one day not use anything more complex than a basket trap for fish.

Are there mandoms and womsubs out there who are misogynists and use kink as an excuse to express their hatred of women on women’s bodies? Undoubtedly. Are there womdoms and mansubs out there who are misogynists and use kink as an excuse to express their hatred of women on men’s bodies? Undoubtedly. The actions and behaviors of these people should not be used to condemn those who work with these power structures in healthy and fulfilling ways. They would have found a way to be misogynist and abusive without kink.

In a comment on another great post over at S-M Feminist, Deuce says:

Once again, it isn’t submissive women I have beef with, it’s dom men. I’m the radical feminist here, the one who hates men (har har), remember? I’ve said over and over that I can sort of understand submissive women and some elements of BDSM, but that doesn’t mean I have to think there’s nothing problematic involved in BDSM, especially M/f BDSM.

Which Renegade Evolution responded to beautifully with:

When jumping all over the sexuality and desires of Dom men, you are ALSO jumping all over the sexualities and desires of Sub Women who are partnered with and/or fucking /engaging with those men. What you are doing, in essence, is looking at those women and saying “that man you are with, whom I actually know nothing about, or what he is like over all, is sick twisted abusive fuck, and your say and feelings on the matter mean jack and shit. That’s what he is.”

Subversive Sub added, again beautifully:

N-D, it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference to me that you feel some sort of affinity with or sympathy for me as a submissive women if you’re going to suggest that the person I’m partnered with and love is a misogynist who should kill himself.

Yeah, the whole “sex” thing, for us straight sub women? It doesn’t really work if we don’t have any dom guys to fuck. You really can’t just condemn half of the party as being fucked up — that half is exactly what we want, so what does that make us?

You can’t slam the sexuality of straight mandoms without slamming the sexuality of the straight womsubs who like to have sex with them. Not to mention I would totally beat the crap out of anyone in-the-non-sexy-way who said that shit to my partner.

In Part 4 of her initial BDSM rant, Deuce says:

I don’t think it’s healthy to mix sex and violence, and I think submitting to the will of other people is detrimental to our mental health and human development.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, violence and power are a part of human sexuality. They have been for the past six-thousand years, ever since some assholes in Mesopotamia decided it would be a great idea to live beyond the resources of their landbase, and started taking everyone elses’.

I am already made. My arousal comes with violence and power. I cannot be unmade. I cannot stop being dominant. I cannot stop being a sadist. We cannot stop being what we are. Is Deuce suggesting we should all stop being sexually fulfilled, no more orgasms for the kinky? What, exactly, does she expect us to do about her moral qualms about our sexuality?

The real question I have is, which is preferable? People running around actually abusing each other because they’ve been socialized to, or people living with an understanding of the paradigms that have shaped them and expressing it an a healthy, mutually fulfilling way? This is the reason the subtitle of this blog is “ritual violence.” I can express healthily in ritual, in d/s, in s/m, what I will not, what I should not, express in other ways. I should not go around beating people and forcing them to do things they don’t want to because the patriarchy has taught me to (which it has). I can, however, beat my consenting partners and force them to do things if we agree on it all and enjoy it together.

The way I see it, if you think you’re punk for getting off on reenacting the kinds of abuses that real women and children in this world suffer on a daily basis (and thus mocking their suffering), you can go fuck yourself.

Yes, real women and children suffer the kinds of abuses many kinky people do for fun. Florentine flogging? Very fun. Used to torture people in real life? Yes. Kinky people doing it for fun is not the same as those real abuses. It is not a mockery. Kinky people suppressing their desires and not doing it for fun will do absolutely nothing for the people who are actually suffering those abuses. Here’s an idea, why don’t we stop the enablers of the real abuse (empire, capitalism, industrialism), instead of attacking the people who use an image of that abuse to be sexually fulfilled?

Deuce also suggests that we all go and kill ourselves (she specifically directs this at anyone who wanks off to the thought of torturing women, which I do, and I’m a woman), however I will not be taking her suggestion. I have shit to do, a civilization to dismantle, a patriarchy to destroy, a new culture to create, lovers to live with, children to raise, stories to tell, and socks to knit.

And really, really, this entire thing just makes me tired. As if there isn’t enough shit in the world, what with the patriarchy, people actually, really, being beaten and raped, starved, deprived of water, shelter, land, what with tennis shoe factories fucking up my air, toxic spills on my river, the extirpation of some 200 species a day, and a culture that can’t see itself living without MP3 players, somewhere, sometime, I am going to have to fight with someone I’m going to have to live with, and would rather be friends with, about how I like to beat people and get off on it.

This whole discussion has really made me think about when to be out, and with whom. The only answer I cam come up with is ‘everyone I’m planning on having any kind of lasting relationship with’. Because I don’t want to be condemned by someone I call friend months, or a year, or four years into the relationship. I want to know up front if they can’t handle who and what I am.

41 Comments leave one →
  1. subversive_sub permalink
    February 13, 2009 5:37 am

    You rule. This post rules.

    In conclusion, YES.

  2. ranat permalink
    February 13, 2009 3:56 pm

    Yay, someone likes it! I was afraid I was going to be yelled at for the whole patriarchy bit. Not that someone else couldn’t do it.

  3. February 13, 2009 5:52 pm

    As you say: How would suppressing our kinky sexualities have any positive effect on anything in the world? Sounds like someone has been looking for a scapegoat, rather than address situations of real abuse and exploitation.

    I agree with you that the notion of BDSM with a woman dominating being fundamentally different from the same with a man dominating is nonsense. I’ve learned a lot from experiences of dom men and sub women. (Even though oftentimes those very same dom men and sub women assumed that my own kink and my partner’s must be fundamentally different from theirs because of our sex. *sigh*) I see many more similarities than differences. Feelings, desires and interaction of dominance and submission, as well as sadism and masochism, transcend gender and sexual orientation. Viewing the reality of kink through the filter of gender essentialism is stupid and inadequate.

    Unlike the reasoning you’ve written down here about the origins of your own kink, I see the origins of mine differently. I don’t know why I’m dominant and sadistic, and I very much doubt there even is a “why”. My hypothesis, which however I can not test, is that my dominant and sadistic sexuality is a genetic predisposition which would have been there regardless in what sort of society I grew up in. The difference social context makes is whether expressing those dispositions is easy, difficult, almost impossible. I can however not test this hypothesis since I can’t transplant a clone of myself into all sorts of different contexts. Until we have a lot more research about kinky sexualities that is less biased, it’s very difficult to have any insights at all that transcend personal biography and individual viewpoint. Or, as the Dodo says “Why, the best way to explain it is to do it.”

    I think consensual BDSM is related to nonconsensual situations insofar as activities we do – such as beating people and ordering them what to do – can resemble those in nonconsensual power relationships, with the difference that they are done in a consensual framework and with limits (and hopefully, in most instances, caring for each other as persons). I don’t put all of these nonconsensual power difference relationships under the umbrella term “patriarchy”. This may however just be a terminological question. I would hope that the less oppression there is in societies, patriarchal oppression and other kinds, the more we as humans are able to do sexually what we truly want to do as individuals, whatever our sex and gender, sexual orientations, and whatever our kinks or absence thereof. I am also deeply grateful to the pioneers of women’s rights before our times. I think among their many other achievements they contributed to, in the long term, more people being able to do sexually what our individual inner desires are – dominate, submit, both, neither.

  4. ranat permalink
    February 13, 2009 6:46 pm

    @Ranai-

    “Even though oftentimes those very same dom men and sub women assumed that my own kink and my partner’s must be fundamentally different from theirs because of our sex.”

    Yeah, the idea does seem rather common.

    “My hypothesis, which however I can not test, is that my dominant and sadistic sexuality is a genetic predisposition which would have been there regardless in what sort of society I grew up in.”

    You know yourself better than I do, so what you feel about the origins of your sexuality (if you care at all, which some people probably don’t) isn’t really my prerogative to dissect. I do have a hard time with many genetic predisposition theories though, because as someone to whom Darwin’s theory seems relatively sound (but should not be taken as the Answer to Everything), I can’t really see how being kinky would help someone pass on their genes. There’s always the stereotypical Gor flavor of mandom answer, but I don’t buy that either. But, *shrug*.

    “I think consensual BDSM is related to nonconsensual situations insofar as activities we do – such as beating people and ordering them what to do – can resemble those in nonconsensual power relationships, with the difference that they are done in a consensual framework and with limits (and hopefully, in most instances, caring for each other as persons).”

    Yes, definitely. I remember you gave me some great links (can’t remember if it was here or at Subversive Sub) by some people drawing parallels between what happens in the world non-consensually and what we do consensually.

    “I don’t put all of these nonconsensual power difference relationships under the umbrella term “patriarchy”. This may however just be a terminological question.”

    Perhaps. The way I’m using patriarchy is that the dominant culture in the world, which had its roots in the first empire six or seven thousand years ago (the birth of civilization) has always been driven by the patriarchy. While there are non-patriarchal cultures out there, they have become few and far between because of extermination or poisoning by civilized/patriarchal imperialism. Since the dominant culture is profoundly fucked up, I feel comfortable laying many of our social ills at the feet of patriarchy, but with the caveat that it is not patriarchy in a vacuum. There are other related factors such as civilization/empire, industry, capitalism, etc.

  5. February 13, 2009 7:35 pm

    I can’t really see how being kinky would help someone pass on their genes

    Me neither. I think being kinky just doesn’t hinder humans in procreating. I also don’t think dispositions to kink would necessarily be inherited characteristics showing up in every generation. Just something human that shows up here and there, not tied to the individual’s sex. As I said, it’s just an untested (untestable) hypothesis. I don’t know why I’m kinky.

    How do you call cultures with patriarchal characteristics that developed without cultural contact to or cultural influence from Mesopotamia? Patriarchal, but not the patriarchy?

    Thanks for an interesting post. I like reading about how different people see their kinks as part of the rest of their lives. Also you’ve just given me a reminder about the quality of living that lies in travelling lightly. :)

  6. ranat permalink
    February 13, 2009 8:24 pm

    “I also don’t think dispositions to kink would necessarily be inherited characteristics showing up in every generation. Just something human that shows up here and there, not tied to the individual’s sex.”

    A widespread non-procreation-interfering mutation does seem more plausible to me, if there is a genetic factor. As for hereditary, maybe, maybe not. I can certainly trace dominance back two generations on one side of my family, but whether that suggests a genetic factor or a nurture factor is a toss-up. I lean toward the latter.

    “How do you call cultures with patriarchal characteristics that developed without cultural contact to or cultural influence from Mesopotamia? Patriarchal, but not the patriarchy?”

    I would say that where patriarchy developed independently of what I think of as the major strain from Mesopotamia, that your distinction of patriarchal but not ‘the patriarchy’ is useful. However, the fact that ‘the patriarchy’ has furthered its goals through globalization, all of the unconnected patriarchal cultures have now been influenced by the major strain. So the distinction might only be useful when speaking historically.

    “Also you’ve just given me a reminder about the quality of living that lies in travelling lightly.”

    Oh? Do tell. I need all the help I can get. :)

  7. subversive_sub permalink
    February 13, 2009 9:50 pm

    The whole idea of submission or dominance being different based on gender has always really confused me. I do know that a lot of people draw on gender roles within their kink, or specifically kink on certain gendered things (like the fetishization of hyper-feminine dress). But at its root, I agree with you both, I can’t really see there being much of a difference in the actual *desires* themselves.

    There have been only a few people, in the past few years that I’ve had my blog up, that have mentioned to me that something I had written — some way I’d handled a situation or some way I approached my submission — sounded exactly like them or like their partner. In at least two of those cases, the other subs in question were both male…

  8. ranat permalink
    February 13, 2009 10:19 pm

    @Subversive Sub –

    I think the prevalence of the idea that d/s differs along gender lines has a lot to do with what you describe about people incorporating archetypal or stereotypical gender roles, not to mention the gender essentialism that so many people buy in to. I think it might also have something to do with activities, since femdom has different stereotypical acts. Correct me if I’m wrong, but one trend I’ve noticed is that in maledom, there’s more of an emphasis on forced orgasms, and in femdom there’s more of an emphasis on orgasm denial.

    I went and checked out a couple of radfem blogs to get a more general idea of their blog culture, and it seems that the perspective that M/f and F/m are somehow different is probably based largely on ‘If man does it, bad, if woman does it… woman? …weird, but uh, it’s not a man, so…’ I haven’t actually found any explicit radfem perspectives on dominant women, dominating submissives of any gender.

  9. February 14, 2009 8:58 pm

    Do tell.
    It is merely that your post is a timely encouragement. We’re currently getting rid of some stuff we’ve found out we don’t need at all.

    I’ve just come across this research abstract via a pointer on Gloria Brame’s blog:

    “No evidence was found suggesting that sadomasochists espoused anti-feminist, patriarchal values or traditional gender roles to a greater extent that the non-SM-group.

    Patricia A. Cross PhD and Kim Matheson PhD in the book ‘Sadomasochism: Powerful Pleasures’ (2006), published simultaneously as the Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 50, Nos. 2/3.)”

  10. ranat permalink
    February 15, 2009 7:43 pm

    @Ranai –

    Ooo, very interesting. A case study, for those who are all academic-y. I shall read it sometime, when I do not want to take a nap.

    Thanks!

  11. February 16, 2009 3:08 am

    “Unlike the reasoning you’ve written down here about the origins of your own kink, I see the origins of mine differently. I don’t know why I’m dominant and sadistic, and I very much doubt there even is a “why”.”

    Same here. I get really tired of “oh, it couldn’t possibly be that you just were always interested, there must have been some patriarchy thing you were too stupid to recognize.”

    Is it possible that other people are kinky because of patriarchy? Sure. It’s also possible they’re kinky because of wombats. What the hell has that got to do with me?

  12. ranat permalink
    February 16, 2009 3:29 am

    @Trinity –

    Dude, if people were kinky because of wombats that would probably make everything that much cooler. I mean, WOMBATS.

    ““oh, it couldn’t possibly be that you just were always interested, there must have been some patriarchy thing you were too stupid to recognize.””

    I don’t think the two are necessarily exclusive. I’ve always been kinky (took me a while to admit it), if you consider ‘always’ as having d/s and s/m fantasies as early as the age of four, but I still trace my kinkiness back to my reaction to the expression of patriarchy in my formative years. My reaction was, namely, “Aw HELL no.”

  13. February 16, 2009 3:35 am

    Okay, I’m sorry for the snark. :)

    But really: why do you believe that patriarchy made you kinky? Do you remember when you first had kinky thoughts? Because I don’t — they were just always there. I was always collecting poetry about pain, and always fascinated with stories where women were depicted as having power over others.

    I’m really not sure where in this, however much examining I do, I’m supposed to see social structures… especially since social structures made me feel like a failed woman, because everything around me, from commercials to my family, told me men only want swooning followers and that I scared them because I didn’t follow the script.

    I’m not here saying you’re wrong about yourself, I’m just fascinated, because I can’t even make the idea that patriarchy wanted anything but me on the bottom, however miserable I’d be there, make any sense.

  14. February 16, 2009 3:52 am

    “I still trace my kinkiness back to my reaction to the expression of patriarchy in my formative years. My reaction was, namely, “Aw HELL no.””

    Mine was too, but I don’t think I was excited about rebelling. I think I was rebelling because everything in me found the submissiveness… horrifyingly against my nature. I wasn’t going “hahaha no!” I was going “why am I so WRONG INSIDE? This is supposed to fulfill me, all the images I see of women say this… am I a boy? No… I’m not… maybe if I were I wouldn’t be such a MONSTER.”

    So… yeah, perhaps I became a monster in childish rebellion, but it’s very hard for my brain to interpret it that way. The way my brain interprets it is that, actually, yes, my dominance, sadism, and desire to penetrate my partners are innate, and my innate sense of self found itself butting up against a social system that said I was a threat at best and a deformity at worst.

  15. February 16, 2009 3:57 am

    Which is not faddy in social circles where it’s hip to uncover how society made you you, but… I don’t really feel that I should be required to seek out the roots of who I am, any more than a gay man should be required to dig up what made him not straight.

    I’m an anomaly in a society that expects not-me.

    Freaks are always explained away, but never explainable.

  16. ranat permalink
    February 16, 2009 4:14 am

    @Trinity –

    Snark forgiven. I still like the wombat idea though.

    I do remember several of my earliest kinky fantasies around the age of four. One was in preschool, when another girl and I narrated very matter-of-factly how we tied an imaginary man (specifically an adult, not one of our peers) to a chair, cracked eggs over his genitals, and sucked them up in a vacuum cleaner. The teacher split us up. I kept having kinky fantasies, they just got more complex, and influenced by different sources (generally fantasy literature). Eventually I realized, ‘Oh shit, that’s not normal,’ and tried to repress/reshape myself. Which was bad.

    “I’m really not sure where in this, however much examining I do, I’m supposed to see social structures… especially since social structures made me feel like a failed woman, because everything around me, from commercials to my family, told me men only want swooning followers and that I scared them because I didn’t follow the script.”

    This is exactly the sentiment I reacted to as a child. I grew up in an environment where the most prevalent sexist idea was not that women were bitches to be bred, but that women were intrinsically weak and in need of rescue and protection. I did not WANT to be rescued, or taken care of, I could take care of myself fine thankyouverymuch, and *I* would do the rescuing, sotakethat. I remember very clearly telling this to adults quite often, to which they laughed and metaphorically patted my head. You can also blame Jane and the Dragon.

    Most of my early fantasies dealt almost exclusively with my rescue of a dude-in-distress. But in order to rescue him, he has to be in distress. His levels of distress gradually got deeper and more creative. :D This was intertwined with an early fascination with slavery, which was the result of my upbringing in a slave culture. My d/s and s/m fantasies were actually camouflaged for a good fifteen years through writing, which wasn’t real after all. The day I finally made the connection from the men I tortured in my head in the name of literature and my suddenly gushy vagina scared the shit out of me. The fact that my vagina remained decidedly dry whenever I thought of egalitarian-pretty-soft-sex scared me even more.

    “I’m not here saying you’re wrong about yourself, I’m just fascinated, because I can’t even make the idea that patriarchy wanted anything but me on the bottom, however miserable I’d be there, make any sense.”

    That’s the thing. My sexuality wasn’t shaped by how the patriarchy wanted me to be as a girlchild, my sexuality was shaped by my personal reaction to how pissed I was at my lot as distressed, weak, and in need of rescue. And in rebellion, I did something not revolutionary at all: I internalized the same paradigm, but I flipped it, mirrored it, where I got to be in charge, the rescuer, the protector, and the tormentor all at once.

    For quite a while in my teenage years I secretly thought I must be seriously fucked up and sick. Then I realized where it came from, and I just felt sick. And then, finally… I realized I could have what I wanted, and that it was okay. It just was. The patriarchy might have shaped me, and the patriarchy might suck, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to enjoy myself.

    Again, I can only speak for myself when tracing the origin of my kink. To me it’s like a neon trail back through my life. I think, ‘Oh yeah, and there was that, and that, and that…’ I find this pattern compelling, and I theorize it’s possible that others developed the same way. But without me being that other person, and having lived their life and experiences, that’s not my determination to make.

  17. February 16, 2009 4:25 am

    “This is exactly the sentiment I reacted to as a child. I grew up in an environment where the most prevalent sexist idea was not that women were bitches to be bred, but that women were intrinsically weak and in need of rescue and protection. I did not WANT to be rescued, or taken care of, I could take care of myself fine thankyouverymuch, and *I* would do the rescuing, sotakethat.”

    I didn’t feel rebellious like that. I felt like I was supposed to be good and believe it, and I just… wasn’t good, inside, wasn’t… right.

    I mean, I liked the same stories. But I very clearly got the idea from people around me that feminism meant women could do anything men could do… except in bed.

    I felt ashamed and like I was horrible, because as far as I knew I *had* equality, so what was I doing thinking about things that (as society told me) I was biologically “not built” for? I felt as though I was spitting in the eye of feminism, actually, demanding things it couldn’t give me.

  18. ranat permalink
    February 16, 2009 4:27 am

    Ack, we’re overlap commenting.

    “Mine was too, but I don’t think I was excited about rebelling. I think I was rebelling because everything in me found the submissiveness… horrifyingly against my nature. I wasn’t going “hahaha no!” I was going “why am I so WRONG INSIDE? This is supposed to fulfill me, all the images I see of women say this… am I a boy? No… I’m not… maybe if I were I wouldn’t be such a MONSTER.””

    Being as humans are so complex, I don’t find it surprising that we had different reactions to similar stereotypes about the role of females/women in this culture. I never really went through any gender questioning until maybe six months ago. For a long time I got along fine thinking about beating up and enslaving dudes in my head and not telling anyone about it. It was just the way things were, and I didn’t think about the double stream of thought I was having. Then I got to the, ‘Oh shit I torture people in my head shit, that’s not right, shit shit shit I’m a monster I can’t tell anyone’ stage. That was not fun. -_-

    “So… yeah, perhaps I became a monster in childish rebellion, but it’s very hard for my brain to interpret it that way […] Which is not faddy in social circles where it’s hip to uncover how society made you you[.]”

    I’m not trying to make an argument to convince people that everyone developed the same way I did, I’m just explaining how the process worked for me. I never sat down and tried to figure out ‘Why am I this way?’ It was more like ‘I am this way and I’ve been staring at the ceiling for hours now OH. That.’

  19. February 16, 2009 4:30 am

    So yeah, I wasn’t pissed off, I was just horrified, and hoping puberty would come soon and change me into a swoony little submissive, hurry hurry hurry because it just feels so wrong and I envy the boys so badly but I don’t know that I’d want to be made one of them even if I could would sexual pleasure be reason enough what’s wrong with me oh god oh god…

    etc.

  20. February 16, 2009 4:33 am

    So yeah, hearing that that terrified girl is the patriarchy, or is a service top for it… makes me Not So Happy.

    THEIR experiences of horror at the system that crushes them are supposedly legitimate and real, but I’m an agent provocateur.

    *snort* Sure. And I’m totally interested in buying that bridge they’re selling… ;)

  21. ranat permalink
    February 16, 2009 4:36 am

    “I felt ashamed and like I was horrible, because as far as I knew I *had* equality, so what was I doing thinking about things that (as society told me) I was biologically “not built” for? I felt as though I was spitting in the eye of feminism, actually, demanding things it couldn’t give me.”

    I was rather slow in putting all the pieces of my arousal together (I wasn’t supposed to feel that until I was married, after all), so I never really noticed how I *wasn’t* aroused by what other people were. It never occurred to me that I should be aroused in the first place.

    Then I found out about pegging. By accident. Because someone told me in an intellectual discussion. And suddenly, a sex act by itself was suddenly really, REALLY hot.

    This was a good two years before I admitted I was kinky, so I thought maybe I was just adventurous. Then I wondered why I couldn’t get aroused by any sex act except pegging. And beating up and enslaving dudes in my head. I said in my last comment that I didn’t really do any gender questioning until about six months ago, but I take that back. I was definitely wondering wildly if I could be trans, and if I was, why did I identify so strongly as a woman.

  22. ranat permalink
    February 16, 2009 4:39 am

    “THEIR experiences of horror at the system that crushes them are supposedly legitimate and real, but I’m an agent provocateur.”

    Don’t forget, we’re also apologists for male supremacists, and smokescreens for male sadists.

  23. February 16, 2009 4:42 am

    I was rather slow in putting all the pieces of my arousal together (I wasn’t supposed to feel that until I was married, after all), so I never really noticed how I *wasn’t* aroused by what other people were. It never occurred to me that I should be aroused in the first place.”

    And for me, it did… everyone around me was fascinated by sex and I was appalled. And then there was my pain poetry, and Phantom of the Opera, which I would listen to at night and… writhe on the bed in my headphones.

    When I was about 15, it hit me that that was sexual arousal. I was relieved, and thought maybe I could identify with Christine (finally), but I soon found myself correcting the Phantom. “Why should I sing HIS music! He should sing MINE! …. Ohhhhhh. Ohhh-kaaaaaay. I see now.”

  24. February 16, 2009 4:44 am

    “Then I found out about pegging. By accident. Because someone told me in an intellectual discussion. And suddenly, a sex act by itself was suddenly really, REALLY hot. ”

    *nods* I was having SM fantasies before I thought of pegging. Because if boys didn’t have cunts, obviously I’d have to make them myself, right?

    When I found out about pegging it was simultaneously a relief (much less work) and a disappointment (much less blood).

  25. February 16, 2009 4:47 am

    Actually, I came across reference to fisting first. It was a revelation. “Oh, yeah. I have fingers. And hands.”

    (This is, not incidentally, why I get kind of irked at Bitchy Jones’ Diary; while I think she’s right about a lot of things, her whole schtick about how dominant women most want to be vaginally penetrated just makes me go bu-whuh? It’s not that it’s unpleasant, but… heh.)

  26. ranat permalink
    February 16, 2009 4:47 am

    “When I was about 15, it hit me that that was sexual arousal. I was relieved, and thought maybe I could identify with Christine (finally), but I soon found myself correcting the Phantom. “Why should I sing HIS music! He should sing MINE! …. Ohhhhhh. Ohhh-kaaaaaay. I see now.””

    Lol! My first experience with Phantom of the Opera was singing “Music of the Night” in choir completely out of context, so I had no idea what was going on.

    During my early pegging obsession, I was recognizing that maybe I wanted to be ‘on top,’ whereas before I’d maintained that I wanted a strictly equal relationship. Equality was Good, after all, so my desires for sexual inequality (even the comparatively tame inequality I was imagining at the time) must be unfair and unreasonable. I would just have to reign in my ego. Little did I know…

  27. February 16, 2009 4:49 am

    Well, it wasn’t quite that I wasn’t aroused at all. It was more that I always liked the idea of penetrating, but I wasn’t “built” to do that because I don’t come factory equipped with a pole, so I just kind of drew a blank until it dawned on me that my playground “Oh, so that’s what sex is. It sounds like a lot of fun… um, for the boy… shoot” was.

  28. February 16, 2009 4:49 am

    “Equality was Good, after all, so my desires for sexual inequality (even the comparatively tame inequality I was imagining at the time) must be unfair and unreasonable. I would just have to reign in my ego.”

    hahahahahaha EXACTLY HAHAHAHA

  29. February 16, 2009 4:50 am

    (Let me just say: I like you. You’re spiffy.)

  30. ranat permalink
    February 16, 2009 4:54 am

    “Actually, I came across reference to fisting first. It was a revelation. “Oh, yeah. I have fingers. And hands.””

    I am simultaneously completely fascinated and completely terrified of the thought of anal fisting somebody.

    “(This is, not incidentally, why I get kind of irked at Bitchy Jones’ Diary; while I think she’s right about a lot of things, her whole schtick about how dominant women most want to be vaginally penetrated just makes me go bu-whuh? It’s not that it’s unpleasant, but… heh.)”

    I do like to read her, though I obviously disagree about the pegging big-time. I like vaginal penetration, but I don’t really like all the crazy movement she describes. I also don’t really understand her obsession with orgasm, though I have come to enjoy them. I kind of just take the obsession with vaginal penetration and orgasm as part-and-parcel of her style.

  31. ranat permalink
    February 16, 2009 4:56 am

    “(Let me just say: I like you. You’re spiffy.)”

    Yaaaaay!

    This had been really fun. :)

  32. February 16, 2009 5:01 am

    D’you have AIM or YIM? Talking there would be the fun.

  33. ranat permalink
    February 16, 2009 5:07 am

    I do, and I’d love to talk with you more real-time. :P I have similar issues as you’ve stated on SM Feminist about having contact info floating about. Hmm… Gimme like five minutes to try something with my blog so you can email me.

  34. February 16, 2009 5:12 am

    Got it :)

  35. ranat permalink*
    February 16, 2009 6:29 am

    Great talking to you Trinity! Have fun with music. :)

  36. August 22, 2010 3:11 pm

    Well… Coming late in, but still. I’d love to peg Wonderboy. I’d like to be inside of him and give him orgasms through serious rummaging. And I do see it as a somewhat submissive space for him to be entered, because it’s so delicate, so fragile to be inside of him, but it isn’t inherently submissive. (Like in the Triad story where the slave does the fucking up the ass. Yum, btw!) It’s just our take on it is like that. I blame the porn. I wasn’t and isn’t at all submissive for me to be butt-fucked, it’s just great, but he can make it a submissive act.

    And yeah, me too. It was so badwrong to want to submit. Because women are supposed to, the patriarchy is still forcing us, so how CAN I enforce it with my own actions? No, I couldn’t. I fought it and had plain ole vanilla sex, and even sex as a dominant, but always fantasized what I fantasize about. The badwrongthings. Being taken, being forced, being tied. But with a twist with me as the male opressor.

    I’ve liberated myself from the whole discussion. Sexuality is something that has absolutely nothing to do with how society is constructed. The only thing in common is us and our inhibitions that have been shaped by the cultural expectations. That’s how I feel now, anyway.

  37. ranat permalink*
    August 22, 2010 4:51 pm

    “Sexuality is something that has absolutely nothing to do with how society is constructed. The only thing in common is us and our inhibitions that have been shaped by the cultural expectations.”

    I’ve come to a similar place. Certainly patriarchy and civilized culture have influenced my sexuality, have provided my sexual archetypes, have shaped my sexual triggers. But they didn’t make my sexuality the way it is. That is mine.

Trackbacks

  1. Good News, Everyone! I’m a Dominant Woman and I’m Irrelevant. « beyond the hills
  2. Gender, and Markers, and– Hmm, I don’t actually have a third item « beyond the hills
  3. Nebulous « beyond the hills
  4. Journeys Into the Scare-the-Shit-Out-Of-You Unknown « beyond the hills

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: