Originally posted at Savage Minds on December 14, 2005.
…

Indeed it does. There are some situations you’re guaranteed to misinterpret if you don’t look at how ‘insiders’ interpret them. S&M is definitely one of these. It’s the understanding the participants share of what they’re doing, why they’re doing it, their expectations, and the unwritten rules that govern their behaviour, that make it S&M in the first place. If any of those were absent, or not shared by both participants, it would cease to be S&M; the same actions would be viewed by the same people as abuse. That fact alone should make it clear how important participant’s interpretations are in this area.

then:
“I admit it’s hard for me to wrap my head around—I tend to feel that S&M play is often about replaying the form and practice of domestic abuse is a context that makes it “ok””

It is very hard to find unbiased research on the topic of BDSM. It seems that lately (don’t ask me to define lately) there has been a lot of research by sociologists and psychologists on BDSM and other alternative communities (lez, bi, trans, poly, etc). I know this not so much from reading the pertinent literature but through having participated in some of this research as an insider to one or more of these groups. One thing I can say is that the researcher’s bias often shows through in the very questions that they ask. Luckily, there *are* some researchers out there who are either “insiders” to the communities that they study or who are extremely sympathetic. Yet others are willing to alter their questions based on the needs of the communities that they study.

Now, I’m not blaming “outsiders” for having trouble wrapping their heads around the lifestyles and/or realities of LGBTT2IQ, BDSM, poly, etc people. However, it can be very insulting to members of a community (and I speak as a member of one or more communities that has been studied in such a way) to be told that what they *think* they’re doing and feeling is not what is actually going on. I’m not accusing Oneman of this by the way, I’m talking about *some* researchers who do this. I’m thinking, for example, of the self-identified bisexual men who were indirectly told that they were not really bisexual because they physically reacted only to men OR women. Or studies on BDSM that gave one the option of identifying as Dom or sub with no option for a switch.

I’m not suggesting either that only insiders should research their own but I find that this really brings home the etic/emic problem. I think that we can easily make parallels between the difficulties involved in the study of sub/counter cultures to the difficulties experienced by an ethnographer in an unfamiliar cultural setting. What seems familiar and easy to understand suddenly isn’t . . . . what would “normally” be interpreted as an act of violence or hatred can no longer be explained in the usual terms. There are suddenly more layers to everything that one had previously imagined.

What is nifty about all this, of course, is that what may be considered by some to be subjects more viable for sociological or psychological research can increasingly be viewed through an anthropological lens by recognising that many of the difficulties involved in cross-cultural research are present in cross-SUB/COUNTER-cultural research and that participants on these sub/counter cultures adopt or grow into a worldview that may be as different from that of the mainstream society as that of a whole other society.

As to how this is subversive, I am, of course, aware that we are confronted with a woman bound and gagged for the erotic/sexual gratification of (I assume) men. And this is, of course, problematic. At the same time, we have the testimony of a woman who is not only willing to be displayed in this way, but *enthusiastically* embraces her objectification. Now, I could claim “false consciousness” — she’s really being exploited and is brainwashed to think ti’s ok. Or I could say that she’s internalized the male gaze, which has a lot of merit — after all, a big part of the thrill for her comes from *being looked at*. But any woman can be looked at, under virtually any condition — think “Girls Gone Wild” — so we have to wonder what it is about this particular set of conditions that is appealing to her, as opposed to flashing her chest in a club or on the street, or having sex in public, or even “plain vanilla” S&M. In S&M in general, there is a sense that the sub — as much as, or even more than, the dom — is empowered by their submission. I admit it’s hard for me to wrap my head around — I tend to feel that S&M play is often about replaying the form and practice of domestic abuse is a context that makes it “ok” — but this is the way several people have described their experience to me. Add to that the parodic riffing on “traditional” gender roles and consumption, the ironic detachment from the images they are enacting, and I have to believe something other than mere “objectification” is going on. Interestingly, a lot of subs are people who are “in charge” in much of their day-to-day life — which is similar, now that I think of it, to the case of a lot of male cross-dressers. The sense I get is of women who live their day-to-day lives at the opposite extreme from the June Cleaver pole, pushing the “submissive woman” role from the domain of “real life” into the domain of “fantasy”. Just like you’d never *actually* offer yourself up to be killed and eaten, you’d never actually put up with the crap Betty Friedan put up with before her “mystical” (mystiqual?) awakening.

The same woman says, “It’s the same attention you give the turkey on Thanksgiving. Everybody is just obsessed with that turkey. Ooooooh, the turkey the turkey the turkey. When is the turkey going to be done? It’s so exciting!”

It sounds rather Gibletsian.