As I have already discussed in a previous post, Meghan Murphy had an article published on rabble.ca discussing the case of the RCMP officer currently under a ‘code of conduct’ investigation by the force, sparked by the appearance of photographs on a fetish social web site known as fetlife.com. I was extremely critical of the article, for a number of reasons. Certainly I was not alone, and there were a number of other comments posted on the original article, as well as extensive discussions on Twitter, some about her article and some actually involving her.
Yesterday, a follow-up post appeared on her blog that, in an extraordinarily derisive manner, told us that “it’s not about you,” suggesting that those in the BDSM community that got a little put out by her comments needed to, in her words, “get some perspective.”
Alright, let’s do that, shall we? At least, allow me to offer my perspective. Which actually leads into the first part of the problem… In her latest post, Ms. Murphy is incredibly critical of all of the people who discussed their personal perspectives, preferences and beliefs. She goes on to state the fact that she gets exactly the same response every time she critiques porn, prostitution or the burlesque industry. Now, when the same thing happens over and over again, there is always a possibility that you are contributing to problem, and possibly you might want to consider how and why that occurs.
So let me start with why, in my post, I discussed my experience. Firstly, and fundamentally, it’s the only thing I can speak about that is truth. Reality is a social construction, and the only person we have control of in that exercise is ourselves. There is already a lot of information out there (in the news, on blogs and on Twitter) offering takes on what the investigation of Jim Brown is about, what he is claimed to have done (or not done) and how bad (or good) a person he is supposed to be. I cannot speak to any of that, in that I don’t know him, the details of the investigation have not been published, and I am not responsible for the investigation. Different people have different perspectives on this. The one thing I do know is that there will never be one, single, cohesive objective ‘truth’ about this situation; there will be multiple perspectives, fuelled by multiple agendas, and driven differing views of whether what emerges from the RCMP investigation, the independent review of that investigation, or any newspaper reporting of it, are (or even can be) reasonable representations of the truth.
There is another, much larger issue at play here, however. If you are going to adopt critical theory as a stance (and if you choose to explore power structures and dynamics, as Ms. Murphy claims, that is exactly what you are doing) then one of the first things you must address is your own biases; how do you, as an analyst, narrator or commentator, introduce bias into your interpretation of what you are discussing? My identifying as being kinky, and specifically, being a male who enjoys submitting to a female, was not desperate pleading of, “but I like it,” as Ms. Murphy suggests. It was not about defending my personal interests, or even the larger community. I declare my biases, because they influence my perspective. Certainly there are those that will as a result dismiss that perspective, but that isn’t something that I can control.
Do I even pretend that everyone else was doing the same, and in so doing adopting an appropriate critical stance? Not a chance; I don’t pretend that we live in that self-aware a world. In that respect, however, Ms. Murphy gets a free pass right to the head of the line (for I’m nothing if not generous). In her first post, Ms. Murphy did not declare her bias, although it has certainly emerged through her subsequent comments. Some of the more polite characterizations in her most recent post were, “I really don’t care about ‘kink’ or about ‘kinky people’. It just doesn’t interest me.” And in a Twitter post over the weekend to the world at large, “In other news, I really don’t care about your SECRETNAUGHTYOHSOBADANDWRONGANDREBELLIOUSKINKY sex life.” There were other comments, but I don’t use those words on this blog.
And that’s just fine, if you don’t want to discuss BDSM, what it means, how it is practiced and the many protocols that those who subscribe to a philosophy of ‘safe, sane and consensual’ actually adopt. The challenge is, she does want to do that. But she wants to discuss BDSM, only she wants to do so in the very narrow confines of the boundaries she sets. Specifically, in her words, “…the phenomenon of sexualizing male violence against women and male dominance is of interest to me. And it is that, and only that, which I was addressing in my previous post.” If she wants to define her arguments on the head of a pin, she is more than welcome to do so. Putting sharp boundaries on a conversation, however, doesn’t give you the right to make blanket, bald-faced assertions in whatever tone of voice you want, and not leave yourself open to challenge.
So let’s explore what some of my issues are with her original article, shall we? For they are numerous. For starters, she continues to perpetuate the on-going fallacious assumption that all BDSM and kink are about is a male dominant and a female submissive. She makes the assertion that there is no boundary between private fantasy and public responsibility, and that it is impossible to establish or maintain these boundaries. She conflates BDSM with misogyny. And, without explicitly saying so, she strongly implies that those who have fantasies involving kink, involving power relationships, involving BDSM, should not be in positions of power.
All of those assertions are problematic, not just for me, but for a much larger community of people. They are a community in whom many, if not most, are not violent and are not misogynistic, are happily and gainfully employed in various positions of power, and who — exactly because of articles like these — fear for their livelihoods if their interests and preferences were exposed. Who fear, for we have a word for such things, discrimination.
In saying that, I’m not trying to say that no one is violent, no one is a product of abuse, or that no one engages in misogyny (or misanthropy, for that matter). But the BDSM community is in fact cited as one of the few who openly, rationally negotiate about sex and how it will be engaged in (something that most of us we would much rather not do; and, by not doing so, perpetuate so many of those cultural stereotypes that Ms. Murphy is railing against).
Ms. Murphy says that her concern is context, and that is what she is trying to explore. My basic issue with her first article, and most particularly with her second, is that there is little to no exploring going on. In my view, she wants to define her context, and impose it on others like a bludgeon. She has a position she is advancing, and she has no interest in anyone with an alternative perspective. On her Twitter feed, she is wholly grateful for positive messages of support, and wholly combative with those who have a different view.
And so, at this point, my issues are way beyond content, and take a whole lot of exception to style. Which is unfortunate, because in her second post, Ms. Murphy actually makes some good (and more nuanced) arguments. In fact, arguably, it would have been far better for her to make the points in her second article first. Except that they are completely overshadowed by rhetoric and tone that, quite frankly, leaves no room for intelligent or reasoned discussion.
Of course, you might ask at this point, “Why bother? What’s the point in responding when, in her words, in her tone, in her over-the-top derision, she makes it all too clear that she is only interested in debating the topic she chooses, within the boundaries she sets? Why bother even trying to challenge that?” And those are fair questions to ask. It’s her blog, after all. Except for this. When something gets passed off as ‘journalism’ (as her post was in being re-posted on rabble.ca, and as she self-describes herself in her Twitter profile) then there is a standard of integrity that is implied. And if something doesn’t meet that standard, it needs to be challenged.
An early tweet about this episode highlighted the problem quite profoundly: “Main media issue with the RCMP case? People who judge his proclivities are free to come forward, and those who don’t have to stay closeted.” There is a reason I write under a pseudonym; I have to, and Ms. Murphy has done me the courtesy of proving why several times over. But, while we hopefully live in a society that is accepting that silence does not equal consent in the bedroom, it seemingly does on the internet. And so, in the face of fallacious information and derisive dismissal, I choose not to be silent.
July 13, 2012 at 1:00 am
I think you may have accidentally hit upon something important here:
“She has a position she is advancing, and she has no interest in anyone with an alternative perspective.”
I believe that you are correct insofar as, in my experience, Meghan is usually attempting to advance a position, her professed purpose in life being to do so. Therein lies the extent to which I believe you know what you are talking about.
I have found Meghan willing to engage contrary doctrines, opinions, and basic discrepancies in experience and understanding on an honest intellectual basis that is unique to varying topics as they are presented to her. However, and this is important, her lack of interest in “anyone with an alternative perspective” is usually the result of that person’s inability to write properly or understand that their private reality, though it may be the only ‘true’ thing for them, does not and cannot affect the greater context of the feminist issues about which she writes.
July 13, 2012 at 2:56 am
I’m sorry to say that Ms. Murphy has a very convenient view of what critical theory is, but her approach is just as biased and uncritical as the commenters she’s complaining about. She has not bothered to problematize the overarching power of public institutions such as law enforcement, public service sectors, the mental health arena or conservative elements within the public sphere to determine what’s ‘normal’. It is pretty poor scholarship to focus on a single man as his sex-life and ignore the far larger institutions that are intent on ‘norming’ people. Her ambivalent stance on BDSM speaks to her underlying discomfort with accepting a person’s right to define themselves, especially in their private lives.
I’m sorry, but she’s just a piss poor, underread second-wave feminist. If she were actually doing ‘critical theory’, she would be interrogating the dynamics of the situation that lead the the incident in question, not just parroting ignorant populist opinion.
But then, that doesn’t pull in the readers. That doesn’t have them sitting smug and self-righteous at their breakfast table with their toast and their narrow view of what normal is. She’s successfully pandering to a woefully uninformed majority. She’ll do well as a journalist.
July 13, 2012 at 8:19 am
Absolutely. Ms. Murphy is not a journalist. Though you’ll never convince her of that now. Ms. Murphy is a blogger. She doesn’t operate under journalistic standards, she operates under blogging standards, which she makes up as she goes along. I like blogs. I read a lot of them. At their best they’re like the all consuming conversations you can get into with people you just never want to stop talking to. At their worst they’re masturbatory self indulgence which, yes, presume blanket admiration and applause and turn a vicious snarling attack on the least hint of criticism.
Is she the worst? No. Does she even rise to the level of “piss poor, underread second-wave feminist”? I don’t know. I don’t care. I only read the two articles, not enough to make an informed decision. Not enough to make me read any more of her either.
July 13, 2012 at 8:26 am
Oh, look at that. I fell right into it. I called her offerings “articles”. They’re not, they’re posts.
July 13, 2012 at 2:59 pm
@Angus
If you’ve actually read Insatiabear’s two posts on this subject, you’ve a very strange idea indeed of “proper” writing!
I’m a strong feminist and view equality between the sexes as a vital human rights issue. I’m also practitioner of BDSM. The question of whether anyone engaged in BDSM-spectrum activities should be disqualified from public service is a human rights issue, too.
While there are undoubtedly abusers in the BDSM scene– just as there are pedophiles among leaders of boys’ and girls’ groups– these are hardly representative of S&M practitioners as a whole. The Mountie in question may well be abusive in real life; I have no evidence either way. If he is, then he should be disciplined for that, not for engaging in consensual S&M.
Moreover, it’s not at all helpful when feminists assume– as, to be fair, do a sizable minority of BDSM practitioners– that BDSM is only practiced with dominant men and submissive women. As Insatiabear points out, using his own experience as an example of a larger phenomenon, this is far from the only configuration in which S&M is practiced. Indeed, this assumption is so patriarchal that it should make a thinking feminist blush.
P.S. It occurs to me that you won’t be able to deduce my gender from my pseudonym. For what it’s worth, I’m a woman.
@Insatiabear: well done. If only a martini helped my own writing this much!
July 13, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Agree with my comment on the twitter.please do not stop writing am sure your loved ones are very proud of you as I amxxxx
July 13, 2012 at 7:26 pm
“She goes on to state the fact that she gets exactly the same response every time she critiques porn, prostitution or the burlesque industry. Now, when the same thing happens over and over again, there is always a possibility that you are contributing to problem, and possibly you might want to consider how and why that occurs.”–Ah ha. I would actually laugh at how men seem to trot out the same tired-assed arguments again and again if it weren’t so pathetic and obnoxious. Let’s see, what do you think would have happened to me if I lived during the era of Nazi Germany and tried to advance the idea that Jews weren’t subhuman vermin who should be wiped off the face of the earth? Probably that idea wouldn’t have gone over well with most folks, and the same thing would have happened over and over–I would have been told I was wrong. What would have happened if I’d said black folks were actually people entitled to full human dignity in the days of slavery in the old south? Well, again, over and over, I’d have been told I was wrong–and how and why that occurs is called *white male supremacy*–how and why that occurs is, just because a majority of people take part in a racist or sexist delusion, that doesn’t make it truth; how that occurs is social pressure and a social reality controlled by those with power (again, white men); most people think it’s important to get with the majority, especially when those with power punish descent. The name of this blog why is this Kinkybear blogger so dense?
July 13, 2012 at 7:43 pm
There is also the possibility that how the arguments are being made is contributing to the problem.
July 13, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Stephanie, if you think you’re taking on the majority by maligning those of us who engage in consensual BDSM activities, you’re sorely mistaken. There are entitled male assholes in the BDSM scene to be sure. But Insatiabear isn’t one of those. In case you haven’t noticed, he’s primarily (perhaps exclusively) a submissive. How can that be about men enjoying hurting women?!
Yes, we need to change the overall culture so that it’s safer for women. But we also need to respect the right of people to engage in non-mainstream sexual activity in a consensual and safe manner.
July 14, 2012 at 7:39 pm
In general, feminists advocate for the abolition of all forms of hierarchy (the most important one being patriarchy) so that we may truly live in an egalitarian society. BDSM is a practice in which those involved engage in behaviour that sexualizes unequal power dynamics. It is a result of and reinforces the idea that inequality is acceptable and even sexy. People who are into BDSM are not getting off on the CONSENT of those participating- they are getting off on domination and/or submission a.k.a. the inequality of power, especially between men and women. This is why feminists are critical of it.
July 16, 2012 at 9:56 am
As a feminist, let me tell you that your point of view is one-dimensional and misinformed.
Firstly, BDSM isn’t essentially about hierarchies – what about switch relationships? Implying that all BDSM relationships have a “dominant” and a “submissive” who always play the same roles is ignorant.
Secondly, you say “especially between men and women” but you’re flat wrong. Proportionally, BDSM isn’t more common between heterosexual couples than same sex ones. It’s damned convenient that you dismiss the experience of queer kinksters just because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
The fact that depictions of BDSM in mainstream media (films, books, TV etc) disproportionately present it as a symptom of a messed up childhood or an unhealthy heterosexual relationship is one of our biggest problems. If you believe Hollywood then yes, BDSM is mostly men topping women in a fairly dysfunctional way but since when did Hollywood ever know what it was talking about when it came to gender? Don’t believe what you read: bother to do some research and talk to people instead.
Finally, sexualising something does not equate to condoning it. We are all entitled to fantasies and fantasy roleplay, and adults are capable of telling the difference between fantasy and reality. People who fantasise about domination or submission can’t help it, any more than someone born queer or straight can help it. Expecting people to deny their own sexualities because they aren’t politically convenient is a repressive, sex-negative, unhealthy and impractical. No sexual preference is innately “good” or “bad” – as with any other sexual practice, the only thing that matters is consent. Whether people’s sexual tastes personally appeal to you is irrelevant: you do not have the right to deny consenting adults the right to explore whatever fantasies they want in private.
July 16, 2012 at 8:48 pm
“Firstly, BDSM isn’t essentially about hierarchies – what about switch relationships? Implying that all BDSM relationships have a “dominant” and a “submissive” who always play the same roles is ignorant.”
- It is irrelevant if the participants switch roles occasionally. In the act itself, participants are sexualizing the inequality of power.
“People who fantasise about domination or submission can’t help it, any more than someone born queer or straight can help it. Expecting people to deny their own sexualities because they aren’t politically convenient is a repressive, sex-negative, unhealthy and impractical.”
Rapists also say they cannot help engaging in rape. Does their inability to control their appetites for rape make it an acceptable act? Just because a behaviour is difficult to control for some people does not make it okay. And I would not equate being homosexual with being into BDSM. That is ridiculous. Nobody is born with a desire for BDSM. It is not natural. It is learned. Also, having sex with someone of the same sex is not harmful. But promoting the idea that violence is sexy is harmful to those who may be violated because of this idea.
It’s really funny to me that people constantly accuse me of being sex negative because I critique porn and BDSM. If you really look at the situation clearly, you would see that it is actually people who are pro porn and BDSM that are sex negative because they don’t find sex in and of itself exciting and have to add elements of degradation and violence to the act to make it exciting. I think sex is a pretty, exciting, pleasurable and POSITIVE experience in and of itself. I don’t need to add elements of violence and degradation to make it satisfying for me. I would actually argue that people who don’t find sex exciting and need to add elements of violence to it are sex negative because they don’t find sex in and of itself to be satisfying- it is other (non sexual elements like violence and degradation) that turn them on.
“you do not have the right to deny consenting adults the right to explore whatever fantasies they want in private.”
Nobody is denying anyone anything. But adults should expect that their choices and behaviours will be critiqued if some think those choices and behaviours affect (even if indirectly) the well-being of others .
July 18, 2012 at 1:50 am
@Elle
“And I would not equate being homosexual with being into BDSM. That is ridiculous. Nobody is born with a desire for BDSM. It is not natural. It is learned. ”
What evidence are you offering for this blanket assertion?
You seem to be choosing to make subjective assessments that what is good for you should be perfectly acceptable for the next person, and it it isn’t, then they are somehow inadequate. And while you say you aren’t denying anyone anything, you seem perfectly comfortable with imposing your own standards on others, clearly without any real understanding of what you are in fact judging. For that is what you are doing.
I’m not sure when ‘critique’ and ‘question’ became code for judging, blaming and belittling. They in fact have very different meanings than that, which generally involve discussion and exploration, rather than blanket condemnation. I see precious little of that so far.
July 18, 2012 at 5:24 am
@Elle:
“In general, feminists advocate for the abolition of all forms of hierarchy (the most important one being patriarchy) so that we may truly live in an egalitarian society.”
I’m all for ending patriarchy, and my preference, too, is for egalitarian relationships and an egalitarian society. Of course, that doesn’t mean that we all have to behave in the same way or to be just alike. It only means that each person’s contribution is valued and each persons needs are respected by others. We all have areas in life in which we take or cede control. That I choose to cede control in BDSM scenes from time to time certainly doesn’t mean that I consider myself inferior to my parter, nor do I feel superior when I am the dominant partner.
“It is irrelevant if the participants switch roles occasionally. In the act itself, participants are sexualizing the inequality of power.”
And that doesn’t happen in vanilla sex? If one person prefers to be on top, is that hierarchical? Must all couples make love on their sides for fear of making a hierarchical statement? Should same-sex couples stop using the words “top” and “bottom” to describe a preference for giving or taking charge of a sexual situation? If someone gives oral sex to their partner, are they being exploited? Even if the partner reciprocates later? Or must they be equal, always giving and receiving simultaneously? In penetrative sex, must both partners be willing to play both roles? Simultaneously if humanly possible?
Of course not. Sex involves power, both physical and emotional. The problem occurs not when one partner prefers to lead and the other to follow, whether that occurs frequently or occasionally. The problem occurs when one partner proceeds without the other’s content, explicit or tacit.
“Rapists also say they cannot help engaging in rape. Does their inability to control their appetites for rape make it an acceptable act? Just because a behaviour is difficult to control for some people does not make it okay.”
Of course not. A rapist proceeds without consent. If a BDSM player does so, s/he is committing rape, assault, or both, depending on the activities involved.
“And I would not equate being homosexual with being into BDSM. That is ridiculous. Nobody is born with a desire for BDSM. It is not natural. It is learned.”
I disagree. Many of us have had sexual fantasies involving BDSM activities for as long as we can remember. I can remember masturbating to such fantasies when I was no more than five or six years old, long before I had any understanding that the fantasies or the accompanying activity were in any way sexual. Please do not presume to speak for me.
Moreover, listen to yourself! Do you not wince in embarrassment at the similarity of these comments to those made by the Religious Right toward LGBT people?! How many lives have been harmed, even ended, by a conviction that a gay person can be “cured” of his or her “affliction?”
“Also, having sex with someone of the same sex is not harmful.”
Oh, thank goodness, we finally agree on a point! I’m glad you’re not going to start praying away the gay, too.
“But promoting the idea that violence is sexy is harmful to those who may be violated because of this idea.”
Have you actually ever talked to anyone who engages in BDSM-spectrum activities? My computer’s definition of violence is: “behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.”
Only a predator would commit violence, as described above, under the guise of a BDSM scene. While there are no doubt predators posing as BDSM players, they are no more representative of the community than rapists are of people who engage in sex.
Yes, some scenes are hard and painful. So is running a marathon. People don’t just wake up one morning after years of being a couch potato and run marathons. They work up to it! And lots of people who run or jog have absolutely no interest in running a marathon. Similarly, BDSM players gain a tolerance for play with experience, and not that many people want the physical sensations to be overwhelming. Even those who do play that way rarely, and with trusted partners.
You might argue that running has well established health benefits, and it does. But runners also experience joint pain and other physical problems. I think we’d all leave a person’s decision of how far to run each day up to that person– and perhaps to close family or medical professionals. There’s good, and there’s harm, and we don’t presume to decide for someone else what the appropriate balance should be.
You may not have an easy time seeing the benefits of impact play, but those of us who are somehow wired to respond to it experience pleasure and closeness to our partners, with or without vanilla sex as part of the scene. Actually, the way I like to play is often a lot like going on a run– especially for sporadic runners like me. When I start out, it feels entirely unpleasant, and I can’t quite figure how I’ll manage to go three blocks, never mind three miles. But I grin and bear it, and, after a while the endorphins kick in. If I’m lucky, I’ll start to feel invincible, like I could keep going forever. Even if I’m not, I find myself pleasantly buzzed at and peace with the world afterwards. That’s not violence; that’s sensual play.
Other times, I want more of a challenge, to be pushed a little beyond what I think I can do. For that, just as a runner would need a coach who knows what s/he’s doing, I need a trusted top. Yes, it hurts, but if I don’t enjoy it, I can stop the scene with a single word. That’s not violence. And in the end, I don’t feel degraded at all. Sometimes, I feel incredibly strong; others, I just feel the endorphin high.
Have I ever overdone it? Yes, I have, but never seriously. That’s something that both tops and bottoms learn with experience: when to call a halt to the scene. I’ve certainly never been injured through BDSM play the way I have through jogging!
I do hope you’ll educate yourself further about this topic before continuing to dismiss it so fiercely, even irrationally. You’d be surprised how many of us women in my kinky circle of friends are strong feminists. I think you’re wrong about BDSM, but I don’t question the seriousness with which you take feminism. I’d appreciate it if you’d extend me the same courtesy.
July 18, 2012 at 2:39 pm
[...] last post he’ll need to write on this subject in the near future, he takes on Murphy again in “It Is About Respect: Kinky Critical Discourse.” As he explains: Yesterday, a follow-up post appeared on her blog that, in an extraordinarily [...]