WTF! BDSM in the RCMP? ITEOTWAWKI!

[Warren DeMontague]

28. And, now, for the armchair psychoanalysis bit:

As I've said before, it's damn clear that what is driving much of this puritannical, anti-sex authoritarianism is somehow religion-based, either sublimated religious guilt, stealth (and not so stealth) alliances with the religious right, flat-out fundamentalism or simply people who have redirected it and don't realize it.

It is fascinating, when the topic comes to BDSM, how many of the 2nd wave feminist figures who opine on it, either allude to or directly acknowledge their own submissive sexual orientation. Dworkin herself was known to favor sub sex with her male partners, at least in her previous life. So how do we reconcile this? Or, more importantly, how do they?

As is alluded to in the other thread, I think it's probably true that most 2nd Wave Feminists who have a D or S sexual orientation are probably Sub. Why do I say this? Because, statistically, most people have that orientation. Again, it's pointed out in the other thread that subs far outnumber dominants, across the spectrum- male, female, gay, straight. It is speculated that this has to do with more people wanting to have a passive audience role than a stage driver role, but I think there's more to it than that: I think that people, in general, as animals burdened with the (relatively unique, as far as we know) weight of cognizance and sentience and language and civilization and all the rest, humans in general are tasked with a tremendous amount of control. Responsibility. In Buddhist terms, attachment.

Sexuality, and probably for those so inclined submissive sexuality, undoubtedly has appeal because people like to let go. They like to "lose control", they like to be swept away and give themselves over to something outside themselves. It could be argued that this impulse is behind much of our religion, as well.

So, people, statistically, skew sub. Not just people like Sherlock Holmes, but even 2nd Wave feminists educated in Dworkin and MacKinnon and "The Patriarchy" and the rest of it. Which has gotta cause a FUCKLOAD of cognitive dissonance. Along with our old friend, sexual guilt. (And here comes religion!) But for the authoritarian 2nd wave radfem, a simple solution presents itself by ascribing the personal sexual feelings and desires to a nefarious, external programming- Of course! I don't really enjoy those fur-covered handcuffs! .... "I Blame The Patriarchy!"

The problem is, it seems our sexuality is fairly hard-wired. Nonsense about programming and erotoxins aside, people like what they like and they keep liking it, which is why the sick fucks who are wired to like kids are, to my mind, not rehabilitatable. So in the case of your M/D Radfem who happens to be a little (or a lot) S, they aren't going to embrace their sexuality and be, like, "great, I'll find consenting adults who are compatible and we'll be safe, sane, and all the rest" because that person is going to be CONVINCED that not only is their sexuality a negative force that was put there by a nefarious space penis conspiracy, but also that it must be stamped out at all costs.

But that doesn't work, generally.

So unable to fix this glaring so-called "problem" in the self, it is the World which must be modified and corrected.