Open menu

Male Submission Art @malesubmissionart

546 Images
Art and visual erotica that depicts masculine submission. We showcase beautiful imagery where men and other male-identified people are submissive subjects. We aim to challenge stereotypes of the "pathetic" submissive man. Learn more… . Your steward is maymay . Want to collaborate with me ? It's easy: visit MaleSubmissionArt.com/submit or tag your Delicious.com bookmarks as for:MaleSubmissionArt ! More ways to contribute… . Original work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License . We make a concerted effort to attribute works properly; please show us, and the artists whose work we feature, the same courtesy. Please redistribute this work ; you are not stealing . - Male Submission Art (@malesubmissionart)
Loading...
Maymay r foxtale has a new blog post up @malesubmissionart

maymay:

R. Foxtale has a new blog post up discussing some interesting meta points related to rolequeer theory and, specifically, the methodology behind its own theorizing:

We’re not professional academics, not professional activists, not professional writers, nothing – nor do we aspire to any of those positions of authority. We are kids on the Internet trying to make the world better ASA fucking P. And this means getting our ideas out of our heads, and into the hands of more people who might be able to use and improve them, as fast as we can. Even if we don’t look good doing it. Our priority is to be memetic, not to be impressive. This is an explicitly rolequeer ethic.

We’ve taken to using the shorthand phrase “Iteration Not Concentration” to refer to this way of being in constant flux in relationship to our own theorizing. Mimesis, not attribution, has always been more important to us—and has historically always been more impactful.

href="https://bandanablog.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/rolequeers-write-bad-books/"

Between the two of us, however, R. foxtale is the “educated” one, a trained academician and researcher, whose been unlearning academia:

I came up in an academic milieu where my intellect (and self-esteem) were defined by my ability to make a logically-sound philosophical argument, extra bonus points if it was painstakingly articulated and rhetorically elegant, even if that meant moving the conversation forward so fractionally as to be effectively meaningless, or even just reiterating stuff other people already said 300 years ago. It’s been HARD work for me to unlearn the deeply-internalized programming that tells me publishing ideas before they’re perfected makes me “intellectually lazy.” I’m still working on it.

I’m the hothead, the middle-school drop out, the impatient one. We make a good pair. :)

All ideas, or at least all good ones, go through a kind of neonatal, bisociative, “see what sticks” stage in which the thinker is just lumping random shit together because it sounds good, or they’re curious what will happen if they try this chord instead of that one, or if they add cumin and bananas to this stir-fry. This is often thought of as a sort of drafting/note-taking/raw processing/experimental stage and it’s fine to do, and to do messily and poorly, as long as you mostly do it in private and don’t go serving your paying customers banana and cumin stir-fry.

What rolequeers do, however, is that we tend to “publish” our work (aka be like, “You have to try this thing I made!”) at a MUCH earlier stage of development than is generally considered “professional.” This is because we are not professionals.

But, as I said above, this is an explicitly rolequeer ethic. Behaving in a maximally transparent and generative way, if doing so has even the tiniest potential to shift our collective theoretical consciousness towards disrupting oppression, has a clear ethical priority over appearing smart, cool, consistent, or even correct.

I’ve pointed this out many times before, too, but it’s worth emphasizing that there’s a gigantic difference between a professional activist and someone who actually makes meaningful change. We’re not the only ones making these anti-institutional arguments, of course. Another good primer is William Gillis’s “Organizations versus Getting Shit Done,” which may be easier to understand because it discusses institutions in the more traditional sense, whereas I defined and discuss “professional activist” as an institution in the sociological role sense (because the context is rolequeer theory, of course).

This is not to say that rolequeer thinkers never do any pre-processing. Maymay and I have hours of conversation that never make it to paper. We try out ideas, throw away bad ones, and even (gasp!) disagree. There are a handful of private threads and other little forums scattered about the Internet where various rolequeer folks are working through concepts that are still a bit too unarticulated (or incendiary) for public consumption…yet. But our threshold for releasing idea-seeds into the wild is FAR lower than almost any other strain of political theory I’m aware of. […] And we do this on purpose, because we believe that the Internet as a collective effort is infinitely more intelligent, creative, and visionary than even the brightest individual one of us could possibly be.

Furthermore, there is some strategy around packaging these probably-mostly-wrong proto-ideas in rhetoric that invites people to really argue with us about them i.e. by stating them as if they are simply factual rather than just wrapping them in, “Oh, I’m just thinking aloud here. I’m probably wrong. Don’t mind me.” Because we tend to engage quite politely with ideas sandwiched between caveats but, ultimately, people who tell me I’m fucking wrong and then tell me exactly why are going to move my intellectual process forward much faster than people who give me polite “constructive criticism” or none at all — even though receiving the former genuinely hurts WAY worse than receiving the latter.

And finally, the thing about being consistently, embarrassingly wrong in public is that it is fantastic insurance against becoming an authority figure. I never want people to consider me an authority on rolequeerness, because with authority comes the power to coercively impose your ideas on others’ minds. With that power comes the responsibility to slow way down and be much more careful about where, when, how, and with what degree of completeness you share your thoughts. And with that slowness comes the continued rape, violence, and oppression of vulnerable people who might’ve otherwise been protected from or avoided a dangerous situation if they’d only just seen the word “rolequeer” come across their dash a little earlier and had the opportunity to think for themselves about what it might mean.

This, too, is an explictly rolequeer ethos: understand that rejecting authority offers concrete, tangible benefits, not only to oneself, but also to others whose freedoms your non-cooperation with (active resistance against) said authorities inevitably supports.

I’ve been seeing R. Foxtale mull this post over for a while. Check it out in full on her blog. It’s nice to see the whole thing published, perfection be damned. ;)

Donate Bitcoin
Maymay so this has been available for quite @malesubmissionart

maymay:

href="http://memegenerator.net/Douchey-Dom"

So, this has been available for quite a while, but now that FetLife is actively removing links to it from venues they control (according to this tweet, which was part of this conversation, anyway), I figured it’s time to spread more links to it. :) Try it out:

  1. Log out of your FetLife account (if you have one and are logged in).
  2. Go to this page.
  3. Do a search! (This GIF screencast shows a demo.)

href="https://script.google.com/macros/s/AKfycbxjpuCSz9uam23hztGYyiE6IbHX22EGzhq7fN4jQGo1jiRp520/exec"

FetLife Age/Sex/Location Search (Extended Edition) demo

To reiterate, you do not need a FetLife account to use this search tool, though you do need one to “Send username a message on FetLife” (obviously?). It’s like your very own FetLife Meatlist. :)

Notice that you can search and filter profiles by pretty much any field, including their website lists (to easily limit your search to users with Twitter or Facebook profiles, for example), their “About Me” bio description, and how many photos or friends they have. Excluding profiles with no friends makes it easy to weed out sock puppets. :)

This is just the tip of the iceberg, though. By clicking the “Find username on other social networks” button, you can do a search on Twitter, Facebook, Blogger, and about a dozen other sites for the same user profile. The “Find username‘s profile pic on other sites” button makes it easy to do a reverse-image search for a person’s profile photo across the entire Internet. Finally, the “Report username for predatory behavior” button makes it easy to file a statement about that person in the Predator Alert Tool for FetLife. Again, since you don’t need to have a FetLife account to perform a search or to file a statement about a FetLife user in the Predator Alert Tool for FetLife, this is a very handy way of finding people to report even if you’re not on the fetish dating site yourself.

If you do have an account on FetLife, though, you can just install this tool directly into the site. That way, you can access the search form with the click of a button, directly next to FetLife’s own search bar. Simply follow these instructions. :)

For those who are wondering, “Hey, I thought FetLife was private and secure!” this is probably a rude awakening. Turns out you’ve been bamboozled. I know, I know, you (and the FetLife “Carebears”) are probably “shocked, SHOCKED!” that this was even possible in the first place.

Fact is, this was all made possible because FetLife has a financial incentive to erode user privacy, to ensure that it is very poor. Everyone who’s bothered to do a Google search on the matter knows this, because it’s been written about many times for many years now. In plainer words: FetLife doesn’t want to enhance user privacy because doing so directly conflicts with FetLife’s business model. That’s why, despite saying they’re improving security, what FetLife is actually doing is, well, nothing at all, and sometimes making it much, much worse.

Thanks for the insecurity, FetLife. I’m looking forward to your next frivolous copyright takedown notice now. ;) Let me know if you’ll ever paying the $2,000+ invoice you owe me from 2012, eh?

Donate BitcoinTip This
Ive cross referenced the fetlife creeplist @malesubmissionart

I’ve cross-referenced “The FetLife Creeplist, Volume 1” a massive database of over 1.5 million FetLife user accounts’ basic profile data (which offers some insights all on its own), with the Predator Alert Tool for FetLife consent violation report database (formerly FAADE).

In the Predator Alert Tool for FetLife database as of April 29th, 2015, there are 652 unique users reported as having violated someone’s consent. Out of those 652 users, 86 (13.19%) are paying FetLife customers. This table summarizes the self-reported genders and roles of those 86 customers.

Of FetLife customers reported to have violated someone’s consent, 52 (60.47%) are male-identified. Male doms alone make up more than a full fifth (20.93%) of FetLife’s customers who have reportedly raped or violated consent (18 users), with the next-most dangerous demographic being male sadists (10 users, 11.63%) followed by male switches (7 users, 8.14%).

Among paying FetLife customers, consent violations are overhwelmingly perpetrated by D-type roles, with Doms across all reported genders accounting for 19 accused users (22.1%), followed by sadists and switches, who each account for 10 accused users (11.63%). Notably, there are no male S-type FetLife customers who have been accused of consent violations so far.

From a dataset of over 1.5 million FetLife accounts (1,517,103, to be precise), a total of 15,495 customers were identified, showing that FetLife’s customer base is approximately 1.02% of its total user base. In contrast, out of 652 unique users reported to the Predator Alert Tool for FetLife, 86 of those users are paying customers, which is a whopping 13.19%.

This indicates that paying FetLife customers are 13 times more likely to be sexual predators than the average FetLife user. In other words, you may want to be especially cautious whenever you see the “I support FetLife” badge on someone’s profile. :\

So. That’s a thing.

See also, in NCSF survey results, joining BDSM Scene increases your risk of being raped by 50%.

This dataset is compiled from over 15 million @malesubmissionart

This dataset is compiled from over 1.5 million FetLife user accounts’ basic profile data (available here href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/03/how-kinks-largest-social-networking-site-fails-its-users/385586/"and time and time again ad nauseum, here’s a big clue.

Kittiecunt unquietpirate rolequeer pro critical @malesubmissionart

kittiecunt:

unquietpirate:

Rolequeer: Pro-Critical Analysis; Anti-Shame
Radical Feminism: Pro-Critical Analysis; Pro-Shame
Sex-Positive Feminism: Anti-Critical Analysis; Anti-Shame
Religious Conservatism: Anti-Critical Analysis; Pro-Shame

Neither radical sex-negative nor liberal sex-positive feminism is the clear opposite of rolequeer theory. Instead, they are opposites of each other, but their opposition exists in a space between rolequeerness and its true cultural opposite. What sexual politic is negative on critical engagement and positive on shame? What sexual politic claims that you should feel bad about your sexuality but that you shouldn’t think too hard about it? Welp, stock-standard conservative religious puritanism comes to mind.

Read more: [Bandana Blog] Locating Rolequeer within the Landscape of Sexuality Politics

I’ve never heard of rolequeer. Having done just a little bit of reading over the last hour, I feel like it really addresses a lot of the things that have always made me extremely hesitant to label myself a sex positive feminist. This is interesting and very important stuff.

Unquietpirate rolequeer pro critical analysis @malesubmissionart

unquietpirate:

Rolequeer: Pro-Critical Analysis; Anti-Shame
Radical Feminism: Pro-Critical Analysis; Pro-Shame
Sex-Positive Feminism: Anti-Critical Analysis; Anti-Shame
Religious Conservatism: Anti-Critical Analysis; Pro-Shame

Neither radical sex-negative nor liberal sex-positive feminism is the clear opposite of rolequeer theory. Instead, they are opposites of each other, but their opposition exists in a space between rolequeerness and its true cultural opposite. What sexual politic is negative on critical engagement and positive on shame? What sexual politic claims that you should feel bad about your sexuality but that you shouldn’t think too hard about it? Welp, stock-standard conservative religious puritanism comes to mind.

Read more: [Bandana Blog] Locating Rolequeer within the Landscape of Sexuality Politics

Rolequeer themerrymisnomer rolequeer @malesubmissionart

rolequeer:

themerrymisnomer:

rolequeer:

unquietpirate:

In the Rolequeer Facebook group this morning, someone asked:

So I’ve been thinking about this for sometime now, ever since Maymay introduce the concept to me. I get how all this in regards to power dynamics within the framework of gender and sexual identity, but I’m lost on ways that this could be applicable to other forms of oppression; such as racism, that are rampant in the BDSM scene. 

Is this something I’ve missed, or do I misunderstand the concept? 

Or is this something that has yet to be explored?

Just curious.

I figured my reply might be valuable to Tumblr peeps, also, so I thought I’d share it here:

One of the key projects of rolequeerness is to highlight, critique, and trouble oppressive power dynamics (in BDSM and in the world at large) in situations where they are downplayed, invisible-ized, or treated as “business as usual.”

One of the ways that rolequeerness has been applied to racism so far, although this is certainly only the tip of the iceberg, is by pointing out that BDSM culture’s ubiquitous Master/slave narrative likely has cultural roots in fetishizing the enslavement of Black folks. In short that, to some degree, Master/slave play (and, by extension, all D/s play) is ALWAYS race play — and yet it typically isn’t treated that way by the BDSM Scene.

There’s a Tumblr conversation about this here that you might find interesting: http://unquietpirate.tumblr.com/…/foxship-on-rolequeer… including one of the posters who is Black talking about some experiences of rolequeering race play with their white partner.

There’s also this post: http://rolequeer.tumblr.com/…/like-slaves-in-our… about a South African photographer who addresses the issue of racialized power dynamics in her intimate relationship through a somewhat rolequeer lens.

And there’s one here that isn’t exclusively about racism, but that talks about some ways that including race in our discourse about power complicates our simplified white notions of what “abuse” and “authority” entail: http://rolequeer.tumblr.com/…/themerrymisnomer-rolequeer

And then, there’s Maymay’s post “On the Evolution of Slavery: Owning Property is a Relation, not a Right”: http://maybemaimed.com/…/on-the-evolution-of-slavery…/ where they’re beginning to try and flesh out a somewhat more top-level theoretical perspective on shared threads between various oppressive dynamics and their common grounding in a notion of “ownership” that justifies treating humans as property.

Those are a few pointers, and there may be more that I’m not aware of. Like I said, there definitely hasn’t been as much exploration of this avenue yet as there needs to be. (This is largely due, I think, to the fact that a large proportion of the people talking about rolequeerness publicly are white and, worse, that several of us are the kind of white folks who’ve internalized an obnoxiously crippling white guilt that makes us afraid to talk about racism lest we “talk about wrong.”) So, that’s a problem.

That being said, myself and several others believe that addressing racialized power hierarchies, specifically, is a core component of rolequeerness. We are trying to get better at figuring out what that looks like on the ground. Any other thoughts or comments or brainstorming around that very much appreciated!

Also, there’s a Rolequeer Facebook group, by the way. It’s currently a Closed group, but you can find it by searching ‘Rolequeer’ and request to join, if you’re interested.

There’s also a post about what The Star Spangled can tell us about slave play. 

And yes, there needs to be waaaaaay more talk about racism in BDSM and about how rolequeerness can contribute to tackling racism in kinky alternatives to BDSM. If there isn’t, the kinky alternatives are always going to end up carrying that racism in them. 

We can always spark more conversation.

I’ve got a small gang of black kinky queers that could use some rq reinforcement to voice some of their multivariate discontent with mainstream BDSM culture and the socioeconomic politics of safe spaces, affordable play arenas, and aggravated self-harm (by deliberately being present in those spaces that aren’t meant for us, it kind of amounts to unintentional self-harm, much like the politics of being a black cop and trying to reform from within a supremacist system and having that system move against you whenever they see fit, which is often the case for black cops who speak out against racial discrimination in the force or, gods forbid, they happen to be off duty and roaming while black…)

But for the most part, most of the black kinky people I know are way too busy surviving to initiate these highly intersectional, highly exhausting conversations about hierarchies and power differentials in the BDSM community.

But I’m here, as always. Poring over MayMay’s work and wondering how we were gifted with their presence on this good Earth.

<3

Maymay unquietpirate soycrates unquietpirate @malesubmissionart

maymay:

unquietpirate:

soycrates:

unquietpirate:

soycrates:

socialjusticevegan:

unquietpirate:

Maymay is hard at work on the next Predator Alert Tool!

Predator Alert Tool for Diaspora* will be the first truly unhosted PAT app, robustly designed to work across de-centralized, federated social networking plaforms, and with an even stronger focus on addressing cyberbullying and online harassment as well as offline violence.

However, as you can see above, they are also having some technical difficulties. Their laptop keyboard has stopped working. They’ve worked out a very temporary, clunky solution for now, in order to keep coding. But their real keyboard needs to be replaced — a repair that costs a little over $200.

If you’d like to support development of the Predator Alert Tools (or just want to support maymay in general), now is a great time to send them a donation. More information about how to do that here. Thanks!

Seriously, maymay has created an entire collection of tools to help and protect survivors, since the big names who run social media site can’t be bothered, and they do it completely for free and basically on their own. So yeah, if you can donate or signal boost so they could fix their keyboard, I think that’s the least we could do.

I’ve broken my laptop in the exact same way last week, and while I sympathize, I’m going to stress that this is no way gets in the way of coding. This does NOT make using any program harder. I’d love for someone to pay to fix my laptop so I can understand why they’d want someone to, especially when they provide a free service, but to say their keyboard “needs” to be replaced is kind of an overstatement, don’t you think? 

Hey there. I don’t know you, so I’m assuming that means you also don’t know me and don’t know much about Maymay. But, for what it’s worth, Maymay is homeless, lives on the road, and receives absolutely zero income except for donations of money and food. And the reason they live this way is largely so that they can focus 100% on helping solve serious but not lucrative social problems that more financially-motivated others with their type of technological expertise have chosen to ignore

If you’re interested, you can read a little bit more about what they’re doing here.

Having someone else pay to replace your keyboard might be unnecessary for someone in your position, since I assume you have a job and a house. I imagine it was unpleasant but not impossible to cover the cost of your own repair. But someone who has no income, has to carry everything they own around, and does a lot of their coding in places like bus terminals and other crowded public areas doesn’t have that luxury. $200 is several months of bills (phone, server), food, and transit costs for May. They can’t realistically blow that kind of money on a computer repair.

Obviously, everybody’s got their own financial situations they’re dealing with. There’s certainly no expectation on you or anyone else to help a stranger out. Hell, I already spent all the extra money I could afford this month (and more) donating to another friend who needs help hiring a trans*-friendly custody lawyer. But for those folks who do know Maymay, understand their situation, appreciate their work, and have some extra cash to spare, making a small donation would be appreciated and very sweet.

I’m sorry, I must have been unclear to warrant this response.

“Having someone else pay to replace your keyboard might be unnecessary for someone in your position, since I assume you have a job and a house. I imagine it was unpleasant but not impossible to cover the cost of your own repair.“

There’s no way in hell I could afford a $200 laptop repair. But I’m in the exact same boat:

image

I don’t have to pay to fix my entire laptop, as you can see, since I bought a keyboard for $20 dollars that works just fine. No, it doesn’t look fancy. But there’s nothing wrong with it!  And even though I could ask for help in getting my laptop fixed, I really feel there are better things people could be doing with $200 dollars than making my laptop look nice. $200 could buy a lot of food and blankets for a lot of people.

I think you thought I said that they should just suck it up and pay for their own laptop repairs, which is definitely not what I’m saying. I’m saying there laptop works fine, even if it doesn’t look great. I understand wanting to have a more aesthetically pleasing workplace and having the comfort of a laptop that doesn’t come in a bunch of pieces (I work from my laptop too, with probably about as much income as they receive - we’re probably very alike in the ways that we live!), but in no way does this make the laptop any less usable than a laptop with a normal keyboard.

I do suggest that, if enough donations are raised, it would be just as cost efficient to get a used or refurbished laptop altogether - unless they are using something like a mac (even then, it would be much more cost efficient to sell it and get a cheaper laptop). There are laptops in the 200-300 price range, which makes it pretty awkward to pay for repairs on a broken laptop for the same price.

I didn’t mean to cause any offense (and I certainly don’t think I meant to convey that they shouldn’t be asking for donations) but it did make me intensely curious as to how this situation could be a problem that was described as “needs fixing”. 

In the very least, consider this a signal boost to my 5,765 followers.

Alright, fine, I mean this is basically splitting hairs over semantics. Certainly, nobody absolutely “needs” to have a computer that works in a specific way, or to own a computer at all, or whatever. Arguably, nobody really “needs” anything except maybe food and, even then, endless debates rage about how much and what kind of food counts as “needed” vs. “wanted.” Whatever. I’m just trying to help my friend get their laptop fixed for christs’s sake.

Here’s the thing: In my experience, the distinction between “needs” and “wants” is a pretty abritrary one. They are hardly universalizable categories, for obvious reasons. I could get into some argument here trying to justify Maymay’s decisions about why they ask for crowdfunding support around certain things (like computer repairs) and not others (for example, I personally think they could really use a warm coat that fits and some gloves, rather than just wearing three layers of beat-up hoodies full of holes and shivering all the time — but they’re never in a million years going to ask anybody else to help them with that.) But I’m not going to.

Why? Because different people have different priorities about what things make their lives more worth living. When I have a little bit of extra money, I spent it on bodywork and psychotherapy, because that’s what I feel like I “need” — and I make other decisions in my life that allow me to prioritize that. Others might argue that getting regular massage is a luxury, but they spend money on videogames or eating out at lunch or they drive a new car or own a smartphone, all things which probably feel necessary to them for their well-being (and very well might be) but that I see as indulgent expenses that I could never countenance for myself. It’s not that the way a given individual spends their resources should never be subject to analysis. It’s that these kinds of decisions are so personal and contextual, there’s no point in arguing about them at such an oversimplified level of abstraction.

The point here is that I am not Maymay’s mom, and neither are you. Repairing your laptop isn’t a priority for you, fine, don’t repair your laptop. But lecturing total strangers about how they should spend their money is just rude — whether that be lecturing Maymay about how they should purchase a more “appropriate” computer for a homeless person, or lecturing Maymay’s supporters for sending them donations instead of using that money to buy people blankets, or whatever. Come on. Nobody’s asking you to fund a financial decision you consider irresponsible. But this is the beauty of crowdfunding. If you don’t want to support the thing, don’t.

Meanwhile, there are other people for whom it feels good to have an opportunity to help out someone whose work they appreciate in a way that is directly related to the continuuance of that work. And, if there are enough of those people to raise $200, Maymay will use it to get their laptop fixed. And, if there aren’t, they’ll figure out some other way to cope. Because that’s how crowdfunding works. We’re not talking about how the government allocates our tax money, here. We’re talking about how relative strangers on Tumblr decide to spend $10.

Anyway, I’m sorry, I don’t mean to tear into you personally. I just have a lot of loved ones who are or have been homeless, and so I hear this kind of shit constantly and it drives me crazy. Homeless and poor folks are entitled to just as much agency around how they spend their income as anybody else. If you, for whatever personal reasons you have, don’t want that income to include money you gave them, don’t give them money. But suggesting that other people who do want to donate shouldn’t, because you think the person asking doesn’t really deserve the kind of support they’ve requested, is fucked up.

TBQH: My personal opinion is that, if you’d like to have a working keyboard and you can’t afford to get your laptop fixed right now, you should try asking your friends and family (or some of your 5,765 followers) for support. Why haven’t you? I bet some of them would be genuinely happy to help you out.

Thank you for the signalboost. Sincerely.

Dear Soycrates, esteemed Philosophy BA from McMaster University,

How many blankets or how much food could you have bought for homeless people with the money you spent on your tuition?

If you’re truly concerned with efficient use of money, why did you choose to major in philosophy instead of, say, business or accounting?

If you don’t want to donate money, have you considered sending me some food instead, or would you first want to know whether I eat vegan, like you and your well-cared for Vegan High Horse, or if I eat the cheaper mass-produced poison that’s actually what I can afford without stealing?

Meanwhile you think your college degree is an effective use of your money to change the world or something? Shit son, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.

Speaking of bridges, would you like to join me for a sleepover under a highway overpass while we hide from cops? I know of a number of really good ones with relatively spacious cavities and a few even have nice views of nearby cities. Bring everything you own, including your sleeping bag, your clothes, food and water enough for three or four days, your laptop, and don’t forget your bulky external keyboard, which I’m sure you use to type out philosophical masterpieces about ethics that literally no one else on the planet can type, especially not the University Ivory Tower professors who you paid how much money to study under, again? I mean, why do either of us even bother with keyboards at all, we should just use pencils and paper, especially given that neither of us are writing computer code. Oh wait.

No but seriously, we should just use pencils. Certainly that’s a more efficient use of our money than typing code for anti-rape software that no one else is writing, anyway. But if you are gonna bring your keyboard to the sleepover, I hope the keyboard isn’t too heavy or hard to carry, because when you carry everything that you own with you wherever you go, every ounce matters, which I trust you already know because apparently our lifestyle is pretty similar, according to you and your extensive personal knowlege of my life that you acquired as a BA in Philosophy. Silly me.

Anyway, obviously you are spot-on about my main concern about my broken keyboard is how my laptop looks, because aesthetics is definitely the only thing I’ve been talking about here, unlike your morally superior focus on utility and efficiency. I’m so glad you’re here to keep me focused with your incredibly perceptive Tumblr blog!

You’ve convinced me. What I was asking for help with was stupid and entitled of me. I’m a bad, bad greedy person. So you can forget about the keyboard, and I’d be very appreciative of any donations of food you can offer instead, because then I’ll have to spend less money on food and can save more of it for other, more discretionary spending that isn’t morally approvee by esteemed ethicists like you, which of course I will check in with you about first to make sure it meets your standards of efficiency and necessity for what things my poor dirty hands touch.

But I also understand if you choose not to donate to help me out. Hell, everyone knows we homeless people are just gonna spend our money on keyboard repairs anyway. Next time when I ask for financial help, I’ll be less honest and just tell you I’m gonna buy a 40 and a dime bag, a’ight?

See also: How to patronize homeless people with a morally superior attitude that reeks of liberal judgment 101, a new McMaster University course taught by Soycrates. Tuition cost: free!

Maymay unquietpirate innershift @malesubmissionart

maymay:

unquietpirate:

innershift:

unquietpirate:

Rolequeer play is any kind of play (erotic or otherwise) that focuses on resisting, disrupting, or divesting from power hierarchies, and on recovering from trauma induced by those hierarchies.

#bdsm cw #i mean?? #i guess??????? #i feel like it’s sort of the antithesis

Exactly!

Rolequeer play, which focuses on questioning and dismantling power hierarchies, is intended (among other things) to be the antithesis of BDSM play, which centers around developing and reinforcing power hierarchies.

It makes me super happy that people can pick that up from the description, even when it’s not said explicitly. :)

*whiny BDSM’er voice* But you guyyyzzz, I really like abuse and domination and oppression turns me on. There is literally no way to disrupt power hierarchies for me, so stop kink-shaming me!

*back to maymay voice* Actually, there are a lot of ways to disrupt power hierarchies while still retaining an incredible amount of violent, abusive storytelling.

*whiny BDSM’er voice* Ugh, maymay, why don’t you just doxx me and tell me to die in a fire and then we can end this exchange sooner?

*back to maymay voice* Do you want to see a short, hot, boy-on-boy severe BDSM scene that is pretty fucking rolequeer?

*whiny BDSM’er voice* Ugh, maymay, go away. Nobody likes you. Everyone thinks you’re terrible. You’re an abuser and a stalker.

*back to maymay voice* How about it, folks, are you ready for some hot Submissive-on-Submissive action? Sexy boys! boys! boys! disobeying their dominant’s orders? A D/s dynamic, a whips-and-chains environment that is nonetheless deeply subversive?

*mimics crowd* WHAT! YES! THAT’S WHAT WE’VE ALL BEEN WAITING FOR!

*back to maymay voice* Drum roll please….

image

“What are you doing here? Are you crazy? What if they see you!” It wasn’t really a question. He knew perfectly well what they did to boys who disobeyed commands. Or if not perfectly well, that was only because he didn’t want to imagine it.

“Shhhhh,” said the other boy, placing a single finger on the bound boy’s lips. He looked around, eyes darting to the movements of rustling bushes. It was only the wind. He leaned in to press his lips against his own finger, still held against the other boy’s lips. “I spent a month tied to this tree when they first brought me here,” he whispered, peering coolly and deeply into the other boy’s frightened eyes. “No one ever came for me. I can’t watch you go through that and do nothing about it.”

He revealed a handful of ground meat he had brought and held it up to the other boy’s mouth. He ate. In a second it was done. It was not enough. For a moment both boys looked at each other and had the same conflicting thoughts: pity and sympathy. They were dressed the same, that was, naked except for locking leather cuffs on their wrists and ankles and a chain collar, also locked, around on their necks. If they dwelled on pitying the other for too long, they were pitying themselves.

The unchained boy looked around again. He had been quick. Maybe he had more time before they noticed him missing, he thought to himself.

"Do you want an orgasm?” he asked the new boy. The question was blunt, but there was no time for pleasantries.

The new boy opened his mouth to answer, but no sound came out. Was he really being offered an orgasm? He hadn’t been granted one in…he didn’t remember, didn’t want to think about it. If it was anything, it was always some cruel tease, or nothing. Yes, of course he wanted an orgasm. But this had to be a trick. First food. Now an orgasm? It didn’t make sense.

“Do you want one or not, I can’t stay much longer.”

“Y-y-yes, Ma-…”

“Don’t ‘Master’ me!” It was a growl louder than intended. The boy hushed himself. “Look at me. Look at my marks. Look at my rashes. Look at my burns. Do I look like one of the Masters to you?”

“N-no….”

“No. Now stay quiet and tell me before you cum.”

“Yes, Ma—,” it was reflex. Instinct. Habit. Conditioning. That’s what Masters said before they touched him. But he caught himself before the rest of the honorific escaped his mouth, lest he anger his benevolent caretaker. With another cautious look, the boy who had fed him spit in his hand and wrapped his hand around his cock. He gasped and bit his lip. Oh god, he thought, was he allowed to orgasm? Really? No, probably not. He wanted to. Oh, how he wanted to, even pathetic and cold and hungry like this, he wanted to—there was surely something in the food—but he could not really believe it was permitted of him. And yet here he was, getting jerked off by one of the other boys he’d seen only a few times before.

It felt good. The boy kept spitting, quietly drooling onto his hands and then slathering the drool onto his cock to use for lube. His breath quickened and his cheeks flushed. The other boy toyed with his nipples gently, but worked his cock as if demanding it spurt immediately. It was hard to orgasm like this. He was so afraid. He’d be punished for sure! But the other boy’s efforts were relentless and skilled and soon he was holding his breath to stay quiet. He was getting so close….

When the other boy noticed his change of breath he kneeled, placing the tip of his cock in his mouth and continued aggressively masturbating his shaft. The boy’s other hand reached up to cover his mouth, keeping him quiet. He was really going to come! And suddenly he was grateful for the hand over his mouth as he felt his seed burst from him in great streams, just as the other boy impaled his face with his cock.

Not one drop hit the forest floor.

The boy stood, never removing his hand from the other boy’s mouth. Instead, he placed a finger over his own lips. “Shhhhh,” he said, before turning towards the house and leaving the other boy there, in the cold, until next time.

*back to maymay voice* You see, folks, rolequeer porn would eroticize disobedience to authority.

ROLEQUEER. MULTIVALENT IF CORNERED. MALEVOLENT WHEN DOMINATED.

Maymay in case you missed it my post us @malesubmissionart

maymay:

In case you missed it, my post “US officials’ justification for torture and BDSM’ers justification for abuse mirror each other,” is an important one.

Fractal social patterns, yo.

The post exists in reblog-able form on Tumblr, too.

Allies must be traitors on barnor hesses action oriented @malesubmissionart

maymay:

The 8 White Identities

by [Associate Professor of African American Studies, Political Science, and Sociology] Barnor Hesse

There is a regime of whiteness, and there are action-oriented white identities. People who identify with whiteness are one of these. It’s about time we build an ethnography of whiteness, since white people have been the ones writing about governing Others.

  1. White Supremacist; Clearly marked white society that preserves, names, and values white superiority.
  2. White Voyeurism; Wouldn’t challenge a white supremacist; desires non-whiteness because it’s interesting, pleasurable; seeks to control the consumption and appropriation of non-whiteness; fascination with culture (ex: consuming Black culture without the burden of Blackness)
  3. White Privilege; May critique supremacy, but a deep investment in questions of fairness/equality under the normalization of whiteness and the white rule; sworn goal of ‘diversity’
  4. White Benefit; Sympathetic to a set of issues but only privately; won’t speak/act in solidarity publicly because benefiting through whiteness in public (some POC are in this category as well)
  5. White Confessional; Some exposure of whiteness takes place, but as a way of being accountable to POC after; seek validation from POC
  6. White Critical; Take on board critiques of whiteness and invest in exposing/marking the white regime; refuses to be complicit with the regime; whiteness speaking back to whiteness.
  7. White Traitor; Actively refuses complicity; names what’s going on; intention is to subvert white authority and tell the truth at whatever cost; need them to dismantle institutions.
  8. White Abolitionist; Changing institutions, dismantling whiteness, and not allowing whiteness to reassert itself.

I find a number of things in Barnor Hesse’s “The 8 White Identities” highly relevant and important.

First among them is Professor Hesse’s focus on “action-oriented identities.” This take on identity stands in remarkably sharp contrast to the typical (oxymoronic “white anti-racist”) understanding of identity politics. Hesse’s schema focuses almost exclusively on what people actually do, rather than on what people say they do, which should be, like, critical thinking 101 but isn’t because most people are intentionally (mis-)educated out of the ability to think critically by a white supremacist and actively genocidal system of forced schooling.

This point of “action-oriented identities” is actively relevant to rolequeer conversations right now, as this excerpt from Thinking Rolequeer: Stepping Outside the Charmed Circle makes clear:

[The concept of] kyriarchical positionality is about identity, whereas [Gayle Rubin’s] Charmed Circle is about actions. To think about and criticize power and powerful structures effectively, we must first deeply internalize the difference between these two things [identities and actions] and apply them both at the same time in any analysis of a given situation. This two-pronged approach is important because, for starters, “power” is not merely some abstract idea, but the application of force placed in time and space.

Most current discourse about sex and power has been totally overwhelmed by these ultimately unhelpful questions: Are you what you do? Are you only what you do? More crudely: Are you gay because you have gay sex? Or are you having gay sex because you are gay? Is it a choice? Or were you born that way? While politically expedient, I believe these questions dissecting the justifications for a given act are derailing distractions from the real issue: in what ways do our identities or actions threaten the ability of The Powers That Be to define our boundaries on our behalf?

Rolequeerness is a mental tool (that is, it is an idea) enabling us to more easily merge the two interrogatory approaches outlined in intersectional feminist analysis (kyriarchy, queer theory, etc.) described above in order to help us focus on actions whose impacts actually undermine power.

(Emphasis added.)

Another key point in Hesse’s schema is the way it implicit widens the scope of what is considered “complicity” with white supremacy by virtue of gradating such identities on a spectrum rather than a simple dichotomy of “racist” and “not racist.” Hesse makes this explicit in his description of “White Confessional” where he describes the point of action as one where “Some exposure of whiteness takes place, but as a way of being accountable to POC after,” which I read to mean after complicity in white supremacy has caused harm.

This point of placing complicit actions at a precise moment in time is something I heavily elaborated on in my essay, “Complicity in Abuse: 101-level information social justice hobbyists are dangerously ignorant of,” such as in this excerpt:

One way to understand awareness of complicity more fully is by contrasting it with a related and equally misunderstood idea: “being accountable.” Frustratingly, “accountability” has become an all but meaningless buzzword for social justice hobbyists (that is, people who engage in what I call “pop social justice”), such as those on Tumblr.

In the pitiable Internet social justice filter bubble where you may currently be having most of these conversations, “being accountable” means publicly accepting responsibility for some abusive or otherwise oppressive behavior. It’s also used to mean acknowledging a privilege (such as “male” or “white”) through a rigidly prescribed set of social rituals. Importantly, this “accepting accountability for” is definitionally something one does after one commits some abusive act or claims some oppressor identity. This is in sharp contrast to “awareness of complicity,” which is definitionally something we are trying to do to prevent abusive or oppressive behavior from existing in the first place as much as possible.

I also think that even the name of this category, “White Confessional,” is important to this point. It locates white guilt by metaphorical coordinates in the dominant moral belief system of religion by its name: Confession. Despite whatever honest intent may have birthed this peculiar social ritual, it has been undeniably perverted into an act of abusive complicity and is now used as a psychological bludgeon by the majority of “social justice activists.” In my “Complicity in Abuse” essay, I quote Andrea Smith on this point:

It’s also important to understand the purpose of these rigidly prescribed social rituals, because they are one way many people are complicit in abuse. The rituals that activism hobbyists perform together was perhaps best summarized by Andrea Smith in her essay, The Problem with Privilege:

In my experience working with a multitude of anti-racist organizing projects over the years, I frequently found myself participating in various workshops in which participants were asked to reflect on their gender/race/sexuality/class/etc. privilege.  These workshops had a bit of a self-help orientation to them: “I am so and so, and I have x privilege.”  It was never quite clear what the point of these confessions were.  It was not as if other participants did not know the confessor in question had her/his proclaimed privilege.   It did not appear that these individual confessions actually led to any political projects to dismantle the structures of domination that enabled their privilege.  Rather, the confessions became the political project themselves.    The benefits of these confessions seemed to be ephemeral.  For the instant the confession took place, those who do not have that privilege in daily life would have a temporary position of power as the hearer of the confession who could grant absolution and forgiveness.  The sayer of the confession could then be granted temporary forgiveness for her/his abuses of power and relief from white/male/heterosexual/etc guilt.   Because of the perceived benefits of this ritual, there was generally little critique of the fact that in the end, it primarily served to reinstantiate the structures of domination it was supposed to resist.

By performing the confession ritual Smith describes happening in these workshops, people who fancy themselves “social justice activists” engage in a transaction that temporarily trades whatever systemic power they may have had outside of the workshop’s context (such as the ability to command more cultural and social attention as a result of their whiteness, or to more forcefully direct community governance processes as a result of their maleness, etc.) in exchange for some social accolades (such as acceptance to the workshop space, friendships with the workshop participants, and public recognition from those who already command respect) within the workshop context.

This is a fundamentally corrupt, and corrupting, process.

(Emphasis in original.)

Last (for now) but not least, I also think Hesse’s naming of a category “White Traitor,” especially as it’s distinct from “White Abolitionist” but nevertheless paired with it (we “need them [traitors] to dismantle institutions”), is important. To be blunt, you can not be a traitor to a cause or institution that you have never supported. A traitor is a turncoat or, depending on your point of view, perhaps a whistleblower. These difficult identities is where acts of (social justice) “allyship” really take place; “allyship” is not present in the guilt-projecting “confessionals” of in-actionable social capitalism wrapped in the flag of identity politics.

This point of traitorous identities also inherently defines a certain relationship that crosses the line between the personal and the political, the individual and the institutional. That relationship is also inherently dangerous, because it actively threatens powerful people, institutions, and political forces. Tumblr user alexispointy succinctly described traitorous white race relations like this:

if you want to really be a useful white race traitor, you gotta refuse the privileges granted to you and interfere with the privileges granted to others for being white. at the very least, use your white privilege to help serve the immediate needs of poc if you can’t be assed to sacrifice the comforts of your white life.

In numerous essays, unquietpirate also discusses “traitorous” relationships in the contexts of both race and gender. In this post, she brings it back around to how (intentionally?) ineffective most of what’s called “social justice” really is, and why the idea of a “rolequeer politic of action” is both so useful and threatening, but is not actually new at all:

Arguably, the most effective thing that a person with privilege can do to dismantle oppression culture is to treat the marginalized people they love respectfully, put their needs first, and do everything possible to make their lives easier, so that those peoples’ intimate understanding of how oppression works and how to resist it can come to the fore — rather than be further buried under the crushing weight of just having to deal with oppression in every situation and relationship in their life every minute of every goddamn day.

This is ultimately the reason why rolequeerness is so important. The radical act I’m describing is basically “submission” — but the key is that it’s about submitting to someone who is less powerful than you. The traditionalist notion of power relations is that we submit to people because they are more powerful than us, but that’s backwards.

Radical people of color and other marginalized folks have been talking about this fairly common sense thing since the 60s and probably long before: the idea that “allies” exist to support a movement in the ways they are asked to, not to run it; that ”allyship” is about putting your privilege into the service of a movement that seeks to dismantle the institution that privileges you. That’s giving your power over to someone for the express purpose of empowering them to hurt you. That’s a submissive relationship to power.

[…]

One of the reasons that contemporary pop social justice folks are so bad at achieving their own stated goals is because they fail to understand that allyship is submission — and most of the entitled, domist folks in that scene couldn’t submit to save their lives, even the ones who identify as “submissive” in a BDSM context. See also: The number of people who got all excited about “rolequeer” as a cool, edgy new identity option — but wigged out about the part of my post that described rolequeers as “submissive as fuck.”

“I want to say I’m rolequeer, but I don’t want that to mean people think I’m submissive! Eew!” is what I heard when I read those posts. And, to me, it just smacked of some heterosexual hipster who’s taking a Gender Studies class and wants to identify as “queer” but not “get mistaken for a fag.”

Turns out that if you want to ally with people less powerful than you, then you might get “mistaken” for being one of them. And if that assumption that you’re a traitor to your privileged class is a mistake, you’re probably “being an ally” for the wrong reasons.

So, as we’ve said before, this is just some of what we’re trying to talk about when we say that “rolequeer means a traitorous relationship to one’s own placement in a privileged position.”

Maymay there are a lot of things i could say @malesubmissionart

maymay:

There are a lot of things I could say about the US Senate investigation’s CIA “torture report” released Tuesday, but I’m still digesting a lot of the information in it, and watching mainstream and social media’s responses while my own words take shape. In the mean time, here are some salient observations and immediate reactions from others interspersed with commentary I made about the BDSM Scene in the past that I think is particularly relevant, if perhaps not as succinct as I will be in the future.

I’ll start with this cartoon that appeared in the LA Times showing Dick Cheney wearing only a skimpy black leather one-piece, gloves, and high-heeled boots, while holding a cat o’ nine tails-like whip, a perfect addition along with Peter Acworth to the “Douchey Dom“ figureheads. He is standing outside a dungeon door (CIA torturers literally called their interrogation rooms “dungeons”) with water spilling out of it.

Dick Cheney defends his record…

"Torture wasn’t wrong if it got results! Besides, I think some of them kind of liked it. ;)

David Horsey (political cartoonist)

In our “Dominants Are Rapists” series, unquietpirate wrote “Consent Is Not Enough,” where she says:

It’s one thing to fetishistically desire to harm vulnerable people. It’s another thing to manifest that desire by actually pursuing erotic intimacy with vulnerable people who you can harm. And it is, in fact, even worse — not better — to achieve that intimacy by convincing said vulnerable people that they started it, that they invited you to hurt them, that they wanted it, that they said it was okay.

Next, novelist Saladin Ahmed notes that that there is a relationship between the fictional stories our society promotes on prime time and our government’s actions:

The linked Slate article cites discussions amongst the highest ranking government officials who approved torture, like Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff, that TV shows “reflect real life,” and simultaneously used that reflection to justify their own brutality. Fellow writer Jennifer de Guzman notes:

Meanwhile, the central point in rolequeer’s methods for countering attempts by the BDSM Scene and its proponents to normalize rape and torture is not by banning those activites or even shaming or criminalizing its practitioners through the obviously ineffective legal system, but rather by retelling stories of rape, abuse, and torture that portrays these things as horrific injustices rather than as uncomplicated play times or sexually attractive entertainment.

To wit, one of my own recent explanations of rolequeer sex:

Rolequeerness is not about sex. It’s about power. But insofar as sex is about power, then rolequeerness is simply a neologism pointing out the reality of sex as infused with inegalitarian power relations and describes one’s desire to undermine that inequity.

The idea that human relationships are infused with power imbalances is not some new insight birthed, fully-formed, from the imaginations of rolequeer people and no one else. That’s not what’s interesting about discussions of rolequeerness nor about rolequeer sex. What’s interesting about these things are the stories rolequeer people tell one another and ourselves about what we can do to sabotage our own positions as people with the ability and desire to dominate other people.

(Emphasis added.)

Further elaborating on this point, in my post “Sensation, Story, and Felt Sense,” I wrote:

The sensations you may kink on are not only available to you through some authoritarian narrative. While those coercive narratives are common cultural and erotic tropes, they do not represent the whole or even the majority field of physical sensation, kink, or meaning-making processes. When you call your kinks BDSM you are legitimizing the rape-centric ideological foundations used by sociopathic abusers to justify their desire for having non-consensual sex.

If you think making rape jokes and saying things normalizing rape is not okay, why do you think making jokes about safewords and saying things normalizing sadomasochistic rapes is okay?

The key take away here is that the stories we tell ourselves about why we do what we do meaningfully impact both what we do and why we do it. The goal of the BDSM Scene is to limit the scope of any discussion about sexualized violence to a simple dichotomy that puts “BDSM” on one side and “abuse” on the other, but as we’ve seen so many times before, such good-bad binarism inevitably leads to a disastrous hyper-focus on justifying the “goodness” of abusive, or at least complicitous, behavior.

On that note, one of the two psychologists who was paid millions of dollars to create the CIA’s torture program spoke out in his own defense exactly along these lines:

Mitchell asserted, as have former CIA officials who ran the interrogation program, that the current policy of using CIA drones to kill terrorists overseas with Hellfire missiles is more troubling than subjecting them to harsh interrogation measures.

“It’s a lot more humane, even if you are going to subject them to harsh techniques, to question them while they are still alive, than it is to kill them and their children and their neighbors with a drone,” he said.

The report said Mitchell “had reviewed research on ‘learned helplessness,’ in which individuals might become passive and depressed in response to adverse or uncontrollable events. He theorized that inducing such a state could encourage a detainee to cooperate and provide information.”

Here, Mitchell asserts that his torture techniques are the “good cop” to Obama’s hellfire drone “bad cops,” a classic policing tactic since the invention of the police. But two wrongs don’t make a right, a phrase much more often used incorrectly by the media to denounce violent self-defense in the face of torture and drone strikes (or police murders of unarmed Black people), but that actually fits perfectly here. Mitchell is the military analog to the veteran police officer who murdered Mike Brown, Darren Wilson; a 30 year veteran of the US military, Mitchell was doing exactly what he was trained and paid to do.

The problem is not one or two psychologists per se, it’s cultural indoctrination, an activity that every establishment media outlet from Glenn Beck to the New York Times and countless blogs and people are complicit in, as each did their part in playing along with the CIA’s “media strategy“ explicitly. Indoctrination itself draws legitimacy from cultural narratives saying it’s okay, even desirable, to dominate others. But that cultural narrative is not isolated to CIA torture sites. It lives in you and me, today, right now.

And nowhere is the domination-legitimizing narrative more clearly, deeply, and personally valorized or defended than the BDSM Scene:

Imagine an entire culture manufactured with globalized, industrialized precision designed to brainwash whole demographics of people into believing that they need to suck your (metaphorical) dick to feel fulfilled. Hot, right? Problematic, right?

What if you didn’t need to imagine anymore? How would you feel about participating in such a culture?

You need only look into a mirror.

What would you need to do to sleep at night? What have you already tried?

Rolequeer maymay rolequeer since a book @malesubmissionart

rolequeer:

maymay:

rolequeer:

Since a book isn’t happening any time soon, I’ve turned to something less ambitious and actually far more in the spirit of classic anarchism: zine making. 

This is the read-friendly version, print-friendly version coming soon. 

This is beautiful. Here is a transcription of the text in the images:

[Cover]

A first exploration into why I like kink but NOT bdsm

by rolequeer.tumblr.com

TRIGGER WARNINGS:

  • rape culture
  • predators
  • abuse

[Page 1]

I think kink is really amazing.

All these possibilities to find eroticism or romance or care in unlikely places.

[Page 2]

There is:

  • shoes,
  • fantasy,
  • fabrics
  • (playing) creatures,
  • gender roles,
  • places,
  • touch,
  • dirt,
  • cleaning,
  • publicity,
  • history,
  • roles,
  • orgasms (or not),
  • drag,
  • clothing,
  • styles,
  • privacy,
  • your kink here: __________.

[Page 3]

But if you look for kink you find “BDSM” and that’s usually like…

  • …one person is powerless,
  • and getting tied up,
  • and likes pain,
  • inferior,
  • Pornografic,

and the other is like the exact opposite.

That’s not very creative. (Boring! Restrictive! Binary!)

[Page 4]

And,

For a community that claims to value consent and communication, BDSM sure has a lot of…

  • “let me push your boundaries”
  • “but you know you LIKED it”
  • violence,
  • “it’s not rape if…”
  • “but did you use your safeword?”
  • “expressing your desire is topping from the bottom”
  • “you don’t like that…yet”

…along with trying to protect an image of NOT being abusers, ends up protecting abusers, rapists and predators.

…does not allow conversations about consent violations.

So they
talk the talk
but they end up
not walking
the walk.

[Page 5]

Imagine if we could restart kink, explore it without BDSM.

without racism
without rape culture
without sexism
without domism
without patriarchy
without transphobia
without shaming
vulnerability.

This is not easy. We’re not all happy and healthy, and neither are our kinks.

[Page 6]

But it seems worth the

trip
exploration
work

Imagine…

  • kink without power binaries
  • without identity borders or flags
  • kink without dominants
  • kink without clearly defined roles
  • kink as a world to explore, not a club to join

Imagine exploring.

[Back Cover]

Fuck copyright.

Steal my stuff.

If you would like to print and distribute this zine, there are print-ready versions of the above imagines available here.

Thank you so much for making a transcript. After about 3 hours of scissors and glue I was too tired to do that today. thanks <3

I said yes but i feel raped @malesubmissionart

maymay:

PostSecret.com’s first Sunday Secret posted on November 8th, 2014:

I said yes

But I feel raped.

A friend sent me this with a short note that read, “[Your] consent as felt work and helping society find and comprehend the distinction between consent and permission are important.”

I’ve now penned over a dozen thousand words about Consent as a Felt Sense on my own, and my co-author unquietpirate has penned quite a bit herself, so you could easily feel like there’s a lot you have to catch up on if this idea is new to you. But it’s actually not complicated at all. There’s nothing new you need to learn to understand Consent as a Felt Sense. There’s only lots of imposing societal bullshit you need to unlearn.

Here’s the whole idea, in less than 100 words:

You Can Take It Back: Consent as a Felt Sense makes a two pronged argument:

  1. Saying “yes” is necessary but not sufficient for consent.
  2. There is no expiration date on realizing that your consent was violated.

Neither one of these assertions seems controversial. Not unless you’re some kind of cartoonish MRA troll. But when we make them together — there’s no expiration date on realizing that your “yes” was not consent — we get a furor of backlash from all sides about how we’ve “gone too far.”

I just think that’s weird.

The reason I’ve personally penned over a dozen thousand words to explain and re-explain and contextualize and defend the combination of these two very simple points has nothing to do with the complexity of the idea and everything to do with the fact that, when push comes to shove, almost everyone—and I do mean everyone, from cartoonish MRA trolls to feminist social justice warriorsis fighting to retain an abusive status quo, even though they think they’re fighting for change by fighting each other.

What the reaction to our Consent as a Felt Sense essay shows most of all is that folks from “both sides” of the issue want discussion about consent to stay firmly rooted in debating which rapes are “rape” and which are not.

  • The MRAs: “It’s quite a clever attempt to rebrand regret as something other than personal feelings about a past indiscretion.”
  • The feminist SJWs: “I argue in favor of having a category for ‘sex experienced as a violation’, separate from rape.

These statements are different only in degree, not in quality. Both are disrespectful, callous, and incommensurate with compassion for people who experience rape. The only meaningful difference between these statements is the careful tact with which the feminist sneakily assigns themselves the moral authority to audit and “categorize” others’ experiences of sexual violation. (How selflessly generous!) Both statements effectively psychologically bludgeon and blame rape victims for their rape. In other words, the MRA is a wolf in wolf’s clothing. The feminist SJW is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. But both of them are collaborating on the same project.

As my co-author patiently explained to one of these critics, yet again, “We’re saying that if there are situations which someone does identify as rape, even in retrospect, they’re allowed to call them that. That if there are situations where someone believes they were consenting, and then later realizes their ‘yes’ was not consent, they’re allowed to talk about that. That’s all we’re saying. Really. That’s it.”

If you feel like you were raped, you can talk about what happened to you using the word “rape.” You can always use the words that ring truest to you. And, as this PostSecret postcard evidently showcases, that’s what people are gonna do anyway. So maybe we should stop telling other people that feeling their own fucking feelings is wrong.

Now that? I think that encouraging one another to relate to each other on the basis of how we actually feel instead of on the basis of how we expect or are expected to feel, I think that sounds like a much more worthwhile feminist project than recreating categories for (“legitimate”) rape. And I wonder how much longer it will take before “feminists who do consent work” will come ’round to thinking that way, too.

Sensation story and felt sense rolequeer and bdsm do not @malesubmissionart

maymay:

I was very pleased to see that the 8 colorful Venn diagrams I made explaining how BDSM is, by definition, rooted in abuse quickly spread across Tumblr. Predictably, however, a lot of people who objected did so on the basis that their special-snowflake BDSM relationships were not abuse and how dare I suggest such a kink shaming thing? Never mind the fact that I did not suggest such a thing, and that this isn’t about you in the first place.

Still, many folks have bought into the lie perpetuated by the powerful sociopathic abusers who control much of the discourse around BDSM and sex-positivity that the only way to kink is through BDSM. They tell you that what is not BDSM must be “vanilla,” and sadly many people (including many otherwise nonbinary queers) believe in this made up D/s binary. This leaves those people unclear about what other rolequeers and I mean when we say “your kinks are not BDSM.”

So, since people seem to really enjoy infographics, here is another one I put together to try to help people stuck in the limiting loop of the D/s binary and unwilling or unable to examine the ways that “D/s dynamics” are a reincarnation of abuser dynamics take a closer look at that:

Your Kinks Are Not BDSM

Three columns represent different aspects of experience:

  1. Sensation: What physical feelings do I want to experience?
  2. Story: In what scenarios can I experience it? What roles or narratives are available to me?
  3. Felt Sense: What psychosomatic impact(s) did this experience have? What was the focus of the story?

Sensation: “Impact play”

Sensation in deep tissue or on superficial skin areas, warming and flushing of the skin, can be erotically or non-erotically pleasurable, relaxing, or exciting.

Spanking, hitting with open hands or closed fists (slapping or punching), striking with objects (hairbrush, flogger, etc.) or other people (mosh pit) are some ways to achieve this.

Stories about “Impact play” can include:

  • Being punished/enduring consequence of disobedience
  • Receiving physical therapy or massage
  • Roughhousing with peers during play times
  • Enduring physically abusive treatment

Sensation: Prolonged sexual arousal

Feeling horny and erotically excited, physically erect and turned on for long periods of sexual or even beyond the end of sexual encounters.

Long masturbation and self-pleasure sessions before reaching orgasm, omitting orgasm from a sexual encounter, or otherwise delaying sexual climax are some ways to achieve this sensation.

Stories about prolonged sexual arousal can include:

  • Experiencing anorgasmic medical dysfunction
  • Being sexually “teased”
  • Having access to own genitals restricted (forced denial)
  • Taking a vow of celibacy or choosing to abstain from orgasm or other specific sexual behavior

Sensation: Constriction & compression

Pressure around and in the body by being held in one position, compressed, squeezed, or otherwise constrained can be physically and emotionally relaxing, frightening, or have other psychosomatic impacts.

Being bound with ropes, straps, wraps, metal bondage equipment, or the overpowering body of another person are all some ways to experience this sensation.

Stories about constriction & compression can include:

  • Being captive (to police, kidnappers, or other abductors)
  • Being hugged
  • Receiving physical support (help standing, holding hands for morale support)
  • Being wrapped up for comfort (security blankets, intentionally relaxing bondage)

Felt Sense

Rolequeer:

  • Instills camaraderie and cooperation
  • Confuses authoritarian narratives
  • Encourages compassion for those who are mistreated
  • Focuses on peering behaviors
  • Undermines power imbalances

BDSM:

  • Instills obedience
  • Demonstrates subordination to authorities (teachers, parents, disciplinarians, etc.)
  • Encourages gratitude for enacting mistreatment
  • Exaggerates power imbalances
  • Focuses on one actor overpowering another

TL;DR: Rolequeer play is not a way of doing BDSM. The two are inherently and perpetually at odds. Rolequeer play and BDSM do not mix. The key distinction is that the former actively rejects the D/s binary on which the latter both relies and reifies.

The sensations you may kink on are not only available to you through some authoritarian narrative. While those coercive narratives are common cultural and erotic tropes, they do not represent the whole or even the majority field of physical sensation, kink, or meaning-making processes. When you call your kinks BDSM you are legitimizing the rape-centric ideological foundations used by sociopathic abusers to justify their desire for having non-consensual sex.

If you think making rape jokes and saying things normalizing rape is not okay, why do you think making jokes about safewords and saying things normalizing sadomasochistic rapes is okay?

Tldr summary courtesy unquietpirate the goal @malesubmissionart

TL;DR (summary courtesy unquietpirate): The goal of BDSM Scene rhetoric is to limit the scope of any conversation about sexualized violence to a simple dichotomy — that there is “BDSM” and there is “abuse” and that the two can never overlap “because consent.”

But BDSM, by definition, is about abuse — even when performed in the most consensual, conscientious, and compassionate way — because “what makes BDSM the thing that it is is not consent but sexualized authority, a fetish for eroticizing dominance, or justifying a desire for non-consensual sex. That doesn’t mean consent is lacking in BDSM, it just means that what the people involved are consenting to is getting off on stories (or the actual acts) of powerful actors overpowering vulnerable ones.”

But that does not describe the entire field of kink and, in fact, if we zoom out to include a broader understanding of what is sexual, what is kinky, and what is abusive, we see a much more complex landscape in which the conversation about sexualized violence can occur.

And it needs to be occurring in that more complicated and comprehensive landscape, otherwise many survivors of sexualized violence are erased and their stories go unheard.

maymay:

Okay kids gather round while I try my best to explain something that I’d like to not have to explain anymore. You have probably heard how lots of kink shits will say “BDSM is not abuse,” and then when you challenge them on that, they will tell you to “educate yourself.” When you point out that perhaps they should instead question their education, they will say you are “kink shaming” and run off.

Here’s why their argument is just completely wrong. Follow along with the Venn diagrams, above.

Picture 1: “BDSM” versus “abuse”

First, though, what is their argument? Well, it’s simple: “BDSM is not abuse.” This is what’s known as a No True Scotsman argument, that is, the continual re-definition of a thing to selectively exclude the parts of that thing that aren’t “truly” that thing. In this case, BDSM on the one hand and abuse on the other. This is also known as a false dichotomy, or a binary, or, more simply, just a kind of lie.

This lie didn’t come from nowhere. In fact, it came from a very specific political rhetoric that differentiated sex from rape in the exact same way.

Picture 2: “Sex” versus “rape”

The binary dichotomization of sex as distinct from rape was and arguably still is a very important tool to shift political conversations away from “don’t get raped” and onto “don’t rape,” but it is nothing if not obtuse. It’s obvious that there are a lot of coercive, non-consensual acts that are not sexual, but we don’t tend to call those “rape.” Therefore, it’s also obvious that “rape” is a form of sex. Violative, even violent, sex, but still sex. So the reality about this is more like the Venn diagram shown in picture 3.

Picture 3: “Sex” encompasses “rape”

While there is still an important distinction between “sex” and “rape,” it’s simply imprecise at best and obfuscatory at worst to describe “rape” as non-sexual. This obfuscation is one of the things the BDSM’er lie that “BDSM is not abuse” relies on you remaining unable to see.

The easiest way to get BDSM’ers to admit this is a lie is simply to ask them, “Do you believe that abusive BDSM exists?” If they say no, they’re stuck playing their 1990’s smash hit single, “BDSM is not abuse” by the No True Scotsmans, and you can politely excuse yourself from the conversation because you’ve reached its end.

However, this is so obscenely obviously obvious that most of them will, in fact, admit that there are “abusers in the lifestyle” or at least that those people are “using BDSM as a cover for abuse,” at which point you have successfully described the situation shown in picture 4.

Picture 4: Where “BDSM” and “abuse” overlap there is an area called “abusive BDSM”

This idea presupposes that there is something about BDSM that can make it not-abuse, but that BDSM is not inherently anti-abuse. That magic thing? Why, “consent,” of course!

Of.

Course.

I mean, your job or boss is not abusive because, after all, you consented to employment there, right? Your school is not abusive because, after all, you haven’t dropped out, right? And I mean, y’know, if you do end up being forced to engage an abusive boss or teacher (or cop) it’s really just one “bad apple,” just an “isolated incident,” and you shouldn’t speak so negatively about all bosses or teachers (or cops). Cuz, y’know, #NotAllBosses and #NotAllTeachers and certainly #NotAllDominants.

But wait, there’s more.

There’s another lie embedded in “BDSM is not abuse” that has already set the terms of the debate in exactly the same way as the implicit threat of unemployment comes with an unspoken “and then you’ll starve” and the way forced schooling comes with an unspoken “because then you’ll never get a good job,” and this lie is exactly the same as the first, but about different things, as picture 5 shows.

Picture 5: “Vanilla” versus “BDSM”

To a kink shit, the only way to kink is through BDSM. In fact, BDSM *is* kink. Anything that isn’t kinky is “vanilla,” and everything that is kinky is “BDSM.” This is another false dichotomy, another binary, another lie made up by the socially powerful sociopathic abusers who control much of the discourse in the BDSM and sadomasochistic mainstream subcultures (yes, subcultures have a mainstream).

But this lie is in reality just as transparent as the first. In reality, BDSM is only a small sliver under the umbrella of what kink or kinky sex can actually be instead of the other way around; there is a huge difference between “having hot, kinky sex,” and “being into BDSM,” between saying “I’m kinky,” and “I’m a kinkster,” between “doing kinky things” and “being in the lifestyle.” Therefore, the reality of this situation looks more like picture 6.

Picture 6: “Kink” encompasses “BDSM”

Kink is a very, very broad umbrella and includes things that BDSM most certainly does not. Moreover, the hyperfocus BDSM’ers have on that tiny subsection of kink they obsess over is not actually about consent at all:

When describing their communities, BDSM’ers will talk about how theirs is a “safe, sane” space, “based on consent and respect and sex-positivity” as if reciting some invisible script. But there are many communities whose rhetoric or practice (or both) are based on these ideas, so it seems incomplete at best or a deliberate misdirection at worst to describe this particular subculture in that way. All of those things may be present or lacking to varying degrees and the thing that BDSM is will still be mostly unchanged.

It’s especially strange to hear them talk as if those aspects are unique characteristics when there is one very obvious thing that sets BDSM apart from other communities: a fixated sexualization of authority. Oddly, that’s also the one thing about BDSM they seem loathe to admit. I think that’s meaningful.

In other words, what makes BDSM the thing that it is is not consent but sexualized authority, a fetish for eroticizing dominance, on justifying a desire for non-consensual sex. That doesn’t mean consent is lacking in BDSM, it just means that what the people involved are consenting to is getting off on stories (or the actual acts) of powerful actors overpowering vulnerable ones. I’m not even trying to tell you there’s something wrong with that, I’m just saying that eroticizing that kind of coercive behavior is not the only way to kink.

And if you can accept that, if you can decouple the sexualization of coercive cultural tropes from enjoying your kink, and if the idea that you can and do “consent” to things and “willingly” involve yourself in systems that harm you and act abusively towards you for a whole host of reasons (like that job you hate so that you can still get money to pay for food and shelter), that there is no safeword that rape culture will respect, we can proceed to picture 7.

Picture 7: Where “kink” and “abuse” overlap, there exists “BDSM”

It is obviously true that there is such a thing as “abusive kink” as it is true that there is such a thing as “abusive BDSM.” This might look like someone forcing their girlfriend into a threesome with another woman she doesn’t want to have, an act that’s certainly not “vanilla” and yet also doesn’t necessarily rely on fetishizing the dominance of a particular actor. After all, that abusive behavior could just as easily be motivated by the person’s fetish for femininity (a fetish straight men have by definition) as much as it could be motivated by an eroticization of their own authority over their girlfriend.

So it stands to reason that BDSM exists not in opposition to the made up idea of “vanilla” or solely on the side of consensual interactions in an equally imaginary consensual/abusive binary, but is located instead in that area of human desires that spans both consensual and abusive behaviors that for one reason or another nevertheless enacts mistreatment. And this is something BDSM’ers themselves fully acknowledge.

In my most generous interpretations, I will agree that “BDSM is not abuse” is technically correct, but the technicality is misleading: BDSM is not necessarily “abuse” if and only if “abuse” is defined so narrowly that it now becomes the thing to which No True Scotsman arguments are applied (instead of “BDSM,” as before). But unless they are backed so far into a corner that they can no longer hold to their own internal logic, no BDSM’er has ever argued against or denied that what BDSM actually is is an eroticization of mistreatment. If you bristle at the word “abuse,” fine, call it something else. But at this point that argument is a distinction without a difference, and beyond being simply wrong, it’s also boring.

But wait, there’s one more argument BDSM’ers will make to defend their failed experiment in content-free “liberation” that they still feel BDSM contains: “BDSM is not always about sex!”

This is a ruse back to the beginning, another way to say “what is sex can not be rape and what is rape can not be sex.” It’s an attempt to redefine BDSM as somehow inherently not-abuse by pointing out that implicitly equating BDSM with sex is untrue and thus unraveling the argument that BDSM is also therefore the eroticization of abuse.

And while there’s some merit to that argument, its flaw is that neither kink nor abuse are necessary about sex, either. Observe, picture 8.

Picture 8: Sex, Kink, and Abuse are three distinct areas; where sex and abuse overlap there are various different forms of coercive sex (i.e., “rape”) and where sex does not overlap are different forms of abusive behavior, including a smaller area called “BDSM” that includes (where sex is concerned) “sadomasochistic rape” and (where sex is not involved) “abusive BDSM”

Here, now, is a much-expanded view of the realms of sex, kink, and abuse.  Coercive and violative experiences can both involve or not involve sex. When they do, they are called rape, because that’s what rape is. It is possible to commit rape in a number of different ways, only one of which is sadomasochistically. The noisy protestations from BDSM’ers that “what it is that we do (WIITWD)” can not be abuse is a bad argument that itself relies on shitty lies.

And sure, part of the problem with their lies is that they provide structural cover for rapists—a cover that is increasingly becoming more popular as Daddy-doms continue to gleefully turn abuse into a fun meme attractive to young Submissives—to hide and blend into what may have otherwise been respectful social institutions. But the much bigger issue here is that BDSM’ers’ elitist hyperfocus on a tiny sliver of kink and subsequent lawyering over what is or is not (“real”) abuse, what is or is not (“real”) rape, actively harms survivors of far more ubiquitous consent violations than just the extreme horror stories of those who have suffered sadomasochistic rapes.

We have a War on Terror. We have a War on Drugs. We don’t have a War on Rape. WHY. THE FUCK. IS THAT?

Maymay douchey dominant who needs consent @malesubmissionart

maymay:

douchey-dominant:

WHO NEEDS CONSENT … WHEN YOU HAVE PERMISSION

Pretty much.

Predator alert tool for okcupid now warns of abusive dom @malesubmissionart

maymay:

I am happy to announce that I have just released an update to the Predator Alert Tool for OkCupid, bringing it up to version 0.5.3. This version fixes a few bugs in its auto-update functionality and, importantly, adds new red-flag questions to the default questionnaire in order to help users better protect themselves against predatory sexual dominants.

Many thanks to unquietpirate for creating the new OkCupid questions.

I made the choice to introduce these questions about kinky power dynamics and rolequeerness to the default set after learning about yet another example of a man accused of raping three women, twenty years his junior, and claiming that it had been consensual under the guise of sadomasochistic sexual play and dominance and submission role play.

The sad truth of the matter is that there is no such thing as anti-abuse BDSM. In fact, Dominants are rapists. The BDSM community is a clusterfuck of abusers with a staunchly rape-apologetic ideological foundation, most appropriately compared to the way GamerGate is a horde of ravenous misogynistic abusers. Unless, y’know, “actually, it’s about ethics in rough-sex sports clubs.”

All users are encouraged to immediately update to the latest version of Predator Alert Tool for OkCupid by clicking here.

Unquietpirate unquietpirate maymay @malesubmissionart

unquietpirate:

unquietpirate:

maymay:

rolequeer:

lyricalagony:

unquietpirate:

@unquietpirate Tweets:

So, like, our clinky sex is basically 100% aftercare. #rolequeer

If you can’t imagine how you get to aftercare w/out hurting each other first, try expanding yr understanding of the field yr playing in.

How much sex have you already had in your life that relied on oppressive tropes that you never got aftercare for? #rolequeer

Don’t artificially induce trauma to have something to care after. Most of us already got enough of a backlog to be going on with. #rolequeer

See Also:

“‘Clinky’ has sort of morphed into personal shorthand for “kinky but not necessarily BDSM.” - How to have hot, kinky sex with other Submissives without inviting a Dom

Since rolequeer play involves intentional and increasing periods of power-equity, rolequeer play will often appear more ‘vanilla’ on the surface than much of the ‘BDSM’ you’re used to.” - Rolequeer play is about breaking power dynamics

This is really affirming for me. Asking for care/help/support is a thing that I still have a lot of trouble feeling OK about or like it’s a possibility. And that’s something the culture of the BDSM scene can be really, really bad about.

Like, it occurred to me at some point - if I was feeling bad about something, if had the context to do it in, I might very well feel comfortable say asking a partner to call me certain derogatives in scene. (Which is a very valid way to deal with things for people it’s good for, and I’m not saying anything against it). But, I would feel probably less comfortable asking them for reassurance/support in other ways that my brain would tell me would impose on them. (I think I’m better at this now, but go back some time and it’ll be even more an issue).

That’s… not OK.

Seems like ‘Aftercare is needy’ is a myth perpetuated by rapey dominants who don’t really care about how a submissive feels, only about how to keep a submissive satisfied enough to play with them again. Those are the kind of people who reluctantly give aftercare as a trade off. Those are the kind of people who consider aftercare needy.

And at the same time those are the kind of people who will write of serious distress and trauma after a scene as ‘natural’ and ‘not signs of abuse’ because aftercare exists. (I don’t mean to say here that it’s wrong to do play that requires aftercare. A lot of kinky sex is about dealing with past trauma or the every day strain of living in an oppressive world. It’s normal to need aftercare after that. But don’t pretend it’s ‘fun happy carefree bdsm’, there’s no such thing.)

I’ll repeat myself just to be clear: the kind of people who consider aftercare an imposition are rapists. The kind of people who consider trauma and distress after play to be normal and nothing to worry about are also rapists. 

But enough about rapists, back to clinky sex:

In reality, aftercare is a word for tenderness, intimacy, caring, looking after each other. And that is awesome and can be as important and as fun, or more important and more fun than kinky sex. It’s certainly not ‘vanilla’. I absolutely love the idea in the idea in those tweets that you can have aftercare without kinky sex. That you can widen the scope of what we can get aftercare for.

We live in an oppressive world every single day. We are dominated by that oppressive world without our consent every single day, and we could certainly use some aftecare for that. 

I don’t have a lot of emotional energy for this particular part of this conversation but I wanted to add something I feel is critically important to this part of the conversation: aftercare is not merely used in BDSM by rapists who want to do the minimum amount of work to “not break their toys” and therefore feel imposed on by others’ requests for aftercare. Yes, that happens, but that is not the really insidious thing about aftercare. It is actually a good thing, in the relative scheme of how horrible rapists are, that some of them find themselves in situations where they feel imposed on to do work to comfort people who need comforting and to support people who ask for support.

What is so insidious about the “aftercare” rapists (i.e., BDSM Dominants) provide is that it is used to recondition the psychoemotional responses of the people they interact with towards finding the abuse they have experienced desirable, deserved, and ultimately necessary. This is what (“consensual”) gaslighting means.

That’s why I call it brainwashing. This is not a tactic limited to BDSM. And that’s all I have to say about that right now.

See also:

I just want to add a quick thing about what I had in mind when I tweeted these tweets. I think the discussion about abusive doms who consider aftercare a burden is valuable, because it’s important to acknowledge that as bullshit rapey behavior — and also to point out that these kind of doms sometimes do use aftercare as a tactic to psychoemotionally manipulate, gaslight, and trivialize the traumatic experiences of their submissive partners. If you haven’t read Clarisse Thorne’s excellent piece on this, I recommend it: S&M Aftercare…or Brainwashing?:

Bodily violence sometimes creates a mental malleability and vulnerability that can be used in good ways … but also in terrible ways. I see aspects of this in competitive sports, especially the ones that involve fighting and hurting other people very directly. (Have you ever seen that phenomenon where two guys fight each other and then become Best Friends right afterwards?)

Being together with an S&M partner during aftercare can be used to free people, to make them feel amazing and establish extraordinary intimacy. But it can hurt people too; it can hurt them terribly. Read more…

But that’s not who I had in mind as the audience for these tweets, because I can’t imagine the kind of abusive self-involved dom who thinks “aftercare is hassle” is ever going to be wondering about how to make his play more rolequeer. Rather, I was thinking of people who enjoy doing aftercare. The kind of tops for whom the opportunity to provide aftercare is a core piece of the pleasure they get out of topping. Basically people, both tops and bottoms, who really kink on the Hurt/Comfort trope. (Which I do.)

I’ve definitely had conversations with Dominants who said that one of the big reasons they liked hurting their Submissive partners was because then they got to take care of them afterwards. And I think it’s totally legitimate and normal to enjoy, and even get erotic pleasure from, the act of providing “tenderness, intimacy, caring, looking after each other” in the wake of pain and trauma. All I’m saying is you don’t have to be the one causing that trauma in order to get the benefit of caring for your partner through it.

(I mean, obviously, right? That seems so totally non-controversial to me now, whereas, “Well, I like taking care of them, which is why I have to hurt them,” sounds TOTALLY ABUSIVE. Why on earth did that ever seem like a reasonable explanation to me?? Oh, right. Brainwashing.)

I also like the notion of (compassionate and supportive, as opposed to brainwashing) aftercare as being a response to any trauma, not only trauma you’ve just caused in this particular scene, because it queers the notion of whose “job” it is to provide the aftercare and whose to receive it. Rather, we’ve all been through painful and damaging experiences. We can all care for and be cared for by each other. We can be providing mutual simultaneous aftercare. (And we often are.)

In this particular instance, when I said our clinky sex is “almost 100% aftercare,” I think I was referring to the huge amount of sex and play maymay and I have that’s focused very intentionally around providing each other with erotic experiences that, previously, we’d been told we “didn’t deserve,” or that we were “crazy” to want, or that our D-type partners simply weren’t interested in and so we were expected to de-prioritize our desires in favor of theirs.

Often after we’ve had some kind of super hot ’n’ heavy, bondage-intensive, screaming, begging, orgasmic (or non-orgasmic), queer, multi-partner technosex — something that nobody would look at from a D/s framework and think “aftercare” — I come away from it feeling like I’ve been bathed in a loving aftercare-like glow for hours because that play has come after years of being told, “No, you don’t get to have that, ever.” And because the intention behind doing it now is not simply, “Well, okay, actually maybe now we can and it’d be hot” but also, “and fuck anyone who ever said otherwise. We deserve pleasure and erotic fulfillment as much as Doms do.”

(P.S. I really liked seeing these tweets pop up on my dash again because they reminded me of a particularly yummy play session. :) )

Incidentally, this issue sort of falls into the realm of questions about rolequeer “topping” — which is something I’ve been giving a lot of thought to over the past couple of years but haven’t written as much publicly about. Partly because how to rolequeer topping behavior, while theoretically and personally interesting and important in the larger scheme of things, obviously wasn’t (and still isn’t) as much of an immediate priority as giving “bottoms” the tools to get out of relationships with abusive Dominants. And partly because it’s just really vulnerable personal shit that I’m still not totally clear on.

But now there are a few other folks out there (like @safeword, yay!), who seem to be investigating the question of “rolequeer topping” in a legitimately and thoughtful way (as opposed to a certain D-type “asshole blogger” I won’t name who started out talking a good game about disrupting D/s in theory, but showed their true colors by continuing to be an unabashed victim-blaming Domist rape apologist in the streets). And I feel like the work to support “bottoms”, while still ongoing, is now kind of on a roll. So, I might start trying to put some more of my “rolequeer topping” thoughts down on paper. Watch this space!

Douchey dominant maymay inspired by the epic @malesubmissionart

douchey-dominant:

maymay:

Inspired by the epic fucking Twitter thread I started and that now seems like it will probably go on forever and has spawned side threads (like this) picking apart how the “BDSM is not abuse” argument is a very flimsy No True Scotsman fallacy, I present to you, without further ado, Douchey Dom’s take on the issue!

GIRL, DON’TCHA KNOW BDSM IS NOT ABUSE? … THOSE OTHER MEN JUST SAID THEY WERE DOMS, BUT THEY WERE REALLY ABUSERS.

Ain’t he the dreamiest?

I'M NOT AN ABUSER … BECAUSE I'M A DOMINANT.

loading...