When It Looks Like BDSM, Smells Like BDSM, But It’s Not Real BDSM
In BDSM, we often use terminology that conjures up imagery of violence and coercion in the minds of the unschooled. We use the term “torture” to mean stimulation that goes beyond what is a socially acceptable level of stimulation to the body. We say “rape” when we mean an interaction that exceeds the socially constrained idea of sexual passion. We say “pain” when we mean intense sensory input that stretches the culturally approved definition of “pleasure.” We call a person a “slave” or a “Master” when we express the bond between two people that goes beyond the comfortable limits of the word “partner.” The language is BDSM is deliberately transgressive: it seeks to describe experiences that expand the parameters of human experience as carefully circumscribed by Western culture and religion.
As a dominatrix, I am often asked to perform acts that are framed in the language of non-consensuality. Many male clients ask for “kidnapping” and “forced feminization” because they cannot request a reversal of the Western gender paradigm inherent in bondage and cross-dressing. Our current cultural norms limit men’s emotional and sexual self-expression to forms of dominance and masculinity, thus their desire for these activities must be cloaked in the language of coercion. They describe their masochistic acts as “punishments” because these activities strain the cultural assumption that cis-gender men enjoy a blanket dispensation to act in the world, free from culpability. It boggles the Western white, cis-gender imagination to conceive of circumstances that would lead an individual to desire and seek out even a temporary loss of power, agency or bodily comfort. Yet, BDSM is enjoying a surge of popularity in the United States and elsewhere, as people seek to delimit the arbitrary boundaries of sexual and bodily expression our culture attempts to place on them.
And so, what do we make of consensual non-consensuality (CNC)? Why are individuals seeking to transgress the boundaries of sane, safe and consensual play, and dispose of the rules of engagement designed to keep BDSM players sheltered from intentional trauma, abuse and harm? Are they exercising the same impulse that created the BDSM world to begin with, to transgress society’s norms in service to the project of expanding human experience? At its center, CNC strips the bottom/submissive in powerplay scenarios of their safeword, their agency to discontinue the action in the interest of emotional or physical self-preservation. CNC also permits the top/dominant to explore and release any residual impulses of dominance and sadism that are constrained by the safety-conscious, self-aware and mutually-consensual rulebook.
On the surface, CNC seems to grant permission to explore psychopathology or activities that modern psychiatry would deem pathological. It goes beyond the modern embrace of consensual BDSM by the DSM and seems to hint that the impulse to expose oneself to potential self-harm and trauma and to inflict same is just another extension of what could be viewed as normal human behavior. From this lens, we may be tempted to lump in CNC with various sports models that assume participatory bodily injury and even court death, such as boxing, football, base jumping, free soloing, etc. However, because CNC intersects with repressive Western notions of sexuality, nudity, gender norms, etc., it is suspect on the grounds that anything potentially sexual is inherently more wicked, more dangerous and more damaging to our notions of self. No one questions the enjoyment viewers get from a boxing tournament purely because no one has their pants down while watching it, and the boxers wear a bit of clothing while hitting and grinding on each other. This despite the blood, the bruises, the lost teeth and blinded eyes. Would boxing be as enjoyable if the players covered their bodies with shirts and trousers? Would it be as socially acceptable if men wore Speedos instead of boxer shorts?
Before we condemn proponents of CNC to the territory of the insane, we must interrogate ourselves and our Western prejudice against any sexual or bodily activity that falls outside of the procreative act. Western religion requires stifling the body and sexuality a necessary condition of being a noble human being. Currently, few outside the medical community seriously question the sanity of football players and fans despite the alarming frequency of brain injuries amongst its participants. How does this tacit acceptance of harm differ from the pathology pinned on consenting to deliberately inflicted traumatic/injurious activities in the bedroom or dungeon? Until we can engage in this interrogation, we cannot pretend to understand the motives of CNC practitioners. But I’m prepared to give it a shot:
As a professional, I am occasionally met with a client who requests a session with “no safeword,” or who encourages me to do “whatever I want” to him. Of course, the assumption on his part is that, as a professional, I will refrain from activities that might be turn-offs for him (forcing him to do my laundry when his stated interest is masochism, for example). What he is really asking for is passion on my part and uniqueness on his. He is hoping to experience something that no other client can lay claim to (ego pleasure), or to excite my desire in a way that causes me to appear to lose control (orgasm substitute). It then becomes my job to conduct the session in such a way as to conjure these experiences for him, as any good actress might. This notion of deliberately exceeding the client’s limits in a professional session might include activities just outside or adjacent to his desires. Instead of paddling, I might substitute a more excruciating activity, such as individual genital hair pulling. My purpose is to create the impression that he is genuinely out of control, promoting the deeper experience of vulnerability which has been culturally denied him. The pain from the hair-pulling is not erotic, but erotic-adjacent, and therefore heightens his immediate sense that I am genuinely in control of his body.
Over the years, I have often played with regular, long-term clients without a safeword, or without specifically outlining and negotiating the particulars of a session beforehand. One might argue that these safeword- and negotiation-free sessions constitute CNC play. To my mind, these interactions do not constitute instances of CNC, but are expressions of professional trust gained through copious hours of play, producing intuitive entrainment between my subject and me. Fortunately for my clients, I am not intent on inflicting damage. By contrast, bragging rights for playing without limits and even play resulting in hospital visits appear to be a common benchmark of CNC practitioners. Fetlife is rife with stories of unsafe activity and “edge” play. In one example, a Master forced a submissive to get a face tattoo to prove her loyalty, consequentially causing her to lose her job. His intent was to cause debilitating harm and disfunction as a condition of his dominance over her, and then run to the internet for accolades.
CNC is often a gloss for extreme play for its own sake. I might go so far as to posit that proponents of CNC are not BDSMers at all, but thrill seekers who, in the absence of BDSM activities, would likely engage in potentially dangerous activities in full knowledge of the hazards of such practices, and engage in them specifically due to the imminent threat of harm. To them, this play style constitutes “real” BDSM, and that without evidence of damage or trauma, there is no “real” power exchange. Perhaps it is time to confer upon consensual non-consensuality its own unique sexual orientation category.
On a more personal note, who am I to judge? Many of my sessions might appear to be extreme, dangerous and potentially harmful to the untrained eye. The difference here is intent. While CNC by its nature courts and advocates for activities that threaten lasting harm, BDSM looks to create the impression of danger for use in psycho-sexual catharsis. At least on the surface, the proponents of CNC seem to thrive on public displays of genuine disempowerment and harm. By contrast, safety-conscious, self-aware and mutually-consensual BDSM rests on the cultivation of intense psycho-bodily experiences with the intention of ultimately liberating and empowering all its practitioners.
Written in response to David Ley’s article
and Michael Castleman’s
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/202108/potentially…
By Reb Holmberg, LE