SANITY:
THE CENTRAL TENANT IN SAFE, SANE, & CONSENSUAL
by Chris M
|
Of the three parts of the BDSM trinity, “Safe Sane and Consensual,” sanity receives
the least attention. “Safety” is routinely addressed by the conventions of safe play.
Consent is assured through pre-scene negotiation and safewords. “Sanity,” however,
has no attendant methodology, and is usually passed over with remarks about avoiding
play while inebriated or in a state of emotional uproar. But there is another side to the
tenant of sanity, one that revolves around a question: Is SM an indicator for mental
illness?
Until recently, the official answer was yes, according to the “Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders” (the American Medical Association’s Bible of
Psychiatry). This is far more serious than a few people not liking us; the courts look to
the medical community to define what is “normal” and “abnormal,” and the medical
community looks to DSM. Although the fourth edition is much less damning than its
predecessors, “Sadist” and “Masochist” are still defined in DSM-IV as peoples
suffering from paraphilia, or sexually related mental illness (a reason we advocate the
alternative terms “Top” and “Bottom” or “Dominant” and “Submissive”). Before
coming out as leatherfolk, many of us spent years worrying that our fantasies and
longings were crazy, unnatural, sinful, or socially off-the-map at the very least. Were
we right in some respect? Look around and you will see our opposition ranging from
hysterical right wing politicians at the highest levels of government to the National
Organization of Women, who have declared SM (even between consenting women)
antithetical to feminism. Is there something wrong with liking this? Lets walk through
what it means to be a SM player and see what, if anything makes us “less sane” than
our vanilla counterparts.
Well, it can’t be our explorations of power. Power as an end in itself is a value
unquestioned by the media, the marketplace, the church, and society. It was Henry
Kissinger who said, “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.”
Is it our desire for pleasure and intense sensation? Doubtful. Instant gratification has
become the core tenant of consumer culture, in a lust for movies, music, cars and food.
Nor can our outlaw status be blamed on our irresponsibility of pursuing fantasy as an
end in itself. Your local bookstore has whole shelves of science fiction, romance
novels, and purported “Nonfiction” delving into the occult, UFOs, and New Age
Mysticism evidencing the popular craving for fantasy and escapism (to say nothing of
the popular role-play of costume balls, Mardi Gras, and Halloween).
It can’t be the spurious claim that SM celebrates “violence.” Look at the popularity of
ice hockey, boxing, bullfights, ultra-violent action movies, and the widespread support
of the death penalty. Look at the splatterfest that passes as the nightly local news.
Generals who slaughter thousands are venerated as heroes. Mohammed Ali, now
battered into dim half awareness, is a grimly apt symbol of America’s love for violence,
and its agonizing costs. Can even a canning be realistically called “violent “ by
comparison?
Are we distrusted because SM is dangerous? Please. You're more likely to sustain an
injury playing football than in most scenes I’ve been part of. I’ll take a striped back
over a sprained ankle any day. And if jumping out of airplanes, sailing around the
world, or hunting lions in Zaire counts as daring and brave, why should taking a
thousand strokes, (surely demanding more stamina, and courage ) brand you a pervert?
Why does the issue of sanity intrude here and not elsewhere? Wife beaters, bar
brawlers, and drunk drivers, neither ask for consent, nor hold themselves to standards
of safety. How can anyone argue that we, as a group, are less “sane” than they are?
So why is S and M listed in DSM at all?
I think part of it is genuine confusion about what we do. Many of our critics have
never been told that our play is consensual, or if they have, don’t believe it.
Psychotherapist Eric Fromme in his “The Art of Loving” equates sadism with brutality
and masochism with passive acceptance of brutality, yet nowhere does he show
understanding that that consensual, hot, BDSM, is something other than the behavior
of the inquisition, the Klan or the SS.
Part of the problem stems from our attraction to the imagery of darkness: our fierce
black leather, the menacing tools of punishment we carry on our belts, our sometimes
too free use of words like “torture”, “slut” and the racially charged terms ”Master” and
“slave.” In the absence of proper context, is it any wonder people regard us as
threatening and strange?
Part of it may be the uniquely American conflict between our belief in individual
freedom and our heritage of puritanical squeamishness about the body and physical
pleasure (Filmmaker Louis Malle once lamented that “Americans don’t like sex in their
sex movies”). Why should it surprise us when people -- who have never heard the
word “penis” on television -- are startled at the idea of sex parties, gender bending and
punishment as pleasure? And perhaps the idea that “pain” can be enjoyed is too foreign
for the uninitiated to accept. Interestingly, pain is generally considered fine if it hurts
enough to toughen you up. Penance, “taking it like a man,” paying your dues, are all
widely credited with building strength and stoicism. The majority viewpoint might even
be phrased “Pain is fine unless you enjoy it.” But marathon runners can tell you a thing
or two about pleasurepain. It was not a sadomasochist who said, “No pain no gain.”
But it could have been.
And the last reason is history and the plodding slowness of progress. Don’t forget that
women were denied the vote until the twenties, and a place in the workforce until W.W.
II. Nonconsensual slavery was legal for four hundred of the five hundred years since
Columbus. People of color were denied the vote until the sixties. And a mere six
decades before Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, the Wright brothers were
ridiculed for believing that human beings might someday be able to fly.
Just look at where we’ve been. In the 1950’s, the list of AMA sanctioned paraphilias
included felatio, sexual fantasy, cunnilingus, even sexual response in women. As late as
1972, while the Village People’s “Macho Man” was storming the Billboard charts,
homosexuality was still defined in DSM as a clinical illness. DSM III corrected that
error, but still left sadism, masochism and other good harmless fun on the books as
signs that the practitioner might be diagnosable.
Yet the trend is immistakable; as the medical community has come to better understand
us and our behavior, their definitions have grown more reasonable and realistic. DSM
IV, the current edition, has redefined safe, consensual “sadism” and “masochism” as
diagnosable behavior only if it adversely affects your life, or causes mental anguish. It
sounds reasonable, and many scene leaders are content with this definition, but I see at
least two problems: 1) The clinical terms “sadist” and “masochist” are used widely and
informally in the community by people unaware or unconcerned that they carry
pejorative legal/medical connotation. Legally speaking, to proclaim oneself “sadist” or
“masochist” is to proclaim one’s own insanity. 2) Why should we be labeled mentally
ill for wrestling with our sex lives, as do people of all sexual persuasions? Do we call a
man crazy for feeling remorse about boinking his best friend's wife? Is it insanity for
someone to feel frustration over not getting enough sex? Why is mental anguish over
SM diagnosable when anguish over something else is merely anguish. Don’t get me
wrong! You might be crazy as Michael Jackson, but if you are, it ain’t because you get
hot thinking about Michelle Pfeifer tied to a bed.
Progress takes time, blood, sweat, tears, but we will get there. We are not the first to
feel the sting of systematic discrimination; ask our gay brothers who built the scene.
We will get there, but meanwhile: Know you are not crazy or alone. No minority group
has ever been immune to the injuries, scorn, or stigma inflicted by the majority culture
at large. Perhaps after our first Time magazine cover and the ensuing media fallout we’
ll get our due, but don’t bet on it. Count on the coverage to be shallow, crass, and
sensationalistic. Perhaps, instead of worrying about the tags others attempt to hang on
us, we should all look inward, and to each other, for support, acceptance and respect,
and let the lives we lead stand as testament to our dignity, sanity, and spirit. As my
friend Andrea put it “Being in a group is about knowing you're not alone any more.”
Because it’s true: If we hang together, if we strive to improve ourselves and support
one another, no one need worry that our shape of our desire defines us as inferior,
crazy, or alone.