Ten Lies About Sadomasochism, by Melissa Farley Sadomasochism ...

Ten Lies About Sadomasochism, by Melissa FarleySadomasochism: Not About Condemnation. An Interview with Audre LordeSadomasochism and the Social Construction of Desire, by Karen RianSadomasochism and the Liberal Tradition, by Hilde HeinWoman as Victim : S tory of O. by Andrea Dworkin .Ten Lies About Sadomasochism, by Melissa Farley10/9/2003, sur le site de Media Watch. D’abord publié dans Sinister Wisdom 1 #50,Summer/Fall 1993 pages 29-371. Pain is pleasure; humiliation is enjoyable; bondage is liberation.2. Sadomasochism is love and trust, not domination and annihilation.3. Sadomasochism is not racist and anti Semitic even though we “act” like slave ownersand enslaved Africans, Nazis and persecuted Jews.4. Sadomasochism is consensual; no one gets hurt if they don’t want to get hurt. No onehas died from sadomasochistic “scenes.”5. Sadomasochism is only about sex. It doesn’t extend into the rest of the relationship.6. Sadomasochistic pornography has no relationship to the sadomasochistic society welive in. “If it feels good, go with it.” “We create our own sexuality.”7. Lesbians “into sadomasochism” are feminists, devoted to women, and a women-onlylesbian community. Lesbian pornography is “by women, for women.”8. Since lesbians are superior to men, we can “play” with sadomasochism in a liberatingway that heterosexuals can not.9. Reenacting abuse heals abuse. Sadomasochism heals emotional wounds fromchildhood sexual assault.10. Sadomasochism is political dissent. It is progressive and even “transgressive” in thatit breaks the rules of the dominant sexual ideology.Although formulated by its current advocates as an issue of sexual liberation, minority rights,or even healing, I consider lesbian sadomasochism to be primarily an issue of feminist ethics.I believe that lesbians who embrace sadomasochism either theoretically or in practice, aresupporting the lifeblood of patriarchy. “The symbols, language and style of lesbiansadomasochist chic are the symbols, language and style of male supremacy: violation,ruthlessness, intimidation, humiliation, force, mockery, consumerism.” (De Clarke, 1993)Choosing sadomasochism, given our oppression, is an act of profound betrayal. The ideas I’mwriting about are not new (please see the references at the end of this article), but hopefullythey will be a useful summary which can be used by feminists to see that much of whatsadomasochists claim is simply not true.Lie #1:Pain is pleasure; humiliation is enjoyable, bondage is liberation.This is the big lie. Part of the reason that we are vulnerable to this lie is that many of us wereraised with religious notions that punishment is love and that suffering is redemption. A youngacquaintance who rowed on a crew team showed me a t-shirt which said: “What does not killme will make me stronger.” As women we are taught that love is selfless devotion regardless1 Sinister Wisdom is a multicultural, lesbian literary & art journal by and for lesbians. The magazine is the oldest survivinglesbian literary journal1

of the pain suffered. We believe that love is pain because we keep getting hurt. Women aretaught not to believe our senses or intuition. We are taught to believe that pain, suffering, andhumiliation are challenges which we should look forward to because they teach us theimportant things in life. After that, what can’t they do to us, what can’t they get us acclimatedto? We’ve learned to “consent” to subordination, even become culturally enthralled by it. Ifchains and a collar represent rebellion and “being in control,” then Madonna is our “rebel”Barbie and Ted Bundy 2 her Ken. (from Morgan, 1993)Lie #2:Sadomasochism is love and trust, not domination and annihilation.Sadomasochism has to do with annihilation. Contrary to the popular legend thatsadomasochism expands one’s sexuality, I believe that it restricts and ultimately destroysone’s sexual being. Subordination, humiliation , and torture are all means of deliberatelydestroying the self. I recently read an article about the way Texas patriarch Koresh entwined“sex, violence, love and fear” in order to control cult members. These techniques are not new;people have long harmed others in the name of love, religion, or politics. Today’s lesbiansadomasochism is all dressed up in a new coat: the coat of “lifestyle choice,” “oppressedminority,” “sexual liberation.” Although the violence turns my stomach, I appreciate JanBrown’s candor which cuts through the liberal rhetoric about the delights of sadomasochism,and gets to the core of the matter. In an article from Outlook, 1990, entitled, “Sex, Lies andPenetration, a Butch Finally ‘Fesses Up,” Brown writes: “Sex that is gentle, passive,egalitarian, does not move us. [Remember when we] emphasized the simple differencebetween fantasy and reality? Well, we lied. The power is not in the ability to control theviolent image. It is in the lust to be overpowered, forced, hurt, used, objectified. We jerk off tothe rapist, Hell’s Angel, daddy, the Nazi, cop. We dream of someone’s blood on our hands, oflaughing at cries for mercy. Sometimes, we want to give up to the strangler’s hands. We wantto have the freedom to ignore ‘no’ or have our own ‘no’ ignored.”Lie #3: Sadomasochism is not racist and anti Semitic even though we “act” like slave ownersand enslaved Africans, Nazis and persecuted Jews.My silence about lesbian sadomasochism ended when I saw two anti Semitic sadomasochistsat a women’s festival. One woman who wore a yarmulke was being walked like a dog with achain around her neck by a woman in Nazi “leathers.” When I protested, the woman in leatherpolitely listened and agreed to remove her own Nazi insignia and her captive’s yarmulke. Ihad the impression that she had never even considered the political implications, that is, theanti Semitism, of the “scene” she was enacting. To identify as a Nazi (her uniform) in anycontext, is to identify not only as a sexually dominating sadist, but also as one who hatesJews, one who wants Jews to suffer and to be annihilated. To masquerade as a Jew, (wearing ayarmulke), chained with a leash, is not only to identify as a sexually submissive masochist. Italso embraces the humiliation and torture of Jews under Nazi anti Semitism: the Jew is theone who gets hurt, and here, see how much she likes it. Some liberal gay newspapers “censor”ads for the KKK, but still publish personal ads for readers looking for Black, or Latino orAsian sexual slaves. Racism seems to be more acceptable to them if it is eroticized. Somehow,if eroticized, the humiliation, sadism and torture of racism and anti Semitism becomeacceptable. Torture always has a sexual component to it. If a radical feminist were tochallenge the same newspaper on the issue of sadomasochism, we’d be called “censors.” The2 Theodore Robert Bundy, dit « le tueur de femmes », né le 24 novembre 1946 à Burlington (Vermont) et mort le 24 janvier1989 à Raiford, (Floride), est un tueur en série américain2

whole issue of censorship is used to intimidate us and silence critical dialogue aboutsadomasochism.Lie #4: Sadomasochism is consensual; no one gets hurt if they don’t want to get hurt. No onehas died from sadomasochistic “scenes.”“It is the focus on the bottom’s desire that distinguishes sadomasochism from assault.”(Califia, 1992) Is it ever OK to consent to one’s own humiliation and victimization? I do notthink so. Just because we “consent” to domination or abuse, does not mean it is notoppressive. “Has a woman who has run away from sexual assault by her father and ended upturning tricks for a living consented? Has a woman who learned sexual lessons from incestconsented to a sexuality in which she can get no pleasure unless she has no power?” (Cole,1989) Has a ritual abuse survivor, having been through her own Inquisition in childhood,consented when she reenacts sexual torture in adulthood which trigger her memories as anadult? The ability of words to hurt should not be underestimated. The threat of rape is backedup by words, weapons which define us as objects and which tell us we deserve whatever weget. Women’s self-hate arises as much from verbal assault as from physical assault. Someform of verbal abuse is involved in most sadomasochist scenes. When these vicious words aredelivered in the context of sexual arousal, they have a powerful impact. Sexually sadisticwords contribute to women’s self-hatred. Sadists pay lip service to consent, but ignore thepower systems which create inequality and make meaningful consent impossible. In thisculture we have no experience of equal power relationships. “It is not the acknowledgementof the hold sadomasochism still has over our psyches that conflicts with feminism, what wehave a problem with is the unwillingness to reflect on its political meaning “( Fritz, 1983)Extreme violence sometimes occurs during sadomasochistic “play.” I have been informed ofmany instances where “safe” words were ignored during a sadomasochistic “scene.” I alsoknow that women have died during sadomasochistic activities and that these deaths are onlywhispered about - they are not openly acknowledged.Lie #5: Sadomasochism is only about sex. It doesn’t extend into the rest of the relationship.Sadomasochism has everything to do with sexism, racism and class in the real world. It isvery much related to internalized self-hatred. One Samois member wrote:” To be a goodbottom [masochist], to please my mistress, is a very powerful feeling. Those lessons I havelearned in my bed, I can take into other aspects of my life and see how that makes mepowerful…to enjoy every moment of what I’m doing.” (Linden et al., 1982) I see lesbiansembracing the dominant/submissive hierarchy that feminists have spent their lives trying toeliminate in heterosexual relationships. Just the way racism and anti Semitism are eroticizedin sadomasochism, so the domination, the sexism itself, is eroticized in sadomasochisticrelationships. The sadistic sexual relationship sets the tone for the rest of the relationship.Submitting and giving in (céder) during a disagreement, for example becomes a sexualizedact. And real physical violence can and does occur as a natural extension of the inequality ofthe sexual relationship. Hitting someone is usually a sadistic act. Assault and rape do occur inlesbian relationships - and they are normalized by the patterns laid down sexually. Thedominating, coercive mockery of the sadist is sometimes forced on our communities. In 1988,I posted a notice for a workshop called “The effects of sadistic/violent sexual practices onnon-participants: a support group; closed to sadomasochist participants and advocates.” As asmall group of us sat on the ground and talked, six or seven women with whips came andstood, arms folded, behind us. They said nothing; the intent to intimidate was clear. Another3

example of the pervasive effect of sadomasochism on a community occurred in 1990, whenthe organizers of a large women’s festival wrote about how sadomasochistic activity of somewomen infringes on other women’s rights “to move freely and safely without fear or horror.”Lie #6: Sadomasochistic pornography has no relationship to the sadomasochistic society welive in. “ If it feels good, go with it .” “We create our own sexuality.”We internalize sadomasochistic fantasies because it is the sexuality which has been shoveddown our throats from the day we were born. As women we’re raised to be “bottoms:” lesbian“bottoms” tend to outnumber “tops” [sadists] by 10 to 1. “What feels good” is largelyconstructed by social oppression: racism, sexism, classism. We are not born with an innatesexuality where no elements of it are learned or manipulated. Yet many liberal, propornographyadvocates deny any relationship between sadomasochism and the violence in therest of our culture. It is no longer possible to discount the causal effect of pornography onviolence against women. Diana Russell has recently published a summary of research aboutthe ways in which pornography has been shown to cause women harm. (Russell, 1993) Ibelieve that her argument can be applied to lesbian pornography in exactly the same way:pornography , whether straight or lesbian, promotes inequality and eroticizes that unequalrelationship. Actually, like our eating habits, sexuality is utterly conditionable. When werehearse sadistic abuse in fantasy, pornography, and sexual games, we legitimize its authorityin our own minds, and may end up helping other authorities in our lives keep us in bondage inother ways. Sadomasochism is everywhere in this culture - just take a good look at yourworkplace, your family, your church.Lie #7: Lesbians “into sadomasochism” are feminists, devoted to women and a women-onlylesbian community. Lesbian pornography is “by women and for women.”Pat Califia has said that she’d rather be stuck on a desert island with a masochistic boy thanwith a vanilla lesbian. Bottoms are seen as “generic, interchangeable, and replaceable.”(Califia, 1992) Califia is committed to the role of sadist, not to any particular sexualpreference. ” Sex defined as a commodity [sadomasochism] leads to a marketplace where thegender of whore and client is irrelevant compared to kind and cost of services provided.”(Clarke, 1993) While lesbians who are “into sadomasochism” define themselves as lesbian,their sadomasochistic practices are bisexual. I have no political criticism of bisexuality - whatI am criticizing is sadomasochist posturing as devoted lesbian members of the women’scommunity. Pseudo-lesbian pornography, that is, pictures of women who are imitatinglesbians’ sexual behavior, has been a favored element in straight male pornography since itwas first published. It sells. Despite the fact that it is often advertised as being owned anddistributed by and for women, “lesbian” pornography sells briskly to straight men.Lie #8: Since lesbians are superior to men, we can “play” with sadomasochism in a liberatingway that heterosexuals can not.I do not think that women are biologically superior to men. In fact, I see that notion asdangerous and reactionary. “Anatomy is destiny” is not exactly a feminist idea. Sadistic andmasochistic attitudes and behaviors among lesbians, in fact, are a good example of how weinternalize abusive ideas just like everyone else does. We’re seduced by male domination -because we see that that is where power lies. Yet we delude ourselves if we think it is possibleto “play” the rapist without becoming the rapist.4

Lie #9: Reenacting abuse heals abuse. Sadomasochism heals emotional wounds fromchildhood sexual assault.This lie really disturbs me. A greater percentage of women “into sadomasochism” havehistories of childhood sexual assault, than those women who do not participate insadomasochism. However, sadomasochism obscures the real pain and abuse of women. Howcan you tell the difference between “real” and “pretend” when someone has a flashback andbecomes a child again in the middle of “consensual” sexual torture? Some feel an intense,even compulsive drive toward sexual annihilation that is expressed in sadomasochisticactivity which mirrors the abuse suffered as a child. The notion that acting out abuse helps toheal and eliminate abuse arises from the catharsis theory: do it once, just get it out of yoursystem, then you will get over it. There is no evidence that catharsis works as a solution tosocial or psychological conflict, yet this theory is used to rationalize the dissemination ofpornography. Pornography does not seem to have served as a pressure-cooker-release for men,thus freeing women from rape. On the contrary, pornography seems to have functioned aspro-rape propaganda. Sadomasochistic catharsis does not seem to heal sexual abuse either:one women wrote, “after seventeen years of [childhood sexual assault], the lesbians I met justwanted to do more of the same. I have nightmares and damage from both.” (Anonymous,1990) Sadomasochism is a repetition, not a healing, of childhood sexual assault. Some havesuggested that sadomasochism can actually be physiologically addictive. I have heard womendescribe themselves as being “in recovery from sadomasochism,” the same way they speak ofalcohol addiction. Perhaps the physical addiction to certain kinds of trauma begins withcomplex physical reactions to prolonged abuse in childhood which is then rekindled in adultsadomasochistic relationships.Lie #10. Sadomasochism is political dissent. It is progressive and even “transgressive” in thatit breaks the rules of the dominant sexual ideology.The posturing of sadists and masochists as “transgressive” can be confusing to those notfamiliar with feminist theory. By definition, the ultimate goal of feminism is to endsadomasochism. Our system is sadomasochistic to the core, how is celebrating it any kind oftrue rebellion? (Fritz, 1983). The political values of sadism are blatantly antifeminist,totalitarian and right-wing. Sadomasochism is business as usual; power relations as usual;race, gender and class as usual. Sadomasochism is one ritual version of dominance andsubmission. Sadomasochism is not a creative deviation from normal heterosexual behavior. Itis the defining quality of the power relationship between women and men. Sadism is thelogical extension of behavior that arises out of male power. ( Wagner, 1982 ) We live in amisogynist world, and women have so little political power, that it’s easier to fantasize aboutabsolute personal power than to politically organize for change. (Clarke, 1993). Several younglesbians recently said to me that their fantasies about sadomasochism were their “salvation” ina world where they see no possibility of attaining real power. Sadomasochist dykes play-actpower and prestige in a world that crushes any attempt to organize for real power. The playactinghelps us to forget how much we are hated and hurt. And forgetting that is the realdanger. ( to contact author write: mfarley@prostitutionresearch.com )References:Anonymous, letter to Lesbian Connection, January-February 1990, Vol. 12, Issue 4, page 11.Atkinson, Ti-Grace. Amazon Odyssey, 1974.Brown, Jan. “Sex, Lies, and Penetration, a Butch Finally ‘Fesses Up,” Outlook, 1990.Califia,Pat. “The Limits of the S/M Relationship,” in Outlook, Winter, 1992, pages 16-21.5

Clarke, De. “Consuming Passions: some thoughts on history, sex, and free enterprise,”in Unleashing Feminism: critiquing Lesbian Sadomasochism in the Gay Nineties,” (IreneReti, ed.), 1993, HerBooks, Santa Cruz, CA.Cole, Susan. Pornography and the Sex Crisis, 1989.Dworkin, Andrea. Pornography: Men Possessing Women, New York, Putnam’s, 1979.Dworkin, Andrea. Woman Hating, New York, E.P. Dutton, 1974.Fritz, Leah. “Is there Sex after Sadomasochism?” Village Voice, Nov. 1, 1983, pages 24-25.Linden, Robin R.; Pagano, Darlene R.; Russell, Diana E.H.; Star, SusanLeigh (eds.) Against Sadomasochism, a Radical Feminist Analysis, 1982.Millett, Kate. Sexual Politics, New York, Doubleday, 1970.Morgan, Robin, Editorial, Ms., May-June, 1993, Vol. III, Number 6Morgan, Robin. The Demon Lover: on the Sexuality of Terrorism, 1989Reti, Irene. “Remember the Fire: Lesbian Sadomasochism in a post-NaziHolocaust World”, in Unleashing Feminism: critiquing LesbianSadomasochism in the gay nineties, (Irene Reti, ed.), HerBooks,Santa Cruz, CA.Russell, Diana E. H. Against Pornography: the Evidence of Harm, RussellPublications, 2018 Shattuck Ave., Berkeley, CA, 94704, 1993.Wagner, Sally Roesch, in Linden, et al, Against Sadomasochism, 1982.6

Sadomasochism: Not About Condemnation. An Interview with Audre Lorde, by SusanLeigh Star(As published in A Burst of Light: Essays by Audre Lorde, 1988, Firebrand Books)Without a rigorous and consistent evaluation of what kind of a future we wish to create, and ascrupulous examination of the expressions of power we choose to incorporate into all ourrelationships including our most private ones, we are not progressing, but merely recastingour own characters in the same old weary drama…S/M is not the sharing of power, it ismerely a depressing replay of the old and destructive dominant/subordinate mode of humanrelating and one-sided power, which is even now grinding our earth and our humanconsciousness into dust.Audre Lorde(1)I spent June and July of 1980 in rural Vermont, an idyllic, green, vital world, alive in a shortsummer season. I teach there summers and winters. One afternoon, Sue (another teacher) andI lay sunbathing on a dock in the middle of a small pond. I suddenly imagined what it wouldbe like to see someone dressed in black leather and chains, trotting through the meadow, as Iam accustomed to seeing in my urban neighborhood in San Francisco I started laughing asone of the parameters of the theater of sadomasochism became clear; it is about cities and acreated culture, like punk rock, which is sustained by a particularly urban technology.Later in the week, Sue and I drove over bumpy dirt roads far into the Northeast Kingdom, themost rural area of Vermont, to interview Audre Lorde. Again, I was struck by the incongruityof sitting in the radiant sunshine, with radiant Audre and Frances and Sue, listening tobobwhites and watching the haze lift far down in the valley, and the subject of ourconversation seemed to belong to another world.I include this description of our physical surroundings because it seems important to me torecognize that all conversations about sadomasochism take place in particular places and atparticular historical times, which ought to be noted and compared.Leigh: How do you see the phenomenon of sadomasochism in the lesbian community?Audre: Sadomasochism in the lesbian-feminist community cannot be seen as separate fromthe larger economic and social issues surrounding our communities. It is reflective of a wholesocial and economic trend of this country.Sadly, sadomasochism feels comfortable to some people in this period of development. Whatis the nature of this allure? Why an emphasis on sadomasochism in the straight media?Sadomasochism is congruent with other developments going on in this country that have to dowith dominance and submission, with disparate power—politically, culturally, andeconomically.The attention that Samois (the San Francisco-based lesbian s/m organization) is getting isprobably out of proportion to the representation of sadomasochism in the lesbian community.Because s/m is a theme in the dominant culture, an attempt to “reclaim” it rather than questionit is an excuse not to look at the content of the behavior. For instance, “We are lesbians doingthis extreme thing and you’re criticizing us!” Thus, sadomasochism is used to delegitimizelesbian-feminism, lesbianism, and feminism.Leigh: So you’re saying that the straight media both helps amplify the phenomenon withinthe lesbian community and that they focus on lesbians in particular as a way of not dealingwith the larger implications and the very existence of the phenomenon in the world?Audre: Yes. And because this power perspective is so much a part of the larger world, it isdifficult to critique in isolation. As Erich Fromm once said, “The fact that millions of peopletake part in a delusion doesn’t make it sane.”Leigh: What about the doctrine of “live and let live” and civil liberties issues?Audre: I don’t see that as the point. I’m not questioning anyone’s right to live. I’m saying wemust observe the implications of our lives. If what we are talking about is feminism, then the7

personal is political and we can subject everything in our lives to scrutiny. We have beennurtured in a sick, abnormal society, and we should be about the process of reclaimingourselves as well as the terms of that society. This is complex. I speak not aboutcondemnation but about recognizing what is happening and questioning what it means. I’mnot willing to regiment anyone’s life, but if we are to scrutinize our human relationships, wemust be willing to scrutinize all aspects of those relationships. The subject of revolution isourselves, is our lives.Sadomasochism is an institutionalized celebration of dominant/subordinate relationships.And, it prepares us either to accept subordination or to enforce dominance. Even in play, toaffirm that the exertion of power over powerlessness is erotic, is empowering, is to set theemotional and social stage for the continuation of that relationship, politically, socially, andeconomically.Sadomasochism feeds the belief that domination is inevitable and legitimately enjoyable. Itcan be compared to the phenomenon of worshipping a godhead with two faces, andworshipping only the white part on the full moon and the black part on the dark of the moon,as if totally separate. But you cannot corral any aspect within your life, divorce itsimplications, whether it’s what you eat for breakfast or how you say good-bye. This is whatintegrity means.Leigh: That relates to two central arguments put forth by the women of Samois: that liberaltolerance is necessary in the realm of sexuality and that the power over part of the relationshipis confined to the bedroom. I feel, as you do, that it is dangerous to try to cordon off such avital part of our lives in this way.Audre: If it is confined to the bedroom, then why was the Samois booklet (What Color isYour Handkerchief?: A Lesbian S/M Sexuality Reader) printed? If it is not, then what does thatmean? It is in the interest of a capitalist profit system for us to privatize much of ourexperience. In order to make integrated life choices, we must open the sluice gates in ourlives, create emotional consistency. This is not to say that we act the same way, or do notchange and grow, but that there is an underlying integrity that asserts itself in all of ouractions. None of us is perfect, or born with that integrity, but we can work toward it as a goal.The erotic weaves through our lives, and integrity is a basic condition that we aspire to. If wedo not have the lessons of our journeys toward that condition, then we have nothing. Fromthat life-vision, one is free to examine varying paths of behavior. But integrity has to be abasis for the journey.Certain things in every society are defined as totally destructive. For instance, the old exampleof crying “fire” in a crowded theater. Liberalism allows pornography and has allowed wifebeatingas First Amendment rights. But this doesn’t fit them into my life-vision, and they areboth an immediate threat to my life.The question I ask, over and over, is who is profiting from this? When sadomasochism getspresented on center stage as a conflict in the feminist movement, I ask, what conflicts are notbeing presented?Leigh: How do you think sadomasochism starts? What are its roots?Audre: In the superior/inferior mold which is inculcated within us at the deepest levels. Thelearned intolerance of differences.Those involved with sadomasochism are acting out the intolerance of differences which we alllearn: superiority and thereby the right to dominate. The conflict is supposedly self-limitingbecause it happens behind bedroom doors. Can this be so, when the erotic empowers,nourishes, and permeates all of our lives?I ask myself, under close scrutiny, whether I am puritanical about this—and I have askedmyself this very carefully—and the answer is no. I feel that we work toward makingintegrated life-decisions about the networks of our lives, and those decisions lead us to other8

decisions and commitments—certain ways of viewing the world, looking for change. If theydon’t lead us toward growth and change, we have nothing to build upon, no future.Leigh: Do you think sadomasochism is different for gay men than for lesbians?Audre: Who profits from lesbians beating each other? White men have been raised to believethat they’re God; most gay white men are marginal in only one respect. Much of the gaywhite movement seeks to be included in the American dream and is angered when they do notreceive the standard white male privileges, misnamed as “American democracy.”Often, white gay men are working not to change the system. This is one of the reasons whythe gay male movement is as white as it is. Black gay men recognize, again by the facts ofsurvival, that being Black, they are not going to be included in the same way. The Black/whitegay male division is being examined and explored by some. Recently, for instance, there wasa meeting of Third World lesbians and gays in Washington. It was recognized that there arethings we do not share with white lesbians and gay men, as well as things that we do, and thatclarification of goals is necessary between white gays and lesbians, and Third World gays andlesbians.I see no essential battle between many gay men and the white male establishment. To be sure,there are gay men who do not view their oppressions as isolated, and who work for a future.But it is a matter of majority politics; many gay white males are being pulled by the samestrings as other white men in this society. You do not get people to work against what theyhave identified as their basic self-interest.Leigh: So one of the things that you’re saying is that the politics of s/m are connected withthe politics of the larger movements?Audre: I do not believe that sexuality is separate from living. As a minority woman, I knowdominance and subordination are not bedroom issues. In the same way that rape is not aboutsex, s/m is not about sex but about how we use power. If it were only about personal sexualexchange or private taste, why would it be presented as a political issue?Leigh: I often feel that there’s a kind of tyranny about the whole concept of feelings, asthough, if you feel something then you must act on it.Audre: You don’t feel a tank or a war—you feel hate or love. Feelings are not wrong, but youare accountable for the behavior you use to satisfy those feelings.Leigh: What about how Samois and other lesbian sadomasochists use the concept of power?Audre: The s/m concept of “vanilla” sex is sex devoid of passion. They are saying that therecan be no passion without unequal power. That feels very sad and lonely to me, anddestructive. The linkage of passion to dominance/subordination is the prototype of theheterosexual image of male-female relationships, one which justifies pornography. Womenare supposed to love being brutalized. This is also the prototypical justification of allrelationships of oppression—that the subordinate one who is “different” enjoys the inferiorposition.The gay male movement, for example, is invested in distinguishing between gay s/mpornography and heterosexual pornography. Gay men can allow themselves the luxury of notseeing the consequences. We, as women and as feminists, must scrutinize our actions and seewhat they imply, and upon what they are based.As women, we have been trained to follow. We must look at the s/m phenomenon and educateourselves, at the same time being aware of intricate manipulations from outside and within.Leigh: How does this relate specifically to lesbian-feminism?Audre: First, we must ask ourselves, is this whole question of s/m sex in the lesbiancommunity perhaps being used to draw attention and energies away from other more pressingand immediate life-threatening issues facing us as women in this racist, conservative, andrepressive period? A red herring? A smoke screen for provocateurs? Second, lesbian s/m is notabout what you do in bed, just as lesbianism is not simply a sexual preference. For example,9

Barbara Smith’s work on women-identified women, on “lesbian” experiences in Zora Hurstonor Toni Morrison.(2) It is not who I sleep with that defines the quality of these acts, not whatwe do together, but what life-statements I am led to make as the nature and effect of my eroticrelationships percolate throughout my life and my being. As a deep lode of our erotic livesand knowledge, how does our sexuality enrich us and empower our actions?Notes1. Audre Lorde, “Letter to the Editor,” Gay Community News 7:37 (April 12, 1980), p. 4.2. Barbara Smith, “Toward a Black Feminist Criticism,” Conditions Two (October 1977), pp.25-44Sadomasochism and the Social Construction of Desire, by Karen Rian10

(from Against Sadomasochism: A Radical Feminist Analysis, edited by Robin Ruth Linden,Darlene R. Pagano, Diana E.H. Russell, and Susan Leigh Star; Frog in the Well Press, 1982)I think the title of this book, Against Sadomasochism, misses the point. And I think thecontemporary debate over whether or not sadomasochism is compatible with feminism is alsomissing the point. In essence, the bottom-line issues of the debate, as they have beenarticulated, are the repressive intolerance of sexual minorities versus the incompatibility offeminism with power and/or violence in personal relationships. The point being missed is thatsexuality and sexual relationships are socially constructed in a complex dialectical way. Theissue, then, is not whether sadomasochism is “politically incorrect.” Rather, I think the realquestions to be addressed are: what do we like and dislike about our sexuality as we currentlyexperience it, and how do we want to reconstruct our sexuality and sexual relationships?ITo begin with, I don’t consider it “politically incorrect” to be turned on by or to practicesadomasochism. But I do think it is analytically incorrect to assume that any sexual desire isan innately or psychologically given character trait, a fixed and unchanging part of one’spersonality. The pro-sadomasochism argument frequently rests on the libertarian principle thata person should not be discriminated against because of “the way she is.” This principleusually implies that “the way one is” is either a condition with which one was born, or anattribute which was acquired at some point and will remain until death, or a purely personal(i.e., nonpolitical) inclination. This “civil rights” approach is similar to the argument that it isunreasonable to discriminate against lesbians and gays because they are “born that way” or“just are that way.” While certainly the civil rights argument is valid, it sidesteps the vastrange of political issues (such as conscious self-determination) that are crucial to an analysisof lesbian and gay oppression and liberation.One of the most far-reaching insights of feminism is that “the personal is political.” Womenhave discovered that the details of personal life are not just a matter of individual inclinationor innate characteristics. Rather, our lives—our attitudes, desires, intimate interactions, etc.—are shaped by social structures. And because social structures such as the family, media andpublic education are characterized by a multitude of power imbalances, our personal lives andrelationships are also characterized by inequalities and power imbalances.Our sexuality is not immune to the social and political forces which shape other dimensions ofour lives—the sexual is also political. As such, it is also subject to evaluation, modificationand change. Sadomasochism, then, is not a psychologically given determinant of any person’ssexuality; like any other sexual desire or practice, it is a mode of sexual satisfaction which hasbeen learned in an alienating social context and which remains satisfying as long as its socialcontext remains unchallenged.Because political conditions are humanly constructed, our sexual relationships are potentiallysubject to our conscious efforts to redefine and reconstruct them. In realizing that oursexuality is socially constructed, we may also realize that it has been constructed by otherswho have had power over us, according to their interests, not ours. And because there isconsequently a conflict of interests, there is also a conflict of power between those whoseinterests are served and those whose interests are not served by this construction. In claimingcontrol over our own lives, it is thus within our power to create our sexuality according to ourown interests, and, if we so desire, even to remove sexuality from the realm of powerrelationships.While the pro-sadomasochism arguments often suffer from psychological determinism (thebelief that our behavior is the result of fixed inner psychological influences over which wehave no control), the anti-sadomasochism arguments usually suffer from utopian idealism.11

That is, they have mistakenly assumed that our desires and behavior can be changedautomatically by mentally accepting the “correct” political ideas. Those who opposesadomasochism sometimes argue that, since unequal power relationships and physicalviolence are antithetical to feminist goals, a feminist should not desire or be aroused byphysical manifestations of dominance and submission. The problem with this argument,however, is that it too ignores the social and political realities in which our sexuality isconstructed.To use another example, some feminists have argued that jealousy is a destructive emotion inpersonal relationships, and that therefore it is wrong to be jealous of our lovers. While wemay agree that jealousy is undesirable, we cannot simply wish it away—it is a reasonable andperhaps unavoidable response to a social reality which overwhelmingly perpetuates ourinsecurity. The point, then, is not just to do away with our undesirable emotions but also tocreate new social realities in which the kinds of relationships that we desire can flourish. Toborrow a formula from Karl Marx: If we want to get rid of dominance and submission inpersonal relationships, we have to get rid of the conditions that require and engenderdominance and submission.By now, feminists might have learned that we can’t find individual solutions to socialproblems, that we can’t create perfect feminist relationships in the midst of an imperfect, malesupremacist society.And so all-pervasive is the male bias of our culture that we seldom notice that the fantasies wetake in, the images that describe to us how to act, are male fantasies about females. In a maleworld, female sex is from the beginning unable to get a clear picture of itself.( 1)How, then, does female sexuality begin to get a clear picture of itself?IIFirst, I would like to move the debate over sadomasochism out of the realm of what is“politically correct” and into the realm of what is politically desirable. The question is notwhat should our sexual desires and interactions be (we’ve already had enough of that), butwhat do we want our sexual desires and interactions to be? How do we want to treat othersand be treated in our sexual relationships?The pro-sadomasochism arguments usually assume—either implicitly or explicitly—thatpower is a necessary component of any relationship. Therefore, sadomasochism is merely anhonest expression of the “complementary” will to dominate and will to submit. It is clearlythe case that power is a predictable, if not inevitable, dynamic of relationships in this society.All of our socialization for relationships is done in the context of power imbalances—parentover child, man over woman, boss over worker, beloved over lover, etc. And a great deal ofour sexual socialization associates sex and violence (see Sally Wagner’s essay, “Pornographyand the Sexual Revolution: The Backlash of Sadomasochism,” pp. 23-44 of this volume). It isnot a coincidence that we speak of being “conquered” or “overpowered” by love, of“submitting” to a lover, etc. So all-pervasive is our society’s association of power and lovethat it is hard to imagine an intimate relationship in which power confrontations did not exist.And so all-pervasive is our society’s expression of power through violence, and theassociation of violence and sex, that it’s almost a surprise that sadomasochism is considered tobe “kinky” rather than “normal” for sexual relations in this society.Although power imbalances are an existing reality, I do not believe they are inevitable orunchangeable. To the extent that we justify expressions of power in intimate relationships, wecapitulate, I believe, to the ideologies and social structures which present personalaggressiveness as a necessary condition of human nature. That is, we take the historicallyspecific characteristics of a hierarchical, competitive and alienating social organization asinevitable. If dominance and submission are inevitable, there is really no point to a feminist12

transformation of society—including personal relationships. This is one sense in which Ibelieve sadomasochism and feminism are not compatible.Additionally, there is the question of desirability: if power imbalances are not inevitable, is itpossible that expressions of dominance and submission are nonetheless desirable? If so, arethey desirable as a means to an end or as ends in themselves? For purposes of comparison, Ifirst want to bring up a related issue concerning feminist relationships.Feminists often argue that it is important for lovers to express their anger with each other, thatfighting is “healthy” or “necessary” for successful relationships. The underlying intention ofthis position is to avoid harboring resentments which can become destructively explosive ifthey are perpetually internalized rather than expressed. However, the practice of fighting as ameans to creating harmony has too often come to be seen as an end in itself. Fighting and theexpression of anger may be effective means to overcoming hostilities, but this does not mean,as I have sometimes heard, that a relationship is “unhealthy” if it does not include periodicfights. Nor does it mean that the more people fight, the “healthier” their relationship.Especially when no hostilities exist, the glorification of fighting strikes me as a ludicrousregression into destructive masculinist values. It seems to me that interpersonal hostilities area deterrent to mutual and self-respect, and that we would do better to overcome them thaninstitutionalize and normalize them.Dominance diminishes the power and the self of another; submission to dominance is selfdiminishing.Personal strength can be used to diminish another person and can be given up inself-diminution to another person. But strength can also be mutually given and received toenhance both one’s own power and the power of another. As the sexual expressions ofdominance and submission, sadomasochism may be a means for some women to resolveperceived inequalities in power, perhaps in much the same way that fighting may resolvehostilities. (It may also be the case that conflicts of power and hostilities can be moreconstructively resolved through peaceful methods of negotiation.) However, insofar assadomasochism is seen as a desirable end in itself, self-diminution becomes glorified andinstitutionalized. If cooperation, conscious self-determination and the elimination of powerimbalances are feminist goals, then sadomasochistic relationships as goals are incompatiblewith feminist goals.IIII think the issue of “mutual consent” is utterly beside the point. The pro-sadomasochismargument often justifies lesbian sadomasochism as a matter of mutual consent and therefore,beyond reproach. However, I find this argument as irrelevant and unconvincing as the antifeministargument from women who claim that their greatest satisfaction is in “consenting” tosexual subservience to men. Since our sexuality has been for the most part constructedthrough social structures over which we have had no control, we all “consent” to sexualdesires and activities which are alienating to at least some degree. However, there’s a vastdifference between consent and self-determination. The latter includes the former, but inaddition entails control over the social structures which shape our lives, including our sexualdesires and relationships. In other words, self-determination requires that consent be bothinformed and self-informed.Ultimately, sexual liberation is not simply a matter of having the freedom to do whatever wefeel like doing. (If sexual liberation were so simple, we should have no objection to men“getting off” on pornographic portrayals of sexual violence against women.) Rather, sexualliberation involves the freedom to redefine and reconstruct our sexuality, which in turnreshapes our sexual desires.While no one is in a position to judge the “political correctness” of anyone’s sexual desires,we can—and must—discuss the political desirability of our goals for sexual relationships. I,for one, cannot accept dominance and submission as a desirable goal for any area of personal13

elationships, including sexuality. I believe that an appropriate feminist goal is not theexpression—or even equalization—of power, but rather the elimination of power dynamics insexual, and other, relationships.Note1. Linda Phelps, “Female Sexual Alienation,” Woman: A Journal of Liberation, Vol. 3, No. 1(1972), p. 13.14

Sadomasochism and the Liberal Tradition, by Hilde Hein(As published in Against Sadomasochism: A Radical Feminist Analysis, edited by Robin RuthLinden, Darlene R. Pagano, Diana E.H. Russell, and Susan Leigh Star [Frog in the Well,1982] pp. 83-89)The ethic of individualism affirms that every person is an autonomous agent, subject to thewill of no other and free to carry out his or her own objectives up to the point where theirimplementation infringes upon the identical freedom of other persons. Governments aredefended on bureaucratic and juridical grounds as necessary to orchestrate these manyfreedoms and to adjudicate where individuals or individuals and institutions conflict. Theformulators of the doctrine of individualism, including the American "Founding Fathers,"entertained visions of infinitely expanding and wide open frontiers. If the ambitions of oneagent became incompatible with or abrasive to another, one of them could be expected tomove on to a more hospitable place, and so the threat of intrusion could be at leastconceptually contained.But the exponential growth in population and its accompanying avalanche of technologicalconnectedness have put an end to such frontiers. There is no hiding place, no place to go.Space colonies are not, at least not yet, a viable option. Neither one's identity nor one'sfreedom is coterminous with the surface of one's skin. Clearly, we are interdependent. Yet,more than ever, we are defensive of our autonomy.This state of affairs is clearly recognized by the theorists of modern capitalism, who arerooted in philosophical individualism. But capitalism derives its longevity from its capacity tomake altruistic accommodations. Capitalism could not survive, here or elsewhere, bypromoting egoism unsoftened by social conscience. The institutions of modern liberal society,though committed to traditional possessive individualism, expound the ideals of compassion,freedom from exploitation and the minimization of suffering. By making such declarationscapitalism wins the support of even its most oppressed victims, some of whom espouse itsideals without perceiving that their achievement rests upon the perpetuation of someone's(possibly their own) victimization.Victims are encouraged to think of themselves as potential victors, constrained only byextraneous circumstance and ill-developed personal skills. Such limitations can, in principle,be remedied; the "disadvantaged" person can aspire to full, effective social participation.According to this (liberal) model of society, individuals, like the free floating atoms of a gas,are threatened only by excessive compression, i.e., by each other. This analysis leads to theconclusion that a condition of over-crowding, material scarcity and poorly adapted personalself-seeking can lead to defensively perverse and aberrant social behavior.It is sometimes argued that such practices as sadomasochism, the mutual and intentionalinfliction of punishment and pain for erotic pleasure, are implosions of a society turned uponitself. Inescapably contracted upon one another, people use and abuse each other. When suchbehavior is private and "consensual," it is regarded as a tolerable deviation from the socialnorms which serve as a private and public safety valve. Properly contained, it can even beendorsed as a part of the cost of individualism and free choice.I believe, however, that sadomasochism--both on the part of its practitioners and of thecommunity of media voyeurs which propagates it--is not a deviation from the philosophicalorigins of liberalism but a realization of them. For this, if for no other reason, anyone with a15

concern for the quality of life must reconsider the philosophical roots out of which our mutualadaptations and accommodations have grown. I do not mean the biological metaphor tosuggest an inevitable and naturally determined working out of human social interactions.However "natural" they may appear to be, the political relationships of people as well as theirconscious interactions with their environment are ideological. Social and political life stemsout of philosophical commitments, attitudes and intentions which are rarely defined withclarity and infrequently understood. They may nevertheless be articulated and must besubjected to critical scrutiny. They could have been, and might have been, otherwise. Evennow, what has come to be is neither fixed nor necessary.Philosophical liberalism is ultimately committed to individualism and to egoism both aspsychological descriptions of human nature and as ethical prescriptions. According to thisdoctrine, one's final obligation, to which all other moral constraints are subordinate, is tooneself. While one may choose self-sacrifice for the sake of another person or ideal, even thisis to be understood as a mode of self-realization. For in the end, personal survival--inwhatever glorifying or aggrandizing way that may be defined--is the only imperative.(1)What is meant by the "pursuit of happiness" has never been very clear to anyone, but it is aright to which we are allegedly entitled by nature. When the creature needs of food and shelterand the social needs of health care, education and work have been satisfied, are there otherpsychic and/or aesthetic needs which merit the same protection? Clearly not, if theirgratification entails the deprivation or exploitation of another person. Liberal doctrineprovides explicitly that no one is to be used as a means. We are described by liberalphilosophers as inhabiting a "kingdom of ends," ideally one in which all individuals legislatewholly and exclusively unto themselves.But suppose that my happiness depends upon doing injury to you, and you expresswillingness to undergo that injury. You derive satisfaction from my pleasure and so thesubmission, even to pain, constitutes a self-realization on your part. Having formed such apartnership we are both content, each achieving our symbiotic fulfillment without trespassingthe moral boundaries of one another 's autonomy. Such an argument seems to sanctionanything short of murder (and perhaps even that) as long as it is carried out betweenconsenting adults. The defense of sadomasochism as voluntarily practiced thus represents thepleasure of A in hurting as coincident with the pleasure of B in being hurt. Since (presumably)no damage is done to anyone else, the arrangement seems laudably equitable and even ratherelegant. And it is philosophically correct if liberal individualism is the correct philosophy tolive by.However, my contention is that it is not. Strictly speaking, the intended scope of liberalindividualism never has been universal. Those who proclaimed the freedom of the individualwere nearly always men addressing themselves to other men, notably to the real or abstractpaterfamilias in whose person a wife and children, along with other "possessions," would beincluded. The idea of women and children as holders of rights, conceived apart from the menin whose identity their own interests were allegedly merged, is a comparatively newphenomenon. Indeed, it is partly because women have begun to claim rights and freedoms forthemselves that some of the implications of liberal theory are becoming evident. One thing isclear: independently of the increase in population, the sheer number of individuals demandingtheir equal entitlement is multiplying. Everybody is claiming their due. But what are theconsequences of the recognition and the guarantees due them? Are the protection of the right16

to hurt and the legitimization of being hurt necessary consequences of guaranteed civilliberties? I think not.In effect, it seems to me the liberal tradition is mistaken in its absolute prohibition of the useof others as a means. Rhetoric apart, this is an untenable and impracticable aim. Everyoneuses others in various capacities, some, but not all of which are rewarded by payment or evensimply by gratitude. Not to be used at all is tantamount to being worthless. Most people wantto be of use, to do something which is useful to and valued by someone else. Harm is done bymisusing or abusing another person. If anything, there is a satisfaction to be found in beingwell used, for this represents a recognition and appreciation of one's capacities. Women oftenfeel wasted because those qualities and abilities which we treasure in ourselves aredisregarded and devalued by male-dominated society. Whether or not we are being used(properly or improperly) in other dimensions, women languish through ill-use because we arenot used according to our own choices or self-attributed capabilities. Mere utility, like that ofan umbrella or typewriter, which is appointed but not self-identified, is not enough. Liberaltheory is correct in making this distinction.Does it follow that a person who chooses to be hurt for the sake of another's pleasure or toinflict pain because another enjoys suffering is well used? I think the answer must benegative. This instrumentalization of self differs in quality from that indicated by the puttingto use of one's skills and abilities. If I participate in the achievement of your ends by givingyou the benefit of my expertise, as carpenter, teacher, friend or lover, then we can both comeaway from that experience enriched in accomplishment. But if my utility to you liesexclusively in the fact that I have objectified myself--made myself your object andsubordinated myself to you--then my use is a negation of me. (To be negated is not the sameas to be used up. The latter, a state of total exhaustion, may nonetheless be an exhilaration anda fulfillment.)My negation does not entail an aggrandizement of you, although this is often cited as itsostensive purpose. Your being, or your wellbeing, though possibly hampered or assisted bysome feature that I possess, cannot be dependent upon my non-being. For whatever I maycontribute as a person to you, you are who you are with or without me. I do not define you;you do not define me. But by reducing myself to your object or allowing you to do that to me,I demean the two of us regardless of either of our pleasures.Let us assume, as contemporary sadomasochists would have us do, that the submissive partneris not coerced by violence or threats, but undergoes his or her treatment, as declared, bychoice. Are all choices equally commendable? Nearly every historic form of hedonism, fromthat advocated by Protagoras to that of the French "decadents," has promoted a strategy ofenlightened pleasure seeking even while exalting pleasure as the ultimate good. Many havecounseled discipline and moderation, meaning discipline not in the sense of whips and chains,but of orderly conduct and self-restraint. As they observed, limited desires are more easilysatisfied than extravagant desires. Even those hedonists scorned by Plato, who condoned amore extreme range of experiences, regarded pain as a necessary consequence of and aninevitable retribution for pleasure. But contemporary devotees of sadomasochism want toexcise that causal connection between restraint and pleasure.Using the all-tolerating liberal principles as legitimation, sadomasochists represent theirbehavior as not only morally acceptable and reasonable, but as entitled to protection by law.Social scientists now defend these practices as expressive of a new freedom, as well as17

If this is the logic of liberalism, then feminist philosophy can and must do better. Traditionalphilosophy would be well served by such revision.NOTES1. A possible exception to this rule might be the case of maternity where a considerable degreeof self-sacrifice is sentimentally expected. But even here, as is evident from the recentdisputes on the permissibility of therapeutic abortion, the struggle for survival betweenalleged souls in competition is a pitched one.2. Pearl Stewart, "Safety Workshops for S. F. Masochists," San Francisco Chronicle, March12, 1981, p. 1.19

from Woman Hating, pp. 53-63.Woman as Victim : Story of OAndrea DworkinThe Story of O, by Pauline Reage, incorporates, along with all literary pornography, principlesand characters already isolated in my discussion of children's fairy tales. The female as afigure of innocence and evil enters the adult world--the brutal world of genitalia. The femalemanifests in her adult form - cunt. She emerges defined by the hole between her legs. Inaddition, Story of O is more than simple pornography. It claims to define epistemologicallywhat a woman is, what she needs, her processes of thinking and feeling, her proper place. Itlinks men and women in an erotic dance of some magnitude: the sado-masochisticcomplexion of O is not trivial--it is formulated as a cosmic principle which articulates,absolutely, the feminine.Also, O is particularly compelling for me because I once believed it to be what its defendersclaim--the mystical revelation of the true, eternal, and sacral destiny of women. The book wasabsorbed as a pulsating, erotic, secular Christianity (the joy in pure suffering, woman asChrist figure). I experienced O with the same infantile abandon as the NEWSWEEK reviewerwho wrote: "What lifts this fascinating book above mere perversity is its movement towardthe transcendence of the self through a gift of the self . . . to give the body, to allow it to beravaged, exploited, and totally possessed can be an act of consequence, if it is done with lovefor the sake of love." 1 Any clear-headed appraisal of O will show the situation, O's condition,her behavior, and most importantly her attitude toward her oppressor as a logical scenarioincorporating Judeo-Christian values of service and self-sacrifice and universal notions ofwomanhood, a logical scenario demonstrating the psychology of submission and self-hatredfound in all oppressed peoples. O is a book of astounding political significance.This is, then, the story of O: O is taken by her lover Rene to Roissy and cloistered there; she isfucked, sucked, raped, whipped, humiliated, and tortured on a regular and continuing basis--she is programmed to be an erotic slave, Rene's personal whore; after being properly trainedshe is sent home with her lover; her lover gives her to Sir Stephen, his half-brother; she isfucked, sucked, raped, whipped, humiliated, and tortured on a regular and continuing basis;she is ordered to become the lover of Jacqueline and to recruit her for Roissy, which she does;she is sent to Anne-Marie to be branded with Sir Stephen's mark and to have rings with hisinsignia inserted in her cunt; she serves as an erotic model for Jacqueline's younger sisterNatalie who is infatuated with her; she is taken to a party masked as an owl, led on a leash byNatalie, and there plundered, despoiled, raped, gangbanged; realizing that there is nothing elseleft for Sir Stephen to do with her or to her, fearing that he will abandon her, she asks hispermission to kill herself and receives it. Q.E.D., pornography is never big on plot.Of course, like most summaries, the above is somewhat sketchy. I have not mentioned thequantities of cock that O sucks, or the anal assaults that she sustains, or the various rapes andtortures perpetrated on her by minor characters in the book, or the varieties of whips used, ordescribed her clothing or the different kinds of nipple rouge, or the many ways in which she ischained, or the shapes and colors of the welts on her body.From the course of O's story emerges a clear mythological figure: she is woman, and to nameher O, zero, emptiness, says it all. Her ideal state is one of complete passivity, nothingness, asubmission so absolute that she transcends human form (in becoming an owl). Only the holebetween her legs is left to define her, and the symbol of that hole must surely be O. Much,however, even in the rarefied environs of pornography, necessarily interferes with theattainment of utter passivity. Given a body which takes up space, has needs, makes demands,20

is connected, even symbolically, to a personal history which is a sequence of likes, dislikes,skills, opinions, one is formed, shaped--one exists at the very least as positive space. Andsince in addition as a woman one is born guilty and carnal, personifying the sins of Eve andPandora, the wickedness of Jezebel and Lucretia Borgia, O's transcendence of the species istruly phenomenal.The thesis of O is simple. Woman is cunt, lustful, wanton. She must be punished, tamed,debased. She gives the gift of herself, her body, her well-being, her life, to her lover. This is asit should be--natural and good. It ends necessarily in her annihilation, which is also naturaland good, as well as beautiful, because she fulfills her destiny:As long as I am beaten and ravished on your behalf, I am naught but the thought of you, thedesire of you, the obsession of you. That, I believe, is what you wanted. Well, I love you, andthat is what I want too. 2Then let him take her, if only to wound her! O hated herself for her own desire, and loathedSir Stephen for the self-control he was displaying. She wanted him to love her, there, the truthwas out: she wanted him to be chafing under the urge to touch her lips and penetrate her body,to devastate her if need be. . . . 3. . . Yet he was certain that she was guilty and, without really wanting to, Rene was punishingher for a sin he knew nothing about (since it remained completely internal), although SirStephen had immediately detected it: her wantonness. 4. . . no pleasure, no joy, no figment of her imagination could ever compete with the happinessshe felt at the way he used her with such utter freedom, at the notion that he could do anythingwith her, that there was no limit, no restriction in the manner with which, on her body, hemight search for pleasure. 5O is totally possessed. That means that she is an object, with no control over her ownmobility, capable of no assertion of personality. Her body is a body, in the same way that apencil is a pencil, a bucket is a bucket, or, as Gertrude Stein pointedly said, a rose is a rose. Italso means that O's energy, or power, as a woman, as Woman, is absorbed. Possession heredenotes a biological transference of power which brings with it a commensurate spiritualstrength to the possessor. O does more than offer herself; she is herself the offering. To offerherself would be prosaic Christian self-sacrifice, but as the offering she is the vehicle of themiraculous--she incorporates the divine.Here sacrifice has its ancient, primal meaning: that which was given at the beginning becomesthe gift. The first fruits of the harvest were dedicated to and consumed by the vegetation spiritwhich provided them. The destruction of the victim in human or animal sacrifice or theconsumption of the offering was the very definition of the sacrifice--death was necessarybecause the victim was or represented the life-giving substance, the vital energy source, whichhad to be liberated, which only death could liberate. An actual death, the sacrifice per se, notonly liberated benevolent energy but also ensured a propagation and increase of life energy(concretely expressed as fertility) by a sort of magical ecology, a recycling of basic energy, orraw power. O's victimization is the confirmation of her power, a power which istranscendental and which has as its essence the sacred processes of life, death, andregeneration.But the full significance of possession, both mystically and mythologically, is not yet clear. Inmystic experience communion (wrongly called possession sometimes) has meant thedissolution of the ego, the entry into ecstasy, union with and illumination of the godhead. Theexperience of communion has been the province of the mystic, prophet, or visionary, thosewho were able to alchemize their energy into pure spirit and this spirit into a state of grace.Possession, rightly defined, is the perversion of the mystic experience; it is by its very naturedemonic because its goal is power, its means are violence and oppression. It spills the bloodof its victim and in doing so estranges itself from life-giving union. O's lover thinks that she21

heraldry, and the brand on her ass, are permanent wedding rings rightly placed. They mark heras an owned object and in no way symbolize the passage into maturity and freedom. The samemight be said of the conventional wedding ring.O, in her never-ending role as surrogate everything, also is the direct sexual link between SirStephen and Rene. That the two men love each other and fuck each other through O is madeclear by the fact that Sir Stephen uses O anally most of the time. The consequences ofmisdirecting sexual energy are awesome indeed.But what is most extraordinary about Story of O is the mind-boggling literary style of PaulineReage, its author. O is wanton yet pure, Sir Stephen is cruel yet kind, Rene is brutal yet gentle,a wall is black yet white. Everything is what it is, what it isn't, and its direct opposite. Thattechnique, which is so skillfully executed, might help to account for the compellingirrationality of Story of O. For those women who are convinced yet doubtful, attracted yetrepelled, there is this schema for self-protection: the double-double think that the authorengages in is very easy to deal with if we just realize that we only have to double-doubleunthink it.To sum up, Story of O is a story of psychic cannibalism, demonic possession, a story whichposits men and women as being at opposite poles of the universe--the survival of onedependent on the absolute destruction of the other. It asks, like many stories, who is the mostpowerful, and it answers: men are, literally over women's dead bodies.Notes1. Newsweek, March 21, 1966, p. 108, unsigned.2. Pauline Reage, Story of O (New York: Grove Press, 1965), p. xxi.3. Ibid., p. 80.4. Ibid., p. 93.5. Ibid., p. 187.6. Ibid., p. 32.7. Ibid., p. 106.8. Robert S. de Ropp, Sex Energy: The Sexual Force in Man and Animals (New York: DellPublishing Company, 1969), p. 13423