> If I could be convinced that humans were genetically
> predisposed to dominance and submission, I'd give up
> on the socialist project. For now my opinion is that
> people are socialized to accept dominance by existing
> authority and have been since at least the dawn of
> class society. I have become convinced of this view
> through a critical reading of the reasearch done by
> Reich, Fromm, Horney and others.
Now wait a minute here. Brian just got through telling that there's mutual consent free from coercion among partners in putting together a scene. I take that to mean whatever physical injuries--if any, because I suppose someone might just go for humilitation--someone gets may very well be something explicitly requested by the person receiving them. The person requesting them can also stipuate limits--where, how many, etc. That means the person delivering them must agree to what the receipient stipulates. So "dominance" and "submission" in the sex play, even if they involve actual physical injury, have to be considered within the context of this mutual, coercion free consent.
As far as your previously mentioned analogy with the ideology of free labor goes, it doesn't hold. Those who act as dominants do not hold hegemony over the production of sexual pleasure in the way the owners of capital hold the means of material production. The workers whose hides receive a tanning via the extraction of their surplus labor has no recourse for except the sale of their labor power. Submissives are individuals who seek a minimum of sexual pleasure from other individuals who are dominants--and then, I suppose that many of these individuals may prefer to be submissive sometimes, dominant other times, and sex without these roles at others. Need I add that this does not make them Subs, Doms, or vanilla as such?
Final point: suppose that under different conditions of production these sexual practices *do* fade away. Exactly what good does it do to attack those who enjoy them now? If your analysis is correct, these practices are a side-effect of socialization to accept dominance. Please explain to me just how, if your primary concern is to overcome socialization that makes people acquiesce to dominance, placing those who *do you no immediate or even indirect harm in a subordinate position* contributes to that goal. From where I sit, it only makes it worse.
Curtiss