CB: Let me ask you this. How do you know that men who beat or rape women do not think of it as some form of sadism in their minds ? Are you saying that you are ordering them not to do it because it's not consensual on the other party's part ? They reply , "hey, I'm doing my own thing, and it doesn't require the other party's consent. And hey she really likes it like that in her unconscious mend. Actually, all women are masochists deep down inside. "
[WS:] You make a good point here. If the only thing that separates an oppressive relationship form non-oppressive one is the so-called consent of the subjugated part - this is a really flimsy defense indeed. It would not hold much water if we applied the same reasoning to non-sexual situations, e.g. labor relations (workers "consent" to work under exploitative capitalist conditions) or political regimes (people "consent" to autocratic rule). Such arguments are usually nothing more than flimsy propaganda pieces.
I am not sure if it is possible to make a *good* lefty argument in defense of SM sexual relations, i.e. argument that is both convincing and consistent with left principles (egalitarianism, non-abusive, non-exploitative human relations). I think a better approach is to *defend refraining from bashing/condemning such relationships,* as the right wingers love to do. The best I can think of is "this is not what I/we would normally support due to my/our egalitarian principles, but denouncing this particular instance of inequality would do more social harm than good under the current social-historical circumstances, therefore I/we oppose denouncing this practice while not condoning the practice itself."
Kelley (under one of her many aliases):
For these women, the enemy was not just rape, prostitution, and porn, but anything that meant men bonded with other men over the subjugation of women. Hence, porn, sex works, rape were The Enemy. To break the cycle through which males bounded specifically around bonding around women's subjugation was to smash the motor of Patriarchy.
[WS:] I do not want to speak for other men, but in the circles that I travel, that does not seem to be the case at all. That is to say, I have not met many men who bond with other men over the subjugation of women. I met *some* men who talk about women as "sex objects" (especially in their absence) - but that usually has nothing to do with women. It is a conventional means of showing sexual prowess, which is generally highly valued by many men and determines the status in a male group. In other words, it is about subjugation of other men, not women.
It is often the case (but not a universal rule, of course) that males who brag to other males about their own prowess and the ability to "have" any woman they want tend to be quite tame if not submissive in actual male-female relationships. It is also often the case that men who are quite shy talking about women with other men, may be quite aggressive in actual male-female relationships as a result of their own fears or inadequacies.
To repeat, *some* men tend to talk about women in a particular way to reaffirm their own status among other men, rather than to keep women subjugated. The "activistists" got, as usually, backwards.
Wojtek