>Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>>So the bottom line is that is hard to look at BDSM as merely individual
>>practices or individual consent without ignoring the broader social context
>>and social inequalities in which this consent occurs and conditions
>>individual consciousness. This is of course not to say that BDSM "causes" or
>>even "contributes" to these conditions and inequalities - it merely
>>re-enacts them in the bedroom.
>
>This is offensive garbage.
No, it makes sense. Though I can see why someone who identifies as an anti-authoritarian but also defends authoritarian sex-games as normal and healthy might be offended by having his attention drawn to it.
However there's not need to take personal offense. The implication of Wojtek's theory is that authoritarian sex-games *are* normal, in the context of an authoritarian society where authoritarian relationships are pervasive.
It seems to me that this theory could be tested. Most people in our society are authoritarian in attitude. If the theory is correct it ought to follow that a large majority of people would be aroused by BDSM sex. That is to say BDSM shouldn't even be kinky or abnormal in the context of a class society, repressed perhaps, but most people should find it stimulating.
Unfortunately I wouldn't know where to start to look for hard data of that kind.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas