The day after I read Sexual Sanity, Murre woke me up by stroking me. She held my legs in a vice grip between hers, and held my hands over my head as I bucked and writhed, my hips finally lifting clear off the bed in desperation. And then she stopped, pleased with her work, and rolled back over. I made a mischievous pounce at her pubis—tasting her is one of the only things that takes the edge off that sharp frustration—and I was stopped short. I had been sleeping collared, and my collar was connected to the wall by a short lead. I came up short a few inches from her vulva, and gasped in annoyance, my face no doubt a picture of embarrassment and disappointment. Murre laughed and laughed.
And then I got up, made her breakfast, helped her with her medications, and helped her get ready for work. And I stayed home to clean the house, cook her lunch, plan dinner, and squirm with unreleased passion. And in the afternoon I read some kink blogs. All of which is a typical day in the neighborhood around here. I am a housewife, of sorts. I mean, I'm writing this in the laundromat. So in a mechanical sense, my days are a lot like Susie's days.
But this comparison is false, at many levels: Murre and I chose this arrangement, which suits me so well I feel guilty about it. Susie and Bill ostensibly did not choose their arrangement, and certainly don't enjoy it. Moreover, the fact that we could make those choices, that we had a wide range of life options, suggests that we have all kinds of privilege that Susie and Bill didn't. Money, opportunities, education, lack of fundamentalist repression...but most of all, perhaps, in comparison to Susie, I especially have the privilege of being male.
Now, there is a word—a slur, in fact—for people who use their privilege to emulate things other people do out of necessity: slumming. (Academics use the closely related “appropriation.”) In this instance, I am slumming as a housewife, and we are jointly slumming as a 1950s couple, albeit with the gender roles reversed.
Many of the radical-feminist criticisms of BDSM have to do with the notion of slumming, though I've never seen that exact term used. A number of authors (whom I won't cite here, 'cause I got a whole other blog for that) imply or flat-out state that BDSM is a kind of pathology of privilege: people with lots of power emulating abuse victims, slaves, animals, prisoners...and of course housewives. This critique is especially pulled out where submissive men or lesbians are concerned—the submission of straight women is usually explained as bona fide oppression.
Slumming is something I've spent a lot of time thinking about, not so much because I'm kinky, but because I've spent years living...errr...in slums. Or on the street, or in a swamp in the third world, or in other circumstances that are much too sketchy for a Nice White Boy Like Me. My ostensible motivation was absurd romantic wanderlust. I wanted to be free from bosses and teachers and parents; wanted to have the sort of raw, visceral, even traumatic experiences that I was afraid my idyllic childhood had deprived me of. It is as old a recipe as Jack Kerouak and Huckleberry Finn and Lancelot, right? And quintessentially male, at least in that flavor. Not that young women don't seek to test themselves with peril, but they can do so more conveniently: they can find Mr. Wrong. Which is also an ancient recipe.
And so, because I collect critiques of myself, I spent a long time sleeping in church doorways and abandoned buildings, all the while trying to decide if this was some perversion of my bourgeois white privilege (And also my privilege as an intelligent, able-bodied person, US citizen, etc.) After all, Jawbone across the street wasn't sleeping on a heating grate because he had read too much Huckleberry Finn and Le Morte D'Arthur, he was sleeping there because he was black and had no money and no family and he was an alcoholic and a junkie. Weren't my choices, in some way, a kind of existential insult to Jawbone's whole life? And isn't my submission to Murre an insult to Susie's more banal oppression at the hands of her husband and the patriarchy?
Maybe. Probably. In fact, I think this is one of the stronger lines of criticism against BDSM. It is especially strong if it is (only) employed as a silencing tactic. Radical feminists are generally careful to say that they don't object to people slumming as slaves and housewives as long as those people don't talk about it. And that concern seems respectable, though it often is placed as an insincere coda to essays condemning BDSM in any fashion whatsoever. Obviously society can't afford any discussion of sexuality to drown out the voices of actual slaves, abused women, abused men, or even people like Susie, who seem backed into a corner by casual repression.
But.
Back in my abandoned-warehouse-and-boxcar days, I started to doubt that this policy of silence-for-slummers made sense. For a lot of reasons, which....(yawn)....I will return to later on...
