What do Anastasia Steele, the Senator’s Wife,
and men who employ female dominatrix, all have in common? Simone de Beauvoir of course! Each of these
figures adheres to de Beauvoir’s theory of the Woman In Love. As a feminist
writing in the 1950’s, Simone de Beauvoir constructed her conception of the
Woman In Love to explain the means by which women are objectified and oppressed
in heterosexual relationships. The
Senator’s Wife assumes this position in the traditional sense of a 1950’s
housewife, while Miss Steele does so by accepting the submissive role in a BDSM
relationship. However, when a man accepts a submissive role by seeking out a
dominatrix, his position constitutes the oppressed Woman In Love as well.
With a little male oppression mixed in, here and
there, one might expect gendered inequality to balance out a little,
Right? So with the prominence of
submissive men in mainstream media on the rise, why hasn’t our society
experienced a modification to the patriarchal status quo? Although men who seek
out submissive roles within BDSM relationships successfully assume de
Beauvoir’s position of the Woman In Love, they do not contribute to modifying
the parameters of gendered inequality. Because BDSM as an institution serves as
a shelter for men who would have otherwise served as inversions of the status
quo, it effectively negates any progression to gender equality these submissive
inclinations may have encouraged.
…
When it
comes to ripping apart existential cowards, Simon de Beauvoir doesn’t mess
around. In her analysis of The Woman In
Love, de Beauvoir mounts a scathing attack upon the women who so frequently
fall victim to this androcentric construct.
De Beauvoir
argues that androcentric conditioning leads women to believe that men are the
ideal. When a woman is a young girl, she is taught that a man is synonymous
with authority. She is taught to view him as the normal, the godly, or even as
the divine. Meanwhile, women are lead to view them selves as the ‘other’. And
they buy it! They accept their position as the deviant, in a society where male
is the accepted ‘norm’. Born into communities where this construct is not only
maintained, but also encouraged, women consent to their role as second-class
citizens.
In an
attempt to align herself with the promoted ideal of her society, The Woman In
Love will cleave to a man. She will attach herself to him in the hopes that his
divinity may transfer to her though her worship of him. In this way, the Woman In Love allows a man
to constitute her entire identity. She cleaves to his transcendence in an
effort to become one with it. For example, the woman who enters a party and
introduces herself by saying, “I’m Governor Patrick’s wife. How lovely to
see this evening. The Governor is so glad you could make it.” This example lives among countless others—the
Dr.’s wife, the pastor’s wife, an entire community of army wives, even the
First Lady for goodness sake! All of these women have one goal in mind: To
become part of their man’s divine being; to pass through social acceptance by
piggybacking on his paragon.
However,
the establishment of a man’s identity as her own, does not stop when a woman
takes on her husband’s name. The Woman
In Love can be seen to espouse her husband’s entire point of view. She will quite literally abandon all her own
opinions, to make room for his. This absolute assumption of perspective
includes the adoption of his hobbies, his political views, his interests—Even
his taste in food or music! Because the
man constitutes her entire identity, The Woman In Love has no interests outside
of her husband’s.
The
Woman In Love does not value herself. Instead, she values her man’s
recognition. If the man states she is beautiful, then she may feel beautiful.
If the man worships her, she may worship herself. However, she may only do so
through his eyes. In this way, his very gaze ascribes her value. Because The Woman In Love’s very being exists
through the man, she feels as if she is literally nothing without this gaze.
This
same male gaze establishes a woman as a sexual being. Because a woman would be
socially debased for her independent enjoyment of her sexuality, she must deny
this aspect of herself to maintain her respectability. She may not derive great
pleasure from sex. She may however, derive pleasure from her husband’s sex. The
Woman In Love may only enjoy her sexuality, through her husband’s enjoyment of
her as his carnal object. By becoming an erotic object, used at the hands of
her husband, the woman separates herself from her own sexual inclinations (and
responsibility for such inclinations), and makes herself a tool for those of
her husband.
De
Beauvoir argues that The Woman In Love accepts this male oppression in an
effort to avoid her own existential responsibility. Because every individual
possesses a radical freedom, one may make her own choices in life. However, if
you are going to make your own choices, you are going to have to be responsible
for them! De Beauvior claims, that this little fact causes the Woman In Love
incessant anxiety. In fact, The Woman In Love dreads this responsibility so
fervently, that she is willing to embrace her own subjugation to escape
it. De Beauvior continues that The Woman
In Love is able to tolerate this androcentrism, because she genuinely prefers
it to the possibility of facing her own imminence. Allowing her identity to be
defined by another is far easier than establishing her own individuality. And
so, The Woman In Love takes the easy road in life- first ascribing to the
authority of her father, and then accepting the transcendence of her husband
(once her father physically transfers her dependence when he “hands her away”
at the alter). She is carried through life as an unaccountable parcel- happily
tucked away beneath his arms. No choices to make, no opinions to define, no
decisions to explain, and certainly, no inclinations to defend. And really,
what could be simpler?
…
While
this chauvinistic construct is less prevalent today than in de Beauvoir’s day
of 1949, The Woman in Love is still alive and well in modern society. The only
difference is, today we call her a very kinky lady. The modern institution of BDSM (bondage,
discipline, sadism, and masochism) offers a comfortable home for our
existential cowards. BDSM is oriented around the eroticization of domination
and submission. But guess who usually submits?
You got it: our Woman In Love.
In an online poll
conducted by AcePolls in 2011, 500 women who regularly engaged in BDSM activities
indicated their top/bottom preferences. An overwhelming 69% of women reported
they highly preferred to be the submissive partner. That’s almost 7 out of 10
women! Mind you, these ladies did not
report which position they assumed most frequently, but which they preferred. Indicating their genuine
attraction to relinquishing their autonomy and serving their man’s needs. So
why is it that women are getting the shaft (pun intended) and then coming back
for more?
The
answer rests in tradition. BDSM arrangements where the female submits, is not a
fetish, or a kink, or a dirty little secret- it is simply custom. Women who
seek out involvement in this institution inadvertently ascribe to de Beauvoir’s
age-old construct of the Woman In Love. These relationships are not foreign or
new, they are merely exaggerations of traditional spousal sex roles. The women, who feel as if they have made an
independent assertion of sexual preference, are no more than the product of
years of androcentric conditioning. Certainly Catherine MacKinnon agrees in her
many appeals against pornography. MacKinnon argues that heterosexuality (an
umbrella term which describes the orientation of pornography, BDSM, and
traditional ‘vanilla’ sex) sexualizes power and inequality. She continues that
heterosexuality is a construct dependent on male domination and female
submission, so much so that anything seen as powerless is feminized and
anything that is perceived as powerful is masculinized. MacKinnon claims that
this construct has taught women to eroticize their weakness, and enjoy their
submission because (as MacKinnon so gracefully puts it) “it beats being
forced”. And thus, heterosexuality can be boiled down to a love of violation; A
love of being objectified, over-powered, and penetrated. And that’s just the vanilla sex!
Sound a bit
over-bearing? Don’t be so quick to disagree—
because recent polls of college-aged women will prove you wrong. In 2009 two
psychologists at North Texas University asked a group of 355 young women if they
had ever “fantasized about being overpowered/forced/raped by a man/woman to
have oral/vaginal/anal sex against your will?”[1] 62% percent of them (that’s 220 young ladies
who identify as having ‘vanilla’ sex lives) reported that they were not only familiar
with these kinds of fantasies, but they experienced them regularly. The psychologists responsible for this report
make a note that even this number is likely to be below the accurate percentage,
because many women feel ashamed or embarrassed to admit their true desires for
erotic violation. These women have been
so absolutely conditioned to enjoy submission, that they feel it is their own
original desire to experience such fantasies. But moving one step further, they
feel as if these sexual desires (programmed into their heads by an chauvinistic
community) are their own abnormal perversions.
Driven by shame, a woman will thus endeavor to keep her desires for
violation secret from all those around her- apart from her man. As a result,
the woman essentially hides her oppression from other women and enables her man
to regularly violate her within their sexual encounters, without question or
consequence.
Monopolizing on
this prominent (although, admittedly messed up) desire amongst modern women is
Miss Anastasia Steel. As the main
character of E L James’s erotic novel, 50
Shades of Grey, Miss Steele likely induced heart palpitations in every
feminist in North America. The book details the love life of a naïve, virgin as
she ventures into the world of BDSM with a ridiculously handsome and wealthy,
older man. Miss Steele’s position within
this new relationship bears an uncanny resemblance to de Beauvoir’s Woman In
Love. While any BDSM relationship where
the female partner submits, can fit comfortably into de Beauvoir’s construct,
Miss Steele and her all-powerful Mr.Grey take her oppression to the next
level.
The eroticization
of power and inequality in Miss Steele’s sex acts are flagrant; She is
blindfolded, tied to objects, bound with ropes, subjected to pain, made to
kneel before her partner, and acted upon as a sex object without any personal
agency. While these activities might
seem nightmarish to an educated feminist like de Beauvoir, what one should find
truly alarming, is the transcendence of these sex roles into the daily lives of
the characters. In the book, Mr. Grey dictates every possible aspect of Miss
Steele’s life. He denies her autonomy by dictating what car she can drive,
which friends she may see, what job to accept (or not accept), and what food to
eat (including how much and how often). He monitors her alcohol consumption,
prohibits her drug use, and provides her medical attention only as he sees fit.
Miss Steele is stripped of her agency, as she may not go anywhere without asking
permission, and is never permitted to travel anywhere alone. However, the most
egregious display of power an inequality comes when Mr. Grey forcibly positions
Miss Steele over his knee, and proceeds to spank her as punishment for her
insubordination of his authority. These daily acts of domination and
degradation do not take place within a sexual context (i.e. the ‘red room’ where
BDSM activities are actualized) however, as if to solidify the eroticization of
Miss Steele’s oppression, she is kept in a near-constant state of arousal during
her daily activities, as Mr. Grey carries her through life as his pretty,
little, carnal object.
Perhaps the most
frightful aspect of the novel is it’s overwhelming popularity amongst modern,
educated, women. Published in 2011, the book sold more than 70 million copies
worldwide. While BDSM relationships oriented around female submission have worked
for years to maintain the Woman In Love, the mainstream break-through of 50 Shades of Grey is now promoting and
idealizing de Beauvoir’s construct of female oppression, on a mass scale. As the next generation of women move into
their sexuality, they are handed this ‘girl porn’, and taught to get turned-on when
a man takes away their power. De Beauvoir would throw up. The overwhelming
popularity of a book that essentially advertises oppression as a penthouse
suite, unlimited cash, and a Greek-God boyfriend, has put us right back where
de Beauvoir started in 1949!
…
…Or has it? Beginning around 2000, heterosexual men begin
popping-up as BDSM submissives in mainstream media outlets. Popular television shows including CSI,
Nip/Tuck, Desperate Housewives, and House, have all featured powerful, female,
characters dominating and inflicting pain upon their male submissives. In each case,
the show features an episode where a very powerful man who, despite having a
‘vanilla’ sex life with his wife, seeks out a female master- or more
appropriately, ‘mistress’- to exercise her supremacy over him. Interestingly, the motivation to acquire such
a relationship is the common denominator between all four men in the above
examples. That motivation is the desire to temporarily displace their
existential responsibility. In a poignant line from Bob Easton, the male
submissive character featured in Nip/Tuck, this desire is explained: “All day long, I’m the one with the control, the
power. Once a week, Mistress Dark Pain takes it all away from me. Sometimes
twice a week during Oscar season. It restores the balance, Ya know?”[2]
This representation of male submission in
mainstream television reflects a growing movement of men who seek out
eroticized female domination, invert the heterosexual status quo, and assume
the position of de Beauvoir’s Woman In Love— all in the name of avoiding their
existential responsibility.
Male submissives in BDSM relationships assume
the Woman In Love position by allowing his partner to define his identity,
viewing his mistress as divine, asking his partner to dictate his value, and by
viewing himself an object belonging to his ‘Domme’ (Domme and Sub are the
colloquial terms used within the BDSM community to identify dominant or
submissive individuals respectively).
In a BDSM relationship, roles, titles, and
names are used to dictate the identity and position of those involved. However,
it is the Domme’s responsibility to choose a name for both herself, and her
submissive. Generally, a Domme will maintain one title and name throughout her
various BDSM relationships. However, the naming of a submissive is undertaken
by the Domme at the beginning of each individual BDSM arrangement and marks a
significant point in the relationship for both partners. The naming of any object
traditionally constitutes ownership (such was true when I named my childhood
hamster, and also, when Adam famously named each biblical animal of the earth) However,
more than just establishing ownership, the female Domme defines her Sub’s
entire identity based on the name she chooses. She names her Sub in
correspondence with how she expects him to behave within the relationship. In
this way, the Domme not only dictates her Sub’s identity and personality, but
she defines the identity of the relationship itself.
The name chosen for a submissive partner generally
indicates the lowliness of the position. They include examples such as, slave,
toy, pet, doll etc. These names seem
inescapably tied to the establishment of the submissive, as an object belonging
his Domme. To further solidify the objectification of the submissive partner,
these names are generally rejected as proper nouns and will not be capitalized
in written correspondences. The male submissive enjoys this, and expresses his
desires to be used as an object for the enjoyment of his Domme. The male
submissive finds erotic pleasure when he is objectified and stripped of his
agency. Sound familiar? That’s probably
because the male submissive strives to become the carnal object of his Domme,
just as fiercely as our dear old, Woman In Love strives to become such for her
husband.
Meanwhile, the Domme’s chosen name establishes
her absolute divinity within the relationship. Not only because she has named
herself, but also due to the title she selects. The most common female Domme
titles seem to be Goddess, Mistress, or Princess. Often these titles are
followed by a personally selected ‘Domme name’. For example, Goddess Athena or
Princess Pain, or anything that the Domme feels reflects her personality.
However, this kind of personal expression is a privilege unavailable to the
Sub. Domme names indicate positions of
authority and are always capitalized. The Domme plays the role of the ideal, or
the norm, while her Sub serves as her ‘other’. Thus, the male submissive aligns himself with
the Woman In Love again by accepting his oppression based on a belief that he
is fundamentally inferior to his partner.
The male submissive finalizes his emulation of
the Woman In Love by allowing his partner to both grant and define his personal
sense of value. As a result, the male
submissive may only value himself to the extent that his Domme values him as
her object. The Domme must give her Sub direct permission to feel any given
emotion before he may do so. The Domme constantly manipulates her Sub’s value
because the male submissive derives erotic enjoyment in his belief that he only
qualifies as a valuable being, because he is a valuable servant to his Domme.
…
But if the Woman In Love has essentially become
synonymous with the man in chains, what does that mean for our heterosexual
status quo? What implications does this
male movement into submissive BDSM roles, hold for the parameters of our
androcentric society? Upon first glace, this tendency appears to be de
Beauvoir’s dream.
These submissive men have effectively rejected
the tradition which raised them- which raised every single one of their
forefathers as well. By refusing to partake in MacKinnon’s understanding of
heterosexuality, these individuals have personally rejected the sexual
objectification their female partners. As a result, they may begin to modify
and balance the status quo to create an environment of greater equality.
Furthermore, if this male tendency as a whole,
was to gain support and develop into an identifiable social phenomenon, its
impact could bring about significant social change. Heterosexual male
solidarity around the issue of erotic male submission, could allow for greater
equality for women during sexual encounters, but more importantly, such
solidarity could transcend this equality to society as a whole and work against
the social oppression of women generally.
Talk about a threat to the misogynistic pigs of
America! Fortunately for the well being
of chauvinism, this solidarity is not the reality. Because these individuals operate as
submissive men only within the
institution of BDSM, any forward movement towards gender equality is
negated. There is no male solidarity for
sexual submission; there is no Harley Davidson biker on a soapbox proclaiming,
“I like it on the bottom!”— there is only
the kinky, and secret world of BDSM relationships.
The dark, private, taboo, ‘kinky’ world of BDSM
allows men to explore their submissive desires while entirely hidden from their
heterosexual society. By engaging with a dominant mistress (who often doubles
as a traditional mistress with whom the man commits infidelity) a man is able
to actualize his submissive fantasies under the protection of the BDSM
institution for a period of time, before returning to his androcentric
community. As a result, a man is able to temporarily avoid the existential
responsibilities of his ‘normal’ life, before resuming his heterosexual role in
a ‘vanilla’ relationship.
What is more, the inclusion of male submission
within the institution of BDSM, positions the men who desire such encounters as
‘kinky’ or perverted. The
Merriam-Webster definition for the word ‘kinky’ is, “bizarre
or unconventional sexual preferences or behavior”. BDSM thereby maintains male
submission as incorrect, or unusual sexual behavior. MacKinnon would be fuming.
But what is to be done about these interloping
submissives? How should feminist philosophers respond to the man who schedules
weekly meetings with Mistress Dark Pain, serves her on his knees for an hour,
and then expects his wife to have dinner on the table when he gets home? Should
his desires still be supported if they only reject female oppression coincidentally? Even de Beauvoir might be stumped on this
one.
In the end, I would urge every philosopher with
a vested interest in gender equality to full-heartedly reject the institution
of BDSM in every aspect of its being. BDSM exists as an institution that
maintains and perpetuates heterosexual society, and thereby, female oppression
and objectification. When the woman
assumes the submissive role in a BDSM encounter, the institution enforces de
Beauvoir’s construct of the Woman In Love.
When the man assumes the submissive role in a BDSM encounter, the
institution still enforces de
Beauvoir’s construct! BDSM shelters the
submissive man’s true desires and hides his submission from society. BDSM
itself therefore, allows a man to experience erotic submission without
disrupting the status quo in any way, thereby protecting and perpetuating a misogynistic
and oppressive society.
Although BDSM has been exposed as merely appearing to progress the goals of
gender equality, one should not look negatively upon submissive males as
individuals. The desires harbored by
such men, genuinely invert the heterosexual status quo. Male submissives should
therefore, be individually supported in their sexual desires and encouraged to
incorporate their submissive inclinations into more traditional relationships. Only when male desires for submission are
removed from the context of BDSM, will they be effective in modifying the
existing conditions of gendered inequality.
While I doubt de Beauvoir would be pleased with
the development of BDSM or the influx of existential cowards in our midst, she
would be pleased to know her fight for gender equality has not been forgotten. The
very application of her dated arguments to modern issues proves this. The
simple awareness of various institutions and media outlets as androcentric,
leads a well-reasoned mind to avoid them, and helps progress de Beauvoir’s
50-year-old struggle. Now all we need to
do is find a way to make The Second Sex
as popular as 50 Shades of Grey!
WORKS CITED
Bivona, J. and
J. Critelli. "The Nature of Women's Rape
Fantasies: An Analysis of Prevalence, Frequency, and Contents," Journal
of Sex Research (2009) 46:33)
De Beauvoir,
Simone. The Woman In Love from The Second Sex 1949
James, EL. 50 Shades of Grey, 2011
MacKinnon,
Catherine. Pornography, Civil Rights, and
Speech from Pornography and Civil Rights: A New Day for Women's Equality
(1988)
Murphy, Ryan. Nip/Tuck
Season 5 Episode 1 Carley Sommers. N.d. Television.
"Your Kink
of Choice." ACEpolls, n.d. Web. 03 May 2013.
No comments:
Post a Comment