Sex is generally a taboo topic in American society, and sexually "deviant" behaviors, such as BDSM, are even less acceptable in casual conversation. Feminist circles allow us to talk about sexual topics with other open-minded individuals. However, it is important to remember there are several different schools of feminist thought, and "sex-positive" is not an element that is applicable across the board. Many mainstream feminists will first say feminism is about choice: the choice to do what we please with our bodies. Other feminists, mainly within the radical feminist ideology, will say that non-conventional sex and sexual acts are actually harmful to women in the sense that women have been socialized to enjoy submission. These concepts, alongside many others, are still perfectly capable of being analyzed and debated. As long as "the personal is the political" remains the truth, let's set the record straight on one thing in particular:
Women are "socialized" into enjoying what they do.
While this claim is false, it is not without decent foundations. Like any feminist, I'm down to analyze patriarchal structures and how they affect our day-to-day lives, but I'm not down to police anyone's choices. When radical feminists insist the primary reason a woman may enjoy BDSM is the result of socialization of young girls and internalized misogyny, they are directly undermining a woman's ability to be aware of the societal structures outside of the bedroom; basically saying they aren't intelligent enough to understand their desires and where they come from.
While it is true there is a history of oppression and women being forced into submissive roles, what goes on in the bedroom is simply fantasy. In an interview for Jezebel, long-time feminist writer Jessica Wakeman says, "The bedroom is a special place to ask out fantasies, not to adhere to political correctness." She states, "I'm not a little girl who needs other people to tell me what's best for me." It is demeaning and hypocritical for other feminists to say what a woman can and cannot engage in.
"Safe, sane, and consensual," is how the saying goes. Dominant/submissive relationships require a great amount of trust and communication between two (or more) partners. Many couples have a safe word, and when that it's used, all activity ceases. Some feminists have even argued that this makes them feel empowered and safe, and that the submissives are truly in control because they can stop the activity at any time.
This argument is further flawed when examined from a non-straight perspective. We all know at least one man who adores the idea of a female dominatrix. The women who dominate men are seen as "sexy" and "powerful." Queer people are and have been widely involved in the BDSM community, as it is diverse in many demographics. Asexual people also engage in these types of relationships, thus disproving the idea that BDSM is only about sex. Would a woman dominating another woman be considered anti-feminist? This issue is being exclusively looked at from a cisgender, heterosexual perspective.
While authors like Jocelyn Borycszka have addressed this by explaining those participants are just reenacting "the very masculine power dynamics used to perpetuate women's oppression," I have yet to hear the question answered fully. This statement is contradictory as women cannot oppress other women on the basis of gender alone. Perhaps they can harbor internalized misogyny, but not perpetuate their oppression by engaging in something non-conventional behind closed doors. These half-hearted arguments erase queer people from the equation, which sounds just like something the people we are against would say.
The concern for the safety of women in the bedroom does not go unappreciated, but has become frankly annoying. In a day and age where we actively denounce people who say women only wear makeup or dress up for men, why are people still debating what a woman can do? The assumption that women cannot be both simultaneously feminist and kinky not only ignores a plethora of outspoken kinky feminists and their experiences, but it actively denies women the bodily autonomy our ancestors pushed so hard for. Kinky feminists are simply taking advantage of the freedom that now exists.
If anything is not feminist, it's radical feminist ideology about BDSM. Concerning yourself with someone else's sex life, policing people's desires, and assuming women cannot be responsible with their own agency are what's actually influenced by patriarchal ideals. Sexual empowerment is something all women deserve, even if the road to that is something not everyone would enjoy. A sex-positive stance is the only one "radical" enough to break away from toxic bodily-policing concepts.
