Ace of (BDSM) Clubs: Building Asexual Relationships Through BDSM Practice
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Article Sexualities 2015, Vol. 18(5/6) 548–563 Ace of (BDSM) clubs: ! The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: Building asexual sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1363460714550907 relationships through sex.sagepub.com BDSM practice Lorca Jolene Sloan Adler School of Professional Psychology, Chicago, USA Abstract Since the, 1990s, asexuality has gained prominence as an identity adopted by individuals who do not experience sexual attraction. Paradoxically, many asexual individuals form relationships through Bondage and Discipline, Domination and Submission, and Sadism and Masochism (BDSM) – acts conventionally assumed to involve sexual desire and pleasure. I interviewed 15 asexual individuals to illuminate why they participate in interactions where sexual attraction is often expected and expressed. I propose that BDSM helps these practitioners form non-sexual relationships by providing tools for navigating sexual expectations and redefining their behaviors as indicative of affections that do not stem from sexual desire. Keywords Asexuality, BDSM, identity, sex, sexuality I follow Jessie’s jeweled heels up two flights of stairs, past a smoking couple whose upturned lapels frame matching leather collars, and enter Chicago’s foremost BDSM (Bondage and Discipline, Dominance and Submission, Sadism and Masochism) club. For the next hour, Jessie strikes her partner’s shoulders until his flesh blossoms red and purple. Ginny draws pink constellations across her companion’s skin with a pocketknife and Michael sends current through electrodes affixed to his and his partner’s skin until they pulse together like twin hearts. Jessie, Ginny, and Michael perform acts that are common sights in the club, but they are not typical BDSM practitioners. Broadly speaking, BDSM describes consensual interactions in which two or more adults cultivate a power imbalance through physical restraint, emotional vulnerability, role-playing, pain, or other intense Corresponding author: Lorca Jolene Sloan, 6112 North Winthrop Avenue Chicago IL 60660, USA. Email: [email protected] Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on August 14, 2015 Sloan 549 sensations. While a single archetype cannot represent the heterogeneity of BDSM practices and motivations, most literature posits that BDSM practitioners gain sexual satisfaction from their behavior. However, individuals like Jessie, Ginny, and Michael maintain that they do not participate in BDSM for erotic pleasure or sexual companionship. In fact, they declare that they do not experience sexual attraction towards people of any gender. In their own terminology, they are asexual – or ‘‘ace’’ for short. The prospect that asexual individuals form intimate partnerships through BDSM contradicts the dominant interpretation of scholars and activists that BDSM practitioners derive sexual arousal and pleasure from exchanges of pain and control. How can asexual individuals form relationships through the practices of a subculture traditionally associated with sexual expression? How do they manage the possibility that their behavior might be interpreted as a wish to be sexually aroused or take pleasure from anticipating, fantasizing, or having sex? How do they negotiate the sexual desires and expectations of non-asexual partners? Contemporary consideration of asexual identities Most individuals come to identify as asexual through acknowledging and commu- nicating that they do not experience sexual attraction towards individuals of any gender (Bogaert, 2004; Carrigan, 2011; Scherrer, 2008). To elaborate, they never feel a visceral desire to engage in intercourse or any other act with another person in order to experience arousal and/or orgasm. They never feel drawn to another individual or motivated to initiate a relationship based upon the desire for sexual intimacy or satisfaction (Carrigan, 2011; Scherrer, 2008). Asexual individuals’ responses to the prospect of sex range from revulsion to indifference, and it follows from this variability that asexual individuals do not necessarily abstain from sex (Bogaert, 2004; Carrigan, 2011; Scherrer, 2008). Some even enjoy arousal and orgasms, but attest that only objects, situations, or masturbation elicit these feelings (Carrigan, 2011). Their arousal is not caused by nor directed at an indi- vidual. Indeed, three of my informants explain that people are absent, peripheral, or ‘‘faceless’’ in their fantasies. A definition of asexuality that centers on not experiencing sexual attraction subsumes a variety of identities. But a recurring theme in many individuals’ nar- ratives is a struggle to navigate the implications of lack of interest, aversion, or anxiety concerning sexual relationships within a society that expects and privileges sexual desire as a form of intimacy and self-expression (Cerankowski and Milks, 2010; Przybylo, 2011; Scherrer, 2008). Many asexual individuals experience attrac- tion to – sometimes even romantic infatuation with – people they find comforting, inspiring, beautiful, or talented (Carrigan, 2011). But for most, their indifference or aversion to the prospect of sex alienates them within political, medical, religious, and media discourses that expect sexual desire to be a ubiquitous part of adult- hood, if not a vital component of personhood and intimacy (Cerankowski and Milks, 2010; Przybylo, 2011; Scherrer, 2008). Adopting an asexual identity helps Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on August 14, 2015 550 Sexualities 18(5/6) these individuals assert that their relationships are not impeded by or compensating for a lack of sexual desire, but rather stem from viable forms of non-sexual attraction. Many authors have examined asexuality as a response to social pressures to highly value sexual desire and companionship, or at the very least to experience sexual attraction as a profound aspect of adulthood (Cerankowski and Milks, 2010; Przybylo, 2011; Scherrer, 2008). However, little work explores how asexual individuals form relationships through navigating partners’ expectations for sexual attraction, investments in sex, and potentially ambiguous ideas about what behav- iors constitute foreplay or sex. Some authors propose that viable asexual relation- ships require strict demarcations between ‘sexual’ and ‘non-sexual’ sensations and acts (Brotto and Yule, 2011; Haefner, 2011; Prause and Graham, 2007; Scherrer, 2008). But how can asexual individuals construct a sustainable framework for distinguishing sexual from non-sexual behaviors, given that they may define and value sex differently than their partner or mainstream society? I argue that BDSM provides asexual individuals with uniquely effective tools for setting unconven- tional boundaries and reformulating dominant scripts about how sexual desire should manifest and be valued, in effect creating spaces where they can express affections that do not implicate sexual attraction. These tools enable asexual practitioners to create relationships that they experience as non-sexual through behaviors conventionally associated with sexual desire, or even by having sex. It is not my aim to determine why my informants demonstrate non-normative responses to sex and sexual relationships. A variety of factors may inform their disregard or discomfort with sex – two individuals have experienced sexual abuse, and three transgender informants recount that sex possesses a volatile power to destabilize their gender identity. Instead, I intend to illuminate how asexual indi- viduals negotiate expectations to have or desire sex and form relationships that affirm their non-normative boundaries and desires. Scripting sex and sexual desire Authors examining the cultural and historical variance of sexual behaviors theorize that acts, emotions, and relations become sexual not as expressions of an innate impulse, but rather through being ascribed scripted connotations with sex during social activity. Foucault (1990 [1978]) proposes that sexual desires are not intrinsic, invariable phenomena that social conventions repress or restrain. Rather, cultural systems associate sex with behaviors, physiological reactions, emotions, and gender, race, age, and class categories that script a unique interaction characterized by roles and affects that are collectively recognized and individually experienced as ‘‘sexual’’ (Gecas and Libby, 1976; Green, 2008; Simon and Gagnon, 1986). Sexual desire, then, is not a purely instinctual impulse with a definitive object, singular means of fulfillment, or invaluable function in relationships. Rather, its orientation, pleasure, and potential for self-expression emerge as individuals navigate the connotations of certain behaviors through performing social roles Downloaded from sex.sagepub.com at University of Sydney on August 14, 2015 Sloan 551 (Gecas and Libby, 1976; Green, 2008; Foucault, 1990 [1978]; Plummer, 1996; Simon and Gagnon, 1986). Sex-positive rhetoric is a powerful and prominent instrument for contemporary advocacy groups to provide political support and education on behalf of safe sex practices and marginalized sexualities. At its core, sex-positivity is a philosophy that recognizes the potential of behaviors beyond penile-vaginal intercourse and encounters other than heterosexual partnerships to affirm personal sexuality and cause sexual pleasure (Glick, 2000). However, as these parties increasingly incorp- orate sex-positive rhetoric into their dialogues on sexuality, they risk proliferating scripts that privilege sexual expression’s capacity to engender