Uh huh…

Posted: November 12, 2009 in Kink/BDSM

BDSM. For those who make analogies between BDSM and sports, the analogy does not work since in sports violence is merely incidental, and is in fact something to be avoided as much as possible. The pleasure is not in the violence itself, but in the victory, whereas in BDSM the pleasure is in the violence itself. Furthermore, and most importantly, the motive behind sports is a self-elevating and strong motive, one of being better than, and not a debased motive such as to lose one’s existential responsibility in order to be cradled by the person who just benevolently raped you… from here

And see, i do that all the time- compare sports and sex (esp. bdsm/rough sex).  To this comment all I have to say is the following:

This author has obviously never viewed boxing or mixed martial arts, and probably never played sports- at least not full contact ones like, oh, rugby, or boxing, or mixed martial arts…the point, you see, is winning…and if you have to knock your opponant senseless- via violent means- to do that…you do…in fact… that is the goal.   In such sports, there is no victory, no win, without violence. 

Thank you- once again- I win.

  1. Dead_Vladimir says:

    this is Sparta!!!
    actually even the non MMA/Boxing sports have a physicla component. It is th epushing your body to the limit, the working through the pain, even in basketball where you force your way through a foul to get a shot in, or fight and yank a rebound from someone else. Yes the victory is a large part of the fun, but so is the physical component. The finding nad exceeding your limits, and yes the rush sometimes of the clang of limbs and the test of strength, even if you lose.
    And it is not always aggression. Ever notice how two boxers sometimes hug after a fight or football players? it is not just sportsmanship, it is recognizing someone who has gone to the same level you have, stripped down to the bare, and there is a respect in that, soemthing they have shared by brutalizing themselves and each other.
    I don’t know how that translates into BDSm, but it seems the quoted person doesn’t understand sports so I think that alone invalidates their point.

  2. Dead_Vladimir says:

    to clarify, it is not necessarily elevating as sometimes stripping yourself down to some primitive level of will and physicality and there is a level of understandign you have with someone who makes that journey with you , the warrior’s bond if you will, in sports.
    And perhaps there is something similar in BDSM?
    (not my scene so i can’t answer that)

    • Ren says:

      I kind of agree. Okay, I agree a lot. I think the “whys” people are into BDSM or rough sex or hell, sports…are wildly varied though, which is why making these sweeping generalization about any such thing is just damn faulty. I mean, even just working out…something we both like… some people do it solely to look better. some do it to feel better. some do it for the sheer joy of putting in the effort and the sense of accomplishment a sore set of muscles can bring them, some do it as part of training for some other activity/sport…some do it for various combinations of those reasons… “why people work out” – well there is no one simple answer for all people who do it…

      Same goes for so many other things.

  3. (Where did you stumble across that blogger?) I read this person’s introductory post. *Classic* politically left/social conservative combo, of which we’re seeing lot of these days, unfortunately. He or she doesn’t mention Chris Hedges, but they certainly sound a lot like him.

  4. Dead_Vladimir says:

    here’s a telling quote about the blogger:
    “Non-homeless squatters. When homeless people squat out of desperation, I do not condemn it, but I would rather they have housing assigned to them so that they are not driven to squat, than that their squatting be blindly accepted. I am against squatting because it is an invasion into another’s property, and it is a disorganized way for residences to be established, which should be planned in accordance with the general layout of the city. It is never okay for a non-homeless/non-desperate person to squat, or set up ad hoc residences without permission.

    It starts off making sense with the invasion of privacy bit but then they get wierd with the whole disorganzied way for a residence? Who decides? what if you want disorganization, hell that’s where some cities character comes from. The truth of it is, it smacks through and through of typical intellectual elitsim. And of course the anit hedonism. This is the typicla person who beleives they are smarter and superior to peopel who don’t have their same enlightened world view, someone who sees themselves as a modern day heir to a platonic philospher king. They don’t like something, it is wrong, all justification after the fact.

    As I said abouve they don’t necessarily understnad sports, but their interpretation is the only one.

    Ironically I am not a BDSM person or even a real defender of it (mostly because I don’t get it, and would never ever trust another living being that much anyway-people suck inherently), but people like this make me one. Why do people automatically go somethign isn’t for me so it must be horribly wrong,and all you people who do it are sick.

    I will say this, at least they aren’t a moral relativist.

  5. This person clearly doesn’t play sports either.

    I don’t think the majority of people who play sports play it with the objective of winning. yes, winning is the aim of the game and you play to win the game always, but that’s not the pay-off for most people. Hell, in association football on average that means participants get the pay-off only 1/3 of the time! (win, lose or tie the game) Some people lose a lot more than others, too, and yet they keep playing.

    Seems to me that the physical endeavour and contest is an end in itself – the muscle aches, the impact, the resulting endorphins, all part of the pay-off.

    And on the other hand, team sports especially offer comradeship, a sense of strong (and indeed, physical) bonding with both teammates and opponents – and there is testing oneself and one’s abilities. I’ve never believed “it’s not winning, it’s taking part that counts”. But I do believe, “it’s not winning, it’s giving all you’ve got that counts”, and I think that is a real pay-off of sport.

    Masochism is known to have endorphin pay-offs, and physical endeavour is a part of it for both parties. And anyone who’s actually had BDSM sex knows that the pay-offs include intense, physical bonding with one’s partner (who can be seen as both teammate and opponent!) and I know that at least two partners of mine have listed “testing myself and my body’s abilities” as part of the thrill and enjoyment of masochistic play – hell, *I* list those as part of the thrill for me!

    I know from reading posts by our glorious God Emperor of Rome that this is also a thing about rough sex.

    What he calls a debased motive (“lose one’s existential responsibility’) some people would describe as a transcendental motive. And his blithe willingness to pair “benevolent” with “rape” shows this dude has NO experience of sexual assault at all. I am actually really really angry about that phrase, because rape is NEVER, EVER benevolent.

    He doesn’t know sports, he doesn’t know BDSM, he doesn’t know sexual assault – he knows fuck-all about anything.

    • Oops, scanning a couple of other posts over there it seems like it’s a “she” not a “he”. But I think the term “dude” still applies (Dude-sis as opposed to dudebro, perhaps?)

      • Dead_Vladimir says:

        dude has no sex, it is a state of being, a way of life, a spirtual philosophy on how to exist in this randomly cruel world, a “dude” is the adherent to a sublime an ancient philosphy
        and this person is no “dude”
        when a dude says something absurd ..you go “duuuuude”

        this person makes me want to say “what the fuck is your problem”..hence not a dude

        • Ren says:

          right on dude!

        • I think we have fundamentally different conceptions of the word “dude” and its connotations.

          I think this is partly cultural: when I was growing up here in the UK, “dude” was a word used solely to describe people who were arseholes – the type of person who would make me (had I had that level of crude language at that age) want to say “what the fuck is your problem”. And these people used it among themselves as a self-identifier.

          So to me, with my cultural background, if I call someone a “dude” it means I think very little of them.

          I shall make a mental note that it means something different here.

  6. rootietoot says:

    Isn’t the BDSM thing entirely consensual? Like sports…you know what you’re getting into and don’t whine about it? I opine that this individual is entirely free to not play football or indulge in this “debased motive such as to lose one’s existential responsibility in order to be cradled by the person who just benevolently raped you…” she speaks of.

    She reads like someone who’s putting words together in a semi-coherent quasi-intellectual manner to get praise from her 10th grade English teacher.


  7. Ren says:


    “any historical figure?”


    “I’d fight Ghandi.”

    “Good Choice!”

  8. rootietoot says:

    another thing…I don’t know of *anyone* who does any sort of recreational activity solely for the chance of victory, whether it’s running a marathon or letting someone tie them up and smack their ass. At least, I don’t do that. and my opinion’s the only one that counts in my world.

  9. Ren says:

    Sigh…my inner jock/ kinky freak bid me to comment over there on the sports/bdsm thing. We shall see where that goes. I was very polite and everything.

    I truly suspect this woman does not play sports. Maybe I should invite her to a boxing class? And I mean that in a research intellectual way- not a beat down way. I just don’t think someone who has never done a sport like boxing or wrestling or martial arts, or football or rugby is qualified to speak on the place violence holds in such sports.

  10. Ernest Greene says:

    Her comments about BDSM are just laughably off-target and not worth a comment.

    What’s interesting is the mix of supposedly “progressive” political ideas with naked authoritarianism, especially toward the poor.

    And, of course, her flat rejection of hedonism, the opposite of which is a psychological condition called anhedonia, usually associated with chronic depression and very much in tune with the grim, Calvinist roots of the patriarachal society that I assume she rejects.

    If ever there were a finer example of the mutant strain of neo-con feminism that has jacked a goodly chunk of hte whole movement, I haven’t read it … yet.

    • Dead_Vladimir says:

      I don’t read this as neo-con. People forget that any extreme political belief becomes the same. We know better than you, so while our society is “free” and “open” if you don’t come to exactly the same conclusion I do, you must be a mental defective and therefore marginalized.

      Afterall her arguments against the poor /different aren’t moral, they seem more esthetic -whcih frankly is even worse.

    • If you want to see some real left-of-center fail, I just got this in my newsfeed this morning:


      “Once I started thinking about porn, I could see its style and ethos everywhere, from Levi’s Johnston to the S&M of goth to Victoria’s Secret “bombshells” writhing in their underwear on network TV commercials to the bizarre costumes and gyrations on “Dancing With the Stars” to music videos to the tragedy of singer Amy Winehouse’s body to the popularity of vapid celebrities like Paris Hilton and Pamela Anderson. “Fitness clubs offer pole-dancing and strip classes,” Hedges writes. “Porn star Jenna Jameson’s memoir was published by HarperCollins and was a New York Times bestseller for six weeks.”

      Hedges is disgusted with America, and he’s making some good points. In my happily-married experience, most of the guys I know love women and don’t seek to cause pain and experience dominance. But in the United States as a culture? I can see Dick Cheney and George W. Bush’s faces all over this. “

      • Ernest Greene says:

        Man, you’d think they’d get tired of playing the same notes over and over after forty years, as this author pretty much admits to doing.

        Now she tries to slag porn by likening it to the very administration that tried the hardest to enforce the point of view to which she adheres.

        Instead of seeing the obvious overlap between her views and those of a politics she clearly abhors, she tries to make something else she abhors resemble thsoe politics instead.

        And BTW, her numbers, just like Hedges, are completely fanciful.

        What’s happening here is that the adoption of social conservatism by liberals is creating an entirely unexpected momentum toward libertarianism among traditional social liberals like me. Pretty soon, the Democrats, currently enjoying a good smirk at the internal warfare among Republicans, may be smirking out of the other sides of their mouths.

        I’ll tell you right now I’m not interested in supporting any party that would have Chris Hedges and his ilk as members.

        Something similar is already going on in Europe. As the various SDP and Labourite parties drift toward more repressive social policies, center-right parties begin to look like better guarantors of individual liberty. Thus the Tories, written off for dead a few election cycles back in the U.K. much as the Republicans are here at the moment, may very well elect the next P.M.

        By 2012, this country could end up with four significantly large political parties and I may choose to vote for whichever one The Brattleboro Reformer seems least likely to endorse.

        This would be particularly ironic, as when I was a young, radical firebrand of the anti-war movement and The BR was one of the most liberal mainstream papers in the U.S., it carried my syndicated newspaper column along with about 100 other dailies.

        Now they wouldn’t let me deliver that paper and I wouldn’t take a subscription if they gave it to me for free.

        • Ernest:

          Considering that the dominant strain of political libertarianism I see is coming from the Ron Paul school of “conservative libertarianism” that rejects social liberalism entirely as “liberaltarianism” and is mostly dominated by disaffected Palinites and PUMA’s still miffed that Hillary Clinton isn’t President, I’d say that any thought of liberals abandoning core econmic equality beliefs and bolting rightward is….shall I say, premature.

          Of course, they could also go more econiomically leftward and embrace legitimate econimic populism and still maintain social libertarian views…or, at least, I sincerely hope so. 😉

          And let’s not forget that New Labor abandoned its former progressive legacy precisely to become the “center-right” majority..and ditto with the Democrats here.

          Sorry, Ren, for the political hijacking of the thread….I know that this was about BDSM and violence, which I will defer to far more expert folk.


      • Strangely enough, this brand of cultural neoliberal eltitsm (more like right-wing neo-populism dressed in “lefist” drag, is doing more to enable the Right than any fundamentalist ever could…especially in its rejection of the basic concept of actually listening to and acknowledging the desires and hopes of the very working-class and poor folk rather than imposing their own biases onto them or mocking them as “stupid”.

        I’m also fascinated at how Hedges and this writer tend to filter their experiences of the supposed dominance of porn on the broader culture through such signifiers as Victoria’s Secret commercials, Goth fashion, Levi Johnston’s Playgirl spread, and the “vapidity” of Paris Hilton and Pam Anderson (funny, since when Paris publically zinged John McCain’s campaign for using her as a prop against Barack Obama during the ’08 Presidential elections, most of liberal opinion of her wasn’t nearly as harsh). It’s as if it would absolutely soil them to go out and speak to real people who actually buy and consume porn who aren’t necessarily Teabaggers or hysterical right-wingers.

        It’s not just conservatives who need to open their eyes to what they are doing, you know.


  11. Rachel S. says:

    I read the post… I think this person lacks a certain, oh what’s the word… relevance. The whole thing comes off as personal notes related to the beginnings of a process in writing a personal manifesto. Of course, the way she begins the post has nothing to do with what she’s actually talking about (herself), and of course she doesn’t understand what the quote was about because it didn’t make any sense and neither did her analogy of it. I feel like there were a lot better ways for me to have lost the IQ points I had to forfeit reading that drivvle.

  12. Meadester says:

    Dead_Vladimir this person makes me want to say “what the fuck is your problem”..hence not a dude

    LOL! Perfect response!

    I had a debate with her back in May:
    href=http://faithfullyagnostic.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/leftist-critiques-of-bdsm and http://faithfullyagnostic.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/corrections-on-leftist-critiques-of-bdsm/

    This seemed civil at the time, but she has since written this about me:
    I didn’t tell anyone to educate themselves by reading Aristotle. I don’t even like Aristotle. I told one of the commentators to educate herself about virtue ethics, and mentioned Aristotle as one among many virtue ethicists. I also haven’t read the others, but was just providing a list for further research.

    And this person, whom I supposedly mocked, was extremely insulting toward me. My temperance in response to her was just barely broken through by some words that had an angry connotation to them.

    Well, it looks like Snowdrop is not the only one to confuse someone’s gender. Of course, buttersisonlymyname could have easily found out I was a man by looking at my profile linked to my blog, which is linked to my user name there. I don’t know how I was “extremely insulting” toward her but then she appears to have deleted my first comment and her response to it where she first told me to read Aristotle, et. al. Without those comments I can’t be sure what all she’s talking about, though I can see how she might be insulted that I was not awed to the point of melting by her superior intellect or that I did not take her pronouncements as gospel.

    • Orlando C says:

      Ja, I was right there with you. If you missed it, BIOM (who identifies as a woman) said she assumed that you were you female because your posts were “hysterical,” her word. Just FYI.

  13. Dw3t-Hthr says:

    Hm. When I studied tae kwon do, the pleasure was damn sure in the violence. And I was pretty damn good at that part – I studied at a school that did martial arts as an art/dance form, but I could handle sparring with people a belt rank or two above me because I’m a vicious bastard.

    Man, that felt so good. (“Nobody bothers me!” Ren may actually recognise that slogan now I think of it ….)

    Meanwhile, my BDSM has … no particular violence at all.

  14. BSDM… Today’s lesson what does “M” Stand for?

    M…. 1. Masochism. 2. Person who cheers for Jay Cutler.

  15. Erik says:

    I agree with Ren’s post as well as most of the comments above. Here is the response I submitted to butterisonlymyname: “Ren makes good points. Violence can be integral rather than incidental to contact sports. I played lacrosse in both high school and college, and for me and many of my teammates, it was all about the hitting. Victory – not so much. Neither my high school nor college lacrosse programs were winning ones. If you are wondering whether the enjoyment of violence is a perversion of the sport you should know that lacrosse was originated by Native Americans as a war game. Casualties were not uncommon. Thank God we have helmets, pads and composite sticks now, along with rules against the most dangerous forms of contact, but the the primal pleasure of hitting remains. As for the other items on the proscribed list, most are anodyne. I wonder about the inclusion of single parenthood though. Most of us would agree that it is not ideal, but sometimes a mother or father dies or becomes incapacitated. In such cases should we not support the singly-parented family rather than adjudge it ‘non-stable’?”

    • Erik says:

      P.S. butterisonlymyname has withdrawn the anathematization of single-parent families per the following response to me: “Maybe we should support them in that case. But it’s still not ideal.” No mention of the contact sports/BDSM analogy, perhaps because butter is feeling the hit.

  16. […] Uh huh… – Interesting because I don’t understand the BDSM/sports analogy, especially when rough sex is compared to rough sports. So far with what limited BDSM activity I’ve tried, I’m not trying to “Win” anything by any means necessary, we’re both just trying to have fun. But then the only sports I enjoy are bowling & ice skating. I think I need some help figuring this analogy out, from both the “It fits” and “it doesn’t fit” side. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s