by Liz Highleyman
This article appeared in the June 1998 issue of Sojourner: The Women's Forum.
In 1980, the National Organization for Women (NOW) approved the "Delineation of Lesbian Rights," a resolution that condemned sadomasochism (S/M) as "an issue of exploitation and violence, not affectional/sexual preference/orientation."
Nearly two decades later, a group of NOW members calling themselves the S/M Policy Reform Project has initiated an effort to reconsider the anti-S/M policy, asserting that it is a core feminist principle that women should be able to make their own decisions about their sexual desires and practices. Reform proponents contend that safe, sane, and consensual S/M is not violence, nor is it detrimental to the mental or physical well-being of women.
The New York City chapter of NOW held an educational forum on the isse last November, and project organizers hope that other local chapters will follow suit. An informational flyer was distributed at the NOW national convention last July, and members throughout the U.S. have jumped on the bandwagon. Over 150 statements of support have been received from feminist writers, anti-violence advocates, and medical and mental health professionals.
Project organizers have written a S/M Policy Reform Statement which concludes that "the National Organization for Women shall not oppose the rights of adults to engage in any safe, sane, and consensual sexual expression they so choose, including S/M." They plan to present the statement to NOW's Presidents Council and to conduct educational presentations at the national NOW conference in Rochester, NY this July. The ultimate goal is to present the statement as a resolution at a future national convention.
S/M is an umbrella term for a variety of practices including dominance and submission, bondage and discipline, and fetishism. Some people who practice S/M are primarily interested in dominant/submissive roles, while others are attracted to strong sensory stimulation and the resulting endorphin rush which causes pain to be felt as pleasure. Communication and negotiation are important aspects of S/M, and most practitioners use "safe words" that allow participants to stop the action at any time. The philosophy of "safe, sane, and consensual" has been widely adopted by the S/M community, and it is these features that distinguish S/M from rape, abuse, and non-consensual violence.
The issue of S/M has been one of the most divisive in feminist history. Perhaps the opening salvo in the debate was Ti-Grace Atkison's talk, "Why I'm Against SM Liberation," given at a meeting of the New York S/M group The Eulenspiegel Society in 1975. A return shot entitled "Cathexis" was delivered by Barbara Lipschutz in 1976. Much of the radical or cultural feminist opposition to S/M was based on the idea that men and women had separate sexual natures, and S/M was identified as male. Many cultural feminists also opposed pornography, butch/femme roles, penetration, and other so-called "patriarchal" sex practices. Lesbian feminists drew the boundaries of what it meant to be a woman-loving woman ever more narrowly in an effort to build a safe community insulated from the violent, male-dominated world beyond.
Many cultural feminists did not place much stock in the idea of consent. They believed that gender-based power imbalances were so entrenched that it was not possible for a woman to freely give true, informed consent. Catharine McKinnon stated that women's desire for erotic submission was "an unconscious reflection of their own oppression." Women's personal positive experiences with SM were often discounted. Kathleen Barry went so far as to claim that "to find pleasure in S/M is to betray one's female soul."
It seems that times have changed. While there are still feminists who oppose S/M, a more pluralistic philosophy that accepts a wider range of sexual choices has become the feminist norm. The sex wars largely burnt themselves out because little dialogue was possible and the two sides either went their separate ways or "agreed to disagree." Compared to the vociferous denunciations -- and even threats and physical violence -- faced by women who practiced or spoke in favor of S/M in the late 1970s and early 1980s (as described by Joan Nestle, Amber Hollibaugh, Gayle Rubin, and others), it is relatively uncommon today to hear open criticism of S/M from feminist and lesbian activists. However, women who do S/M still face discrimination within the women's community. A 1994 survey by the Philadelphia women's S/M group Female Trouble found that over a third of the 500 lesbians polled had been attacked by other lesbians because of their S/M orientation.
According to NOW S/M Policy Reform Project coordinator Susan Wright, "it appears that those who passed the [1980] resolution were assuming a consensus which was premature...That resolution was passed almost two decades ago, and NOW's current policy doesn't reflect the reality of how much the discussion on sexuality has expanded."
The "Delineation of Lesbian Rights" came at a time of turmoil within the feminist and gay liberation movements. By 1980, many lesbians had come to feel that they were not fully welcomed or supported by either heterosexual feminists or gay men. The ideologies and goals of gay men and feminists came increasingly into conflict, especially with regard to the gay male focus on sex at a time when many gay men saw unbridled sexual activity as a key to and a marker of their political liberation.
Gay male S/M was vilified by some cultural feminists as the epitome of the inherent male eroticization of violence. Robin Morgan described lesbian S/M as "a lesbian copy of a faggot imitation of patriarchal backlash against feminism." Some lesbian feminists believed that under the guise of supporting gay and lesbian liberation they were being pressured to throw their support behind a variety of sexual issues they saw as unrelated to sexual orientation. The 1980 resolution set forth three areas which NOW believed to be true lesbian rights issues: legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, repeal of laws that criminalize sexual activity between consenting adults in private, and support for custody and adoption rights for lesbian mothers.
In contrast, pederasty, pornography, and S/M were all defined as issues of "exploitation and violence," while public sex was defined as a "violation of privacy rights of non-participants" -- all "by their very nature anti-feminist." Regarding S/M, the concept paper accompanying the resolution had this to say: "Sadomasochists seek to legitimize and provide a premeditated structure for violence. NOW opposes any repressive legislation concerning private consensual sexual activity between adults. Nevertheless, NOW opposes institutionalized violence as well as social structures which encourage or advocate the use of physical and psychological violence or domination among individuals. This opposition to violence precludes support or advocacy of sadomasochism as a feminist issue."
Although the ostensible purpose of the 1980 resolution was to delineate which issues legitimately fell under the purview of lesbian rights, many women believe that the resolution and the concept paper go beyond disengagement and cross the line into active condemnation.
The organizers of the S/M Policy Reform Project and various supporters have pointed out the contradiction in the fact that the concept paper claims to "affirm each woman's right to control her own body" and "affirm each woman's right to the actualization of her sexuality," while at the same time casting disapproval on certain manifestations of women's sexuality. According to project organizers, "the S/M issue strikes to the heart of self-determination and the rights of women to chose for themselves -- clearly the most fundamental concerns of feminism."
S/M Reform Policy Project activists have gone to great lengths to emphasize the difference between consensual S/M and non-consensual violence. In fact, they charge that NOW's opposition to S/M confuses the issue and diverts attention away from real problems such as domestic violence. "What we ask is that NOW stop labeling S/M as violence, stop opposing S/M as a choice of sexual expression, and step forward in a responsible way to help clarify the issues surrounding consent and abuse," said Wright.
Reform proponents have also sought to show that S/M is not psychologically unhealthy, and have garnered statements of support from mental health professionals. Therapist and sex educator William A. Henkin, PhD, stated that "consensual sadomasochism offers its adherents an opportunity to explore paraphilic urges and fantasies, not in a dangerous or debilitating fashion, but in a safe and supportive manner." According to Charles Moser, PhD, MD, "There is no credible evidence that S/M practitioners have any more problems or issues than other sexual orientations. There is no data to suggest that S/M leads to violence. All research so far indicates that S/M practitioners are indistinguishable from individuals with other sexual orientations except by their sexual behavior." While previous issues of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual -- the bible of the psychiatric profession -- listed sadism and masochism as diagnosable disorders, the new edition states that to be considered a disorder, sadomasochistic desires must cause significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
There does not seem to be a groundswell of opposition to the S/M Policy Reform effort by those who supported the 1980 resolution. Bob Bannon of the New York State Task Force Against Pornography attended New York NOW's educational forum last November but, after hearing the statements of reform proponents, declined to offer opposing testimony. Out of 40 people attending the forum, only 3 spoke against the reform effort. NOW's national press office told Sojourner that the S/M Policy Reform Project was not an official NOW project, and that NOW did not have an official position on the effort. Acting Lesbian Rights Program Coordinator Barbara Haze did not respond to Sojourner's requests for comments.
A statement of support from S/M activist and Circlet Press publisher Cecilia Tan sums up the philosophy of the S/M Policy Reform Project: "S/M is about fantasy and about engaging the imagination. To deny women their fantasies, to condemn them, is the most damaging act of all. My cause is for women to be free to live and love as they choose, not controlled or defined by a male-dominated society, and likewise not controlled or defined by misunderstanding, ignorance, or political correctness. For NOW to specifically define S/M as violence and to condemn its practice by consenting, mature women is counter to everything I would hope for from feminism and our continuing struggle for equality."
NOW S/M Policy Reform Project can be contacted in care of Susan Wright, 381 Manhattan Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11211. E-mail NOWSM@aol.com. Website at http://members.aol.com/NOWSM/Home.html.
The following books provide background on the feminist debates surrounding S/M, and are the source of the historical quotes in this article:
Linden, Robin et al (editors). Against Sadomasochism: A Radical Feminist Analysis. Frog in the Well Press, San Francisco, 1982.
Samois (editors). Coming to Power. Alyson Publications, Boston. 1981, 1987.