A review by spacestationtrustfund
A Burst of Light, by Audre Lorde
1.0
Now, there were quite a few genuinely good parts in this collection, but what soured it for me was an included interview titled, "Sadomasochism: Not About Condemnation (An Interview with Audre Lorde)" by Susan Leigh Star. I won't get into the details of everything I disliked about it—the whole thing is available online so everyone can formulate their own judgement—but here's one paragraph that I particularly hated:
At another point in the interview she says, "Sadomasochism is an institutionalized celebration of dominant/subordinate relationships. And it prepares us either to accept subordination or to enforce dominance. Even in play, to affirm that the exertion of power over powerlessness is erotic, is empowering, is to set the emotional and social stage for the continuation of that relationship, politically, socially, and economically." This feels incredibly infantilising. First of all, no, that's not what sadomasochism is. Second of all, no, it does not. Third of all, no, what is erotic within a controlled setting is not automatically going to be carried over into "real life," be that political, social, or economic. "Sadomasochism feeds the belief that domination is inevitable and legitimately enjoyable," says Lorde, someone who does not know what she is talking about. Hers is an uneducated and ill-informed argument. (At another point she asks, "Who profits from lesbians beating each other?" as though the answer weren't self-evident: the lesbians, obviously, because they think it's erotic. Also, not all sadomasochism involves "beating," and the implication that it does is little more than the conflation of BDSM and abuse, which is—and I really didn't think this would have to be said—nothing but damaging to actual victims of actual abuse.) "If it [sadomasochism] were only about personal sexual exchange or private taste, why would it be presented as a political issue?" says Lorde, in what is a shockingly ignorant statement. What the hell? Where did she get that from?! The exact same argument could be, and indeed often is, applied to queer sexuality.
"I ask myself, under close scrutiny, whether I am puritanical about this—and I have asked myself this very carefully—and the answer is no," Lorde says. Respectfully, I have to disagree.
The s/m concept of "vanilla" sex is sex devoid of passion. They are saying that there can be no passion without unequal power. That feels very sad and lonely to me, and destructive. The linkage of passion to dominance/subordination is the prototype of the heterosexual image of male-female relationships, one which justifies pornography. Women are supposed to love being brutalized. This is also the prototypical justification of all relationships of oppression—that the subordinate one who is "different" enjoys the inferior position.I hate to be the kind of person to say "if you don't know what you're talking about, don't talk about it," but... that's really all I have to say. No one is saying that vanilla sex can't be passionate. Not all sadomasochistic activity involves a power imbalance. S&M and D/s are not the same thing, nor are they mutually inclusive. Lorde's assertion that a lesbian couple engaging in sadomasochistic activity would be following the "prototype of the heterosexual image of male-female relationships" is no better than a straight person assuming the butch in a butch/femme relationship is the "man" and the femme is the "woman." And the role of the submissive or subordinate within a BDSM context is not an "inferior" position—that person is actually the one in control of the scene, so the comparison makes absolutely no sense if you actually know how BDSM works.
At another point in the interview she says, "Sadomasochism is an institutionalized celebration of dominant/subordinate relationships. And it prepares us either to accept subordination or to enforce dominance. Even in play, to affirm that the exertion of power over powerlessness is erotic, is empowering, is to set the emotional and social stage for the continuation of that relationship, politically, socially, and economically." This feels incredibly infantilising. First of all, no, that's not what sadomasochism is. Second of all, no, it does not. Third of all, no, what is erotic within a controlled setting is not automatically going to be carried over into "real life," be that political, social, or economic. "Sadomasochism feeds the belief that domination is inevitable and legitimately enjoyable," says Lorde, someone who does not know what she is talking about. Hers is an uneducated and ill-informed argument. (At another point she asks, "Who profits from lesbians beating each other?" as though the answer weren't self-evident: the lesbians, obviously, because they think it's erotic. Also, not all sadomasochism involves "beating," and the implication that it does is little more than the conflation of BDSM and abuse, which is—and I really didn't think this would have to be said—nothing but damaging to actual victims of actual abuse.) "If it [sadomasochism] were only about personal sexual exchange or private taste, why would it be presented as a political issue?" says Lorde, in what is a shockingly ignorant statement. What the hell? Where did she get that from?! The exact same argument could be, and indeed often is, applied to queer sexuality.
"I ask myself, under close scrutiny, whether I am puritanical about this—and I have asked myself this very carefully—and the answer is no," Lorde says. Respectfully, I have to disagree.