The extreme, vilifying characterizations of BDSM fetish are, to say the least, unfortunate, but some amount of conflict is in fact integral to the idea. BDSM is an acronym, but even the terms denoted by the acronym are debated within the BDSM community. The acronym is multifaceted and can be said to refer, variously, to 'bondage and discipline,' 'dominance and submission' and 'sadism and masochism.' Many of these terms overlap, but each term also carries connotations that other terms may deny or from which they attempt to distance themselves.

The clearest example of how problematic the terms can be can be found in the case of 'sadism.' The word is derived from the family name Sade made famous (or infamous) by the Marquis Donatien Alphone Fancois de Sade, a man whose life and legend is intrinsically linked with notions of unrestrained exploration of erotic desires that caused his admirers to hail him as an emblem of freedom and sexual liberation and yet also caused his detractors to censor his work, imprison him and, on several occasions, sentence him to death. In his life he was associated with a long list of complaints of sexual abuse, the center of aristocratic sex scandals and his pornographic writing earned him renown, money and several stints in mental asylums.

Of course, sadism is only a small part of BDSM, but the dynamic between simultaneous widespread fascination with Sade's writings and the massive resistance to the ideas and images expressed in them both historically and well into the present day shed some light onto the similarly divergent responses to BDSM and conceptions of what it actually is. Even without specifically considering the sadistic element, the terms refers to activities and the playing-out of scenes in which participants either concede or take on power to extents that could easily seem inappropriate, especially so in those that are overtly sexual.

What categorically distinguishes BDSM from abuse or violence is that participants must be consenting adults. However, there are many arguments as to whether true consent can exist in scenarios that involve the infliction of physical pain on, or the humiliation of, a person. For example, in some extreme BDSM relationships participants have gone so far as to record contracts that delineate the roles of both master and slave and attempt to demonstrate that both parties have agreed on the definition of their relationship. What is interesting, however, is that there are virtually no instances where these contracts have been considered legally binding. On the contrary, they are legally invalid and even damning because they are deemed to be 'conra bonos mores,' which is to say, 'contrary to good morals.' This is a legal designation that nullifies any contract that would implicitly create an illegal or unethical relationship or situation.

It is this same legal consideration that would prevent someone from legally owning someone who willingly indentured themselves to servitude. Essentially, one does not have the right to concede even ones own basic human rights, however willingly one might do so.

Other arguments against BDSM, while not concerned with legalities, question the validity of consent in a context where someone is acting contrary to their best interests, suggesting that anyone who would want to be humiliated or tortured must not be of sound mind and therefore cannot give consent. Some also argue that BDSM practices necessarily reinforce habitual patterns of sexism and must be condemned because they inherently undermine the rights and dignity of women.

A common misconception about BDSM is that it promotes unhealthy psychological patterns and prompts people to acts of violence or abuse. Interestingly, however, evidence to support such claims is notably absent and what little psychological data exists seems to suggest quite the opposite. There seems to be no correlation between those who enjoy being submissive privately and those who behave submissively in public. It is entirely possible for the CEO of a company to enjoy being dominated in the bedroom. A more interesting and concrete example is a study entitled Sex On Campus by Leland and Brantley (1) which polled participants about their sexual interests and attempted to correlate their attitudes with the groups with which they identify. From homosexual male to heterosexual female, the study found that individuals in all groups reported an interest in BDSM, but the highest instance occurred among homosexual females. This, to some extent, seems to defy the idea that BDSM practices are inherently related to enshrinement of male dominance or traditionally sexist social structures.

Naturally, one study cannot represent the world, nor can the correlation of specific response with an identifiable group speak clearly of the motivation for those responses. Interpretation is required. However, the opponents and proponents of BDSM are also surprisingly diverse. If we return, for a moment, to the case of Sade who is often demonized by feminists, other notable figures such as Simone De Beauvoir find much of value in his writings even when they have much to criticize. De Beauvoir's discussion of Sade can be found in an essay called, 'Must We Burn Sade?' (2). A more contemporary positive feminist treatment of Sade's writing can be fond in Angela Carter's, The Sadeian Woman and the Ideology of Pornography (3).

What is interesting is that BDSM fairly consistently defies the very concept of habitual roles. In Three Contributions to the Theory of Sex, Feud writes the following:

The most striking peculiarity of this perversion lies in the fact that its active and passive forms are regularly encountered together in the same person. He who experiences pleasure by causing pain to others in sexual relations is also able to experience the pain emanating from sexual relations as pleasure. A sadist is simultaneously a masochist [. . .](4).

What is significant about this observation is the idea that sadomasochistic roles are fluid. This confirms the widely held conviction of BDSM practitioners that their play is an attempt to fully explore all aspects of human sexuality and identity.

In this context, when we return to the issue of consent, it becomes a fascinating issue even when considered outside the context of law and human rights. The practice of BDSM, which can involve the playing out of extremely lengthy scenes or even define the long-term living conditions of couples, is maintained as a positive and consensual activity for the participants by the use of a 'safeword.' In many cases this is literally a word, in bondage scenarios where the submissive partner is gagged or speech is otherwise inhibited because of the setup in which the particular fantasy takes place, the 'safeword' can be a gesture or even an eye movement.

Naturally, an irresponsible participant could easily ignore the safeword, at which point the activity would cease to be consensual and would immediately and clearly become illegal and immoral. What is interesting, however, is that in cases where the participants sincerely enjoy the activity and pursue it passionately and repeatedly, something fascinating happens to the power dynamic of the relationship.

On the surface, you have an individual acting out a dominant and potentially aggressive role and treats the submissive partner as a sexual slave who may be bound and restrained. However, this same individual, in order to maintain the fantasy and make it enjoyable enough to be repeated, must have an implicit respect for the defined boundaries of the submissive partner and be willing to, at any time, be stopped by a single word or gesture.

At this point, the psychological power dynamic becomes much more complex. Both participants are playing roles that fulfill compelling desires, but both must also keep the reciprocity and the mutuality of the relationship in the forefront of their mind. Though it may be alien to some, there is clearly a legitimate attraction in what this can teach a couple about their understanding of themselves, each other and the extent and depth of their trust.

BDSM might not be everybody's cup of tea, but is probably true that we all have some tendencies and desires that lean towards it and therefore it is something that we can all benefit from exploring in some way. As Alfred Kinsey famously wrote in Sexual Behavior in the Human Male:

The world is not to be divided into sheep and goats. Not all things are black nor all things white. It is a fundamental of taxonomy that nature rarely deals with discrete categories. Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into separated pigeon-holes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects. The sooner we learn this concerning human sexual behavior, the sooner we shall reach a sound understanding of the realities of sex.(5)

The wealth of contemporary pornography on the subject, the representation of BDSM practices as far back as the Kama Sutra and the very common fascination with all manner of kinky sexual games which are commonplace in our society suggest that we all have something to learn from BDSM about our psychologies, the roles we can play, the duality of those roles and the best and healthiest ways to fulfill our sexual desires.

1. Brantley, Cynthia and Elliott Leland, Sex on Campus. New York: Random House, 1997.

2. Beauvoir, Simone de. Must We Burn Sade? London: Peter Nevill, 1953.

3. Carter, Angela. The Sadeian Woman and the Ideology of Pornography. New York:
Penguin, 2001.

4. Freud, Sigmund. Three Contributions to the Theory of Sex. Trans. Abraham Arden Brill.
New York: Nervous and Mental Disease Publishing Co., 1920. Project Gutenberg 2005. Project Gutenberg. 11 Jun. 2008..

5. Kinsey, Alfred Charles, Wardell B. Pomeroy, and Clyde E. Martin. Sexual Behavior In
The Human Male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1948, page 639.