• I do not think that it is worthwhile getting hung up on “scientific” definitions of culture/subculture/community. There are some serious methodological problems with all of these, particularly as applied to social goupings withing larger social groups. I would instead apply simpler tests, such as: do the members use a special vocabulary and/or communicate in special ways; do the members socialize together separately from the larger society; is the “group” in part defined by forms of ostracism from the larger social group; to what extent do the members’ attitudes and beliefs operate their life, much of the time or just occasionally; do the members view themselves as a separate group from the larger society? If the answers to these are “yes” then I would say that basically the BDSM “community” is a separate culture/subculture/community. I will say that I think it fairly clear that those who practice a 7/24 lifestyle would more clearly fit these criteria than those who are only cyber.

• I think that people who go to scene clubs have a whole different set of expectations from a couple who does some bondage and owns a flogger or two. As you pointed out, gay male submissives might have very different expectations from straight female submissives. There are at least three sets of “scene ettiquette” that I can think of: Full Gorean, non-gorean but gorean-like, and the basic rules for dungeon behavior (and some people ignore them all and act like just-plain-folks). Submissive women in committed relationships who are also feminists have different expectations from those who buy into “The man wears the pants around the house” socioeconomic structures. And so on.Most heavy public players, and books by heavy public players, should tell you how to behave at a public play session. The basic rules are that those people not actively playing should shrink into the woodwork, and the dungeon master is god. Gor is based on a series of 25 books by John Norman set on a planet of that name. There’s a warrior code for the men, and almost all women are presumed to be slaves. All slaves address all free men as “master”; slaves refer to themselves in the third person as “this girl” and generally keep announcing how insignificant they are; and so on. This is popular in cyberspace, where words are the only form of D&S available. What I meant by “gorean-like” was the idea that all submissive women owe deference to all dominant men, including in the form of titles (“Sir”, etc.), capitalization of written names and pronouns (capitalized for doms, lower-case for submissives) and so on. Except for the writing part, it can and often is acted out in real-life too. Certain proponents of these rules assert that they are the “right”, “proper”, “true”, or “appropriate” way to behave. Their history is sometimes traced either to a gay “leathermen” culture of 15-50 years ago, or to a supposedly age-old tradition of (usually secret) European “houses” that has a lot in common with modern vampire fiction.
• To the culture thread, though I do not find sufficient points of similarity to fully acknowledge a membership in a perceived ‘culture’ of BDSMr’s….I will/would like to suggest a development of the concept ‘interest group’. This ‘interest group’ has sufficient special interests to warrant the setting aside of political, social and privacy differences and focusing on the similarities for the promotion of the common good. As with any (so called) sexual subculture/special interest group, the suspension of idealogical differences and concentration on the perceived similarities allows a greater number of divergent persons to join efforts towards a common goal. The gay community is a good example of this, though that unity was decidedly hard won. Having been a card-carrying activist in the 70′s, the dividing line even between the gay male and lesbian population was a very broad one until AIDS made ‘the community’ one entity.Similarly, though I have no desire nor intent to march on Washington or wear declarative little t-shirts (I do have one that says “I’m into S & M” small print….shopping and men), I do have a hearty interest in getting and keeping the varietal governments the hell out of my bedroom and keeping them out. Notwithstanding, I also have a healthy interest in getting them out of my pocketbook too, though the scheme to deprive us of our financial freedom appears to be a much deeper conspiracy. Uniting for the chievement of a common goal may well imply some sort of ‘lobbyist’ focus, but here in the U.S., such may well be required to counteract those right wing religionists that are doing just that, lobbying to legislate our morality/sexual rights.

  The education and socialization of acceptance of sexual and lifestyle orientations can benefit everyone (even the general population – oral sex anyone?) and the commitment amongst the BDSM ‘community/culture/special interests’ to further this effort can have beneficial impact on those of us at the perceived ‘extreme’ of the sexual spectrum.

• There is another take on the word “culture” from the organisation theory arena, whereby culture is defined as the set of: values, myths, norms, conventions, beliefs, ideals, taboos, etc… that are common to a group of people. In that sense I think we are a culture, however diverse and however many subcultures there are within the set.
• I think we all need to be activists, in the way that is appropriate for each of us. This could be from sharing about EPE when the appropriate occasion arises, with one or more people/friends, etc., to an all-out public awareness campaign. I can see problems with a campaign though. The first being putting it together. We are so diverse that, IMO (still not humble after all these years), we could disagree forever on what should be presented and how. Let alone getting the non-EPE public to accept us as diverse.
• First let us define terms. CULTURE according to Random Houses American College Dictionary, is defined (when one leaves out the agricultural, medical, and scientific meanings) as .. A particular state of or stage of civilization, as in the case of certain nation or period: Greek culture .. and .. The sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings, which is transmitted from generation to generation. So the answer is NO, we are not a culture.
• 1. SHOULD there be…Any time someone “shoulds” me my initial response is “fuck you” … like I “should” marry a jewess and not a gentile to prevent assimilation from finishing the job Hitler started, or iI”should” serve in Vietnam cause my country right or wrong … so my age and generation are showing here…but seriously, I think that people have an obligation to be true to their personal and individual callings…and thats about it. Conservative republican blacks like Justice Clarence Thomas have just as much right to distance themselves from the liberal dominated black movement in this country as Jesse Jackson does to lead it. Gays who want to stay in the closet don’t owe ANYONE an explanation … and it is an outrage for others to “out” them by rationalizing that they OWE the gay community their support (the Jodie Foster business comes quickly to mind…now Kevin Spacey is apparently a target too).

  2. IS there….

  Well, it might be more accurate to say that there is a BDSM SUBculture … in fact one of the most interesting sociological phenomena of the proliferation of the info age, and MOST especially the web has been just that … to make people who share common interests, whether it be a rare childhood disease, bdsm or cooking with elephant shit, to get together, exchange ideas, become friends and even get married…in other words, to carve out a subculture from the larger culture we live in.

  So yes, of course there IS some kind of (sub)culture here…people who hang here (in the virtual or real BDSM space) share common language, ideas, beliefs, etc. that are not shared by the larger culture. Generally, the larger culture looks at us with the same anthropolocal wonder (or disgust?) as they would the bushmen of Africa.

  Paradoxically as the world shrinks into a global village it is simultaneously more balkanized (to the chagrin of politicians both republican and democrat in the USA at least) … so that it becomes increasingly difficult to identify constituencies and count on votes. An article in US News about 2 years ago posited that there are now 9 basic sociological groupings in the USA where there used to be two. The last election was decided, at least in part, by the so called soccer moms…a group of suburban woman who typically identify with the republicans … but their OTHER subcultural leanings towards moderate feminism made them reject the republicans because of the anti-abortion message in the republican platform.

  Even subcultures have subcultures … for example, in the republican world there is tremendous tension between the social conservatives who want a bible centered platform, and the yuppie conservatives who reject the concept of legislated private morality, but want a fiscally conservative platform…in the feminist world there has been (at least in the past) great divides over the issue of power exchange … thus the emergence of the very vocal dyke leather subculture…folks like Pat Califa who pushed back hard against some of the puritanical and repressive messages being sent out by certain feminist leaders … Califa (and others) said, essentially, fuck you, I’ll whip anyone I want to and I’m STILL a feminist. That is not a nasty patristic thing to do … it’s my personal kink … and leave it alone.

• If we are to try to segment BDSMers, I don’t think that sexual orientation is where I’d start. Two dimensions that seem much more closely related to the purposes:A. How intensely do you like to play at S&M?

  If it’s just bondage, teasing, and light spankings, I don’t think you have much of a discrimination problem now. Throw in some unarguably SSC floggings and a lot of leather, and you may be viewed about like gays — most folks will agree that you’re probably harmless, but they get a little queasy, and wouldn’t want you as their kids’ third-grade teacher.If you’re into heavy edge play, you’ve got a serious discriminatory problem — it’s hard to write laws that guard against abusers without also prohibiting some sorts of edge play, and not too many vanilla folks see that as a problem.[Of course, YLCSMV -- Your Local Community's Standards May Vary]

  B. How intense is the D&S element of your everyday life?

  If your BDSM is purely confined to the bedroom, you probably have one set of views. If the D&S is about as intense as the prototypical 1950s marriage, you have another set of views and issues. If the inside of your house has a hypergate to Planet Gor, but the outside is in Peoria, you may have severe problems explaining yourself to your neighbors.

  I don’t think any particular sexual orientation, including male-dom-female-submissive, is anything CLOSE to uniform along either of these two dimensions. A possible exception may be female-domme-male-submissive, but I’d bet that’s only the case in the subset that relies on by-the-hour pro-domme arrangements.

• Personally I don’t buy the notion that there was no recognition of the maledom/female submissive community until Powererotics and other web sites came along. On the contrary, I’ve been involved with groups for years that, even though they claimed to be pansexual, were heavily maledom/female submissive oriented. This is, if anything, increasingly true as online services like Prodigy and AOL have de-mystified BDSM. During the nineties, folks who either never dreamt they could find a partner for their secret kinky desires, or even folks who never particularly had such desires have come pouring into the scene. And most of them are traditional folks brought up in traditional sex roles — i.e., men who like dominance and women who like submission.Personally, I hope all the straights who are suddenly “into leather” will not focus exclusively on issues that concern male dominants and female submissives. Indeed, one of the things I’ve always admired most about the leather scene is that despite all the personal and political conflicts that tend to arise, most folks (warning: generalization alert) seem to be more open-minded and tolerant than a similar cross-section vanilla folks who’ve never had their most fundamental ideas about sexuality challenged. It gives me a real sense of joy and pride to go into an SM club and see dominants and submissives, tops and bottoms, gay and straight, male and female and transexuals, black and white, religious and agnostic, even liberal and conversative all united by their passion for erotic power exchange.

  Sure, I can relate most easily to the other heterosexuals who are, like my master and me, are involved in male dominant/female submissive relationships. But I still feel a powerful bond with all those other folks, and I would never want to be a part of a community that deliberately marginalized that rich sense of diversity that is the historical legacy of the leather community.

• Very few people are born into BDSM; so it’s not a culture in the sense that Japanese or French or Quebecois or Southern US culture is a culture. Only house-bound TPEers and a very few others live their lives in BDSM, surrounded only by other BDSMers. That disqualifies it from another valid definition of “culture”.I don’t dispute that there are valid definitions of culture which would put most people on this list in that BDSM group. But I’m less clear on the benefit of making that point to the outside world. It may be that, to use the gay analogy again, discrimination against gays went down in the mainstream world AFTER it was understood that there were reasonably healthy and large true gay communities. But I don’t totally see the cause and effect. And, unless focusing people’s attention on the gay “community” or “culture” indeed was a cause of the greater tolerance, I don’t see what the benefit of making the community/culture claim is?
• There are countless good reasons to do all that we can to see that the BDSM culture gains wider acceptance by the broader culture around it. Some of us are less susceptible to external prejudices and the legal/financial ramifications of taking our lifestyles public — and it is to that extent that those of us who may should seriously consider being more visible to “outsiders.”Where I get a little lost in terms and I hope I am not just being dense, is in what way(s) has the gay community made being gay a lifestyle with less emphasis on the sexual aspects of its culture? I mean, I understand that there is more to a gay relationship than sex; is it being suggested that somehow people at large do not understand that members of the BDSM community have similarly non-sexual aspects to their relationships? To further clarify, I am sure that people still think that gays engage in the less fully accepted sexual practices they always did (i.e. anal, oral, same gender sex). By using certain key euphemisms, does anyone really think we are gonna get the “outsiders” to think we are not engaging in whipping, flogging, dominating, submitting, etc?

  I recently suggested that certain terms in current use among us have exactly the meanings one would assume they have according to a common English dictionary. To attempt to gain greater mainstream understanding by changing our terminology seems kind of small thinking to me — it is a mere symptom of the greater misunderstanding we are up against. We need to consider how to get the message of who we are out by gaining greater presence in the mainstream culture — not just making it sound nice. In fact, I can’t think of any way in which the gay community changed their terminology to suit “outsiders,” but I would be happy to be informed of the things of which I may be ignorant.

  What I see as key to the success of the gay community, and therefore useful to us, is their ability to focus less on the dissimilarities with mainstream culture, and more on what is held in common with the culture at large. To be blunt, they focused less on assfucking and more on marriage/employment rights, less on AIDS as gay problem and more as a human problem, etc. The message to stress, in my view, is: We are like y’all in all the ways that matter to y’all, and different in the ways that matter only to us. That is what the gay community has managed to achieve, by and large, IMHO.

• While it doesn’t offend me to be called a part of this “community”, it certainly is not how I define myself. Do you think that I (or others) have some sort of duty to this community? And what would it be? I certainly don’t view those outside the BDSM community as an enemy. Nor do I have a large stake in having the non-BDSM world understand what bdsm is about. I really don’t care whether others think I’m a pervert, but I tend to keep my private affairs to myself anyway. The professional indignants and the easily offended will always be with us. Now I realize that others may have more at risk than I, related to exposure of private sexual activities. It seems to me that the only real significance in having the outside world “understand” would be related to eliminating the use of force, i.e., laws and regulations that directly impact those who choose to engage in SSC bdsm activities.

First of all: what is a culture? There are of course various definitions, but personally I like to use the one given by anthropologist Ruth Benedict (which is the more or less generally accepted one in the scientific community): “culture is a more or less consistant pattern of thought and action with a characteristic purpose that pervades the forms of behavior and institutions of a society.” Hence, a culture is defined by a set of patterns.

Are “we” a “culture” (as in a religious culture, a national culture for example)? If culture is defined as being that total and all-embracing the answer to that question is NO, unless of course you would argue that BDSM-views and opinions have any specific relevance to and influence on social structures, general behavior patterns or institutions (which I personally consider quite unlikely). However, if you take the definition but ad the words “limited” and “some”, the answer is: yes we are.

The opposite of the above definition btw is true for the BDSM-community: i.e. the world around us (society) has a direct influence on us (general perceptions, legislation, prejudice, political and religous views, to only name a few) and not in the way they have as a general factor in everyone’s life, but directly in (and as a result of) the ideals the community as well as individuals within that community strive(s) and stand(s) for.

There are other methods to find out wether or not BDSM is a culture. One of them is to try and establish if there are concepts, views and behavior patterns within a “group” that seem to be more or less generally accepted and are at the root of the group behavior (chaos-theory).

Bahavior patterns

Thus the question is: are there such concepts, views and behavior patterns?

The answer here – in my view – is yes, there are: there is a more or less generally accepted lingo (that at least is generally recognized), there are concepts (voluntary, imformed consentual, safe and sane for example, negociation for example, safewords for example). We may not be to good at exactly describing them, but there are norms and values: in general the community has a pretty good general idea about what is acceptable behavior in the group and what is not. In the same way there are (again not specifically written down) certain more or less generally accepted ethics.

And next to that there even is a more or less “creative process” based on the group’s ideas (design, clothing, art, photography, writing and more) that usually is recognized as “belonging to or within the group”.

Finally, do we have specific and more or less general behavior patterns? The answer again is yes. Coming out for example, finding information, communication and even some negative ones, like taking things personal and concentrating on personal ideas and interpretations as opposed to more general ones.

So, this method also seems to proof there at least is something indicating a culture, albeit not a very well studied and described one (but then again many cultures are not very well, or not at all described, such as many tribal cultures and the entire Maya culture for example).

Is all this enough to claim “we” are/have a culture. With sufficient modesty to say that we will probably not make a difference in changing the world’s general ethics my answer to that question is yes.

Are we a sub-culture? A sub-culture is a derivate from something else. Personally I can not see where we are a derivate of something else, so no, I wouldn’t say we are a sub-culture. And this is where I think we first meet some arguments of the “outside world” that tries to narrow BDSM down to a form of sexual behavior (and to many preferably a sexual deviation). Why would the outside world do that? The answer in my mind is obvious: fear. Sexuality in many (especially Western) societies is something that has always been looked at with double standards. Religions for example (and they have a traditionally strong influence on sexual behavior) have a very double standard here. On one end for example they praise the phenomena of life and giving birth, while at the same time they will condemn women the moment they show physical signs of their ability to give life (like menstruation, pregnancy and such) and call them impure. They will endorse big families with many children but at the same time condemn the act that is at the very root of reproduction.

Fear on one end and narrow minded political views about controlling people’s lives on the other are what brings about this element of fear and hence the wellknown rethorical trick of creating a “common enemy” (the evil). “We” are “an evil” in that sense and this evil is described in very simple, one dimensional straight forward terms that usually have little to do with the truth. Which is only one reason to stay away from a purely sexual/psychological approach and try to put things in a somewhat broader perspective.

What is this culture made of?

So, if we are a culture, what is that culture made off? That is where it becomes very hard. There is little research to rely on or find answers in and unfortunately any debate about trying to describe the culture will almost automatically turn into a debate about personal preferences. The reasons for this happening are actually quite simple. Most of “us” live in a very narrow, closed environment when it comes to BDSM (which is not a negative connotation but merely an observation and in itself a direct result of the general social stymatism and prejudice) and as a result many people only have their personal ideas and feelings to go by, while on the other hand the subject itself directly hits home with almost all of us and brings out – understandible – fierce and intense emotions.

The Internet – even though a blessing in some ways – is not exactly helpfull either, since the “net-community” seems to go through exactly the same growing pains the “real life community” (at least in Europe) has gone through some 15 to 20 years ago. Hence, for the moment on the Internet history is only repeating itself, which is not bad as such, since it helps the vast numbers of newcomers, but is of little or no help when it comes to try and debate, research more abstract issues like this one.

Different cultures

As for example Weinberg and Falk (“Studies in Sadomasochism”, 1983) conclude, there is very little methodical and theoretical research from the sociological field available when it comes to BDSM. If any work has been done in this area, most of that is journalistic research and not scientific. Still, one fact is generally accepted in the scientific field (and in other areas): there are huge differences between the gay/lesbian and heterosexual BDSM-cultures.

Coming out (which to gay/lesbians is a “second coming out”) for one thing is totally different, primeraly because coming out as a concept is alien to the hetero-sexual world since it has never been a real issue. Hence there is little experience with the phenomena and whereas especially coming out is recognized as probably the most important stage in the life of a homosexual (and treated and respected as such), in the heterosexual world it is predominantly still ignored or undervalued.

Other main differences are in the social behavior patterns. Especially gay men – within their community – are not only more open to different forms of sexuality, it is also very common to act out preferences in a more or less public environment such as gay bars and meeting places. Try acting out your heterosexual BDSM preferences in a public bar or in the local community center and you’ll have huge problems for example.

Also, there is a much more integrated process of accepting different preferences within the gay/lesbian community and hence there is a lot more openess and willingness to investigate, wether for personal use or just for better understanding. So yes, there ARE at least two different BDSM-cultures with their own patterns, behavior and general dynamics.

Different cultures within the community

Are there different cultures within hetero BDSM? I tend to think there are at least two: Maledom/femsub and Femdom/malesub. First of all, of course they have a lot in common. Probably eighty to ninety percent of their basic cultural patterns are exactly the same (albeit maybe slightly different in their format and presentation). However, there are a few basic differences that in my opinion make them different (mind you, I am not advocating one is better than the other, just different). So where are these differences?

First of all there is a difference in social acceptance. For example, the more or less general assumption is that men can take better care of themselves when it comes to security risks. Hence, a submissive male is generally seen as “less vulnerable” when compared to female submissives. To a certain extent that is true. Male sexuality for example in general is more open and men are much more used to share their sexual experiences and thoughts with others than woman. Men are – more than women and again generally speaking – more used to things like masturbating, exploring their sex organ and the sex organs of others and are more likely to talk about this to others and experiment. Hence they have an advantage when it comes to taking risks and coping with vulnerability. This by the way should not be taken as a statement that the male submissive actually is or feels less vulnerable, because this is probably not true.

Another main difference is in the difference in sexual experience. The male experience simply is a more physical one, whereas the female experience is much more mental. This brings about differences in attitude, play forms, safety issues and interaction as well as a couple of cultural differences such as the fact that female submissives are much more receptive – and have a different attitude towards – fantasy.

Female submissives have other cultural differences, such as the conflict of roles (mother, carreer person, central function in the household/relationship and submissive) which is much more dominant to them then it is to male submissives (and usually much more of a problem). And to many there is the female (social) masochism and role-stereotyping in general (that is not good, but still very much “there”). Btw: here a nice example of similarities as well since this is something the lesbian world also has substantial problems with.

Male dominants – as opposed to their female counterparts – also have many differences, such as their own role conflicts (men aren’t supposed to beat women and are brought up that way – in many cultures men still aren’t supposed to show their softer sides, hence many have never learned how to do that). And, simply because the subs are different, the dominants are different.

There probably is a long list of other differences, one that should for example be considered is the fact that as a result of the widespread commercialisation of the Femdom world, it is a lot easier for male subs to at least find a format to live out their fantasies than it is for female subs.

Is it functional to recognize such differences? I think it is. Not in an effort to conveniantly cut up the cake in very tiny pieces in order to find sufficent similarities to determine one specific group, but in an effort to try and identify the differences and address them. Like brothers and sisters are part of the same family, they have their own specifics wants, needs, dynamics and interactions and understanding each other better starts with identifying and understanding the specifics of the other, identifying where differences and where similarities are. Just as it often is very counterproductive to address certain problems by only using either male or female logic (ultimately the combination of both is what usually produces result) it is not very productive to try and push everyone “into the same corset” when it comes to defining cultures. Understanding that there are similarities AND differences is what will eventually establish a better understanding of the entire group.

General significance

Finally, does all this have a relevance when it comes to educating and informing the outside world? Again my opinion here is a positive one. Why? Because the outside world is constantly mixing up different aspects of the different cultures, which does not help the debate nor the education. For example, whenever I am asked to participate in a television program, talkshow, do an interview or whatever on BDSM my first question for the journalist/producer will be “what BDSM?” That usually – apart from it being a very effective way to delay the entire production for a considerable period – leads to a fundamental discussion during the production phase about what the show/interview/documentary is supposed to achieve. That will automatically – usually – lead to a better understanding by the journalist(s)/producer(s) involved and will improve the quality of the end product as well as well the quality of future products by the same producer/journalist. I will do exactly the same when preparing a presentation in any other format and – for example when it comes to informing law enforcement people – one simply has to identify and explain the different cultures because the officier involved will have to be able to judge individual situations in real life and a gay scene is something that is usually totally different from a hetero scene in the first place (not to mention the cases where a male is in fact an abuse victim).

Bottom line: if we want to inform and educte others (which is I think what most of us – latent or not – want or would like to see happen) the first question to ask is: what do we want to inform and educate them about?

By Hans Meijer