Portrayal of BDSM & S/M in non-erotic literature

Okay, before I start I just want to say that if this turns into internet sniping I will... I don't know what. Scream, probably, or collapse into a corner. Debate is fine, but for the sake of my sanity, could keep it friendly please. Also, if we get trolled (as similar threads have been in the past) can we just ignore it and move on?

All okay with that? Cool.

Basically, I thought I'd share with you something that's been bothering me for a while and see what people have thought about it. Something that has come to my attention is that way BDSM, particularly the S&M aspects, is handled in literature that is not erotica. It's quite a long post, for which I apologise.

Now, as I've said before, I write Gothic fiction, which means that safety, and frequently sanity, is something that none of my characters would touch with a barge pole. It's also very sexual work, and there is a lot of stuff about maschoism and the death drive in there, so I know the danger zones where some readers will say 'that BDSM stuff' when really, it's not, it's about the weirdness in the human psyche that is handled safely through things such as BDSM, or, you know writing. I'm also one of these writers who thinks fiction, especially fantasy, should not really be contrained by 'real life' in the mundane sense; the moralities of fiction need not be the moralities of everyday life, for example. But neither of these are what has been bothering me.

My problem is with straight, or literary fiction - ie, that set in the 'real' world, with 'real' characters and everyday moralities - using any kind of kink as a sort of short-hand for the problems of the character, either moral or mental.

The short hand I've encountered too many writers using seems to be something along these lines:

Any man who gets any kind of sexual pleasure out of beating, binding or humiliating a woman (or other man, and no, it's always physical, there is never anything more psychological here) is invariably some kind of closet abusive power-mad maniac. He is, essentially, bad. Often he is a powerful man, at least within his social circle, and there is often the suggestion that the woman involved is on some level unwilling. Any reciporical behaviour from a partner makes him deeply uncomfortable, suggesting insecurites.

There are rarely any Dommes, although I have spotted one or two who conform to the male description above. Top women tend to be dominatrixes, and are paid either in drugs / political power or actual money for their behaviour. Invariably wild, unbalanced, often addicted or self-delusional they die violent, tragic deaths, or suffer breakdowns. A rare exception to this case is a young, slightly self-deluding woman whose bedroom self is a strict mistress - this type only tends to occur in order for her to encounter, and mortify an older, more vanilla lover in those stories about men having midlife crises getting it on with younger women.

Submissive men are always personally powerful and often rich. Generally paired with the dominatrix type, their whole act of submission (which usually requires a gimp mask) is clearly intended as irony, but also serves to reveal even more deep seated insecurities.

Submissive women, on the other hand, poor things, are almost always victims of abuse whose enjoyment of the behvaiour is questionable, and, anyway, portrayed as some kind of stockholm syndrome. There seems to be a higher acceptance of submissive women, also, because it's assumed it is 'natural' that they behave like that.

The overwhelming message is that this may be fun at first, but it lead to madness, abuse and possible death. The only 'okay' way to get involved is to try it once (at your partner's request, if a man, or if you're a woman, because your friend has told you about it) and then freak out a little and never try it again.

As I'm sure the good people of this forum can tell, this unusual shorthand has absolutely no application to real life. As an eg, one of the Doms I know, when met socially, a humble, considerate and caring person, who always attempts to mend a quarrel. In his personal life, he is compassionate, helpful and non-violent. He has never been in a fight, and is always the first person that people turn to in a crisis. In other words, the total opposite of a power-crazed would-be wifebeater. Yet, because he likes his kink, he is essentially being defamed by too many writers - some of them good writers who should know better - who use his lifestyle choices as a shorthand, and thereby perpetuates the myth of BDSM as a nest of abuse.

That, unsurprisingly, makes me angry. So, what I want to ask is, has anyone else found this? Does anyone know why it occurs, or where it originates? And, also, any non-erotica (or romance) books that don't do this, and have characters having kinks that are never disparaged or undermined in the course of the book, because I've yet to find one that doesn't.

Thanks trudging through the the post. Any takers?

I haven't read any fiction with BDSM elements that wasn't romantic, so I'm not your target for this question. I do, however, have a fairly decent grasp on BDSM in general, so I'll answer the other questions. :)

IMO, these characters that you're having problems with, are probably written from people who don't have a working knowledge of BDSM. They're writing fiction where the emotional and relational aspects of BDSM don't play into the story. It sounds like in the books you're talking about, being non-romance books, need a way to show the character and his/her actions as being bad or wrong, and a casual audience will be shocked at that, unlike a romance or more kink aware audience.

That said, I write BDSM and I make an effort to educate myself, socialise with and represent a wide variety of people, backgrounds and styles of life I can. I think what happens is that someone reads a book with a little kink, they try writing some or they're told how well it sells, and they go for it, without ever researching it or understanding the complex dynamics and variety of people who participate in that lifestyle.

The first book that pops to mind that shoots a lot of these stereotypes in the foot is Natural Law, by Joey W. Hill. It's a Domme book, and the hero/sub is an alpha type, and yet is a sexual submissive. On the flip side, it does have some of the types you said you don't like.

Yes to all counts and as exasperated here.

But... in erotica and romance BDSM rarely fares any better. So I would include those.

There are professionals who are trying to positively influence the writing community about BDSM. I'd suggest looking into Dr Charley F...I can never spell her last name and it's incredibly simple. Dr Charley is a sexologist, radio personality and all round amazing person. She just pub'd a book, BDSM for Writers.

The media portrayal seems unable to view BDSM as a lifestyle that many well-balanced adults have, instead allowing its status as evil boogyman to go unquestioned.

There is a hypocracy going on, because no public figure will come out of the closet (dungeon?) despite statistical likelihood that a large number of politicians, pesonalities, actors, musicians are likely to have these interests.

However, when the Max Mosley/prostitutes thing came up a couple of years ago, there was a surprising amount of sympathy in the media and 'on the street' with the view that he (and indeed anyone) should be free to indulge in whatever kinks he chooses.

As for positive character portrayals in fiction, I'm stumped. Can't think of any.

Out of curiosity, could you please define the difference between a Domme and a Dominatrix?

I'm not an expert, but I've always thought, personally, that a Dominatrix was a woman who considered topping a job,while a Domme was just a female top.
Am I off-base?

I hope that I write them realistically, since I'm in a 24/7 relationship. But nothing I write counts as literature, and I can ee your problem.

I don't know how to explain the terrible handling of SM to you, but if it would please you, I can refer you to or go ask on another forum I mod if anyone has recommendations for literature not like that.

I see your point and it's something that annoy me too. Most of this happen because people aren't making the research necessary about it, most of them think that BDSM, bondade, S/M, D/s and etc are all the same. Beside like it was said most of them read something of this genre and decided to write about it and Hollywood of course has it's part.

I also think the readers are to blame because people will write what they see selling. Once I read a "BDSM" story where the man raped his best friend (yeah right...) and even used a car part for it, I don't remember it but the protagonist was seriously hurt. And then I read some womans/girls saying how they liked that scene and how hot it was and that they wanted for they to end together 0.o I just don't get people.

Terminology.

Dom/Domme - the Dominant in the relationship, always cap the D

Dominatrix - usually, but not always, someone who is paid for their services. Most of the time when I've talked with professional ladies, they say this does not include sex.

sub - the submissive in the relationship, always lowercase the s

Master/slave - these relationships are similar to the D/s, but are on a 24/7 basis and the slave has relienquished their right to safeword out - this is consentual, and I'm talking in broad generalities.

Top/bottom - The top in the relationship/play/scene performs the act on the bottom. Again, a very general definition.

There's a ton of terminology. I forget the website that has a really good list of terms and working definitions. I'll look it up tonight and post a link.

You would be assuming that real life BDSM practitioners are not ridiculed or have their kinks disparaged. Writing often mirrors real life. Not a day goes by that I don't get hate mail or right wing Christians who believe what I do behind closed doors is wrong and/or is a mental illness.

It was only recently that SM was removed from the psychological disorders dictionary. So, from a writer's standpoint who has no first or second hand knowledge of BDSM, it comes off in certain ways. Media also perpetuates a negative view of D/s and SM especially by using the word 'sadist' or its other non-consensual pain infliction.

There are many non-fiction bios and memoirs out there that portray BDSM in a positive light.

I'm online. Everywhere. I have several blogs, am open and quite vocal about who I am (just google my nickname). I run a couple newsletters that have my mailing address on them and I have it on my website too for people to contact me.

Different nations deploy their own interpretations of the World Health Organisation's list of disorders. In many countries cross dressing, fetishises and SM are still classifiable as mental health disorders.

Google 'Revise F65' for more info. It's a not for profit Norwegian based group that campaign for, with some success, the delisting of these sexual preferences internationally.

The sign of a brilliant artist is to take formulas and break them. If you possess the ability to think outside of the box, then do it, and don't discount the entire literary world for being cliched because you've come across a good idea.

By going out of your way to stress your BDSM relationships as non-stereotypical, you are in fact, reinforcing the stereotype.

alysdragon wrote:The overwhelming message is that this may be fun at first, but it lead to madness, abuse and possible death.

This is pretty much identical to the treatment of GLBT people in 1950s-1970s pulp literature--and, as another poster points out, even today. The answer to it: well, pretty much what folks are doing here: (a) write it accurately yourself; (b) speak up, and loudly, when it's done badly.

Not a BDSM practitioner myself, but one of the things that I find admirable is the emphasis on consent. If only people were a little clearer about this in general: e.g. in professional settings I've had to remind alleged professionals about what 'informed consent' means, i.e. that the subject/patient always has the right to opt out, at any time, for any reason. People with PhDs regularly get it wrong, generally for reasons of self-interest.

So "giving up one's right to safe word out"... is a dubious notion, unless you're not really operating in a framework of basic human rights.

The thing that really ticks me off about the way BDSM is handled in contemporary romance is the sloppy conflation of BDSM roles with standard, traditional gender roles, not to mention the even sloppier biological determinism. See Angela Knight's horrid Passionate Ink, in which she claims that all women want to be dominated (in real life) by a so-called alpha male, and that's because biology says so. "Sexual experimentation" with BDSM automatically equates to "submissive woman" (which in her scheme is redundant). [Just as an aside: the pop-culture "evolutionary behaviorism" is far from intellectually respectable among people with real training in biology. Interestingly, or maybe not, those pundits always come down on the side of the current elites and their notion of our place in things.]

Having swept up the real-life blood and broken glass from people believing the stuff in fictional scenarios, I'm also inclining to the inclusion of disclaimers and footnotes. In the spirit of which, thank you to those who included references. I will be checking them out.

Both human reason and storytelling are about the manipulation of symbols. The utility of symbols is that they are shortcuts to thinking. They represent things that are very nuanced, in the same way that subway stations represent a city, or that ports of call represent a nation, which is to say: expediently, but not thoroughly.

So it is with the symbolic representation of what-it-is-that-we-do by the acronym BDSM. People - including writers - use it as the jumping-off point for all manner of moralizing and fantasy, often without any personal experience beyond what they have read on Google and dreamed of at night.

I'll add the same can be said of how a lot of teenage girls write about gay male sex. It is a symbol that expresses something that draws them, even though the reality of it is beyond their grasp.

I find this thread really interesting because one of the novels I'm working on focuses on a young woman trying to come to terms with the fact that she is submissive. It's been a hard book to write because I'm worried that it's completely stereotypical and exactly the sort of book that you hate.

Most of my knowledge of BDSM comes from a fan fiction story I read a few years ago by a Domme. I've also looked up groups online and try to look at forums, but I'm still afraid of messing it up. The talk here has mostly been about how much it bothers people when Dom/mes are portrayed as evil, which I completely understand. It bothers me when I read stuff like that, too.

But is it just as bad to make it seem too much like a vanilla relationship? I personally don't find a lot of pain to be a turn-on, so I wasn't going to write about it in my story - but then does it just sound like the man's bossing his girlfriend around and having kinky sex?

I realize this doesn't quite fit here, but it's related so I figured I would go ahead and ask. There's been a lot of talk about what you don't like to read. What would you like to read about? Thanks!

Curious, how many good writers would chose to write a practical guide to emergencies on an AirBus A380 here? Yet feel okay with creating characters that engage in, practice BDSM? Something I learned many years ago, was to write something I had personal experience with. There are a lot of pretenders out there that use BDSM as an excuse to practice their form of perversion. Certainly I feel that if people truly understood BDSM there would be far more interest in it.

There are evil people in this world, there are cruel people in this world. To me that is not what real BDSM is about. It is NOT what serial killers do.

A guy bossing his, his plaything around? Is that your concept of BDSM? Better to write a story about a woman who has a poor self worth concept and falls pray to a male who takes advantage, of her poor self worth. In my opinion than imply that it is about BDSM.