Is BDSM reasonable?

‘Is BDSM reasonable?’ is part of the series on BDSM and philosophy

Now that’s a tricky one, isn’t it? Then reason is such a loaded word; praised beyond reason by ruthless people and unreasonably feared by the faint of heart. But, as BDSM is a consensual praxis for the most of us, a closer look at its appeal to reason is not an unreasonable thing to do, and for those who think the topic is a bit obscure; welcome in the world of the obscure, dark, hidden and secret thoughts.

Before loosing ourselves in rampant ideas regarding the status of reason, let us just look at another reasonable praxis and see if we can exchange some powerful insights; let’s try if we can score a hit by taking a closer look at that what have been regarded as the bastion of reason and the true enemy of superstition; science itself.

Reasons for comparing praxis

Normally, Sir Cameron takes the approach of the individualist; using sciences like theology, psychology, sociology and philosophy to shed light on particular questions that have to deal with defending, explaining and justifying that what we do as an genuine and sane activity between people that care and take care.

Perhaps we can say that this method, which is frequently applied in this blog, is one that works a lot with analogies: using images, mechanisms and compliances to transfer the obvious from one environment towards another. The reason for that is that it is important to show that we are entitled to our urges and that we often experience rejection as discriminatory because the argumentation behind the rejection – if any is given – more often as not rests on a view on the world and humanity that has not much to do with how things actually are.

The use of the concept of rationality has a double reason; firstly, if BDSM turns out to be a reasonable praxis because it is exercised by reasonable people, we have earned ourselves a right to speak and to be heard - unless irrational superstitions lead others to decline us our rights – and, secondly, if BDSM turns out to be a reasonable praxis in itself, we can beat those who oppose us because they think that their views on sexuality have a primacy over ours. I am sure we kinks gladly show it to them - oh boy!

In reality, we luckily have a relatively free praxis for BDSM scene play. This is warranted by our constitutional rights and the conviction of many people that we are free to do what we sexually desire, as long as others do not get hurt. This last notion is problematic of course, but sanity and consensuality are two weapons that can be very liberating. And to be liberal, is after all, a sensible thing to do, yes, almost a reasonable thing.

The rationality of the BDSM experience is to be found in the way it functions in praxis. If general ideas on what is to be seen as humane are respected in BDSM praxis, it is only logical that such praxis is accepted, even when people still can have other preferences; acceptance goes both ways. The clue is therefore to figure out what is reasonable. A good start would perhaps be to take a closer look what science itself does tell us.

Reflections on what makes scientific praxis reasonable

One of the most significant considerations when deciding if a particular praxis is a reasonable praxis is to look at its reliability to produce real instead of false convictions. This mechanism to produce empirically verifiable claims is what makes a praxis rationally accessible and to a certain extent also self-supportive.

If we turn our eye to the philosophy of science, we can see how scientific praxis reflects on its own rationality. The perhaps most known and certainly foundational principle is that of objectivity. Science is regarded objective because it is focused at real things. Because of that it also accepts intersubjectivity as tool to come to objective or generally valid theories which can be tested. Objectivity is not just one important opinion or that of a group; it is a goal of its participants. All members of a scientific community carry their own subjectivity with them; together they try to figure out what works and what not.

This aspiration is accompanied by a few other principles or mechanism. One of them we already saw; figuring out what works and what not; this is the requirement of repeatability. The critical nature of science is not absolute, as scientists know they start with subjective persons, often with humorous and crazy persons too and the mad scientist is usually an ingenious one. In order to see if even hilarious claims against all likelihood proof to be probable, scientists test readily and repeatedly. The predictions of a theory must be such that they can empirically be tested, again and again. What we cannot test, we can (scientifically) not know.

Another important mechanism is that of self-correctiveness, which most clearly can be found in the willingness to accept falsification as paramount to scientific testing. To accept that a theory can be - or likely is – wrong, reflects a break with foundationalist theory that required truth as a foundation for scientific knowledge. This is also the heart of the conflict with institutions of faith; science looks for autonomy by applying a principle like self-correction; which is a discipline that religion often neglects and history shows numerous examples of how theologians battled science regarding convictions that today even the most fundamentalist believer no longer holds; so after all, there is hope that humanity is still open for reasonable arguments, we can improve and that feature is utterly characteristic for science too; it is progressive in nature.

Concluding we can say we found a number of treats that govern the rationality of scientific beliefs: objectivity, repeatability, self-correctiveness and progression. Now let us look how these elements can be worked out in BDSM theory.

Elements of reason in BDSM praxis

One of the key elements in defending BDSM as rational is to be found in presenting plausible convincing arguments on the humanity of what we do. Huge aids in this respect are psychological and sexological surveys that provide supportive data. With supportive I mean that such data shows how things (objectively) are. When e.g. 66% of the interviewed men fantasize about having sex with younger persons that are (of course) of age, we simply know that on average two third of the male population of the society where the survey was held actually have such thoughts (that would be a fat 100 million US male citizens). In this light, playing BDSM role play with younger persons in a school uniform is just a way to safely and rationally play out a wish that is so overly present.

Of course, one can argue that some wishes better remain unrealized, or that such play is sinful or wrong or immoral, but the wish itself – it seems – is rather normal and perhaps the denial of being allowed to have this wish, or resisting in having it come to life in a fully legal and consensual way, is the thing what is abnormal, strange or lecturing.

So, surveys, BDSM theory and experiential reports from inside and outside the leather scene can shed light on objective needs. The curiosity wherewith particular needs are investigated, tested out in play and then shared, show a progressive attitude where learning from one another is seen as beneficial, despite the subjectivity of personal experience. The predominance of fixed truths or methods is known to be delusive; discovery is part of our natural kinky curiosity and great fun on top of that.

The delusiveness of trying to label any fetish, kink or urge is – in theory - rejected because of the awareness that we are all very individual as sexual beings. Nevertheless, patterns, role play and rituals form an essential part of BDSM praxis and - as such - confirm that a social codex is still present; just as technique and skills are highly in esteem. Learning what works by experimenting and exchange of knowledge in this regard form ways of improvement of our relationships, scenes and skills.

The fact that we wish to experiment, improve on ourselves and the way that we are perceived by others shows that self-correctiveness is the flip side of consensual kink. A safe, sane and sound context enables us to trust on reliable mechanisms to control what we are doing. This is also an objective need in order to let things work properly.

Just as science is a tool by which we learn about the world we live in, so BDSM is a tool to learn something about ourselves and the people we meet on our way. Good science is rewarding, because it gives us tools to understand, improve and admire.

Similarly, Sir Cameron, as a sadist, from the dungeon of his heart wishes to understand and explore his partners, to improve on them, enrich them, train them, use them, so in order he can admire them even more as the wonderful specimen of kink extraordinary that they represent.

Welcome to the brave new world of rationally practised BDSM and fetish!

Trick or treat?

Sir Cameron