“Experience over perversion” is part of the
series on BDSM and psychology
Introduction
Is kink normal, is the missionary position
normal, is the way we look at the world normal? You may answer ‘yes’ to all of
these questions or perhaps not, but in a way we all sense that the answers are depending
on your beliefs, your culture or your experience. In this blog we take a closer
look at how BDSM became pathologized in the past and why this is now scientifically
regarded to be a gross mistake.
Sick persons, sick morals, sick methodology
Most of us
will likely not know why the thought that masturbation - instead of being
healthy and normal – was regarded as ‘wrong’, but this seemed rather easy to
answer: it is not something that we abundantly find written down in religious
texts - for as far as I know there is not much on the topic in the Bible. When I
was searching for the reason behind this negative attitude towards masturbation
I crossed an amazing story.
It all
begins at the end of the 19th century in several mental asylums. They
were visited by the German-Austrian psychiatrist Richard, Freiherr von
Krafft-Ebing who noticed that 98% of the mentally ill inmates did masturbate; from
this it he concluded that masturbations either was a symptom or perhaps even
the cause of their illness. Krafft-Ebing also suggested a link between
masturbation and homosexuality.
As
incredible as this story sounds to us now, we can only say that it was a matter
of bad luck that this psychiatrist apparently did not masturbate himself, as
this would have likely had lead him to quite another conclusion about its
healthy and pleasurable effects.
But there
is more misfortune in the air, as this doctor, did not only labelled
masturbation as a disease, but also other sexual behaviour that was not conform
the prudent Victorian moral code, particularly male sadism and masochism.
(Female kinky and fetish behaviour were not included in the survey, as
Krafft-Ebbing regarded woman as sexually passive).
In 1886 his
‘Sexual Psychopathy: A Clinical-Forensic Study’ appeared, containing around 200
case histories of human sexual behaviour and the work soon became the standard with
regard to sexual perversion.
Wikipedia
states that “it became the leading medico–legal textual authority on sexual
pathology” and - while written in an academic style - developed into a “forensic
reference book for psychiatrists, physicians, and judges”. As one of the first scientific
book on sexual pathology and same-sex relationships it attracted a lot of
attentions. Remember that there was not much pornography available and that
people where likely as curious about sex as we are today.
From an
evolutionary point of view, sexuality only functioned for procreation, a view
that was shared by the church doctrines. Therefore any sexual activity outside
of the holy matrimony was regarded as morally flawed, just as recreational sex.
When Freud
connected the several stages of sexual development with our mental health, it
became clear that sexual deviation mainly was due to childhood trauma. And this
and similar theories have been hanging around ever since and caused great harm,
disrespect and rejection towards alternative sexual praxis, often leading to
situations that show resemblance to the witch-hunts.
Problems we meet
Depending
on where you live, your culture may have stringent or looser views on BDSM and
same-sex relationships. Area’s we likely will meet a negative attitude or
actual resistance are:
- Religious
institutions
-
Neighbourhood
- Working
place
- Children
The idea is
that when we are sexually defiant, we are unable or unworthy to participate in
religious rituals, social interactions or raising or working with children.
However, the functioning of kinky and LGBTQ persons in reality, does show that
there seems no reason to suggest that they suffer from a mental disease.
Problems rather by thoughts, as by deeds
Again we
see that theoretical prejudges and abstract values are chosen above life-based
experience: in scientific terms we would call this a delusion in order to avoid
getting on terms with evidence. Whereas for an evaluation of whom we are as a
person, our deeds should be taken into account and not our theories about how
persons should ideally be; as long as we consent, keep our sexual acts private
and respect the public space of others, there is nothing anti-social in what we
do.
Notice that
we are not claiming that others are not entitled to their beliefs; they are,
but so are we. We do not reject, ridicule or forbid the type of sex that the
majority seems to prefer, and neither do we force our views upon them, obliging
them to follow our sexual preferences. Meanwhile we battle wrong convictions
about what it is what we do and enjoy, just like any sensible person would
stand up for the right to be yourself.
Conclusion
Concluding
we can say that it is not by our deeds that we get problems in the above
mentioned areas, then as long as no one knows, everything seems to work fine.
Yet as soon as our deeds are being contrasted with differing opinion with
regard to sexual ethics, we run the risk of being pathologized. As there is no
compelling argumentation for such ethics, we cannot let that happen.
Understanding the mechanisms behind pathologizing us, will help to debunk them
and set us free.
Afterword regarding religious morality
For about
1800 years amongst those confessing to the spiritual values and truths that can
be found in Christianity were many that held slaves. The slaves were used for
work, public and private service as well as for sexual service. Slaves were
commodities without rights and such slavery was nowhere near the consensual,
nurturing and mutually beneficial kind of slavery that we find in BDSM
relationships. Rather it showed the unequal, unjust and exploitive side of
slavery, a way that devalues the slave instead of empowering them. Regrettably,
there was not much theological resistance against the praxis, but eventually
reason prevailed.
Bringing an
end to abusive slavery was of course a humane act and I think an act that is in
accordance with the commandment to love your neighbour. It was a good
development and I wish such developments would also occur with regard to the
sex-negative attitude that we find in many branches of Christianity. Reality
shows that there is nothing wrong with the actual loving of our neighbours,
even when this loving occurs in a sexual context.
The truth
will set us free – Sir Cameron
No comments:
Post a Comment