Monday, 6 June 2016

BDSM is for the Petit Bourgeoises




This is not really mine, but it is a valid observation.

I found it in an interview with Fulvio Brumatti, once upon a time director of the BDSM side of Edizioni Moderne, maybe the only diffuser of sensible BDSM material that Italy had in the '80-90s and, as such, a good observer of the "scene" back in my home country.

Incidentally, I almost ended up drawing stuff for his magazines, back in the days.

It didn't work out, mostly, because I was dumb as fuck.  Was? I meant, I am... I have not really improved.

BDSM is stuff principally done by the petite bourgeoisie - what in the U.S. is usually called "the middle class".

It doesn't take much to understand why.

Toward the bottom, the limit is given by the fact that BDSM is usually more expensive than purely vanilla sex. Most "toys" cost their share,and it also needs some dedicated space (even just a closet, but one where your co-leasers do not look! - or a ton and a half of Chutzpah).

Even if one build its own gears and dungeon, that just changes the type of resources needed, from purely economical, to space and time that can be set apart, and to having a certain degree of craftsmanship.

Essentially, to the resources and abilities required to do artisan work.

And, again - as every plumber can tell you - a good artisan is never a proletarian for long.

(Unless the "art" part of the craft lures it in temptation, in which case it can go from lumpenproletariat to Picasso.)

On the other side of the social spectrum, the BDSM scene is still considered too risky.

Nobody cares if I draw my stuff and I call a BDSM encounter each month, in some Café - because I am a nobody, and there is no prospect of me ever becoming anybody (after this confession, I am going to get drunk, tonight).

And If I ever become a household name, being a half-crazy sexual pervert would be an integral part of it (a bit like it was, not a long time ago, for  Madonna Luisa Veroncia Ciccone).

Telling the world that I am into this would be no news, nor blackmail material - it would be just the statement of a fact.


But if I was, say, a member if the Kennedy family? Or someone of a comparable wealth?

In the café with us kinksters, there would be a journalist and by the end of the day a piece would appear in a newspaper, a magazine or a blog (or wherever) about the fact that "X is a dangerous Sadistic Maniac".

If I was of sub persuasion, it would be a "Ridiculous Masochist Pervert" . 

Both ways, I would face scrutiny and mocking.

If I was someone  a bit lower on the totem pole, instead of a journalist I'd probably find a wannabe blackmailer.

Which brings me to another reason why BDSM is, really, something for the middle class.


SSC [Safe, Sane and Consensual], a part of it being an ideal (if one considers all factors,  literally everything entails some risk, from crawling out of the bed in the morning onward - of course, staying in the bed is going to provoke health issues) and not really enough (to cover from legal troubles, in almost every country on the planet), it really is based on a "gain matrix" that is influenced by the social strata one is in. 

One that - ignoring the moral aspects - is favourable to SSC only in the middle range.

For the classic "middle class", the legal troubles of being Which woof something like a sexual aggression are a deterrent of some weight, and avoiding them would keep life relatively stress-free.

For a hooligan that spends his time defending himself from work-related assault charges - and sometimes lands in jail because of those - it does not exactly look as a great preoccupation - same old, same old, as they say.

For a member of the top 1/10000th (by wealth), it is simpler (and, in reality, maybe even cheaper) to have his - or her - fun in some faraway place, to indulge in more or less mercenary, more or less illegal activities, than to risk exposition even jut by doing that, BDSM label apart, is simply normal.

The first may feel compelled into looking for a consensual partner, willing to play, to avoid long term issues.

The second doesn't necessarily care, one way or the other - in prison, food is bad, but it beats starving at home.

And the third, rationally, should maybe have all the partners killed, after "use" - in for a penny, in for a pound, and the dead cannot sell their story to mass media





 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Feel free to point me out conceptual, orthographical, grammatical, syntactical or usage's errors, as well as anything else