My Demographic’s Agency

LaurynX writes about the nature of institutionalized power is different from the consent of the bottom:

BDSM itself is not sex, it is a state of being. It is, at it’s heart, a “power exchange” between two or more people for whatever personal reasons, ie. pleasure, catharsis, spiritual experience, etc. Someone relenquishes use of power, and someone else is allowed to wield more power because of this. In a “good” BDSM relationship the “bottom” despite the “top” can decide if they go farther into the scene or not. This is the wielding of power on the part of the “bottom.” If the bottom’s personal power was not respected, in a “bad” BDSM relationship the top would not honor the bottom’s request. Say the bottom is a woman and the top a man, or the bottom a POC (person of color) and the top a white person? Society would view this as abuse, and would be looked upon with a frown; but in our biased court systems would justice be served? Maybe, maybe not. The problem then is not the ideology of relenquishing/wielding power, but that there is an institutionalized disreguard for certain groups’ personal power, think patriarchy/racism/heterosexism/etc. Afterall, parents use power over children, people use power when they vote, teach, seduce, etc. I believe that the ebbing and flowing of power between people is part of the human condition; wielding power over another is not inherently wrong. The problem lies in institutionalized use of power that brings pain and suffering to those who’s power is not respected. …

My Demographic’s Agency

Originally posted 2006-06-06 08:47:26.