Friday, February 13, 2015

My Hat's Off to You, Maria Bello

My friend Mike over at The Other Side's Thoughts recently posted a link to an article in the New York Times by actress Maria Bello.  Mike often posts great links, but this one particularly blew me away.  Off the top of my head, I don't actually know if I've ever seen a film or a show with Ms. Bello in it, but her article makes me want to be a fan.

In the article, Maria Bello talks about her son Jackson asking her about her love life, because he's realized she's not telling him something, which turns out to be that she's become romantically involved with her friend Clare.  But what I love about this article is that Bello isn't simply coming out as bisexual; she is coming out as (in her words--or her son's words, actually) "whatever."  Her story really is uplifting to read for me as a polyamorous person, and one who treasures important relationships in any shape they take.  Bello questions the definition of the word "partner," one I have always struggled with.  It's the word I usually use to describe the man I live with, mostly because "boyfriend" seems to summon up images of prom and high school drama, not serious commitment and a long-term relationship.  Yet my definition of the word "partner" is also broader than most peoples'--and so is my idea of whom it is okay to commit to.  

"And I have never understood the distinction of “primary” partner," Bello writes.  "Does that imply we have secondary and tertiary partners, too? Can my primary partner be my sister or child or best friend, or does it have to be someone I am having sex with? I have two friends who are sisters who have lived together for 15 years and raised a daughter. Are they not partners because they don’t have sex? And many married couples I know haven’t had sex for years. Are they any less partners?"

Bello talks about how various people in her life are all people she defines as partners--her ex, because they share her son, Clare, with whom she shares a romantic relationship, platonic friends, and even her family members, because after all, they are there for each other in an equally committed way.  "Whomever I love, however I love them, whether they sleep in my bed or not, or whether I do homework with them or share a child with them, “love is love.” And I love our modern family."

That's just one of the best things I've read in ages.  I also love Bello's story about finally realizing she was in love with Clare--after a long time overlooking the fact because the relationship wasn't the result of racing hormones like most sexual relationships she had jumped into in the past.  We live in a culture that upholds impulse decisions as the model for what "romantic" should be.  Calling someone "steady" or "reliable" is often seen as an insult--even though these are the very qualities that are absolutely necessary for a stable, happy family--whatever shape that family takes.   "We had an immediate connection but didn’t think of it as romantic or sexual," she writes.  "She was one of the most beautiful, charming, brilliant and funny people I had ever met, but it didn’t occur to me, until that soul-searching moment in my garden, that we could perhaps choose to love each other romantically.  What had I been waiting for all of these years? She is the person I like being with the most, the one with whom I am most myself."

What's interesting to me is that is what realizing I am in love with someone almost always feels like--whether that love is felt or expressed platonically or not.  It's that realization that you've built a wealth of wonderful shared experiences with someone, and that you have that perfect intimacy with that person based on a real, meaningful connection.  Ms. Bello doesn't sound to be demisexual, but as a demisexual person, I can relate very much to how her relationship with Clare developed.  It's very different from the "in love" of racing hormones that most people talk about when they talk about falling in love (and which she talks about too, with her past relationships).  But it's the "in love" that's worked for me.

Maria Bello's article is courageous, and so is her choice to value all the important relationships in her life.  It really makes me happy to see someone of this stature sharing her journey like this.  As she concludes at the end of her article, "Maybe, in the end, a modern family is just a more honest family."

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Is BDSM an Orientation or a Lifestyle?

Somehow I managed to stumble on a Slate article recently with the link-baity title, "Spank You Very Much: Is S&M Dangerous?  Let’s Look At the Evidence.”  The article is written with a cynical bent by someone who up-front states that in earlier articles, he “argued that BDSM, unlike homosexuality, was inherently problematic and wasn’t an orientation.”  Following criticism, he dug into a bunch of statistics and wrote a new article.  I’m going to ignore most of it (more ground than I want to cover), but focus on this question of whether BDSM is an “orientation” vs. a “lifestyle.”  Here’s what the author said when he came back to this point in the article:

“Previously, I argued that homosexuality is fixed (an orientation), but that BDSM is flexible (a lifestyle).  Kinksters replied that BDSM, too, is an orientation.  What does the data show?  Mostly flexibility.”  He then goes on to cite a study showing that only 5% of practitioners “no longer practiced ordinary sex,” and that 40% had changed their “preference” or “behavior” from sadism to masochism or back.  He also points out that “dabblers” in BDSM far outnumber “core” members of the group.

I find this entire definition of orientation as something “fixed” incredibly short-sighted, however commonly it is accepted.  I’m not going to get into that here though.  Read me tearing that definition apart over here.

I actually do agree with some of the author’s other findings—that the BDSM community is incredibly diverse, and that the “dabblers” are the majority.  I also agree that most of the “dabblers” are motivated primarily by sexual appetite and a desire to explore rather than by BDSM desires specifically; that seems to ring true from my encounters.  That said, it is way too black and white to ask whether a kink is definitively an “orientation” or a “lifestyle" (whereas for some people it might be both, for others one or the other, and for others still, neither) and plain out wrong to suggest that kink is only a lifestyle.  Especially based on the author's rationales.  Let’s take a look at them.

  • First off, this statement that “only 5% of practitioners no longer practiced ordinary sex.”  It’s off the point.  Who says all sex must include BDSM for BDSM to be part of a person’s orientation?  Obviously it is the case for a minority, but this is generally considered a difference between a fetish and a kink.  BDSM is a fetish (speaking in psychological terms as a prerequisite for sexual arousal) for some people, but for a lot more it’s a kink, which is something much broader.  Oh, let’s also not forget that not all kinky scenes require sex!  Declaring that all sex must include BDSM for BDSM to be an orientation is as ludicrous as saying all BDSM must include sex for a person not to be defined as asexual.  It's also as illogical as saying that a bisexual person is only bisexual if she is doing a man and a woman during all sexual encounters.  Come on.

  • This statement that “40% had changed their “preference” or “behavior” from sadism to masochism or back.  While that may indeed indicate mere preference for some people, for others it could simply point towards shifts in awareness of an underlying orientation.  As some people will testify, it’s not always obvious which side of the whip you want to be on until you get some experience.  For others still, behavior can shift for different reasons.  For me as a switch for example, my “preference” for activities is dependent on my specific relationships and the shape they take which feels most suitable.  But my underlying orientation is a deep-seated need for sadism and masochism.  I just don’t happen to expect it all with one person or necessarily even want it that way.  Again, it would depend on the person and what feels comfortable for us.  That doesn’t make me wishy-washy, as the author seems to imply.  Just varied in my tastes and particular as to when and how they are expressed.

  • Just because there are “dabblers” in something does not make it not a legitimate orientation for others!  That’s like saying that because there are bicurious people, actual bisexuality is not an orientation.  Something which is a lifestyle or an experiment or an occasional fun game to spice up the bedroom for one person can be a serious orientation for another.

What the Heck are Orientations Anyway? 

It’s hard to find a good definition of “orientation” while discussing this topic because in large part the word is way too narrowly applied anyway.  Most definitions online simply reference whether a person is attracted to men, women, both, etc., and do not reference other sexual, romantic or social behaviors.  

As an alternative, one definition I recently referenced on Wikipedia in another blog entry (here's the link again) simply summarized sexual orientation as “attachments, longings and fantasies.” Ignoring for a moment how incomplete I feel that definition is, let’s say that attachments, longings and fantasies are indeed what comprises a significant portion of a person’s orientation and respond again to the Slate author's charges about perceived "flexibility" not reflecting an orientation, but only a lifestyle.  The guy seems to define "flexibility" literally as "not doing a thing ALL the time."  So BDSM people don't do kinky activities during all sexual encounters.  So a kinky person sometimes acts as a sadist and sometimes acts as a masochist.  So what?  

  • When a heterosexual man is not in a relationship with a woman, does he stop having attachments, longings, and fantasies for women? 

  • When a bisexual woman is solely in a relationship with a man, does she cease to be bisexual and suddenly become heterosexual?

  • For that matter, does a sexual person suddenly become asexual just because that person is not sexually active?

I think most people would recognize the obvious absurdities above.  Of course it doesn’t work that way.  People don’t stop longing for something or finding meaning in it just because it physically isn’t in their life at the moment.  This is one of the reasons psychologists distinguish between sexual behavior and sexual orientation

The same goes for kinksters who experience their orientation as kinky.  When out of a kinky relationship or out of the scene, these people retain their kinky selves.  They feel the deep and pervading loneliness of unmet needs when that lack becomes a long term situation.  So no—just because a kinkster may not be acting on their sadistic or masochistic fantasies at some point of time due to the mitigating circumstances of their lives, that does not mean they are “flexible” or that their needs are just a “lifestyle.”  All it means is that their needs are currently unmet. And when a kinkster in a happy kinky relationship sometimes opts for vanilla sex, it doesn't mean he's "flexible" about his kink orientation; it just means he enjoys other expressions of intimacy as well.

Towards a Broader Definition of Orientation …

All of this touches on my feeling that the word “orientation” is something which badly requires an expanded definition.  Perhaps something closer to the most general definition of the word:

  • Orientation:  The determination of the relative position of something or someone (especially oneself). 

Our relative position in life encompasses all the ways we relate to people … including our sexual and romantic needs, and so much more.  What about our needs for friendship?  For community?  And yes—for kink and other forms of intimacy (overlapping or not with sex)?  All of these have a massive effect on our psychological and spiritual functioning, and yes—on our lifestyles as well.

The truth is that orientation is often more than sexual and can influence all aspects of a person’s life.  Often those effects are invisible to others (and let’s not forget that sexuality too can influence far more than whom a person has sex with). 

If BDSM is your orientation, and you know it, you can confirm that reality with every fiber of your being.  You know it in the sense of joy, safety and closeness you feel in the right relationship, that exquisite sense of being utterly aligned with another person—and in that hole in your heart when you are without one.  And as someone whose life has been relatively empty of kinky fulfillment or activities, I feel that hole in my soul every single day.  It is terribly offensive to suggest that my seemingly vanilla life reflects flexibility, when it does not.  Actually, in some less-than-obvious ways, it directly reflects my kinky nature.  To me, being true to my nature means only offering my submission or dominance to someone who is truly a worthy counterpart for me, and nobody else.  I’m not saying I couldn’t or shouldn’t learn to get out of my shell more and get more involved in the community and learn.  For me this blog is a step in that direction.  I don't want the hole in my heart to be a hole forever.

Order in an Uncertain Universe

But that same inner kinky nature that other people don’t notice … it’s there every day impacting my life in positive ways, and nothing changes that.  Being a sadomasochist and a switch has influenced everything from my preference for self-employment to my creative work to my religion, in subtle ways my fashion sense, and believe it or not, even my vanilla relationships.  Even the people in them wouldn’t realize that, because it’d be incredibly roundabout to explain.  Without my orientation, none of that stuff would actually be, because I wouldn’t be either.

This is all stuff I increasingly want to delve into in this blog, because I rarely see anyone talking about how kink impacts their lives as a whole.  This is all deeply spiritual and psychological to me, and it's time I talked about it.  That's a direction I intend to take my blog in in the future.  I know that other people can relate to this, because when I published my entry, "You Asexual Deviant, You!" a surprising number of people re-shared it (thank you!) with particular emphasis on this quotation:

"For me, BDSM is largely about how I relate to life.  It's the search for a little calm and control and trust and release in an uncertain universe."

The Slate article this post was written as a rebuttal to concludes with the following statement: "For (some) people, BDSM is a pathology. But for most of its practitioners, it’s just a game."

Does what I just said sound like a pathology?  Or "just a game?"  Anything out of balance can arguably turn into a pathology.  And for many people, yes, BDSM is just a game.  But not for all of us.  For some of us it's far more than that, and quite the opposite of a pathology.

All my life, I've been hard-pressed to identify as much in particular.  Too many things seem fleeting, surface-deep, or coincidental.  I value those things for what they are, but they are nothing to anchor a sense of self to in an anchor-less world.  But there are a few core elements that are always there, that always have been, that always will be, even if their expression changes through time and space, and even if at times I have run away from them.  And this is one of them--one of the few things I can point at and say with certainty, "Yes--this is real.  This is eternal.  That is a genuine part of me."  Deep under the turbulence and trepidation of everyday life, it's a solid center where I can experience something akin to a sense of peace.  

So yes, BDSM--or the set of desires, passions, expressions and revelations behind that framework--is there in my soul, and that is not flexible at all, whether I’m in a D/s relationship or not at any point of my life.  It makes me better, realer, more me, in fact the only me I could be.  That’s how absolutely core it is to my identity.  That's my human answer; that's my orientation, my bulwark.  Statistics, misunderstandings, assumptions and cynicism are just waves crashing against it and subsiding, fleeting, temporal and powerless.