For Whose Entertainment?: Images of BDSM in Pop Music, Part 1

(TRIGGER WARNING: The following series will contain discussions of the bondage/discipline/domination/submission/sadism/masochism (BDSM) subculture and sex positive feminism. While the series contains no descriptions of graphic or violent sex, if any of these topics might disturb you, please refrain from reading it.)

Introduction

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but chains and whips excite me!

            — Rhianna “S&M”

 “Do you know what you got into?/Can you handle what I’m ‘bout to do?/’Cause it’s about to get rough in you./I’m here for YOUR entertainment.”

            –Adam Lambert, “For Your Entertainment” (emphasis added)

Images of the bondage/discipline/domination/submission/sadism/masochism (BDSM) subculture have existed on the periphery of popular culture, much to the consternation of both the conservative and the BDSM community, for quite some time. Wearing leather, cuffs, collars, and corsets has become almost commonplace in images of popular culture and fashion, so much so that many who wear them might not even be aware of their significance to BDSM. As a teenager, when I bought my first leather armbands, I had no idea that they were related to BDSM culture.

Not until I was in college did I learn the significance of those armbands and other accessories I’d acquired in my infatuation with the goth subculture (corsets, leather collars, etc.). My interest in sex-positive feminism had lead me to an interest in the BDSM subculture, which I learned was actually, in some ways, more affirming of sexuality and more promoting of consent than traditional, straight-laced, “vanilla” culture. The problem is, for both conservatives and the BDSM community, that images of BDSM that get presented in popular culture do not adequately reflect all of the shades and flavors of BDSM. Conservatives would probably prefer that sex were not presented in popular culture at all, but because sex sells, I will turn to the BDSM community’s concerns when their subculture is portrayed by the mass media.

BDSM is not a subculture that can be easily grapsed. Those who are introduced to its ideas are often shocked or revolted at what is presented because it seems to stand in such stark opposition to how we are taught to think about sex and love. Somebody whips you and burns you with hot wax and you enjoy it? You willingly undergo sensory deprivation because you like it? You choose to be humiliated? The idea, initially, is inconcievable. So I will being by explaining what BDSM is and what it is not. BDSM is a complex and diverse subculture, so this post will be meant to give an overview and not a complete and detailed account of BDSM.

BDSM and Vanilla: Not So Different Underneath the Leather

Firstly, BDSM, at its core, is based on ideas that govern all relationships, sexual or otherwise, and its values are, essentially, not too different from those of progressive liberals who wish we could be more open and honest in discussions about sex and consent. Forget the stereotypes of whips and crops for a moment and think purely about healthy human relationships of any sort, be they BDSM or vanilla.

In all relationships, one person is generally “in charge” while the other person is content to let that person lead. Even in relationships that claim to be equal, a closer examination of the dynamics almost always reveals that one partner is usually the one to make the final decisions. There is nothing wrong with this. This does not mean that one partner makes the decisions in an authoritarian manner that leaves out the feelings of the other partner. This does not mean that one partner is coerced, manipulated, or forced to do anything. It simply means that, in any relationship, decisions affecting both partners will need to be made. This decision will most likely be discussed between both partners, both of their needs and wishes will be taken into account, but ultimately, the final decision usually lies with one partner.

Sometimes the final decision for one issue will be decided by one partner, and the final decision for another issue will be decided by the other partner. Each individual relationship has its own rules about who makes what decisions and how decisions are made. But in each relationship, someone is going to have more power than someone else. There is nothing wrong with this. It does not mean that all relationships are based on an abuse of power. I am simply observing that in relationships, there is a (sometimes sliding) distribution of power. (Also, I am not speaking of relationships in which one partner uses this power to verbally, physically, mentally, or sexually abuse the other partner. I am speaking of relationships in which the power between partners is managed in a healthy way that attempts to benefit both partners.) Often, these power imbalances accomidate the personalities and decision-making preferences of the partners involved and are beneficial to the functioning of the relationship.

While most relationships have this imbalance of power, in “vanilla”—the BDSM term for traditional romantic relationships and sexual practices devoid of BDSM play—partnerships, this imbalance of power is rarely discussed, both in and out of the bedroom. Couples tend to feel their way through the relationship blindly, and while they may have some unconscious sense of who is in control and who is not at any point in time, they rarely have direct discussions about them. They may fall into these roles out of habit or attempt to act them out based on social expectations.

In BDSM relationships, be they merely for the duration of a scene or long-term, discussions of control are extermely important. People in the BDSM community often identify themselves based on their role as a submissive (also called “bottom”), dominant (also called “top”), or switch (someone who switches between the role of a bottom and top). Other varities of these roles exist, but they often refer to specific kinds of play. A bottom might indentify as just a bottom, or he might also describe the role as that of a “slave,” someone who wants his top to keep a tight control over many aspects of his life both in and out of the bedroom. A bottom might also describe herself as a daddy’s little girl (DLG), meaning that she is looking for play with an older man who will treat her like a child in some respects. (Please keep in mind that all of this play is enacted by of-age, consenting, fully informed adults.) In the BDSM community, someone’s identification tells their potential partners what role they will take in sex play.

However, what playing out this role entails is different for every individual, and before play takes place, partners will have to discuss exactly what scene will be played out. Does the bottom want the top’s control in every aspect of his or her life, or just during play? What are their hard limits (acts that they will not perform under any circumstances)? How will limits be communicated? All of these things must be taken into account and discussed explicitly and in detail before any play takes place.

This brings me to the topic of consent in the vanilla and BDSM communities. In both, consent to sex and/or play is the ideal. However, in the vanilla community, because explicit discussions of what sex acts will be performed and who will take what role rarely take place, consent may not always be communicated effectively. Both men and women may engage in sex acts that they do not particularly want but feel that their partner expects. Partners may assume that because an act has been consented to in the past, it will always be consented to. Often, in the vanilla community, the lack of a clear “No” is interpreted as a “Yes,” even when that is not the case. This is a problem that sex positive feminism wishes to address. Ideally, when a sex act would be performed, both partners would enthusiastically consent or the act would not take place. Enthusiastic consent would need to be given at every stage of foreplay and sex, and consent on one occasion would not translate to consent in all occasions.

I do not think that this lack of sex positivity in vanilla relationships means that there is something wrong with vanilla relationships. I think that problem is that in our mainstream society, we are not taught how to have these discussions about sex, consent, and control, and so it might be difficult for partners to negotiate these boundaries together. They may have trouble talking about what they were taught was a taboo subject or they might lack the vocabulary in which to discuss their relationship. They may feel vulnerable or embarrassed. They may think that they are intuitively supposed to know what their partner wants and being told takes away from the romantic mood of the moment. All of these problems, however, can lead to poor communication about sex, which can lead to partners engaging in sex acts that they do not want.

Many sex positive feminists, who are working to promote open, honest discussions about sex and sexual relationships in our society, have turned to the BDSM community for ideas about how to talk about consent. Consent, in the BDSM community, is discussed in depth before the sex play even begins. Even after the scene has started, the top needs consent from the bottom to move on to new stages of play. Consent is and can never be assumed, and consent on one occasion does not mean consent for every future occasion. Limits are to be respected. Despite the shocking nature of much BDSM sex play, despite the difficulty for someone in the vanilla community to understand why a partner would want to be controlled, the knee-jerk reaction against BDSM can be softened when it is explained that everything going on is completely consensual. Consent in the bedrock of BDSM play and nothing happens without it. (I realize that no community is perfect and that violations do occur within the BDSM community, just like they do in the vanilla community. However, I believe that, in both communities, consent is the ideal. My argument is that in the BDSM community, partners are ideally expected to have discussions about power and limits in the relationship. In the vanilla community, these topics are often not discussed explicitly.)

Explaining these nuances of BDSM culture, however, is time-consuming and difficult. Most people don’t understand it, and so it exists on the periphery of our culture. It is something most people have a vague notion of, and they vaguely think of it as wrong, and that is all. So, when BDSM shows up in popular culture, the accessories, toys, props, and acts are shown, while the ideas underlying BDSM play—thorough discussion of control, limits, and consent—are ignored. For this reason, BDSM is more often than not misrepresented in popular culture. It can be used to show acts of violence enacted upon unconsenting women. It can be used as a tool for shock value. Most often, it is a backdrop over which pop can appear “edgy.”

These misrepresentations can lead to problems when partners see the images of violence, without the discussions of consent and limits, and believe that this type of relationship is what they should want, even if they personally don’t want it. When people expect sex or play to hurt or believe that it should inherently be violent, then there is a problem. When BDSM is represented in pop, it presents the violence but leaves out the discussions of power and consent, and the discussions of power and consent are what is most important to BDSM play. Sex can hurt, but only if the bottom wants it to. Sex can be violent, but only when fully informed, consenting adults have agreed upon what that will involve and what the limits are. Unfortunately, the viewers of BDSM-as-filtered-through-pop are unaware of these discussions, and so these viewers, particularly teenagers, can come away with ideas about relationships and sex that are based purely on control without limits and violence without consent.

Part 2 looks at common representations of BDSM in pop music videos.

We’re Straight! We Swear!: Being Homosocial in a 3OH!3 Music Video

What do you call two straight men who are very, very close friends?

Give up? I don’t know either. While our society seems to recognize and often even celebrate purely platonic bonds between women, we still don’t quite know what to do with men who are close but not romantically interested in each other. Recently, we’ve attempted to give a name to this relationship—the “bromance,” but the term is still a pun on the word “romance” and has a homoerotic undercurrent.

This is the bind that patriarchal society puts men in. On the one hand, they are expected to be blatantly heterosexual. A man’s not a man if he can’t seduce and impregnate a woman, and the more women he can do this too, the more manly he is. At the same time, however, women are mere objects for his sexual pleasure, and as a man (who is expected to be intelligent and strong while women are expected to be flighty and weak), he can’t really form a deep and meaningful bond with a woman. (I’m referring here to the ideals of patriarchal society and how they are often portrayed in certain aspects of popular culture, not to how relationships between men and women really play out.) He can seek out these meaningful bonds with other men, but these relationships must be tempered. They can’t be too emotional, lest they seem “womanish” or “sissy,” and they must be restricted in how they show affection, lest they be mistaken for homoeroticism. You can save your buddy’s life, beat up his enemies, and tell him you’ve “got his back,” but you can’t hug him or tell him that you love him.

So how does popular culture present close, emotional bonds between two men and avoid homoeroticism? It surrounds those men with adoring, beautiful women. The effect the women are supposed to serve is a that of a signifier for heterosexuality. “See, we’re straight,” the men seem to say as they bask in female attention. “We’re surrounded by all of these women, and we love it! Oh, that guy over there? He’s just my buddy. But we’re totally straight! I mean, look all of these women!”

Many of the music videos put out by 3OH!3, the pop duo consisting of Nat Motte and Sean Foreman from Boulder, Colorado (area code three-oh-three), take this convention to ludicrus extremes. Nearly all of the videos focus on a platonic relationship between Motte and Foreman, but to avoid the accusation of homoeroticism, the videos surround them with adoring women. The videos are often concoted around ridiculous premises to explain why women would be fawning over them, but the absurdity of the videos often highlights the bizarre position in which patriarchal society places men and their platonic relationships.

(Note: From here on out, when I refer to Motte and Foreman, I do not mean them personally. Instead, I am referring to the pop personas that they have taken on and perform in their music videos.)

3OH!3’s best known song and video, “Don’t Trust Me” features a ridiculous premise. It is, so an introduction informs us, the story of two male models who are the only survivors of a virus that has wiped out the rest of earth’s male population. While anyone else faced with this highly unlikely situation might show some concern,  Motte and Foreman, in the context of the video, see this as an opportunity to bask in the adoration of a planet full of women who are starved for men. (Because, of course, women want nothing more than a man to satisfy them. Even lesbians are just waiting for the right man.)

But are they really basking in the women’s adoration? A quick view of the music video might assume that they are, but a closer look reveals that the video isn’t so much about the women as it is about Motte and Foreman. The women exist on the periphery, literally. Most of the camera shots focus them as they stand together in the middle of the shot, its focus, while the women are placed, like props, to the side of the frame. Te women’s prescence is merely that of a signifier of male heterosexuality. They are there to reassure us that, no matter how much Motte and Foreman might wrestle with each other, rap together or playfully shove each other, they are ultimately heterosexual.

I also think that the video, to some extent, is aware of its own ridiculousness. At the beginning, after we have established that Motte and Foreman are male models, the first shot of them we see portrays them as adorned in purple capes and speedos. They don’t look like male models so much as they look like two frat boys playing at being male models. Neither of them are particularly muscular or toned, the “ideal” body for male pop stars. (Aside: I actually find their average physical appearances refreshing. Unlike many pop stars, who are so perfect-looking as to be interchangeable, Motte and Foreman actually stand out.) Motte is tall, skinny, and lanky, with long, stringy hair, while Foreman is short and stocky. When paired together, their opposite physiques are even more noticeable. They do not dance so much as they flail and crudely mime the lyrics to their songs. The video mocks the performance of pop—the elaborate costumes, the impossible perfection of pop stars’ bodies, and the ostentatious dance routines that often accompany music videos. “This is all in fun. Don’t take it too seriously, because we certainly aren’t,” the video seems to say to the audience.

Stripped of its spectacle and reduced to what looks almost more like two fans rocking out to their favorite song than two pop artists in a music video, the video makes Motte and Foreman more relatable to the audience. They’re just two average guys—straight guys, mind you! Very, very straight! Did you see all those hot chicks back there? They’re kind of hard to see because they’re just on the edge of the camera shot, but they’re there and boy, are they hot!—having a good time together. This stripped version of pop, however, adds to the masculine image of the video. Dancing artistically, wearing elaborate costumes, and looking beautiful are all coded as “feminine” in patriarchal society, so to prove that they are not feminine (and therefore not gay), Motte and Foreman, in their video, eschew anything that could be construed as homoerotic.

Their “Starstrukk” video, featuring Katy Perry, goes one step further and inserts a girl between them. All of the elements from “Don’t Trust Me” remain. The new ridiculous premise is that the guys have found a fountain full of coins that women have tossed in, wishing for men. When they remove the coins, they become the answer to the women’s wishes, and the women run at them, eager (we are led to assume) to have sex with them. Unlike in “Don’t Trust Me,” in which Motte and Foreman were paired as the focus of the camera shots and interacted with each other, they are now joined by Katy Perry, who stands between them, like a bulwark protecting them from any accusations of homoeroticism.

However, the video is still more about the buddy relationship than it is about relationships with women. The scenes in front of the fountain are intersperced with scenes of Motte and Foreman, always together, doing manly and adventurous things…in order to attract women, of course. In one scene, they are boating in Italy and hold up champagne glasses to the (presumably female) viewers with “come and get it” gestures. In other scene, they pose for the camera while dressed as street toughs, the bodies of other, weaker men whom they’ve just beaten, strewn on the side of the shot. Though these scenes appear to be about attracting women, they actually emphasize the relationship between the two men. Women may come and go, but they’ll still have their friendship and be able to do things like climb mountains while feeding each other sashimi (a homosocial and perhaps even vaguely homoerotic image if there ever was one). Like the “Don’t Trust Me” video, this video also emphasizes the buddy relationship between Motte and Foreman, and it uses the women in the video to assert their heterosexuality. They may be close, but they’re not that close.

All of the hypermasculine imagery of the 3OH!3 music videos works for the purpose of establishing Motte and Foreman as heterosexual men. The videos are unkind to women, perhaps even misogynistic, but the reason for it is to establish the 3OH!3 duo as he-men. The bind that patriarchal society puts women in is obvious in these vidoes, but what also becomes apparent is the bind that patriarchal society also puts upon men who have close friendships with other men. There is a tension in the videos between emphasizing the bond between Motte and Foreman and also trying to de-emphasize the bond so that their relationship does not seem homoerotic.

This tension points to the larger problem within patriarchal culture, which does not seem to know what to do with male-male friendships. When women are nothing but objects, to have any kind of meaningful relationship, men must seek out other men. At the same time, however, these men cannot appear to close to each other for fear of being branded homoerotic. Our society lacks any kind of way to talk about and discuss male relationships that are not sexual, and as a result, the homosocial and the homoerotic tend to become inflated. Men can, of course, be straight and have close, platonic relationships with other men. Unfortunately, our society lacks a way to place and understand these realtionships outside of homoeroticism.