For Whose Entertainment?: Images of BDSM in Pop Music, Part 3

(I would rather be safe than sorry about TRIGGER WARNINGS. So, just so the reader is aware, 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.)

Part 1 discusses BDSM generally. Part 2 looks at common depictions of BDSM in popular music videos and why these depictions are problematic.

For YOUR Entertainment: A Positive Pop Depiction of BDSM  

The video and lyrics of  Adam Lambert’s “For Your Entertainment” begin innocuously enough. We are first presented with a typical city street, and then the camera moves below the concrete, where we find ourselves in a basement club. Lambert, weilding a wicked black cane and dressed in a black leather trenchcoat, is entering the club with an entourage. In the background, the bass beat is emphasized with a sound like the cracking of a whip. These are the accessories of BDSM, but pop has borrowed them so often that they are hardly worth noticing. As he enters the club, Lambert sings, “So hot! Out the box!/Can we pick up the pace?/Turn it up! Heat it up!/I need to be entertained.” We are, so we believe, in a typical pop video. It might have a dark and shady atmosphere, but we expect that we will be subjected to nothing more than images of singing and dancing while we hear lyrics about having a good time.

The song and video both take a sudden turn, however, when Lambert glares at the camer and declares, “I’mma hurt ya real good, baby!” This is unexpected. The declaration has a rawness, an honesty, that is rare in pop depictions of BDSM. Even Rhianna’s “S&M” is more light and flirty, presenting Rhianna as a naughty girl who’s up for anything. Lambert, however, lays bare the message of the song and the video. The line contains the contradiction of BDSM play. Yes, it can hurt, but it is also a good kind of pain, a pain that the bottom wishes to experience and the top wishes to give. This is the good kind of pain, not the pain of mental illness or bad press, which are not consensual.

The lyrics continue with the sort of lines one would associate with a top. “Let’s go! It’s my show! Baby, do what I say,” he commands, establishing his control. But the control is not just for his own pleasure. “I’mma hold you down until you’re amazed,” he sings. The amazement that he references his bottom feeling suggests that his actions are not purely for the sake of inflicting pain (or shock value) so much as they are to please his bottom. Later in the song he adds, “I’mma work you ‘til you totally blow!” reinforcing the idea that the play is ultimately about what that the bottom recieves and the top gives. The second verse reinforces this idea, when he sings, “It’s all right. You’ll be fine. Baby, I’m in control.” For many bottoms, the appeal of being dominated is not necessarily pain itself but the sensation of being controlled completely by another person. In fact, plenty of forms of BDSM play do not involve pain. The line and its reassurences also underly the trust that must exist between a top and a bottom. To place himself in a top’s control, the bottom must trust that ultimately, he will be all right, that the top will respect his limits and stop when they are reached. Whatever actions are inflicted, a top will ultimately be concerned for the welfare of the bottom, as the lyrics reflect.

The song continues to reinforce the idea that BDSM play is not about mindlessly inflicting pain in the chorus, which repeats, “I’m here for your entertainment.” This simple line expresses the complex relationship of power that exists between the top and the bottom. On the surface and in the context of the play, the top holds all of the power and control. The top may inflict pain, bind or gag the bottom, or command the bottom to obey him. However, at the heart of the play, the bottom holds his own power. After all, the top must respect the bottom’s limits, and with one word, the bottom can bring an end to the whole scene. Nothing happens in the scene without the bottom’s consent. In a way, the top is in service to the bottom as much as the bottom is in service to the top. The top, after all, is there for the bottom’s entertainment, just as the bottom is there for the top’s entertainment. Despite all of his words about control, Lambert, in the chorus, ultimately recognizes that as a top, he does not hold all of the power and another power is held by the one he controls.

In this picture of BDSM, fulfillment, pleasure, and satisfaction are mutual. The bottom desires to be controlled and the top desires to control. The play is not that of a superior overpowering an inferior but of two collaboraters in a game of mutual desire and satisfaction. (This is perhaps what we would all like to have in our relationships and sex, be they vanilla or BDSM.) The BDSM play is just that—play. It is based on mutual understandings of consent and of the acts that will take place. Each partner takes his or her role, based on his or her desires and not on society’s dictums of their gender. (Traditionally, women are expected to be submissive in their relationships with men while men are expected to take control, even if these roles do not fit the individuals who are expected to play them out.) At the end of BDSM what has just taken place is a play, a scene. It has been acted out and no one has really been harmed without their consent.

The dancing in the music video “For Your Entertainment” reinforce this idea of play and mutual consent.. No violence is actually shown, and the control that Lambert as a top exercises is visualized through dance. He controls the other dancers with the movements of his cane, almost like a director conducting a band. They are working together to create something, and while Lambert might be in control, each member of the scene is equally important in its creation. There is no devaluing or debasing of his female bottoms. In another scene, the backup dances cling to him, supporting themselves on him, until he pushes them away. Before they fall, he catches them by their throats, and then rights them in a matter of seconds. The image is something like a trust fall, in which one person holds her body still and falls backward while her partner catches her. The control that Lambert exercises indicates that he is capable of preventing his bottoms from coming to real harm. He will simulate dangerous situations—part of what a top does for his bottoms—but will not let them undergo pain that they do not want. The action is also stylized in the form of a dance. It is a collaboration between the top and his bottoms. They are creating something together that they could not create alone, reinforcing the idea of mutual satisfaction in BDSM play.

The images of the video also emphasize the idea of play. In between the dancing, there are shots of people in the underground club. They smile and laugh at each other, even when they are wearing blinders and other BDSM gear. Everything happening here is all happening as play, they seem to say. This is not something serious. This is a scene we’re acting out. When it’s all over, we’ll walk away unharmed. The music video is an inversion of everything that pop music usually presents BDSM to be, and in presenting that inversion, it shows BDSM to be what it ideally is. The club, underground and filled with snakes and palms, suggests a kind of Eden, but an Eden in which Lambert, on his throne and dressed in his black corset, rules as a sort of Satanic king. The apple of knowledge, however, in this Eden, does not bring death but instead an understanding of what BDSM and consent really are—a kind of play, a kind of trust that people in both the BDSM and vanilla communities can support.

“Let Me Entertain You ‘Til You Scream!”: BDSM as Performer-Audience Power Plays

Not only does the “For Your Entertainment” video present BDSM in a more accurate light than other pop music videos, it also uses BDSM to illustrate the complex power relations between the performer and the audience. After all, the song is titled “For Your Entertainment,” and as a pop singer, Lambert is an entertainer. His job is to sing in front of thousands of people and entertain them with his music. The video ends with him not as a dancing top or a master on a throne but as a singer on a stage, performing for everyone in the club.

Just as a top in a BDSM relationship or scene appears to have total control but control is also in the hands of the bottom, so a pop singer on a stage appears to have control over his audience. He can tell them to put their hands in the air, and they will. He can command them to jump and dance, and they will do so. He can ask them to sing along with him or he can initiate calls-and-responses. The audience seems ready to follow his every command. They scream their love and adoration for him. Their applause after each song is thunderous. He appears to have great power, for he can envoke almost fearfully strong emotions in his fans and make them obey his commands.

However, in the pop singer-fan relationship, the fans have a subtle power that is not immediately recognized, much like the power of the bottom. Yes, they might appear to be under the control of the singer, but he is just as much under their control as they are under his. They are, after all, the ones who allow him to continue being a pop singer. They buy albums, download his singles, and pay for concert tickets. They view his televion appearances and buy magazines that feature interviews with him. Their money and their attention allow him to continue being a pop sensation. As such, they have power in this relationship too, and the singer is just as beholden to them as they are to him. They consent to listen to his songs and buy his music. If they were to lose interest and stop buying, the pop game, as it were, would stop. Like the bottom, they have the power to initiate the play and the power to stop it. While power may seem to lie with the performer, ultimately, the fans are in control.

One could be cynical about the pop singer-fan relationship (It’s reliance on capitalism and a music industry that is often more interested in maintaining the status quo to make money instead of using its music to promote social change are particularly suspect.), but the video does not take this view. Just as the top-bottom relationship is a kind of play, a collaboration, so too is the pop singer-fan relationship. They come together to create an event, the performance, the spectacle of pop. Pop, with all its glamour, is nothing without people to pay attention to it. The music is meaningless if no one will hear it. The singer and the fan each have their power, annd each use it to contribute to the play. At the end of the video, the concert that takes place would be impossible without Lambert and it would be impossible without the fans. He wants to sing, to perform, and they want to hear him sing, to watch his performance. Both get the satisfaction of experiencing what they want and in doing so, they come togethr to create a concert.

But I’m Still Not Satisfied: Some Problems and Conclusions

While “For Your Entertainment” is a better depiction of BDSM than is usually found in pop, it is not perfect. Someone who understands the underlying ideas of BDSM or an astute viewer of the video would probably see it as a positive depiction of BDSM or at least as a message of mutual collaboration. An ignorant or less-than-observant viewer, however, could easily mistake the lyrics and miss the message that the play is, ultimately, about mutual satisfaction between the top and bottom. The lyrics could be interpreted as someone insisting that his partner will enjoy his control eventually, despite the partner’s protests. While I think a close inspection of the lyrics resists that interpretation, most audiences of pop music will probably not listen too closely and could easily miss the point. As I have shown, BDSM culture is full of paradoxes and contradictions—the bottom is not in control yet also has control—that are not easily or intuitively grasped. Many viewers could easily miss this message.

My other source of discontent in the video comes from the queer nature of BDSM. BDSM, even when it is between a heterosexual man and woman, is ultimately queer because it is not the normal and largely accepted sexual script that society presents. Instead of fitting individuals into roles of submissive and dominant based on their gender, BDSM allows individuals to be themselves and decide for themselves if they want to be dominant, submissive, or a mixture of both. Because it is outside of mainstream sexuality and because it rejects traditional gender roles, BDSM is queer.

Adam Lambert is also queer. Despite the strides that have been made in acceptance of homosexuality—he is, at least, openly gay. Elton John had to hide in the closet.—Lambert shows us just how far we still are from the ideals of acceptance and equality. To date, (I admit, I’ve yet to watch any of his new music videos. This may have changed.) none of his music videos have shown him kissing, caressing, or longing for another man. In “Whaddya Want From Me” and “Time for Miracles” he sings exclusively to the camera, to some unnamed and genderless “you” that is left to the imagination of the audience. The video for “If I Had You” employs a similar technique, in which Lambert, surrounded by a forest of dancers, ultimately dances alone. In a television performance, when he kissed another man, there was a large conservative outcry. Such behavior, between a man and a woman, would be considered tame compared to what is shown on many sit coms, but when such behavior is between two men, society still sees it as deviant.

Even in a song and video about sexuality that exists outside the mainstream, “For Your Entertainment,” Lambert’s sexuality is referenced only on the periphery. He is primarily shown being stroked and caressed by women. There are a few men who adore him as well, but the camera does not focus on them and they are portrayed as almost androgynous. He sings mostly to the camera, to genderless “you” that the audience can construct to suit its own politics. In a song and video celebrating queer sexual practices—“queer” as in “outside the mainstream.” I am not suggesting that all homosexuals practice BDSM.—Lambert ought to be able to express his own sexual preferences more openly. Unfortunately he must cover up his “deviant” sexuality in order to appear acceptable.

Despite its flaws, “For Your Entertainment” is perhaps one of most accurate depiction of BDSM in pop music. It reveals the important values of BDSM subculture—consent, trust, and mutual play. These are values that those in the vanilla community can certainly agree with, and by presenting BDSM as it is and not merely for shock value, the video paves the way for other accurate depictions of BDSM that could lead to a larger conversation about consent, open discussion about sex, and power relations in both BDSM and vanilla relationships. By opening up these conversations, we can perhaps build a more sex-positive society in which all sexualities and preferences and respected and adult, informed consent is paramount to all relationships.

For Whose Entertainment?: Images of BDSM in Pop Music, Part 2

(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.)

I began the first part of this series a while back, and even though I’d finished it, I never got around to publishing it. This isn’t to say that I didn’t do anything with it. The ideas in the drafts of the blog posts actually turned into an academic paper, which I wrote in a pop culture class. However, I hate it when bloggers start a series and never conclude it, so I figured I’d post what I’ve got, just to round out the series.

Pain Without Pleasure: Typical Presentations of BDSM in Popular Culture

Certain accoutrements of BDSM have become so commonplace within pop culture that they are hardly noticeable. Corsets, fishnets, combat boots, and leather jewelry may be worn by pop artists, and while they look “bad ass” or “edgy,” viewers will probably not associate them with BDSM. Occasionally, however, pop artists will bring more explicit images of BDSM into their music videos. While I think that these images are somewhat problematic, I think they can also be used to comment on the music industry itself, which is full of dominants and submissives of its own, though these relationships are often based on money and not mutual consent. BDSM in pop music videos can be a way to comment on power—who has it and who wants it? Unfortunately, in these images, the importance of consent in the BDSM community can easily be lost.

Perhaps when thinking of BDSM in pop music, the first song that comes to mind is Rihanna’s “S&M.” After all, the title itself contains a reference to sadism/masochism. However, Rihanna has an earlier song, “Disturbia,” which also uses images of BDSM, though the song itself does not specifically refer to BDSM in any way. Most interpretations of the song, in fact, reference it to being about mental illness, specifically panic attacks or depression. In the song, Rihanna sings about feeling as though she’s going insane. She is oppressed by emotions that she cannot control, so much so that she believes she is in another world, a disturbing and frightening world in which she has no power.

The video situates these feelings of helplessness in the context of BDSM. The video shows Rihanna bound, trapped in a cage, and wearing clothing and makeup that are traditionally coded as part of the BDSM community—dark, heavy eyeliner, black corsets, and thick black boots. The dark make up and macabre imagery also bring to mind the goth subculture, an important feature of the video, as African-Americans are rarely portrayed as part of the goth subculture (or the BDSM subculture, for that matter), and even those African-Americans who do take part in those subcultures can feel alienated and estranged because they do not see people who look like them traditionally represented as being in those subcultures.

The BDSM suggestions of the video might be there for shock value, but I believe their purpose is larger than mere sensationalism. If the song is indeed about mental illness, then it is, on some level, a song about power and control. Someone suffering from mental illness may very well feel that her life is spinning out of control, that she is prisoner in her own mind. She has no other choice than to submit to the dominance of the mental illness. While this is certainly an interesting observation about the difficulties of suffering from mental illness, it is still an inaccurate representation of BDSM. One does not consent to mental illness. Mental illness recognizes no safe words or limits. It is a situation that happens, regrettably, to an individual. As such, while the BDSM imagery may make an interesting commentary about the powerlessness felt by those who suffer from mental illness, nothing is added to the cultural understanding of BDSM.

Rihanna’s second song, “S&M,” explicitly mentions BDSM in its lyrics. In them, Rihanna claims “now the pain is my pleasure.” She extolls her enjoyment of naughty sex—“I may be bad, but I’m perfectly good at it.” The video, however, is not so much about BDSM culture as it is about the turbulent relationships that pop stars have with the media, which is certainly its own kind of power play.

In the video, Rihanna acts as a kind of switch, first being bound in plastic by reporters and then later binding them in duct tape and whipping them. It is certainly an insightful commentary about the relationship between celebrities and the press. The press have the power to reveal information about celebrities or spin situations involving them in unflattering ways, which can leave celebrities feeling powerless. At the same time, however, celebrities have the power to create news, leaving the media at their mercy and waiting for their next outrageous stunt. However, in both forms of these relationships, the relationships of power and control are certainly not consensual and are more the result of our capitalist news market and entertainment industry than personal preference and desire for fulfillment. While the video does much to bring to light the power plays between celebrities and the media, it misrepresents the BDSM community.

Another video that features BDSM play is Christina Aguilera’s “Not Myself Tonight.” The video features images of Aguilera bound and gagged, as well as dressed in rubber and dancing with a crop. She also kisses a woman whose hands are tied above her head, and crawls on all fours, catlike, toward a bowl of milk.

In many ways, the video performs the chorus: “I’m not myself tonight.”, Aguilera borrows costumes and dance moves from other pop singers, including Madonna, Britney Spears, and Lady Gaga. I would also like to add that there is nothing inherently wrong with the BDSM images presented in the video. There is little real violence or harm displayed in them, and they are probably there for shock value more than anything. From the perspective of someone who understood the underlying ideas of BDSM—informed consent by willing adults—they would be harmless, more or less. However, most viewers probably do not have a background understanding of BDSM, and so the images of rough sex, group sex (perhaps even the playing out of a rape fantasy?), and bondage are not seen in their proper context. The video presents the message that rough sex, scary sex, perhaps even nonconsensual sex, is sexy. This is, unfortunately, not the message of BDSM.

With all the pop videos misrepresenting BDSM, even those that do so to make a comment about power and control, are there any that do BDSM right? Positive, accurate depictions of BDSM are few and far between; almost nonexistent in popular culture. However, there is one song and its accompanying music video that give a relatively accurate and even positive depiction of the BDSM subculture. Adam Lambert’s “For Your Entertainment” presents both lyrics and a video that capture the nuances of BDSM more accurately than “Disturbia,” “S&M” and “Not Myself Tonight.” At the same time, the song also uses the ideas of power and control in BDSM to comment on the complex relationship between pop performer and audience.

Part 3, the final installment, does a close reading of Adam Lambert’s music video for the song “For Your Entertainment” and gives some concluding thoughts about how BDSM is presented in popular culture.

Women Warriors Alone: Kill Bill vol. 1, Lady Gaga, Hyper-Irony, and Feminism

The desert air hangs heavy and hot over the highway asphalt. An enormous, bright yellow truck roars toward the horizon. In the blur of its speed, its only identification comes from two words, painted in pink, on the back of the truck: “Pussy Wagon.”

This description could easily fit either Quentin Tarantino’s Kill Bill film or Lady Gaga’s music video for the song “Telephone,” which references the film. Put the two together and you have a delightful mess of hyper-irony, a meta-pop culture. Gaga is referencing Tarantino, and Tarantino references, well, a little bit of everything.

In a way, when I watched Kill Bill, I felt as though I was seeing it backwards, and not just because the plot is non-linear. My first introduction to the movie had come through watching the “Telephone” music video, in which Lady Gaga and Beyoncé escape prison, a(n) (presumably) abusive lover, a murder scene in which they are the perpetrators, and the police, all from the cab of a yellow truck with “Pussy Wagon” painted on the back. The critical readings of the “Telephone” video were all quick to point out that the video was referencing Kill Bill, not only with its Pussy Wagon but also with its jumpy narrative about vengeful, powerful women.

So, when I finally watched Kill Bill, I knew, obviously, that the movie had come first. Still, in the chronology of my own life, “Telephone” had come first, so while watching Kill Bill, I’d see something—a yellow truck, subtitles, unusual camera angles—and think, “That’s just like in ‘Telephone’!” Such is the state of our popular culture, which builds reference upon reference to itself. I’d seen the reference before I’d seen the original. Then again, if Walter Benjamin and the postmodern critics are to be believed, we now live in a culture in which the original is so easily copied that it no longer has any meaning, and we are constantly surrounded by references that do not really refer back to an original. Gaga referenced Tarantino, who references classic cinema, comic books, and anime, among a whole host of other media, within Kill Bill. These forms of media regularly reference novels, myths, and plays. To trace their origins back might be interesting but isn’t the purpose of this post.

Having viewed Kill Bill backwards from the lens of “Telephone,” however, I wonder if the music video served, in some way, as a rewrite of the movie. While I can certainly find feminist undertones in Kill Bill—a strong, independent female protagonist who is not overly sexualized; an emphasis on the sexualized nature of the violence women are, regrettably, all too often subjected to; a cast of female characters who exert their own agency and skills to obtain power instead of relying on men or their sexual allure—I don’t feel confident declaring it a feminist film. (Though I think it does pass the Bechdel test.)

I found several aspects of Kill Bill problematic, but my greatest source of discomfort with the movie came from its presentation of women as natural enemies and especially how the conflict between the female characters was racialized. I also want to point out that I’ve only seen volume one of the series so far, and I realize that many of my current problems with the film may be addressed in subsequent volumes. My biggest problem with volume one was that the female characters, while all strong and independent, were set against each other as adversaries. Within the movie itself this isn’t a problem, but the movie exists within the entire cannon of popular culture (and, in fact, frequently makes clear through its references that it exists within popular culture), and within much of that popular culture exists a stereotype that women are naturally catty and suspicious of each other. The movie does nothing to challenge this stereotype.

The struggles between the women are also racialized, as Uma Thurman’s character’s two adversaries are African-American and Asian. Well, I didn’t find the conflict between Thurman’s character and Copperhead too problematic. While race is present in the scene in which they dual, it isn’t a central part of their conflict, and I found their recognition of their shared identity as mothers interesting. However, in Thurman’s character’s dual with O-Ren Ishii, ethnicity is centralized. O-Ren Ishii mocks Thurman’s character as a white girl with a samurai sword, only to be bested by her in the end. The dual perpetuates the tired trope, found in films like Dances with Wolves and Avatar, of white people taking on an exotic, foreign culture and mastering it better than its own natives. Again, within the context of the film itself, this might not be problematic, but the film exists within the wider scope of popular culture and it does little to challenge the racial/ethnic stereotypes of that popular culture.

I found the animosity between the women almost surprising, in a way, because I could have easily seen them all coming to realize that they’d been manipulated by the mysterious Bill and joining together to take him down. In fact, I almost expected Thurman’s character and Copperhead to team up, bonded together by their motherhood. The film easily could have presented a sisterhood of women fighting together against their shared manipulation. Instead, they fight each other. The Pussy Wagon could have lived up to its reclaimed title as a vehicle full of women out to take back what’s theirs.

In the “Telephone” music video, however, the Pussy Wagon lives up to its reclaimed name. Of course, the “Telephone” video doesn’t just reference Kill Bill. It also pays homage to Thelma and Louise, a film I confess I have not seen. (I know, I know! For someone who loves analyzing pop culture, I’m so far behind!) However, I have seen the classic scene where Thelma and Louise drive their truck off the edge of the cliff, and though I hadn’t seen the entire film, at the end of the “Telephone” video, when Gaga and Beyoncé drive the Pussy Wagon off the cliff, I knew enough to think of Thelma and Louise.

By referencing both Kill Bill and Thelma and Louise, the “Telephone” video blends the independence of both movies’ heroines, the cinematography of Tarantino, and the sisterhood of Thelma and Louise. It presents Gaga and Beyoncé as partners in crime who help each other achieve their goal of revenge against the men who’ve hurt them and then help each other escape. It also presents Gaga and Beyoncé as equals, irregardless of their races. It is, in a sense, what Kill Bill might have been.

I’m not trying to say that Kill Bill isn’t a good movie. I loved finally seeing Tarantino’s renowned cinematography for myself and I very much want more. As an action film, it was excellent. Its protagonist was also a refreshing break from the usual role of women in action films, in which they are usually toys or temptations for the male characters. However, the film exists within the larger field of popular culture, a field to which it itself makes frequent references. The film places itself within pop culture as a whole, and so I, as a view, must do the same. While I found its heroine to be strong, independent and compelling, it did little to challenge stereotypes about women’s relationships with each other and racial tropes about white people being better at non-Western cultures than the non-Westerners. However, the beauty of a referential pop culture is that it invites rewrites and critiques from other forms of pop culture. By combining the strength of Kill Bill with the sisterhood of Thelma and Louise, the “Telephone” music video provides such a corrective while tipping its cap to Tarantino’s signature style.

 

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.