As a subculture, BDSM is one of the most unfortunate victims of sensationalism. From Secretary (2002) and it's linkage of submission to mental illness and self-harm, to the more recent 50 Shades of Grey (2015) with its complete disregard of safewords, BDSM in popular culture is peppered with inaccuracies. But it seems that this is not simply a 21st century phenomenon. From studying the accounts of brothels in 19th century London, in particular those owned by female procuresses or 'madams', we can see that very little has changed in the way that female roles in BDSM are constructed and shaped by a society which at its core, is still patriarchal and centred around the male fantasy. And that this is a society which ultimately needs to be changed to protect the interests of women everywhere and demonstrate to those confused by the media, that it is perfectly normal for feminism and certain sexual practices within BDSM to coincide.
I originally set out to explore the differences in penal sentencing between male and female brothel owners during the 19th century in an attempt to understand attitudes towards women, especially those involved in prostitution. But what proved more telling was the portrayal of these women themselves in media and fiction. BDSM as an industry was growing in the Victorian era, with 'houses of ill fame' catering for many interests of those who frequented them. In reality the extent of practices was abundant, but those that made the headlines were critically centred around female domination and male submission. Examples include Mary Jeffries (pictured in an artist's impression, header) and her infamous brothel which catered for the male flagellation of elite members of society. This was by no means a typical representation of a 19th century brothel, but it is by far the most notorious. Brothels like these, which were pleasurable centres of male debauchery, seemed to be far more acceptable than those which didn't directly cater to the fantasies of men and served primarily for women to make money in a society which disallowed them from doing so. Alongside this grew the idea of the madam as a dominatrix, a governess-like figure who featured in many classic Victorian novels, which has continued as a trope throughout the centuries. Even now, the word 'madam' conjures up thoughts of a large, broad figure with whips, chains and leather boots . Madams were villainised and masculinised to an extreme level in order for them to be acceptable, but why was this the case?
Because madams had to be masculine to dominate a man. The only acceptable reason a man could have his innate power challenged was if this was by another 'man', which thus led to the promotion of this fantasy. Submissive and feminine women were weak, they were sexually undesirable because they were the norm, traditionally inferior in both the public and private sphere. Whilst unacceptable, this is conceivable for a society in which marital rape is still legal. Then why is it still an issue today? Over 3/4 of all women interested in BDSM are submissive, and many of them are also doctors, lawyers, businesswomen, CEOs. Strong, powerful women just like their sexually dominant counterparts. But yet we are still fed images through media that all submissive women are incapable of acting for themselves, we are given unrealistic personalities like Ana Steele. And it can be argued further that dominant women have also become demonised, with the association between being mentally ill and 'wild' in the bedroom, or the sheltered, suppressed girl who cannot control her vices. This in itself is pathetically Victorian. In addition, we continue to glorify both male dominance and male submission. Christian Grey is portrayed as an ideal and desirable dominant man, but the idea of the all powerful, male millionaire who loves to be spanked in his downtime is also celebrated in films like The Wolf of Wall Street (2013). Why is it okay for men to be strong regardless of their sexual preferences, whereas this does not apply to women?
It is precisely for these reasons that BDSM is still connected to rape in the eyes of many, and why this attitude needs to stop. The entire concept of the submissive woman has been morphed by the media industry into an acceptable form of sexual assault when in reality, the two are not connected whatsoever. This idea evidently has been growing over centuries, instead of being pinpointed as an issue that needs addressing. Women are ashamed to have rape fantasies and discuss them because they feel that it makes them 'unfeminist'. Wanting to role-play a situation of non-consent is fine, and so is telling somebody that you enjoy this sort of thing. Using a person's fantasy to justify raping them, is not. Men who are sexual sadists and enjoy the domination of women under their consent, are not the same as rapists, though they are not seen this way anyway. It is women who enjoy masochism that are seen as victims of rape, and who have their strengths and achievements stripped from them because of their bedroom activities. Again this demonstrates the praise of male sexuality in society. On a personal level I have been ashamed to talk about my own sexual submission to friends who have been sexually assaulted, but why should this be the case? Society and the media industry in general needs to realise this and change the way it portrays BDSM immediately, to show all women that they are strong and that feminism and any safe, consensual sexual practice can coincide. It is unfortunate that this had not happened by 1900, but it is absolutely pathetic that it has not happened by 2016. Let's do something to change that.
