The comparisons are often made – on forums, blogs and in conversation, as well as in art, film and literature – between BDSM and religion. From their hierarchies and dogmas to their hallowed outfits and accessories, it can sometimes seem that our kinks develop their own sacred language and myths. It’s been discussed ad-infinitum within the BDSM community. Well now, the debate has reached an employment tribunal in Bedford, and Jane Fae has written a brilliant report for the Guardian on exactly that:
“…The judge appeared to have few qualms accepting that “D/s” – the somewhat more esoteric philosophy of dominance and submission at the heart of BDSM – had most of the qualities, including cogency, consistency and personal importance one might expect of a belief system. He got that this was not about the “right to spank” – even if, as witnesses testified, that could be part of it.
No. His very real difficulty was whether a way of life sometimes described as “consensual slavery” or “consensual non-consent” could possibly be worthy of recognition in a democratic society.
Which was where I came in. After spending well over a decade following, studying and writing about alternative sexualities, could I assist the court? I tried. The key point, I argued, was the substance – how the principles operated in practice – rather than the wordage. Christianity, for instance, has had its own issues as critics have represented its practice of eating the body of Christ as cannibalism. And as for the Masonic oath…
D/s is not sexist: there are probably far more male submissives than female ones. Nor is it truly inequal. It embodies different and, in the everyday, unequal roles. But its cornerstone is equality and formality: it is preceded in most cases by highly protracted negotiation; there is agreement of rules and boundaries; and an absolute recognition that “no” means “no”. Could we claim as much for the average marriage?
But, the barrister asked: was I really suggesting that entering into a relationship in which someone else might tell you what to do, and where and how, was consistent with modern values? My answer was brief: “wage slavery”.
In the end, the court remained unpersuaded. If nothing else, I suspect that the idea of being the first employment tribunal in the land to give comfort in any form to “slavery” made the judge quite queasy.
That’s not the end of it, though. No precedent was set. There may yet be an appeal. And even if there is not on this case, it’s an issue that won’t go away…”
Full article here.
