Business as Usual: The History and Harms of BDSM in the Lesbian Community
"It becomes clear that sadomasochism is just one head of a larger beast, the Hydra of sexual liberalism that's been eating away at any real feminist progress for decades."
By Winnie Lark
When I lie in my lover’s arms, feeling entirely transported, taken, by her, what shall I call that? …I will not call it by the vile terms master and slave, those relics of the ownership of human flesh that are with us still. I will not call it dominance and submission—that model of human relations threatens to destroy us all. …I would rather develop a new model for transcendence, a new language that expresses how we affirm one another, are loving, are passionate, are connected to all living things, are women in struggle. (Jesse Meredith, “A Response to Samois,” in Against Sadomasochism, p. 97.)
While the term “BDSM” (bondage and discipline, domination and submission, sadism and masochism) didn’t emerge until the 1990s, the fetishization of power imbalances is nothing new. Radical feminists of the 70s critiqued works like The Story of O (1954) which romanticized extreme sexual abuse, just as contemporary feminists challenged the BDSM romance novel 50 Shades of Grey (2011). The lesbian S/M group Samois, named after The Story of O’s setting, exemplifies how many lesbians have historically pushed back against feminist critiques of sadomasochism and diverted women’s attention away from feminist projects. Proponents frame BDSM as a way to embrace hidden desires, echoing Freud’s view of sadomasochism as subconscious repression. Radical feminists, however, recognize that such practices reinforce systemic oppression. As Melissa Farley noted in “Ten Lies About Sadomasochism”, “Sadomasochism is business as usual; power relations as usual; race, gender, and class as usual.” (Sinister Wisdom, no. 50, 1993, p. 36.)
A major misunderstanding of anti-BDSM arguments lies in assuming the dynamics of BDSM fundamentally change when it occurs between women. Lesbian relationships lack inherent sex hierarchy, yet many intentionally introduce imbalances that aren’t naturally present under the guise of eroticism. In 1999, Sheila Jeffreys critiqued this practice: “Pat Califia (Samois member) argues that gender, the difference between the sexes, must be retained because it provides the excitement of sex. It is indeed the dynamic of sadomasochism. But for the feminist project, gender is something which cannot be retained; our freedom depends upon the elimination of ‘gender.’” (“The Eroticism of (In)Equality,” Lesbian Ethics, vol. 5, no. 1, 1999, p. 6.)
Queer theory’s assertion that lesbians exist outside heterosexual socialization dangerously ignores how all women internalize misogyny. For years there has been pushback against the idea that women form a coherent class, and lesbian exceptionalism is part of the liberal effort to convince us that we have no shared goals or commonalities. As Melissa Farley states, “Sadistic and masochistic attitudes and behaviors among lesbians, in fact, are a good example of how we internalize abusive ideas just like everyone else does. We’re seduced by male domination— because we see that that is where power lies.” (“Ten Lies About Sadomasochism,” p. 35.) Desires shaped by patriarchy cannot liberate; they only replicate oppression.
BDSM’s inherent racist characteristics further exposes its incompatibility with radical feminism. Gay newspapers in the 1990s rightly refused to run ads for the KKK. Why, then, did they feel comfortable publishing personal ads for readers seeking Black, Latino, and Asian sexual slaves? (Farley, Sinister Wisdom, no. 50, 1993, p.30). In “The Leather Menace: Comments on Politics and S/M”, Gayle Rubin recounts one clash between gay men and police over this issue: “In 1976, Los Angeles police used an obscure nineteenth-century anti-slavery statute to raid a slave auction held in a gay bathhouse. …The slaves were, of course, volunteers, and proceeds from the auction were to benefit gay charities. The event was about as sinister as a Lions Club rummage sale.” (Coming to Power, edited by Samois, 1981, p. 199.)
This racism displayed in gay BDSM spaces—a regrettable and significant part of gay history—is not confined to men. Lesbians involved in S/M openly wrote articles, gave speeches, and produced porn centered around “master/slave” relationships. In “Racism and Sadomasochism: A Conversation with Two Black Lesbians”, Karen Sims and Rose Mason discuss this phenomenon and the privilege inherent in choosing to “play” with loss of control:
Mason: “For them to make sadomasochism…a community issue, a feminist issue, a political issue...angers me; it has no place. I think it is racist for them to even call themselves an oppressed minority. I am very insulted that they would align themselves with me as a Third World woman in terms of being oppressed. They don’t know oppression.”
Sims: “I have a question to the people that are into sadomasochism and talking about dealing with their own struggles. How do they align themselves with the day-to-day struggles of Third World people? The whole language, the whole dressing up, bondage, master/slave, dog collars.” (Against Sadomasochism, Darlene R. Pagano, 1982, p. 102.)
Sims raises a profound point. If radical feminists accept that the personal is political, how can we justify decrying imperialism while eroticizing slavery’s iconography? Our politics should not end at the bedroom door. How can we tell women they have nothing left to lose but their chains—unless we find those chains sexy?
As Mason noted, sadomasochists often claim they are oppressed by society, arguing they must hide their “lifestyles” for fear of being labeled abusers or misogynists. Gayle Rubin said, “The experience of being a feminist sadomasochist in 1980 is similar to that of being a communist homosexual in 1950.” (Coming to Power, “The Leather Menace: Comments on Politics and S/M”, p. 212.)
In “Why I’m Against S/M Liberation”, Ti-Grace Atkinson critiques this line of thinking, as we know that the fetishization of power imbalances is pervasive in our society: “Your enemy, then, from which you wish ‘liberation,’ is one of attitude. …Your ‘enemy’ is not the Establishment per se. In fact, you claim as your life force the distillation of the essence of that Establishment. Your enemy is the resistance of the Establishment to recognize you as its own.” (Against Sadomasochism, p. 91.)
Samois’ activism heavily relied on this notion of sadomasochist oppression, especially as they faced criticism from other feminists. However, as opposed to the feminist goal of protecting the vulnerable, their rhetoric was used to shield predators. In Coming to Power, Rubin provides an example of what she views as unjust legal consequences for a sadist: “In a recent case in Massachusetts, Kenneth Appleby was sentenced to ten years in prison for hitting his lover lightly with a riding crop in the context of a consensual S/M relationship. The Appleby case has some murky elements, but it sets a frightening precedent.” (“The Leather Menace: Comments on Politics and S/M”, p. 99–200.) Further investigation into these “murky elements” reveals that Appleby’s “lover,” who maintained that they were not in a sadomasochistic relationship, fled to a monastery in his underwear after being struck with the riding crop for serving melted ice cream. Rubin’s immediate unease when sadists are questioned is unjustified and dangerous—Appleby was later convicted of kidnapping, rape, and murder. Far from being oppressed, sadists are often protected by society, which enables abusers to use BDSM as a cover for their actions as Appleby did.
This dynamic is evident in the 2024 Vulture article detailing allegations of abuse by Neil Gaiman against multiple women. He responded to the accusations, stating that: “sexual degradation, bondage, domination, sadism, and masochism may not be to everyone’s taste, but between consenting adults, BDSM is lawful.” This “rough sex defense” is often used to shield male perpetrators, forcing women to prove they did not consent to abuse rather than proving that the abuse occurred. In the same article, the author felt compelled to clarify: “Had Gaiman and Pavlovich been engaging in BDSM, this could conceivably have been part of a rape scene.” The modern acceptance of BDSM has brought us to a place where women must prove that they did not facilitate their own rapes, and lesbian feminists should bear this in mind when women claim that BDSM has any place in feminist movements.
Researching the history of Samois reveals a pattern of undermining feminist/lesbian projects. Coming to Power, a founding work of the lesbian BDSM movement intended to persuade lesbians to accept S/M, documents how Samois historically disrupted feminist efforts. From their controversial “float” in the 1978 Gay Freedom Day Parade featuring a woman chained spread eagle to the hood of a Jeep, to their documented harassment of members of Women Against Violence in Pornography and Media, they repeatedly diverted attention and drained time and energy away from important feminist missions.
Take for example a situation detailed by Pat Califia in “A Personal View of the History of the Lesbian S/M Community and Movement in San Francisco”: Samois published a pamphlet titled “What Color is Your Handkerchief?” which advised lesbians on signaling kinks to one another. When a feminist bookstore refused to carry it, Samois bombarded them with phone calls and delivered a petition accusing them of censorship. The ensuing conflict, culminating in a march of 25 women to the bookstore, wasted valuable time and energy that could have been directed toward meaningful feminist causes. (Coming to Power, p. 267–269.)
Perhaps the most shocking example of Samois infiltrating feminist projects to advance contradictory agendas is their support for pedophilia. In a speech at The Scholar and the Feminist: Towards a Politics of Sexuality conference, Samois member Gayle Rubin defended NAMbLA, a group of gay pedophiles advocating for the repeal of age-of-consent laws. After widespread drama ensued, Califia attempted to clarify in Coming to Power: “Samois has passed a resolution supporting young peoples’ right to complete autonomy, including sexual freedom and the right to have sexual partners of any age that they wish.” (“A Personal View of the History of the Lesbian S/M Community and Movement in San Francisco”, p. 280.)
Why were so-called feminist organizations like Samois devoting time and energy to such heinous causes? Audre Lorde pondered: “... Is this whole question of S/M sex in the lesbian community perhaps being used to draw attention and energies away from other more pressing and immediate life-threatening issues facing us as women in this racist, conservative, and repressive period?” (“Interview with Audre Lorde” in Against Sadomasochism, p. 70.) When feminists and queer activists claim that our political agendas align with those of sadomasochists, we must critically examine whether this is true. Does sadomasochism lead us toward female liberation, or does it divert us from it? We must identify and eliminate antagonistic contradictions within our movement to avoid repeating past mistakes.
As radical feminists, we understand that our ways of forming relationships have been influenced by those in power who do not prioritize our well-being. Karen Rian says in “Sadomasochism and the Social Construction Of Desire”, “I believe that an approximate feminist goal is not the expression—or even equalization—of power, but rather the elimination of power dynamics in sexual, and other, relationships.” (Against Sadomasochism, p. 49.) Even if we attempt to subvert the narrative by placing women in the “sadist” role, we are still operating within the confines of the patriarchal system. What might we discover if we step outside that system entirely?
Radical feminism encourages us to envision new possibilities for our futures: What do we want our sexual interactions to look like? How can we facilitate relationships that align with our values? Rian suggests: “To borrow a formula from Karl Marx: if we want to get rid of dominance and submission in personal relationships, we have to get rid of the conditions that require and engender dominance and submission.” (Against Sadomasochism, p. 47.)
In researching the history of lesbian BDSM, it becomes clear that sadomasochism is just one head of a larger beast, the Hydra of sexual liberalism that has been eating away at any real feminist progress for decades. Despite BDSM being marketed to us as a personal choice, we know the personal is political. As women, we understand that there is no true pleasure in “business as usual,” and as lesbians, we have a unique opportunity to do away with gendered hierarchies in our relationships. New ways of loving are possible if we work towards them.
Thank you for writing this. There is nothing feminist about BDSM.
Thank you so much for sharing this! I have been having this conversation a lot latley and been getting shut down for not being "sexually liberated" . I do not think consent can exist when there is a power dynamic.