I'm not sure if I'd totally buy "Question Authority: Participate in BDSM" as a viable slogan, but it's certainly an interesting theory. Like, I expect, many people, I had assumed that BDSM did tend to perpetuate traditional power roles, at least when in the male-top, female- bottom arrangement. So the third article's discussion of BDSM as an actual reversal of power roles was a surprising but fairly persuasive argument. Equally surprising was the author's assertion that female-dominant/male-submissive prostitution is not female-empowering necessarily, and may often do nothing more than assuage male guilt.
Part of the societal "problem" with S&M seems to be that it reflects exaggerated gender roles. The towering, dark, and muscular sadist is clearly the male, and the simpering, pathetic masochist is clearly the female. I think the fact that either half of these two stereotypes have little relation to reality is of little consequence; the important thing for society is that they exist as usable mental constructs. These power roles are not quite the same as the stereotypical image of the standard male and female, but they are clearly on the same continuum. Everyone knows, after all, that men are essentially violent and domineering anyway, whereas women are basically passive and like to be yelled at. S&M becomes a problem, not because its practioners sometimes wear these stereotypes, but because they sometimes take them off. And if they can take off these exaggeratedly large versions, doesn't that suggest everyone can take off their normal ones? That, in fact, these stereotyped behaviors are not intrinsic to the human condition at all? It's certainly worth considering.
The other danger S&M holds to a "stable society" has also been pointed out in one of our readings, but not in any of today's things, I think. It's that S&M is, by its very nature, forces a delocalizing of sexuality from the genders. And if sexuality is freed from the genders, then it might become considered a normal part of modern society, and, well, that would just lead to the collapse of civilization-as-we-know-it.
The third article isn't totally without fault. The author seems to believe that female-top/male-bottom is more common than the reverse, but only uses the testimony of prostitutes to prove this. Clearly, though, it's not so simple. Men who want to be a little dominant can probably find a woman to date who would be willing to be a little submissive, since these are "acceptable" roles; but it would be much harder for a man to find a woman willing to dominate him. And, as the author says, perhaps having to pay for the "ordeal" is part of the experience.
I'm not sure what to say about the other two essays. They were both far more personal than the third, making me feel almost as if I was eavesdropping. Both are private views from the inside of a community, looking out. Although both seemed to try to be somewhat inclusive, there were still constant reminders, even just from the language, that I didn't know what was what.
S&M can be dangerous, no question. It is about power, even if it's not about traditional power, and that means people can get hurt. But legal restriction of S&M isn't the correct response. How can something have "no redeeming social value" if two people are happy with it?