Pondering Points
If I’m reading some of the last posts right, I find three assertions:
- Submissive in 50 Shades is flawed character unwilling to use a safe word for fear of losing her dominant partner, and, ugh, that makes the book unappealing
- Because the submissive is lacking as above, we do not have an SSC relationship. In such a relationship, another poster states “everything that happens is consensual.”
- Further, where SSC is followed, all is well. As one poster puts it, SSC isn’t a way for a dominant to do “jack” because of safewording.
On point one: Bravo to a flawed character. From a fictional standpoint, I would argue a flawed, weak or torn character is more interesting to follow than a steadfast unchanging one, whether in or out of an S&M storyline. At least we can hope for some progression in her or his development, maybe even toward more self-awareness and strength, or as in Story of O, toward the abyss. A stagnant character throughout is hardly worth following, no? So, from the writer’s standpoint, perhaps we should ask not where our characters in 50 Shades are now (whether working on “mommy issues” or having a weak sense of self) but where they might be later, and will they get there in a credible and interesting fashion. And if the characters go nowhere (I have not read the series), then we know the author is feeding us titillation alone, hardly a very satisfying brew for the long haul.
On point two: Having witnessed many S&M sessions and interviewed numerous couples and professionals into the scene as part of my own work on a novel over several years, I found exactly what one would expect from delving into any structured activity between us flawed humans. We may choose to label scenes and interactions and “Subs” and “Doms” following SSC as representing the only “true” and acceptable S&M, but let’s not fool ourselves into believing S&M players have no issues defining, negotiating and sticking to their ground rules. In fact, again, it is precisely the tension between the players around all the cracks and warts of the game which make it rich territory for writers, I contend.
On point three: All is not necessarily well following SSC, as the very novel in question shows. Our submissive is consenting to be with the man in the dominant situation. She is consenting not to use her safeword. She is consenting to go with whatever insane thing her dominant wants. What, in short, does consent or safe or sane mean without a whole person agreeing to the dictum? And if the supposed full proof gateway into acceptable S&M allows for participation by such a character, of what use is it? We may say, well, only whole people play at S&M (false, I’ll contend) or should, but that begs the obvious question: are there not many women, especially young women still finding their way and selves, who are so taken with finding a lover and perhaps also cheered on by peers of like mind as to make the step into an abusive relationship, even of the kind portrayed in 50 Shades? For all the flaws of the book so far discussed, perhaps one point of merit is it forces us to ask this question. I suggest it is a very worthy one to ponder, rather than dismiss it as of no bearing or interest to S&M as it plays in the real world, or an idealized one.
