"Masochism is striving for appreciation from a certain person, the only person in a position to give such appreciation."1
"A 'masochist' does not enjoy the pain as such, but what she 'buys' with it."2
"Masochism is mostly just adaption to unsatisfying and limiting circumstances."3
In 1935, studies showed that women displaying "masochistic" behaviour were more attractive to men15: "Some of us have learned that we can survive and succeed at a higher level if we express our paranoia in a way that makes us attractive to the people we want to be attractive to."21, p. 28-29, see 29,30; let's hope we've evolved a little from then.If, by this definition, a woman can bond with a man otherwise "above her class", it is not surprising that Benjamin's axiom (s/a) would be applicable. (This would not only make for "valid" appreciation (from one in a "higher position"), but would even be in line with Esther Vilar's mating theorems4 and the romantic notion of the "knight protector" described therein, with the male excelling in all attributes, giving him security and her the certainty that she "scored best" (with an eye on the offspring to be expected and its protection; a man with a "killer-instinct" would excel in these ("If he treats me like that, imagine how he'd treat anybody who threatened me or our kids!" (...or anything that's his, one might be tempted to add with an eye on the Christian bible))); consequently, many women might even find it "suspicious" if they were treated well, making them wonder "why her partner has to do this", if she is "dating below her", making him afraid of being left if he does not please her.) His appreciation would serve her vanity; her dependency -- real or not -- his.
In which we shall demonstrate that allegedly masochistic rape fantasies in women sometimes feature pain as a means to an end, but rarely as the end itself, and almost never actual rape as a positive and lustful image7:
On a sidenote, it is worth exploring whether masochistic fantasies happen on a symbolic level; just like fantasy role-players enjoy the concept of a knight, it doesn't mean they enjoy the details. They might enjoy playing out the fights to the last detail, but few actually get down to the nitty gritty of detailing how after slaying the yeti, the hero has to walk home through the biting cold in his rags, limping, covered in blood, sweat and worse. Many masochistic phantasies are subject to the same restriction -- the idea sounds great just as long as the details are neglected. This is usually a fairly good indicator of the idea having come from outside conditioning; if the need comes from within the person, they usually tend to be comfortable with the details, and thus perchance the implementation as well.
"The first words must have [been] tools that not only identify the rules of the game, but automatically reinforce them through repetition. The importance of the word was not that it let the individual communicate his ideas, but that it allowed the culture to maintain its structure. It guaranteed the continuation of them game. [...] I'd say us humans will have to invent ourselves a new game -- but not a game of monkeys anymore."21, p. 285-287.
Traditionally male/female traits are termed differently; where a man is dominant, not rude, a woman is dependent, not caring or relationship-oriented.12 Positive terming for female strengths would result in a higher self-esteem (->NLP, Sapir-Whorf).
"I used to think I wasn't very pretty, so I acted like I wasn't. When men would ask me out, I used to think that they thought I would be an easy lay because I was desperate for attention, because I didn't think I was good-looking. I mean, if I wasn't pretty, that must be the only reason a man would ask me out. [...] I always used to compare myself to the models in the magazines, and they were all so pretty that I felt drab in comparison. I never stopped to think that in real life I was still better looking than most women. [...] By the time I realized it, it was too late. I was twenty-nine. [That's too old] when you're competing with the twenty-two-year-olds."21, p. 90-91.
The above quote is a very good example of how clichés rule many a woman's life; with men only being out to "get some" and women reluctant to "give any" (usually fearing being dubbed a slut for claiming the same sexual options men have); with beauty being the be-all and end-all in female existence*32, making time a crucial factor, forcing her to submit to the oft limiting concept of marriage before she "expires".
"I often think of beauty as just an indicator of how many good angles you have, the chance of the angle somebody looks at you from being a good one. Mostly everybody has gorgeous angles, and nasty ones. [...] The interesting bit is the definition of beauty as such. The baby scheme, big eyes, small nose, all that. Perfect skin. To achieve that ideal by cosmetic surgery, one takes away. [...] Few corrective measures actually build something [...]; beauty, as we perceive it, is a result of cutting away things, of leaving a face empty. Modern day beauty is also a result of capitalism. Beauty, Dietrich Bonnhoefer says, is in everything you regard with love. [...] Since we don't all love the same things, you need to find something we all respond to on a level of non-reflexion if you need positive identification for a product, however: The dreaded baby scheme. This has nothing to do with personal taste or intellect. [...] I guess even iguanas have some sort of protect-your-children mechanism that endears fetal shapes to them. This is not what makes us human.
There have been tests where the participants were shown a number of pictures, and then a picture created from the average data of all the other pictures. All testees without fail, no matter what racial or cultural background they came from, identified the "average" face as the most attractive one. Remember Wilde's note that nothing was as difficult to marry as a large nose? Now there is scientific proof.
We are attracted to that which is not special, does not provoke, does not scare or threaten us, does not alienate us. Beauty is a measure of absence of offensive features, any features. Those features that give you bad angles. Is this how we want to be?
I grew up on reruns of all these silly movies. American, mostly. All the female leads were the same, beautiful and helpless and broken. With some, it even stuck in real life. You might be thinking of Marilyn Monroe, but there were many more. When Hitchcock was asked how he chose his actresses, he said, "by vulnerability". The only way for a woman to get into the news was by getting killed -- or raped -- or by being famous and addicted to something or other. Beauty and (self-) destruction were linked up in my mind at an early age.
What I also grew up on was comic books. What role-models do Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse have to offer to us? All the women were minor parts, either shallow, busy being Freud's castrating woman, or getting victimized. Daisy is a classic example for this.
"Clichés of conquering and domination are imprinted upon us by the media before we make our own sexual experiences; they influence our fantasies, and how we rate and experience sexuality."13
The way we see ("ideal") women portrayed and the reasons for women to get on the media must needs have an influence on our lives and our expectations. "Only in a culture that elects beauty to be the most important attribute of a woman, the murder of a young beautiful woman is more regrettable and tragic than that of any other woman. The hyping of murders of beautiful women makes beauty as such seem destructive."5
What happens to a child who is taught that beauty means squirming in the dirt,5 wounded, defeated, dead? Will she not think that to be beautiful, she will have to be vulnerable, weak and broken? Will it not convince her that being assertive would immediately make all her "physical assets" NULL and void? And will it not make sexual assault look like some warped "tribute to a woman's beauty", a natural and inevitable effect of her attractiveness?
The psychological pressure women are subjected to is caused by the belief that our attractiveness to men, that their sexual desire is directly related to our ability to play victim. [...] The greatest attraction of a woman is based on her ability to be a prize that is won."5
This makes one conclusion almost inescapable: a woman
who has not broken her conditioning would, were she to
share the male obsession with physical beauty
(and that would necessarily be part of a complete
conditioning), almost certainly display "masochistic" behaviour to achieve "complete"
beauty (the tragic, weak and neurotic kind from the movies); it would in all probability
also draw her towards a person who has adopted the opposite cliché
gender-role, machismo. The
decision to submit to both the traditional gender-role and the
traditional male with its implied suffering through the loss of
freedom and autonomy might be perceived as a proof of "female
weakness" and/or "masochism" and would serve the man by enabling
him to belittle the woman, and would be
supported by the woman because of a lack of
self-esteem suggesting she could not cope alone and/or the idea
that she could survive at a higher level if
she made herself "attractive" that way. (And
then of course, there might still be a lot of genetic programming
left in the contemporary human being; a woman's choosing men with a
"killer-instinct" (who would
excel at protecting her and her children -- in the oldern
days) would just be another variation of
survival/procreation of the fittest. This of
course would be bad news, indicating that social gender-roles are
partially based on genetic programming: it might mean that -- if no
longer adequate -- these behaviours are natural up to a
point... Karen Horney however postulates that female "masochism" is
an example for society-created neuroses, but not a necessary result
of the female biology.15)
This situation, where "men are real men and women are real
women" is reflected upon in the saying that "the
biggest assholes always get the most beautiful women" ---
where the latter might even rejoice in the concept of passiveness
implied in the phrase.
On a side-note, of course a "real woman" has to dress like one30, and again, the pret-a-porter she wears is the fashion of the potential, the inviting victim; it is little but an elaborate wrapping pointing out how easy it is to violate her.
"Smooth skin, slender wrists, weak unmuscular thighs and calves are the ideals she grows up with. [...] Her clothes restrain motion; thin silky fabrics emphasize her vulnerability. Her blouse can be torn apart in a single motion. Her nylons run at the slightest touch. Her skirt allows for easy access; it takes but a gesture to expose her. Her shoes have heels that break and straps that tear. There is not a chance of running away. She is at the mercy of the most casual passer-by."5
Almost all displays of sexual acts are created to suit men's tastes. What role-model does that leave for women? Many choose to become how others expect them to be, unable to even name how they see themselves. Failing however to create their own, female fantasies, they but repeat the unhealthy paradigms created by a misogynist society. "The male ideology of assault (the mass psychology of the conquerer) is ever-present, and of course it creates its anti-thesis, the female readiness to be victimized (the mass psychology of the conquered). Taken to extremes, we get the female psycho-sexuality of the rape fantasy. [...] This does not only touch how we view ourselves and our sexuality, but also brings up the question how our attractiveness to men will be affected if we let go of the pornographic images.5
"[I think most women are offended by pornography (as opposed to erotica) because we intuitively know that we and] our bodies are being stripped, exposed, and contorted for the purpose of ridicule to bolster that "masculine esteem" which gets its kick and sense of power from viewing females as anonymous, panting playthings, adult toys, dehumanized objects to be used, abused, broken and discarded." 5, p. 394Insert studies on how men are affected by watching porn
"Institutionalized prostitution does not only bother me because it does not prevent rape, but also because it establishes a man's financial right to a woman's body and thus cements the idea that sex is a service performed by women that no civilized man should be denied."5
This strengthens the myth of the male sex-drive that "can't be denied" and plays down male responsibility in rape. Prostitution also, like pornography, furthers the concept of the nameless, faceless sub-human sex-toy.
"I call it the Noah Ark Syndrome. The perception lingers that human beings should go two by two. Someone who is not married -- either by choice or by chance -- is somehow regarded as abnormal."27Interestingly, most "masculinists" base their arguments around the traditional heterosexual husband-wife-kids family; insisting that it is necessary for the kid to grow up in a normal environment so it can later function in society. While it might be argued that "normal" is a but a proof of quantity, not of quality, and that "to function properly" is just an euphemism for "perpetuate the status quo", I think the real point would be that yes, both a male and a female parent are necessary exactly as long as the parents in question are victims of gender stereotyping; if certain traits "only occur in men" or "only occur in women", it might take a man/woman to teach them; likewise, if only certain behaviours are acceptable for a certain gender, a role-model might be helpful that would demonstrate what is acceptable for the kid to display, and what sort of expression she is denied. The real or alleged concern that several Men's Movements demonstrate and base their demand on that the traditional gender roles and family types should be enforced seems grossly inappropriate in the light of the rising number of divorces. If the welfare of the kids is really the issue, then discussing whether divorces are lamentable or not is beside the point; the well-being of the children should be the major concern instead. Allowing equal expression for both genders might be a step towards this. Furthermore, it would also put homosexual couples in a position where they could function as parents without being faced with resentments from society.
The main reason for the constant uncertainty concerning the difference between sexual assault and a consensual act is the traditional idea that it is compliant with the male role to approach the female in an aggressive way, and that it's the traditional role of the woman to "squirm" and finally "submit".5
"Compare victims' reports of rape with women's reports of sex. They look a lot alike....[T]he major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it."19
Many of the women analyzed by [Otto Rank] wanted to be
dominated, wanted to lose.18 It almost looked as if they
staged the primitive old rituals all over again; the conquering of
the woman by brute male force. They enjoyed losing even in
abstract situations7;
possibly to be "conquered" as their role demanded, maybe to be
bettered, to be sure the one she submits to is better at the
arbitrary thing than herself, perchance not pose a threat to her
lover.
Unfortunately, the social construct of "women wanting to be
conquered to finally submit" and "men having to be strong,
assertive and conquering" (which is part of what some feminists of
either gender call a rape
culture*25) provide an ideal foundation for
popular myths about women and rape:
"Rape is an act of aggression in which the victim is
denied her self-determination. It is an act of violence which, if
not actually followed by beatings or murder, nevertheless always
carries with it the threat of death. [..] Finally, rape is
a form of mass terrorism, for the victims of rape are chosen
indiscriminately, but the propagandists for male supremacy
broadcast that it is women who cause rape by being unchaste or in
the wrong place at the wrong time -- in essence, by behaving as
though they were free."28
A world without rapists would be a world where women could act freely, without fear of men. The fact that some men do rape is enough of a threat to keep women constantly subdued5. All men benefit from the domination and control of all women.
Also, the many cases of sexual harassment do not only reflect on the male ideology of rape, but also on a paralysis of the "female will"; a result of intentional, destructive and effective conditioning of women*25:
Female sexuality is normally expected to manifest as passive beauty;
"Wait, one day thy prince shall come."
"But what if it's the Big Bad Wolf knocking at the door?"
"Even then the thing to do is to submit; the wolf is bigger and stronger than thou art. No point in fighting back. But don't worry, little girl, there be friendly hunters in these woods."5
("But mommy, I'm a Lesbian!")
We are trained to cry, to charme, to plead and to look for male protection, but we never learnt to fight and win*25.
"In an assault situation, the woman has chosen neither combat-style nor battle-ground. She is totally unprepared. She cannot win; the most she can expect is to escape from defeat. The methods used against women are violence or the threat of the use thereof. The demonstration of violence is primarily a male behaviour. Women, on the other hand, are discouraged from using physical force from earliest childhood. She is not up to the confrontation, the fight. Being female has forced her into the role of the victim."5
"Ninety-five percent of women's experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive... women didn't go to Vietnam and blow up things. They are not Rambo."20
According to figures released by the U.S. Department of Justice in 1991, an estimated 155,000 women were raped each year between 1973 and 1987.
| 1 | Jessica Benjamin, Master and Slave: The Fantasy of Erotic Domination, in Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell & Sharon Thompson Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1983, p. 286. |
| 2 | Theodor Reik, Aus Leiden Freuden. Masochismus und Gesellschaft, Hamburg: Hoffmann & Campe, 1972. |
| 3 | Clara Thompson, On Women, New York: New American Library, 1964, p. 133. |
| 4 | Esther Vilar, The Manipulated Man, New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1972. |
| 5 | Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women & Rape, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1975. |
| 6 | Elizabeth A. Waites, Fixing Women: Devaluation, Idealization, and the Female Fetish, in Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association 30 (1982), p. 435-459. |
| 7 | Paula J. Caplan, The Myth Of Women's Masochism, New York: E. P. Dutton, 1985. |
| 8 | http://www.infocom.com/~genesis/resource/lesson12.family.html: The Stockholm Syndrome |
| 9 | Pat Califia, Sapphisterie -- Das Buch der lesbischen Sexualität, Berlin: Sub-Rosa Frauenverlag, 1981, p. 267. |
| 10 | Ti-Grace Atkinson, Why I'm Against S/M Liberation, in Against Sadomasochism: A Radical Feminist Analysis,Robin Ruth Linden, Darlene R. Pagano, Diana E. H. Russell, and Susan Leigh Star (Eds.), East Palo Alto, CA: Frog in the Well, 1982, 90-92. |
| 11 | Susan Brownmiller, Gegen unseren Willen: Vergewaltigung und Männerherrschaft, Foreword by Karin Howard, Frankfurt am Main: S. Fischer Verlag, 1978. |
| 12 | Jeri Dawn Wine, Barbara Moses, and Marti Diane Smye, Female Superiority in Sex Difference Competence Comparisons: A Review of the Literature, in C. Stark-Adamec, Sex Differences: Origins, Influences, and Implications for Women, Montreal: Eden Press Women's Publications, 1980, p. 176-186. |
| 13 | Linda Phelps, Female Sexual Alienation, in Jo Freeman (Ed.), Women: A Feminist Perspective - 2nd ed., Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, 1979, p. 18-26. |
| 14 | Helene Deutsch, Psychologie der Frau, Bern: Huber, 1948-1954. |
| 15 | K. Horney, Feminine Psychology, New York 1967. |
| 16 | Paula J. Caplan, Between Women: Lowering the Barriers, Toronto: Personal Library Publishers, 1981. |
| 17 | Jean Baker Miller, Toward a New Psychology of Women, Boston: Beacon, 1976, p. 110. |
| 18 | Gunther Stuhlmann (editor), Tagebücher der Anais Nin, Reinbek 1976, II, p. 15. |
| 19 | Catherine MacKinnon, quoted in Christina Hoff Sommers, Hard-Line Feminists Guilty of Ms.-Representation, Wall Street Journal, November 7, 1991. |
| 20 | Jodie Foster in The New York Times Magazine, January 6, 1991, p. 19. |
| 21 | David Gerrold, When H.A.R.L.I.E. was One, Revision 2.0, New York: Bantam, 1988. |
| 23 | http://www.igc.apc.org/nemesis/ACLU/Porn/HillSilverOrd1.html: Steven Hill and Nina Silver, Civil right anti-pornography legislation: Address harm to women, Always Causing Legal Unrest site, 1992. |
| 24 | http://pubweb.ucdavis.edu/Documents/RPEP/etiquet.htm: North American Etiquette, from In Defense of Ourselves. |
| 25 | http://pubweb.ucdavis.edu/Documents/RPEP/rculture.htm: Defining a Rape Culture. |
| 26 | http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/3925/myths.html: John Hamlin, List of Rape Myths, in Sociology of Rape, University of Minnesota Duluth. |
| 27 | Patricia Ireland (president of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in Glamour, February 1997. |
| 28 | Susan Griffin, Rape: The all-american crime, in Ramparts (Vol. 10), 9/1971. |
| 29 | http://personalitydisorders.cmhc.com/disorders/sx13.htm: DSM IV (summarized), Dependent personality disorder symptons, in Personality disorders, on Mental Health Net. |
| 30 | http://personalitydisorders.cmhc.com/disorders/sx17.htm: DSM IV (summarized), Histrionic personality disorder symptons, in Personality disorders, on Mental Health Net. |
| 31 | http://personalitydisorders.cmhc.com/disorders/sx36.htm: DSM IV (summarized), Narcissistic personality disorder symptons, in Personality disorders, on Mental Health Net. |
| 32 | http://www.igc.org/nemesis/ACLU/Nikki/BeautyClarke1.html: De Clarke, What is beauty, anyway?, on 'Nemesis'. |
| 33 | Colette Dowling, The Cinderella Complex -- Women's Hidden Fear of Independence, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981 |
| 34 | Frederik S. Perls, Gestalttherapie in Aktion, Stuttgart, 1974 |