Montaje de la MEA y prueba de desempeño de la membrana en una celda de

The discipline of sexology operates still mainly with the presumption of a ‘natural sexuality’ and as it is focusing on individual expressions of its sub- ject, it misses out on the crucial inter relatedness of the individual and soci- ety as expressed in the concept of ‘lived body’. As Carole S. Vance points out this leads to: “... intellectual isolation and theoretical impoverishment [which] can be seen in most sex research journals. Thus, as sex is isolated and privatized within the couple, the study of sexuality is encapsulated within ‘sexology’. The theoretical position of most sex researchers, evident (though implicit) in their work, is functional and ahistorical” (in: Snitow et al. l983: 377). An example of sexological work and an individualistic approach on ‘Sadomasochism’, in this case focusing on the ‘paraphilia’ of masochism, is the book ‘The armed robbery orgasm’ by Ronald W. Keyes and well known sexologist John Money (1993). In this book, which consists mainly of an autobiography of Keyes, who was involved in a ‘sadomasochistic’ relation- ship that included robberies, John Money, even though he seems to be aware of the problems of stigmatization and the not determined but ongoing processes of human development, still applies the label of ‘paraphilia’ and focuses on the individual and his attempts to achieve ‘sexological health’: “the sexologist and he will form an alliance against the paraphilia. ( ...) Their joint strategy will include selective use of pharmacologic substances in dos- ages and for periods of time specific to individual efficacy ... Without a true understanding of the nature and phenomenology of the paraphilias, ascer- tainment of the where, when, and how of paraphilias, and of how persist- ently they become patterned in the brain and the mind, will not be possible” (Money and Keyes 1993: 11 and 13). The social constructedness of ‘sexuality’ and its ‘perversions’ is definitely not the focus here.

The study of the German sexologist Andreas Spengler, called: ‘Manifest Sadomasochism of Males ...’ (1977) focused on male practitioners of consen- sual ‘SM’ that were either placing contact adverts for these ‘bodily practices’

9780230_522107_03_cha02.indd 44

and/or that were members of a ‘SM’-club. The sexual preferences within the gained sample spread nearly evenly into 38 per cent of gay interest, 31 per cent of bi- and 30 per cent of heterosexual-preference. The majority of Spengler’s subjects were in between 30–40 and most of them were better educated and paid which might be the reason for their cooperation and not an indication of the average socio-economical background of most male consensual ‘SM’ers. Secrecy about these ‘bodily practices’ appeared to be a general feature, two thirds of the sample admitted that even their closest relatives and friends did not know about their practices which once again highlights the impact of the social censure of ‘SM’. The occurrence of com- paratively high divorce rates that Spengler found to be characteristic (16 per cent in heteros, 12 per cent in bisexuals and 5 per cent in gays) might also rather be interpreted as an effect of the ‘social censure’ (Sumner 1990). It was harder for heterosexual players to find partners than for the bisexuals and gays that enjoyed consensual ‘SM’. The frequency of their ‘bodily prac- tices’ was relatively low as only 20 per cent ‘played’ once a week by average. Compulsion or dependency on ‘SM’ rituals which was suggested by many of the theories on consensual ‘SM’, thus does not seem to be a valid sug- gestion as most of the sample (parallel to mine) also practiced other sexual variations. As only 16 per cent of the sample played exclusively the role of the ‘Master’ or ‘slave’, a fixation on one position was found to be as rare as extremely painful ‘play’. The importance of fetish dress was pronounced only by half of the sample. Ninety per cent of the sample never consulted professional help as they were not worried or disturbed by their practices. The social stigma though that accompanies the label ‘Sadomasochism’ was felt to be a problem and is reflected by the fact that those ten percent of the sample who did feel bad about their practices were the least integrated into the ‘SM’-subculture.

In 1983 Kamel and Weinberg’s study on ‘Sadomasochism’ which was conducted in America was published. This sociological research found that self-identified consensual ‘SM’-practitioners had a preference to stay in the company of each other rather than trying to ‘play’ with people who did not share their specific interests. In order to avoid offending the straight popula- tion and also in order to informally control the safety of ‘play’, they preferred to be within their ‘SM’-community which parallels much of my findings. As the gay ‘SM’-subculture appeared to be more organized and therefore more effective in enforcing or rather reinforcing self-imposed restraints of con- sensual ‘SM’ than their hetero-counterparts, Kamel suggested that the lack of these systems of informal control through the subculture is less effective for heteros and therefore more often leads to negative images of consensual ‘SM’ as violent and non-consensual within the media and consequently, amongst the public.

A survey conducted by Gosselin and Wilson (1980 in Howells 1984) on ‘sexually variant males’ (‘fetishists’, ‘sadomasochists’ and ‘transvestites’)

9780230_522107_03_cha02.indd 45

found overlapping sexual preferences and activities within these three groups. A majority of these men enjoyed impersonal sex objects and a pref- erence for ‘playing’ the ‘submissive’ role during sexual activities. As ‘fetish- ism’ does appear to overlap more with ‘sadomasochism’ and ‘transvestism’, than does ‘sadomasochism’ with ‘transvestism’ the researchers came to the following thesis: “Thus fetishism would appear more basic or ‘prototypic’- sadomasochism and transvestism could be interpreted as alternative direc- tions for the fetishistic impulse to travel” (Gosselin and Wilson in Howells 1984: 100). As will be shown in Chapter 3, the ‘fetishistic impulses’ do not always seem as determining as suggested here. The notion of ‘fetishistic impulses’ that are characteristic to individuals gains another dimension when Gosselin and Wilson sum up the results of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. In comparison to a control group of ‘normal’ males, the sample group consisting of ‘fetishists’, ‘sadomasochists’ and ‘transvestites’ showed a tendency towards ‘neuroticism’ and introversion even though not far from the average in society. “Analysis of individual items indicated that they were inclined to be shy, lonely, sensitive and depressed, and less likely to enjoy telling jokes. All of this suggests some difficulty in social interaction, whether as a cause or effect of the sexual pattern” (Gosselin and Wilson in Howells 1984: l00). The ‘social stigma’ that leads many prac- titioners into depression and/or isolation might be worth exploring in this context.

Against a widespread scientific belief, Gosselin and Wilson found no correlation between the three sexual variants and frequency of corporal punishment. Like in the studies mentioned above they found ‘normal’ socio-economic backgrounds and middle age to be quite characteristic for all three groups. These findings parallel the data I collected in London. The concluding thoughts of Gosselin and Wilson in my opinion reflect the still prevalent dogmatic ignorance within scientific as well as pub- lic discourses about consensual ‘SM’ as well as other ‘sexual deviations’. “Fetishism, sadomasochism and related sexual behaviours remain some- thing of a mystery to the scientist as well as the layman. Since the sex drive has clearly evolved for reproductive purposes, and these behaviours are comparatively non-reproductive, it is reasonable to think in terms of something ‘going wrong’ in the course of development” (Gosselin and Wilson in Howells l984: l05/l06).

Within these very rare empirical researches of consensual ‘SM’ the prin- ciple of the ‘sexual politics of truth’ remain. Legitimized ‘sexual identities’ still instantly have an assumed ontologically privileged position in compari- son with unlegitimized ones, whereas the claiming of an unlegitimized ‘sex- ual identity’ regularly implies an instant disqualification within mainstream society. However, similar to my findings (2001a,b) Cross and Matheson’s (2006) findings confirm that there is no evidence of escapism, psychpathol- ogy and/or other forms of ‘psychopathology’ amongst consensual ‘SM’ers.

9780230_522107_03_cha02.indd 46