Curious about this for awhile...

[saucyirishlass.livejournal.com]

It's been said in many places by different people that LKH's portrayal of the BDSM lifestyle is off. I know a bit more than just the basics - ah, the joys of reading - and can sort of inherently pick up that something isn't right with her depiction, but I can't really articulate it. I was just curious to hear from those who participate in the lifestyle, what they personally find offensive, frustrating, or just headdesk-worthy about LKH's portrayal. Perhaps they can help make it clearer to me why it feels amiss.

Comments

[aramuin.livejournal.com]

Ditto with the strippers.

There's no real jaded 'I'm doing this for the money/to put myself through college' strippers. The only characters who strip are victims of past abuse who never seem to even contemplate getting into another line of work. Which baffles me since there are a fair number of weres who strip and I would have thought that the whole pack/pard/group-adjective-of-choice would be the perfect network to help the victim find another job.

Also, I find the idea that abuse is some sort of drug that weak and 'asking for it' characters get addicted to after one encounter to be deeply disturbing. One masochist (Nathaniel, say) is plausible*. Two is possible. Everyone in St Louis? That's pushing it. Then there's the fact that just because you have a masochistic kink doesn't make the actual abuse enjoyable or mean that you'll ever feel safe indulging said kink.

With such a horde of characters, why can't there be a plausible victim, one who gets on with their life but elects not to walk straight back into a lifestyle all but guaranteed to trigger bad memories at best, flashbacks at worst?

* By 'plausible' I mean that the sheer number of characters with abuse of a specifically sadistic nature in their background, probability alone suggests that one of the many has that particular kink.

[witchwillow.livejournal.com]

I didn't find that aspect of Nathaniel implausible. I could have ended up in a very different place, but for a chance meeting with someone I ended up caring deeply for, who was rather disturbed by anything remotely associated with BDSM. I got a chance to pull back and think about what I wanted and why I'd do such and such, etc.

So as I've said, I thought Anita was going to give Nathaniel a chance to find out who he was and if he even wanted to keep doing what he'd been doing. I applauded it. Little did I know what the future would hold.

In the same vein as your comment, my biggest peeve as concerns BDSM in her novels is Richard. Richard seems a prime candidate for someone who's been on the bad end of sexual abuse / power imbalance who would make the perfect top due to extreme attentiveness.

Except that while Richard apparently starts off disturbed that he might have sadistic tendencies and want to see other people in pain - even being the person causing them something most other people would call 'pain' - he doesn't grow. He doesn't seem to reconcile what he's seen of attentive tops when he was JC's hostage and anything else he's seen in general into an opposing viewpoint for who Gabriel and Raina were.

Of course some of this may be intentional. If Richard grew along those lines, he might come to see ruling over his pack as being a Dom; discipline where necessary even if it includes pain they don't like. Then he wouldn't be the book's stock punching bag.

I'm fumbling a bit for the analogy right now. But I can clearly see in my head where an outgrowth of Richard's sexuality would be in his leadership abilities.

There would be no 'democratic experiment' simply 'this is the way things are now'. And that way may even include choices, but it wouldn't repudiate the power given to him as/for being the strongest.

Can you tell I honestly thought there was a purpose behind the BDSM elements in her books? Can I just say that 'sorely disappointed' doesn't cover it?

[aramuin.livejournal.com]

*offers copious amounts of ice-cream to offset the disappointment*

I agree with Richard-as-a-top being an intriguing prospect, I hadn't considered that before although I think Richard is one of the characters who had so much potential for development until the plot became superfluous to the pr0n.

I think Richard learning the distinction between 'tyrant' and 'dominant' would have been fascinating and a genuinely interesting side-plot.

[clover-elf-kin.livejournal.com]

Can I ask what you thought the purpose might be? Power plays really interest me, therefore BSDM is turning into something of a research project right now! It would certainly be nice to have books that had it included for a reason besides porn... I can dream. >_>

[witchwillow.livejournal.com]

alarielle said it it her reply to me.

I thought BDSM was being included as a parallel to the hierarchical set up of were society - to show, via Richard, the difference between a Tyrant and a Dominant Leader.

It seemed incredibly interesting to me that there might be overlap in these two communities. And that the BDSM community might be pro-were in terms of understanding some scope of how they interact with each other and live their lives. And that overlap might contribute to the general public's misunderstanding of both those communities.

But far be it for LKH to show civilizations instead of just excused for bad sex.