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

[morteamore.livejournal.com]

i agree with the judgmental comment. her whole approach to BDSM has a quality of someone looking in no the scene and mimicking what they see, but trying to rationalize or thinking they're above it at the same time. i've felt she just sticks it in her books to appear more dark and edgy. no big surprise there. i find it offensive

[xtricks.livejournal.com]

Well, from what I've read - and my own experiences - she's got a lot of unresolved and unthought bigotry going on there. Plus ... really, her sexuality is very ... whitebread in a strange way.

But I'll start with the basics (keeping in mind that I stopped reading after Obsidian Butterfly, with a quick, repulsed, glance through NiC).

She has, as far as I'm concerned (and, just like everything else BDSM is not a monolithic culture), much of the simple basics wrong. The relationship that Anita and Merry have with their men is, at the heart, abusive to the men (and certainly portray the women as selfish, nasty people). There is some very questionable consent going on and I don't just mean the lack of safe-word type stuff - not everyone uses safe words. But between the various magical ardeur type stuff and the 'you'll get killed/have no sex ever/be punished by your boss/ if you don't fuck Anita or Merry - you've removed choice from the relationship. And instead of playing with that power dynamic game, she pretends it isn't there by saying that everyone 'loves' A or M and wouldn't mind being nothign but a fucktoy - no matter that the characters were presented as powerful, ambitious people. If the genders were reversed in these books, I think that everyone would see how ugly the situation actually is more easily but our culture doesn't have such an easy time recognizing sexual abuse when it's woman on top.

Her concept of BDSM, as a positive thing, seems to be nothing more than getting slapped or pinched, bitten or fucked hard. She doesn't seem interested in the exploration of sensation - which, to me, is often key to BDSM, because there are a lot of different sensations the characters are ignoring - ass play, spanking, toys - even if you didn't want to go to whips etc there's still a lot of stuff she doesn't explore. If you're going to say that oh, Merry likes to be bitten then she'd probably like to have her nipples clamped, or her lips (both places) or so on - but no one even suggests/tries that. If Anita likes multiple men in public, well there are places that you can go and be put in a sling and be fucked by a line of men. If she likes big cocks, she'd probably like vaginal fisting/extreme penetration. There are, IMO, impulses that are there in the characters but the author is not acknowledging. And when sideline characters show they are interested in more than what the main characters are, they are labeled perverts.

She's awfully judgmental of anything sexual that her/her characters don't enjoy which I feel pretty strongly is not a characteristic of most BDSM practitioners - if you're in the freak box yourself, it doesn't do you any good to point fingers at the other freaks. She has real problems with homosexuality/lesbianism but seems fascinated with the idea that 'the love/fuck of a good woman can turn a gay man straight'. I also think there's some unacknowledge self-hatred or self-disgust at the sexuality being written about here - LKH bends reality into a pretzel to insure that no one has to sit down and really think about what they're doing or search for a way that allows the characters to regain any self-respect. While I don't really care about LKH's private sexaul mores, her writing suggests that she both is facinated by what she's writing and is also, possibly, repulsed by it. In other words, she's got hang-ups that she's pretending aren't there.
(Cont>>>)

[kali1967.livejournal.com]

One thing that always bugged me was Nathanial. I mean, maybe it's something about his standing in the pard, but it always seemed as if he literally had no will of his own, he'd just do whatever anyone said, no matter what it was. He was just this mindless little pet that liked to get fucked a lot. Speaking as a submissive, yeah, okay, sometimes it can be like that, but it's virtually impossible to keep that mindset 24/7. Like I said, maybe it has something to do with his shapeshifter status, but it always annoyed me whenever LKH would mention how submissive Nathanial is.

[dwg.livejournal.com]

I'll freely admit that my interest in the scene thus far is purely literary -- but I think the main thing that's been irking me is the whole dominant/submissive portrayal. Anita's constantly fluffing herself up and saying she's the dominant one, and everyone has to submit to her, and as far as I can tell, she's one of the suckiest tops ever. The biggest thing that strikes me about this is how she goes out of her way to soothe away all the woobies with her menz with her brand of soothation (ie, lying on her back and flailing with orgasms) rather than finding out what they like and inflicting it on them. Specially with Nathaniel -- I mean, he's quite happy to be submissive to her, but then she fusses over him and says, "omg, please don't do the cooking and cleaning so much!" and tries to make him more "independent" when really, this is what makes him happy. It makes him happy to serve his master/mistress and to see them happy by what he does (which is probably why I do like the Nathaniel/Asher ship, because dammit, at least Asher knows what the hell he's doing and will let Nate do his thing. Plus, will deliver spankings and nipple-clamps when desired.)

Also, she never really services any of his needs unless she's kinda cornered into the situation -- she was reluctant to "mark" him in NiC and bite him all over, she didn't really know what to do when he was trussed up for the flogging in the club in ID. Considering that she's essentially his mistress, I woulda thought that she'd at least find out what he's into and try to cater to that. I would say she could retrain him to her style of things, but thus far that's failed so horribly because...well, she's so damned vanilla about it all.

She's happy to walk into a room and huff out that she's the greatest and that all others should acknowledge her as such, but she's got nothing to back it up.

So this kinda makes me believe she's more into masochism. LKH has confessed to being a control freak, this is the perfect outlet for that sort of thing. Just hand over control to someone else and not be responsible for things for a little while. Anita/Merry like the pain and the humiliation, and it's all somehow not her "fault", because she totally has to do the sex!

In which case, you'd think Merry/Anita'd be attracted to more dominant men and/or women just for the sexual outlet and have this person be their main squeeze/Master (*cough* Richard/Doyle much? IF ONLY).

. . . wow, I just came back to writing this comment after getting a snack and totally forgot what else I was going to say. Um. Um. WAFFLES!

[booster-blue.livejournal.com]

I you used LKH's books to understand how the BDSM community worked, you'd assume that all we did was sit in bedrooms and have bad sex at all hours of the day. She completely ignores the fact that there are relationships to be had. Tops don't just simply walk up to any submissive and drag them off to screw them mindless. You have to actually get to know the person you're going to get involved with. Not everyone is into the same thing, and a responsible dominant will make sure that he/she and their submissive are compatible. And the submissive will do their part in being honest with what their turns ons and limits are so as to not be overwhelmed.

Trust is a big thing in the community, and Anita/Merry don't show that in the least. They operate under the thinking that everything will work itself out, so there's no need to try and address any problems that might arise among their harems. LKH writes that sex is some sort of magical cure-all to any problems in the world. No long lasting romantic relationship can survive on just sex alone; but Merry/Anita can't be bothered with things like thinking about how their men feel (unless it get in the way of them getting their jollies).

Their selfish mistresses that see no merit in caring for their subs. And that's never a good thing with BDSM.

[dan-lian.livejournal.com]

Here's my issues with it:

I'm generally an all-around switch. I've been to BDSM conventions where I've had my ass smacked by porn stars and told it's fine--and where I've had guys ask if they can use a taser on me. I've help set up a dungeon, which had everything from a padded area for "puppy play" to cages, slings, crosses, wheels, and spanking benches. I watched girls get fisted in a huge public room and guys get massaged and hot wax poured on them. LKH just limits her BDSM scope to multiple partners, biting, and hard sex. Umm... no. That's just hard sex, mmkaythnx?

Where, as someone else said, is the okay-ness with leashes? With the hot wax, the nipple clamps, the mental bondage? I've found that mental bondage -- "Kneel like that until I tell you to move"--can be incredible. Where's the blindfolds and the velvet, or the fur or the leather or the silk?

I have floggers I take great pride and joy in, and I've yet to see something so... elementary? cliche? even take a sentence in one of LKH's books. BDSM - Bondage/Discipline, Dominance/Submission, Sadism/Masochism. I'm not really seeing ANY of that...

[randomsome1.livejournal.com]

I remember the blog of hers from a few months(?) back where she said that a top was the dominant one in a relationship all the time, and that the bottom was always submissive, and that's how things were all the time unless the bottom was one of those nasty ones that basically tried to have an opinion of their own.

The bit where Merita claws the hell out of herself and whoever else is around her, no matter if they've said they don't want clawed or whatnot, seems off to me. I think it's mostly that she doesn't focus on, attempt to enjoy, or even really register the pain she's inflicting on herself or others.

[arclights.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid that Laurell's portrayal of BDSM is about as accurate as a twelve-year old girl's unresearched depiction of gay sex. =/ There's a lot that you can't understand from it just looking at a few pornos/calendars.

Actually, Laurell's portrayal of gay sex is about on the same level.

[amamelina.livejournal.com]

to start off, I'm no expert what-so-ever in the ways of BDSM. However, I had a friend who was into that, and this is what she told me.

"It's about trust and respect. The submissive actually has a lot of power over the dominant. That's because the dominate has to stop if the submissive can't take what's being dished out. To go on puts them both at risk and ruins the relationship. The submissive trusts that his/her dom will stop or not go beyond what they can both handle. The dom respects his/her submissive enough to know what boudaries to cross and what not to cross. A lot of time, there is a lot of talking between the dom and sub before they ever get down to sex, so that they are on the same level."

As far as I know, that's what BDSM is all about. The toys, bondage and whatnot is all agreed on. That is not what LKH shows. There is no respect between the partners. It's only what Anita/Merry wants, and who cares what the needs of the men are. I think her portrayal is way off.

[frabjously.livejournal.com]

These types of discussions are why I love this comm so much. I don't really have anything to add to the topic conversation except to agree with everyone and thanks the OP for bringing this up. Seriously, you could write a huge social analysis of LKH's work.

[deannawol.livejournal.com]

What is depicted in the series is not BDSM and to say that it is means that LKH has no actual real world experience in the world of BDSM. I think that she trapped herself into a corner when she started discussing Nathanial's background and playing it up in any of the books. She picked a background that sounded pathetic enough that we would go "awww" and immediately want to protect him. However, when she started to blow this up into a real background, the holes start to show through.

NiC shows this in spades. The fact that someone wasn't watching over Nathanial, that someone wasn't monitoring that a safeword wasn't being screamed. At every BDSM club that I've been to, there has been at least one person floating to make sure that no one was being pushed too far and that limits are respected. If she wants to continue down this road, she needs to do some research. Communities tend to be open and welcoming and willing to answer questions. She just needs to ask!

She pretends to be edgy, to be hardcore but she misses out on some of the basic principles: trust, respect, safewords. And those are only some of the things that she should be thinking about. Even a cursory reading of some of the BDSM-centric fics on the 'net will show these principles, or at least the better ones do. Just like reading a couple of gay fics will tell you that you need to lube first.

Her first encounter with Micah, her most significant submissive partner (and least developed character) involved a rather large bout of non-con. Intellect tells us that this is a relationship that should have shattered instantly. She said no and he went on anyway.

LKH seems to return to non-con/semi-non-con on a regular basis in both of her series. The main character loses all control over who they have as a partner, though for different reasons and while that is a kink (rape / rape-fantasy), it's technically not part of BDSM.

To be honest, I think that LKH is less including BDSM and more including Kink and very, very bad sex. But that's just my humble opinion - feel free to pick as appropiate.

[saadiira.livejournal.com]

I think that LKH frankly might not do as well if she were more accurate, instead of actually catering to the preconceived notions of the vanilla world.

That being said, her entire principle of what is and is not dominant has always rather troubled me. Abuse victims are always weak, and always submissive. They are ruined for life, and can never have any power.

Those portrayed as alpha, or as strong, or dominant, are actually control freaks, and not natural leaders of any real sort. That's actually a weakness all on its own, being a control freak, because the moment anything or anyone steps out of line, they totally LOSE it. They aren't strong, they simply cannot stand to be challenged. BIG difference there.

The thinking is completely black and white, and has nothing to do with the earning of respect, but only the enforcement via force of single wills. Again, that's not being a leader. That's being terrified of any form of challenge at all, which is WEAK.

Natural leaders, on the other hand, inspire loyalty and trust in those who would follow them, and then follow through on that so as to be worthy of same. Someone who's going to wig out the moment the coffee is the wrong shade, the bathroom isn't perfect, or someone voices an opinion other than the one they've forged in iron does NOT make a good leader. Note that when the Richard character actually showed signs of attempting to become one, he had to do it all wrong? This indicates, frankly, that she does not know the difference herself.

Being a true dominant is not just about controlling someone else. It's about controlling oneself, and being worthy and trustworthy to have others put themselves completely in their care. LKH's 'dominant' characters for the most part wouldn't know how to do this if they were handed a full instruction manual.

-Dira-

[falco-conlon.livejournal.com]

Wow. I just wanted to comment to say how impressed I am with absolutely everyone who responded. First off; it was SUCH a good question, and something I'd never thought about, although I realize now I felt the same way about the BDSM scenes in the books. I don't know nearly enough about the scene (although I know a bit more now!) to actually say why it was weird, but as with you, I could tell not all was well in St Louis. Everything she described seemed so one sided. It wasn't BDSM, it was Anitaland, where everything she ever dreamed or wanted came true and no one was hurt by it because they all loved her so much.

So I wanted to thank you for the question, and thank everyone for the incredibly informative discussion that followed.