|
Amaros -> RE: Where did Bdsm Come from, Who started it? (7/6/2006 2:08:40 PM)
|
I won't go into all the evolutionary dynamics involved, you can search for some of my other posts if you're interested, but as a dynamic, it's been around in some form for for most of recorded history, although it seems to have become a cultural phenomona with the founding of Christianity and Islam, both with distinctly androcentric D/S interpersonal social dynamic at their core: male dominance, corporeal punishment, etc., were mainstream "family values" well into the latter half of the Twentieth century in Western culture, they still apply in many parts of the world.
BDSM lifestyle, as Mr. Warren points out, is based on choice, not social coercion, and thus a distinct phenomona, and seems to have begun to emerge into the mainstream around the time of the enlightenment, Masoch, De Sade, etc., although it probobly had it's roots in the underlying general social unrest that paved the way for the enlightenment, Satanism, brought on by the excesses of religious zeal - I suggest Michalet's Satansim and Witchcraft for a glimpse into the social dynamic involved - in some sense a form of civil disobedience, the sexual side of which fed off of Catholic sexual repression - Michalet explores ome of the more famous incidents of pathologial sexual neurosis in the latter half of the book, including the events at Loudon upon which Ken Russell's The Devils is based, fascinating stuff.
So anyway, that would be the timeline as I would break it up: a classical period, which would include classical cultures - although this period would seem to be more concerned with debauchery in general, one assumes that D/S dynamics were likely involved in specific instances.
The theocratic phase, including the excesses of Sprenger, etc., in which there is a very twisted sexual dynamic underlying, then a sort of neo-Pagan re-emergence, and then the Victorian phase, where BDSM shows signs of being an independent, mature social dynamic, without the overtones of either aristocratic excess or social/civil disobedience - although these remain as aspects, the actual dynamics of the D/S relationship becomes central.
Re:Hitler - it really is too bad, but NAZI Germany is an excellent example of a number of social pathologies that ought to concern us - the thing here is that this was a modern country, and the lesson is that if could happen there, it could happen anywhere. I believe it's critical to attempt to understand the social dynamics involved, it's really the most significant social event of the Twentieth century, if only because of the high prices paid in human life - the fact that references to it are often perfunctory, or interpreted as such notwithstanding.
|
|
|
|
