Sexual Minorities and Civil Rights: LGBT and BDSM Comparisons
by Reidar Visser
In order to understand how state-led persecution of sadomasochists is possible in some of the world’s most celebrated democracies – including in countries like Norway, the Netherlands, Canada, the United States, France and in some of the best-ranked democracies of the Pacific region – it can be useful to turn to theories developed in the studies of religious minorities in the Ottoman Empire. In particular, there are instructive parallels to be found in Fuad Khuri’s seminal distinction in Islamic studies between “religious communities” (tolerated but subjected minorities) and “sects” (legally unrecognized groups susceptible to unpredictable patters of persecution). In modern liberal democracies, Khuri’s distinction is to some extent mirrored in the differences between how gender-defined sexual minorities (LGBT or lesbian-gay-bi-transgender) and “other” sexual minorities (including BDSM or bondage-discipline-sado-masochism) are treated as far as civil rights are concerned.
Over the past decades, minority groups that define their sexual identity in relation to gender – first gays and lesbians and more recently bi-sexual people and various transgender groups – have made the greatest advances in terms of constitutional and or legal protection against discrimination in the West. That is not to say that their civil-rights advances have been unambiguous, unilinear, or necessarily paralleled by an actual decline in discriminatory behaviour. Precisely like the religious communities of the Ottoman Empire – primarily Jews and Christians – gender-defined minorities are still to some extent second-class citizens in many liberal democracies today, for example with respect to marriage rights. Also, the “integration” of these groups is sometimes accompanied by a degree of condescension not unlike that which befell minorities in the Ottoman Empire: When gays in official positions are paraded as examples of happy integration, it is sometimes unclear whether it really serves as empowerment or as a reminder about just how exceptional such cases really are. Nonetheless, in most Western democracies, LBGT groups have at least made sufficient advances that discrimination is now seen as uncouth in educated circles, and systematic state-led persecution of LBGT minorities would be rather unthinkable. When transgressions of the rights of minorities do happen, they are typically “condemned” and profuse apologies are offered (although not necessarily followed by effective measures to prevent such episodes from happening again). This again echoes the Ottoman record of mostly peaceful urban coexistence between Muslims, Christians and Jews that was nevertheless vulnerable to spasmodic rioting by urban mobs.
Very different realities faced “sects” in the Sunni-dominated Ottoman Empire, including Shiites, Alawites and Druze. Unlike the recognised non-Muslim communities of Jews and Christians, Muslim sects were seen as competitors to the mainline Sunni version of Islam. Few if any formally recognized rights were bestowed upon them, and persecution was frequent, often accompanied by large-scale massacres. The state typically saw these groups not as second-class citizens or tolerated infidels, but as a threat to the very order of the state.
In modern democracies, a similar fate that has befallen sexual minorities that define themselves without gender references. Rarely have they been accorded explicit recognition as minorities. Instead, they have seen systematic state discrimination of the kind that gays used to suffer a half-century ago. Examples from the United States include frequent child custody cases as well as the official listing of some sexual preferences, notably some expressions of sadomaschism, as psychological disorders. Prominent academics with BDSM identity have been the victim of savage, identity-related attacks from leading forces in the media. In short, like deviants from Sunni Islam in the Ottoman Empire, those who stray from orthodoxy in the modern heterosexual church can expect a rougher ride than recognized minorities.
The problems suffered by sadomasochists and other sexual minorities in liberal democracies go back to a definitional struggle about what constitutes a sexual minority, involving both legal and academic controversies. So far, in legal jurisprudence there has been a tendency of equating “sexual orientation” with gender-based categories such as gay, lesbian, bi or transgender. To some extent this is the result of gays and lesbians having fronted the pioneering struggles for the civil rights of sexual minorities, to the point where micro-minorities within those communities like bisexuals and transgender persons were sometimes marginalized, both internally as well as in the external struggle. Conversely, other, non-gender sexual minorities like sadomasochists, fetishists and polyamorous people have seen very little in the way of explicit recognition of their minority status, with their legal status often depending on how open or closed the official definition of sexual minorities is. Like in the case of bisexuals there have also been cases of internal marginalization of these minorities, for example among parts of the lesbian community in the United States, which some decades ago saw rather aggressive attacks on lesbian sadomasochists by lesbians themselves.
Academics have also entered the field the definitional struggle. Some decades ago, a large body of scholars invested much energy in strenuously contending that BDSM sexual preferences in themselves aren’t sufficiently “primary” to form an identity category. This gender-fixated view of sexual orientation has since been considerably modified by post-structural and queer theory. Increasingly, static ideas of gender-defined sexual identity categories are seen as untenable. In fact, already in the mid-1990s, some leading lesbians in the US challenged the view of simplistic gender-defined categories when they put their BDSM identity on par with their lesbian one: In 1994, Pat Califia famously declared that, “if I had the choice between being shipwrecked on a desert island with a vanilla lesbian and a hot male masochist, I’d pick the boy”.
Despite changes in academia, legal definitions of sexual orientation still seem largely stuck in the pre-queer age in many parts of the Western liberal world. Minority relationship to gender (homosexual, bisexual or transgender) remains the exclusive criterion for defining sexual minorities in the legislation of countries like Australia, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and several states in the USA. The weakness of these rigid approaches is seen in the way the initial dichotomy of straight/gay led to problems for many countries as soon as bisexuals appeared as a separate group. Illustrating the potential for ad absurdum processes, Australia has recently seen parliamentary controversies about the finer points of transgender subdivisions.
Some countries have more open-ended definitions of sexual orientation that at least potentially might offer protection for individuals who see the gender variable as secondary to their sexual identity. They include Belgium, Canada, France, Germany and Switzerland. Canada has refused to define “sexual orientation” but a human rights tribunal ruling from British Columbia in 2010 explicitly envisaged the possibility that it might include sadomasochists. France, Switzerland and some provinces of Germany also have more flexible categories of sexual minorities: France used moeur or lifestyles in a piece of legislation from 1985, Switzerland refers to “way of life” in its new constitution of 1999, and some German states simply refer to “sexual identity” category, which clearly seems to shift the focus from externally-imposed etic descriptions of sexual orientation towards an emic concept of sexual self-determination. Also the Yogyakarta principles adopted by a group of international experts of 2006 has a relatively open definition of sexual orientation: “Sexual orientation is understood to refer to each person’s capacity for profound emotional, affectional and sexual attraction to, and intimate and sexual relations with, individuals of a different gender or the same gender or more than one gender.”
The UK presents a mixed scorecard when it comes to protecting sexual discrimination beyond the gender-defined minorities. The UK anti-discrimination (sexual orientation) regulations of 2007 could be seen as refreshing in their apparent simplicity and true egalitarianism. Terms like hetero and gay did not occur in the regulations themselves. Instead, discrimination was described in relation to “a sexual orientation which someone is thought to have”. That could in theory constitute a path-breaking way of rephrasing the whole problem: “Do not use my sexuality in any way to discriminate against me.” Sadly, though, in official explanatory guidelines accompanying the regulations, a more traditional gender-focused approach was used. Even transsexualism was explicitly ruled out as a sexuality, and instead only considered in relation to gender discrimination: “It does not include transsexuality which is related to gender and is covered in the employment context by sex discrimination legislation.” Accordingly, since transsexual attraction is denied as an acceptable basis for a discrimination complaint, one senses a more narrow conception of sexuality at work. Quite in line with this, the UK Equality Act of 2010 (which superseded the regulations of 2007) seems to reproduce a traditional gender-based focus: “Sexual orientation means a person’s sexual orientation towards (a) persons of the same sex, (b) persons of the opposite sex, or (c) persons of either sex.” Still, the fact that heterosexuality is specifically mentioned at least offers some dynamism in that a heterosexual minority group like sadomasochists might plausibly claim protection in the UK. In many other countries, including Norway, one has to deny heterosexuality to be protected by the sexual anti-discrimination clauses of the penal code.
Instead of creating ever more comprehensive lists of protected sexual minorities, general protection against any kind of discrimination or persecution that is sexual in nature is probably the most dynamic way forward for future anti-discrimination legislation. One sometimes hears the counterargument that this could be over-permissive. That really misses the point. Typically, there is fear that pedophilia, bestiality or necrophilia would somehow gain minority-status protection. But in most countries, specific criminal legislation is in place to guard those red lines of sexual behaviour for which criminal prosecution is deemed appropriate. Indeed, with respect to bestiality, one might argue that the field is so heavily legislated that it offers better protection for practitioners than for example BDSM in terms of establishing what is legal and what is not. Several countries including Finland and Sweden allow bestiality after previous bans on such practices were lifted by the national assemblies.
Meanwhile, a brief look at a Washington Post article that attacked UN arms inspector Jack McGeorge for his heterosexual sadomasochism in 2002 highlights the extent to which discrimination against minorities not defined in gender terms remains an acute problem. It also illustrates how, when a powerful media organisation or the state forces a person’s private sexual preferences into the public sphere, one does not really have the luxury of choosing whether to be a sexual minority or not:
Try, by way of a hypothetical, to substitute “gay” for “sadomasochistic” above, appreciate the impossibility of doing so in the real world of modern Washington DC, and you have the difference between a sexual “minority” and a sexual “sect” in a modern, still emphatically quasi-liberal democracy.
you’re on the wrong track if you think that you’re being persecuted for your “sexual orientation”, street photography or anything else related to your personal hobbies or interests. Respectfully i have to say it’s a wrong framing of the case. Usually targets have their psychological profile assessed before they are stalked. It’s only used against you because it’s convenient to cause reaction in you. Anything that could cause negative reaction/pain/suffering from you will be used. It’s not the cause it’s to cause disruption to your inner being. It’s nobodys business what kind of fetish rocks your boat and most people wouldn’t care. It’s done so that guilt and second-guessing is associated with something that you do. It doesn’t matter what you do. Your day to day activities is not a target target is you. Even though from your point of view it might look otherwise.
At this moment you probably understand the method persecution, the goal of the persecution, but i doubt you know who is behind it and what is the reason. Mind hates vacuum so unanswered questions are sometimes given most likely answer automatically based on semi-facts and circumstantial evidence or hearsay, but you’re analytical intellectual and smart so you have to start to come to terms how to deal with uncertainty without jumping to conclusions. For mind even dumbest answer and cherry picking looks better than no answer. This cognitive dissonance is something to be expected, accepted and welcomed without suffering. It shouldn’t cause mental discomfort even it is designed and expected to do so. It will help you look at it with fresh eyes without causing split inside. Connect dots with pencil, not marker (keep eraser handy). Misdirection, misinformation and disinformation have equal value to facts as long as you aware of it. You’re not sexual minority, you’re not guilty of anything, you are just another guy.
I’m in similar situation as you’re only in eastern EU NATO country (former soviet block). I’m completely isolated atm. It’s been very intense for a year now, even thought it’s probably started even earlier, but before that it was minor but persistent car vandalism. The degrading themes, shadowing and noise campaigns. I tried to move, but it didn’t help. later i understood why – thats the typical expected scenario – the targets reaction can be only 2 – fight or flight. They are prepared for both.
I do not have resources or connections that you do. I spent a lot of times reading about this: coercive psychology, military psychological operations (most think that it’s about leaflets and propaganda, but the manual says it can be used against individual adversary), Stasi Zersetzung, neurolinguistic programming. It helps to understand and frame the problem.
Also watch out for anchoring and neurolinguistic programming where certain anchored trigger will cause you to experience negative reaction eg after you programmed as running car engine is noise campaign and walking down the street any car with running engine standing near curb potentially becomes self torture tool.
BTW about shadowing from room or apartment above yours – these days there is such instrument like portable UWB Radar aka Through wall radar. It can detect even slightest movement behind any wall or rubble. It’s being used by firefighters, swat and rescue teams for noble means, but at the same time it’s a perfect tool for psychological torture. In its description they say it will detect persons breathing and even heartbeat. I’m sure it’s so convenient as such physiological characteristics also correlates to stress levels.
I also read a lot of gangstalking sites and most do not resonate with me intellectually as yours did.
We are put in situation where crooked mirrors are around us where each reflection is there to expose our vulnerable soft spots and create guilt, anger and other negativity, but maybe we should just smile back with indifference, not to be confused with (learned) helplessness. Best wishes.
Tikraine, thanks for the input. I am sorry to hear about your own experiences. I would recommend you to write or blog about it if you have the time.
In a way, your explanation is even more vulnerable to the kind of criticism that I constantly receive: Why on Earth are they doing it?
In my own case, I have hypothesised that my photography caused irritation in the Oslo police and that they concluded they could get some kind of revenge as well as some interesting travel for themselves by labelling it an “international police cooperation” project. It then got a bit out of hand but they have no logical end game in mind and don’t know how to stop.
What you are suggesting is the deliberate targeting of people just for the sake of targeting them. What would be the rationale? For sure, it is possible that when people see just how invasive the police techniques are, they get terrified and choose to cooperate. For example, many of the people who stalk me every day must know and reflect over the fact that the police always knows where I am. They probably realise that I have some sort of beacon device attached to me, which is an extremely intrusive form of illegal supervision that is at variance with all basic notions of a free society. Maybe the realisation that the police can do this kind of thing is so frightening that people go along with it simply to avoid being the next on the police’s list. Journalists who hear about it similarly get terrified and shy away from their normal roles as whistle-blowers etc., ditto with respect to lawyers.
If this kind of “1984″ perspective is indeed correct – I am personally still not convinced – then the next question is about the international parameters at work. In my experience, these police methods appear to be standardised in the EU, NATO and other Western democratic countries I have been to. If that is the case, why don’t some rogue state try to exploit the issue to create bad press through exposing the “model democracies”?
Have you heard similar stories from your own country or the Eastern Europe region by the way? I am always interested in links to comparative examples.
Good people will cooperate with authority and perform even most terrible actions against another individual as long as they are convinced that there is no personal responsibility attached to it. Read about Milgram Study experiment. The results as terrifying as they are can tell us a lot about human nature. Question “why are they doing it?” is best viewed through German Democratic Republic prism. GDR was very concerned about it’s international image of democracy and human rights, so they perfected this method of persecution called zersetzung where targeted individual would gradually be reduced into oblivion without any evidence of wrongdoing. GDR is no more, but evidence remains. There are survivors, there are manuals left. Similar methods were in US – like FBI’s cointelpro. Even though it was officially terminated decades ago i doubt such tactics stopped being deployed since they are so effective. Nowadays if you read wikipedia entries about psychological warfare, fourth generation warfare, unconventional warfare – it sounds very similar if you think about them as weapon against individual. So it doesn’t really answer why its used on you – it only answers why this weapon is used. It leaves no traces, evidence and is effective. Most people are not aware of such weapon at all. It is about examining the facts, history, experiences without jumping into conclusions.
If someone sics a vicious dog on you will you blame a dog or a person who sics the dog? What if you were not aware of the fact that dog was instructed to attack? You will probably blame the dog. You might even think that dog got provoked by something that you were doing at the moment.
So any targeted individual is faced with very difficult question – why me? How do i stop it? Answering why is very hard since it reflects on your reasoning directly as it makes you vulnerable to be exposed as irrational nutcase. I think this is very important step as it is helpful to chip away support system and reputation that is attached to person.
Worrisome reading indeed about the Milgram experiment. Very high obedience rates in the general population with regard to committing illegalities on instructions, and here law enforcement wasn’t even involved.