Musings: confronting the confronting

Nice poster?

Well, I like it..... I like it so much I keep a copy on a wall of our home. I like it for several reasons. Firstly, because it was a remarkable film. Secondly, because I think its a hot image. Thirdly, because it makes me confront a reality I am uncomfortable with.

You see, this is NOT a BDSM film. And this is NOT a BDSM scene. It does NOT depict "safe, sane and consensual". It depicts something very unpleasant indeed. And the fact we find it a turn on is one of the subjects we kinksters prefer to avoid like the plague.

Let me tell you a bit about the film. 'The Book of Revelation' is an Australian made adaptation (directed by Ana Kokkinos) of Rupert Thomson's thought provoking 1997 novel about an attractive male dancer (Daniel) abducted for several weeks by three unknown women. It's an extraordinarily courageous film that takes perhaps one of the most difficult subjects in Western society - male rape and torture by a group of women - and confronts it head on. As I'm sure you can imagine it was neither a box office or critical success at the time it was released. But it will, I believe, gather the kudos it deserves as time passes.

The film explores Daniel's journey both during his abduction and after, as he struggles to come to terms with severe psychological damage - the ways (both positive and negative) that he deals with that damage are very realistically portrayed. Director Ana Kokkinos has always made clear her desire to take viewers of the film outside their comfort zones:

"[The reversal of traditional gender roles of perpetrator and victim [which] is significant in the book and film] fascinates me. By making a man the object of desire and of the female gaze, we can explore what it means to be a victim with fresh eyes. Everyone knows the story of women as victims. By reversing roles we can examine bigger issues and make people understand that anyone can abuse anyone else."

As Robin Usher in her article "A Revelation and not by the book" (The Age) notes:

"Kokkinos examined closely the feasibility of women carrying out an abduction and rape. As evidence, she points to the famous photograph of US private Lynndie England in Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison holding a naked prisoner on a leash, and of women being involved in a French pedophile racket where their own children were abused. While this might not be convincing - in both cases the women involved seem to be serving the interests of male ringleaders - it does not reduce the film's devastating power".

Wikipedia (which notes the film was unique for its detailed visuals of a non statutory female on male rape) goes on to define the latter as"a form of sexual assault involving the non-consensual use of the sexual organs of a male by a female. This form of rape is not as commonly known as male on female rape as there is a strong stigma among males and popular culture regarding the act and reports of it are rare".

This strong stigma soon revealed itself amongst reviewers of the film, who were quick to dismiss it's detailed scenes of sexual assault as pornography. Ironically others unintentionally aligned themselves with characters in the film - such as the police to whom a deeply traumatized Daniel tries to report the incident - who responded to his experience with derision. Surely what he experienced - weeks of sex at the hands of several women - was every man's fantasy. Of course he wanted to fuck them, otherwise he would not have had an erection.

They ignored how clearly the film revealed Daniel's horror at his body's betrayal (in becoming erect) as well as the fact he was drugged, abducted, chained, repeatedly raped, sodomized and tortured. That this entire experience was non consensual meant nothing to these reviewers. On the other hand non consensuality means a great deal to kinksters. It's an issue we take very seriously indeed. To break the "safe, sane and consensual" rule is often to find oneself banned from one's realtime kinky community. Perhaps this was one reason why I took the film / book seriously.

But there was another reason. Despite the fact that they are not presented in an erotic way, there are themes in this film that stir the perverted mind: erotic humiliation, objectification (recalling the director's comment in The Age that "Daniel is profoundly damaged by being treated as an object. The women are thieves - they steal his essence and rob him of his life force") bondage, abduction, assault, forced rape (and male rape by strap on), piercing (amongst other things the women pierce the dancer's foreskin so as to attach a chain), sexual torture ... these are common desires common to many of us. I can't deny I find the image depicted on the poster above a turn on. On the other hand I am very aware that people actually left the cinema in disquiet and disgust during this scene of the film. I find myself wondering if perhaps I am as sick (being into BDSM) as the psychiatric profession likes to claim.

"Torture" is a word often used amongst BDSM players to describe consensual BDSM activities. But these days we live in a world where the public is increasingly exposed to the justifications and results of torture via our governments, our media, the internet. Perhaps we need to think about reinventing our terminology. On the other hand no euphemism will make certain truths more palatable, as Bitchy Jones admitted recently:

"I am a humanitarian. Like a lot of people I get very angry about the abuses of human rights that go on all over the world. I am also a dom and a sadist. This can sometimes lead to places where I get *very* *fucking* *disturbed* by myself. I do not enjoy it when my Amnesty International literature and my porn feels interchangeable. It freaks me out beyond the telling of it. So I give money to Amnesty and wonder what the fuck is wrong with me that I sort of got off on the leaflet they sent me.

"The idea of torture turns me on. I *use* the word torture to talk about things that arouse me. And meanwhile, people are being tortured all over the world right now. For real. And that is fucking horrible. What am I meant to think about that? The slippery concept of consent doesn’t begin to cover the huge problem I have with this. "And I also wonder why no one in kink ever mentions it.

"I know there are a lot of issues about oppression and legality and assumptions and consent, but I still think talking about these things more might help. Look, I’ll start: I hate it when horrific crimes and human rights abuses look *anything* like my kink, but I don’t really know what to do about it or what it means about me or the world".

Bitchy is doing an Ana Kokkinos: she is taking us right out of our comfort zones here. But she's right, its a side of our natures that should be discussed more often. There is also the issue of kinksters who themselves have survived and assimilated the reality of torture. How do they come to terms with the juxtaposition of those experiences? One (dominant) survivor writes:

"I can tell you that, coming out the other side of the experience the last thing you want to do is pick up and wield a flogger. Your own nature suddenly revolts you, as does the nature of everyone kinky around you. You find yourself thinking "these people do NOT have a clue. They play these stupid games and they do not have a clue what its like in the real world, where there is no "safe, sane and consensual", there is only force and blood and pain". It seems like you will never feel clean again. Your previous fantasies make you sick. If you picked up a whip, inside, you are sure you would feel the tortured becoming the torturer, the very thing you most despise. But the truth is that time fades the physical and emotional scars, and there will come a day - you can see it in the distance - when your former desires (and those of everyone else) no longer appear quite so confronting. When you find that you can begin to confront the confronting".

Its a tricky subject as to where kinksters draw the line, especially living in a world where human rights are decreasing every day, and torture is becoming legalized. That's why I keep a copy of 'The Book of Revelation' poster on our study wall: to remind me where - for me, at least - that line is drawn.

POSTSCRIPT in response to enquiries: the film is not yet available in North America. However it's worth checking out it's official site - link below - for the trailer. I have also provided an Amazon.com link for Rupert Thomson's book, which is definately worth a read. Keep in mind that it is NOT written in an erotic manner).

(Many thanks:

Bitchy Jones My Definition Is This (pt III) Bitchy Jones' Diary 2 April 2007
Robin Usher "A Revelation and not by the book" The Age 29 July 2006
"The Book of Revelation" (official site)
and Wikipedia)