Difference between revisions of "Role essentialism"
From BDSM Wiki
(there's a citation supporting the criticism of role essentialism, but no citation supporting the criticism of the criticism) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
== Criticisms == | == Criticisms == | ||
| − | + | The idea that "role essentialism" is a bad thing is sometimes criticized {{By whom}} because while a message of avoiding [[one true way| one true wayism]] is present {{citation needed}} and important, that definitions often are stripped down or diluted to the point where much of the implied meaning, nuance and associated [[best practices]] with an aspect of BDSM may be lost in translation. This view itself assumes that some levels of role essentialism can have a positive and educational effect. | |
[[Category:BDSM Theory]] | [[Category:BDSM Theory]] | ||
Revision as of 21:17, 18 March 2014
The term "role essentialism" was used in 2011 by Thomas M. Millar. [1]
From that essay, the term is linked to the following pernicious and false ideas:
- The idea that a person has a certain innate, natural, or static BDSM role.
- The idea that a certain bdsm role necessarily has certain features.
- The idea that a person's BDSM role is determined by gender.
Role essentialism is upheld in scenes by role policing.
Best Practices
Criticisms
The idea that "role essentialism" is a bad thing is sometimes criticized [by whom?] because while a message of avoiding one true wayism is present [citation needed] and important, that definitions often are stripped down or diluted to the point where much of the implied meaning, nuance and associated best practices with an aspect of BDSM may be lost in translation. This view itself assumes that some levels of role essentialism can have a positive and educational effect.