Difference between revisions of "Role essentialism"
From BDSM Wiki
| [unchecked revision] | [unchecked revision] |
(there's a citation supporting the criticism of role essentialism, but no citation supporting the criticism of the criticism) |
(lol practices? there's no "practice" associated with a concept. you don't practice the concept. it is what it is. you define it and then you're done.) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Role essentialism is upheld in scenes by [[role policing]]. | Role essentialism is upheld in scenes by [[role policing]]. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
== Criticisms == | == Criticisms == | ||
Revision as of 21:18, 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.
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.