In this article, the author examines the problem of representing SM practice and practitioners. In particular the author is critical of the tendency to dismiss SM practitioners' self-representations as inadequate accounts because they are either symptomatic of their perversion or are simply indicators of practioners' internalization of patriarchal values and ideology, suggesting that an adequate analysis of SM can only be rendered by nonpractitioners. In conjunction with an analysis of a British House of Lords decision which upheld the convictions of SM practitioners for assault (R. v. Brown), and several feminist critiques of SM practice, the author attempts to demonstrate that nonpractitioners' representations of SM are themselves inadequate accounts insofar as they generally rely on the deployment of cultural stereotypes of “the sadomasochist,” or reflect cultural biases against ritual practices which involve the use of violence and pain. Proposing these as impediments to “seeing SM differently,” the author constructs a conflicting vision of the aims and form of SM practice and relations.
