The following is a letter I received, which provides much needed insight into the rope bondage talk organised by tFreedom of Tembusu College.
I refer to TODAY’S article dated 1-Sep-20 entitled “NUS student-run group cancels event on rope bondage after claims it promoted violent sex” [1].
Rope bondage is a form of BDSM, a sexual fetish where a person restrains the partner with ropes, handcuffs, etc. Through this sadomasochistic play, the sexual fantasy of the parties involved are stimulated.
Re-iterating that rope bondage, aka BDSM, is a play in sadomasochism, the key element is violence by inflicting pain or fear upon the partner. To this end, I am disappointed that tFreedom chose to self-contradict themselves by stating that they have “never promoted violent sex or non-consensual activities” while promoting rope bondage as a sex activity.
I fail to find a rational explanation that inviting an experienced couple to a Zoom session to talk or demonstrate rope bondage is “in no way aimed at encouraging or promoting the practice”. To say that “no physical contact and the sign-up process was voluntary” is wholly irrelevant, serving only to downplay the seriousness of the accusation against them.
I shudder at the thought that the session will include pornographic images of men and women in bondage or graphic description of such acts. I question the educational value of instructions on how to conduct bondage sex. Will these in itself become a sexual stimulus for participants to masturbate to it? In my opinion, there needs to be an objective benchmark as to what really benefits or harms people.
Another self-contradiction is the perception that BDSM can be consensual. Bondage already connotes a loss of freedom, eg, being restrained by being tied up. At play could be psychological pressures like when a party receives an expensive gift, given a romantic meal, etc, this party may harbour an unconscious pressure to give in to a subsequent advance for sex. And in bondage sex, consent is diminished. Suffice to say that consent as the only criteria for what is acceptable is complicated. Instead, sex should be initiated on mutual respect and protect the dignity of partners. I urge tFreedom to focus in this direction instead.
tFreedom’s play on the quality of their poster is merely another take at deflecting from the topic. The attempt to cast privacy invasion accusations against the first petition organizer is also unwarranted. All personal information was found on tFreedom’s own social media page. While I caution the public against messaging the members of the group, I believe that they must give a proper explanation for the lack of privacy control on their page.
I want to highlight that tFreedom is an advocacy group for LGBT. To bring an association with BDSM is certainly ill advised.
Lastly, I wish to thank Associate Professor Kelvin Pang, who acted wisely to deem it necessary to cancel this event and suspend the activities of this group.