Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Story of O and the open-ended question of consent

First, if you haven't read Story of O and you plan to, skip the book's introductions - they give away parts of the book (including the ENDING). The "known" facts: Story of O is a book about a woman who becomes her lover's sex slave. As such, she is subjected (among other things) to whipping and is taught to be available for him and anyone he chooses for oral, vaginal, or anal intercourse. Your average chick lit, really.

----------------SPOILERS BEGIN HERE----------------

I don't feel expressly qualified to discuss Story of O at length, but there are few things I feel the need to mention, if only to help myself sort them out.

Regardless of how the reader personally feels about the things done to O and the events that transpired, the question I kept coming back to as I read the book was one of consent. René and Sir Stephen each on several occasions remind O of her free will to, well, give up her free will. We could assume that O was completely sane and cognizant of what she was agreeing to, that she wanted this, in which case there is no question of consent and nothing else to say. Still, her masters are always vague and on at least one occasion (at Samois) she is asked to consent to something very permanent of which she is deliberately only partially informed, that she will be marked anywhere and anyhow Sir Stephen has chosen.

Can a person truly consent to such a thing? She may not have wanted to run away and indeed eventually seemed to relish and take pride in her condition, but why? I read the book trying to read between the lines and find her desire or rebellion, but her primary reactions were almost always rather matter-of-fact. Instead, like the abused child who bullies at school, she starts taking it out on Jacqueline, a friend whom she sometimes seems to love and wants to protect and other times is so frustrated by that she can't wait until she (Jacqueline) is subjected to all the same tortures to which O herself has been subjected. Was this sadistic tendency always within O, or is it a reflection of the sadism of her masters?

Finally, I can't leave this topic without addressing the obvious theme of objectification. Assuming O's consent (which she of course technically gave throughout), she cannot truly be objectified. Yes, objects are possessions, and O was a slave, owned by Sir Stephen and branded with his initials, but by calling her an object, you ignore her subjective choice to become property, and you therefore suddenly become the one objectifying her. That being said, her masters certainly treat her as an object, but that's what their intention is the whole time - they don't actually care about her feelings on the subject and would probably rather she did feel objectified and humiliated, without express knowledge or choice in the matter. I mean, how often do you tell an old lamp that you are selling it in a garage sale? Then again, how often do you derive pleasure from that? Whether we are to feel sympathetic toward O, I'm not sure. The entirety of the work seems not to be up for discussion so much as presented, just as O seems to experience it, as matter-of-fact.

----------------SPOILERS END HERE----------------

I realize that was brief and inconclusive, but how conclusive could I possibly be? I feel a little that I'm coming at this from the wrong angle entirely, that maybe my questions are assuming the book to be something it's not and that's why I have no answers. I'm interested to hear from anyone who has read the book and has, well, any sort of opinion on any facet of it. Let's discuss!

4 comments:

Amy VanDonsel said...

Ok, I feel that I'm morally obligated to comment here, given that I have read said book and of course have opinions of it... basically, I agree with your statement: "Regardless of how the reader personally feels about the things done to O and the events that transpired, the question I kept coming back to as I read the book was one of consent."

I read The Story of O. Some parts, honestly, resonated with me. Other parts, quite frankly, "sqwirked" me. (In the fetish world, "sqwirck" implies something that turns you off to the point of near repultion.) (YKOK and YKOKBNMYK also apply here: Your kink is ok, and your kink is ok, but not my kink.) But I came to a "live and let live" conclusion on The Story of O. It doesn't really matter (to me) why O would or would not want such things done to her, as long as it's concentual, because I believe that there are many things that I like to do or have done to me that others might find icky, or a turn-off, or be "sqwirked" by, or, in the case of religious extremists, declare down right evil. And I don't expect these people to agree with me, or to enjoy the same things that I do, but... I enjoy those things none the less.

I think that sexually is strange and interesting and, at its best, undefinable, although we attept with works like this book. I could never justify half the things that fascinate me in that arena intellectually, however, I often wonder if it isn't that itself which holds my attention.

the a is for annie said...

I like what you said about attempting to understand sexuality, etc. with works like Story of O. It provides us with a safe way to explore these ideas without actually putting ourselves into a situation we may or may not enjoy. The same goes with any sort of fantasy actually - from book to movies to daydreaming. It's a "thing" in psychology (don't ask me where I read it or what the term for it is) in fact.

As I said at the beginning of my post yesterday, I was almost just writing to help myself process everything, so with that and the help of being several days removed from having finished the book, it turns out that was just what I needed. I find myself much more comfortable with O and her choices now - I believe she 100% consented, no regrets, no forcing. And that makes me much happier with my own mind and able to file the book away somewhere in my mind until it comes up at some point in my life 35 years from now, and then I can discuss it. :) (Actually I wonder if it'll be that easy to just "put away" - I have a feeling it may stay with me for a while at least.)

So Amy, have you read Story of the Eye? My library doesn't have it, so I may make a trip to the giant cavernous dusty used book store downtown to find it.

Amy VanDonsel said...

I have not, although I should check it out. Nor have a I seen the movie.

A good movie involving de Sade is Quills though. Love Kate Winslet. And another "explore your sexuality movie" that I love is Secretary. (Plus James Spader is just awesome anyway.)

I just bought Anais Nin's Delta of Venus also, but I haven't read it yet. I am seriously behind in my books. I have all my books online now here: www.gurulib.com/avandonsel All the ones I haven't read are in the "unread" shelf, heh.

Blackjack Games said...

Yes, all is logical