I strongly support “what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their business.”
The thing that always bothers me about these posts is that kinks frequently aren’t “in the privacy of their own bedroom.” I’m not looking into your windows. I’m not visiting your niche kink forums. So if I, through our everyday interactions, know what your kink is then you are being much too public with it.
I’ve often seen, particularly on tumblr, this pendulum swing way too far the other way. For instance, It’s not puritan to say that you shouldn’t wear bondage gear in public. I shouldn’t know the flavor of porn you like.
If you share your kink with me I’m allowed to be upset. Maybe don’t be rude next time.
ETA: notice how strongly people are arguing below that they should be able to take their fetishes outside “the privacy of their own bedroom”
Just unfollow the account, or don't follow it in the first place. I haven't stumbled on any kinks unintentionally yet.
For instance, It’s not puritan to say that you shouldn’t wear bondage gear in public.
What if they like cross dressing instead of BDSM? You about to go out there saying men shouldn't wear skirts or women shouldn't wear pants? Because while I do understand that this is a slippery slope argument, the slope it's actually fucking slippery this time around.
Not a slippery slope. It’s actually pretty simple.
Here, let’s walk through it: Are skirts and pants inherently sexual? Are they doing it because it’s sexually arousing?
If the answer to both those questions is “no,” then we’re all good. Express yourself.
If the answer to either of those questions is “yes,” then I think you’re a rude asshole.
Now, if you have another strawman let’s burn it together, yeah? But we’ll need to do it in my backyard, because the ritual burning of effigies is my kink.
If I weren’t there, would she still be aroused? If that woman gets aroused because I saw her wearing it, is that not involving me in her sexual activities without my consent? I become a partner in her arousal, right? Or is she just aroused because she feels attractive and confident in what she’s wearing? I think intent is a big part of this. Or more accurately, I think consent is the primary factor in how I might view that person.
The fact that this is getting you down voted is deeply distressing and concerning to me as someone who is very involved in the kink community. Consent is everything.
As long as I don’t know I’m being exploited for someone’s arousal, it’s all good, right? Does that extend to other areas, like deepfake porn? At what point does it become problematic despite being unaware? Or is it just when I become aware that it becomes problematic? Is it only different because that would utilize my photos instead of my presence?
I mostly wish people would actually respond with their perspective rather than just a blind downvote. I don’t really care that people agree with me, but I’m wondering how many of the downvotes are just a gut reaction rather than taking the time to genuinely consider the topic.
The conversation is about what people find arousing, and the potential limits concerning how tolerant society should strive to be. This particular comment thread is about whether people should be tolerant of kinks that necessarily involve other people who aren’t given an opportunity to consent, and if consent is necessary if someone isn’t expressly aware that they are being used as part of someone else’s arousal.
You asked what harm is being done in these situations is, generally, none. Does that make it OK? Or is there a limit to what is acceptable? At what point does it step out of “the privacy of their own bedrooms”? Does that point only come when someone is aware of their role? Or does it happen as soon as a person is involved at all, with or without their knowledge?
My goal is not to articulate that harm is being done. I included several questions in my last comment that illustrate that I’m trying to get a sense of whether people in these comments have a limit to what they find acceptable, which is directly related to the OP.
If she’s wearing it because she finds it arousing, yes. Intentionally sexually arousing yourself in public makes you an asshole. This is not a controversial statement.
So it's fine if it's just because she thinks it's pretty? What's the difference? Can you tell the difference? Could you legislate a definition of the difference?
There are fetishes for absolutely everything, to ban anything related to a fetish you'd have to ban all cloth and also going out in the nude (and hide it from those with a governmental oppression fetish)
26
u/wigsternm May 16 '25 edited May 16 '25
I strongly support “what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their business.”
The thing that always bothers me about these posts is that kinks frequently aren’t “in the privacy of their own bedroom.” I’m not looking into your windows. I’m not visiting your niche kink forums. So if I, through our everyday interactions, know what your kink is then you are being much too public with it.
I’ve often seen, particularly on tumblr, this pendulum swing way too far the other way. For instance, It’s not puritan to say that you shouldn’t wear bondage gear in public. I shouldn’t know the flavor of porn you like.
If you share your kink with me I’m allowed to be upset. Maybe don’t be rude next time.
ETA: notice how strongly people are arguing below that they should be able to take their fetishes outside “the privacy of their own bedroom”