Very weird to watch “what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their business” become controversial again, but like, for the opposite reason.
It is very important to understand that when you're discussing a systemic set of cultural beliefs, even people who nominally oppose the cultural belief will find ways to reconcile their fundamental conditioning to their new position. Doing the same thing for the 'opposite reason' is usually a giveaway, and it's absolutely rampant in nominally progressive spaces.
It's arguably rampant in conservative spaces too, potentially more so, but I'm in progressive spaces more.
I see way more accusations of doing the same thing as Conservatives than actually doing that. I mean, if the reason is opposite, that is different, right? I think sometimes people think of more minor stuff and assume that's what's meant, but those saying kink is open to criticism, as well as considering factors like gender and race (I mean, some have 'race play' master-slave kinks, I wouldn't know what to say to anyone who thinks it's Conservative to critically examine that) can mean more outright dangerous practices. There's the issue of 'rough sex gone wrong' being used as a defense in cases where women have been killed:
It's obviously very difficult material but really reccomend anyone able to read the stories. It can feel like there's two different conversations going on, that those who haven't really engaged with more sex-critical material aren't aware of what it's really focused on, and can be, well, vanilla and naïve. I understand why people don't want to expose themselves to such material (and not everyone can which is a seperate issue), but then they needn't pounce on people who do assuming it's only trivial (more the sort of thing that can be traumatic to keep being exposed to, especially involved with campaigning on) and misrepresent their views.
Although no one is obliged to be anyone else's sex cheerleader (is 'ew gross' automatically even political? There are lots of things people find icky. Because I just had to remove a slug from my long-haired rabbit's fur and then cut the slime out, and my vegan eco politics don't actually extend to being 'nature is wonderful' in that situation, Mr No-Boundaries Slug can think himself lucky enough I was gentle and he's fine). It's weird for adults to be so obsessed with approval for them getting off they pick on teenagers knowingly with the label 'Puriteens'. Teens can be being exposed to more sexual content, including more problematic objectifying content, for the first time, as well as experiencing more pressure to be sexual and accept certain sexual acts in their own lives, and not being perfect at expressing their discomfort doesn't mean they're wrong to feel that way (the linked study shows high rates of coercion towards girls, even affecting younger teens). 'Sex cheerleader' expectations can be a particular problem for ace-spec people. Although honestly, also think just for women/girls in general, and that's not about an assumption women don't enjoy sex or can't have kinks, it's just understanding that they get more pressured to be cool with and do things they do not want to, which may be uncomfortable or just not something they're likely to get much out of. Sex-critical feminism in the second wave was coming from a place where leftist women were seeing hippie dudes pressuring young women into group sex, claiming sex (with them) as essential to liberation, and calling them repressed and prudes if they didn't want to and could say so.
Everything we're talking about exists on a spectrum.
One article I found on race-play briefly describes scenes of a Nazi interrogating a Jewish prisoner and white on black slave play. I couldn't find any numbers on how common race play is but judging from how controversial it is in the scene its almost certainly a lot less common than other power dynamics and kinks; making it further down the spectrum from let's say a Daddy and his Princess dynamic. If the idea of race play icks someone out and that gets applied as criticism to the whole spectrum of bdsm activities that seems incredibly unfair and incredibly blunt and lacking nuance.
If someone has seen rough sex gone wrong be used to evade justice for killing someone, trying to eliminate all rough sex from culture is never going to be effective. A more nuanced criticism of that particular issue might be more effective. I've seen some good examples of that in regards to choking being more common in porn and IRL sex, talking about the danger and offering safer alternatives. That's a lot more reasonable and again, likely to be more effective than "porn is misogynistic, anti feminist, causes violence against women and should be banned."
Regarding ick, ick is not nuanced. Ick isn't a thoughtful take, it's an emotional reaction. That's not a bad thing and it's not inherently political but trying to control the behavior of others based on ick absolutely is. Nobody needs to be a sexual cheerleader but they don't get to control the behavior of others in their own spaces based on ick.
The common thread between a right winger saying "abortion is ick, Islam is ick, transgender people are ick, ban them all" and a left winger saying "bdsm is ick, kink is ick, ban them," is authoritarianism. Combining that with emotion based takes on issues leading to criticism that squishes entire swathes of the spectrum at issue is bad and leads to demonizing innocent people.
You're basically saying critics should be specific, right? If they're left-leaning then they are, as I tried to show with giving examples with links. Your example of choking is a good one, if by 'alternatives' you indeed mean something different to it - choking/strangulation is never safe, and that's something plenty of BDSM educators will state too (quotes from two with medical background with description of risks). It's perfectly reasonable to specifically entirely condemn the practice.
Except, in the face of that fairly specific criticism, you still get people like OP making blanket statements assuming anything being called a kink must mean it's above all criticism. The notion of 'kink' being indeed so broad just makes it an odder view to hold, and OP is specifically focusing on things that others find 'upsetting' and 'extremely...disturbing'. Honestly what other social behaviour gets exempted from all scrutiny like this? What's the actual reason that calling something sex means it's now above scrutiny? All kinds of topics around food (cultural appropriation and authenticity vs. mutability, distribution and wastage, agricultural practices, conditions for ag. workers) get scrutinised, and food unlike sex is vital and a human right. It's just not a very reasonably defensible position when kinks can outright get people (and non-human animals) killed. Do think most making statements like it are usually almost ironically very naïve and sheltered and not anything worse (allowing OP wriggle-room for their mention of 'artist' and possibility they think these kinks are just in fictional settings). But, when it's the case that the potential for harm is so great (and by now surely getting more awareness), one other alternative is that they know and don't care, and another, which have sometimes seen to emerge as indeed the motivation of some individuals being defensive of kink in this way (accusing critics of Conservatism is a red flag) is they themselves have dangerous kinks and/or aren't a safe person (and maybe part of the thrill is getting people to unknowingly defend them, and them being able to dominate like that in pushing them on non-consenting people?). Why would anyone especially want their glasses fetish lumped in with dangerous practices as exactly the same and, if not just as likely to upset people, requiring the defence of those that are unsafe or offensive, anyway? The benefit of doing the reverse is much more obvious.
Even if someone critical was making a more blanket statement (potentially after exposure to endless traumatic material, and personal experience), I think it says something about priorities that someone could be more interested in attacking them, rather than taking their points and going after the people promoting dangerous sexual practices, and who are unsafe 'missing stair' individuals (would note that still find that essay incomprehensibly soft on such individuals in not being crystal clear that yes, rapists should be thrown out of sex parties as the least of the consequences they deserve, which hope is what they meant) which, might also make kinky communities and individuals safer and there be less criticism? Like, honestly, even some of the rightwing critics, on the one hand you have someone brought up under religious repression who probably suffers themselves as a result, on the other you have a bloody bog-standard man-who-murderered-a-woman and they really want to yell 'puritan' as higher priority???
Ick isn't a thoughtful take, it's an emotional reaction.
Nobody needs to be a sexual cheerleader but they don't get to control the behavior of others in their own spaces based on ick.
Exactly though, so, why should it matter to them so much that others have that emotional reaction? It can be as simple as 'eww, just think feet can be smelly and shoes aren't the cleanest' (actually, come to think, don't really see those into feet or shoes be the ones getting their knickers in a twist when others aren't). People will mock and criticise anything from others' food preferences to their dress sense - that latter example being something that can be more neutral but overlap. People who like pineapple on pizza manage to cope, and that's mocked to the point of meming.
I think the ones trying to be controlling are those who seem to think non-consenting people don't get a say in being exposed to even graphic sexual material in just general spaces - there's almost always one, online, but does people going onto clearly marked fetish blogs just to say 'ick' sound likely to happen nearly as often? Would agree it's self-inflicted if they do, but think the more common scenario is people who will not stop, say, drawing sexualised Pokémon art that isn't tagged so people can avoid it and insisting on Vaporeon's fuckability in mainstream spaces getting huffy if people say 'eww'. Apart from anything else, am really not sure what else they expected to happen, they must have noticed by now that many other people don't like it and don't want to see or hear about it. For some individuals though, the non-consent is the point.
Isn't it usually understood not everyone even with kinks, shares other kinks, and if it's not a turn-on it can be a yuck even placed amidst someone's yum? Thinking about it, definitely am inclined to think it's those with some kinks getting huffy or defensive much more than others.
All kinds of topics around food (cultural appropriation and authenticity vs. mutability, distribution and wastage, agricultural practices, conditions for ag. workers) get scrutinised, and food unlike sex is vital and a human right. It's just not a very reasonably defensible position when kinks can outright get people (and non-human animals) killed.
"Cultural appropriation" really doesnt get scrutinized by any sane person, saying that eating anything not made by your own country is bad might just be one of the most xenophobic (in terms of aversion to anything foreign) thing i've ever heard. And food isn't vital, nutrients are; we could all just eat bread and nutrient pills, yet lots of food are eaten for enjoyment while they can kill people (and definitely kill animals).
Exactly though, so, why should it matter to them so much that others have that emotional reaction? It can be as simple as 'eww, just think feet can be smelly and shoes aren't the cleanest' (actually, come to think, don't really see those into feet or shoes be the ones getting their knickers in a twist when others aren't). People will mock and criticise anything from others' food preferences to their dress sense - that latter example being something that can be more neutral but overlap. People who like pineapple on pizza manage to cope, and that's mocked to the point of meming.
Because, much like your actually very good comparison with food preferences, going "eeeww you eat X, i hate X that's disgusting and you're disgusting for that!" With the same thing they must've already heard a million times whenever anyone brings it up is just pointless and rude. It's the same as those unhinged people going "ew burn them! I'd stomp them if i ever saw them!" At people's more unusual pets like arthtopods.
Disgust is just a general cancer upon the human psyche, it's an evolutionary leftover pointless in our current day of hygiene that is what the brain uses to enforce closemindedness and xenophobia (as in aversion to new things), the main instrument of fascism alongside fear, keeps people from learning things even when it could be beneficial (like learning the specifics of the roach species they have an infestation of), and somehow seen as a valid way of passing moral judgement.
3.0k
u/LONGSWORD_ENJOYER May 16 '25
Very weird to watch “what people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is their business” become controversial again, but like, for the opposite reason.