To think someone's sexual predilections reflects on their broader character?

What is the agenda you’re accusing me of @HuffleMyPuffle?

You have mentioned it’s ‘obvious’ in one of your posts to me so I’d love you to share.

I am a bisexual woman in a happy relationship with a fantastic man who I love very much and have started a family with.

I am not ‘anti men’ if that’s what you assumed?

Here you go @HuffleMyPuffle

I answered you explicitly and directly earlier so I’m not sure why you accused me of ignoring this question?

Eh? I didn’t ignore your question. In fact I clarified that I think someone of either sex who is sexually aroused by pretending to have sex with a baby is creepy.

And that I think someone of either sex who consents to pretending to be a baby an adult is having sex with (so role playing child abuse and rape) is vulnerable.

The fact they still keep just referring to men says they won't acknowledge it

And they are calling any woman who has submissive type desires vulnerable now.

And yet I chose to believe most of these people are indeed women

Because I don't want to pigeonhole women into a homogenous lump who are only allowed to think the same

This

It's why not making Kink shameful is so important

We need to be able to educate and talk about what consent it, how to be safe in kink scenes, how to maintain consent etc

Not make it something to hide away and leave people vulnerable

Funny how you still ignore the question of what about the woman? Is she creepy?

Agenda is so obvious

Why not?

I’m not sure how those examples show that someone’s ‘kinks’ don’t reflect who they are. In the first example a sub kink shows that the person thrives in a high pressure, high responsibility work situation but enjoys abdicating power and responsibility during sex through sub / dom dynamic behaviour. It’s a very logical example I think, that makes sense to most people.

When it comes to kinks that are more problematic, such as being the one doing the choking (strangling) or age play (wanting a partner to pretend to be a child during sex), as a couple of examples, I think it would make sense to most people that there may be underlying psychological issues that could (not always of course) make the person with that kink a potentially more dangerous than average person.

Someone sexually aroused by restricting someone’s breathing until they are unconscious (no matter how much they consent, there is no safe way to do this) or sexually aroused by their partner pretending to be a child during sex (which means acting out something they know to be assault / rape as a child cannot consent in reality) is surely a risk factor if one was to weigh up how much of a danger someone could be to others, no?

It's fairly well known that a large number of those in more powerful jobs enjoy being submissive sexually. It is a sort of tension release handing over control to another.

Equally I have known very average women who just based on looks I would consider being into missionary with the lights off after marriage, but in reality have a sex drive and interests that would raise eyebrows.

So no I do not think a persons sexuality shows the type of person they are.

Do you mean, for example, if you like using escorts and sex workers it’s unlikely you will make a “good”husband? If this, I totally agree. And countless threads on here back this up.

If it is, you like to be submissive in bed, then you’re x in real life, then maybe not so much.

Your thread is pretty broad to know what you’re getting at.

I don't know if you're vulnerable, which I guess is what you mean.

Your situation is irrelevant to my argument, because you've said that your OH has no intrinsic desire to hurt you.

Once upon a time I was into hair pulling and a bit of biting(neck only). It did involve pain , in any other scenario it is painful and abusive.Was OH a sadist when he followed my cues (verbal and nonverbal ) to keep doing it? Did he stop being a sadist when I stopped liking it so it didn’t happen again? Will he be a sadist again if I get into it again?

Atm my “thing” is back scratching, sometimes quite forcefully. Is it “normal”? Probably not, don’t hear it often or at all.Is it kink? Is it sadism on his part? Am I broken ?

What’s silly is pretending that no one can see and name a dodgy dynamic when they see it.

@anytipswelcome @StormyPotatoes you’re right , I massively extrapolated. The comment was only in regards to doms and subs. My mistake. However, why doesn’t that apply to other kind of kinks? In fact, no one has been willing to say what kinks are acceptable for women(or men) and what can they genuinely consent to.

Well, OP think it’s just PIV sex as an expression of love. At least she was honest about it.

Yes, I understand both your points.

But in a situation where one person gets pleasure from inflicting pain or fear on another, the question 'can we ever truly know whether someone is consenting to anything at all' is so low in the logical hierarchy of questions raised that its deployment reveals its function, which is to obfuscate the analytic truth that the person in question is a sadist.

I don’t think anyone has said no woman wants any kind of kink.

Sorry who on this thread has claimed that no woman can actually want any kind of kink?

That’s not the argument though. The argument is that no woman can actually want any kind of kink (what exactly are we talking about here, some people are giving more extreme examples, some like OP find anal and oral problematic too) , so much so that consent isn’t enough and questionable (always)or that if they do want it, there’s something seriously wrong with them so they’re vulnerable so their consent doesn’t matter anyway.

Of course they do.

But men being dominated by women don’t risk the same kind of harms when it happens the other way. I said a few pages ago that I don’t know of any of situations where a women ‘choking’ a man during sex has resulted in his death or causing serious life-changing injuries. It’s not about ‘feminism’. It’s about genuine risk and power imbalance that is never really ‘corrected’ when it’s a woman dominating.

In relation to the OP, I also truly find it hard to believe that a man who will willingly cause harm that has a chance of death to women doesn’t have misogynistic thoughts in day-to-day life.

And regardless of the dismissive ‘consent’ hand-waving, yes I’d struggle to believe that anyone who fantasises and role plays with their partner pretending to be a baby to have sex with them isn’t seriously fucked up.

You brought it up. How could OH genuinely know whether I’m consenting to (our fairly vanilla tbh) sex every single time and it’s not because it’s out of duty, fear of abandonment, low self esteem etc?

And there is a feminist train of thought that considers all PIV sex as problematic (well they use harsher words). While I don’t agree, I understand the logic/reasoning behind it and the argument is the same.

This is such a poor argument - because it happens in situation A we shouldn’t care or talk about it happening in situation B.

Women agreeing to vanilla sex they don’t want does diminish the idea that women also agree to kink that don’t want.

How do you know (say) that your partner isn’t just consenting to sex because they want financial stability/ a baby / to stay married?

Exactly. There are enough threads on here where women have said as much. That's where maintenance sex comes from. That must be soul-destroying and not in any way an 'expression of love'.

OK Socrates, I guess we can never 'know' anything.

But if that's the argument you're relying on to prove you're not an abusive cunt for wanting to hurt women, it's all a bit QED innit.