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

I feel this about (particularly politicians) having affairs - if someone can willingly and easily break what is supposed to be a significant moral and legal vow to the person they are supposed to love above all others, and lie convincingly about it to them, how can they possibly be considered likely to keep their word in any other situation, when the people they are screwing over would be even more faceless to them?

Agreed. I absolutely will kink shame and think it does reflect on character outside the bedroom.

I have only been involved sexually with one person who had a kink that he preferred above all else, including straight sex. I was open minded about it. But actually it was really boring. He seemed to me like a train journey that had to run only on tracks, the route was always the same. And his character is exactly like this, he’s passing NT but actually he’s a hamster on a wheel living a repetition compulsion. His sexuality was a reflection 100% of who he was as a person.

Not sure about ‘character’, but most of the people I know who are into kink / BDSM are autistic, and their sexual practices do reflect some of their general tendencies. E.g. an intense interest in objects and tools, more interested in parts than wholes (so more likely to be turned on by feet or ears than a body in its entirety), enjoy dressing up in costumes or wearing uniforms, find it much easier to be told exactly what to do / to tell someone else exactly what to do than to collaborate without clear and agreed frameworks and defined roles.

That said, I know just as many autistic people who are asexual, largely influenced by sensory processing issues - which is again reflective of general tendencies rather than character.

rape isn’t about sex though.

I agree, I think the pushing of ‘woke’ culture has been substantially about transgressing normal ideas of public decency. This has been very deliberate and very well funded. A coordinated effort by the likes of Epstein and Pritzker, and other fetishistic billionaires, to mould the world into something more accommodating for them.

wtf is that?

I think it's like politics or religion: there's a certain range I'd consider "normal" which I wouldn't let impact on what I thought of someone's character, but beyond that I definitely would.

The difference is I'm far less likely to find out someone's sexual predilections than their religious or political beliefs.

You can't convince me that a man who can hold an erection while hurting and humiliating his partner to get his rocks off is undamaged or kind.

My DH and I were very into BDSM in our younger years. We’re old people (nearly) now and due to my DHs cancer our sex life has dwindled.

He was the dominant half, and honestly I can say outside of this particular bedroom kink he’s the kindest and gentlest man you could meet. It was 100% consensual and in our normal day to day life I’m by far the louder and more ‘bossy’ one for want of a better word. The few people that were privy to the secret were always somewhat surprised by the dynamics.

Whilst he’s been ill he’s been quite drugged up at times and from my work experience I find that’s when true ‘issues’ show their heads because the filter is muffled. He didn’t change, still quiet, kind and gentle lol

So no, I don’t think it’s generally a good indicator of broader character as a rule.

Very

Men = pervert

Yes, I absolutely agree with you here, op. Of course the fetish or kink is shaped by the nature of the person who displays it and quite often the dysfunctional outlook they have acquired over a dysfunctional life.

Perhaps I'm being daft, but the only people whose sexual predictions we know are out own and our current and former partners. Perhaps we hear in a criminal trial of these of the accused. We might talk about some aspects with very good friends , but a limited audience.

"A pound of your finest apples, and by the way do you like dressing up in latex and being whipped?"

Thi king more seriously I think we have a series of standards or levels.
A. What we do regularly.
B. What we do sometimes, but not everyone
C. What we or partner might suggest that we would be happy to try
D. No thank you, not my scene
E. Eeewww you sick sicko, get out of my house!

For some d and e might be interchangeable.

As mentioned earlier - Cynthia Payne's clients for humiliation included a lot of senior patriarchal types, in charge, in dominant positions in their careers who liked to submit. The cliche of the English public schoolboy enjoying being beaten too.

Good luck proving the hypothesis.

As I said, I just think you're stacking your case massively so that no one can disagree, making it so black and white basic when many people are trying to say it's a grey area with lots of complexities. You might as well say it's deplorable if two consenting adults enjoy acting out being Fred and Rose West abusing and murdering their kids, and most of us would probably have to nod along and say yes indeed @MonTuesWeds that is indeed grim. But that's not what the vast, vast majority of the kink under discussion is and you're lumping it together. To the extent than someone who doesn't agree with you looks 'very questionable'. In short, you're never gonna get it so it's kind of pointless to go on debating.

Well you could say the same thing about more “vanilla” sex, could you not?

Hmm I disagree. A man who might be into kink but communicates it to a willing partner, takes precautions to make sure everyone is safe and seeks enthusiastic consent, and if both partners enjoy it. That is a “good” person regardless of what you think of their personal sexual choices and how unsavoury you might find them.

a man who has a kink, who coerces an unwilling partner into it. Doesn’t listen to their wants and only does what he pleases, doesn’t stop immediately if they aren’t enthusiastic or show reluctance, is unconcerned with their pleaseure. That’s not a “good” person. It’s not about the act itself, it’s about how it’s carried out.

OP, I don’t know why you’re getting such a hard time on here and I feel like people are being obtuse.

I agree that if a man is aroused by hurting women during sex, this reflects very poorly on his character. I think this of any type of sadism.
i also think if someone is aroused by being humiliated, this says something about their self esteem for example.

i think this is true of all forms of sado masochism.

Am I right in thinking kinks is a predominantly male thing?

No.

So I kind of agree with you op but in reverse kind of, I think some people can have sone kinks that don't connect to their personality. I also think thing's like s&m and other more extreme kinks stem from the person's personality.

Look at all the lads in here, desperate to discuss what gets them hard and why that's okay.

Bring back kink-shaming.