"BDSM is a sexual orientation, not a fetish"

"Tall lesbian with big hands and a shaved head? :-)"

Your selling it to me now........

I'm all for analysing your own choices. I'm all for discussing why those choices are made and if they are heathy.

Just sometimes the rush to use damming language and say people are 'fucked up' chases them off the thread and effectively closes down the discussion or limits the discussion because we loose that voice.

"But I'm physically attracted to quite masculine things, like height, big hands, stubble, etc. "
Tall lesbian with big hands and a shaved head? :-)

The point being that precisely what is masculine is also (slightly) variable. So, given that facial hair is variable between populations, I presume stubble is too.

I just find it amusing, given how often lesbians were required to justify and explain their sexuality, how edgy some straight women get when asked to do the same. I think female sexuality (and male sexuality given what the ancient greeks managed in their society as regards male homosexual acts) is more malleable socially than we like to think. I don;t think there is a gay gene, but then I don't think there is a straight one either!

Okay, really flaky not very good analogy.

Smoking. I used to smoke. I used to enjoy smoking. I knew it was bad for me. Other people told me it was bad for me. They also admitted that it was still my free choice to smoke or not. But we have quite strong societal pressures to deter smoking, and restrictions on where and when you can do it.

So, as regards people private sexual practises -- just because a particular act isn't illegal, doesn't mean that we shouldn't have discussions about whether or not such practises are healthy otherwise.

So male homosexuality isn't illegal, and that was a long hard fight. As regards being gay per se, I don't see any health problems.
However, that doesn't mean that in the HIV years, we didn't shy away from realising that gay men who had an extremely large number of anonymous sexual partners every weekend were putting their health at risk. We didn't say 'don't be gay' (as some right wing bastards tried to), we just advised as regards safer sex practises. Which also meant advising against particularly risky practises.

"Because I don't think that everything a woman does, even if she finds it so great it makes her organism, is necessarily politically liberating."
Not all choices are equivalent. And if we are to get anywhere, we have to analyse the choices we are making, and why we are making them, even the ones that we aren't totally sure that we are making! :-)

Although if a zoo fetish works for you let's not rush to judge

I would be happy for people to 'not validate' and be neutral, no problems. However, not many people can pull that off. Disapproval and embarrassment are very British ways of controlling others and telling them how to behave. A well timed sniff and a tut of disapproval can reduce some people to tears.

SomeDyke I think it's a really interesting question how much is our sexuality fixed? I know why I am heterosexual. I am very conscious that my sexuality has been shaped by the patriarchy and that fighting that hasn't worked. For me. The personal is political but sometimes that makes people (me) very uncomfortable.

You are an endangered species radical, lesbian, feminist careful you don't end up in a zoo.

"Surely who you're sexually attracted to isn't a choice? "
Innate or socially constructed? There isn't a gay gene you know! It isn't as set in stone as some people seem to think. But given the over-whelming preponderance of heterosexuality, it is frankly quite amazing that so many of us are lucky enough to somehow turn out gay! :-)

"Isn't that how everyone in a society where homosexuality is legal goes about relationships ?" No. Before you can 'fall in love' with anyone, you have to get to know them (I'm not a eyes meet across a crowded room type). The only people I would bother or want to bother getting to know in that sort of way would not be males and also wouldn't be straight women.
Frankly, I find this is a ridiculous statement given that we know that something you can't help but notice about a person as soon as you see them is their (assumed) sex (let's NOT fall into the gender presentation wormhole here!) and all the research I know of shows that we do treat men and women differently and for good reasons!

"I find the "we'd all be lesbians if it weren't for the patriarchy" argument extremely patronising. It's a theory that gets the occasional airing on here , usually by SomeDyke"
I find the 'I'm be straight even if it wasn't for the patriarchy' line, or I'm just not attracted to women (and I have no real interest in thinking about why that is) line a bit of a case of head in the sand.

I can understand why dykes would claim that (self-protection and all that, given the amount of times we've all been told it is unnatural, or we are unnatural), but I think it is very arrogant of straight women who claim to be feminist to not be willing to give a little consideration to why they are heterosexual, or at least wonder if it could have been otherwise........

"some things are just private. End of story."
The personal is political don't forget. :-)

Somedays, I feel like the only radical lesbian feminist left.......

I don't think it would necessarily Bitof. Just like any dating is a minefield, especially on the Internet, and emotional and other abusive behaviour is fairly common in "vanilla" relationships. And I think it is relatively mainstream. I don't see that it needs to be any more so, or shoved down the throats of people who for many good reasons, find it offensive.

Wow Buffy let it go. I said patronising not murderer of cute kittens.

MostlyHet this is an area I don't know much about, but if people feel they are benefiting from writing perhaps they are? Isn't writing used in therapy? Or do you think they are stuck in one place?

Agree with you about criticism. Is the issue that people are criticising the content and not the writing skills?

Venus could bringing BDSM into the mainstream mean that a light shines on the community making it easier to spot those who are in 'for the wrong reasons'. Clumsy expression but a genuine question.

I'm sorry Buffy I was unclear, when I said "patronisingly assuming you know better what is good for people'" it wasn't a synthesis of posts I meant you as in Buffy.

My concern would revolve around who gets to decide what is 'good for society'. Although free market capitalism is not doing a brilliant job societies that seek to control (define?) sexuality are especially bad for women.

I think people have free will and if they choose something (fully informed) that is unhealthy so be it. Mountaineering, very dangerous, costs society money (mountain rescue, NHS) if you want to, here are your crampons.

Crampons you could also use in your BDSM lifestyle choice.

Back to education. People need to be able to pick up a text or watch something and apply critical skills. Why was this written? Who wrote it? When? What motivation etc. Be aware all is not what it seems.
Skills taught in English and History (basic source skills). I think young womern, as a general rule, excell in this area.

People thinking more widely about sexual practices is probably a good thing. Discussing the implications of their choices is good. This can not be achieved by lecturing them and telling them they are capitulating to the patriarchy.

While it is good people are concerned for the welfare of others, assuming you know better what is good for people may be a little patronising.

I don't think they do. I think it's more of a fucked up compulsion that they feel the need to justify in that way. I'm not going to post about it here from a personal POV, but it's something I have some experience of, and I agree it's not coming from a healthy place. And it makes you very vulnerable. I think the BDSM "scene" is full of people who do get off on causing genuine pain to people. Why wouldn't it be?

Gah sight, dammit, sight. Menopausal brain fog. I never used to make mistakes like that.

In fairness to this particular community, Snow, they are scrupulous about tagging their fics as dark fics. However, you're right about the broader "stumbling across it" thing. I do worry about girls forming their sexuality from this stuff. And I worry about the ones who promulgate rape myths without realising that's what they're doing - the ones who write 70s bodice-ripper style plots in which the hero rapes the girl and she comes to enjoy it, then when you tackle them on it in a review, say "but that's not rape, that's seduction." In an odd sort of way "I get off on thinking about rape" is at least honest and puts it in plain site. I'm not in favour of censorship of written material, but I do wish people were more open to the idea that robust criticism is not the same as "oppression"/"silencing"/"kink shaming"/"insert-word-du-jour-phobia".

Also I don't understand why people believe that eroticising something bad that happened to you will make you heal from the trauma...it's really doesn't.
The women i've encountered who used BDSM to "heal" from sexual abuse seemed stuck in the trauma. No wonder, they were repeating the scenario over and over again.

MostlyHet
What troubles me about such things as you describe is more that it would give young women who come across this material a negative view of sex, relationships and men/women. Especially since it's not allowed to be criticised, rape as just a harmless kink that no one should complain about.
If there was an understanding that hey this is not very healthy but it's dark fiction then it wouldn't be as bad.

That's a very good point, Buffy. As you all know because I've bored on about it at great length, I'm into fanfic. I have a friend who's very into a particular fanfic fandom in which there is a lot of very violent, BDSM, non-con (i.e. rape) fics - written by and enjoyed by women. And they are massively defensive about the fact that they write these - the usual defences of "my kink is not your kink and that's okay", plus "but I'm a rape survivor myself and this is how I choose to process these things." And in true tumblr fashion any attempt to critique what they do within a wider cultural context, and ask questions about whether it's healthy for them to address their past trauma in this way is met by a cry of "Wah, you're oppressing me!" But to the outsider, their defences of writing this stuff look uncomfortably like pro-ana websites. It's not so much that I worry from an "ick this stuff is just so disturbing" sort of way (though it is very disturbing - but in fairness it's a minority interest within that fandom), more from a "wow, do you want to go through the whole of the rest of your life this damaged?" sort of way.