"BDSM is a sexual orientation, not a fetish"

SomeDyke On the other hand, historically, and nowadays, it is more common for male homosexuality to be illegal/ more heavily punished and female homosexuality to be stigmatised and not punished as heavily. I don't think the conclusions you are drawing are correct.

Bollocks, it's a hobby. My husband is into this shit but I won't have anything to do with it and he has to go out if he wants to dress up because I don't want it in the house.
It isn't a big deal between us I just ignore it but it is not a sexual orientation and if anyone at work decided to "come out" as BDSM I would have no hesitation in telling them to keep their preferences out of my face thank you very much.
I'm sure nobody at works wants to know what I get up to with my clothes off.

This latest supposed addition to the alphabet soup sadly shows the rather mistaken arguments that the lesbian and gay rights lobby used. Hence we have ended up with the attempts to make false analogies with trans and gender identity issues, and now seemingly with BDSM and 'sexual orientation' issues.

Being lesbian or gay isn't just about sex, and what sexual acts you perform. Although that was used historically to persecute gay men and lesbians. But being publically a lesbian or gay couple isn't the same as being publically into particular sexual acts (although just as with a straight couple, what acts are possible is slightly constrained by biology).

And the reason why being lesbian is 'okay' shouldn't be the 'I just am, can't change, can't help it', 'it's an innate part of my identity' argument. The real reason why the patriarchy doesn't like lesbians is because it challenges heterosexuality and the way that the private sphere is also used to maintain mens power over women. Hence no surprise if it has been twisted to be 'just' about sex, which is/should be either irrelevant to the rest of your life, or a bit of a turn-on for straight blokes. Or just another kink.....................

Male homosexuality was never quite the same threat to the patriarchy, and ancient greeks managed to incorporate it quite well into their society.

And I'll admit a part of me suspects this is former lesbian and gay rights organisations who are desperate to keep going, so now that the legalities are (mostly) sorted (as regards marriage, employment, pensions etc etc), what are they campaigning for? So finding a new group which can be made to fit using their same style of arguments, means new donors and keeps them employed. Or a take-over bid, now that gay and lesbian interest is waning.......................

From my point of view, as a lesbian don't assume you know about what I do sexually, and frankly it is none of your business! If you are prejudiced against a lesbian couple, it is frankly just sexism, because if I was the same person but holding the hand of a man, you wouldn't have the same issues. It's just SEXISM stupid! :-)

Prawn

Regarding BDSM, if it's extreme you can be prosecuted, even go to prison. Does anyone else remember Operation Spanner? Bunch of men nailing each other's scrotums to the floor. It was a big deal at the time.

I remember it - I've just looked up the case on BAILII, R v Brown, it was a case that went as far as the House of Lords(as was). It was a narrow decision - of the 5 Law Lords, 2 allowed the appeal and would have set aside the convictions. This was back in 1993 - make me wonder what the decision would be if the case were to be heard today.

Whilst I am sure there are some perfectly nice BDSMers out there, it doesn't magically cancel out the overall societal problems surrounding consent.

www.dailydot.com/irl/kink-bdsm-consent-problem/

I can imagine that the BDSM community by the very nature of the kinks and fetishes being explored can attract some very unsavoury characters as the link above indicates.

MsWorthington Wine is very socially acceptable, much more than BDSM. Even MLP isn't really on the same level (it's just as weird as people who collect stamps IMO). They're not fair comparisons.
As Vestal pointed out, these things are already defined as discrimination. My point wasn't that they should become protected, just that it is possible to be discriminated against for these reasons.

I find out you really enjoy being spanked and tied up by your partner. From that I deduce that you probably have some unresolved issues from your early years and reckon you probably aren't suited to a/b/c mentally draining type work. Therefore you don't get the next promotion.

How about your boss finds out you collect My Little Ponies, assumes you're infantile and immature and doesn't give you a promotion. Or you boss finds out you're a wine buff, assumes by that you have a drink problem and doesn't give you a promotion. That's not discrimination, that's a boss being a dick and an armchair psychiatrist.

or you casually mention that your partner picks out your clothes and then everyone assume you're in an abusive relationship.

or you are overheard asking permission for something pzeopledon't understand.

people have lost jobs because it has come out that they are into BDSM

I find out you really enjoy being spanked and tied up by your partner. From that I deduce that you probably have some unresolved issues from your early years and reckon you probably aren't suited to a/b/c mentally draining type work. Therefore you don't get the next promotion.That is discrimination isn't it?

Yes, but that would fall under laws (if any exist) that illegalize discrimination against people with psychological health issues.

You could also find out that I am in psychotherapy, something much more likely for an employer to find out, and conclude from this that I have unresolved issues, and therefore not promote me.

Or you could find out that I do cosplay on weekends, and conclude that I am immature and childish ...

You see, most people who do things that employers wouldn't like keep those things secret. And with things that don't come up at the company's Christmas party (like being homosexual would, if you're supposed to bring your spouse), that's pretty doable.

Vestal I don't think it's that this scenario is too unrealistic:

I find out you really enjoy being spanked and tied up by your partner. From that I deduce that you probably have some unresolved issues from your early years and reckon you probably aren't suited to a/b/c mentally draining type work. Therefore you don't get the next promotion.

That is discrimination isn't it?

Being gay means that you chose to have a same sex partner. Unless you chose to keep your relationship secret much of your life is played out in public. You live with your partner, you holiday with your partner, you may even chose to have children with your partner, sex is just a small part of that. Until very recently gay people faced terrible discrimination, and they still do in many countries.

Being part of the BDSM community isn't the same at. There's absolutely no reason to ever be playing your sexual choices out in public. I'm not saying it should be kept as a secret either, but it's just not relevant to other people.

It's experts in the field who are saying that paedophilia is a sexual orientation. I gather it's a specific type of paedophile: men who are exclusively attracted to prepubescent children. Most sex offenders "burn out" fairly young, but these guys typically go on offending for the whole of their lives. They often have hundreds of victims.

It seems there are many paedophiles who don't offend. They see sex with children as a horror, just like the rest of us. The key thing is to support men cursed with this so that they don't offend. And it is a curse. Imagine waking up tomorrow with a strong sexual interest in little kids. People need to be told that confessing to this attraction will not lead to prison as long as they haven't done anything.

A friend worked in a rehabilitation unit for serious paedophile offenders for a few years. She found it immensely depressing. The scheme didn't make a scrap of difference. Once a man has started offending - which involves rationalizing his behaviour - he won't stop.

Having been very liberal she now says that once a man has committed one offence against a prepubescent child he should be locked up for life. Or on an island.

Regarding BDSM, if it's extreme you can be prosecuted, even go to prison. Does anyone else remember Operation Spanner? Bunch of men nailing each other's scrotums to the floor. It was a big deal at the time.

I understand that some people may feel discriminated for enjoying BDSM because it can be shocking to others in what people enjoy - it certainly is to me.

Well, yeah, but that's not discrimination.

People are also shocked that I genuinely like broccoli. I wouldn't say I'm discriminated by their upturned noses.

I understand that some people may feel discriminated for enjoying BDSM because it can be shocking to others in what people enjoy - it certainly is to me. However it is completely different to LGBT. I don't think many LGBT people would agree with its inclusion.

Paedophilia is completely different and can't be rationally compared to either.

I don't feel like it's the same as coming out gay as when gay people come out its about their whole life and relationships, not what turns them on.

but being Homosexual is about what turns you on?

no, clearly not the default situation. I'm just saying there is no option to even argue consent as a case.

Which is a good thing, because if it was possible to argue consent, this would be treated exactly like rape - where the default assumption is that the woman consented to it.

Do you think the attitudes that lead to the default assumption that women consented to being assaulted with a penis would not lead to the assumption that women consented to being hit in the face, if hitting women in the face came to be seen as a valid form of achieving male orgasm?

And how would it benefit you for the law to change this way? You can already allow someone to harm you. Do you really feel it is such a disadvantage that you could call the police if your BDSM partner crossed your boundaries?

Why is assuming BDSM is a hobby oppression?

I don't need to know what people do in private, neither do I care what what they do. I won't judge anyone by how they chose to have sex or conduct their intimate relationships, but neither do I feel that people who enjoy BDSM deserve special status any more than a person who say loves anime cos play and spends their spare time living as a cartoon character.

no, clearly not the default situation. I'm just saying there is no option to even argue consent as a case.

well as long as people assume one person sexual identity as a hobby then there will be oppression.

as with everything there is variance and diversity.

In law, you cannot, as a rule, consent to an assault.

Except if the assault is committed by a man and includes his shoving his penis in one of your orifices. Then the default assumption is that you consented to it.

And you really want the default assumption if a man hits you in the face to be that you consented to it? Have you really thought this through?

I see it as a hobby. I know people for whom their hobbies are their lives, how is BDSM any different?