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

[MonTuesWeds]

Just that really. I feel like I came of age in a time when we were encouraged to believe that someone's 'intimate preferences' were just that, and that they were completely isolated from that persons wider self and personality. I just don't think that's true though. I suppose I'm wondering two things here, firstly if IABU I'm thinking this now but secondly - am I the only one who has felt the pressure not to judge someone on what 'they're into' providing it was always fully consensual.

As a child abuse detective I can honestly say that most of the paedophiles I dealt with presented very normally. Friendly, engaging, pleasant. That’s what makes them so dangerous and enables them to insert themselves so easily into families lives.

In some ways I agree. For instance I do not perform oral sex on men because I feel it's degrading. I'm presuming that noone who has this morally superior sex life would ever think of something as disgusting as putting a penis in their mouth. They pee out of those holes! I think women who enjoy that must be insecure and are in many ways perpetuating the patriarchy.

I think I know what you mean, but things have changed since we were growing up and given the message "what happens in the bedroom stays in the bedroom."

Not only is it no longer kept in the bedroom, but a lot of men with fetishes can't seem to leave them alone and the internet has ramped up the urge to do something (benign, and occasional treat) to a level where it's always available and it appears to tip into almost an addiction. They also tell each other they have a right to do these things.

I do think that men who enjoy inflicting pain should see that as a problem, rather than cheer each other on. I don't think kinks, with enthusiastic consent, should be grouped in with men thinking their unreasonable demands are a need that has to be met. Strangling, and the expectation women should do this for their man, is an example of where it's gone wrong.

Some of them 100% do. Sorry if you don’t like hearing it but anything that involves hurting or humiliating your partner and getting off on it, flashing, wanking/sex in public, age play, furries, incest porn and many other things makes you quite a gross character.

It might be part of who you are but it doesn't define your personality...

Someone who shouts at wait staff =/= someone who has a specific kink for example

Yanbu...to a point.

If someone asked me to call them "daddy" in bed 🤢, or was really into choking women, I'd think less of them. I know that's meant to be kink shaming, but it also isn't.

This is like saying "if you like horror movies then there must be something wrong with you"

No. Just because in one scenario you like hurting people doesn't mean you are a sick person who likes hurting people

See also: martial artists, writers, boxers, tattooists, piercers, stunt people...

All those in various way "hurt" people in one way. It doesn't mean they are bad people or like hurting people for fun outside the context of their job

I remember a programme years ago called ‘my phone sex secrets’ or something like that about women who worked on adult chat-lines, and the dominatrix type lady said it was often men in fairly high power jobs who spent all day being dominant themselves who were clients.

Age play is consenting adults. It does not make you a creep

Being a pedophile is different

I don't think it's a case of moral superiority, but it's definitely part of a person's character. Your views on oral sex are quite strong and specific (judgemental some might say) and that is obviously rooted in something....as you say probably your experience of the patriarchy or possibly a more specific experience with a man/men. That view hasn't materialised from nowhere, it's a part of your broader character and will be influenced and reflected by/in who you are more widely.

Oh and anything involving pretending to be a baby. Pedophiles also try to say their inclination is just a kink.

Rapist and pedophiles aren't a kink...

It's hard to know because sexual fetishes are mostly kept private (rightly so).

If people outside of the individual/their sexual partners know about them, then yes, it would give you pause about their character.

You'd be wrong. Many women have kinks too

And there it is. Men with kinks are bad. What about women?

So you think people (not just men, because women have them too) with kinks can’t be good people? What is a good person? Most people contain multitudes and moral contradictions. I don’t agree with you at all.

We are talking specifically about kinks. Those do not dictate what kind of person you are.

Sucking dick doesn’t mean you’re insecure, wtf.

No but (and I’m happy to be corrected as this is just based on something read somewhere) rape fantasies are not all that rare for women. Is that a kink or a fantasy? And what’s the difference?

and apologies, not trying to offend

The horror movie analogy is a good one. Am I likely to go out and replicate the same torture I've just seen in a movie? Just because I enjoy torture porn movies, does it mean there's something wrong with me or am I capable of separating reality from fiction?

This is just kink shaming. And means nothing. You'd probably be surprised what some "nice, normal" people are into

With the exception of Flashing, which is sexual abuse and doesn't have consent of the person being flashed, and sex in public which again doesn't have the consent of other people

Consent is key.

I’m quite sure that someone’s kinks say a lot about them, but I think it’s usually not in the ways you think.

From the limited reading I have done (amateur interest in psychology), for example someone who wants to be dominated in a sexual relationship is likely to be someone who holds a lot of authority and responsibility in day to day life. Similarly someone who wants to dominate is more likely to feel powerless in their day to day life. It’s a release.

It's obvious this is really just a thread to attack men and say men are bad...

I don't think this thread is actually open to differing opinions, and is already showing signs of becoming a pile-on, but ok:

The difference in character that I see is about freely given, enthusiastic consent.

I like receiving pain, and therefore I also like giving pain, to someone who I know is also enjoying it. So all I think that says about my or a partner's character is that we're open minded and that consent is important. I would not enjoy giving non-consensual, not-actively-wanted pain, and think that's a different thing.

I don't enjoy adult baby play or furries or a bunch of other things, but I have no issues with consenting adults enjoying them with other enthusiastically consenting adults.

If you're talking about people who are pushy, coercive, entitled or similar, with not-enthusiastically-consenting partners, then yes, that's a problem, but it's about the above-stated aspects of their character, not about the specific sex acts.

In the "degrading" example - it could be, but isn't necessarily.
It's called "role-play" - it's a form of acting, in a specific, agreed, safe context.
Otherwise are you arguing that all actors who play serial killers or other "negative" characters are intrinsically flawed because they agreed to play that role? If not, why does playing it for money make a difference? Is it ok for a professional actor but not an amateur dramatics person because they're also doing it for (non-sexual) fun?

But sure, there are people who want to play with degradation in bed who also secretly hold prejudiced and unpleasant views about the person or class of people that they're degrading.
The existence of some doesn't mean that everyone is.

Most of these arguments fall down because they assume single motivations for actions, and that classes of people are identical monoliths. Life, and human psychology, is way more complicated.

You already know. You do know. You pretend you don't but there wouldn't be such a frisson associated with transgression if you weren't acutely aware of what you were transgressing.