"BDSM is a sexual orientation, not a fetish"

[Felascloak]

An LG BT group in Iceland is including people who identify as BDSM as a sexual identity

grapevine.is/news/2016/03/08/bdsm-in-iceland-joins-up-with-national-queer-organisation/

Maybe I am too old but this seems crazy and i hope it doesnt become wudespread. Firstly I don't want to have to listen as my coworkers/acquaintances "come out" as BDSM. Other people's sex lives are not really my business and I'd feel really uncomfortable. 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.
I also think logically if you accept BDSM are a "sexual orientation" then the same caSE could be made for paedophilia and that's something that some paedophiles have been pushing for forever.
The whole thing makes me feel icky.

I know that's the definition of a fetish (my personal definition is basically "something without which you can't orgasm, outside of normal stuff"). But I still think that generally a fetish tends to assume a sexual orientation first - e.g. A straight man with a foot fetish is unlikely to be turned on by a man's foot, irrespective of footwear, because he doesn't find men attractive; the foot fetish is secondary to his orientation.

I'm thinking of a case in which the sex of the other person is irrelevant, the primary consideration is the BDSM-ness, so that's the "orientation".

I may not be explaining myself very clearly! I'm not saying that the reasoning is watertight logic, just that I can see why someone would identify as "BDSM", rather than bi (which seems to me to say "I like both", rather than "I don't care").

I know nothing about bdsm But I would assume that the same still applies ie a straight male dom wouldn't get aroused by a male sub. BDSM is the fetish overlaid on the orientation of gay/straight.
Could be wrong though.

SomeDyke Who knows how many women would/could chose lesbianism if we were free of the patriarchy? We just don't know!

Er - what?

Surely who you're sexually attracted to isn't a choice?

I am heartily sick of men, and don't at this stage see how I could ever have a mutual fulfilling relationship with one, because they're raised in the patriarchy. But I can't just switch and become lesbian.

Or do you mean that sexual orientation is somehow socialised in (or is to some degree)?

I used to think like that too, Oncethere. But I've noticed as I've got older, last 10 years or so (now early 50s) that I have started getting crushes on other women. Romantic ones. They stop short of sexual fantasies - my mind still doesn't go there - but I can't think of a man in RL who's done it for me in the last 5 years, but I've had about 4 or 5 girl crushes. Weird. Because up until recently, my username would have been ExclusivelyHet (actually this user name is to do with what I write in fanfic, not my own orientation, but maybe my Freudian slip was showing when I chose it!)

And I do think the weight of social expectation is enormous. Not so much straight people mistakenly thinking they're gay (because we're the ones whose sexuality is seen as "normal" by society at large) but I've had a few gay friends who've taken a while to realise they were gay, just because the social pressure to be het is so strong. So I do think there's a component of socialisation in there for some people, to a lesser or greater extent. Who knows what I would have chosen or indeed what I would have felt was "natural for me" in a society that saw these things entirely differently.

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

It's unanswerable of course since the response, if challenged, is "but you can't know, it's the patriarchy, innit, fancying men is just a social construct"

I have never felt the slightest sexual attraction to women; to be honest I don't like being naked in front of other women nor want to see other women unclothed. I can look at women and think a particular woman is very beautiful or stylish and I'd like to look like her, but the idea of being involved sexually with a woman is an absolute non starter.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that BDSMers are all bisexual, Jilly. Some are, but it's not really relevant to whether they practice BDSM. Agree that it is a fetish. Sometimes a paraphilia.

I also don't agree that paedophilia is an orientation. I think that's a very slippery slope. Again I'd term it a paraphilia, more akin to bestiality or necrophilia than being gay. There was a thread on this quite recently, it may still be up (think it was in chat). There was an article in salon I think about a guy who said he had never done anything. The article was quite sympathetic to him but it was awful. He had a really shitty attitude and just couldn't get his head around the idea that it was wrong, it was more that he didn't want to go to jail. (He was sexually abused by an uncle as a child but said he didn't care and it wasn't a big deal). He said that if he was going to get ostracised anyway he might as well not have bothered (not abusing children). He also hung out online with real paedophiles who did abuse children and view pictures etc. And he had totally bought into the victimhood narrative, he said it was like being gay. The twatty article seemed to agree with him.

Interesting, MostlyHet. I'm hazarding a guess that you are older than me and perhaps as I was brought up in a marginally more liberal time that meant I was more able to explore feelings like that earlier. Because I used to like the idea of being in a relationship with a woman, and sort of cosy kissing and cuddling would be fine but I don't actually feel sexually attracted to the physique of a woman. Who knows? - I think "mostly het" is a good description! I don't feel it matters hugely though; I don't feel the need to label and divide things up precisely. But I felt able to explore those feelings, obviously someone "in denial" wouldn't. However, the whole concept of being "in denial" relies on there being some innate sexual orientation they are denying. It might not be consistent over the lifetime either, but that's not the same as it being a "choice".

Re the paedophile thing - presumably people can't help it if they are sexually attracted to children? Surely where the wrong happens is if they act on those thoughts in any way? So the question should be - do they all go on to abuse? If not, what treatment can be offered to those who dont want to abuse? As well as how to prevent the others abusing.

I could believe that it is a sexual orientation, sort of (although presumably actual numbers v small with a whole host of others lumped in who are actually just really fucked up) but legally classing it as one would be horrifically inappropriate and open a can of deadly worms. Can it be scientifically/medically classed as one without legally being so? I don't know, I mean people are locked up in forensic mental health units, yet if you said "Oh we lock up these people who are technically, by our classification, ill" it sounds wrong. Meanwhile other "ill" people are kept at home as long as possible. Argh my brain is turning to mush (painkillers!), what I'm trying to say is that things being broadly in the same category doesn't mean we treat them all the same, there are other considerations, icluding potential harm to others.

I know several people in lesbian relationships who said they fell in love with the person, the individual, and the sex of the person was irrelevant. I think that sounds like a great way to go into a relationship, personality first, sex as a side issue.

Perhaps people in BDSM relationships want to be protected from people saying they just need counseling and other equally offensive things. Lemonzest came on the thread and shared. I think that was quite brave and helped inform the discussion, she was not dealt with sympathetically by all. This is not a thread about car parking or MILs am I totally wrong to think a little understanding was in order?

It may be that lack of understanding that means some people in the BDSM community want a protected sexual identity.

Not everybody I know.

Oncethere - I think in my case (brought up by liberal lefty arts-college types with gay friends even back in the 60s) I don't think it's early repression which I'm gradually throwing off, more a genuine change. But only insofar as romantic feelings go. It doesn't stretch as far as an interest in female genitals, and my sexual orientation is really, really driven by genitals (which ties up with Bitof's comment - I too know people who fall in love person first, then everything else follows, and I think it's a lovely way to be, but totally not how I am!)

I know several people in lesbian relationships who said they fell in love with the person, the individual, and the sex of the person was irrelevant. I think that sounds like a great way to go into a relationship, personality first, sex as a side issue

Isn't that how everyone in a society where homosexuality is legal goes about relationships ? I fell in love with a person who is a man.

However I am not going to "fall in love" with a person who has a vagina. The sex of the person is not irrelevant. I have long standing female friends of whom I am very fond but it is no way comparable to the relationship with my husband.

Re paedophilia I wonder if the correct classification for any who is aware of their predilection but does not act on it is in the same mental health category as say kleptomania? I.e harmful urges.

Obviously kleptomaniacs harm only themselves (by breaking the criminal law over trivial items) and therfore are not remotely comparable as a danger, but it is a serious mental health disorder. Is paedophilia the same?

I think Bitof was talking about that (I think relatively rare) subset of people for whom genitals are irrelevant (and I think this is subtly different from being bisexual - I believe it's sometimes referred to as being "demi-sexual", which much as I hate tumblr-isms, does seem to capture something of what's going on here - someone who forms a romantic attachment to someone else then has a sexual interest grow from there - they have no "phwoarr" moments across a crowded room). I have met such people, but I think there are far more people for whom genitals do matter.

I still don't quite see why BDSM needs to be treated like being gay. With being gay, it's about defending your right to do the things in the public sphere that straight people take for granted - from holding hands through to marriage and having kids (whether by donor insemination or adoption). But people who're into BDSM can do all these things, and (like I said in my somewhat fatuous LA LA LA NOT LISTENING post) the stuff that defines their sex life as being BDSM is not stuff that it's appropriate to do in the public sphere, anymore than it would be for me to have vanilla sex in the missionary position in the public sphere.

That's different from getting flack from people when you mention it and people start ranting about its place in the oppression of women - and I agree with BitOf, I do not like it when posters round on people like Lemon and start saying her bedroom choices are somehow worse capitulation to the patriarchy than any of the other myriad range of things we do to make life bearable (and for me, it's not the sex acts that are damaging, it's the cultural issues round the appropriateness/ubiquity of women's submission - and that's bloody everywhere, so unless you're prepared to ban Cosmo, Mills and Boon, Hollywood rom coms, Disney princess movies, 50 Shades of Shite then you're not going to get anywhere).

Sorry Bit, that was probably at least partly me- but surely, Lemon decided to join the thread and suggest that she was in some ways a victim of BDSM...while suggesting its a personal choice.Surely that has to be challenged rather than validating her view point? Else when we read and respond to victim's of abuse either here or elsewhere we should be given to ignore them as some people feel being abused is a positive choice?

I do not like it when posters round on people like Lemon and start saying her bedroom choices are somehow worse capitulation to the patriarchy than any of the other myriad range of things we do to make life bearable

I agree she did get a hard time. (Although you've lost me on "the capitulation to the patriarchy etc, etc " part of your post)

The point is surely as you say, some things are just private. End of story.

As for getting a sympathetic hearing if I had a £ for every sarky, hyperbolic and inaccurate statement I've seen on here or received in real life about my profession and my motives for joining it....

I don't think lemon claimed she was a victim, but I won't speak for her.
Having sex is a positive choice it doesn't mean you are being raped.
There is the concept of free will. It is unfair to deny someone their sexual preference because someone else doesn't like it. It's her view she doesn't need to be validated by us.

If some says they are being abused why would you ignore it because someone else likes those acts?

It's all about choices and conversations which links to the thread about SRE. If consent is clearly given, off you go.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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

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?

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.