"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'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.

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.

Oh fgs. Buffy specifically said she wasn't assuming she (and others discussing the ins and outs of BDSM) knew better than others. Read her post properly.

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

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.

"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 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.

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

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! :-)

"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!

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.

"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." Discussion is good.

Have you done any counseling training? (genuine question) The ultimate sin is to judge. You have to allow people to reach their own conclusions about themselves. When they decide they want to change for themselves that is when change happens. Telling people they are right or wrong, pointing out mistakes tends to backfire. This logic is applied to lots of different behaviours including illegal and dangerous behaviours.
I'm not a fully trained counselor BTW. Someone with more experience may be more helpful.

The stuff about a sniff of disapproval doesn't really relate to any aspect of my life. I just note that it seems to be one of the key ways women control other women in support of the patriarchy. Lots of religions use shame. What will the neighbours think! So as a general rule I avoid it.

Controlling actions by making people feel shame for a sexual choice, (as long as the usual safe,sane consensual checks have occurred) is not, I think, a good thing.

Who is saying people should be made to feel ashamed, Bitof?

Actually, having just read the article about that poor woman in Italy shamed into suicide after her partner and his mates put a clip of her having sex on the internet, every single bloody person who clicked on that link, made jokes about it on social media and bought bloody t-shirts about it should be fucking well feeling heartily ashamed of themselves.

You know what? I'm just tired of people trying to excuse the inexcusable in the name of open-mindedness. Some things are not okay. Violence, rape, murder, driving people to suicide. Not okay. NOT FUCKING OKAY AT ALL. PASSING JUDGEMENT QUITE HAPPILY HERE.

Mostlyhet, I wonder with (non con) fiction whether this depends on how that robust critique is directed.

If someone writes a fic and uses appropriate tags, they're writing that story to share (for free) with people who want to read it. They're not writing it for people who don't like that kind of thing to click on it and read it for the purposes of a robust critique. They're not asking to be linked to a critique or to have a critique addressed to them.

It seems a very different situation to practitioners of BDSM asking to be made visible in the public sphere by positioning themselves alongside gay advocacy groups.

It is also different to pornography, which is for profit, advertised and frequently involves exposing unwilling people to graphic visual images of real life events.