"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.

Oh, I think I agree that it's unfair to go looking for a fic that's clearly been tagged then write an arsey review. But I think it's legitimate to ask as a genre why such fics exist, and whether it's a psychologically healthy place for the authors to be. (And there were people on this thread asking similar questions about BDSM, hence my bringing this up. FWIW I get the impression there are a lot of different reasons for being into BDSM, ranging from learned behaviours from past abuse - clearly a bad thing, and one which would be helped by therapy - through to positive reasons such as liking to relinquish control in the bedroom as a destressing mechanism when the rest of your life involves being in control, or simply having an endorphin system that works that way.)

And I totally agree (in fact made the same point upthread) that it is totally different from filmed pornography which often shows images of people being abused in real life.

Yes, that's what I mean by how a critique is directed.

If someone critiques or discusses a genre, rather than specific fics, it is then up to writers if they want to engage with that critique. In fact, the critique has the same issues as a fic. People make a choice to read a critique.

That's all different to directing criticism at an individual, as you say.

Much of this discussion is around to what extent things are viewed as being part of a private or public sphere. For BDSM people to position themselves as similar to gay people, they're asking for something to move into a public sphere and gain an accepting reception, both of which seem inappropriate given the subject matter. I wonder what they hope to gain from doing so.

I am bi and would not welcome BDSM folks joining an LGBT group because their interests are outside the mainstream. Although I have come across folks whose BDSM interests infiltrated their everyday life outside the bedroom, I really don't think it is an identity issue in the same way. Also the two close friends I know who are involved in this stuff (one gay male, one straight woman) both have huge self esteem issues which they act out in role play. So, yes, of course you get straight people, with self esteem issues, but IME BDSM is directly connected to/enacts those issues. You might say that they are working those issues through, but personally I find it profoundly unhealthy. It turns my stomach that someone who I know has low self esteem would 'choose' to call their DP Master at all times or be trussed up like a torture victim. I am expected to welcome this into the safe space needed for young, vulnerable people coming out why??? Just no.

What I find incredibly frightening and difficult about according special protected status to sexual desires, is that sexual desires all require a partner.

If I say "I just want to be free to eat ice cream" that sounds alright, because everyone is assuming that I'm not going up to people and stealing their ice creams.

Grammatically, that sounds really similar to "I just want to be able to do the sexual things that I want" - but it isn't, because the complete sentence is "I just want to be able to do sexual things to people that I want". Who are the "people"? what happens about them, and what they want?

I know we all say "consensual adults" etc but it is actually, genuinely the case that since the quasi-religious strictures on sexual activity crumbled, fewer and fewer things have become genuinely optional.

Within heterosexuality, it is now often unacceptable for a dating person who wants to be sexually / romantically active to be against sex outside commitment; not into porn, or even anti-porn; already "vanilla" is a scathing term for those who refuse to play with BDSM; anal is standard; there are a million things that are now socially required. Rape has been standard and unpunishable for, like, ever.

Why do we want more things to be required? I know they are saying "allowed" not "required", but, it's going to be required.

"I really don't think it is an identity issue..."
I don't think gay rights is an identity issue either and this whole idea shows the problem with arguments for 'rights' based on 'identity'. I didn't/don't want gay rights so me and my wife can be free to do different stuff to what straight folks do in public, I 'just' wanted to be able to do the ordinary stuff that everyone else does with their partner in public without being refused or reviled because of our sex. Just because some people use the 'two men kissing makes me feel ill' argument to justify their homophobia isn't a reason to justify anything. It's the difference between a gay man being allowed to be openly gay whilst shopping in Sainsbury with his partner, and complaining because he's not allowed to wear chaps and a leather jockstrap to work (the first we still need to work on, and the latter only okay if you work in a gay village but probably not in the food preparation area!)

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 think to most who label as demisexual, genitals do matter in that they are attracted to people with either male or female genitals, the presence of the "correct" genitals just doesn't produce instant sexual attraction.

(Personally, I find penises rather ugly. This seems to be pretty normal for heterosexual women. One is not attracted to the genitals, but to the overall body that signals that there's likely to be a certain set of genitals.
Or perhaps I'm just a lesbian who is not just in the closet but exploring Narnia, but, hey, I've always liked the Narnia books.)

@MaudlinNamechange: Yes, exactly. When it comes to male orgasms, what is legal is required or will soon become so.
If it is legal, a woman who was raped will be assumed to have consented to it. We know this to be true for the things that are legal already.
Perhaps, some years ago, a judge would have said "Ugh, anal? That's disgusting, she cannot possibly have consented to that, I believe her" - but now that it is mainstream, it is assumed that a woman will want it done to her. (Granted, I have no idea whether judges wouild have judged it differently before, but someone here claimed that anal was illegal where she lives, so I assume there must be some truth to it)

already "vanilla" is a scathing term for those who refuse to play with BDSM

Let's reclaim it. Vanilla is a very nice and tasty spice and people who try to use it as insult are stupid.
(I object to it as term for regular piv, though. Regular piv is dangerous, with regards to pregnancy, and for some leads to UTI and many women don't orgasm from it. Let's claim vanilla for sex acts that don't harm or endanger women in any way, and can be assumed to be pleasant for all!)

A man who likes to hurt women (doms/sadists) should not be placed in the same category as women who loves other women (LB ladies) and want to have relationships with them without discrimination. Ugh ugh ugh.

I definitely think that male sadists should be shamed, not told that their sadism makes them some oppressed minority. Anyone who like to hurt others should be shamed. I don't want to shame female submissives though, unless they're harming others. I just hope that those who are traumatized can find some real healing.

"Vanilla" is indeed used as a scathing term by some people. it basically means uptight prude who couldn't possibly have fun in bed.
Either you're into BDSM or otherwise you're a boring "vanilla" who have heterosexual PIV missionary sex devoid of passion with your DH once a week. Like there is nothing else one could do sexually?

Great post maudlin

Snow "Vanilla" is indeed used as a scathing term by some people. it basically means uptight prude who couldn't possibly have fun in bed.

This immediately takes me back to school, where the boys would label girls "frigid" to shame them into going further/having sex. (At which point they'd become "slappers", of course. )

SomeDyke 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.

I'm the same with needing to get to know someone. This always calls to mind a man I seemingly fell in love with when abroad one time. Being a solo tourist, backpacker style, I was generally up for meeting new people, male and female, and we'd go sightseeing or out for dinner together or whatever. So I got chatting to this guy (in a very communal atmosphere within the guesthouse) but I just didn't see him on a sexual level. Afterwards, it was the first time it really struck me how important getting to know someone was (to me), and I also realised I had a semi-conscious thought process that immediately sorted men into "would I/wouldn't I?". This wasn't even triggered when I met this guy, my subconscious had already dismissed him. Within a few days I'd totally fallen for him, after spending time together and talking about everything under the sun (including politics AND religion!) But not just emotionally - I physically found him incredibly attractive, despite the fact that if you'd shown me a photo of him before I'd have ranked him fairly low in attractiveness. So in theory I suppose I could meet a woman who I felt the same about, provided I was open to getting to know them or in some kind or situation where we were thrown together. I still don't think it's exactly a "choice" though, more just who you happen to end up attracted to. Although as you point out we are already - subconsciously or otherwise - narrowing the field which obviously will be influenced by society.

However, what about hormones/pheramones and things? Evolutionarily, we must have needed/need a certain amount of heterosexuals in order to produce enough young. And apparently we like the scent of those we're more genertically compatible with (to produce healthy offspring). I might be a weirdo () but smell I've noticed is important to me in attractivness. If I was rating a load of pictures of men on attractiveness vs sniffing them (!) I reckon the results would be different (although maybe some correlation). It just seems there must be some element that isn't to do with societal expectation.

Of course it is not a sexual orientation for fucks sake. I will put myself out there and say I enjoy a bit of BDSM, or did in my youth. My husband refuses to hurt me even if I ask him to though which I respect so I have not dabbled for a fair few years. It is simply..a kink/fetish. My sexual orientation is straight. My kinks are BDSM and occasionally sex outdoors.

How long before 'splosher' is classed as a sexual orientation? Please do look that up if you don't know what it is I discovered it last year and find it funny as fuck but also weird.

Every damn thing does not need to be redefined. The world is actually going mad...

Vanilla to me means someone who has 'normal' sex. Normal being nothing too out there...such as pain or wax play

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

Why do you demand straight woman have to think about why they are straight? I have never made the sort of statements you make about straight women of any gay men or lesbians and demand that they justify their choices. What the hell is "head in the sand " about not being sexually attracted to other women?

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........

What an arrogant statement. You would be rightly furious if I demanded you should give consideration to being heterosexual.

While being part of BDSM may not be the same as being gay in the sense of out in the public.

But bring in a power exchange relationship is. I have a friend who is submissive. Her Dom orders her drinks, and tells her when she's drank enough. Not all the time. But I feel that there looked upon negatively, she's considered abused. But actually she consents.

She prefers that way of life because the rules are clear. There's no grey area, no silly disagreements. Because informed consent is paramount.

But to the observer, that behaviour does look like abuse because that sort of control is what abusers do. It's not actually normal for an adult to not make their own decisions. Whether it is a choice to do this notwithstanding. People will think there is something wrong. I'm not sure what you expect to happen?

And that behaviour shouldn't be out in public!

And that behaviour shouldn't be out in public!

If you are referring to the behaviour described in LittleBoo's post at 7.58 no bad thing if it is, so friends and relatives can see and maybe help.

As for tieing up/ handcuffs etc in the privacy of a bedroom with 2 consenting adults, neither of whom has bought the other's consent, that has to be up to them.

That's a good point, Lass.