More visibility for 'kink' - this is so disturbing.

[Novina]

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/feb/09/kink-anthology-book-fear-shame

"In the meantime, despite its increasing visibility on social media and dating apps, kink is still generally thought to be unfit for the public eye. Unfit for children, especially, as in the recurring argument that kinky attire should not be visible at Pride parades, which echoes the old, bad argument that any signs of queerness should be kept out of sight of minors. But consider what it might do to a person, whether child or adult, to primarily see one’s sexual desires represented in the flattened form of a punchline or stock villain. To see and hear, in the books and shows and movies that can constitute much of our experience of the world, that one either doesn’t exist, or shouldn’t."

The 'k' are borrowing language from the lgb to push for more visibility, even wrt children.

Honestly, do what you like - with, or without, consenting adults in private - I don't care. But I do not consent to being part of it if you bring it into public life. This determination to get children involved, as if it's good for them, is a huge red flag.

This is one reason I can't stand the queer theory approach of blurring, or transgressing, boundaries. Yes, some boundaries have been bad and needed challenging, but others are there for very good reasons.

Involving people in your sexual fetish play non-consensually isn't a progressive thing to do. Wanky Guardian click bait nonsense.

The next step - fetishes and children.

Lots of conflation around language again, on the one hand the LGBT+ community will tell us that queerness is an inclusive term that includes them all and on the other hand articles like this define queerness as being kink, fetishes and philias.

I wonder what definition the Mayor of London was thinking of when he tweeted that there is no place in London for queerphobia.

which echoes the old, bad argument that any signs of queerness should be kept out of sight of minors"

I have become very suspicious anyone who argues by analogy, this is so wrong that it beggars belief that anyone can make the claim. There is a world of differences between any signs of queerness e. g gay men holding hands or kissing and explicit sexual display.

I have met a few kink types and always found them to the most tedious bores about their hobby, so many believe it makes them me sort of brave sexual adventurer. I can out up with that if I have to but not this.

We see you.

We know the trick you are trying to play

making yourself out to be victims

it will not work

And this particularly annoying person is promoting it on Tiktok.

A site popular with teens and pre-teens.

twitter.com/gigiengle/status/1332362584750776321?s=21

LGB people have spent decades - section 28 included - fighting to establish in people's minds that homosexual isn't sexually dodgy, sexually inappropriate behaviour or unsafe to be around children. This intentional 'if you object to inappropriate public sexual behaviour, exhibitionism and massive problems with boundaries and respecting other people you're anti queer' is not coming from LGB people and does them no good at all.

No one, particularly children, should be made use of in other people's sex lives. This isn't queer behaviour, this is just poor behaviour.

"For a lot of people, kink is less any kind of a choice than a lifelong orientation"

Citation needed

Exactly, Michelle. Well put.

Im old fashioned, I just don't understand it. People have been having sex for milenia without the need for others to celebrate it.

Why is it necessary to include unwilling participants and children in your sexual experience? Is that the kink? If so, yes I will shame it.

And I agree latching Q and K onto LGB does nothing for LGB.

It’s a stalking horse for the ultimate normalisation of paedophilia.

Unfit for children, especially, as in the recurring argument that kinky attire should not be visible at Pride parades, which echoes the old, bad argument that any signs of queerness should be kept out of sight of minors.

I'd write this off as drivel if it wasn't actively harmful. Why are the Guardian publishing it?

Sex is private and for adults. Romantic and family relationships (regardless of the sex of the people involved) are public. Wedding public, wedding night not. How is this a difficult concept to understand?

It's this idea of 'shame' isn't it, that shame is inherently a bad thing, that people who make others feel shame are automatically wrong. When my DS15 treats me like shit (as all teens do) I do not feel bad if he feels ashamed, I think he's learning a lesson.

Shame is supposed to be transitive, that is, we feel shame for a behaviour, correct it and move on, substituting a behaviour that is more acceptable. Or, we do it in private. No-one should be ashamed of masturbating, but no one should be doing it in public...

But I guess that's the rub. People don't actually want the shame to stop because that is part of the kink. What they want is to move it out of the private realm to get even more shaming to feed the kink. 'Off you go pet, do what you like in your own house' isn't feeding the kink so it has to happen publically. They don't actually want it to be celebrated, they want more pushback.

"kink is still generally thought to be unfit for the public eye. Unfit for children, especially,"

Yes. Yes, sexually explicit material is unfit for children. It's not about prudishness, it's about protecting children.

I can't believe this needs saying.

@merrymouse exactly

I also think, contrary to popular belief, that the internet has been terrible for kink. Instead of 'brilliant, you can find your tribe and kink away together, it's 'When there's a sub-reddit for every kink, no-one is special.'

That's why there's this new demand for public approval, I think.

But I guess that's the rub. People don't actually want the shame to stop because that is part of the kink. What they want is to move it out of the private realm to get even more shaming to feed the kink. 'Offyou go pet, do what you like in your own house' isn't feeding the kink so it has to happen publically. They don't actually want it to be celebrated, they want more pushback.

Bingo

Never seen/read/heard about anyone in the kink category looking in the least bit ashamed

@JosephineDeBeauharnais

It’s a stalking horse for the ultimate normalisation of paedophilia.

This is such an apt summing up. Got it in one sentence.

Yes, agree with your whole post, Holdonto.

@notyourhandmaid

"kink is still generally thought to be unfit for the public eye. Unfit for children, especially,"

Yes. Yes, sexually explicit material is unfit for children. It's not about prudishness, it's about protecting children.

I can't believe this needs saying.

This. Why on earth do they think kids should be subjected to it?? That's so many red flags.

I have met a few kink types and always found them to the most tedious bores about their hobby, so many believe it makes them me sort of brave sexual adventurer. I can out up with that if I have to but not this.

So much so that I often wonder if they are in fact over-compensating for something (inability to reach orgasm without leather, whips and chains? Ingrained repressed sexuality from a strict upbringing which they can only shake off by going to the other extreme?). I'm not sure that they're the sex positive people and we're the repressed prudes - the more I delve into people's accounts of the link scene, the more I think it might well be the other way round.

The 'kink' which involves wanting to involve children in your sex life begins with P and ends in aedophilia.
Abhorrent, disgusting movement and it makes me wish I was older because I worry about the times I'm living in and raising my kids in!

@JosephineDeBeauharnais

“It’s a stalking horse for the ultimate normalisation of paedophilia”

This 100%

Nononononono.
I am kinky. I am part of the scene. The whole moral ETHOS of kink is 'safe, sane, consensual'. This means you do NOT involve others in your kink in any way unless they explicitly consent. You don't discuss it with them unless they ask, you don't flaunt fetishes or fetishised clothing in front of them unless they are in a kinky space/ have asked to see. Showing people sexualised things that they have not asked to see is non consensual and goes against the values of every person involved in the kink/BDSM scene.

Anybody espousing this is just an old fashioned pervert or child abuser. Fuck them. They do not speak for me.

Am I horribly naive or old fashioned for doubting the OkCupid survey mentioned when results show:
"71% of members are into kink, 62% of women are into rough sex, and 51% of women are into bondage"?

I would wonder how many women say that's their preference because they believe it's expected of them?