![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flexibeastToday i've been having some interesting discussions with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
curlygrrrl, which have provoked some thoughts i wanted to set down here.
Many people in non-heteronormative communities don't like labels. And with good reason: labels are often used to pigeon-hole, to justify unfair expectations, to avoid having to discover and explore individual personalities, to discriminate, to harass, to assault. So there has been a strong reaction against labels: to say "i reject labels", "Don't label me", "i have transcended labels" and so on.
i have to wonder, though, whether the ability to do this relies on one being in a position of privilege and/or power. An obvious example is the fact that, though we in the non-heteronormative communities often have heated exchanges about the subtleties of various labels and identities, the mainstream media generically refers to us as 'gay' - even when it's clear that, for example, they are referring to 'non-heterosexual people' (i.e. gays and lesbians, bisexuals, pansexuals etc.), and even when they're discussing trans people (as though trans is a sexual identity rather than a gender identity). This suggests to me that gay men have a level of influence over heteronormative society (or at the very least, the collective consciousness of heteronormative society) that the rest of us 'non-heteronormatives' (for want of a better term!) don't1. And when we look at what issues have been pushed to the top of the gay community's agenda, we certainly see things that reflect a certain amount of power and/or privilege: the rights to same-sex marriage, and to certain superannuation benefits, are probably not so important to those queers who are homeless, or who suffer from domestic violence at the hands of their families and/or partners.
The fact is, even if we don't want to be labeled, labels are often applied to us anyway: it is only when people respect us in general that they respect our requests regarding labels. And general respect is something that is strongly influenced by issues of gender, race, class, ethnicity, ability and so on. So although i can understand the rationale behind arguing against all labeling, i think people also need to consider the possibility that there might be (many?) people who don't have the option of simply "not choosing" the labeling bind.
1. Perhaps because assimilationism is more prevalent in the gay community than amongst other non-heteronormative communities? i often feel concerned that there has been a general turn away from demanding acceptance from heteronormative society and towards creating ghettos - not necessarily physical - in which we marvel at how different and diverse and all-round wonderful we are, but barely make a dent in general society's attitude towards us. Which might be fine for those who are willing and able to participate in these ghettos; but what about those who are not?
curlygrrrl, which have provoked some thoughts i wanted to set down here.Many people in non-heteronormative communities don't like labels. And with good reason: labels are often used to pigeon-hole, to justify unfair expectations, to avoid having to discover and explore individual personalities, to discriminate, to harass, to assault. So there has been a strong reaction against labels: to say "i reject labels", "Don't label me", "i have transcended labels" and so on.
i have to wonder, though, whether the ability to do this relies on one being in a position of privilege and/or power. An obvious example is the fact that, though we in the non-heteronormative communities often have heated exchanges about the subtleties of various labels and identities, the mainstream media generically refers to us as 'gay' - even when it's clear that, for example, they are referring to 'non-heterosexual people' (i.e. gays and lesbians, bisexuals, pansexuals etc.), and even when they're discussing trans people (as though trans is a sexual identity rather than a gender identity). This suggests to me that gay men have a level of influence over heteronormative society (or at the very least, the collective consciousness of heteronormative society) that the rest of us 'non-heteronormatives' (for want of a better term!) don't1. And when we look at what issues have been pushed to the top of the gay community's agenda, we certainly see things that reflect a certain amount of power and/or privilege: the rights to same-sex marriage, and to certain superannuation benefits, are probably not so important to those queers who are homeless, or who suffer from domestic violence at the hands of their families and/or partners.
The fact is, even if we don't want to be labeled, labels are often applied to us anyway: it is only when people respect us in general that they respect our requests regarding labels. And general respect is something that is strongly influenced by issues of gender, race, class, ethnicity, ability and so on. So although i can understand the rationale behind arguing against all labeling, i think people also need to consider the possibility that there might be (many?) people who don't have the option of simply "not choosing" the labeling bind.
1. Perhaps because assimilationism is more prevalent in the gay community than amongst other non-heteronormative communities? i often feel concerned that there has been a general turn away from demanding acceptance from heteronormative society and towards creating ghettos - not necessarily physical - in which we marvel at how different and diverse and all-round wonderful we are, but barely make a dent in general society's attitude towards us. Which might be fine for those who are willing and able to participate in these ghettos; but what about those who are not?
no subject
Date: 2006-11-24 11:37 (UTC)as to labels. ask a black woman or a disbled man or a fat kid if they can avoid labels. being in a position to reject labels is pretty priviledged in itself.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-25 05:14 (UTC)Indeed. It seems, however, that an increasingly common response to this is to simply tell people to reclaim those labels as positive terms. Which personally i feel is rather arrogant - i'm not sure that it's the right of disrespecters to tell the disrespected to "just deal"! But i was wondering what you think of this?
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 02:38 (UTC)Aside from the arrogance and patronisation, it must come from within or it's pointless.
People can be led and ought not to be pushed in my view.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-24 17:31 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 02:36 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 02:43 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 02:51 (UTC)Well, ya know, I don't subvert labels awarded me by minority folks.
That would be me clinging to privilege in an unpleasant reactionary manner, in my view.
I can be pretty darn punctilious about parameters of conflict, though.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 02:53 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 04:01 (UTC)For instance when I was training as a CES officer they had a guy talk to us who came from a disastrously impoverished background, who had pulled himself up by means of training through the ACTU.
He told us we were a bunch of middle-class wankers, and even if we weren't wankers, that it would be how we were seen.
And he was right (I went to a very blue-collar primary school, so was not shocked.
We were also put through a day of shocks by the Aboriginal community.
Yes, there will be rude and unpleasant minority people, but there actually is cause for folks' resentment.
No, minority folks of one kind don't necessarily know better regarding those of another, even though we would hope that they might.
We aren't taught to generalise in such a way, are we?
And both you and I *are* privileged in some ways.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 05:40 (UTC)i don't, however, think that this is a comparable situation to me being labeled 'vanilla'. i'm hardly a representative of heteronormative society: i'm polysexual, i'm transgendered, i'm polyamorous. So i feel that any suggestion that i'm nevertheless a member of the oppressing heteronormative class - and thus should not have a problem with the 'vanilla' label - simply because i'm not "kink-identified" is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Not only because i feel it (absurdly) implies that kink is the primary indicator of non-heteronormativity, but also because i get the impression that many kinky women and queer people have witnessed, or been on the receiving end of, sexism and queerphobia - heteronormative values! - within the kink community.
Basically, i don't accept being labeled 'vanilla' anymore than bi people are expected to accept being labeled 'disease vectors' or 'cheaters' by gays and/or lesbians.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 05:46 (UTC)Yes, there can be unpleasant, vile individuals in any community, and the kink community is about as self-aware as the general community in my view.
Being disempowered in one or a few ways doesn't enlighten anyone, ya know? Or make them *nice*
It just doesn't, more's the pity.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 06:22 (UTC)Well, i actually disagree that that's clearly the case. i certainly think that 'vanilla' is far less privileged over 'kinky' than 'queer' is privileged over 'heterosexual'. i feel the identity of 'kink' is at the same level as the identity of 'swinger' - generally not approved of, but not the object of systematic harrassment and discrimination in the same way as (for example) 'queer'. For example, in general, which revelation would do more damage to a member of the elite: That ey was kinky, or a swinger, or that ey was queer?
The problem i have with the word 'vanilla' is that it suggests heteronormativity even of clearly non-heteronormative people and/or behaviours. i would have far less of a problem with a word that identified someone as not being kinky - and therefore possessing non-kink privilege - which didn't also make implications about the heteronormativity or otherwise of a person's gender and/or sexual identity.
Finally, there are a couple of other issues i'd like to raise in the context of this discussion:
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 07:29 (UTC)on swinging: it's apples and oranges, but some groups of swingers (druggy barebackers) are definitely looked down upon by kinksters, butsome kinksters also swing.
Kink is and was largely closetted. The upper classes were able to do lots of stuff at various times because of their privilege, including be actively but quietly queer, patronise sex workers and so on.
What's kink? I would count spanking but not anal sex. It's basically alternative eroticism and/or perverse theatre stuff, often using trance or endorphins.
Kinky in my book means a fetish, an erotic perversion, a preference of certain acts rather than a different orientation or sex identity.(but no, I don't allow the ideas of some religion to decide what that is).
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 07:46 (UTC)Yes, i have too; some of them are on my f-list. But i'm not sure what you're getting at here?
*nod* Just like swinging. In fact, as i've said before, i hear and read about kink far more than i hear and read about swinging (and that's taken into account that i am actively seeking to do the latter).
So why does anal sex not fit this definition, for you? Many people experience a rush from anal sex; it's often regarded as a fetish and an erotic perversion; and one can certainly have a preference for it over other acts . . . .
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 07:49 (UTC)Spanking utilises pain, probably some domination and submission, and (one hopes) is consensual. It's she kind of thing only humans can do (language).
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 08:47 (UTC)That's a rather odd argument to make.
Just because a sex act is found in many cultures, doesn't imply that it's approved of in all those cultures. Nor is any form of intercourse inherently approved of. In our own society, reproductive penile-vaginal intercourse is approved of more than non-reproductive penile-vaginal intercourse, which in turn is approved of more than oral sex, which in turn is far more approved of than anal sex. Any if recent statistics i've seen are any indicator, anal sex is far from being 'normal' behaviour (in terms of actual practice) within our own society. i thought 'kinky' was - at least in part - defined relative to societal norms?
Animals do all sorts of things, but that obviously doesn't mean societies therefore approve of humans doing the same thing.
i can't imagine why you think that dominant/submissive behaviour is unique to humans; it's obviously a very common part of sexuality amongst the animal kingdom (see this (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-11/cp-rsa111606.php), for example). And i don't think we can communicate effectively enough with non-human animals to say that all such behaviour is definitely non-consensual. Heck, we humans even argue amongst ourselves as to what constitutes 'consensual' (via e.g. the notions of "false consciousness" and "eroticising one's own oppression").
But you seem to be arguing that kinky behaviour is any sexual act that only humans can do. The thing is, there's increasing evidence that many, if not most, if not all, of the things that we thought unique to ourselves are actually found in other species as well. We keep on trying, Bible-like, to differentiate ourselves from animals - but the more we study animals, the more difficult attempts at such differentiation become. The books Biological Exuberance, Evolution's Rainbow and The Ape and the Sushi Master are indicative of this trend. So i wouldn't be surprised to read that species other than our own have been observed to engage in what appears to be bdsm-like behaviour.
Finally, i must say that i feel your argument has a elitist "kinky means special; every other type of sex, which everybody, even animals, engages in, is oh so plebian" tone to it. And it's this tone that i feel pervades the meaning of the word 'vanilla' by the kink community.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 09:23 (UTC)Kink is not directly sexual and sometimes is not sexual at all.
Quite often, yes, it is something only humans can do.
My feeling is that you've taken against the idea of kink at some stage, and are setting it against other things which are different.
You're not a part of the kink community and neither is your partner, -except if using 'community' in a very loose, incorrect sense-, so I suggest do not know how the word is actually used within the Scene.
Of course 'vanilla' is *also* used the way 'straight identified' is used.
I've been acccused of being an elitist because I am out and because I'm bisexual, too.
:::shrug:::.
I'm done.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 10:52 (UTC)Okay; i'll accept that as being how it's defined within the Scene.
Indeed. In fact, i've often got the impression from a number of kinksters that they actually find sex distasteful. What's particularly frustrating, however, is that if it's not directly sexual, and sometimes not sexual at all, why is it dominating so much of current discourse around sexuality?
Of course, this explains how 'pansexual' spaces can be okay with bdsm play, but not with other forms of play - the former is "not sexual" (even though many people turn on and get off via it), whereas the latter is. But it's hardly 'pansexual' to permit people to get off in some ways and not in others, is it?
"Quite often" - but not inherently. Which again demonstrates the problem with your proposed definition of 'kink'.
The fact is that, based on discussions i've had with kink-identified people, 'kink' doesn't actually have definite boundaries. You say that spanking is kinky, but i know someone who has worked in the area of bdsm professionally, and she doesn't regard spanking as kinky at all. i've seen some kinksters regard bondage play alone as not being enough to constitute 'kink', whilst others think it is. And i know people who regard their fetish for anal sex as 'kinky'.
i only started having a problem with kink when it became apparent that it was dominating discourse on the topic of alternative sexuality. i developed a further problem with it because of elitist attitudes towards me from kinksters i encountered, that my sexuality is 'lesser' because kink is not an important part of it. And finally, my blood began to boil over when i was effectively told to simply accept the term 'vanilla', with all the negative connotations that i associate with it because of how it was used by kinksters, not by fellow 'vanilla' people.
The reality is, despite all this, i've continued to defend kink: against feminists who claim it's "internalised patriarchy", against people who think it's perverted (in the negative sense), against people who think it should be illegal. i've joined communities like
i actually think it's absurd that you think the kink community is so different from other minorities that i can't compare it to them, but that it's similar enough that you can talk of it having a rank on the 'privilege' scale in our society. And anyway, it's difficult to take claims of lack of privilege seriously when at least some forms of kink play require rather expensive accoutrements, and when discussions about kink dominate discussions about alternative sexuality. Presumably because, since animals can't engage in at least some forms of kink, it's the only 'truly' alternative sexual possibility. :-P
Firstly, i have partnerS. Secondly, no, they're not of part of the Scene, and neither am i, and quite frankly, nowadays, i'm glad i'm not. i wouldn't be comfortable being a part of any community with such pervasive elitist attitudes towards other sexual minorities. And remember, my impression of the kink community has been formed by the attitudes and behaviours of people who do claim to be members of the kink community.
[ Comment continued below . . . . ]
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 11:15 (UTC)What we do can have us sent to jail becuase consent is not relevant in this state.
I cannot be responsible for snotty kinksters' behaviour..indeed I won't be responsible for that of most, given hwat I have been thourough.
Those people are stupid. It's like saying anyone can be queer. Not.
Kink lies along a different scale from either orientation, or sex or gender identity. You've got a series of axes there.
That's what I mean.
Animals can't do art, either. Is is elitist to claim birds cannot do bondage?
I'm aware of 'feminists' who claim BDSM is violence. As usual, they leave gay men (many of whom do kink) out of their equation, and those hwo make this noise are often bi and transphobic, too.
There's no need to use expensive stuff to do BDSM at all. Even cotton rope is cheap, and a flogger can be made out of a bit of broom handle and a bit of secon-hand leather (old chair, op hsop skirt ofr jacket in poor order, and so on, if necessary.
A person could claim that it takes privilege to be out in the gay world, given the attitude to fasion in parts of it, but's that's waffle, too.
The Scene has better attitudes to other sexual minorities. by far than do lesbian feminists.
It's true, as with most swinging groups that gay men stay away in droves, but the reason is different.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 12:16 (UTC)1. And swinging's not? i regularly read articles about legal attacks on swing clubs. Mainly in the US, it's true; but even though they're not often talked about, i do know of legal attacks on non-bdsm sex parties (the hosts being nabbed for prostitution, for example).
2. Even if that's so, i doubt that's the main reason. Hardly any discussion i come across about bdsm in alternative sexuality fora is about the legal issues. More often, the discussion is about how cool and amazing it is.
Nor should you be responsible. You are responsible, however, for accepting the reality that such people exist, that they have behaved badly towards us non-kinksters, that they have used the word 'vanilla' to describe us when doing so, and to thus accept as reasonable the problems that at least some of us non-kinksters have with that word, and why some of us feel uncomfortable with even kinksters who are our friends using it to describe us.
Well, again, then why is being discussed so much in sexuality focussed fora? Why do communities and anthologies for sexuality-related writing contain so much bdsm? You say that there are legal issues around bdsm, which is true. But if it's not about sexuality, there's no reason for it to be discussed in sexuality-related fora, just like there's no reason for the legal issues surrounding indigenous land rights to be discussed in sexuality-related fora.
Sorry, but that's incorrect. Elephants paint, and i'm pretty sure chimps and/or bonobos do too. And experiments have shown that pigeons can be trained to distinguish real works of art from fakes better than human art 'experts' can. There may be other examples i don't know of.
No, it's elitist to suggest that non-kinksters are 'merely' engaging in behaviours that even animals can do, whereas kinksters are doing something that demonstrates greater abilities than 'mere' animals.
Yes, of course, strictly speaking there's no need to be financially well-off to participate in these communities; but that doesn't mean that people don't feel pressured to buy and display certain things to be accepted within the relevant communities. i know that within the gay scene, for example, there are guys who look down on those who aren't dressed 'appropriately'. And i've also heard instances of kinksters looking down on people who haven't bought the 'right' clothes and equipment.
Basically, class issues can - and do! - impact on people's willingness and ability to participate in various, theoretically non-class-based, communities.
Maybe in your experience; and i accept that. i'm not so sure, however, that that's true overall. i know lesbian feminists who are into the Scene, and i know lesbian feminists who are not into the Scene but don't have a philosophical/social/political objection to it. Thankfully, not all lesbian feminists are Jeffreysites. :-)
*nod* i've actually so often seen such dismissive attitudes towards other sexual minoritites on the part of gay men that i wonder whether the rest of us shouldn't just leave such guys to their own, self-centred devices and try instead to build alliances between the rest of us.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 10:54 (UTC)Oh, so it's used one way when dealing with people who aren't in the Scene, and another when dealing with people on the 'inside'? And that the difference is that it's used insultingly in the first case - which is what i, and many other people i know, have experienced - and merely descriptively in the second?
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 11:21 (UTC)Yes it is insulting in the Scene, insulting in the sense that it can mean those folks are often ignorant.
Ignorant the way many heterosexual people are, ignorant the way many conventionally-gnedered are, ignorant the way many monogamous peole are.
They may very well have no idea what BDSM(NOPQ...)
is.
In the general community 'kink' is used to mean 'weird stuff', or the opposite of a mis-used 'allergy'.
Evidently you've not heard that we get quite a few transpersons at our events (no, not only crossdressers, although we have those too).
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 11:46 (UTC)Where was i talking about that? i was talking about the fact that many non-Scene people have been on the receiving end of kinksters using the word negatively.
And it's also used, by kinksters, to disparage non-kinksters who aren't ignorant - of people. This is a fact. i have experienced it.
Again, i don't follow your argument here. i'm not arguing that kinksters are inherently queerphobic or transphobic or something. i'm saying that the word 'vanilla' is often used by kinksters, queer or trans or heterosexual or whatever - to imply that anyone not into kink is not only 'ordinary', but not particularly transgressive of heteronormativity, and indeed, 'lesser'. So one can get kinky queers implying "Pfft, being queer isn't anything special - being kinky is special!" And in fact, i've actually witnessed this: a queer saying that being queer is nothing, it's being kinky that's transgressive.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 12:12 (UTC)Of course there are asshats in any community, as I have said before.
Tell rude peole to go away, for goshsakes.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-27 00:25 (UTC)What does whether or not you know these people have anything to do with it? All i was asking, when talking about such people, is that you recognise not only that there are such people (which you've done), but also that their behaviour towards me and a number of (non-heteronormative) people i know means that we have good reasons for feeling uncomfortable being described as 'vanilla'. (i was also hoping that you might begin to consider that this might be a problem in the kink community that's analagous to gays and lesbians attacking bi people for having heterosexual privilege. But apparently you think that the kink community is a minority completely unlike any other. i'm glad that you haven't encountered such people; but i, for one, have. And all too often.)
*slaps forehead* Of course! Why didn't i think of doing that before? Perhaps because that sounds awfully like what i've been told to do my whole life when i've been called a sissy, a faggot, a pervert, unnatural, an abomination in the eyes of God, etc.? Perhaps because i'm sick of being told to "just deal", instead of hearing people say "You shouldn't have to deal with this; we should try to create an environment which tells perpetrators that such behaviour is not acceptable"? Perhaps because (as i know from much experience) telling the perps to go away doesn't necessarily result in them actually doing so, and certainly doesn't necessarily result in them changing their behaviour? Perhaps because i want to try to reduce the likelihood of other people being subjected to such behaviour?
i'm sick of being attacked on so many fronts; and i'm sick of having to deal with it all, as i've been expected to do for so long.