![[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: 2006-11-26 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.