647
648

So anyone with a fetish is queer now? Wtf huffpo? (i.redd.it)

KingPimpCommanderEnvironmentalism, Vegetarian/Vegan が 投稿

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 253
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]great-god-om 266 ポイント267 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Soon, anyone who isn't having married heterosexual sex in the missionary position under the covers with the lights off is going to identify as "queer."

[–]jaycatt7 55 ポイント56 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I actually expect it will go in the other direction, that fairly soon just being gay or lesbian won't be queer anymore.

[–]OfficialDogeVevo 57 ポイント58 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Fairly soon? Don't know where you're from but let me assure you that there are still people who think it's queer enough for a death or prison sentence. That tweet is just ridiculous.

[–]jaycatt7 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (0子コメント)

That thought may have been left over from the optimism of 2015.

[–]deepsoulfunk 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Idk I could see that increasing empathy in our culture. I understand the argument against overexpanding the identity, but I'm trying to row against the current for its own sake here.

[–]LupusetVulpus 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

without socks?

The deviants!

[–]katxsnaps 181 ポイント182 ポイント  (55子コメント)

Queer has meant a lot of things in the past, most of them bad. The LBGTQA+ community is trying to reclaim the word and erase its sigma. How are we supposed to do this when straight people think they're queer because they have a kink?

[–]paulflorez 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (6子コメント)

This is one of the reasons I don't identify as queer. Where the line is drawn isn't universal. I've seen people identifying as "heteroqueer", I've seen straight people suddenly become activists under a "queer" banner. Since I don't identify as queer myself, I can't say that such queer identities are invalid. I do see many of the "queer" forms of identity being taken up by groups that, though they may have been labeled as "deviants" or "perverts" by society, were not targeted via legislation and persecution at the hands of law enforcement the way LGBT people were.

The other reason is that, to me, queer is still very much a slur. While I believe in using words to rob them of their power, I don't feel like it's appropriate for me to go as far as to make the word my identity. I understand why others might do so though, and respect that.

[–]Chewtooth 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I feel quite the same way. I stopped calling myself queer in college when it basically became "sometimes I wear my boyfriend's flannel, I'm so queer, teehee!" Like, that's cool and good for you, but no, it's not really something you can just wear for a bit then ditch when you have to go back and meet your parents. Now I see it as a slur or as a completely meaningless identifier.

[–]jimbean66 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Are you straight? I guess I always thought of queer as any level of same-sex attraction or opposite-sex identification.

[–]paulflorez 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Gay. While it's clear from the variety of perspectives in this thread as to what "Queer" means that there's no universal definition, I'm pretty sure a "vanilla" heterosexual couple wouldn't be considered "Queer" by any of the given definitions.

[–]fukdatnoiz 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The couple wouldn't be queer, but one or both of its members could be ... I think a lot of the exception taken at people calling themselves "queer" who present as hetero is driven by bi-erasure.

I mean this post notwithstanding (not every kink is queer), there are a lot of people in "straight" couples that are deeeeeefinitely queer. Not even a closet thing. They're just not queer while you're looking.

[–]paulflorez 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You're right, should have said heterosexual instead of opposite sex, word salad in my brain.

And even then, I should also say cisgender heterosexual. A transgender man and cisgender woman would technically be both heterosexual and queer by all the definitions I've seen so far.

[–]samuentagaHeteroflexible 36 ポイント37 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I can only speak for myself, but I would never consider myself queer just because I have a casual interest in vore and mild Bdsm.

[–]Yourfavouritelesbian7 on the Kinsey scale~ 45 ポイント46 ポイント  (2子コメント)

"casual interest in vore" is a sentence I was not expecting to read but I feel has enriched my life for having done so.

[–]samuentagaHeteroflexible 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hey, I like cartoons of women eating each other whole like snakes, what can you do? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[–]Yourfavouritelesbian7 on the Kinsey scale~ 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nothin' at all, you do you :P

[–]GerardVillefortHomoromantic Hippie 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I initially misread your post as having an interest in mild Buddhism.

[–]samuentagaHeteroflexible 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well I do have a mild interest in Buddhism, but I think that's a completely different type of 'interest' :P.

[–]FractalBloom 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm only interested in the spiciest Buddhism ya got!

[–]TurtleTapenow with injectible testicles 66 ポイント67 ポイント  (26子コメント)

Hmm...I don't know that I'd consider someone with a kink or fetish under the same GSRM umbrella, but maybe a sibling issue instead. I can certainly understand the argument, though. Many kinks and fetishes are marginalized and even illegal(for example, sadism/masochism falling under abuse/assault laws), so the people who practice these things do certainly deserve rights.

Do these rights coincide with the GSRM community? idk. It seems like a large portion of the GSRM community tends to dabble at least in kinks and such, but that's likely just because we tend to be more open to exploring our sexuality.

We could work together toward acceptance, especially considering the overlap, but I don't think someone is queer just for having a kink or fetish.

[–]QuietuusIo Pan! 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Hmm...I don't know that I'd consider someone with a kink or fetish under the same GSRM umbrella, but maybe a sibling issue instead.

I think when you use terms like GRSM the grounds for not including paraphilic sexualities become very shaky indeed.

First, let's just talk about what they're talking about here. 'Kink' is a deliberately playful, soft, safe word that can cover an enormous range of things; from fluffy handcuffs to hook suspension, and all things between and beyond. Let us ignore kink for a moment and focus on the idea of a 'paraphilia', which is what people are actually (or should actually) be talking about when they are discussing this sort of issue. A paraphilia isn't something that people use to 'spice things up' in the bedroom; it's a fetishistic element that must be present alongside of or instead of what we might call regular 'genital sexuality' in order for a person to achieve physical satisfaction. I have a paraphilia, and I've had very satisfying sexual encounters where I and my partner have both remained fully clothed throughout and never touched each others genitals.

The key difference between much of what comes under the queer umbrella is that it's not about who you have sexual interactions with, its about how you have sexual interactions with them. Apart from that there are a lot of similarities and connections, to the point where I find the glibness of the dismissal being offered by some folk here very worrying:

1) Both paraphilic sexuality (ie, the idea of categorising people as 'sadists' or 'urolagnics') and queer sexuality (ie, the idea of categorising people as 'homosexuals') emerged as medical categories in European psychology and sexology in the latter half of the 19th century and for the first half of the 20th century on through were considered similiar sorts of 'disorders'. Indeed, in DSM I homosexuality and bisexuality were simply in with the paraphilias. Thus, both queer sexuality and paraphilic sexuality have a similiar history of medical scrutiny, of people being studied, sometimes against their will, of attempts to 'fix' people and so on. The main difference to bear in mind today is that many paraphilias, with caveats, are still in the DSM and similiar diagnostic manuals.

2) Both paraphilic sexuality and queer sexuality have similiar histories and subcultural features in other ways; orientation non-specific paraphilia communities take many features of their organisation from specifically queer ones; the history of BDSM, particularly, cannot be told without acknowledging the enormous influence of queer folk and queer communities, on everything from sexual practices, to relationship styles, to how public and private events are organised.

3) This may not be true in the US, but in other countries (I know mainly about the UK), paraphilic sexuality certainly can get you into social and legal trouble. Sadomasochism is, technically, illegal in the UK, a ruling that evolved in response to legal harassment of gay BDSM practicioners. People, queer and straight, have been prosecuted, fired and so on. Up until at least fairly recently, and probably still going on, you could be barred from working in schools if you were known to be into BDSM specifically. The 'Extreme Pornography' act has been used to prosecute people sending sexual images of themselves to themselves because of paraphilic content. In this sense, how I'm fucking causes me at least as many social and legal concerns as who I'm fucking. There are also some more unusually particular aspects to this of course; for example, both queer folk and paraphilic folk who've been raped probably aren't going to be getting or even seeking any help from the police, certainly historically. Both are going to have issues with medical and psychological assistance in various ways, etc.

4) There are theoretical bases which bring queer sexuality and paraphilic sexuality together apart from medico-legal and historical ones. For example, Gayle Rubin's idea of the 'charmed circle' places both queer and paraphilic sexuality in the outer part of the circle, beyond what is normative.

I think what makes this association distasteful to folk is partly a miscommunication about what is meant that comes from using the word 'kink' broadly, as I said up front in the second paragraph. It's like the old joke about the difference between using a feather and using the whole chicken. There is absolutely no common ground of experience between the married straight couple who like to use a blindfold and a bit of roleplay and a queer person; but there is a lot of common experience and common treatment between queer folk and people with paraphilias who conduct their romantic and sexual lives as part of a sexual subculture. Maybe they are not 'queer' (except of course, when they are, which is often in my experience, though obviously I hang out with a particular crowd) but they are certainly a 'sexual or romantic minority', and I think that, at least in my country, politically they have a lot of common cause; the framing of what is and is not 'perverse' and how society deals with that is an issue of great import. This is born out by connections that exist here between LGBT rights organisations and BDSM rights organisations like Backlash.

[–]liv-to-love-yourself 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (12子コメント)

I think you are failing to differentiate between the key issue of fetishism and sexuality/gender identity; one is a learned behavior, one is an inherent trait.

I'm not going to get into whether certain fetishes are bad or not, bit people aren't born having a satin fetish or a leather, or rubber, or boots etc. These are imprinted on them. Sexuality isn't imprinted, it is inherent. You can't turn someone gay or straight but you can condition someone to have a fetish. To me this makes them inherently different regardless of historical classification.

[–]QuietuusIo Pan! 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I have been careful not to say that queerness (in the normally understood LGBT sense) and paraphilia are the same thing. Indeed, my personal view is that they are different phenomena within the immensely complex subject of human sexuality. That is not to say that I don't think they may not be brought together by common cause and experience under a broader framework. That said, I have an array of problems with the point of view you present. I'll try and go through them in order.

First: As far as I am concerned, the root causes of sexual orientation are completely immaterial to any ethical discussion surrounding. I don't believe that we actually definitively know what causes people to be non-heterosexual, and I think it very likely that there are multiple factors ranging from genetics on up which can influence someone's gender preferences; I do not think they are necessarily set at stone at birth, and I do not think it would make any difference to how society should treat peoples identities and their sexual and romantic choices if being queer was even an entirely conscious choice (which, let us be clear, I am not in any way implying it is).

Second: It is not actually clear that paraphilia does not have some sort of innate component in at least some cases. The argument you present is common, and backed up with some solid sociological research; we can map the prevalance of some paraphilic attractions in different societies to historical events and trends, for example. However, this ignores the deeper psychological levels that may be at play. For instance, with material fetishes, it has been noted that the commonest materials for these fetishes to alight, such as leather and rubber on share particular features, notably a distinctive smell and some sort of similiarity in texture and feel to human skin, which may indicate some sort of deeper process which latches on to particular environmental features. However, these material or object fetishes are one particular subset of paraphilia, and one that does not necessarily work in the same way to the ones that I am particularly talking about. What you are ignoring is the existence of paraphilias which completely displace normative sexual activity. In some cases these have a very clear biological factor; for example, with algolagnic masochists there are studies which indicate there may be a fundamental difference in how nerve inputs are processed by the brain. Indeed generally it is much more difficult to make the case that sadomasochism in its various dimensions must be a 'learned' behaviour.

Third: Even if we grant that paraphilia is entirely 'learned', it must also be granted that paraphilia is not a choice. As /u/masoch- rightly points out, many paraphilias are apparent before puberty. We don't actually know much for certain about how they form and how they are 'baked in', but we do know that the individual doesn't really have much say in the matter; though exposure to various ideas, images and materials certainly plays a role, there must also be a healthy degree of chance involved. Thus, returning to my first point, it doesn't seem to me to matter much in terms of individual experience and the consideration which should be paid to it whether something arises from a genetic factor or an obscure childhood experience, if it feels like an integral and natural part of your person.

Fourth: I do not think it is actually possible to remove a paraphilia as you state in a later post. It is possible to address people's feelings of distress they might associate with a shameful, dangerous or socially problematic paraphilia, and it is perhaps, in some cases, and with some effort, possible to artificially broaden someone's sexual tastes so that a paraphilia is no longer exclusive. However, I do not think it is at all clear that such 'treatments' are reliable, desirable or in the best interests of the 'patient', in many cases. Paraphilias are deep parts of people's personalities; even if we could remove them it could well be harmful. Also, it's worth noting that there have historically been many cases claimed for successful conversion therapy, adding another reason to treat such things with deep skepticism.

Fifthly: even if we allow that paraphilias are entirely 'imprinted', why would this matter at all to their potential inclusion within a grouping of sexual minorities? As a loose analogy; speaking a specific language or dialect with a particular accent is very obviously 'imprinted' behaviour, yet we can obviously recognise that people can be the target of racial, ethnic, class or other prejudice because of how they speak, and we can also, I hope, obviously recognise that the solution to this prejudice is not to teach those people to speak 'properly'; and in fact we can recognise that such an attitude is deeply wrong.

For these and other reasons I am skeptical that your 'key issue' is an issue of any importance at all.

[–]liv-to-love-yourself 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm not sure what you are arguing tbh. All of it came down to you saying you disregard the evidence because you don't like it and don't think it is complete. I mean cool I guess, but I still believe the evidence over your personal opinion/critique. And I'm not sure what point you were really making? Sexuality and fetishism is the same thing?

I don't think your analogy works either. Pedophiles obviously have a paraphilia; should we not try to teach them to "speak properly"? Is it wrong to not condone that behavior? I'm not saying all fetishist need to be changed or altered; most function just fine and can do whatever the will you want. I don't think society should care what people do in their bedroom. Once that begins to leave the bedroom, I do think teaching people to "speak" properly is good.

I think this all matters in that harmful sexual fetishes have the potential to be prevented. Consensual relationships are fine, but some fetishes cause deep harm to bystanders and to the people suffering from them themselves. Telling you children "it's ok to love someone of the same sex or be the gender you are in your head" is fundamentally different to me than telling them "it's ok if you fanticize about raping women or degrading your significant other and feel good about making them your slave as long as it's consensual". They are just fundamentally different concepts.

None of this is saying I don't think kinksters and mild fetishist shouldn't have equal rights. They should but I don't think their issue is akin to the lgbtq movement and I don't think they face anywhere near the discrimination or stigmitization as LGBTQ people do.

[–]QuietuusIo Pan! 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm not sure what you are arguing tbh.

I am not entirely sure if this is a failure of comprehension on your part or a failure of communication on mine. Probably a bit of both. However, let me continue to address some points more directly.

All of it came down to you saying you disregard the evidence because you don't like it and don't think it is complete...I still believe the evidence over your personal opinion/critique.

Where do you think I am 'disregarding' evidence? I think you are possibly under the impression that better evidence exists for some things than actually does. What we do know about certain genetic and epigenetic factors that seem to weight people's sexuality is complicated by other things we know. For example, most of the theories about what might cause people to be homosexual do not have a precise mechanical explanation and they fail to explain bisexuality (the very existence of which is still questioned in some scientific quarters). Some theories which seem promising can by their very nature only be partial; for example the 'fraternal birth order effect' doesn't seem offer us any explanations about why women might be gay. On the subject of paraphilia formation we are on even shakier ground. A lot of things about human sexuality are a huge grey area scientifically.

And I'm not sure what point you were really making? Sexuality and fetishism is the same thing?

My point is that your apparent hard and fast distinction is a meaningless one with no solid basis in facts.

I don't think your analogy works either. Pedophiles obviously have a paraphilia;...I don't think your analogy works either. Pedophiles obviously have a paraphilia; should we not try to teach them to "speak properly"?

I think this all matters in that harmful sexual fetishes have the potential to be prevented.

But they don't. You brought paedophilia into this. Enormous amounts of work have been done, using various theories, to try and 'cure' paedophiles, that is to say, to prevent them not just from acting on their desires in ways that harm others, but actually removing the desires completely. The only method I know of that has been shown to reliably, permanently and completely work in this regard is castration. Everything else is about management; about dealing with intrusive thoughts, about modifying patterns of behaviour, about controlling risks. This is not the removal of a paraphilia, and a lot of these methods would be considered distinctly unpalatable when applied to anyone but criminal paedophiles; some of them may unpalatable even in that case, quite honestly.

Consensual relationships are fine, but some fetishes cause deep harm to bystanders and to the people suffering from them themselves. Telling you children "it's ok to love someone of the same sex or be the gender you are in your head" is fundamentally different to me than telling them "it's ok if you fanticize about raping women or degrading your significant other and feel good about making them your slave as long as it's consensual". They are just fundamentally different concepts.

So, what I'm getting from this paragraph is that you have a deep antipathy towards people with paraphilias, and don't really understand them. That's fine; though it rather puts a lie to the idea that such people don't suffer stigmatisation, since you are indulging in it yourself, employing the language of pathologisation.

You say that paraphilias cause deep harm to bystanders and the 'sufferers' in and of themselves; that's nonsense. Paraphilias do not strip people of their agency; it would be as accurate to say that heterosexuality causes campus rape. Simply because one has a desire does not mean one has to act on it in any particular way. For the vast majority of paraphilias, and particularly for the ones I am actually talking about, there exist ways to satisfy them in sexual relationships that are at least as safe and consensual as any other sort of relationship; any problematisation of the notion of consent that can be applied to a paraphilic relationship can be applied to any other.

None of this is saying I don't think kinksters and mild fetishist shouldn't have equal rights.

And what is your definition of 'mild', oh gracious granter of rights? And why should anyones freedom, privacy and bodily integrity be beholden to it?

[–]liv-to-love-yourself 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

My point is your apparent hard and fast distinction is meaningless one with no solid basis in fact.

Except there is a basis. I am basing mine on scientific research. You are basing yous I'm the fact you don't like the scientific research and think it doesn't explain things well. You keep just dismissing that there is evidence supporting my claim because you don't like it which makes this conversation meaningless.

Agree to disagree friend.

[–]QuietuusIo Pan! 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I am basing mine on scientific research.

What specific pieces of scientific research are you basing it on? I'm intrigued to know.

[–]liv-to-love-yourself 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

K, u rite, I'm wrong. I never wanted to argue about this and you seem entirely passionate about it.

[–]masoch- -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (5子コメント)

You don't know that, no one does. Many fetishes emerge pre-puberty, and are obligate for a person to achieve satisfaction. You can't condition someone out of having a fetish.

[–]liv-to-love-yourself 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I mean I don't know this, but studies show that it is true. They further show people can be conditioned out of their fetishes which is the exact opposite as sexuality/gender identity. Just because the emerge early doesn't mean they are inherent traits.

[–]masoch- 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Do you have a source for that? I hadn't heard that fetishes can be conditioned away. But I'm very curious to know more.

[–]QuietuusIo Pan! 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I hadn't heard that fetishes can be conditioned away

They can't be. The Psychology Today article (a pop science magazine) pretty much says as much in its list of 'treatments' which are entirely based on behaviour modification and include chemical castration (medroxyprogesterone acetate and fluoxetine are common chemical castration drugs). These are not 'removing' the paraphilia, they are trying to condition a person not to act on it or medical interventions to control libido; most of them are based on techniques designed to treat sex offenders, as can be seen by the language ("which may lead to errors in behavior such as seeing a victim and constructing erroneous logic that the victim deserves to be party to the deviant act"). For those of us who have sexual and romantic partners who participate in paraphilic activities with us rather than 'victims', this is nonsense, and dangerous nonsense to boot. The fact that this is the kind of material being presented underlines precisely the kind of social and institutional stigma that paraphiliacs are subject to, quite frankly.

[–]masoch- [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Thank you for your informed perspective on this thread. I've been enjoying and appreciating your responses.

I agree that paraphiliacs are subject to deep social and institutional stigma. It's a touchy issue to align with queer/LGBT social and legal struggles, because of the more visible nature of queer relationships. However, visibility shouldn't be the only factor that leads to discrimination being valued.

We can argue over the semantics of queerness indefinitely. My early readings on queer theory had me understand the construct as tied to non-normative sexuality of many types, including people with paraphilias. The fact that these are not well understood outside of marginalized subcultures has probably contributed to erasure from related struggles for recognition and protection.

[–]liv-to-love-yourself 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

[Here is an article on the matter] it](https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/paraphilias). There is more in depth research available elsewhere.

To be clear, I don't think all fetishes are a paraphilia. This only happens when the fetish leaves the bedroom, becomes a part of your life and causes distress. I think parts of the BDSM scene can be fine, but other parts are a bit more problematic IMO. I don't think anyone should be in the business of telling someone else how to live their life, but presenting a fetish as completely acceptable and to be encouraged along LGBT rights strikes me as not equitable.

I think some lite kink is fine, sane/sensible/consensual or whatever it is. I also think some cross lines into permanent mental degradation and can really destroy people's psych and permanently affect their life in extremely negative ways. Wanting to be tied up and spanked and orgasm, then go about your life is different than having someone impregnate your wife, being called slave 24/7, raping women, public exhibition, etc. which results in a long term effect all stimming from your sexual satisfaction.

I'm not advocating "curing" fetishist that can be sensibly happy just engaging their fetish.

[–]ohwontsomeonethinkof 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

maybe a sibling issue instead.

I see what u did thur.

[–]TurtleTapenow with injectible testicles 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

o.o I just wanted to be gender neutral.

[–]TheJimmyRustler 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think that this argument is pretty simple. There are two kinds of sexualities. The gender(s) that you are attracted to and then what you want out of your sexual experiences. LGBTQ, and obviously queer, is about what gender(s) you are attracted to. What huffpo is doing here is mixing the two and saying that wanting something not "normal" out of sex is the same as being attracted not "normal" gender(s). The contradiction is pretty obvious here.

[–]BardfinnAll in all, just another Stone in the Wall 39 ポイント40 ポイント  (30子コメント)

For much of recent (50, 60 years or thereabouts) history, kink (fetish) was considered by many to be queer (non-normative), often because homo/bi-sexuality was considered to be a kink (a fetish).

"Queer" is still used in the former sense by some; for others it has become solely the latter. It remains significant of the former in the term "genderqueer".

It originally signified any desire or practice that was "non-normative" — not hetero-sexual between two adults.

Many of the semiotic conventions and cultural touchstones of the kink community were inherited or adapted from LGBTQ/TS/TV/CD communities' semiotic conventions and cultural touchstones from times when it was necessary to separate a public life from a private life.

[–]page_one 50 ポイント51 ポイント  (29子コメント)

It needs to go. A huge tenant of the modern LGBTQ rights movement is that being gay/trans/whatever you want to call it is immutable and not a choice, just like one's race.

The "underground" nature of the old movements never did us any good. All that stuff did was set us apart as freaks and outcasts and sexual deviants--labels which remain our greatest obstacle because it's so easy for the religious to label us as nothing but anal sex incarnate.

Notice how the LGBTQ rights movement has exploded ever since we started coming out and marketing ourselves as just normal people.

[–]plural1 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (3子コメント)

marketing ourselves as just normal people.

This is so not queer

[–]page_one 24 ポイント25 ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's fact. The coming out movement has been so effective because it showed the public that gay people are, shockingly, not inherently perverted pedophiles out to kidnap your children. We're all around you, and we always have been, and nothing bad has happened.

[–]plural1 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I am not at all disagreeing that assimilation into "normal" is an effective political strategy, but it is also most definitely not queer. QUEER =/= NORMAL it is by definition in opposition to normal. You are just talking about the mainstream LGBT rights movement. You are not talking about queerness.

[–]fraulien_buzz_kill 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah exactly-- and there's something to be said about what has been lost and marginalized in the mainstream LGBT movement right now. The sort of sanitized presentation of LGBT people as just assimilating into heteronormativity as closely as possible (performing femme/masc sufficiently, being upper class and white, getting married and having kids). Like, nothing against people doing these things! It's a huge advancement to have a choice to do this! But something about LGBT history and culture has definitely been shunted to the side, the parts that don't break into pieces that easily fit into the mold. That's where I think the power of queer comes from.

[–]BardfinnAll in all, just another Stone in the Wall 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Or — we could accomodate all in an intersection, where "queer" is a generic term for any desire or practice that isn't heteronormative.

That way, my friends in the kink community who label themselves as queer identify commonly with my friends who are homosexually married.

That way, people who are sexually excited by sadism, or masochism, or lingerie, or lipstick, or by leather, or by latex, or by piercings, or by dressing up as a teddy bear, are not belittled or marginalised, are not told that they aren't acceptable.

Exclusionary politics have been fought against by our community(ies), and continue to be fought against.

No-one who is a consenting adult involved with other consenting adults should be scapegoated.

[–]fraulien_buzz_kill 20 ポイント21 ポイント  (2子コメント)

But a lot of kink is pretty heteronormative. I can't really see, for example, a male dom and a female sub doing some spanking as anything but the most prominent image of sex in our culture. It's not exclusionary politics to give words meanings that are useful. Putting the fight for acceptance of kink together with LGBT acceptance doesn't really make sense to me. Apart from having been historically associated during a brief spat due to necessity, they don't really... share issues.

[–]30Litresof 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

A thousand times yes. I am queer and I have been involved in kink/BDSM scenes, and the kink scene is mostly incredibly heteronormative, and often not really that great for LGBT people. Lots of kinky people think that having a kink makes them inherently edgy, and those are the people most likely to have very heternormative kinks in my experience.

[–]paul_33 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I mean even if you reverse it: male sub and female dom - I still don't see how that makes you queer. It just means you get off differently while still in a hetero relationship.

[–]bittersweetdromedary 34 ポイント35 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Who said they're not acceptable? It just doesn't make any sense to group sexual orientations and gender identities with kink. Kinky people are adept at forming their own communities and creating their own terminology, there's no need for them to identify as "queer."

[–]fraulien_buzz_kill 22 ポイント23 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Had somebody try to tell me that being a bronie is the same as being gay once. I have no problem with bronies, but this is so obviously different. Like kinks you learn, chose, and develop. Sexual orientation you... don't. It falls under the umbrella of "things having to do with sexual attraction" but that's about it. "Queer" isn't short for "sex stuff that bothers some people." And considering a lot of people have kinks for same-sex stuff, but aren't lgbt, or have kinks and are straight, this has always rubbed me the wrong way. Seems like what they really want is, either, to feel "marginalized" somehow, or to label LGBT people as sexually deviant...

[–]EmeraldPenLesbian 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm not entirely sure kinks ARE chosen, I'd want to see some research before saying that. However, the point is largely moot.

Kinks are not the same thing as gender identity or sexuality, and it pisses me off that people are trying to conflate the two because for years I repressed my gender identity for the reason that I thought it was some sort of kink. That people want to reconflate the LGBT community with kink pisses me off. HOW you want to have sex, or what you like to do for funsies, it totally irrelevant from who you love and who you are. And frankly if you're straight and like some weird shit...deal with it. No one is about to go into detail about how she fucked the brains out of her girlfriend and can kinda still smell her, so how about you shit the fuck up about your shit too? We don't talk about this stuff overall because it's just not socially appropriate. Not because you're so horrible oppressed. It's the LGBT equivalent of that white guy who says he's Cherokee because on his dad's side his Great Aunt married a native american.

I honestly think that this is a lot of people with honest-to-god special snowflake syndrome who are upset that they didn't get the 'cool' minority status that they can talk about with their friends and family.

[–]liv-to-love-yourself 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think that is the huge issue I have with conflating kink/fetish with LGBTQ.

Sexual orientation is about who you love

Gender identity is about who you are

Kink/fetish is about how you fuck

I don't think you need to have love/self-acceptance into sexual preference/requirement. Wanting to be an accepted part of everyday society is different than how you want to have sex. Sure, give kinksters equal rights (as if they are somehow repressed now???), but don't equate them with the LGBTQ community. They just aren't the same thing at all.

[–]WolfHoodlum1789 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Kinks aren't chosen. I wouldn't have the Kinks I do if I was allowed to choose what I like.

[–]therealchungis 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (0子コメント)

"No one gets to decide what's queer and what isn't" "But having a fetish is queer I've just decided"

[–]paul_33 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Honestly when someone identifies as 'queer' I have no idea what they mean unless they elaborate. It's become a huge umbrella.

[–]jaycatt7 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Part of the rancor in this thread might be that no three people mean the same thing by the word.

[–]paul_33 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I mean I get it: I don't consider those with foot fetishes or the need to be spanked as 'queer'. That's not at all the same thing.

[–]ansteve1 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have worked in an LGBT center for a while. I have had cisgender straight married people come in and basically fetish gay relationships and have that make them feel as if that makes them belong. I have students who are homeless for being gay/trans and yet you think getting your rocks off from a poorly written piece of erotica makes you a member of the lgbtq community. Get bent

[–]Baitnik 93 ポイント94 ポイント  (59子コメント)

Who gets to decide what's queer and what isn't?

Glad you asked—queer people. Last I checked Dorian Grey and Anastasia Steele can get married, adopt children, and cannot be fired for their heterosexual attraction. Fuck off HuffPo.

ETA: Bring on the downvotes. Back to r/ainbow I go, this sub is trash per usual. Having a nipple piercing doesn't make you genderqueer u/Bardfinn and it certainly does not make you part of the queer community.

[–]ChmisRated E for Everyone 31 ポイント32 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Did you really have to pre-emptively shit on the subreddit you're posting in?

[–]hypo-osmotic 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Right? I totally agree with their first paragraph but I'm downvoting for their second.

[–]Baitnik 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

You realize ETA means edited to add, and it was a secondary addition after I got told someone trying to hide a nipple piercing was basically the same as trying to hide one's homosexuality. What a joke.

[–]hypo-osmotic 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Your edit was only an hour after you initially posted it (note that I was not the person who used the word "preemptively"). If you had been less impatient you would see that you were receiving more upvotes than downvotes. Don't get me wrong, the apologists you're arguing with are dumb as hell but your condescension to the whole sub is unnecessary. If you hate it so much why are you even here.

[–]Baitnik 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

And in that hour I got a shitstorm of downvotes and negative replies. An hour is a long time. I don't hate it, I was angry. Removing it now would be dishonest.

[–]hypo-osmotic 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

An hour is a long time.

That's probably the root of our disagreement. Glad to see you're not really abandoning us for /r/ainbow, though.

[–]B-TrainQueer Liberation 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sitting third from the top at +67 but DOWNVOTES, REALLY??

[–]EmeraldPenLesbian 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Honestly though? When there are people being upvoted a lot for arguing that kink IS queer, I can't help but kinda agree with him.

This is looney bins in here that any opinion like that would be even considered acceptable.

[–]Sendooo 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh you couldnt be more wrong about the adopting and working thing. There are tons of cases of people getting fired or losing their kids (or at least getting in trouble) to child protective services. And I live in the liberal Netherlands.

[–]nekosuneAll You have to do is take a cup of flower 14 ポイント15 ポイント  (3子コメント)

To be fair, people HAVE been fired for such. And similarly closed minded people, have discriminated agaisnt . However that does not mean is the same, or under the queer umbrella true.

[–]EmeraldPenLesbian 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I mean...yeah, they were fired. Because they were apparently talking quite openly about their sexual lives and preferences at work if it was clear they were kinky.

It's not like when you come out as gay you also go into detail about what exactly you'd like that cute butch girl you met the other day to do to you.

[–]Baitnik 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

To be fair, people HAVE been fired for such.

Source? And at the same rate as people being fired for being LGBT?

[–]nekosuneAll You have to do is take a cup of flower 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Nowhere near. And I would have to dig to find. I wasn't saying they are under queer umbrella, just that there are people bigoted enough to discriminate for that

コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)

    [–]carlosfhdez 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I recently had a discussion with my friend about this. Him and I are both gay but we both don't identify as queer.

    In a broad sense, I guess we fall under the older definition of queer which I take to be non heteronormative. But it has grown to mean (at least to us) non sexually binary identifying individuals. Individuals with fluid sexual and gender identities. I have always felt like a gay male but my friend used to feel very fluid. He says that he has changed and doesn't feel right for claiming to be something he's not. He now identifies as a gay male.

    I don't consider kink as being an identifier for queer but I can see where it comes from. I believe it comes from the way we were seen as perverts before the major lgbtq+ rights movements. Part of the movement was to not feel ashamed of our desires. Those desires included leather, BDSM and other kinks.

    I think the Huffington Post is using the older definition of queer, one that would be fitting in a time where being gay was thought of as a kink; whereas OP takes it to mean more of how we define it now. To me queer are gender/sexually fluid and non binary individuals usually more active members in the overall lgbtq+ community than me and my group of direct friends.

    Things I mentioned above are my current opinion and understanding of the terms and concepts but I'm not a gender studies major, just a gay guy living my life. Corrections about anything are welcome.

    [–]chasesj 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    In 2000(ish) I remember the first time we used the word queer on some pamphlets at an activists meeting at my college. I think we did it mainly to piss off the sort older and more conservative vanguard gays of the stonewall era who saw the word as offensive. In our eyes we were trying to reclaim it, but really were just trying to piss these people off and make ourselves in the movement that we had only been born during.

    They sort of did all the hard work by marching and getting beat up by the cops in the 80s and the 90s. And then we showed up and said we don't identify with your categories you bourgeois fucks. Everyone was reading two books at the time: The Epistemology of the Closet by Eve Sedgwick and Gender Trouble by Judith Butler. And trying to make queer theory the new feminism. We tried to pretend we were Lenin reading Das Kapital at the time but I don't remember getting past chapter one because it was to hard to read.

    They had this four pronged idea of sexual identity in the form of LGTB and we had little choice but to disagree with it. To be fair, they did eventually give us a letter and we made sure it was Q. Even though at this point I'm not sure it has a meaning.

    [–]liv-to-love-yourself 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm pretty sure there is a difference in what you want to do in the bedroom (fetish/kink) and how you want to live your life (orientation/gender identity). I don't think they are really related at all.

    Also I don't want to be associated with the bdsm community. Kink/fetish come from social imprinting. I don't think anyone here is going to say they were turned gay from something that happened in their life.

    [–]fishhelpneeded 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Yeah no HuffPost

    [–]Kenny_log_n_s 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Awesome, I like touching my girlfriend's butt and bondage, I guess I'm one of y'all now!

    High fives all around!

    No? No, that doesn't work, eh? Hmm.

    [–]rsorrows 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Story time: Recently, my GF told me her ex started calling her new husband queer. Why? They're into BDSM and he makes his own yogurt. No, seriously. She said her cis-hetro dom husband is "queer" because he makes stuff, specifically yogurt.

    BTW, GF's ex is supposedly a well-to-do Gender Studies professor. Let that shit sink in.

    [–]koronicus 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Link

    [–]publichobbyaccount 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm glad that other LGBT people hate the Huffington Post.

    I hate the Huffington Post. I'm very liberal, too. I think they make us look bad.

    If anyone wants to compete with them I wrote a cheat sheet

    [–]rosalinekarr 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    #AlliesTryingToHelpButMakingThingsWorse

    [–]Achlysia 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I just facedesked and now I'm worried I'm gonna have a mark on my forehead.

    Will that turn into Huffington post thinking I'm growing a unicorn horn and that I'm super queer or someshit

    How do these people get hired

    I want their job of getting paid to make up utter nonsense

    [–]killmonday// PORYGON 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    They focus on a lot of fetish content on their Twitter feed, as well. If I'd venture a guess, it's that their editor is a cis person or is hoping to catch all of the "ooo freaky" crowd for more readership.

    Neither of those seems acceptable, tbh.

    [–]Sunflier 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    You see the one about the diapers? What the hell?

    [–]strawberryee 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    straight ppl have kinks, gay ppl have kinks...... a kink is totally not a defining aspect of queerness BECAUSE ITS FOUND IN ALL HUMANS AND NOBODY GETS LYNCHED FOR IT LOL

    [–]ThisIsMyRental20F, I don't feel super-female 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    HuffPost went down the drains a LONG time ago.

    [–]plural1 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Homonormativity is not queer

    Edit: The word "homonormativity" comes from queer theory. It is literally one of queer theory's main subjects to critique.

    [–]jaycatt7 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (4子コメント)

    "Is kink a sexual orientation?" is an argument people have.

    Personally I don't feel like I chose my fetishes any more than I chose to be attracted to other guys.

    I'm also not a fan of a smaller, more narrowly defined queerness. Just last week somebody on here was arguing that ace/aro folks weren't queer. This is not the time to be divided against ourselves.

    [–]TheWhiteFerret 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I think that who you are attracted to and what you want to do with them are two separate things.

    [–]riko_rikochet 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Just last week somebody on here was arguing that ace/aro folks weren't queer.

    That's a really common belief, apparently, and a lot of the arguments in support of that position are showing up almost word-for-word in this thread, but directed at kinks/queerness - not oppressed enough, no laws against it, can get married, etc., etc.

    It's disheartening.

    [–]jaycatt7 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I mean, I do get it. Nobody wants to be pushed aside by a stampede of cishet couples with a pair of furry handcuffs. But that's not really what we're talking about.

    [–]riko_rikochet 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    It's actually pretty funny to me, this reaction.

    I remember a while back, American Apparel produces a Pride line of clothes and totes where the A in LGBTQA stood for "Ally." It was really unpleasant and made a lot of waves in the Ace community. Not only did this sub not give a fuck about it, but /r/ainbow actively supported it.

    You had a situation where a minority sexual identity was literally being pushed out of the acronym, and no one cared, or they complained about the acronym being "too long."

    Here you have a tweet about including kinks under the queer umbrella, where "queer" will maybe become more "diluted" (whatever the hell that means) and maybe will not be as politically impactful in some vague hypothetical sense. And there are 200 comments and lots of rage.

    It's boggling. Thankfully, the LGBTQA+ folks I know IRL are awesome, so I have some camaraderie with them. I can only hope that kinksters can find similar acceptance IRL, if not on these forums.

    [–]jimbean66 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    I feel like most of the kinkiest people identify as bi anyway, even if they always hook up with one gender.

    But seriously, kink marriage is already legal. What do you want, a kink parade? I'm down. A law protecting you from getting fired for your kink? I'm down, but good luck.

    [–]imogenbeeton 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Well bi people (with an opposite sex partner), hetero trans people (who have updated their birth certificate), and gay trans people (who haven't) can marry in places that don't have marriage equality - are they not queer?

    [–]jimbean66 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I just mean what exactly is the point of the 'kink rights' movement?

    [–]mr12321 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    How quickly you queers forget. The term started being used in the 1980s by scholars and activists exactly because they wanted a broader term, and partially because the LBGT folks were doing the same exclusionary ignorant shit y'all are doing in this thread.

    [–]atoy2121 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Putting the fight for acceptance of kink is a sex?

    [–]AbruptlyBlue 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Does anyone have a link that would support the Huffington Post and their view? I went searching but couldn't find anything that would support the conclusion they made. Wikipedia which tends to be pretty broad in what it will associate with different terms doesn't mention kink in the definition of queer.

    [–]Mohoyorodo 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Fuck that.

    [–]what__year_is__this 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer

    [–]HelperBot_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queer

    HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 46692

    [–]GaymerGuyX 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Too many people in this subreddit are obsessed with labels and definitions.

    Queer is just a word, it isn't dangerous, it will pass. This "them" versus "us" mentality that seems so prevalent in this subreddit, that is dangerous.

    [–]gothicshark -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Queer has always meant "odd" or "different". Using it correctly I could say "the people in bondage gear are a bit queer" and it would be correct. If we use words as the are supposed to be used then queer, and gay. Would just be "odd" and "happy"

    That guy is gayly singing "let it be" that's kinda queer.

    [–]TwistTurtle -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I've never really thought about it before, but based on my extensive experience with straight kinksters, I suppose 'queer' wouldn't be an inaccurate way of describing them. They are certainly a solid part of the queer culture that I was in back when I worked in a fetish shop...

    [–]DementedMK -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

    Huffpost know what gets them clicks

    [–]pr___6 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I'm down, but I would have to dig to find.

    コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)