The normalization of kink

[Gospel]

that joint literally has me in tears Trausti. Funny stuff right there yo

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In this time, I heard the story of how they, as a high school student, as a result of the exposure of their kink (fetish? I don't know how deep it goes for him) led to the loss of all of their friends, and the entirety of their social support.

This strikes me as a failure of sexual education. Inna sane world, everyone would know that it's not OK to treat people like that. Sex Ed is where cultures of either bullying and ostracization start, or die. When a culture has been formed that says "don't kink shame" and creates a backstop for that kind of bullying, I find that preferable to the one where the prudes of the world say "that's icky!" (And the implied "and you're icky for liking it!") Without challenge.

Exactly. This is the sort of problem we get from putting kink in the closet.

So what if your kink is "icky"? That's a reason not to get romantically involved, that's not a reason to think of them as bad people. It would also avoid a lot of marriage problems related to people hiding their kinks and thus ending up with someone who isn't at least neutral to them. Kinks are only bad when they are either dangerous to their participants or involve nonconsenting people.

Maybe that's more the reason some people don't want comprehensive sexual education: maybe they don't want their behavior to get shushed and shamed the way they would see others shushed and shamed merely for being themselves?

Comprehensive sex ed isn't going to expose people's kinks. What it can do is make people understand that they are normal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Seriously though, it seems like it would be really difficult to wash. I'd go back to a normal bed (with mattress protector, LOL!) the first time some nasty Santorum shart happened.

That's another thing that they never teach: that sex is messy and awkward the first few times. And "never pay for a sex toy you won't know how to wash, or can't.

Even without getting anal involved sex surfaces will need cleaning.

On the other hand, we have a blanket around here that could fool you into thinking it was a short-furred animal. It can go in both the washer and dryer. Never even thought of trying sex on it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

$150 for a rug... back when?! And how does a rug stroke both bodies during sex? Are you supposed to roll yourselves into it?

I also don't know what'd be more embarrassing, hanging the rug outside to dry off because people who saw the ad knows what it is... or how many few times you need to hang it outside to dry.

Can only imagine the wife coming home from work...

Wife: What in the hell is that?!
Husband: Its our new love rug!
Wife: You've been reading Parade magazine again?
Husband: The thing is perfect, it strokes your body while having sex.
Wife: It looks hideous... is that supposed to be Jaguar?
Husband: You aren't a jaguar, so you wouldn't be able to tell if it was fake.
Wife: How much did this eye sore cost?
Husband: Just $150 each.
Wife: EACH?!

 

[ideologyhunter]

It pains me to describe it (especially in extended graphic detail... really pains me), but in the Midwest, our Amish neighbors have been corrupted by the blight of porn and casual alternative sex activity.
The oak dildo churn is now turned out on the Amish lathe ("It poundeth, jerketh and twerketh whatso thee please"), and there are also the whisk broom tickler, the windmill-powered vibrator, homemade sausage casing condoms, ben wa dumplings, and jug handle/cock rings. The vernacular now includes phrases for such activities as sorghum suck-offs, buggy BJ, buggy whip discipline, Abner's pocket-hole surprise, the 4-in-a-buggy bounce around, the 6 in a hay mow with a mule and a goose, 3-way hot buttered corn, and fucking the wheat flat.
I volunteered to witness to the Amish, but I ended up sucking sorghum, for which I am heartily sticky -- er, sorry.

 

[Jarhyn]

In this time, I heard the story of how they, as a high school student, as a result of the exposure of their kink (fetish? I don't know how deep it goes for him) led to the loss of all of their friends, and the entirety of their social support.

This strikes me as a failure of sexual education. Inna sane world, everyone would know that it's not OK to treat people like that. Sex Ed is where cultures of either bullying and ostracization start, or die. When a culture has been formed that says "don't kink shame" and creates a backstop for that kind of bullying, I find that preferable to the one where the prudes of the world say "that's icky!" (And the implied "and you're icky for liking it!") Without challenge.

Exactly. This is the sort of problem we get from putting kink in the closet.

So what if your kink is "icky"? That's a reason not to get romantically involved, that's not a reason to think of them as bad people. It would also avoid a lot of marriage problems related to people hiding their kinks and thus ending up with someone who isn't at least neutral to them. Kinks are only bad when they are either dangerous to their participants or involve nonconsenting people.

Maybe that's more the reason some people don't want comprehensive sexual education: maybe they don't want their behavior to get shushed and shamed the way they would see others shushed and shamed merely for being themselves?

Comprehensive sex ed isn't going to expose people's kinks. What it can do is make people understand that they are normal.

It's going to expose prudes to shouts of "don't kink shame" whenever their onerous verbal and textual outpourings occur.

 

[Jarhyn]

Seriously though, it seems like it would be really difficult to wash. I'd go back to a normal bed (with mattress protector, LOL!) the first time some nasty Santorum shart happened.

That's another thing that they never teach: that sex is messy and awkward the first few times. And "never pay for a sex toy you won't know how to wash, or can't.

Even without getting anal involved sex surfaces will need cleaning.

On the other hand, we have a blanket around here that could fool you into thinking it was a short-furred animal. It can go in both the washer and dryer. Never even thought of trying sex on it.

Oh, I've [redacted] with a [redacted] a time or two. But that's washable..

 

[Gun Nut]

Alrighty. On a serious note...

Do you allow for any distinction between:
1) Not shaming people for having kinks
and
2) Not approving of sexual practices being a public topic
and
3) Not approving of kinks and uncommon sexual practices being taught to children as normal?

I don't care if people have kinks, provided they're consenting adults. But I don't think they should be a part of public life, no more than I think a discussion of my favorite positions and the dildo I like best should be a part of public life. Furthermore, I don't think that any of that should be framed as 'normal' for children.

I mean, do you really truly think that having an adult person in a costume that involves a large dildo is appropriate for an event aimed at young children?

I don't think we can go any further until you clearly define what you mean by 'normal.'

Is that like saying, "we cannot proceed with this discussion until you define the boundary between art and porn"?
what art is inappropriate for children or "the public discourse"?... "you know... the 'normal' kind"... heh

I am still thinking on the sentiment that "must not promote publically" is equivalent to "must be ashamed".

I just got surgery on my elbow. really. I have stitches. It looks nasty at the moment. Want to see a picture? Are you shaming me for not wanting to see my blood-crusted elbow with black string sticking out?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't think we can go any further until you clearly define what you mean by 'normal.'

Is that like saying, "we cannot proceed with this discussion until you define the boundary between art and porn"?

not at all. EL is clear that thery want the 'not normal' stuff hidden away.
But uses an example where they whine about seeing a guy's nipples and butt cheeks, which every child has, and an ersatz penis, which half the kids have.
Seems pretty 'normal' to me, if it's representing half the audience, or more.
Meanwhile, i have diabetes, as does about 10% of the US population. Pretty far from mormal. I should have to get my insulin in a plain brown bag...
If that's what EL means by normal.

 

[Jarhyn]

Alrighty. On a serious note...

Do you allow for any distinction between:
1) Not shaming people for having kinks
and
2) Not approving of sexual practices being a public topic
and
3) Not approving of kinks and uncommon sexual practices being taught to children as normal?

I don't care if people have kinks, provided they're consenting adults. But I don't think they should be a part of public life, no more than I think a discussion of my favorite positions and the dildo I like best should be a part of public life. Furthermore, I don't think that any of that should be framed as 'normal' for children.

I mean, do you really truly think that having an adult person in a costume that involves a large dildo is appropriate for an event aimed at young children?

I don't think we can go any further until you clearly define what you mean by 'normal.'

Is that like saying, "we cannot proceed with this discussion until you define the boundary between art and porn"?
what art is inappropriate for children or "the public discourse"?... "you know... the 'normal' kind"... heh

I am still thinking on the sentiment that "must not promote publically" is equivalent to "must be ashamed".

I just got surgery on my elbow. really. I have stitches. It looks nasty at the moment. Want to see a picture? Are you shaming me for not wanting to see my blood-crusted elbow with black string sticking out?

No, I'm shaming you for not respecting my consent after you sought it prior to your act that I did not consent to.

And we can and have talked about the subject without actually saying much of what any of my educational examples pertain to at all. It's almost like you can discuss a thing for educational purposes without having to engage immediately with the actual thing

 

[Gun Nut]

Is that like saying, "we cannot proceed with this discussion until you define the boundary between art and porn"?
what art is inappropriate for children or "the public discourse"?... "you know... the 'normal' kind"... heh

I am still thinking on the sentiment that "must not promote publically" is equivalent to "must be ashamed".

I just got surgery on my elbow. really. I have stitches. It looks nasty at the moment. Want to see a picture? Are you shaming me for not wanting to see my blood-crusted elbow with black string sticking out?

No, I'm shaming you for not respecting my consent after you sought it prior to your act that I did not consent to.

What if the observer considers the "act" the mere telling of the thing? What they are not consenting to is hearing about it.

And we can and have talked about the subject without actually saying much of what any of my educational examples pertain to at all. It's almost like you can discuss a thing for educational purposes without having to engage immediately with the actual thing

If I had the technology to embed false memories into another person's brain, and chose to embed a vivid memory into your brain of, let's say, you gouging the eyes out of another person and eating them.. and they taste like salty grapes. That would be an ethical and good way to provide educational material for you on cannibalisms, right?

 

[Jarhyn]

What if the observer considers the "act" the mere telling of the thing? What they are not consenting to is hearing about it.

And we can and have talked about the subject without actually saying much of what any of my educational examples pertain to at all. It's almost like you can discuss a thing for educational purposes without having to engage immediately with the actual thing

If I had the technology to embed false memories into another person's brain, and chose to embed a vivid memory into your brain of, let's say, you gouging the eyes out of another person and eating them.. and they taste like salty grapes. That would be an ethical and good way to provide educational material for you on cannibalisms, right?

We, in society, have limits as to what can be actioned on and how. Learning those limits is part of what Sex Ed should be.

"Would forcing you in your experience to have immediately engaged with the thing be an appropriate way to educate you without you having to immediately engage with the thing?"

That's pretty contrarian, I think.

But, see, we are discussing without immediately engaging in the actual thing, and while it's unsettling, it's not something I would react violently to. I would react violently to being raped with images of that.