💾 Archived View for flexibeast.space › gemlog › 2024-09-23.gmi captured on 2024-12-17 at 10:09:48. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Self-righteous condescending paternalism in the kink communities

Someone recently brought to my attention a FetLife post in which the writer described extreme bruising from kink play as “self harm” and “dangerous”, saying how she's not going to stand by and endorse those. In response, people are calling her “brave”.

Asserting what's appropriate for a given person without knowing the specifics of their life, physiology, and health conditions isn't “brave”; it's self-righteous condescending paternalism.

One can't make comments about the safety or otherwise of the bruising on a specific person without knowing the context; for some people, _any_ bruising is high-risk (for example, those with certain medical conditions), whereas for others, spectacular bruising might actually be relatively low-risk given their overall health (in which their body will probably heal quickly from the injuries).

It's certainly true that there are potential risks involved in any play which might result in bruising, and it's important that people are aware of those potential risks; hence people's use of the acronym ‘RACK’, ‘Risk-Aware Consensual Kink’. That acronym is partly a response to the self-righteousness of the classic acronym ‘SSC’, ‘Safe, Sane and Consensual’; the ‘Consensual’ component is obviously critical, but who gets to decide what is and is not objectively ‘safe’ for any random person, and how about the historical and ongoing nonconsensual power dynamics involved in defining what is and isn't ‘sane’?

Further: many people claim that being on the receiving end of any impact play _at all_ is ‘self-harm’ - even though they typically don't actively take issue with the significant injuries that can, and do, result from engaging in contact sports, including sports like boxing. Such people don't necessarily make a supposedly ‘objective’ distinction between ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ levels of bruising; they often feel that it's not possible to ‘really’ consent to any kink play _at all_. And their sort of perspectives - which can be found across the political compass - are one of the things the kink communities have been having to deal with for _years_.

So the ‘brave’ writing referenced at the start of this post actually comes across to me as a variant of “the only moral abortion is _my_ abortion”[a]: “they only safe kink is _my_ kink”.

There are many women actively seeking help and support to get out of, and stay out of, domestic violence situations. Many, if not most, of the organisations that provide such help and support are severely under-resourced and over-worked, hanging on by a thread at best, with staff and volunteers frequently beyond burn-out yet feeling like they have no choice but to keep going. They would very much appreciate extra people volunteering their time and energy to assist these efforts. Has the author of the ‘brave’ writing, or her supporters, done so? Or they only concerned about the kinksters who haven't actually _asked_ for help, and who are assumed to _necessarily_ be unaware of the risks of the play they're engaging in?

As a slogan adopted by the VAMP sex workers' collective in India says[b]: “Save us from our saviours. We're tired of being saved.”

☙

🏷 kink,politics,sociology

Glossary

Gemlog Home

☙

[a] Related, an excellent quote by Pastor David Barnhart:

“The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

[b] Quoted in “Militarized Humanitarianism Meets Carceral Feminism: The Politics of Sex, Rights, and Freedom in Contemporary Antitrafficking Campaigns”:

“Bernstein's ‘Militarized Humanitarianism Meets Carceral Feminism: The Politics of Sex, Rights, and Freedom in Contemporary Antitrafficking Campaigns’ (2010)”