During the recent Board meeting for the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, someone proposed a way to deal with discrimination against members of the BDSM community: Claim kink as a sexual orientation.
Problem, of course, is that even within our community, there’s no real consensus on that. Not surprising, as a similar debate occurred within the GLBTQ community earlier on. And given the potential consequences – good and bad – it’s a question which deserves attention.
First off – What do we mean by “sexual orientation”? Most people define it very simply as which sex or gender someone is attracted to. More importantly, it is seen as an inborn and enduring aspect of who we are. This is what distinguishes it in many people’s eyes from a simple “preference” for hair color, behavioral traits, and so forth. But is it really that simple? Many of our preferences, tastes and habits seem to be rooted in factors over which we have little control: genetics, neurology, psychosocial influences. This is not to say we don’t have control over our lives, but it does speak to so many questions about ourselves. Why do some folks crave novelty, while others gravitate to the comfortable familiar? How is one meal delicious to some, disgusting to others, and bland to a few more? Perhaps we should therefore consider that sexual orientation is more complex than whether one likes boys or girls, but also about how one prefers to interact with a prospective partner, what particular forms of expression speak to us, and so forth.
Second – Does being kinky qualify? While few reliable studies have been done on BDSM folk, the ones which have been done indicate that, like being hetero or homo or bi, no single factor seems to correlate with what it is we are drawn to. That jibes with what many kinksters say when asked to explain why we do what we do. Some will attempt to explain, others don’t even bother, but ultimately it boils down to what speaks to us at a deeper level. In response, many will remark that there’s a difference between being attracted to someone and wanting to do a certain set of activities. But is there? Desire is desire, whether for particular personal attributes, or for a particular mode of expression and sensation.
Of course, none of this is conclusive, and it’s sure to provoke other questions as well. But it would suggest that what we find erotic defies simple answers, and is as much about identity as it is about choice. Likewise it affirms the place of community not only in developing one’s sense of identity, but in cultivating ethical means of expressing that identity and the desires in which they are rooted.
Will any of this lead to understanding kink better, or establishing ways of dealing with discrimination? The only way we’ll know is by continuing the discussion – both speaking and listening.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It's my view that as tempting as it may be to use the tactic of claiming kink as some sort of innate orientation, the temptation should be resisted. "I can't help it I was born this way" conceptions of human behavior end up being limiting and are prone to attack by the medical establishment. People are still looking for the "gay gene" and I fear for the "cure" that may follow. I would rather that the state stay out of the bedroom of competent consenting adults. I would rather the obsessive controlling of non-procreative sexual behavior be critiqued.
ReplyDeleteI've always held that it was a mistake to even enter the is-orientation-genetic debate, because it implies that the church or the state has the right to control your choices if they're NOT genetic. I say it doesn't matter to anyone but a biologist- my home is my castle, and you're not going to tell me what I can do there!
ReplyDeleteI think both of you are oversimplifying the concept of orientation. It is not strictly genetic, nor is it regidly determininistic.
ReplyDeleteAlso, for those who oppose any form of non-normative sexuality, it wouldn't matter if you said they were diseases or choices -- they would still find a way to condemn them. "For those who believe, no proof is necessary; for those who do not, no proof is possible."
The issue is whether the erotic aspect of our selves can be that simplified. If it can't, then how does it make sense to justify treating those who are different as second-class citizens?
I've always thought that kink is an orientation... for some people. For some, kink (or fetish) defines their sexual interactions and their sexual desires, sometimes even more than what gender their partners are. For others, it's just a fun thing to do sometimes. There's no reason that for the former, it's an orientation and for the latter, it's just an action. (It's a lot like someone who HAS to have sex with a certain gender vs. someone to whom gender is irrelevant in their partner choice... except for the fact that we have an orientation label for the latter [bisexual/pansexual/omnisexual/queer/whateverhaveyou].)
ReplyDeletec4bl3fl4m3 - I really agree with you on this one. I identify as a gay male, but I'm open to kinky play with women.
ReplyDeleteGenerally, if it isn't kinky I'm not quite interested in it. Vanilla sex literally bores me. (seriously, there are other things I'd rather be doing, including balancing my checkbook.)
For me, being submissive / masochistic is definitely a sexual orientation. I need these kinds of things in my sexual experiences, or I am largely unsatisfied.
ReplyDeleteI also do not find men physically attractive. However, I will have sex with them, if they appeal to my submissive nature.
If my need for BDSM was not a factor, I would likely identify as a lesbian. The fact that this can trump my tendency towards homosexuality indicates to me that being kinky is a sexual orientation, as strong as straight / gay / bisexual / etc is for vanilla folks.