| |
|
quote:Originally posted by Rosa d'Ruckus:
What? Who are you to decide what's usual and unusual? What is 'objective and easily verifiable'? And please don't trot out the animal kingdom as a biologically 'natural' example of what is 'normal' for humans. It's the oldest and most problematic trick in the book, leading most arguments into a swamp of ill-researched anthropomorphising.
Kink, to me, undoes that whole thing. Kink could be about the most banal and mundane erotic act, as well as the most 'transgressive'. Kink makes the 'usual' redundant. Think about it. People have very particular preferences for how they like to have 'genital' sex. Doesn't that make the whole organising structure of 'genital' quite redundant, in the end? Let alone talking about genital sex as 'objectively usual': like, does that make the mouth an inherently sexual zone? Most people have oral sex, don't they?
I feel like quoting Le Tigre at you, but I won't.
Once again in a rush to judgement to make a political point, someone misses the whole crux of an argument.
I am all for "kink." Earlier in a post, I said that kink can probably be equated with bringing creativity to sexual pleasure (that is, getting off in ways that don't strictly involve the genitals.) I was making no value judgements about what is good and evil. Indeed, the whole point of my series of posts was to categorize kink outside of morality and into something that is quantifiable. Hence "trotting" out the animal kingdom (which given the prevalance of creative monkey and dolphin masturbation techniques probably invalidates my argument prima faciae. But whatever.)
In your rush to subvert notions of "usual" and "unusual" sex relationships, you are unwittingly discarding a whole set of tools that can be used to examine specific types of interaction within the milieu of sex that are ill-served by a blanket statement that amounts to "everyone has specific preferences involving sex and to call one thing normal and the other thing abnormal is discriminatory, so why bother?"
This kind of of reasoning, while useful in some respects also has its short comings, as evidenced by your statements above. To quote "Kink could be about the most banal and mundane erotic act, as well as the most 'transgressive'." This kind of definition of kink, broadened to include every type of sexual behavior, in order to include every type of getting off that is usual to one particular person, is next to useless. Your statement defines precisely everything and precisely nothing. It is not a definition at all.
When one is defining something, one must make cuts in the available data that seem arbitrary
when looked at on a certain scale. I was being arbitrary when I attempted to define kink in terms of usual and unusual. I admit it. But I was being arbitrary in the service of discussion, something your kind of argument shuts down, as while there is a way to falsify or argue against a proposition like "usual sex is associated with genitals" while there is no way to argue with identifying kink with every act "from most mundane to transgressive." It isn't a useful statement in a dialogue of any sort. |
|
|
o kinks extend beyond what would generally be described as "kinky" ... ?