ForumRelationships and Stuff ► S&M
Is being a sadist/masochist the same kind of thing as being, say, gay? Is it an orientation?
  
It falls squarely in the "kink" category. "Kinks" and "orientations" are different things. You can get off to a kink, but orientation is ultimately who you are attracted to.
  
Ah. Thank you
  
Sexual orientation asks the following question: "What gender are you sexually attracted to?" BDSM is not an orientation because it does not answer that question. It is a preference about the type of sex you want, not who you are capable of being attracted to.
  
I say no. I believe things like fetishes are more close to hobbies than a full-on sexual orientation
  
Nope. Not the same thing, and it doesn't fall under the LGBTQ+ umbrella. You can be cis and straight and also into S&M, but you don't get to call yourself queer or LGBTQ+ for it.

Gender identity: how you identify yourself.
Sexual orientation: which gender identities you do or don't want to have sex with or who you are interested in romantically.
S&M/kink: the type of sex you want to have.

Being polyamorous is similarly not a queer identity, since it's about relationship structure rather than about how you identify or which identities you are or aren't interested in romantically or sexually.
  
s&m stands for super & mario, right?
  
I think it's a clothing store?
  
eriophora said:
Nope. Not the same thing, and it doesn't fall under the LGBTQ+ umbrella. You can be cis and straight and also into S&M, but you don't get to call yourself queer or LGBTQ+ for it.

Gender identity: how you identify yourself.
Sexual orientation: which gender identities you do or don't want to have sex with or who you are interested in romantically.
S&M/kink: the type of sex you want to have.

Being polyamorous is similarly not a queer identity, since it's about relationship structure rather than about how you identify or which identities you are or aren't interested in romantically or sexually.


I'm not a huge fan of gatekeeping - and I get annoyed when people say some people aren't "queer enough" or try to segregate labels based on how much they fit a template.
Wrt non-monogamous people, I think they totally fit under the queer umbrella. Most importantly, because they need the same support structures that LGBTIA+ people do, and they face a lot of the same stigmas and visibility issues. Besides, I'm very happy to see my cishet poly partners at pride; they fit right in.

That said, kinks do feel like a distinct aspect of identity. Most importantly, because too many cishet people with kinks use them to justify sexist & trans-exclusionary views, but also because support structures for S&M people look very different from those for people with non-normative gender/romantic/sexual identity.

LGBTQIA+ (incl. poly) people need visibility, validation, and spaces free from hatred.
People into S&M need safety education and moderated spaces.
  
Normally I don’t care about identity related problems as much as other things but I have a distinct desire to not have my orientation associated with polyamory/-gamy.
  
I agree with antimony, I would not want someone to assume things about my bedroom and personal life because I'm bi. A lot of that already happens already, unfortunately.

I think it would fall under the relationship status of protective rights which clearly are due for some attention. These rights are severely limited in most states, and it is currently allowed under most state laws to discriminate against someone for their familial or marital status (including lack thereof, or non-monogamous arrangements).

Also, kink, drag, poly, and allied folks all have a huge place at pride. I don't think anyone is saying that these folks aren't a part of pride as a movement, but they aren't necessarily all queer either? I don't think I'd be super weird about it if a poly person called themselves queer for lack of a better term, but that's up to each person to decide how they feel about it.
  
Edit: nvm I change my mind about wanting to share this
  
Normally I don’t care about identity related problems as much as other things but I have a distinct desire to not have my orientation associated with polyamory/-gamy.

Also doesn't answer the question "What gender are you sexually attracted to?" People need to stop equating "not the cultural default" with "queer".
  
You took the words right out of my mouth.
  
Don't some trans folks call themselves queer? Like gender-queer?
  
I agree with antimony, I would not want someone to assume things about my bedroom and personal life because I'm bi. A lot of that already happens already, unfortunately.


To be fair, I don't want people to assume things about my bedroom and personal life because I'm polyamorous, either. Polyamorous labels have nothing to do with a person's relationship or marital status, only which relationship-shapes they feel comfortable in. (much like sexual identity doesn't describe a person's relationship or marital status, only which genders they feel comfortable with in certain types of relationships)


Also doesn't answer the question "What gender are you sexually attracted to?" People need to stop equating "not the cultural default" with "queer".

At minimum, queer labels encompass trans and intersex people as well as sexual/romantic/platonic orientation - much as I'm willing to discuss whether S&M/poly labels fit under the umbrella, I have no patience for trans erasure.
  
Wait. Do gay folks not just constantly have orgies?
  
amras0000 said:
I'm not a huge fan of gatekeeping - and I get annoyed when people say some people aren't "queer enough" or try to segregate labels based on how much they fit a template.
Wrt non-monogamous people, I think they totally fit under the queer umbrella. Most importantly, because they need the same support structures that LGBTIA+ people do, and they face a lot of the same stigmas and visibility issues. Besides, I'm very happy to see my cishet poly partners at pride; they fit right in.

That said, kinks do feel like a distinct aspect of identity. Most importantly, because too many cishet people with kinks use them to justify sexist & trans-exclusionary views, but also because support structures for S&M people look very different from those for people with non-normative gender/romantic/sexual identity.

LGBTQIA+ (incl. poly) people need visibility, validation, and spaces free from hatred.
People into S&M need safety education and moderated spaces.


Facing the same issues doesn't mean that you're part of the same identity. That's where intersectionality comes in.

A cishet poly man isn't going to always face the same issues that, say, a bisexual monogamous woman will. And they don't both fall under the queer umbrella.

Also, what exactly do you mean by support structures looking different for people into S&M? I'm not honestly sure I'd agree with that.
  
amras0000 said:
I agree with antimony, I would not want someone to assume things about my bedroom and personal life because I'm bi. A lot of that already happens already, unfortunately.


To be fair, I don't want people to assume things about my bedroom and personal life because I'm polyamorous, either. Polyamorous labels have nothing to do with a person's relationship or marital status, only which relationship-shapes they feel comfortable in. (much like sexual identity doesn't describe a person's relationship or marital status, only which genders they feel comfortable with in certain types of relationships)
>gay and trans people get treated like subhuman for millenia
>find opening in the late 20th century in north america and europe to maybe not get murdered or arrested for being in the open anymore
>try to distance themselves from anything that makes it harder for people to see they're not just two normal people who love each other and want to be married and raise kids together
>21st century rolls around
>still fighting same battle in north america
>Gay marriage legalized federally and federal sodomy laws repealed
>things start becoming ever so slightly better for trans people
>Polyamorous people come out of the wood work
>Whips, chains, leather masks come out of the wood work
>"Hey I know we didn't do shit to help all that and all but now we want to join up with you guys"
>"We have it hard tooTM you know"

I'm sorry but what? No. Gay and trans people have historically tried and presently try hard to make the rest of society see them as not a bunch of orgy-having fetishistic degenerates. I want no association with you and your six wives.

Oh, Antimony, the insidious heteronormativity! The oppression of healthy monogamy and an otherwise culturally normal life prescribed to us by our Christian oppressors!
Yeah, that's been the goal for forever. You're fighting a different battle. Have fun with hanging out with the radicalized Mormons.
  
"All sexualities matter!"
🙄
  
I mean, sure, all sexualities matter but "all sexualities matter" =/= "Me and my multiple wives need the same legislative and cultural support as all the queers!"
  
Polyamory is nothing new, but I think it's not the same as being LGBT. I wouldn't exactly consider Genghis Khan to be a queer icon.

But I think we've all digressed here a bit. On the actual topic of S&M... also the same. You can be into all that slap-and-tickle stuff while being super secure in one's cisgender identity and heterosexuality.
  
Slap and pickle.
  
And I’m not calling polyamorous people orgy-having, fetishistic degenerates but including them doesn’t help the cause and their end goal is not the same. I don’t necessarily see anything wrong with it, or BDSM or any fetish for that matter, but they’re not the same and the desires they have for how society treats and sees them are not the same as lgbt people’s.

The reason I haven’t addressed the OP is because… “lol, no” is the only answer there.
  
It's not my bag, but I don't care what people are into. But folks who center their whole personalities around kinks and stuff are annying.