Because what they boil down to is telling people how they can, or how they ought, use their bodies.
Why does having an anti-kink sentiment automaticallly boil down to this? Why can't someone just not be interested in (or approving of) kink, if they DON'T also tell someone else how they ought to use their bodies? And even if they do, why is saying "you shouldn't X" (where X can be, say, "handcuff your partner to the ceiling fan") de facto abelist?
I guess what I mean is, why does saying, "Bleah, not into kink" make me abelist, whereas you saying Toby Keith makes your spleen bleed is an aesthetic pronouncement? I didn't read the original you linked to - and I'm not going to, since bleah, not into kink or even thinking about kink - but I don't think I appreciate the assumptions and judgment that one line embodies. It's no better to assume everyone with "anti-kink sentiments" judges folks who aren't anti than it is to assume that disabilities or physical challenges preclude an interest in kink in the first place.
no subject
Why does having an anti-kink sentiment automaticallly boil down to this? Why can't someone just not be interested in (or approving of) kink, if they DON'T also tell someone else how they ought to use their bodies? And even if they do, why is saying "you shouldn't X" (where X can be, say, "handcuff your partner to the ceiling fan") de facto abelist?
I guess what I mean is, why does saying, "Bleah, not into kink" make me abelist, whereas you saying Toby Keith makes your spleen bleed is an aesthetic pronouncement? I didn't read the original you linked to - and I'm not going to, since bleah, not into kink or even thinking about kink - but I don't think I appreciate the assumptions and judgment that one line embodies. It's no better to assume everyone with "anti-kink sentiments" judges folks who aren't anti than it is to assume that disabilities or physical challenges preclude an interest in kink in the first place.
Sorry. That set me off.