sasha_feather (
sasha_feather) wrote2009-08-12 08:48 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Entry tags:
Kink and Disability Links; Access is for Everyone
![[profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
I particularly liked this passage from a feminist pro-SM website:
As far as the observation you mention... I honestly think kinky orientations are quite common among people with disabilities, and I've been open before about my opinion that some people's anti-SM sentiments (or better said anti-pain play sentiments) strike me as honestly ableist.
Because what they boil down to is telling people how they can, or how they ought, use their bodies. What kinds of stimulation mean pleasure, and what kind mean badness. It's taking a normative body-map and saying everyone should fit it, and if you don't you're consenting to be abused.
What I hear when I hear people say liking pain play is "abnormal", when by that they mean wrong, bad, or unhealthy, is the same thing I hear when someone tells me that oh, sure, wheelchairs are great, but it's really natural to walk.
***
Just thought that was interesting. All of the links are interesting!
Also I made my first post to
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
A good example is curb cuts, which are in place legally for wheelchair users. They also benefit people with strollers, wagons, wheeled luggage, hand carts, and probably other things I'm not thinking of. Same with automatic door openers. Same with water service, quiet places, etc. Having a more accessible world is in some ways about having a more usable and humane world.
no subject
no subject
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.
no subject
Certainly it could have been worded better in the blog. In fact I think *I* just worded it better. ;)
Of course it's fine to not be into something, and not have that be an ableist perspective, as long as you're not telling other people that it's somehow morally reprehensible to be into that thing and therefore they should stop doing it, it is wrong OMG. (Which, um, makes me reconsider my stance on Toby Keith, since on some level I do find him morally reprehensible, hah).
I have more to say on the politics that I'm learning about kink through kink_bingo, but I'll spare you those at present.