4 ms·

> unfortunately a sizeable part of so-called LGBTQ+ social activism has not clearly spoken out against objectifying and disordered practices, and in many cases

> unfortunately a sizeable part of so-called LGBTQ+ social activism has not clearly spoken out against objectifying and disordered practices, and in many cases has promoted them quite irresponsibly Eh? What on earth are you talking about? The morality of the various gay people I know is, not coincidentally, the morality of everyone else. If you're talking about BDSM then if it's consensual it's fine (and if not, it's a crime of violence). If you mean other than BDSM then I've no idea what. and btw what does 'disordered' mean.

zozbot234 6y ago
> then if it's consensual it's fine So, you're saying that consent is always fully informed, freely given and involves deep awareness of every aspect or possible consequence of even strange and unusual sexual practices such as BDSM? Because this is what it would take for consent to be truly ethical. I don't believe this is what always happens. And yes, I do worry the BDSM community, by and large, is significantly understating the risk that, e.g. some self-defined "doms" and "tops" might engage in behavior that is in fact grossly unethical by any sensible standard. And other parts of the LGBTQ+ community can be similarly problematic. Let's face it, rape culture has existed for thousands of years and it can still be a huge problem today.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  > So, you're saying that consent is always fully informed, freely given and involves deep awareness of every aspect or possible consequence... Mostly, yes, and where it is not, if a person is new to this stuff they always has the right to say stop. Always. > even strange and unusual sexual practices 'strange and unusual' is weaseling. Whether they are or aren't 'strange' or 'unusual' is irrelevent. If consent is given between adults, consent is given. And it can be withdrawn at any point. If you don't understand this about BDSM you should find out more about it (NB. it's not my thing either, but I'm not going to judge). > some self-defined "doms" and "tops" might engage in behavior that is in fact grossly unethical by any sensible standard. this is pure emotive projection of you not liking this stuff. 'grossly unethical', lord, if it has consent, it's fine. Let people get on with what they wish; don't judge, and if you talk of 'sensible standards' you need to nail this down. > And other parts of the LGBTQ+ community can be similarly problematic So you throw in more claims of badness but carefully don't say what. > rape culture I presume this exists in heterosexual culture too? It's just as wrong there. Your post feels more driven by a kind of homophobia than understanding - or any desire to understand. Like I said, I'm not into it but that doesn't make it wrong by my standards. Edit: I'm hetero and for the life Of me I can't understand why a bloke would fancy a bloke. But they do. And that makes no sense to me, but I'm not going to condemn it, and when I see 2 people liking each other, of any gender, I just feel happy for them.
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    > if a person is new to this stuff they always has the right to say stop. Always. While this is hopefully the case, surely you must be aware that this does not in fact absolve the other person from needing to know what they're doing, and to truly care for the person's well being. After all, a victimized person might often be too shocked, scared etc. to even say anything. Or they might assume that what they're experiencing is "normal" even when it's not. Sexual ethics is really, really complicated, and more problematic practices like those in the BDSM spectrum only add to the complexity. "Consent" alone just doesn't cut it, true love and care for others is essential.
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      Of course you must care for the other person's wellbeing. Which includes consent freely given. BDSM emphasises that. Go and read stuff. > After all, a victimized person... In such a case consent has not been freely given. Therefore this would be classed as assault. Edit: there's nothing specific to gays or BDSM in this either, exploitation of vulnerable people can occur in plain hetero relationships with plain vanilla sex. > Sexual ethics is really, really complicated I don't agree. It can be - not is, it can be. Difficult corner cases of ethics always exist eg. treating a person against their will because that person hasn't the ability to consent so someone else must, and the treatment is given without consent (I was in hospital in the next bed to a guy, a child in a man's body, where this happened. Not a nice experience). In most cases things are straightforward. Most adults are adults. > Consent" alone just doesn't cut it, true love and care for others is essential. Freely given consent does cut it. The stuff about true love, I reject. That's a christianised view of sex. People can and do have sex while liking but not loving each other, and you have no right to judge them for it. ...care for others... Obviously
      - zozbot234 6y ago
        > exploitation of vulnerable people can occur in plain hetero relationships with plain vanilla sex. Of course, and Christian ethics rejects such exploitation. The term is fornication, which directly derives from the Greek and Roman terms for their widespread practice of prostitution. But overly "casual" sex can also be similarly objectifying and exploitive. And Christian ethics says that we must always care for our neighbor with the same love we have for ourselves. Surely this must be all the more true in inherently complex and problematic matters like sex. This is the care for others that is asked of us. > I don't agree. It can be - not is, it can be. Given the grievous consequences that can be involved in sexual victimization, it seems safe to say that sexual ethics is always a complicated matter. Not because of weird "corner cases", but because of the extreme level of maturity - and indeed of human self-dignity, self-actualization, autonomy etc. - that's required of us to avoid even unwittingly victimizing others. The case where two people are genuinely and happily in love with each other is not a "christianised view" that we're insisting on for the sake of being judgmental; it's just basic sexual ethics on easy mode.

zozbot234 6y ago

> then if it's consensual it's fine So, you're saying that consent is always fully informed, freely given and involves deep awareness of every aspect or possible consequence of even strange and unusual sexual practices such as BDSM? Because this is what it would take for consent to be truly ethical. I don't believe this is what always happens. And yes, I do worry the BDSM community, by and large, is significantly understating the risk that, e.g. some self-defined "doms" and "tops" might engage in behavior that is in fact grossly unethical by any sensible standard. And other parts of the LGBTQ+ community can be similarly problematic. Let's face it, rape culture has existed for thousands of years and it can still be a huge problem today.

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> So, you're saying that consent is always fully informed, freely given and involves deep awareness of every aspect or possible consequence... Mostly, yes, and where it is not, if a person is new to this stuff they always has the right to say stop. Always. > even strange and unusual sexual practices 'strange and unusual' is weaseling. Whether they are or aren't 'strange' or 'unusual' is irrelevent. If consent is given between adults, consent is given. And it can be withdrawn at any point. If you don't understand this about BDSM you should find out more about it (NB. it's not my thing either, but I'm not going to judge). > some self-defined "doms" and "tops" might engage in behavior that is in fact grossly unethical by any sensible standard. this is pure emotive projection of you not liking this stuff. 'grossly unethical', lord, if it has consent, it's fine. Let people get on with what they wish; don't judge, and if you talk of 'sensible standards' you need to nail this down. > And other parts of the LGBTQ+ community can be similarly problematic So you throw in more claims of badness but carefully don't say what. > rape culture I presume this exists in heterosexual culture too? It's just as wrong there. Your post feels more driven by a kind of homophobia than understanding - or any desire to understand. Like I said, I'm not into it but that doesn't make it wrong by my standards. Edit: I'm hetero and for the life Of me I can't understand why a bloke would fancy a bloke. But they do. And that makes no sense to me, but I'm not going to condemn it, and when I see 2 people liking each other, of any gender, I just feel happy for them.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  > if a person is new to this stuff they always has the right to say stop. Always. While this is hopefully the case, surely you must be aware that this does not in fact absolve the other person from needing to know what they're doing, and to truly care for the person's well being. After all, a victimized person might often be too shocked, scared etc. to even say anything. Or they might assume that what they're experiencing is "normal" even when it's not. Sexual ethics is really, really complicated, and more problematic practices like those in the BDSM spectrum only add to the complexity. "Consent" alone just doesn't cut it, true love and care for others is essential.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    Of course you must care for the other person's wellbeing. Which includes consent freely given. BDSM emphasises that. Go and read stuff. > After all, a victimized person... In such a case consent has not been freely given. Therefore this would be classed as assault. Edit: there's nothing specific to gays or BDSM in this either, exploitation of vulnerable people can occur in plain hetero relationships with plain vanilla sex. > Sexual ethics is really, really complicated I don't agree. It can be - not is, it can be. Difficult corner cases of ethics always exist eg. treating a person against their will because that person hasn't the ability to consent so someone else must, and the treatment is given without consent (I was in hospital in the next bed to a guy, a child in a man's body, where this happened. Not a nice experience). In most cases things are straightforward. Most adults are adults. > Consent" alone just doesn't cut it, true love and care for others is essential. Freely given consent does cut it. The stuff about true love, I reject. That's a christianised view of sex. People can and do have sex while liking but not loving each other, and you have no right to judge them for it. ...care for others... Obviously
    - zozbot234 6y ago
      > exploitation of vulnerable people can occur in plain hetero relationships with plain vanilla sex. Of course, and Christian ethics rejects such exploitation. The term is fornication, which directly derives from the Greek and Roman terms for their widespread practice of prostitution. But overly "casual" sex can also be similarly objectifying and exploitive. And Christian ethics says that we must always care for our neighbor with the same love we have for ourselves. Surely this must be all the more true in inherently complex and problematic matters like sex. This is the care for others that is asked of us. > I don't agree. It can be - not is, it can be. Given the grievous consequences that can be involved in sexual victimization, it seems safe to say that sexual ethics is always a complicated matter. Not because of weird "corner cases", but because of the extreme level of maturity - and indeed of human self-dignity, self-actualization, autonomy etc. - that's required of us to avoid even unwittingly victimizing others. The case where two people are genuinely and happily in love with each other is not a "christianised view" that we're insisting on for the sake of being judgmental; it's just basic sexual ethics on easy mode.