Are Kinky people discriminated against? (51)

But then neither of you are afraid to have your faces on the site. Possibly you aren't in professions where you would lose your job if you were recognised here. For some people that is a very real threat.

And maybe neither of you are having custody battles where your sex lives are being used against you as proof of your unsuitability as parents.

Lucky you.

.
Posting under the influence. Or if not, then sleep-deprived. If it makes no sense that'll be why.

To some degree all discrimination is wrong, but it isn't all equally wrong,(or important). For me, there is,(has to be?), a sliding scale, and perceived kink discrimination is at the much less important end. If you are disabled or black or gay, you may well come across discrimination every day, that's important and worth getting angry about. Being discriminated against for being kinky? Not so important.

I, and, I suspect, most people, discriminate against others lots of the time, for lots of reasons, it's what people do, and will always do.

"Me and Kevin, we're just not the same"
Women are from Reigate, men are from Reigate. Not all of them of course, that would be silly, some are from Pimlico, or Cleethorpes, or that little village in Derbyshire who's name eludes me, or Bridlington, or Weston Super Mare, or Clac....

care to elaborate on that sweetcheeks?

Buy a copy of Beyond the Circle CAAN statement of principle.

Actually, whilst I agree that it's not that important in the general scheme of things and I detest whinging, For me this does have some importance. I'd like my life to be something I don't feel I have to hide. I can't.

My goal - to save women from nature (Dior)
Follow me on twitter: @belasarius99

If I was having a custody battle and I thought, for a second, that being on here might jeopardise my chances, I simply wouldn't be on here, I would consider it a tiny price to pay.

Nobody is forced to be on IC at all.

"Me and Kevin, we're just not the same"
Women are from Reigate, men are from Reigate. Not all of them of course, that would be silly, some are from Pimlico, or Cleethorpes, or that little village in Derbyshire who's name eludes me, or Bridlington, or Weston Super Mare, or Clac....

It is clear that those who by accident of birth or accident or other cause have involuntarily drawn a short in life and to discriminate is wrong.

Then there are those who voluntarily choose a course of action or belief. In the case of kink no one who enters into it can be in any illusion as to the public or media attitudes towards it.

OK I am prejudice!.....against people who whinge a lot.

But why should you have to hide it? Why should you have to pay that price at all?

I'm not sure why the reason they are being discriminated against should make any difference to the victim of discrimination. If I were to walk down the street and punch a redhead in the face because I don't like their hair colour that would be just as bad to them as it would be to a black person if I punched them in the face because I don't like their skin colour. It may be that in the world as a whole black people face more random violence that redheads, but to the individual victim the effect is exactly the same and the discrimination jut as bad. It would be absurd to tell the redhead to get over it and forget about it, because it doesn't happen very often, but to be sympathetic to the black person.

All discrimination for no good reason is equally wrong. And equally damaging to the individual at the time. And, individually, each act of discrimination is equally important. To say some types of discrimination are less important because there may be less of them is to add insult to the injury of those victims that there are.

I've always said our current laws, which offer special protection only to some types of victim are in themselves discriminatory, and unnecessary. There is no reason why we can't treat arbitrary discrimination of any type as equally wrong, and equally important.

I'd love to know when you chose to be kinky.

I certainly never chose it, any more than gay people chose to be gay, or black people chose their skin colour.

But even if it was a choice, and of course some manifestations of it may be a choice, there is still no reason why people should be discriminated against in general. And no reason why prejudice should be regarded as less serious because it is based on someone's lifestyle choice rather than their skin colour. If it is irrational and has no basis in fact then surely it is equally bad?

Though, what we do is illegal. And what I might like to look at may be illegal to possess.

So we have an odd situation where in practice I get away with a normal life, but in principle, I'd say the issue of illegality comes pretty damn high up the scale.

I'm bisexual too, and I'd say that the idea that what I do is illegal, and deemed wrong by the state, upsets me far more than some random idiot having a go at me for being bi.

(It's also worth noting how these things intersect. People who practice BDSM in a heterosexual marriage probably have it far easier than people doing BDSM as part of bisexual or gay group or poly things. Consider how R v. Brown resulted in people being sent to prison, but consensual "assaults" committed within heterosexual marriages were later deemed legal.)

Indeed, rightly or wrong, I *have* heard this point made against the gay scene - that there are a lot of privileged white middle class privileged males...

And what if you didn't realise it might be a problem, and being here did jeopardise your chances?

I agree that it's not clear why numbers are important (surely it's usually considered worse if fewer people are affected - that's what we mean by "minority", after all). But what is this "one idea" of CAAN's, and why is it a problem?

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

Edited 11 Jun 11, 12:23 AM by emark