There's no need for us to start tacking fetishes and other sexual minorities onto LGBT; that slippery slope is already visited by the anti-LGBT rights side daily and it makes us cringe with good reason. Your arguments here and in the other thread aren't particularly thought-provoking, but an awkward attempt to tack your fetishes onto a monumental battle for human rights to garner further approval for them. I understand why as you've made it clear BDSM is a huge part of your life and not just something you do in the bedroom, but don't expect to hitch a ride when there is no shared struggle for human rights. Anyone can already BDSM, scat, swing & spit-roast to their heart's content; shared discrimination and social stigma ≠ shared human rights struggle.
You once posted your ideal relationship is a 3-5 person gay poly family, so any remotely relevant comparison would have to lie there; however, any struggle you try to make analogous would be the struggle for two consenting adults to have their relationship recognized and--unlike "traditional", same-sex and interracial marriages--there are no laws in place that take into consideration a relationship of more than two people, inherently requiring poly to be a separate movement.
To be clear, it's not as if I'm advocating tacking on a "K" at the end of our alphabet soup acronym (I wouldn't want to even if it did make some analytical sense; ask transpeople how being a tacked on letter has worked out for them), I'm just advocating for a bit of intersectionality. People whose primary work is advocating for civil rights on the basis of race don't need to concern themselves overly with the struggles of gays and lesbians. What I would ask them to do, however, is not undermine parallel struggles for equal rights and acceptance by treating oppression as if it were some finite resource or playing oppression olympics (and let's be honest guys, blacks got us beat there). I know it makes you boil in anger when you see a black person dismiss the blindingly obvious parallels between the two struggles, even if they differ in some important ways, and even if one can concede that one group's suffering may in fact be less than another's in important ways. In brief, I'm not asking for your help. We got a good thing going with the NCSF. Just don't tear us down as we march towards the same things you guys are fighting for because you think it'll win you a few brownie points.
It is not in fact true that anyone can already practice whatever sexuality they want. For one thing, kink is of uncertain legality in many circumstances, and there are at least a few
Stonewallesque high-profile
raids and arrests of kink events. Despite
the best psychological evidence indicating that there is absolutely no comorbidity with other mental disorders, and despite the fact that they can be practiced safely between consenting adults, many activities within the BDSM world remain diagnosable as a mental disorder for no reason other than prejudice and animus. Perhaps most importantly, 24% of
kinksters report losing a job over their sexuality. I can move to a Seattle, a San Francisco, a New York and be reasonably certain my job at least won't be threatened for my gay sexuality, and there are even a few states that explicitly forbid such discrimination. Where the hell am I supposed to go to get job security concerning my kinkiness? Seriously, a career as a sex educator or worker is highly tempting to me precisely because those are some of the few professions I know where my kinkiness won't be a liability but an asset. And that's where the struggles are blindingly similar, in this important respect if in no others. How can you, as a gay man,
not have your heart go out to someone who lost their job because of their sexuality? If you've ever been closeted, don't you feel that tinge of panic when you think you see someone you know as you're walking into a gay club?
I'm not even sure that it's accurate to say that I've made BDSM "a huge part of my life" outside of the bedroom. It pretty much takes place just there, and a few semipublic spaces where people like me congregate. I would be thrilled if I could leave it there. The closet is intolerable for gays because it concerns who we love; the closet is perfectly fine for kinksters because what we do with our partner(s) is no one else's business. But everyone else made an issue that should be private public when they started arresting us and firing us.
Hm, I've never had to argue these points before, so bear with me - this may be a little scatter-brained.
I don't think that kinks and fetishes (I'll just refer to them collective as fetishes now) are similar to sexuality and gender on any appreciable measurement. I think, both psychologically and socially, there's quite a large difference between the two that the recognition of one shouldn't be rolled or compared to the other.
Socially, there's been a far greater history of organized and instituted oppression and discrimination against sexuality and gender than for fetishes. I'm hard pressed to think of systematic categorizing, identifying and persecuting for people who enjoy spanking or BDSM as I can for LGBT individuals. This history, I feel, separates the two and makes the acceptance and recognition of LGBT issues far more important and far more pressing. There are lots of holy texts which dictated and shaped the laws and punishments of societies that have viewed LGBT individuals as abominations suitable only for torture or death. I mean, the Qu'ran and Bible are readily available to demonstrate the issues and the institutionalized discrimination that even perpetuates to this day where LGBT citizens are treated as lessers in the eyes of the law comparative to their heterosexual, heteronormative brothers and sisters.
But for fetishes, I don't see the same issues. You aren't forbidden from seeing your partner in spanking or BDSM in the hospital because of your activities. You aren't exempt from tax deductions because you enjoy licking your partners feet. You don't have Biblical passages that exclaim "Thou shalt not get freaky in rubber suits."
And personally, I don't think they carry nearly the same weight either. Psychologically speaking, we identify ourselves in numerous and varied ways. But I don't believe that each of these aspects of ourselves share equal strength. I see myself as a white, male, writer but each of those identifiers is far more important to my self identification. I think your gender and your sexuality are far more "core" to your personality than other attributes. Liking men and identifying as a man carry far greater psychological weight than seeing myself as someone who writes.
In this way, I don't think fetishes hold up either. If someone says "I don't approve of your writing lifestyle" it is far less hurtful than someone saying "I don't approve of your homosexual lifestyle." In much the same way, if someone were to say "I don't want to hear about your spanking" I don't think is anywhere near as offensive as "I don't want to hear about your lesbianism."
Writing and spanking, while part of our self identity, are more actions we perform than things that we are. I am a male. I do spanking.
As for the importance to sexual gratification, I think they also aren't comparable. I feel that, if deprived of all sexual activity, if you were faced with two hypothetical options of whether being able to have a sexually compatible partner compared to having a sexual compatibly fetish, the partner is far more important. If I've been stranded on a desert island, being faced with only a man who won't participate in spanking is going to have less impact on sex than being faced with only a woman.
So, what does that leave us with? Stigma? Well, yes, I suppose fetishes and gender/sexuality are both stigmatized but I don't think they're anywhere close to being appreciable. And if we're only tying them together because they are stigmatized well, so are a lot of other things and it would be silly to include them all in the same "struggle" because they share this one, broad similarity.
Also, no, I don't think that because a fetish can be a mental disorder it makes it more comparable to homosexuality. I wouldn't compare other mental disorders to homosexuality either. Because homosexuality isn't a mental disorder.
Edit: Not entirely sure what I should be taking from this survey. I don't think fetishes need "rights" and I don't have an issue with someone being told to not share their bedtime activities. I think that's the crux of it. Fetishes play solely to your actions during sex whereas orientation impacts your life in far more aspects beyond the bedroom.
Edit: Edit: Thus, I don't think LGBT issues should be conflated with kink/fetishes because it detracts from the overall conversation. Once again, I apologize for the messy, diarrhea of thought in this post.
This is a textbook example of oppression olympics and treatment of oppression as a finite resource. Even conceding that one struggle is more pressing than the other, I hardly see how undermining strictly logical comparisons between the two in order to protect the sanctity of your own helps. Structural inequalities between the third world and the first world are almost certainly more important, in terms of aggregate human welfare, than what comparatively privileged sexual minorities in rich western countries face, but anyone pointing that out to a gay rights activist is a massive dick that's more interested in asserting the predominance of their own suffering than in making the world a better place.
Similar to a black homophobe angrily disclaiming an affinity between the civil rights struggle and gay liberation, we have a listing of differences between the movements that, I think anyone can agree, are important. Gays were never enslaved; blacks face supportive communities rather than the closet. Gays must be out of the closet to be safe; the primary goal for kinksters is to make their closet nice and comfty. No analogy is perfect. But that doesn't change the fact that the movements are based on a broad set of shared principles and moral intuitions. And that those who ascribe to those principles should adhere to them, political consequences be damned.