#also fuck evangelical pearl clutchers for real

[nekomimithoughts]

I feel like you have misunderstood what I was trying to say. I absolutely take the criticism of how my choice of words can be interpreted but you are putting a lot in my mouth that I simply didn't say or intended to transport. Your "quotes" of me are not things I said, it's not my take. And the other things you said aren't my takes either.

The first thing I definitely accept as criticism is that I used the word privilege and I'd be happy to remove that sentence. Because what I meant to say is that a secure base, which usually comes in the form of a trusted partner - but I absolutely agree that there are other safety nets and I'll come to this in a moment - is what makes safe sensation seeking in bdsm possible, and that is what makes it comparable to horror movies and spicy habaneros. That was, to be honest, the entire point of my post. Did I explain that that's what I mean in a very concise way and in a way that is unambiguous? No probably not. I apologise for that. I falsely used the word privilege to mean "to be in a position with certain advantages in regard to a specific thing" and didn't realise in the moment all the other concepts this word is tied to and that itvis usually used to mean being in a better position in a general sense. That is my fault. Did I mean to say that kinky people or bdsmers or people in secure relationships never have any anxieties or insecurities with regards to intimacy? No of course not, because that makes no fuckin sense. I do see how my words could be misinterpreted that way, but honestly, saying that the sense of safety achieved through having a trusted partner gives you opportunities for sensation seeking really doesn't conclude to having no anxieties or issues when you have a trusted partner? It just doesn't.

I was NOT trying to say is that kinky people need to justify themselves, that they need to "check their privilege", that they are responsible for other people's feelings or that they need to accommodate people who have a problem with their lifestyle. No! I didn't even intend for any actionable conclusions to be drawn from this, it's really just a thought experiment of perspective taking, meant for those who said, basically, that they don't understand why it's hard to understand for a lot of people that bdsm is comparable to other forms of sensation seeking. I take the criticism that I should have made that clear, that that's who I'm referring to, and not bdsm-people in general. Noted. I repeat: bdsmers DO NOT need to justify themselves, to pearl-clutchers or anyone else. Because yes, it's literally not about them. Hell. I'd never make that statement.

Thank you for pointing out that it's not necessary for bdsm to happen in an intimate relationship because there can be other safety measures in place. That's a really good point and made me realise that I falsely conflated safe partner and intimate relationship. A partner can be safe for other reasons than intimacy, for example because of pre-installed rules of conduct. Still, person A needs to trust person B will adhere to those rules. For people who experienced that others regularly disregard their boundaries (something that I believe is ingrained in the standard evangelical culture as "normal") they might have a hard time to imagine that this actually works: boundaries being respected. Does that mean bdsmers have to do literally anything about other people having issues like that? Simply, no.

What this topic of "bdsm is oftentimes just another form of sensation seeking" boils down to, in my perspective, is whether a sense of a secure base is given or not given. Because that deeply shapes how people interact with the world, shapes their biases, their mindsets, their likelihood to take opportunities, and so on. That's what fascinates me about this topic.

I'm not your enemy. I loved your post. I'm actually exploring bdsm myself and have a very positive view of it. I also don't hold anyone responsible for my sensitivities, weaknesses, anxieties, etc. I'm on a journey to learn from others and grow. And I don't believe that there would have been nearly as much misunderstanding here if this was a face to face conversation. The thing is, if I only shared thoughts when I can ensure that my wording is perfect and there is no ambiguity or room for misunderstanding, then I'll never have another conversation in my life. I promise you to try better next time though, and I appreciate the input that also helped me gain a better understanding. I just wish you wouldn't have gotten so mad at me. I think it's unfortunate that these kinds of topics can rarely be discussed in online spaces as a conversation with mutual interest and the benefit of the doubt given, but instead it's right off the bat angry. I respect your feelings and apologise that I offended you. On the other hand I also feel I'm accused of way more offenses than I actually committed.

While I was writing this I decided to remove my reblog post, first an foremost because it was written rushed from a quick idea, not revised, my arguments poorly constructed with lots of room for misunderstanding, and doesn't properly reflect my actual views.

I also hope that me removing it will make you feel better since my intention was not to offend you. Genuinely. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here. I really liked your original post. I'll keep this up for now so you have the chance to read my response, but I'm not interested in further interactions (i.e. more accusations and misunderstandings).

I wish you a wonderful day (again I'm not being sarcastic, I mean it).

Also, there is so much hand-wringing over the ethics of BDSM and while obviously it is worth taking care about ...sensation seeking is a thing. Many, many people enjoy eating habanero peppers and/or watching movies that make them cry. The conceptual leap from there to the idea that it's possible for sex to hurt good is a very short one, and sometimes it REALLY is as simple as that.