fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4790 ]

[ SECRET POST #4790 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4790 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 07 secrets from Secret Submission Post #686.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

they are different modes of engagement with different functions so the norms that apply to them may be different.
I actually do NOT think you can make this distinction (are there some type of personal and sexual enjoyment that differ? yes. does every type? no. there are just so many ways that "getting off" can straddle the non-sexual that we still critique. as I said in another comment romance as a genre really straddles this), so I'll have to disagree

I don't think that there is any kink that could only be homophobic or sexist
of course there can. that can be the kink.
second, I don't you should have an unnuanced pro-kink bias going in. I think you're saying so because there is an anti-kink worldview (correct me if I'm wrong) but I don't think that you ignore what communities are impacted by certain kink even in fiction in order to do that (nor in the response, but that tends to not be as much about privilege when its coming from an impacted community).

finally, i don't actually think you can get people to be more critical about kinks without acknowledging that there are acceptances of certain social concepts behind enjoyment of the kink. at best I think you can lay off the same disapprobation that certain social concepts generate in non-fictional interactions, but I don't think that requires ignoring that fact all-together.

i'm the anon who accidentally started this mess (while trying to make a simple observation dof societal trends, not some nasty personal judgement), so thank you for having the spoons and eloquence to go into detail where i couldn't.

np anon. I got where you were coming from.

I actually do NOT think you can make this distinction

Disagree on principle. Of course in actual practice things are often complex, and you can and do have things where different modes of engagement, different genres, etc commingle and co-exist. but it's still a useful and true analytical distinction to make. and imo its really important and central to analyzing anything at all to understand the audience, the intended audience, the audience reaction, the genre, how it can be interacted with and is interacted with

I don't you should have an unnuanced pro-kink bias going in. I think you're saying so because there is an anti-kink worldview (correct me if I'm wrong) but I don't think that you ignore what communities are impacted by certain kink even in fiction in order to do that (nor in the response, but that tends to not be as much about privilege when its coming from an impacted community).

I think that there should generally be a pro-kink bias for two fundamental reasons: first of all, on principle, sexual interactions between consenting adults should generally be considered acceptable without a specific reason otherwise. we should generally accept sexuality as part of normal, healthy, mature human life and part of that means accepting its manifold variety of expression. second, strict standards of sexual morality tend to be disproportionately used as weapons against disadvantaged groups, and in particular, women and queer people. so we should be very aware of that as well.

but let me be clear, when I say a pro-kink bias, I'm not asking for it to be un-nuanced, or total. What I have in mind is that our general attitude should be that most kinks are OK unless there's some kind of strong argument otherwise, that we should accept in general that people have kinks and that kinkiness in itself is not a moral or immoral quality, and that we should generally approach kink with the mindset of figuring out a safe, sane way for consenting adults to be kinky if it's at all possible.

finally, i don't actually think you can get people to be more critical about kinks without acknowledging that there are acceptances of certain social concepts behind enjoyment of the kink.

I think the only word in this that I really disagree with is "acceptance"

okay what difference in mode are you actually talking about? what is it, if you think it's there? it's not useful or true until you can actually describe what you mean.

first of all, on principle, sexual interactions between consenting adults should generally be considered acceptable without a specific reason otherwise.
This is a response that can be made in world in which people have the same status, but I don't actually think it's true in this world, nor do I think consent is exempt for that understanding enough that "consenting adults" can be taken unreservedly. I'm not anti-kink (I actually like the kink in question here), but I don't think harm can be a secondary consideration. And I don't think the rest of your reasons are undermined by that.

I think the only word in this that I really disagree with is "acceptance"
so...you don't agree. cmon, lmao.

okay what difference in mode are you actually talking about?

So I think a detailed account of the difference between sexual (pornographic) engagement with art and other forms of engagement is probably outside the scope of this dreamwidth comment section discussion.

But that said, I think some of the distinctions are pretty intuitive. For instance, many of the basic functions of 'traditional' modes, like engaging with plot and thema, seem generally irrelevant for sexual engagement. On the other hand, eroticism is omnipresent and central in sexual engagement in a way that it usually is not in other modes of engagement. The kind of satisfaction that a person gets from seeing a kink they like in art is distinguishable from the kind of satisfaction that they get from laughing at a joke, for example, or feeling catharsis at a satisfying emotional denouement. This is the kind of general thing that I have in mind.

This is a response that can be made in world in which people have the same status, but I don't actually think it's true in this world, nor do I think consent is exempt for that understanding enough that "consenting adults" can be taken unreservedly.

Of course "sexual interactions between consenting adults" is a normative goal to aim for and not a universal reality. In reality, all kinds of power imbalances can exist in, and all kinds of harm can result from, various sexual interactions. But where those issues are not present, where "consenting adults" is an accurate description, where there's not some specific issue to point to, we should generally consider it acceptable. Pointing out issues where meaningful consent between adults doesn't exist, for varying reasons having to do with power and status or whatever, is important but it doesn't change how we feel about situations where meaningful consent does exist.

That is (it seems to me) the lens that we generally should use for sexual relations in general (and if you disagree with that statement, then there's a deeper and more fundamental disagreement that has nothing to do with kink), and it's also the lens that we should use to understand kink. We should understand the manifold expressions of sexual desire between consenting adults to be normal and healthy and acceptable in general, and we should approach kink (as a part of that manifold expression) in the same light. So we should have a general attitude that kink is fine without some substantive reason otherwise, and we should generally try to figure out ways to make sure kink can be carried out in a healthy, respecting, consensual way if at all possible.

so...you don't agree. cmon, lmao.

sure, but for a specific reason.

I just don't think that having a kink about X requires you to accept the social concepts that may underly X. I agree that getting people to think critically about that kink will require them to acknowledge that there is a connection between X and the social concepts that underly X. I don't think it requires acknowledging an acceptance or agreement with those social concepts, because I don't think that such an acceptance or agreement necessarily exists for all people who have the kink.

So, for instance, let's imagine a woman who has a fetish for being submissive in heterosexual relationships. The way that this fetish plays out often replicates many gender roles in society that are bad and problematic. And some people who like such sexual relationships will generalize and say that this kind of sexual relationship is correct and true - they'll say that this form of gender relationships is normative and good both sexually and non-sexually. But at the same time, having that fetish does not require you to accept those ideas about gender roles in general. It's quite possible - in fact it's easy and commonplace - to have a fetish for certain kinds of submission and gender play sexually without making the leap to accept the related gender concepts and relationships as normative and correct in society generally, to agree that those ideas are correct. Rather, it's a form of provisional and imaginative play with those ideas that does not endorse them. Thinking critically about the kink does require acknowledging the connection between the kink and social ideas, but liking the kink doesn't entail accepting those ideas.

I hope this example gives some sense of what I'm talking about.

The kind of satisfaction that a person gets from seeing a kink they like in art is distinguishable from the kind of satisfaction that they get from laughing at a joke, for example, or feeling catharsis at a satisfying emotional denouement
Yes, this is what I thought you meant, so I am asking: what is the difference in satisfaction? I understand that you feel that this is beyond the scope, but it frankly can't be, when you are suggesting that that difference means separating criticism forms. This isn't intuitive and it's quite frankly a cop-out to suggest that intuition is a sufficient distinction here (for a number of reasons including that intuition is no less susceptible to cultural ideas than anything else). No offense, but it's frustrating to have you say that in-depth discussion is impossible when you can't give me 1 (one) actual distinction that we can engage with.

But where those issues are not present, where "consenting adults" is an accurate description
Well, here is my disagreement. I don't think you can go into a discussion of kink where this isn't a part of the examination. You are suggesting starting from an ideal background and I don't think you can or that it's actually helpful to do so (for many reasons including that the human desire to simplify means that idealizing circumstances does actual do harm to understanding behavior in unidealized circumstances).

I agree that getting people to think critically about that kink will require them to acknowledge that there is a connection between X and the social concepts that underly X. I don't think it requires acknowledging an acceptance or agreement with those social concepts, because I don't think that such an acceptance or agreement necessarily exists for all people who have the kink.
So....you disagree. This is disagreement with the actual point, the specifics of that disagreement aren't relevant to since I don't there was any argument otherwise. And I am not suggesting that acceptance means agreement in the sense you're talking about. It's means buy-in to that social dynamic as satisfying and/or useful. If you're reading about other people who are not you, then to some extent you are buying in that this is a satisfying/useful dynamic to some people, a few people, most people or all people. But you not buying in to it being satisfying/useful to just you. That uncertainty of universality, and the acknowledgement that there is no singularity underpins social organization, and the authority of it.

I have to repeat that a substantial account of how different modes of engagement with text function, and how the experience of different modes of engagement is connected to the culturally-conditioned categories we use to understand that experience, is beyond the scope of this thread. I'm not going to be able to come up with a general theory of eroticism or hermeneutics.

What I'm trying to get at by appealing to intuition is that I think, in our day-to-day life, it's quite reasonable to say that we judge an action movie differently from a prestige drama differently from a poem. We can argue about the details of what each form of critical engagement and judgment should look like, and how culture affects those details (after all, art forms and modes of judgment are culturally specified in the first place), but my main point here is just that there is a difference, and that a significant part of this difference is in how the audience is generally engaged with it. I think that's a lot of what makes different genres distinct from each other - they do different things for different audiences.

So, for instance, you may have an art film that works by depicting realistic characters in combinations that audience members can recognize and attribute meaning and emotional significance to, and that ultimately satisfies by carrying across to audience members some meaning or truth or emotional resonance about human existence as such. On the other hand, if we're watching pornography, we're usually not watching for that kind of satisfaction. We're watching for something that's erotically appealing, that's a turn-on, that satisfies some kind of libidinal desire.

We could watch pornography the way that we watch art film if we want to. Or, vice versa, we could watch drama films the way we watch pornography. And in some cases, you may have works that can function in multiple different ways at the same time. But in general, critical analysis of anything is going to be more productive if it recognizes what genre the thing is - what the work is trying to do, what kind of satisfaction it is trying to provide to the audience. If we try to watch a pornography for what the resolution of its plot and themes says about the meaning of human existence, it seems common-sensical to say that we're making an error.

I don't think you can go into a discussion of kink where this isn't a part of the examination. You are suggesting starting from an ideal background and I don't think you can or that it's actually helpful to do so (for many reasons including that the human desire to simplify means that idealizing circumstances does actual do harm to understanding behavior in unidealized circumstances)

I'm not sure what you mean. It seems like there's a straightforward reason for considering how kink should work for consenting adults - because it allows us to isolate the issues that exist with kink as such from issues with dysfunctional relationships as such. There are problems with relationships with severe power imbalances, for example, but severe power imbalances in a relationship are still bad even without kink. If anything, it seems like your point here applies to sex in general.

But maybe there's something you have in mind that I'm not seeing.

It's means buy-in to that social dynamic as satisfying and/or useful. If you're reading about other people who are not you, then to some extent you are buying in that this is a satisfying/useful dynamic to some people, a few people, most people or all people. But you not buying in to it being satisfying/useful to just you. That uncertainty of universality, and the acknowledgement that there is no singularity underpins social organization, and the authority of it.

Again, I'm not totally sure that I get your point here.

IMO, all that having a kink actually requires with regards to a social dynamic is that you think that social dynamic as useful or satisfying for you personally in specific circumstances and conditions (one of the important points of framing kink as play is that there are boundaries, ideally clear and well-negotiated boundaries, where kink does apply and doesn't apply). It doesn't necessarily mean endorsing that social dynamic in general for yourself. It doesn't necessarily mean endorsing that social dynamic for other people in general. And it definitely doesn't mean endorsing that social dynamic as moral or normative (which I think is where you would run into problems, and what I had in mind by "agreement"). Even if you're reading about other people being into the same kink, it's still a finite set of the population that's into that kink. It doesn't necessarily mean endorsing those social dynamics in any circumstance - only in those specific circumstances where people who are into the kink choose to carry out those dynamics.

The point is that you can acknowledge a kink as a personal preference that some people have some of the time, and nothing more. And thinking critically about kink necessarily means acknowledging that. Obviously, sometimes people who are into kink don't think critically about it, and that's bad. But that's why we should think critically about kink.

I'm not sure what your point about singularity and authority is driving towards, either, sorry, but I am interested if you want to expand on it.

On the other hand, if we're watching pornography, we're usually not watching for that kind of satisfaction. We're watching for something that's erotically appealing, that's a turn-on, that satisfies some kind of libidinal desire.
I don't think libidinal desire, as a concept or as a literary goal, is as definable as you do, and that's where I think we are differing. I've read many many mostly porn stories v. romances with no sex, and the point of satisfaction, including the intention of the author and the intention of the reader, didn't differ to the point where I think you can suggest that criticism of dynamic on a social level was fine for one but should differ for the other.

it allows us to isolate the issues that exist with kink as such from issues with dysfunctional relationships as such
Again, I think where we differ is that I view consent as an internal measure with a wavering scale that as a society we expect* sharply defined external demonstrations of (for very good reasons). Any issues with the kink (and here I mean the same for any issue that requires two people or more like sex but not exclusive to sex) have to be understood by the possible dynamics throughout an encounter which an assumption of consent through the lens of external demonstration will simply not account for, unless you assume that dynamics change the consent. You're not going to get the all the issues with a kink that way anyway.
*Not sure that's the word I want.
Maybe I don't understand what you mean by issues?

it's still a finite set of the population that's into that kink
society as an organizational device cannot say everyone is like X as a method of adoption (even as a method of enforcement most social concepts allow for exceptions). it can say an undefinable but significant amount of people are like X and therefore this point of order should be adopted. it might be finite, but finiteness has to be be known somewhat to be significant. the lack of finiteness on the other hand is makes adopting and maintaining certain philosophies, even ones in bad faith, very easy and harder to want to disrupt on the basis of lack of usefulness or satisfaction. You're not reading or watching something necessarily meant to be enjoyed in the specific circumstances that you do. You are reading or watching something that you know can be enjoyed in a variety of circumstances by a variety of people. That means that you understand that the nature of any possible satisfaction gleaned is effectively general by some number or any number of people, which by nature of understanding is incorporated in your own satisfaction. I think we differ in that you are saying "nothing more" and I don't think any type of processing exists in that manner.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #4790 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject