Kink or Abuse? It's complicated.

I've had an idea percolating in my head for a while about the issue of abuse within the kink community, and how difficult it is to discern it and call it out. We all know that a lot of what we do consensually for fun in kink would be abuse in a non-consensual context. We also know that abusers can and do hide out in the kink community as a cover for their shady behavior, although ideally they will be recognized and called out for it. (And the truth is, abusers are potentially present in EVERY community). But there is a certain level where people are afraid of saying "your kink is not okay" (and for very valid reasons). It is sometimes hard to judge from a distance whether or not someone's kink is abusive or not, and usually not your business to judge, unless you're a dungeon monitor at a party.

I do have a few things I view as abuse that are considered controversial- beastiality for one, or feeding someone until they're so obese that they can no longer be physically independent. I don't believe that anyone who consents to play that deliberately results in broken bones or damaged organs is really psychologically sound to give consent. Yes, I get that it's their body and they can ask somebody skewer their kidney if they want to. I still maintain that it's a REALLY FUCKING BAD IDEA!

Interestingly, as I was pondering the issue of thinly veiled abuse within my own community, I ran across this article, about an allegedly non-consensual "sex slave" who was tortured and abused by her "master" within the context of the BD/SM community. Without making light of this woman's abuse, I find this kind of titillating journalism both insulting to the victim and incredibly problematic in terms of increasing kink acceptance and awareness. I really wish it was framed more as a case of abuse, rather than "kinky" abuse. Consider the not-so-different kidnapping and abuse case of Elizabeth Smart. Would anyone have considered it acceptable or respectful to use nude photos of her to illustrate reporting on her case, the way they have with the Ed Bagley case? Does the fact that Brian David Mitchell is a FLDS religious wingnut instead of an abusive dominant somehow reflect poorly on the mainstream LDS community at large? (And it's likely that as much, if not more abuse happens in religious communities than within the kink community).

If the allegations against Ed Bagley are true, then he deserves to be locked away for life. But I do have a very real problem with the implication that kinky=abuser in the context of this case. A member of my local community lost her job after becoming a leather titleholder and being outed. What's worse is people who are involved in legitimate, consensual kinky practices are targeted by the law and wind up losing not only their jobs and reputations, but have their children taken away or are committed or imprisoned under misleading charges. (To be clear, I am not implying that this is the case with Ed Bagley.)

So, abuse and kink. It's messy from the inside the community, and it's even messier from the outside looking in. So what the hell do we do about it?

Calling Two Strikes On Gay Sports Organization

 For the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance, a softball league that defines itself as an "organization that promotes amateur sports competition, particularly softball, for all persons regardless of age, sexual orientation or preference, with special emphasis on the participation of members of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community," one's on base percentage matters less than the side from which one bats. During the 2008 Gay Softball World Series in Seattle, WA, San Francisco-based team D2 had its eligibility challenged by another team. Subsequently, five members of the team were subjected to interrogation by the league and three of the five were found to not be gay enough to play ball. The men were asked intimate details about their sex lives in front of a panel of 25 people, most of whom were strangers.  Quoting from the National Center for Lesbian Right's press release:

"The players were forced to answer whether they were “predominantly attracted to men” or “predominantly attracted to women,” without the option of answering that they were attracted to both. After each player was interrogated, a panel voted on whether he was “gay” or “non-gay.” NAGAAA’s committee refused to entertain the idea that the players could be bisexual. In response to a player’s statement that he was attracted to both men and women, a NAGAAA member responded, “This is the Gay World Series, not the Bisexual World Series.”

Ultimately, the predominantly-white committee voted that Charles, Russ, and Apilado, all men of color, were not gay. The committee voted multiple times on at least one player. The committee also declared that the other two players, both white—one of whom had given precisely the same answers as Russ—were gay. The committee recommended disciplinary measures against Apilado, Charles, and Russ their team, and the San Francisco Gay Softball League, including forcing their team, D2, to retroactively forfeit their second-place World Series win."

There are two major issues at the core of this fight. Policing bisexual identity is deeply problematic. Is being attracted to some men enough, or should we let a cadre of gay male sports fans dictate who is or is not bisexual enough to be in their company?  The way sexual identity in this case is reduced to "gay" and "not-gay" is a clear erasure of bisexuality.  Bisexuals/pansexuals/queers are not "not-gay" but are actively queer people deserving of a voice and presence in queer spaces.  In addition, there is the problem of racial typing in regard to sexuality.  This is obviously problematic with regards to how queer men (and people) of color are marginalized and made invisible for not conforming to the mainstream (i.e. white) notion of queerness.

Can this really be a serious stand as we enter the second decade of the 21^st century? That this occurred is troubling. That 25 adults sat in a room and participated in this tribunal is staggering.

The National Center for Lesbian Rights has taken this on as a legal case, but if you are still angry, feel free to e-mail each and every one of the board members to eloquently voice your disgust.

(This has been a tag-team post by the Girl and Boy)