Please Help! Boundary Issue
- Thread starter bofish
- Start date
Dirtclustit
Banned
bofish said:
LR, this response seem a little out of character for you
are you saying that people who claim to attempting to live according to the "do no harm" philosophy need to be "taught" that it was harmful before they stop?
Cause that is a bunch of bullshit, a person doesn't need to understand why. Unless you are talking about behavior that is nothing more than just living your life. But if you intentionally doing something to "teach" a person a lesson, that's nothing but a crock of shit, it is intentionally causing harm but being in denial about it.
And it would be funny, if it weren't so sad, but ever since Marcus refuses to answer a very straight forward question, he does paint a more clear picture of his views that he refuses to clarify.
If your belief system is utter flawed, one could certainly believe in the "do no harm" philosophy and be blind in his ability to understand that withholding Constitutional Rights, Benefits, and Privileges to families that have same sex parents, does in fact cause harm, and if it truly did not, it wouldn't be considered wrongful discrimination.
And Dagferi, if you held the belief the non-caucasian person's should not be allowed to marry and you voted to make that a law, or you attempted to campaign for such a law to be passed, I would certainly hope someone uttered the descriptive word , "bigot" , because that person is one (a bigot)
With all due respect, I'm still trying to process why Dagferi would be so much against even discussing rights for disabled people, when particularly, her husband could have benefited for a time from wheelchair accessibility. It seems misplaced anger: at disability? at her body? at the government or the war?
It would be silly to be angry at me. I'm just a stranger on the internet with a different opinion, and why would someone be so opposed to an opinion that would benefit them directly. It sounds like your experiences have (rightly so) really scared you...so you take it out on someone who accepts and embraces their disability.
I wouldn't say bigot. I would say unkind.
It would be silly to be angry at me. I'm just a stranger on the internet with a different opinion, and why would someone be so opposed to an opinion that would benefit them directly. It sounds like your experiences have (rightly so) really scared you...so you take it out on someone who accepts and embraces their disability.
I wouldn't say bigot. I would say unkind.
LovingRadiance
Active member
I wasnt saying they need to know WHY something is harmful. I was saying they need to know THAT something is harmful.
For example; if someone has only lived in a community that regularly used a term that isnt used elsewhere;
Tyen they move and use that term and it hurts your feelings. They didnt KNOW they were doing harm. Until they are told, they wont KNOW its harmful. So why would they "naturally" stop something they have NO CLUE is harmful.
Every community is different and what is "best" is different based upon those differences. Also every individual is different and what is harmful for one individual may be awesome for another.
Like running. It is generally considered a healthy activity. But if a teacher tried to force me to run in pe, they are doing me harm. But they have to be told in order to know. They wont AUTOMATICALLY not tell me I have to run with the class just because they live by a "do no harm" philosophy.
Assuming that others KNOW something is harmful is dangerous. We dont know where they are from, what they have been taught etc.
If something harms us we must tell them. If after that they continue-thats different.
But that wasnt what the op said. She said they would "naturally" stop the behavior IF they lived a do no harm life. Thats not true.
I used to think the same.
Over the years I have been astounded to learn that MANY people have very different ideas of wha is or is not harmful. People often try to do no harm. But they still do.
Like doctors and psychologists. They take tha oath.
But if they dont know someone has an allergy-they do harm. My mom and father in law have nearly died at the hands of doctors doing their damn best-without all of the necessary info. Patients were unconscious and doctors had NO CLUE of their bizarre allergies.
People DO cause harm even when they do their level best not to. Its just reality.
For example; if someone has only lived in a community that regularly used a term that isnt used elsewhere;
Tyen they move and use that term and it hurts your feelings. They didnt KNOW they were doing harm. Until they are told, they wont KNOW its harmful. So why would they "naturally" stop something they have NO CLUE is harmful.
Every community is different and what is "best" is different based upon those differences. Also every individual is different and what is harmful for one individual may be awesome for another.
Like running. It is generally considered a healthy activity. But if a teacher tried to force me to run in pe, they are doing me harm. But they have to be told in order to know. They wont AUTOMATICALLY not tell me I have to run with the class just because they live by a "do no harm" philosophy.
Assuming that others KNOW something is harmful is dangerous. We dont know where they are from, what they have been taught etc.
If something harms us we must tell them. If after that they continue-thats different.
But that wasnt what the op said. She said they would "naturally" stop the behavior IF they lived a do no harm life. Thats not true.
I used to think the same.
Over the years I have been astounded to learn that MANY people have very different ideas of wha is or is not harmful. People often try to do no harm. But they still do.
Like doctors and psychologists. They take tha oath.
But if they dont know someone has an allergy-they do harm. My mom and father in law have nearly died at the hands of doctors doing their damn best-without all of the necessary info. Patients were unconscious and doctors had NO CLUE of their bizarre allergies.
People DO cause harm even when they do their level best not to. Its just reality.
Loving R,
But, I do think my example was a good one. I think that people who call people "retard" to their face...or within hearing distance DO mean it as harmful. To say, "that's retarded" as people do often on listservs do NOT mean harm and are just (without thinking) using the word as slang.
I have had so many people call me retard! And I'm not even mentally challenged - I have two Masters and am a well regarded poet!
But, I do think my example was a good one. I think that people who call people "retard" to their face...or within hearing distance DO mean it as harmful. To say, "that's retarded" as people do often on listservs do NOT mean harm and are just (without thinking) using the word as slang.
I have had so many people call me retard! And I'm not even mentally challenged - I have two Masters and am a well regarded poet!
LovingRadiance
Active member
Please, call me LR-everyone else does.
Most people probably are-but that doesn't mean it would be true in every single case. It's an overgeneralization.
Don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean you (or anyone else) has to tolerate it.
Let me give you an example:
My grandmother remarried. Her husband was born and raised in a town of less than 50 people in the midwest. MOST of the other people have left town. But, he never learned to read or write,he didn't have tv or internet, he inherited his parents property and quite literally never traveled. He's in his 70s and since their marriage, he's started traveling with her.
So up they come to visit and in the space of an hour manages to offend me beyond words. He referred to my then teenage daughter as a "Kansas City Nigger", my then 4-5 year old son as a "faggot" (he had long hair) and he kicked the dog. Suffice it to say, he was kicked off of our property and not invited to return. My son is now 13.
Don't tolerate that crap.
BUT-the reality is that those terms WERE the accepted terms in his environment and he hadn't had exposure to the "real world" to learn otherwise. He deserved the opportunity to be told that it wasn't acceptable. (which he was).
Once he chose not to apologize after being told it was offensive-then he was fully accountable.
As children, my brother (white) called my sister (black) a "nigger". He was 3 and so was she. He had heard the term. He didn't know the term. She didn't think anything of it, she didn't know the term either. I was 5 and I knew it was a "bad word". I told on him. He was sat down by the parents (all four of them) and educated as to the fact that he was NOT to use that word under any circumstances ever again. Period. He wasn't told why. Nor was our sister.
They learned WHY as they got older, via "the real world". But our parents felt it was best at that moment that they not know how derogatory it was/could be because they knew he didn't mean to say something that derogatory to her. ANYWAY-
Sometimes people's ignorances seem TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLY outlandish. I mean really-can you (I couldn't) imagine someone growing up in the US and NOT knowing that "faggot", or any combination of words with "nigger" is unacceptable and harmful to the people who hear (not even necessarily the person it was aimed at, but also those who overhear)?!?!?!?
But the reality is that we do have communities that isolated. In fact, in Alaska, we have MANY communities where there are no "white" people or any race but the Alaska Natives. Places where they simply don't encounter all kinds of things we consider normal (like cars for example). They may read a book from 20-30 years ago that has HIGHLY sexist/racist jokes or text and think that it's NORMAL. I was reading just the other day an article that showed the "dick and jane" books from when I was a kid-and the story lines were so sexist as to be shocking-TODAY.
But in these isolated communities, sometimes those old reading materials are ALL THAT IS AVAILABLE. It wouldn't be surprising at all if they had material that labeled a variety of people with disabilities as "retards" or as "psychos" because it hasn't been long AT ALL since that was the norm.
I'm not at all saying people shouldn't be educated. I'm saying-not all people ARE ALREADY.
Dirtclustit
Banned
Thankyou for the clarification
It seems I had gotten the wrong message, I can see now that when you said "taught" you were referring to being notified, and not that someone would have to teach them.
In full disclosure, your comment made me flash back to an article wherein the authors opinion to combat the rape culture of male dominated societies (which is just about the entire world) was that men needed to be taught about rape, as if men who raped honestly didn't know it was bad.
Yes, I know that I am overly harsh on the topic of equal rights, I know that people who have had a negative framework in regards to homosexuality pounded into their minds, however I can no longer in good conscience be gentle to those who are having a hard time accepting the fact that withholding rights, benefits, and privileges is wrong.
I am a very understanding person, and will be extremely sympathetic to those having a hard time accepting it after the wrongs are made right. I don't subscribe to the theory that everything just is, that there is no wrong or right, that the concept of right and wrong is wholy a construct of society. I firmly believe that we all know deep down when we are doing wrong and there are very few gray areas, mostly centered around "hot button" topics. Futher more, that nearly every instance of acting wrong, doing wrong, and causing harm without recognizing it -- or worse -- believing we are in the right takes a may days, months, and sometimes years of choosing not to practice honesty
from becoming comfortable with taking the easy route, and surrounding ourselves with others whom will agree with our rationalizations and uphold the little white lies, exaggerations, and twisting of reality to coincide with how we wish things were.
I understand that miscommunication happens more often with written words only, and I know that the benefit of doubt helps build trust and more clear communication. I've just reached a point where I cannot believe that all miscommunication is due to honest to goodness good intentions. I don't see anything wrong with being a little hot headed or intentional verbal jabs, but when it is completely denied or claimed to be merely being blunt, I don't deal so well.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone having their own unique view point, even if it directly opposes mine, but when people refuse to own it, I can't sit quiet with it.
I won't go back and pick through every instance I thought (and could be wrong about it) the replies were intentionally disrespectful toward the OP, or every instance my opinion of the advice given went against fundamental principles of respecting the choices and boundaries of a relationships, but I do think if people put just a few minutes of honest reflection in all the words in this now over 20 pages (at default page set up) that they could certainly see a little more truth in my view.
I know my attitude doesn't make it any easier, and actually may prevent people from even being willing to do that, for all the same reasons I don't bite my tongue
It seems I had gotten the wrong message, I can see now that when you said "taught" you were referring to being notified, and not that someone would have to teach them.
In full disclosure, your comment made me flash back to an article wherein the authors opinion to combat the rape culture of male dominated societies (which is just about the entire world) was that men needed to be taught about rape, as if men who raped honestly didn't know it was bad.
Yes, I know that I am overly harsh on the topic of equal rights, I know that people who have had a negative framework in regards to homosexuality pounded into their minds, however I can no longer in good conscience be gentle to those who are having a hard time accepting the fact that withholding rights, benefits, and privileges is wrong.
I am a very understanding person, and will be extremely sympathetic to those having a hard time accepting it after the wrongs are made right. I don't subscribe to the theory that everything just is, that there is no wrong or right, that the concept of right and wrong is wholy a construct of society. I firmly believe that we all know deep down when we are doing wrong and there are very few gray areas, mostly centered around "hot button" topics. Futher more, that nearly every instance of acting wrong, doing wrong, and causing harm without recognizing it -- or worse -- believing we are in the right takes a may days, months, and sometimes years of choosing not to practice honesty
from becoming comfortable with taking the easy route, and surrounding ourselves with others whom will agree with our rationalizations and uphold the little white lies, exaggerations, and twisting of reality to coincide with how we wish things were.
I understand that miscommunication happens more often with written words only, and I know that the benefit of doubt helps build trust and more clear communication. I've just reached a point where I cannot believe that all miscommunication is due to honest to goodness good intentions. I don't see anything wrong with being a little hot headed or intentional verbal jabs, but when it is completely denied or claimed to be merely being blunt, I don't deal so well.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone having their own unique view point, even if it directly opposes mine, but when people refuse to own it, I can't sit quiet with it.
I won't go back and pick through every instance I thought (and could be wrong about it) the replies were intentionally disrespectful toward the OP, or every instance my opinion of the advice given went against fundamental principles of respecting the choices and boundaries of a relationships, but I do think if people put just a few minutes of honest reflection in all the words in this now over 20 pages (at default page set up) that they could certainly see a little more truth in my view.
I know my attitude doesn't make it any easier, and actually may prevent people from even being willing to do that, for all the same reasons I don't bite my tongue
Insults
I don't mind the insults.
I went back through a couple of threads and Marcus uses "retarded" to refer to someone he found distasteful. That about sums it up for me. Did he know this was "harmful?" probably not. But instead of taking me at my word, he argued for proof and when I gave proof, he wrote a post saying he would "no longer" engage me. We cling to our prejudices HARD.
Dagferi seems to be dealing with a lot of pain surrounding disability that she needed a place to take it out on. Interestingly, ultimately, she decided to come "out" which I think is the very argument she opposed in the first place. I have a lot of empathy for her in what sounds like a very very difficult situation and I am truly sorry she is suffering. I will say Metta for her.
I don't mind the insults.
I went back through a couple of threads and Marcus uses "retarded" to refer to someone he found distasteful. That about sums it up for me. Did he know this was "harmful?" probably not. But instead of taking me at my word, he argued for proof and when I gave proof, he wrote a post saying he would "no longer" engage me. We cling to our prejudices HARD.
Dagferi seems to be dealing with a lot of pain surrounding disability that she needed a place to take it out on. Interestingly, ultimately, she decided to come "out" which I think is the very argument she opposed in the first place. I have a lot of empathy for her in what sounds like a very very difficult situation and I am truly sorry she is suffering. I will say Metta for her.
IndieSolo
Active member
Bofish, you are making many assumptions. Just because people here share an opinion in this thread that differs from yours, or point out to you an issue they have with something you wrote, does not automatically mean they are angry, suffering, trying to insult you, nor even that they dislike you. They are simply expressing their opinions.
This thread has really gone way far off from your original questions and it is just becoming a big mess.
I recall that your threads from last year (when you posted as Nondy) devolved in the same way. You post about a problem, people offer their views, and suddenly you are challenging them, defending yourself as if you were attacked, say that people don't like you, then get all holier-than-thou about being disabled or some other issue that you want to rant about. Somehow it winds up in a big circular argument. You seem to be always poised for a fight. When you go around with a chip on your shoulder and are always goading people knock that chip off, you're either going to find people saying "I'm outta here" or telling you off. Think about that. How much do you want to alienate yourself from people that you have come to for some feedback and opinions on your situation? People who post here do so in the spirit of helpfulness, but it certainly does not mean we are just going to tell you what you want to hear.
How about you get back to the original topic and keep this thread somewhat cohesive.
This thread has really gone way far off from your original questions and it is just becoming a big mess.
I recall that your threads from last year (when you posted as Nondy) devolved in the same way. You post about a problem, people offer their views, and suddenly you are challenging them, defending yourself as if you were attacked, say that people don't like you, then get all holier-than-thou about being disabled or some other issue that you want to rant about. Somehow it winds up in a big circular argument. You seem to be always poised for a fight. When you go around with a chip on your shoulder and are always goading people knock that chip off, you're either going to find people saying "I'm outta here" or telling you off. Think about that. How much do you want to alienate yourself from people that you have come to for some feedback and opinions on your situation? People who post here do so in the spirit of helpfulness, but it certainly does not mean we are just going to tell you what you want to hear.
How about you get back to the original topic and keep this thread somewhat cohesive.
Ny- I understand and agree to a certain extent.
If you read the early posts I was called all sorts of things: unreasonable, manipulative, a martyr, controlling, and many others. As much as I tried to listen, and keep my temper, it was hard and I failed.
These lists are difficult for me. I don't expect people to agree, but I do get ruffled when the disagreements are name-callig or insulting. However, I'm willing to buy that I may be too sensitive and this is just the way people talk. There are a number of people on here (London among them) who I vastly disagreed with but came around to understanding their side.
When I am called negative things, I do get ruffled.
If you read the early posts I was called all sorts of things: unreasonable, manipulative, a martyr, controlling, and many others. As much as I tried to listen, and keep my temper, it was hard and I failed.
These lists are difficult for me. I don't expect people to agree, but I do get ruffled when the disagreements are name-callig or insulting. However, I'm willing to buy that I may be too sensitive and this is just the way people talk. There are a number of people on here (London among them) who I vastly disagreed with but came around to understanding their side.
When I am called negative things, I do get ruffled.
I feel my primary issue with the list is that comments like this
Enjoy playing the martyr much?
No one has mentioned your disability except you several times.
__________________
Which was 100% unprovoked, go unchecked. I am not excusing my own reaction, but that is what I react to.
Enjoy playing the martyr much?
No one has mentioned your disability except you several times.
__________________
Which was 100% unprovoked, go unchecked. I am not excusing my own reaction, but that is what I react to.
IndieSolo
Active member
I think you are letting yourself be too sensitive and are taking some of the things that have been expressed here much too personally. I can point out to someone that they are being controlling, manipulative, unreasonable, or playing the martyr, for example, and not intend it to be "negative" or an insult in any way. In fact, I have said all those things to people here (and in real life) and many times been thanked for it. It's no different than telling someone they have something stuck between their two front teeth - you'd want to know that, wouldn't you?
You see those words as negative - but they don't have to be. For example, I manipulate people every day at my job. I tell them things that I think would appeal to them so they will buy what I'm selling. Does that make me a bad person? Does it make my customer a victim? No, not necessarily. Those words, as used here, are just descriptions of actions or strategies, as seen by people who only have the words in a post to assess, and offered simply as a way to illuminate the situation for you. You might not be able to see it from outside your own perspective. Yes, comments like that may be blunt and even seem harsh, but you don't have to take them and hurt yourself with them, because I know that no one here intended to hurt you when they posted them - only to shake you up a bit so you could see what they see.
The things said here may or may not ring true for you. It's simply feedback - take it or leave it, but don't waste your time and energy by taking those words and using them against yourself to feel victimized, nor to defend yourself and argue. What's the point and how would that benefit you? I am sure you have better things to do than argue with anonymous posters on a forum. We're all strangers here, so I would say not to take it so much to heart.
When someone comes to a forum like this for feedback or advice, all anyone here has to go on is the information provided us. We don't know you and can only say what we see from reading the posts. A person on the receiving end of comments like that doesn't have to indulge in feeling attacked or misconstrue it all as insults and name-calling. They can just try to hear that comment, and take a look at their lives and see whether they may be some element of truth in it. If not, no biggie, it doesn't resonate with you so move on. If there is something that feels a little sharp and bothers you, there may be a kernel of truth in it! In that case, it's better to look inward and find out why.
You see those words as negative - but they don't have to be. For example, I manipulate people every day at my job. I tell them things that I think would appeal to them so they will buy what I'm selling. Does that make me a bad person? Does it make my customer a victim? No, not necessarily. Those words, as used here, are just descriptions of actions or strategies, as seen by people who only have the words in a post to assess, and offered simply as a way to illuminate the situation for you. You might not be able to see it from outside your own perspective. Yes, comments like that may be blunt and even seem harsh, but you don't have to take them and hurt yourself with them, because I know that no one here intended to hurt you when they posted them - only to shake you up a bit so you could see what they see.
The things said here may or may not ring true for you. It's simply feedback - take it or leave it, but don't waste your time and energy by taking those words and using them against yourself to feel victimized, nor to defend yourself and argue. What's the point and how would that benefit you? I am sure you have better things to do than argue with anonymous posters on a forum. We're all strangers here, so I would say not to take it so much to heart.
When someone comes to a forum like this for feedback or advice, all anyone here has to go on is the information provided us. We don't know you and can only say what we see from reading the posts. A person on the receiving end of comments like that doesn't have to indulge in feeling attacked or misconstrue it all as insults and name-calling. They can just try to hear that comment, and take a look at their lives and see whether they may be some element of truth in it. If not, no biggie, it doesn't resonate with you so move on. If there is something that feels a little sharp and bothers you, there may be a kernel of truth in it! In that case, it's better to look inward and find out why.
Last edited:
Norwegianpoly
New member
There is no straight line, in fact I think kink to a large extent (although not entirely) IS sex. The only distiction I draw is how much is made obvious/on display. At least at the BDSM parties I have gone to, there has been only partial nudidy and any clear-cut (vanilla) sex has been very discreet. It has got nothing to do with "what is sex really"-debates. Anything that will make you come or otherwise make you really tingle is sex, that is not the matter, the matter is to what degree it is obvious and in people's face. Obviously people enjoy themselves tremediously sexually-wise at BDSM parties, still the vibe is different than at a "straight" sex party (sometimes at least). When people enjoy themselves privately, they can just do what comes naturally and not put it in a box, but anyone arranging parties would have to take the "name" of the vibe into consideration.
LovingRadiance
Active member
Hey nyc-that whole post could be a great thread of it's own called "advice for newbies"!!!
Norwegianpoly
New member
I sometimes tell people about my sex life, however I don't regard it is something anyone has a right to know. If my social life envolved from my sex life (like sex parties) that might make it into something at least some people outside the circle should know about.
Now that I have embarked on poly life I inted to tell relevant people about it. I will explain to people that I travel and why. When he comes to se me/us, I will introduce him to some people (not my family though - but I did not after 4 months when I was monogamous either). If he comes to live close by/with us for a shorter or longer time, it becomes relevant for those visiting me, my familiy (that is interested in my every day life), friends and so on, it may even become relevant to my job at some point (they will want lists of persons to contact in case of emergency). In my life and to my head, my boyfriend is already a second primary, to keeping quiet in the long run would mean I was ashamed. It may be different if you live somewhere where being open is dangerous (that you could get physically assaulted or could lose your job) - I would not openly hold hands with both boys in Turkey, for safety reasons.
Now that I have embarked on poly life I inted to tell relevant people about it. I will explain to people that I travel and why. When he comes to se me/us, I will introduce him to some people (not my family though - but I did not after 4 months when I was monogamous either). If he comes to live close by/with us for a shorter or longer time, it becomes relevant for those visiting me, my familiy (that is interested in my every day life), friends and so on, it may even become relevant to my job at some point (they will want lists of persons to contact in case of emergency). In my life and to my head, my boyfriend is already a second primary, to keeping quiet in the long run would mean I was ashamed. It may be different if you live somewhere where being open is dangerous (that you could get physically assaulted or could lose your job) - I would not openly hold hands with both boys in Turkey, for safety reasons.
SchrodingersCat
Active member
I understand what you're saying, but I have to admit that I sometimes find it difficult to know which words are acceptable in which contexts. Both your examples (faggot and nigger) are used by some members of those groups to refer to themselves and others in those groups. I recall nondy doing the same thing in that other thread with the word "crippled."
Apparently it's acceptable for faggots, niggers, and cripples to call themselves that, but not for other people. Ok, I can accept that at face value ("just because")... but truly, if you expect other people to treat you with respect then you need to treat yourself with respect first. As much as there are homosexuals, black people, and disabled people who use those words, there are far more people from those groups who hate that those people use those words. It puts the education process 50 years backwards.
Of course, the "safe" move is to stay away from any words that you've heard called derogatory even once. If you know it's offensive to one person who's said something, then chances are there are hundreds of people who feel hurt but don't want to say anything for fear of making a fuss. I used them in the previous paragraph to make a point, but I would never dream of using them like that in ordinary circumstances.
We're doing relativistic E&M right now, and there's this thing called "retarded time" and I cringe every time we use it. My mom worked in a school for the severely mentally disabled (not just retarded development -- they were never gonna get there) and I learned early on how hateful the word "retard" can be.
Some genuinely don't. If you see a woman as an animal, devoid of thoughts and feelings and needs, then it's easy to treat her without respect, to any extent imaginable. I find it as shocking as you do, I completely cannot relate to that way of thinking, but simply denying the phenomenon does not fix the problem. It does sicken me to think that there are men out there who truly believe they own the women in their lives, that their bodies are their property to do with as they please. That's the thinking that needs to be educated against.
In western culture, most men know that violently forced rape is wrong, but subtle date rape is something that many people don't understand. Manipulation and coercion can be so subtle and emotional that neither person really realizes it's happening, except afterwards the (usually) woman is left with this sick and empty feeling inside.
It's mind boggling how many people really do believe "she was asking for it" by wearing revealing clothing. Again, I can't wrap my head around it, but I hear people say those things with genuine belief in what they're saying, so for me to just assume they're playing around and that they "really know it's wrong" makes me part of the problem. Add that into a culture that believes women enjoy playing hard-to-get, and that they want you to chase them and pressure them, and it's a recipe for rape. Yes indeed, I believe that education is a huge part of the solution.
SchrodingersCat
Active member
For Gralson, they're very different. For him, S&M is about power, getting people to react the way he wants them to, seeing how close he can push them to their edge. Even fisting, which directly involves genitalia and orgasms, is not at all "sexual" for him. That's one reason he's had so much trouble being comfortable with it with me, because for him, it's a way to release bottled-up emotions and childhood issues that he would prefer not to associate with our relationship in any way.
For me it's very different too. My kink isn't wired into my sexuality. I don't get turned on by getting tied up or role playing or hurting people. It's fun, but it's play. It's satisfying and it meets other needs, but not sexual ones. The issue I run into with the belief that "kink is about sex" is that people who believe that often accuse me of not being "genuine" or "real" when I engage in kink activities, because I'm just having fun, I'm just playing. I don't take it so seriously (except safety of course). They seem to believe that the way I play and my reasons for doing so somehow take away from the way they play and their reasons for doing so. Now, as much as I'm amused at the notion of a Dominant giving me that much power, it simply is not true. And again, it's not that the "kink is about sex" attitude means "kink is my life," merely that in my experience, the same people who give me a hard time about playing around also insist that kink is wholly and absolutely about sex. I guess they figure I'm just doing it all kinds of wrong. But fuck that, if I'm having fun, and my partners are having fun, then we're doing it right.