We’ve got a long way to go, but things are getting better for minority groups.
In the recession, twice as many women held their jobs as men; suggesting employers finally recognized their value. Likewise, LGBT advocates made great strides lifting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
But some people argue they’re still part of a group suffering from inequality and prejudice: Not because they belong to any particular minority, but because their lifestyle doesn’t fit the acceptable ‘standard’ by which ‘regular society’ chooses to live.
In other words: Kinky people—who express their sexuality differently to how ‘polite’ society says is acceptable.
One example? My friend Pamela; fired from her job at private school in England for what she did ‘after hours.’
Pamela was a physical education teacher—producing promising results from the school swim team. But after school, she abandoned being an authoritative teacher and became an eager little submissive instead.
She lived full time with Dave, her ‘master’, and was regularly on the receiving end of his cane and flogger.
“Corporal punishment was something I always found intensely erotic,” she explained. “Not just the physical pain, but also the power dynamic.”
Pamela believed her professional and personal lives were completely compartmentalized, but an incident at school soon proved otherwise: One swim practice, Pamela was wearing a demure one-piece swimsuit; but it didn’t hide the welts she’d received three days earlier as ‘punishment’ for burning the shepherd’s pie. A student saw them and told her teacher.
“I’m normally cognizant of that sort of thing,” Pamela told me later. “If Dave and I are going to play that intensely, we do it on Friday; so I’ll have two days to recover.”
But for some reason, Pamela still had marks three days later—and was called to the headmaster’s office to explain them.
“They thought my boyfriend was beating me,” she laughed. “They couldn’t have been more sweet and supportive.” Until, that is, Pamela awkwardly explained how she really received the bruises: “It instantly got chillier in the headmaster’s office.”
Two days later, she was fired.
“I was still in my probational period,” Pamela explained, “so they didn’t need a reason - but it’s pretty clear why they did it. My ‘lifestyle’ was incompatible with their ‘values’.”
“I was pissed off—it’s not like my personal life had ever interfered with my job. In fact, up until then, they’d constantly been telling me what a great job I did.”
So the question: Did the school have a legitimate reason for firing Pamela? Or were they just discriminating against her because of her lifestyle?
Her spanking had never interfered with her ability to do her job (aside from a few unexplained bruises) so you have to wonder if there was ever an objective justification for firing her.
I heard a similar story in a bar on Long Island:
After a dozen whiskey sours, an attractive older lady confessed she had an eye for big, black men—and her enthusiastic husband regularly invited ‘bulls’ to spend the weekend with them, enjoying no ‘holes’ barred gangbangs.
All was well until a neighbor got suspicious about the young, black men traipsing in and out of the condo next door—and called the HOA. The next day, the landlord told the couple to have their stuff packed and out by the end of the month.
They were a lovely couple, always paid the rent on time and kept their lawn immaculate; but the HOA didn’t like what they’d heard (or thought they’d heard) about their naughty nocturnal activities.
Was that right? I don’t know—but I do know that, according to the rules of the HOA, it was legal.
Another example? How about in Wisconsin—where a swinger’s club attempted to organize a ‘hotel takeover’ in Steven’s Point, booking an entire hotel for 200 couples for during a weekend of debauchery.
Despite being a private event, the local Police Chief vowed to use every city ordinance written to get the event canceled: Even holding the hotel hostage by threatening its liquor license.
“There’s a line in the sand when it comes to sexually promiscuous activity,” the Mayor of Steven’s Point complained. “It’s just not acceptable in Steven’s Point—and we have ordinances behind us to ensure it doesn’t take place.”
Is that discrimination too? Another example of kinky people being treated like second-class citizens?
Well, I’m concerned about using word ‘discrimination.’
‘Discrimination’ carries some pretty hefty connotations—including a fundamental difference between the ‘discrimination’ faced by those living a kinky lifestyle and the more traditional victims of social inequality: Choice.
If you’re a person of color, or a woman, or homosexual, you’re the victim of discrimination because of something you have no choice in—the way that you were born. Such discrimination is a violation of the principle that ‘all men are created equal’ (a principle supposedly sacred to American society).
But whether it’s spanking, wife sharing or swinging, a kinkster always has a choice about the form and venue their sexual expression takes—and that gives them freedom the others lack.
The kinky couple who organized those interracial orgies? They could have held them in a motel room, instead of their sleepy condo complex.
Likewise, the swinger’s group that organized the ‘hotel takeover’ in Wisconsin had held similar events all over the state. Why did they have to fight to hold their event where it clearly wasn’t wanted?
That tells me there’s a tightrope between acceptance and discrimination—and kinky people are balanced precariously on top of it.
I can understand kinksters’ frustration when they run into prejudice—but I also think there’s a point at which forcing other people to accept your ‘lifestyle’ goes too far, and becomes a somewhat offensive proposition in itself.
Kink, by it’s very definition, is outside of mainstream acceptability: So it’s self-defeating, not to mention unrealistic, to expect mainstream society to accept it in the same way they have done differences in race, gender and sexuality.
In the recession, twice as many women held their jobs as men; suggesting employers finally recognized their value. Likewise, LGBT advocates made great strides lifting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
But some people argue they’re still part of a group suffering from inequality and prejudice: Not because they belong to any particular minority, but because their lifestyle doesn’t fit the acceptable ‘standard’ by which ‘regular society’ chooses to live.
In other words: Kinky people—who express their sexuality differently to how ‘polite’ society says is acceptable.
One example? My friend Pamela; fired from her job at private school in England for what she did ‘after hours.’
Pamela was a physical education teacher—producing promising results from the school swim team. But after school, she abandoned being an authoritative teacher and became an eager little submissive instead.
She lived full time with Dave, her ‘master’, and was regularly on the receiving end of his cane and flogger.
“Corporal punishment was something I always found intensely erotic,” she explained. “Not just the physical pain, but also the power dynamic.”
Pamela believed her professional and personal lives were completely compartmentalized, but an incident at school soon proved otherwise: One swim practice, Pamela was wearing a demure one-piece swimsuit; but it didn’t hide the welts she’d received three days earlier as ‘punishment’ for burning the shepherd’s pie. A student saw them and told her teacher.
“I’m normally cognizant of that sort of thing,” Pamela told me later. “If Dave and I are going to play that intensely, we do it on Friday; so I’ll have two days to recover.”
But for some reason, Pamela still had marks three days later—and was called to the headmaster’s office to explain them.
“They thought my boyfriend was beating me,” she laughed. “They couldn’t have been more sweet and supportive.” Until, that is, Pamela awkwardly explained how she really received the bruises: “It instantly got chillier in the headmaster’s office.”
Two days later, she was fired.
“I was still in my probational period,” Pamela explained, “so they didn’t need a reason - but it’s pretty clear why they did it. My ‘lifestyle’ was incompatible with their ‘values’.”
“I was pissed off—it’s not like my personal life had ever interfered with my job. In fact, up until then, they’d constantly been telling me what a great job I did.”
So the question: Did the school have a legitimate reason for firing Pamela? Or were they just discriminating against her because of her lifestyle?
Her spanking had never interfered with her ability to do her job (aside from a few unexplained bruises) so you have to wonder if there was ever an objective justification for firing her.
I heard a similar story in a bar on Long Island:
After a dozen whiskey sours, an attractive older lady confessed she had an eye for big, black men—and her enthusiastic husband regularly invited ‘bulls’ to spend the weekend with them, enjoying no ‘holes’ barred gangbangs.
All was well until a neighbor got suspicious about the young, black men traipsing in and out of the condo next door—and called the HOA. The next day, the landlord told the couple to have their stuff packed and out by the end of the month.
They were a lovely couple, always paid the rent on time and kept their lawn immaculate; but the HOA didn’t like what they’d heard (or thought they’d heard) about their naughty nocturnal activities.
Was that right? I don’t know—but I do know that, according to the rules of the HOA, it was legal.
Another example? How about in Wisconsin—where a swinger’s club attempted to organize a ‘hotel takeover’ in Steven’s Point, booking an entire hotel for 200 couples for during a weekend of debauchery.
Despite being a private event, the local Police Chief vowed to use every city ordinance written to get the event canceled: Even holding the hotel hostage by threatening its liquor license.
“There’s a line in the sand when it comes to sexually promiscuous activity,” the Mayor of Steven’s Point complained. “It’s just not acceptable in Steven’s Point—and we have ordinances behind us to ensure it doesn’t take place.”
Is that discrimination too? Another example of kinky people being treated like second-class citizens?
Well, I’m concerned about using word ‘discrimination.’
‘Discrimination’ carries some pretty hefty connotations—including a fundamental difference between the ‘discrimination’ faced by those living a kinky lifestyle and the more traditional victims of social inequality: Choice.
If you’re a person of color, or a woman, or homosexual, you’re the victim of discrimination because of something you have no choice in—the way that you were born. Such discrimination is a violation of the principle that ‘all men are created equal’ (a principle supposedly sacred to American society).
But whether it’s spanking, wife sharing or swinging, a kinkster always has a choice about the form and venue their sexual expression takes—and that gives them freedom the others lack.
The kinky couple who organized those interracial orgies? They could have held them in a motel room, instead of their sleepy condo complex.
Likewise, the swinger’s group that organized the ‘hotel takeover’ in Wisconsin had held similar events all over the state. Why did they have to fight to hold their event where it clearly wasn’t wanted?
That tells me there’s a tightrope between acceptance and discrimination—and kinky people are balanced precariously on top of it.
I can understand kinksters’ frustration when they run into prejudice—but I also think there’s a point at which forcing other people to accept your ‘lifestyle’ goes too far, and becomes a somewhat offensive proposition in itself.
Kink, by it’s very definition, is outside of mainstream acceptability: So it’s self-defeating, not to mention unrealistic, to expect mainstream society to accept it in the same way they have done differences in race, gender and sexuality.
You know, I, personally, wish Roland was entirely wrong here. Philosophically, I think all people should be free to behave as they choose as long as they are not infringing upon the rights of others.
Legally, I don't think kinky folks are or ever will qualify as a minority group—but that doesn't mean that perhaps laws should be examined for how they deny anybody (regardless of kink, color, or opinion) the basic right to express themselves without being denied employment or living quarters or the right to raise their children.
He's right—this isn't the world we live in—but it is, perhaps, the world we should aspire to create.
I don't think that every living person can be counted as a minority. Everyone is a pervert.
I do like this article, as it does bring up many good points. However, I must say, on the topic of discrimination being *only* towards something you cannot choose, that's not entirely factual.
Say, religion for example. As a Wiccan, I have been discriminated against quite a bit (even publicly rebuked in school, by a very intolerant girl in front of my Creative Writing class). Not many would dare think that discrimination of religion doesn't occur, or that it is not considered actual discrimination.
However, a religion is technically considered a choice, because one is not initially born believing in a religion. One is taught different religions and also people make choices on which one, if any, to follow based on what they personally believe.
There are many other examples too. Just because the target of one's discrimination revolves around a choice, does not make it any less wrong, or any less of discrimination.
So, with all that in mind, and also the fact that discrimination of religion (and other examples) *does* exist, it is not too far out on a branch, nor inconceivable, to believe that basically, discrimination of other choices, (like being kinky) is actual discrimination as well.
Whether it's actually something that can or will be protected by law, I do not know. I would honestly *hope* so, though, as I believe that what goes on in someone's bedroom (as long as it doesn't involve children, animals, etc., and as long as there is informed consent) is their business and should *not* be used against someone for the purpose of firing them, evicting them, and otherwise screwing with their lives (that and I know I wouldn't want my job or housing to be in jeopardy because I am kinky, myself).
I'm not trying to put the author down, not at all, I'm just trying to bring up a point that, yes, discriminating against something that someone chooses, is still discrimination.
Also, as far as the bit on "forcing others to accept your lifestyle", I am accepting of other people's religions, even when their religions say that technically they should kill me: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", anyone? Or the fact that I should be stoned to death because I had/have premarital sex.
Just because I accept people of other religions (even the ones that technically say they need to kill me) and because I am open-minded and respect them and their beliefs, doesn't mean that I necessarily like every part of their religion (there again, with the whole, "Technically they should be killing me right about now and running after me with rocks" bit).
This can tie in to the whole "being open-minded towards kinks" part, because people don't have to like every single thing we do. But just as long as they think, "Hey, what you do in your spare time is your business" and don't feel the need to use the fact that we're kinky to try and basically make one's life miserable, get us fired from our jobs, and evicted from our homes, then fine.
I'm not saying that "Oh, Vanilla person, you absolutely, *have* to know that I like being tied up and spanked, AND YOU'LL BLOODY WELL LIKE IT (*Rawr!*)", just that a simple acceptance of "Hey, I'm not into that, but you're a good person anyway, and that's okay."
So let me get this straight: people renting rooms at the hotel in Wisconsin to cheat on their spouses is okay, but people renting rooms to have consensual sex with someone other then their spouse is not?
Messed-up logic if you ask me.
The definition of discrimination doesn't require that the people against whom the discrimination is acted upon be a member of a minority.
Also, prejudice isn't an action and isn't illegal; discrimination is an action and is likely to be illegal. If these prejudice and discrimination are confused it's impossible to make a meaningful legal argument.
There is legal precedent for actionable discrimination based on sexual orientation, of course [https://employment.findlaw.com/employment/employment-employee-discrimination-harassment/employment-employee-gay-lesbian-discrimination/] But that doesn't mean that sexual behavior and sexual orientation are the same thing, legally speaking.
I'm super jetlagged, pardon my grammar!
Hey Persephone Nightmare! Great point - but do you REALLY have any choice over your religion? Surely what you believe is what you believe - hence why Christians continue to worship despite being persecuted in Muslim countries, and Muslims worship here despite the tea party yelling 'Go Back Home' in front of mosques. My understanding of faith is that, by definition, you can't pick and choose it.
Jo - interesting point. Although if you look at many legal precedents - like affirmative action - it doesn't sometimes seem like discrimination is only considered so if the party discriminated against is a minority. But you're right to separate prejudice and discrimination - a very important distinction I wish I'd made more of in the article.
I think it's fundamentally unfair to say that people are "born homosexual" but to assume that those same people became kinky all on their own. If a non-sexual infant who becomes gay as he grows older is "born gay", why not the non-sexual infant who becomes kinky? Or promiscuous? I knew that I was into kinky things around the same time I knew I was into sex at all in the first place. I knew I was turned on by sex with lots of people and submissiveness long before I ever had sex.
Who are you to say I wasn't born a slut?
It's not just kink, but all areas of sexuality are discriminated against.You only have to post naked photos of yourself on the Web, and you could be out of a job. But get a speeding ticket, or photographed drunk, is no problem. Just this week, the American Association for Nude Recreation posted a nudist Bill of Rights, see here: [https://www.aanr.com/nudist-bill-of-rights]
The reason we general don't talk about our sex lives, is because we tend to get judged. The law should protect us all.
I like this article....but will keep my Kinky to myself and others like me aka my eden fam
This past week we've had a teacher busted for porn she filmed 20 yrs ago and a professor fired for being a burlesque performer. Do we want robots teaching our kids? Or can we accept humans as being multi-faceted? How come teachers are held to this unrealistic standard but sports players are not?