whoremoantherapy:

Omg, I read the rest of thepeacockangel‘s argument with that rando trying to claim that bdsm necessarily entails replicating oppressive power dynamics largely based on gender and how the term “kink” is totally different and cool…even though it’s a literal synonym for bdsm except I tend to associate it with rapey hetero swinger types. 

And I’m not going to reblog it since I don’t get into “debates” with people clearly lacking the intelligence to do so. But I want to point out how even though she doesn’t mention it explicitly, it’s pretty clear to me from reading her responses that the reason she fails to see how her argument relies entirely on compulsory heterosexuality is because she’s one of those cis women who fetishizes trans men and doesn’t view those relationships as heterosexual. 

One of the things I basically see as a giveaway in that regard is that she constantly makes reference to “cis men” when specifying their cis/trans status is completely irrelevant to the discussion. And then when thepeacockangel challenged her about her heterosexism she said something like, “Even queer bdsm relationships replicate oppressive power dynamics because they almost always revolve around fetishizing the woman!” And then she went on to write an entire paragraph about how what’s she’s saying applies to queer people too, and using several examples, while literally making no reference at all to same sex coupling. 

You see, this is the problem with abusing terminology. Like she’s been accused of ignoring gay people yet chooses to substitute the term queer for gay in her response as if those terms are interchangeable and therefore thinks what she’s writing makes sense even though she still continues to ignore gay people throughout. Like if the word “queer” suddenly dropped out of her lexicon then she wouldn’t have been able to get away with that absurdist answer. Because how much sense would it make to write, “Even gay bdsm relationships replicate oppressive power dynamics because they almost always revolve around fetishizing the woman!” It’d be like um, which woman? And how can I fetishize someone’s gender when it’s the same as mine? And then she wouldn’t be able to get away with her heterosexist transphobic nonsense that requires so much semantics you have to scroll down around a dozen times just to read it all. 

If that woman is reading this I sort of want to say, “BDSM isn’t the problem you’re describing…men (and to some extent all masculine people) are. You would recognize this if you saw the men you date as men even though they have vaginas. And no fucking wonder you have zero concern for people in same sex relationships. Your entire worldview is so twisted you’ve lost any understanding of what a same sex relationship is.” 

And yes, I’m making a ton of assumptions here. I’ve just seen this pattern way too many times it’s become incredibly telltale.