“I want to exist, but I don’t want to be harmful” – a lot of us, probably

After you get over the monumental hurdle known as “not loathing the fact you like things”, there is a common follow-up inner war that rages on inside of a lot of us; if it’s okay for us to exist, how much is is okay for us to exist?

Of course we can’t roll up into every situation totally decked out in our new-found self acceptance. That extreme is very obviously a no-go, but I also don’t think that only allowing yourself to exist in ways that are imperceptible to others is the answer either.

So where’s the line?

The rules of consent

The most important rules in any kink context (or with any sexuality in general!) are the rules of consent.

Basically we are responsible for what we put out into the world, and if by putting something out there, we involve someone who did not explicitly consent to be included with our kinks, we are doing something Terribly Wrong.

I think that trying to respect this rule is the reason why so many people feel like the only acceptable way to exist is “imperceptibly”. When you want to do good by others, and the only way to exist around them is by explicitly asking them about something extremely personal that they might not even care about, that barrier to entry makes it very easy to make it seem like the only non-exhausting way to morally exist is to pretend like you don’t.

On one hand, this dedication to respecting others is admirable! But this line of thinking actually has a pretty big double-standard hidden deep within that isn’t doing us any favors too: What exactly does it mean to “involve” someone in something? And what are the implications of us not considering that?

Sexuality != Sex

The status quo is filled with examples of acceptable displays of sexuality, be it as simple as holding hands and kissing, or as complex and ubiquitous as the way society recognizes relationships, to the point where it is documented on some of the most boring and mundane paperwork on the planet.

These things aren’t sex, but are a recognition of sexuality.

Sure, you can extrapolate from your tax documents that intimacy might have happened with someone in specific, but showing someone your tax documents, sadly, isn’t an action that the rules of consent typically apply to.

Weddings are basically just huge parties where the sole purpose for many people throwing them is to declare to the world that they wish to be intimate with someone!

Basically, the implication of intimacy isn’t the same as exposing people to said intimacy.

So, if that’s the case, then the main sin kink must be committing is not that it can imply sexuality, but that it must be inherently sexual itself, and therefore immoral to draw attention to, right?

What’s okay for others versus what’s okay for me

Have you ever seen someone joke about your kink in a casual setting? (Even if you haven’t I’d like you to imagine for a moment what that would be like)

…does it seem immoral for them to have done that?

Now, I can’t read your thoughts, but if I had to guess at what your answer was, at worst, it would be weird, right? But very likely it probably wouldn’t feel actually-immoral for them to have said that, right?

The absolutist “it’s irresponsible to be visible at all” idea implicates that those very same words would be immoral or inappropriate coming from you, strictly on merit of the fact that you like the thing being joked about.

But why does this transformation happen? If the topic were something inherently immoral to bring up, then shouldn’t those rules apply to others as well?

Double standards aren’t good standards

So, if kinks themselves aren’t inherently immoral to bring up, and the implication that they exist isn’t the same as exposing others to those things, what does this mean for the idea that the only moral way to exist is by effectively erasing ourselves?

It means it’s a double-standard, silly!

Obviously we still need to be respectful of others, but visibly liking something that could be seen as kinky isn’t nearly the cardinal sin that it might intuitively seem to be.

Being visible normalizes the idea that we are beautifully diverse, and that it’s okay to exist outside of the status quo–and by quashing ourselves, we not only are limiting that message, but we are subjecting ourselves to a standard that simply doesn’t exist. Because it can’t!

But if that’s true, then how much can we morally exist in the public eye?

I think the answer to that lies within the rules of consent–but applied without the distortion that there is something inherently “wrong” with specifically-our-own kinks being anything besides invisible and unknown; it’s okay to be known! Just not okay to engage others without consent.

Double standards aren’t good standards, so we shouldn’t feel the moral responsibility to hold ourselves to them, but instead should treat all involved with respect–and that includes ourselves!