non-kink

Proxy Fetish: Being Turned On By One's Partner's Turn-Ons

| Tags:
Wed, 2010-09-01 17:34

Here’s one of Holly of The Pervocracy more delightful kinks.

I find that serving others’ kinks is, for me, a kink in itself. The archetypal example is foot fetishism. It does, really, nothing for me. Feets is feets, and might as well be elbows or nostrils for all I care. But when a guy is into feet — that does something for me. The nothing-in-particular I feel having my toes sucked turns into an oh holy God YES when I see what it does to him. I don’t want my toes sucked, but I want my toes sucked by a foot fetishist.

Read the quote in context here.

I don’t know how common that particular kink is. If you even want to call it that. It might be common enough that you wouldn’t even call it a kink.

Anyway, I’m often that way. Vanilla sex with a vanilla partner is delightful. Outdoor sex isn’t usually my thing but it’s been wonderful with a partner who loved it. Same with dirty talking, which usually makes me want to roll my eyes.

Although truth be told it took me a while to get over some of my social hangups. In the pre-G-Spot days there was the partner who tried to convince me she only got off on penetration. That kind of freaked me out since I “knew” vaginal sensation was a myth and a sign of self-oppression… and so I broke things off. And I practically ran away from someone who said she fantasized about spankings. But… in retrospect all I want to do is look them up some day and apologize. It’s not just that I was being a big jerk who was sure he know what other people should or shouldn’t be turned on by, it was that if I’d let myself listen to myself then they and I would have had perfectly delightful times together.

Ok, Time to Stop Treating Healthy Vanilla Relationships as if We Already Know Everything That Needs to be Known About Them

Mon, 2010-06-21 22:28

You know, the anonymously-authored blog 25 Things About My Sexuality provides an imperfect but still very good window into other people’s takes on their own sexuality. The premise is you email 25 things about your sexuality to the listed address and, as far as I can tell, whereupon they’re published. I have no idea whether and/or how they’re selected, filtered, or edited — which is part of what I mean about its imperfection. But the results are varied enough to offer insights into sexual experience one might not otherwise get.

At any rate, an entry from June 15, 2010 begins 1. This account is going to be less colorful than some, but it may also be more typical. Us vanilla people have stories to tell, too.

If you follow the link you’ll find a perfectly average, and perfectly wonderful, account of a 21-year-old heterosexual, self-defined vanilla woman who’s very comfortable with her sexuality in the context of the relationships she’s had with her partners.

After a couple of great conversations last week in New York and D.C., some brief and some very long, with a number of very thoughtful people it’s just been really sinking in lately how deeply we take relationships as a given when we confer about sex, kink, gender, and media.

It’s not that we don’t take relationships into account. We do! It’s just that we tend to treat them sort of the way birds treat air or fish treat water.

I’d really like to see that changed. A one-night stand is a relationship. Two people watching porn together are in a relationship, even when they’re not also long-term partners. A customer who hires a sex worker is in a relationship, and, more significantly, may be in a domestic relationship with another partner as well. Conversely, those who’s sex and romance life is limited to vibrators, lube, and/or tissues in the solitude of their own bedrooms may not be in relationships — a phenomenon that also tends to be handwaved away with terms like “loser,” “low status,” “cat lady,” “loner,” or even “asexual,” rather than considered as a social being. But I digress…

It seems to me that the most of most people’s sex lives more or less resemble the anonymous poster’s, which we tend to dismiss as the neutral flavor to which all the more interesting flavors of kink may be added. And yet… and yet… without that base what’s left is often just a bunch of pretty syrup and sprinkles puddled in the bottom of the bowl. And even without the added flourishes the base tends to still be… pretty fucking fantastic.

Again that’s not to say the extra flavors, textures, aromas, and sprinkles of kink are without merit. Quite the opposite, they’re often delightful. I just think we should stop taking “vanilla” for granted.

Not least, I might add, it should stop being taken for granted by “vanilla” people themselves.

My Problem With the Word "Kink" is a Lot Like My Problem With the Word "Gourmet"

Mon, 2010-04-05 14:48

So back in the days of my stay-at-home dad career, when online forums like Compuserve and Usenet were current and blogs were still a gleam in a few pioneer’s eyes I used to hang out on a couple of parenting and home-life forums. Topics ranged all over the map, obviously, but some of them were pretty recipe intensive.

I’ll never forget* a short thread on, I think, meatloaf or meatball sauces for spaghetti where one poster said her sister in law was “a real gourmet” because she used French onion soup mix instead of regular onion soup mix in her recipes. She said it in a way that implied she was slightly admiring, slightly intimidated, and maybe slightly unsure the extra effort would be worth it.

Anyway, the other day in conversation one fairly staid (as far as I know) friend mentioned to another that a particular camisole could be worn under a jacket as a blouse. (Or maybe a blouse could be worn like a camisole? Either way it seemed pretty darn innocuous.) The other friend’s eyes grew wide and she laughed and said, with what sure seemed like sincerity to me, “you really are a little kinky aren’t you?”

So what can you say to that anyway? Is French onion soup mix gourmet in a way that regular onion soup mix isn’t? More to the point, is French onion soup mix on the same continuum with Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top (with or without spam) in some way that plain onion soup mix isn’t?

Well, similar problems present themselves with “kink” then don’t they? It’s not that there’s no such thing, any more than there’s no such thing as “gourmet.” It’s that if French onion soup mix can be gourmet and wearing a camisole as a top can be kinky then there’s virtually no such thing that can’t be “gourmet” or “kink!”

And in the case of “kink,” the intense self-restraint that must be imposed in order to avoid any hint of “kinkiness” at all is restrictive enough to constitute a kink in its own right!

* Ok, I guess if I can’t remember if it was meatloaf or pasta sauce I eventually will forget, but I won’t forget the “real gourmet” remark. —fl

Garden Variety Kink

Sun, 2006-04-23 13:06

Yesterday I spoke briefly about mistaken understandings of the word “kink”.

Generally, when most of us here “kink” we typically think “any kind of sex beyond bedtime penis-in-vagina missionary-position intercourse that’s preceded by kissing with maybe a little fellatio or cunnilinugus thrown in, and that’s followed by resuming everyday activities such as brushing your teeth and going to sleep.

That’s not a very useful definition of “kink.” For one thing it’s a “negating definition,” an “anything-but-this” one. Actually that right there should be a bit of a flag — if we can only define something by what it’s not then, well, by definition we don’t have a very good idea of what it is! Ok, so what is it?

Well, it’s a metaphor derived from plumbing (though it’s also used in wiring and fence-building.) A kink is a constricting flaw in a pipe or hose. Since it’s an awfully nice day out today I decided to illustrate the point with a garden hose.

Illustration #1 is an un-kinked garden hose. The hose is laid out in a straight line with the faucet wide open. Water gushes out unimpeded.


Not kinked, see the full-size image here.

Illustration #2 shows the same garden hose with a kink in it. Notice little water is coming out of the hose even though the faucet is still wide open. A kinked hose is blocked, effectively damaged, and unable to function properly.


Literally, non-metaphorically kinked, see the full-size image here.

Illustration #3 shows the same garden hose, unkinked, but laid out into sinuous, sensuous loops and turns. This time the hose is not laid out straight, but since there are no kinks in the hose water still gushes out of it unimpeded.


Not straight, not kinked, and still fully-functional, see the full-size image here.

And here’s the deal. In photo #3 the hose isn’t laid out in a utilitarian straight and narrow line, but that doesn’t make it kinked, not at all, at all. It’s working just fine, thank you. In fact, unlike its previous straight-line configuration you could say it’s working beautifully!

A “kinked” hose is the only kind of hose that can’t fully fill whatever it is you’re trying to put water into. The curved, rolled hose with its relaxed twists and loops, though not straight and missionary-style utilitarian, is just as capable of full filling whatever is needed.

So, now that we understand the metaphor let’s reapply it to sex. Now we can understand that just as a kinked hose is un-full-filling, “kinky” sex is nothing more than unfulfilling sex. And we can confirm Madame X’s suspicion about kink. The curved and rolled sex she enjoys, with their relaxed twists and loops are not kinks, as she correctly notes, because she finds them fulfilling.

All this, I think, supports my contention that

...kinky [is] any behavior you feel compelled to engage in even though you don’t enjoy it. This much more limited definition would apply both to, for instance, the pedophile who’s deeply ashamed of his behavior, or someone with a same-sex orientation who feels obliged to form sexual partnerships with members of the opposite sex, or someone with no sexual desire at all who feels they have to have some kind of sex with somebody. And since Madame (and most other people) appear to enjoy their “kinks” very much, those things aren’t actually kinks at all.

Two more genuine kinks: If you’re giving in to your partner’s demand for sex then that’s kinky even if it’s missionary/man-on-top/lights-out sex. (If you’re only acquiescing then it’s still kinky, by the way, even if you wind up having an orgasm. Especially if you resume feeling bad, or worse, about it after.) Another sign of kinkiness, by the way, would be when you do the “walk of shame” the next morning and you really feel ashamed! The point is it’s a kink if it’s something that makes you feel out of integrity before or afterwards whether you’re experiencing arousal at the time or not.

In fact, I’d like to argue that if you really feel constrained to have sex only as described up at the top — “bedtime penis-in-vagina missionary-position intercourse that’s preceded by kissing with maybe a little fellatio or cunnilinugus thrown in, and that’s followed by resuming everyday activities such as brushing your teeth and going to sleep” — then you may be dealing with a few kinks of your own!

User login