Going back to my recent exposition on the word “kink” for a moment, several commenters hinted that part of the appeal of kinkiness (whatever one chooses to call it) is that you get to distinguish yourself from the crowd of “normal” or “vanilla” people who stick to very plain, ostensibly non-kinky sex.
And that reminded me of a debate I read about lingerie in a members-only discussion group I used to contribute to.
Back in July, 2001, a poster said
I have found a certain brand of clothes that I like very much. It’s not expensive, but it’s sold in boutiques. I was talking to other folks who are devotees and said “I’ll love it with this stuff is at Target!.”
They were horrified. There was something clubbish about wearing the clothes to them.
I want the clothes sold and target, and I want everyone to have the opportunity to taste kink, if they want.
No link because the forum is closed to non-subscribers
It’s a pretty interesting point and counterpoint and one that addresses my strong preference for defining what is or ought to be general practice as normal. For instance not everyone rides a bicycle or plays the piano but they’re still considered perfectly normal things to do.
So here’s a question: How would you react if Target began selling good quality, low-cost sex accessories like the ones you can now find only at Babes in Toyland or Good Vibrations? How about The Gap? What if even Walmart started selling floggers, lube, butt-plugs, Xana & Dax or Damon & Hunter DVDs from Comstock Films in flyover places like Baxter Springs, Kansas, and Halls Crossroads, Tennessee?*
Me? I think it would be all for the good because more of the 125,000,000 adults in the U.S. (for a start) could discover and afford richer, more varied sex lives with their partners if and when they wanted to. At the cost, however, of the distinction of kinkiness (if pretty much everybody was doing it, even in Decora, Iowa, would it still be kinky?)
Discuss.
* Yes, yes, these days state legislatures are more inclined to ban “marital aids” than buy them for their sweeties, but then again those are currently boutique items only so large retailers don’t have a dog in the fight. If they did then legislators would be rolling over and wagging their tails to accomodate them.
Submitted by 729 (not verified) on Tue, 2006-04-25 15:19.
We can only dream of such a day... but perhaps it might happen, though I doubt in my lifetime. Just yesterday I was bemoaning the state of sex education; I'm a member of a few sex-education forums and holy cow, the things people don't know about sex and about their own bodies! It saddens me that there STILL is such repression of healthy, sex-positive information. I don't doubt that the day will come when we can buy our vibrators at Target, but I don't think it will happen until we see a true revolution in the way Americans think about sex... and that's a long way off.
[Either a long way off, or maybe one episode of Oprah. Seems like very ten or fifteen years someone comes out of the blue and moves the chains down the field in popular culture. David Reubin in the 1970s' (Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex), Dr. Ruth in the 80's... even, in a weird way, the Monica & Bill circus in the 90's. (The Lewinski story, for better or worse, brought fellatio out of the closet in a big, middle-class way.) By the way, I think you nailed it when you said "repression." It's worth remembering that roughly one in three first children in the 1950s were conceived in the back of a car and something like 25% of them were conceived out of wedlock as well. (Little known fact: both of Ronald Reagan's wives were pregnant at their weddings.) So it's not like even "vanilla" people haven't been *doing* "kinky" stuff all along. If they hadn't been then Reubin and Ruth and Lewinski wouldn't have been overnight sensations because people wouldn't have been ready for them. Instead it's that vanilla people aren't comfortable *admitting it!* And incidentally I think that's a problem for two reasons: first they feel bad about it because they think they're the only ones, second because without feedback from their peers they never get a chance to learn from each other's successes and mistakes. Finally? There aren't enough kinky people in the world to account for all the adult video sales and rentals in, say, Texas, let alone what's bought and watched in the rest of the country. So I'll agree with you to this extent: it might not happen for a long time. But I predict when it finally does it'll seem like it's happening overnight. Again. Thanks, Alice! --fl]
Submitted by 729 (not verified) on Tue, 2006-04-25 15:56.
Putting aside the corporate and union issues of Wal-Mart (not to mention destroying small businesses) and the birth control policies of Target, I'd be all for it. Target would probably hire a fab sex expert to design them and they'd look all hip and slightly ironic and they'd be decently made but not so expensive that you couldn't buy another.
On the other hand. I have enjoyed buying supplies from local businesses here in my town (and in Seattle). I love the artisanal quality of hand made rope, of expertly made floggers and of buying my toys from people who really know how they work. I'd rather go boutique than chain for things like that just cause I think the producers know more and care more. Like I love going to the farmer's market in spring and summer. I like locally owned bookstores too.
Maybe that is clubbish? I don't mean it to be. I just like the community.
[I guess what I'd say about that is that in Seattle, say, even though Amazon.com is located there, and there are Borders and Barnes & Nobles are all over the place, and even though it disrupted the local bookstore scene for a few years, there are as many small bookstores as ever. And I'm guessing that overall the advent of Victoria's Secrets, despite it's aura of artificial chocolate, has increased rather than decreased the overall demand for boutique lingerie. So I'm pretty confident that Monk would always stay in business even if Nordstrom (or Home Depot) brought out a line of hemp rope in designer colors. And the only real affect on Sunday's Salon de Sade would be it would be easier for her to lease a bigger space in Ballard. In other words I think we could have both. Thanks, Goose. --fl]
Submitted by 729 (not verified) on Tue, 2006-04-25 16:23.
Starbucks
[You'd love it if Starbucks would let people burn licensed copies of Matt & Khym! (I think they're heading that way, there's been muttering that they'll let people burn DVDs in stores...) Actually I don't know if you'd love it, but I would. Gotta get the word out somehow and if they ever decide to swing that way I'm pretty sure Starbucks corporate would select your stuff over any of the Industrials. Thanks, Tony. --fl]
Submitted by 729 (not verified) on Tue, 2006-04-25 16:31.
Starfucks!
[Hmm. Why not? Everyone thought they were stupid for trying to sell espresso to "thuh masses." Now the masses are buying so much of it the Deiter set has started boycotting it. And, luckily for them, there are maybe 1,000 non-Starbucks coffee shops in Seattle where they can go instead. (When I was in college there were only three, and the original Starbucks was one of them.) Same with microbrewery beer. Sooner or later someone will open the first of 50,000 Starfucks, or Sears or someone will buy out Babeland and then we can all go home... or to one of the 100,000 local/community alternatives that'll spring up to meet the sudden new demand. Might be later, or, as I was telling Alice, might be sooner. No way to know. Thanks, Goose. --fl]
Submitted by 729 (not verified) on Tue, 2006-04-25 16:44.
I get pretty irritated when other students of literature scoff at "Oprah Book Club" books - not because they are bad books but because they think the author has now "sold out". It is the same move to exclude and create hierarchies within some perceived elite or subculture. My thought is, the more people that get turned onto good literature, the better. Educators that scorn someone that promotes reading and excellent authors have their values backwards.
[Yeah, but Oprah selects maybe what? One book a month? And yeah, maybe a few million people from all walks (including no college) buy it. Still that's just kindling a fire, not fueling it. Maybe it's a total coincidence but since she started talking about it, both demand and supply for contemporary literature (and literature in general) is up sharply over, say, the ten years before she started her little project. Yeah, it might burn a couple people's butts that they're having to run with a more common crowd, but it's giving them a lot more room to run in. There's room for both. Thanks, Ellie! --fl]
Submitted by 729 (not verified) on Tue, 2006-04-25 18:21.
Wouldn't mind it in the least. Think of condoms. Now kids can go in and buy them without getting the evil eye. This is a good thing. But then, I promote openess about sexuality. Although I do have a problem with WalMart taking it over, quite frankly. Rubbermaid was cannibalized because they couldn't do WalMart's price point. Don't want that happening to places like Babes.
[Yup, and Rubbermaid was a good company (still is, for that matter.) I know some people who work for them. Still, for the parts of the country they serve there aren't any alternatives.... ok, thanks in part to Walmart... oof! Thanks, DN. --fl]
Submitted by 729 (not verified) on Tue, 2006-04-25 19:29.
Fig,
Carrying this argument to its logical conclusion, I picture a $1.99 Walmart vibrator assembled by slave labor in China. It inevitably stops working halfway through the first use (and cannot be returned).
I'll take my chances in that seedy storefront on the wrong side of the tracks. The corner grocer is extinct, but this guy is still alive and making a living.
[Yikes! Actually I think an awful lot of sex toys are already made in China. I'm sure the inner workings for most of them are. I guess I should have been more clear that I'm not *endorsing* Walmart, or anybody's predatory manufacturing processes. But you've got a good point already too many of the things fail very quickly and even the cheap Spencer Gifts ones I think you can still find in hinterland malls are too expensive. All good points, Bonnie. Thanks. --fl]
Submitted by 729 (not verified) on Tue, 2006-04-25 22:27.
I have to admit, I don't know what floggers are. Some sort of whip? Lube can be found next to the condoms at my local drugstore (basic Astroglide, anyway), and there's a small store at a shopping center near me that has flavored lubes, funny costumes, massagers, and other stuff.
[Yup, that's the stuff. Floggers are basically whips though they're generally used a lot more gently than they did in Mutiny on the Bounty. Chances are they have a few of those in your neighborhood shop as well. Thanks, Lynn. --fl]
Submitted by 729 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-04-26 02:33.
I think the issue you want to discuss is a semantic one. What does the word "kink" mean to you? Does it simply mean the fact that one is into gang bangs, floggers, leather gear, etc. or does it mean that one´s sexual practises constitute a minority in your part of the world. Wikipedia says "kinky" means "unconventional sexual practise", which suggests everything which is not merely done to procreate. Hence, even if all the customers of the chains you suggest start to buy such things, it is still up to you to call it "kink" if you like so. (If you understand the word "conventional" in the way I do. If you refer to it in terms of the minority theory, we are back to the start, but it really does not matter)
As to the question whether it is a good idea to have chains like Walmart sell sex toys: It surely might offend some of our conservative fellows, me myself would probably buy this or that once in a while just to try it. If it was displayed at the cashier`s desk at Giants, I´d surely have a larger collection. So, yes! I vote for that. Wow, I imagine standing in line at the cashier´s desk, behind me somebody like my general practitioner next door or my landlord and I have like the super size butt plug with the horse tail fixed to it. Then my general practioner would say: Oh I`ve tried these, but I prefer the ones with the feathers, they are really pretty, by the way, which lube do you use? I guess, I would have to be in a good mood to discuss such things with people like my neighbours. Another issue is: Kids. So, after reflecting the issue: I do think sex toys must not be sold in shops where kids can see them. I hide my sex toys very well from kids and I think it is not a good idea to have kids know about bondage or butt plugs, they find it disgusting until they dicover by themselves in due time. My point is: It is good to have toys offered widely to all adults, but you must choose a shop where kids do not have access. Back to Babeland.....
[Wow, Sistasilk! Great, thoughtful reply. I completely agree that it's semantics, I just believe semantics are huge. (Consider two statements that, semantics extracted, mean exactly the same thing: "Dessert isn't necessary for survival" and "Dessert is a is a delightful treat." Think there's any judgment in either of those?) Also, consider the issue with either of your definitions: if "conventional" means "only for reproduction" then 99% of the sex almost everyone has, including any sex after you learn one partner is pregnant, is unconventional! Similarly, if "kinky" means "minority practice" then the previously defined "conventional" sex is unquestionably a minority practice and therefore kinky! As for exposing children to sex at all, I absolutely believe they should be carefully and consciously introduced to it at points where it's developmentally appropriate no matter what kind of sex people have. But I think the same thing is true about exposure to, say, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms yet all those are sold in box stores without overexposing them to children. Thanks for the good response. --fl]
Submitted by 729 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-04-26 04:40.
well, it's like the "alternative" genre that was around in the early 90s. As soon as the "seatle sound" became so popular that they were selling pseudo thrift store jackets for $900 made by gucci, everyone started to doubt whether the term 'alternative' was adequate to describe the genre anymore. It wasn't.
It happens when you bring anything into the mainstream. It ceases to be a "fringe activity" and the whole idea changes.
But I'd be willing to bet that bringing 'kink' into Target will entice yet another fringe group of exclusives who will refuse to shop for their floggers and paddles anywhere but the boutiques - even though, in reality half the fun has always been taking the mundane (household peg) and turning it into something "kinky" (nipple clamp).
[Bingo! I'm not saying people couldn't, or wouldn't, or shouldn't seek out fringe activity or novel experiences. I'm just saying that Yogi Berra's quip that "nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded" isn't a very progressive dictum for sex (or anything else.) Is cunnilingus any less enjoyable now that it's no longer daring? Do only the avant guard have the right nerve endings to enjoy prostate or g-spot stimulation? :-) Thanks, M. --fl]
Submitted by 729 (not verified) on Wed, 2006-04-26 09:25.
Todd Oldham could design anal beads and condom wrappers for Target! YES!
Target pharmacists would then be forced to fill Rxs for the pill, RU486, diaphragms, whatever, 'cause if you're lucky, kink leads to good sex!
[Yup, and then Nike and Title Nine could introduce stylish, ergonomic, and (relatively) affordable restraints. And so on. And look, it would be a lot easier to see that the pharmacists you mentioned are way-out-of-the-mainstream kooks if they weren't able to swaddle themselves in the word "conventional." Semantics matter. Which, as always, is my point in when I go off like this over terminology. How the hell can 80-85% of the population be "unconventional?" How the *fucking* hell can as little as 15% of the population (and less than half a percent of pharmacists) claim they own the standard and everybody else is wrong? Thanks, Mona. --fl]