Mutually Exclusive vs. Mutually Inclusive (vs. Overlapping?)

A metatextual post on kink morality debates, in which I outline three primary approaches I’ve seen to the topic, and in which my primary purpose is to highlight a false dichotomy that eclipses the possibility of the third option.

Sorry in advance for being wordy.  You can also just look at the graphs.
Here’s the mutually exclusive approach:


(depicted: BDSM/kink excludes abuse; they are separate categories)

The mutual-exclusion rhetoric of “BDSM vs. Abuse (and all kink is BDSM)” is the approach I’ve seen most often among libfems and conservative advocates invested in curating a positive community image and championing individual liberty.  I won’t go into my criticisms of this approach here (but I have talked about it elsewhere, in my posts on “the difference between BDSM and abuse” and on “real doms”).

Here’s the mutually inclusive approach:


(depicted: BDSM/kink is a subtype of abuse; the BDSM category is entirely within the abuse category; circles not to scale)

Note that I’ve labeled this type of anti-kink rhetoric “politically-based” to differentiate it from anti-kink rhetoric on the basis of “ew, gross” (although there is often overlap).  The mutual-inclusion rhetoric of “BDSM is abusive (and all kink is BDSM)” is the approach I’ve seen most often among radfems and non-kinky conservatives.  I think this approach has several deficiencies that I won’t get into here.

Here’s an overlapping approach, the approach I take:


(depicted: Venn diagram of kink and abuse categories partly overlapping with each other; circles/overlap area not to scale)

Summarizing the distribution of this approach is tricky, because I’ve seen some strange waffling between this and mutual exclusion as well as this and mutual inclusion.  For instance, one individual may insist that “BDSM is not abuse” but also acknowledge that there are dangerous people in the Scene (and de-emphasize the fact with “true dom” rhetoric or imply we shouldn’t focus on that).  Another individual might describe all kinks as abusive, but also make a note that some atypical interests (that others might classify as kinky) aren’t what they mean when they talk about kink, so that they can 100% disapprove of “BDSM/kink” while actually approving of some kinks.

In its “default” form (as in, the approach that people start with, rather than revert to when pressed only to snap back to their original a paragraph later) the overlapping approach is actually quite hard to find, in my experience.  The main demographic which I’ve encountered it in is a small number of critical and/or disillusioned kinksters, who place various kinds of emphasis on and give various estimates of abuse within the community.

This is meant to be more of a metatextual post, so I won’t go into how I’d argue my particular stance.

Instead, for this post, I’m interested discussing what happens when I’ve tried to argue my particular stance.  This’ll be describing a specific phenomenon that has happened, not an all-enveloping prediction (so, if what’s described here isn’t what you would do… congratulations, this post isn’t about you).

What I’ve experienced in conversation with practitioners of the mutual-exclusion approach, who may as well be thought of as kinky PR agents, is that when I’ve articulated an overlapping approach, I’ve been accused of taking the mutually inclusive approach (or something close enough for jazz).

This really doesn’t make much sense, so I’m trying to figure out why that is.

Here are a couple of things I’ve observed:

  • Mutual-exclusion rhetoric typically presents itself in reaction to mutual-inclusion rhetoric & has that influence all over it.
  • In kink morality arguments, mutual exclusion rhetoric (kinky PR) and mutual inclusion rhetoric (kinks are evil) are usually presented as an either-or binary, as if those are the only two ways of thinking about the topic.

So, here’s my speculation:

  • If I don’t embrace/espouse kinky PR while talking about kink and abuse, these KPR agents are finding me guilty of not believing hard enough in KPR
  • OR, while the KPR agent agrees (nominally) with an overlapping approach, talking about kinky abuse is a threat to KPR and therefore kinky abuse should not be discussed publicly (or not without copious disclaimers)
  • OR, KPR agents believe that the overlapping approach should be reserved for people with enough community credentials, and that before I can openly discuss or learn about kinky relationships I need to have one first
  • OR, the idea of overlapping categories is a rigorous and advanced mental concept beyond most mere mortals’ comprehension
  • OR, something that hasn’t occurred to me yet!

What do you think it is?



6 responses to “Mutually Exclusive vs. Mutually Inclusive (vs. Overlapping?)

  • Siggy

    While I am not particularly invested in kink discourse, the pattern you describe sounds similar to patterns in, well, basically all public discourse. People are by nature reactionary. If some ideology particularly bothers them, they tend to overrate the probability that any given person is espousing that ideology. Or maybe they’re not overrating the probability, and the rest of us are just underrating it, who can say?

    Since being reactionary is common, you can build a theory of mind of reactionaries by considering how you’ve felt when you were being reactionary towards someone. Here’s how I’ve felt: This person claims to be my ally, and they may even believe that, but that doesn’t make it true. This person may have token agreement with me, but doesn’t prioritize my issues. This person shows unfamiliarity with my issues. This person doesn’t realize that my opponents make the exact same points, in service of evil. This person believes my opponents are cartoon villains, whereas I know my opponents are diffuse and problematic attitudes, including attitudes that this person obviously holds. This person might be moving goal posts, or using bait and switch. This person may be a concern troll, so their advice is suspect. This person is talking the talk, but not doing it very well, so I don’t trust them to walk the walk.

    • Siggy

      Just adding a note to say that “reactionary” is frequently associated with ultra-conservative politics, but I am not using it in that sense here. Maybe I should use a different word.

    • Coyote

      Yeah, I figured it was probably something like that. Being so wound up about the Kinks Are Evil brigade that they don’t even notice that I’ve multiple times made it clear I’m not in that group. But I figure there’s got to be a way to get them to notice somehow?

      • luvtheheaven

        I think human beings are very bad at noticing that all things aren’t a binary, completely right vs. completely wrong, black and white, only two options, etc, but when you make a blog post like this explaining how there are actually THREE stances taken, not just two, that’s a really good way to open their eyes to their error. They assume if you’re not in the side I’m already in, you must be in the only other one (which is the only other side that I know about) when really if they slowed down and read your words and thought about what you were saying, especially if they took the time to read other blog posts of yours too, they would’ve probably figured out you were in a third, different, camp.

  • Gaslighting & Love – From Fandom to Family: Sharing my many thoughts

    […] are a lot of conversations around about how abuse and other things are mutually exclusive, such as throwaway comments about how if a parent really loves you, then they don’t do [item […]

WP account not required to comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: