Love Me Like You Hate Me

 Saddle up, kids, because the Magpie is mad about a video on the internet again. Content warnings apply for discussions of sexual assault, consent, queer stuff, and a whole plethora of different types of prejudice and phobias.

As readers of my articles and general members of my social sphere may know already, I'm a big proponent of sex work advocacy. I find the area interesting, it's sometimes ethically fraught and complex, and it's one in which a lot of marginalized oppressions and issues dovetail together. There's a ton of societal prejudice involved as well. So when I see discussions about sex work - which are related to issues of drug decriminalisation, police abolition and reform, and prison abolition and reform as well - I perk up. 

This time, however, I was about to be very disappointed.

Don't trust the character witnesses

 Let's start by talking about two of the figures alluded to in the video. There was a controversy surrounding much-maligned influencer Belle Delphine's use of bondage and a gag in a photoshoot that appeared on her Twitter. Personally, many of Belle Delphine's "scandalous" activities don't bother me in the least. They're one of the best things about her. I agree that she's hilarious and clever - but stealing other sex workers' nudes is absolutely not okay. in addition to just being theft of someone else's hard work, it's a huge violation of privacy. 

That being said, people subscribing to her who complained about sexual photo content featuring a kink are absolutely baffling. They have the option to unfollow her, and not consent to things. If someone is explicitly a sexually-focused adult content creator, being upset when they stray outside certain norms seems stupifyingly naive and entitled. Content warnings aren't a bad practice - but when a certain type of content is a normal part of someone's output, it seems disingenuous to be shocked. After all, this is not just another Disney starlet turned provocateuse we're talking about - it's someone who explicitly makes, well, explicit content. 

Hot girls want respect 

In relation to the sex industry, erotic content, and the like, discussions of the nature of sex work and its inherent morality in the context of exploitative systems often crop up. However, these discussions usually occur about sex workers rather than with them - a prime example being Hot Girls Wanted.

   Actual sex workers HATED Hot Girls Wanted because the production mistreated the same people it was trying to "save". It doxxed sex workers and included a ton of footage without their consent. 

Do not trust people in the rescue industry or who talk about "human trafficking" in hushed tones, but focus on the 13% of sex trafficking rather than the other agricultural and domestic labour trafficking that comprises the majority of the market. Jones particularly shaped the narrative to fit that kind of "sex is empowerment, but uh-oh, girls are over their heads" perspective that anti-sex work rescue organizations tend to push. It's condescending and disrespectful to the adult people participating.

 

I'm not saying that there aren't nuances to this, but the fact remains that the majority of people actually abused in sex work tend to be people of colour, often trans or queer youths, or those with disabilities or mental and physical health issues - or a combination of the above. And even then, what we should be doing is not "registering" or "legalizing" sex work - which tends to involve barriers for the very poorest people trying to survive on it - but should be decriminalizing it and providing access to health clinics and other resources.

   Now, with that said, let's talk about the broader issue of consent and perceived exploitation - especially in reference to the video's comment section. 

Talking first matters

 

The fact that people don't know the difference between BDSM and abuse is really disturbing. BDSM is not abuse because by definition, consent is involved. Abuse happens without consent. If someone wants something, and asks for it, that's so drastically different from a guy choking a girl without asking. (Note that the video references only straight-facing or female-male interactions, ignoring the long history of association between queerness and kink; something that I'll get to in a second.) Broadly, the lack of understanding of female, afab, and other genders' roles in their own pleasure is kind of disturbing. And after all, someone doesn't need to know about BDSM to treat a woman badly. 

Of course it's absurd to penalise people for enjoying "vanilla" sex - that shouldn't be insulted either. We can have both acceptance of kink and non-heterosexual or unconventional sex, while leaving plenty of room for "normal" sex. The fact that all of this is a shifting target, that "normalcy" changes anyway, should not be ignored either. But as usual, people are a lot madder at some teenage girls on Tiktok for normalizing something than they are at men for exploiting miscommunications or not saying things in the first place. And besides - it's not like Tiktok invented mainstream kink.

Fifty Shades of Are You Kidding

The fact that the video blatantly ignores or forgets the existence of the hyper-marketed Fifty Shades series, which - for all its many, many faults - mainstreamed the concept of pornography for women, especially kinky pornography, is stupifying. I realise the creator is 22, but even if she somehow didn't know that the international series existed, it would be hard to search BDSM without the series cropping up somewhere in the Google results. 

 It's certainly frustrating to see people blame young girls and women simultaneously for their ignorance and for role-modelling bad behaviour. But this begs the question - at what point are people allowed to stop being treated as potential role models? That can stifle self-expression. 

There's also a subtler problem, not mentioned in the video but discussed in the comments - the fact that kink isn't just a thing played with by straight or straight-facing couples. Kink and BDSM have deep roots in the LGBTQ+ community. 

Acceptable queerness

The comments on the video mention the relationship between kink and Pride events as well, with many readers expressing disgust or discomfort with "children seeing that sort of thing." Others countered that Pride wasn't about catering to straight people's families. All of this, however, avoids a brass tacks discussion: what specific kinks and displays were people finding offensive? 

People alluded to seeing leashes and bondage harnesses, and mentioned nudity - but full-on nudity would indecent exposure anyway. As radical a position as I often take, I'm fine with saying that people should cover their genitals in public. That seems like a pretty reasonable stance. 

I checked in with other friends who've seen a few Prides over the years, and they mentioned that the worst they've seen were a few leather daddies - men in chaps, harnesses, and that sort of thing; maybe bottoms that were too tight. I've seen some rope harnesses here and there, but never actual nudity at parades. 

Here's the thing. Online adverts, movies, side banners, game ads particularly - any of these display women in sexually provocative gear on a regular basis. But because it's catered towards a straight male gaze, it passes without comment. I have never had a problem with sexual advertising, but I do have a big problem with the double standard for queer folks and non-gender conforming presentations. Things that wouldn't draw a second glance if a hot blonde woman wore them, when transposed onto other bodies, are suddenly shocking and appalling and not fit for children.

It is also interesting that of the people who've been caught performing non-normative kink acts in public, all of them were straight or straight-facing couples. Queer couples aren't even allowed to get married in every country, meaning that they're usually deprived of marriage-locked social system benefits, including things like seeing one's partner at the hospital during a health emergency. Marriage isn't just a cutesy conformist luxury - it represents an access to certain rights. Because LGBTQ+ couples are tolerated in many countries, but only just, and persecuted or criminalised in many others, it's perhaps unsurprising that all of the people inflicting their kinks on the public outside of Pride events are overwhelmingly straight-facing or straight and white. 

What's the takeaway? 

Lecturing the person getting choked unexpectedly for not talking about what they're into is victim-blaming. There is no way to be a good enough person to avoid aggression. The problem is the person performing that aggression in the first place. 

And once again - why are we policing women, or afab people and queers, rather than demanding that men be the ones to learn how to talk about kink? Why are guys not getting consent before they choke someone?

***

Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer and editor. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partner-in-crime and their cats. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and learning too much. She is currently working on other people’s manuscripts, the next books in her series, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible.

Find her all over the internet: * OG Blog * Mailing list * Magpie Editing * Amazon * Medium * Twitter * Instagram * Facebook * Tumblr * Paypal.me * Ko-fi