Every once in a while I run into like. Broad criticisms of X kink along the lines of 'inherently problematic', 'promotes immoral action', '[synonym of degenerate]', etc. I feel some compulsion to defend the kink. Partially, it's that so many defenses I do see are just kinda bad.
"Kink is okay because I do it to cope with trauma". Ok, but what about those of us that don't. Saying 'you have to be this traumatized to like getting hurt' is stupid. "Kink is okay because it's purely fantasy." Ok, but what if I do actually hurt people and like hurting people. "Kink is okay because it's all purely negotiated with safe words." Please do not base your arguments on such an ethereal concept as 'good practice of consent'.
In any case, I don't really think the argument should ever really be about "is kink okay?" To answer the question is to accept the question as meaningful. As I see it, it's about disgust, and the morality of disgust.
One of my partners, my girlfriend that I live with, has a relatively bad response to fictional incest. It's a trigger for her, from her own past. She's especially made uncomfortable by jokes about it or by justifications for it. But, she gets even angrier when people are confused that she has no problem with people writing incest. I mean, I'm not sure "don't like, don't read" is the solution, per se, but it's a start.
I admit I don't think too highly of morality in general because of how much of it feels motivated by ideals of disgust. Disgust and punishment. Very human motivations, in the worst way. Justify your morality without them, please.
But, to me, the true problem with disgust based morality is that they are normative. They will always see things that are unusual as wrong. And further, they are more likely to see things that are seen as unusual as wrong.
Growing up autistic, you quickly learn that people will just kinda hate you at random. It's always funny when fantasy writers try to evopsych about uncanny valley because apparently I'm the mysterious evolutionary predator of humans that they had to evolve a mechanism to avoid. The way you move, the way you speak, the way you write. You have to practice not only to fit in but just to earn a seat at the table rather than just instant aggression.
The fundamental flaw with "this heuristic has problems, sure, but we can account for them" will always be the same. At the edges there will be cases you didn't account for. In attempting to extract misogyny from a misogynistic system, you'll account for women but only white women because they're the closest to white men. You do what's easy, and you say "I'll do the hard part later".
I wish to tear your system to pieces with my teeth. I would do this slowly and intentionally, for I do not burn with anger, but it would satisfy something inside me.
Fixing your morality by removing obvious sources of disgust functions similarly. You permit cishets to play incest and ageplay, but never marginalized groups that you already have some disgust for. In the intersection, we find that you didn't actually care to fix anything at all, for us.
Taking a step back, what does it mean to engage with the question "Is kink okay?" We live in a society that supports the ideal of the free marketplace of ideas through the ritual of debate. The better idea rises to the top, you see? The rules of debate have decayed to the point where the only rule is 'low stakes'. To engage in debate is to tacitly accept that this is low stakes. That this doesn't really matter. If you get angry after sitting down, it's really you that were in the wrong for violating the ritual, you see. So, if you intend to get angry, don't sit down. And if you do sit down, it tells the rest of us that you consider this all to be low stakes.
I think, to me, the problem with all these arguments is that the very notion of 'bad kink', the very concept of 'call outs', the very center of 'punish the bad ones'. They are problems. They can not be made better. They are the tools of the oppressor. You cannot fix them. You cannot use them for good. You will fail.
This is not a "sword that corrupts you" situation where if you're pure of heart you get one (1) free swing. You are not pure of heart, you do not have willpower, you do not have a soul. This is a "telling the cops where to shoot" situation. The tools of power exist to support power, and any engagement with them supports them. There is no revolution to be found in wielding the master's tools, for they cannot destroy the master's house.
I feel like this is where I'm supposed to perform anger, but that was burned out of me in the way one teaches a wild animal that it can't fight the leash from a young age. In any case, I hope this helps to explain this to some of those that don't quite understand.
