Perhaps I am wrong about a lot of things, but that a submissive woman’s tastes in the bedroom are affected by patriarchal norms is ridiculous.

“I don’t like what you’re saying - therefore you are a troll!”

That’s okay. What did you mean to say though?

I somewhat agree with your last paragraph, in the sense that a straight or bisexual woman might be more likely to try to conform to heterosexist norms, whereas gay and bisexual men and lesbians might be more likely to buck them altogether, since there is no place for them there at all.

In your case, I concede. I have no clue how sexual abuse might or might not influence someone’s future kinks. However, in regards to patriarchal norms and expectations, my opinion remains the same.

Teena is most definitely not fucking right. Making that argument is like saying that women are encouraged to have a lot of sex because female pornstars are famous. It is beyond absurd.

I am a gay man with mostly submissive tastes in the bedroom. Neither my sexuality nor my general taste in kink can be explained by any factors in my upbringing and most definitely not by patriarchal norms. Yet somehow, here I am.

No amount of heterosexual propaganda (such a hilarious phrase, isn’t it?) will turn a gay person straight or a straight person any straighter. Said propaganda has an effect on the expression of your orientation, not on the orientation itself.

The only straw-(wo)man in this discussion is the submissive woman who is submissive because of the patriarchy. Because women have no agency.

In these countries gay people can be sent to prison or executed, and you say that homosexuality is encouraged? I have no time for such nonsense.

I can understand some criticism of make-up, heels, grooming or what have you, but those are still relatively superficial issues. Sexuality is a lot deeper and more complex than that, and as HermioneStranger pointed out in one her comments above, criticisms of kink and sexuality rarely end at awareness. Awareness is…

I could of course be wrong and I have no scientific evidence to back this up, but I believe that the meat and bones of one’s sexuality and kinks are innate, and that the finer details can be affected by external influence. I don’t think that patriarchal norms can make someone submissive or dominant. Whether someone is…

Wow! I cannot believe that you just said that.

Oh god, I just pictured Kris biting down on a cup like a snake milked for venom. Hilarious and terrifying at the same time.

Christianity is inherently homophobic, but I agree that not all Christians are homophobic, because if there’s one one thing that the vast majority of them love, it’s picking cherries and ignoring the unsavory bits. “Oh, the Bible says what about homosexuality? Let’s just sweep that under the rug.”

Perhaps I am wrong and perhaps it’s not the same, but how would external influence explain sexualities which defy the heterosexual norm? Even in the worst, harshest environments (think Iran, Saudi Arabia, Uganda and the like) where the culture is dripping in homophobia, gay people exist. There is literally nothing…

And how does she know it? How does she connect the dots from “Jane Doe is living in a patriarchal society where she is generally taught to be submissive and generally discouraged from assuming leadership roles” to “Jane Doe fucking loves being submissive to others”?

Hahaha, Mama snake! You’re a fucking genius :D

Perhaps, but the whole “you’re a bad woman and a servant of the patriarchy because you do something that we, holier-than-thou feminists, deem unsavory” shtick really, really irks me.

At the risk of sounding callous, that’s nothing compared to what some people have done...