‘Kink’ in the armor: The Left is manipulating language to normalize deviancy

[Jim Burton]

https://web.archive.org/web/20240816090 ... -deviancy/

Step 1: Sanitize sexual perversions with euphemistic, even playful, language. Step 2: Bring perfectly normal proclivities under the same linguistic banner, thus blurring any moral lines. I speak, of course, of the word “kink,” a term that has enjoyed explosive popularity in recent years as its usefulness to the Left has increased.

During the not-memorably-prudish ’90s, the word “kink” appeared in 65 New York Times articles in a sexual context. Over the last 10 years, that rate has nearly tripled. (Other papers’ data are similar.) Browsers of the internet have responded accordingly, more than quadrupling the term’s search frequency since the birth of Google Trends in 2004. Yes, “kink” is having a moment. The question is whether progressives can use it to attain yet another culture war victory.

[...]

It is typically here that the Left begins to howl its outrage: “How dare you suggest that we want legalized pedophilia!” Yet as readers of this article have already been reminded, Democrats said the same thing about gay marriage. Furthermore, the logic of “kink” is inexorable. Give it an inch, and it will take a mile. Already, pedophilia is being discussed in some circles as a “sexual orientation.” So-called minor-attracted persons are the beneficiaries, now, of a softening euphemism. Though we are unlikely, this decade, to see a prime-time television host confess his “kink” of partnering with children, that whisper is audible online and abroad. To be sure, multiculturalism will stoke the engine. (Isn’t it racist to deny an Afghan his bacha bazi — literally “boy play”?) Here in America, however, “kink” will drive the car. Having persuaded us of kink’s essential normality, the Left will expand its borders until nothing remains outside. That is what the “progress” in “progressive” is all about.

Interesting to see comments about liberals denying they supported gay marriage.

[PorcelainLark]

They invoke Judeo-Christian sexual morality, but I didn't see a single reference to divorce or contraception. Are we also going to ban rock music and teaching evolution, while we're at it? This kind of rhetoric can only be persuasive to the general public when it's underlying principles are selectively applied.

The issue of gay marriage can easily be explained by the fact that it was politically expedient to oppose it at one point and support it at another (or are we likewise going to pretend there's some deep mystery as to why Bush was hawkish on foreign policy and Trump wasn't?). When is it ever politically expedient to support MAPs? How many politicians have ever even used the term "MAPs"?

It reminds me of that old Jewish joke:

Rabbi Altmann and his secretary were sitting in a coffeehouse in Berlin in 1935. "Herr Altmann," said his secretary, "I notice you're reading Der Stürmer! I can't understand why. A Nazi libel sheet! Are you some kind of masochist, or, God forbid, a self-hating Jew?"
"On the contrary, Frau Epstein. When I used to read the Jewish papers, all I learned about were pogroms, riots in Palestine, and assimilation in America. But now that I read Der Stürmer, I see so much more: that the Jews control all the banks, that we dominate in the arts, and that we're on the verge of taking over the entire world. You know – it makes me feel a whole lot better!"

[ZeroXJoker]

They invoke Judeo-Christian sexual morality, but I didn't see a single reference to divorce or contraception. Are we also going to ban rock music and teaching evolution, while we're at it? This kind of rhetoric can only be persuasive to the general public when it's underlying principles are selectively applied.

If they had their way they would. That is what they want to bring it back to where anyone who isn't having het sex for the purposes of baby making is some type of deviant.

[PorcelainLark]

If they had their way they would. That is what they want to bring it back to where anyone who isn't having het sex for the purposes of baby making is some type of deviant.

The genie is out of the bottle, all they have left is people's disgust about sexuality; other than that they may as well be trying resurrect feudalism, it's so disconnected from modern culture. I don't necessarily have a problem with religion, but it's dishonest how selective they're being; being religious doesn't mean you get to pick and choose what makes you comfortable while leaving behind what makes you uncomfortable. If I was religious I wouldn't want to change the laws of a country, if the majority of people who wanted the change were motivated by the wrong reasons.

[Fragment]

The leftist view of victimology feminism is a very big hurdle for MAP advocates to have to overcome.

Yet while the left is pushing against sexual propriety I think they're still basically on our side.

We can't trust all the left. Not even all of the "kinky" left.

But in a world where we're almost universally hated, who is likely to hate us just a little bit less? I'll be on their side.