"innate." Some BDSMers consider BDSM an "orientation" -- and I, myself, once found that thinking of BDSM as an orientation was extremely helpful in coming to terms with my BDSM desires. But one thing I don't like about the orientation model now is that it makes us sound like we're apologizing. "Poor little me! It's not my fault I'm straight! Or a domme! Whatever!" Why would any of these things be faults in the first place? Our bodies are our own, our experiences are our own, and our consent is our own to give. The orientation model is one of the cultural factors that makes it hard to discuss sensory, sensual experiences without defaulting to sexuality. As commenter saurus pointed out on the Feministe version of part 1 of this post: Sometimes I think that we have compulsions, needs or "fetishes" that aren't sexual, but lumping them in with sexuality is sometimes the most convenient or socially manageable way to deal with them or get those needs met. They might even physically arouse us for a variety of reasons, but that might be a side effect instead of the act's inherent nature. Which is not to say that every act can be cleanly cleaved into "sexual" and "non-sexual" -- of course not. But I think we lack a language around these needs that doesn't use sexuality. I see a lot of groundbreaking work coming out of the asexual and disability justice communities in this regard (which is just to say that I find the folks in these groups are churning out some incredible ways to "queer" conventional dominant ideas about sexuality; not that they never have sex or whatever). I think one answer to that is to just open up the definition of sexuality to include these things, but as someone who identifies vehemently not as "sex positive" but as "sex non- judgmental," I know I don't personally want all my shit to be lumped in with sexuality. It just makes me picture some sex judgmental person insisting that "oh, that's totally sexual.” I, Clarisse, can certainly attest that it's comm