Here is the most recent example of how the “anti-rolequeers” talk about abuse:

these [rolequeer] people are dangerous abusers pushing an interpretation of the acceptability of violence that only serves abusers, using rationalizing language that in my experience is exclusive to abusers, and whatdoyouknow they have a history of being accused of being abusers

(Emphasis was in the original, not added by me.)

Here is just one example of how rolequeers talk about it:

The oppressed/oppressor binary, the abuser/survivor binary, the rapist/rape victim binary, the Dominant/submissive binary, and all other binaries whose existence rely on the binary dichotomization of power versus vulnerability are as much lies as the man/woman binary is also a lie. Rolequeerness simply forces us to cope with what that really means.

And here’s another example explicating rolequeer ideas:

Rolequeerness is fundamentally about the recognition that “abuser/survivor,” “abusive/consensual,” “powerful/vulnerable,” and a number of other related binaries are, in fact, false dichotomies. These binaries are lies. There is no such thing as “consensual and not abusive” or “abusive and not consensual” in a pervasively coercive society. There is no such thing as power without vulnerability or vulnerability without power. And this also means that people who are abusers can also be survivors. It means that survivors can also be abusers. And, in fact, it means they often actually are abusers, too.

If that doesn’t scare you, if you think being “afraid of engaging with really important ideas,” to use Crossword’s words, is, as they put it, “the problem,” then you’re not really interested in engaging with this really important idea. That’s why no matter what Crosswords says they’re doing, what they’re actually doing is binarist, and it is dangerous to rolequeers, and it is appropriative, and it reinforces BDSM culture by directly supporting rape culture: BDSM relies on the binary of the powerful exclusive from the vulnerable, on the violent exclusive from the sexual, on the abusive exclusive from the consensual. And so does rape culture.

So, I can’t help but giggle when I see the inevitable backlash.

This may sound strange, especially given that the anti-rolequeer backlash is primarily directed at me, personally, and not actually at “the rolequeers,” but I’m pleased to see the severe and sweeping pushback against it take the incredibly predictable tactic of once again trying to make it all about me.

The reason I’m pleased by this is what I wrote earlier: “Attention Rolequeers: First they ignore us. Then they laugh at us. Then they fight us. Then we win.

We just moved from being laughed at to being fought against. :) This is a step in the right direction. I’ll let @safeword explain:




wow i can’t believe what backlash i’m getting already

if i needed any evidence that rolequeering is a relevant and necessary act and that the d/s binary is hierarchical and oppressive, it’s about how hard i had to fight to wrap my head around what’s outside of it and to walk away from the “dom”…

So the fact that lots of people disagree with you is evidence that you are right?

well, that and 3-4 years of engaged thought work with this particular strand of anti-coercive binary-busting critical kink practice, up to and including hiatuses from sex entirely because i was evaluating my ability to practice ethically.

so i have a little oomph behind me when i think i’m right, and thoughts that explain people’s resentment. but basically, in this case, yeah. yep. exactly. i trust myself. incredible!!!


There is no anti-abuse BDSM. Unless, y’know, “actually, it’s about ethics in rough-sex sports club.” #BDSMerGate. (LOL)

Carry on.