The Medicalization & Demedicalization of Kink: Shifting Contexts of Sexual Politics

This article was published in 2017 by Kai Lin. Something that stood out for me in the introduction is the reminder that psychiatry and psychology historically began research of kink with a clinical lens. The research community had supportive intention, but they were initially seeking to solve sexual predation and psychosis rather than understand pleasure outside of its usual context. It was sociology that started exploring the topic with more curiosity and openness, wanting to understand. 

With this context in mind the landscape of stigmatization, though not just, makes more sense. Lin reminds us of the medicalization of various natural human behaviours including: same-sex relationships, breastfeeding, birth, male circumcision and masturbation. It is difficult for me to wrap my head around participating in the outskirts of a field that is so wrought with violence. Yet it is a life we try to find balance in as we navigate the stories of the very land that we live on.

Initially it appeared that medical professionals were the primary forces behind medicalization, yet this has evolved and now includes pharmaceuticals, consumers, biotech and others. Lin notes that those that promote demedicalization usually originate in groups that hold less power such as grassroots organizations and also consumers. While demedicalization has been achieved, I wonder what further goals the kink community may be. Destigmatization? Mainstream acceptance. I'm certain that folks have varying goals and I know that there are pros and cons of practices becoming 'mainstream', such as the commodification of self-care which I mentioned in a previous post.

As the article progresses, Lin introduces our friend Foucault who explores the origins of medicalizing sexuality. Foucault reminds us of the concept of 'confession' and how the Christian church in particular promotes a confessing of one's sexual practices to relieve them of the sins in which they committed. These were the foundations of the 'science of sex', being promoted as 'truth' rather than fuelled by an understanding of reproduction or intimacy and connection. Even more juicy is Foucault's thoughts on the science of sex being promotes as a form of rehabilitation thus internalizing "problematic sexual behaviour" as something we have a choice to be cured of or continue being blasphemous sinners.

At this point we are introduced to Jeffery Weeks, who I have not yet familiarized myself with. Weeks is a historian, sociologist and gay activist and he elaborates on what I said earlier about the pros and cons of mainstreaming previously stigmatizing practices. It is so well articulated that I pulled a direct quote from the article: "Instead of freeing different expressions of sexuality from the previously private spheres of “shame” and “indignity”, claims of sexual citizenship often tend to “normalize” and “gentrify” “unsanitary” sexual practices by transforming them into irrelevant characteristics of a universal concept of citizenship predicated upon sameness and heteronormativity."

My interpretation of this and application to my own work is that to some extent we further stigmatization of kink by creating a definition of 'normal kink' thereby creating an 'other kink' category for practices that we decide not to make room for. I think of the yogic movement and how it has been appropriated for the use of the west and commodified into an industry of clothing, food, and elite culture. This is not an argument against yoga, just an example of the evolution of a practice that at times breeds more exclusivity and isolation rather than acceptance and freedom, which isn't the original goal of yoga mental and spiritual freedom?

This article is dense and I'm going to stop here and write a second post later. I highly recommend a read if this peaks your interest. It's located in volume 20, issue 3 of a journal entitled Sexualities.