Talk:YKINOK

Boy, that definition is hard to understand. There are no less than four consecutive negative qualificators.


 * "Principles of Safe, Sane and Consensual and Risk Aware Consensual Kink" - being kinky is OK.
 * "Which violate the principles of Safe, Sane and Consensual and Risk Aware Consensual Kink" - being kinky is not OK.
 * "Other than those which violate the principles of Safe, Sane and Consensual and Risk Aware Consensual Kink" - being kinky is OK.
 * "Condemn... other than those which violate the principles of Safe, Sane and Consensual and Risk Aware Consensual Kink" - being kinky is not OK.
 * "Deprecate those who condemn... other than those which violate the principles of Safe, Sane and Consensual and Risk Aware Consensual Kink" - being kinky is OK.

Have I understood this right at all? Can it be simplified to show what it actually means? &mdash; J I P  | Talk 21:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if it's concise, but the whole thing is a little complex -- "YKINOK" is not actually commonly used to condemn other people's kinks, but is in fact used to condemn those who condemn other people's kinks. Got that?  ;-) AnonMoos 13:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, now I understand. So it's a derogatory term for people who condemn other people's sexual preferences or lifestyle. Why couldn't the article have been written like that instead of the confusing way above? J I P  | Talk 14:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I barely understand it. Can an editor who is familiar with this topic clarify it please?  I always thought it was a general shun of a kink that was outside of the safe-sane-consensual ideals.  But now I'm reading it as a shun against people who would view another's kink as outside of the safe-sane-consenual ideals.  Please clarify! This is out of most people's specialty, but if we're gonna use the language it needs to be right!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.10.92.58 (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)