every time you kiss an object an angel gets its wi

I understand why that advice exists. On some levels, it's true. There is a level of control that submissives need to retain for safe play, and dominants who demand or expect submission purely for the fact that they are a dominant are bad play partners, and generally assholes. Parts of the message can be important because a lot of inexperienced (or badly-experienced) subs can end up neglecting their own agency and assuming that's just part of being a submissive.

But there's also an imbalance to it. Something that reinforces the personhood of the submissive in a dynamic while leaving that of the dominant unacknowledged. Agency for me but not for thee. Not "Nobody has to do anything in a scene that they aren't comfortable with", but "You as a submissive should be in control of the contents of a scene for your own comfort". Not "Nobody owes their sexuality, their dominance, their submission, their time and energy to anyone else they don't feel like giving it to", but "Dominants should have to earn the privelage of your submission".

There is an assumption that permeates a lot of kink spaces, that only a sub can be made uncomfortable, that only a sub can have their boundraries crossed, that only a sub has need of safeties and negotiation and being approached respectfully, because nominally the dominant is in control. We are assumed to be safe and comfortable on the basis that we're the ones who give the orders or whatever, but that's not how it works.

Dominants can and do get sexually harrassed by subs. I've been messaged *very* aggressively by some strangers in my time who fail to understand that their submission doesn't change the fact they're demanding sexual favours from a stranger. I've heard stories of dominants in abusive relationships where their consent was taken as an assumption at all times. There's a lot of kink advice out there that tells subs they have the agency to do only what they want, but fails to pair it with the necessary follow up that they also have the agency to do harm.

I know there is a significant overlap between ficto/yumeshipping and objectum and I absolutely have nothing against people having fandoms like object shows, etc as an "inroad" or introduction to the community so to speak but I do agree that people treating a very real sexuality like a fandom does more harm than good in a lot of cases. Its a very real thing for a lot of us and often tied to our faith/spirituality (anyone who's ever seen me at Cedar Point has seen me very openly talking to Top Thrill and receiving things/communication back from her in response) and seeing it watered down to liking object shows, objecthead characters, or "simping" does feel trivializing at times, especially when it is coming from people viewing things primarily through the lenses of fandom that havent really taken the time to learn about early community and its rich history