Abject Sex: The New & Disgusting Frontier?

[dr_mabeuse]

I just posted a really violent, abhorrent, disgusting, gang rape story and it's getting killed in the votes and I love it. It has to do with Abject Sex.

Now this isn't real "Abject sex" or the "sex of abjection" which is a concept borrowed from the works of the critic Julia Kristeva in the Powers of Horror, where "the abject" is used to describe the grossest types of grossness (shit, blood, pus, corpses) and the breakdown in objectivity it forces on the observer, causing them to confront their own mortality. (see me if you want the details on this rather lurid theory of horror)

Rather, I'm using "abject sex" to refer to sex that quite clearly crosses the boundaries of what's usually acceptable in terms of respect for another's dignity and rights as an individual - things like beatings, masking, rough BDSM and rough sex in general.

The thing is, I'm getting a feel that the taste for abjet sex in general is on the rise, and the demand is coming from women.

A friend of mine at NYU tells me that BDSM is something of a campus fad right now, or at least sporting the clothing and gear, and now with this feel I get for this demand for abject sex stories, I wonder if we're not seeing some backlash against the whole idea of considerate sex and gender equality.

BTW, my story wasn't so much bandwagon hopping as it was a personal exorcism, a kind of half Grand Guignol, half farce, half pushing the envelope. Yes. Three halves.

 

[BlackShanglan]

BTW, my story wasn't so much bandwagon hopping as it was a personal exorcism, a kind of half Grand Guignol, half farce, half pushing the envelope. Yes. Three halves.

The abject sex I could have dealt with, but dear God, man, three halves?

Abject mathematics.

 

[Pure]

hi dr.,

fascinating topic, i had a bash at it a while back, and included some Kristeva excerpts in the initial post.

maybe goose the thread if you're interested.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=337220&highlight=abject



----

ps. i posted a comment on your story so things wouldn't be so one sided!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

My guess is that any supposed popularity of this genre among women is a consequence of low self esteem, itself the product of societal pressures, body image issues, self hatred, and other manifestations of the ways in which women are demeaned and diminished by lingering sexist attitudes in both men and women.

Don't get me wrong, I'm hardly sympathetic to the hard-left so-called "gender" feminist so-called "leaders" - I think most of them are post-modernist lefties first, and use "feminism" primarily as a tool to advance their other political agendas. But that doesn't mean there aren't huge unresolved social issues that detract from women's ability to actualize themselves and fully enjoy the manifold benefits of belonging to our wealthy, advanced western civilization.

 

[xssve]

There is a suite of BDSM kinks that describe various aspects of it: objectification and humiliation are similar, but not the same - objectification is being treated like an object, and could range from being used as furniture, to being used as a toilet - it can go with humiliation, but this refers preimarily to verbal abuse, althoug it can also include things like performing embarrasing acts in front of others, wearing diapers, etc.

Rough sex is just rough sex, and I think a lot of the attraction here is just the fact that you let your guard down, let it all hang out.

German porn is very big on the combination I think you're refering to as abject sex, and possibly a force behing it's popularity.

 

[xssve]

My guess is that any supposed popularity of this genre among women is a consequence of low self esteem, itself the product of societal pressures, body image issues, self hatred, and other manifestations of the ways in which women are demeaned and diminished by lingering sexist attitudes in both men and women.

Don't get me wrong, I'm hardly sympathetic to the hard-left so-called "gender" feminist so-called "leaders" - I think most of them are post-modernist lefties first, and use "feminism" primarily as a tool to advance their other political agendas. But that doesn't mean there aren't huge unresolved social issues that detract from women's ability to actualize themselves and fully enjoy the manifold benefits of belonging to our wealthy, advanced western civilization.

Your probobly right, but rather than being victimized by it, I think that in acting out on it women are asserting their control over these misogynic social forces themselves - you can confront them, and survive. The real question here is which forces of objectification are the most demeaning?

At least in sex, it takes two to tango - if you're a big fat slut, what does that make me? There is a bit of parity there at least in acting it out.

Very similar to the way rape and/or incest victims might play out these formative sexual experiences the difference being that they are doing so from a position of control.

 

[xssve]

In fact males are subject to very much the same forces of social objectification, we just don't go on Opra and whine about it because it's not... masculine.

There are at least as many males into objectification, humiliation and masochism as there are females. It's a mistake to think it's strictly targeted at females.

These forces are always there, and are very difficult to confront directly - rebellion is often the only option to dealing with them. Either way it's slavery, you can so uptight you squeak, or you can let it all hang out - so people will go with the one that suits them personally - "abject sex" is a way of thumbing your nose at "propriety" and getting your kicks at the same time.

Plus, the rape fantasy is far more complex than Christian misogyny, but it would require a lengthy discussion of human evolution to explain it - but it has little to do with "self esteem", except in a mechanistic sense - it's an adaptation to a particular set of stressors.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

fascinating topic, i had a bash at it a while back, and included some Kristeva excerpts in the initial post.

maybe goose the thread if you're interested.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=337220&highlight=abject

You're where I learned the whole concept, back in that BDSM thread. I found her essay hard to digest and I''m not sure I agree with her. I think it's really more simple than that, but the term and the concepts are very useful.

What really interests me now, though, is the idea of abjection as a denial of PC principles. Filth will always be filth, but I think that's what's going on now is maybe an anti PC, maybe anti-feminist backlash. People demanding their right to be treated as trash

 

[BlackShanglan]

xssve, I enjoy your psychoanalytical viewpoint here as elsewhere. I certainly think that assuming control of the "abjectifying" behavior is one possible model for the behavior.

It's not the only one.

 

[Pure]

excellent comments, xssive

it's not easy to 'read' the appeal--such as it is-- of these stories.

----

as to roxanne's unusally doctrinaire

My guess is that any supposed popularity of this genre among women is a consequence of low self esteem, itself the product of societal pressures, body image issues, self hatred, and other manifestations of the ways in which women are demeaned and diminished by lingering sexist attitudes in both men and women.

Don't get me wrong, I'm hardly sympathetic to the hard-left so-called "gender" feminist so-called "leaders"



she's clearly aware of echoing dworkin and others and feels uncomfortable, as shown in the last sentence quoted. i suggest she can't have it both ways.

either she moralizes like the lefty feminists, or she doesn't. Paglia (also 'right'), for example, has worked a critical stance out more consistently, in expressing *admiration* or at least interest in such literature.

the 'low self esteem' thing is a long running canard. there's no empirical proof that women-- and men, as other posters have said-- who like harsh SM subjection are weak in that department. there's a good argument that they're strong: the female protagonist of the story walks away happy, and the hubby is the one who may be self destructive.

probably rox is aware that most feminists denied that 'story of O,' with its female pseudonym, could actualy be a woman's work, in light of the willing degradation. but they were wrong. (there's a long running debate about SM, within feminism, if anyone wants refs.)

in any case, 'low self esteem', whatever the fuck that is, is equally found in those straight people locked in abusive or merely lifeless marriages.

===

in film, the archetype and original of this sort of story is 'belle de jour'--- anyone seen it?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

My guess is that any supposed popularity of this genre among women is a consequence of low self esteem, itself the product of societal pressures, body image issues, self hatred, and other manifestations of the ways in which women are demeaned and diminished by lingering sexist attitudes in both men and women.

Don't get me wrong, I'm hardly sympathetic to the hard-left so-called "gender" feminist so-called "leaders" - I think most of them are post-modernist lefties first, and use "feminism" primarily as a tool to advance their other political agendas. But that doesn't mean there aren't huge unresolved social issues that detract from women's ability to actualize themselves and fully enjoy the manifold benefits of belonging to our wealthy, advanced western civilization.

Oh I heartily disagree. This is the same argument that says that all sexual submissives suffer from low self esteem too, which is just nonsense and has been proven to be such. Your sexual attitude in the bedroom says little about your Self esteem. This interest in abject sex has more to do with the desire to experience the extremes of gender differences in sex play, and I would stress that we're taking about fantasy here, not reality. Stories, not what people actually do.

These are not masochists we're talking about,. These aqre normal women who are attracted to the fantsy of abject sex as a vicarious thrill

 

[gauchecritic]

Last year at some point I noticed various sites whilst browsing (mostly Russian ones I think) that became extremely fond of the word 'dissolute' in their descriptions.The acts themselves were more or less simple sex.

Personally I'm extremely focused in the sexual arena by expression of partners. Verbal or physical, as long as I have some indicator. (I like to think it's to do with my partner's pleasure but suspect it's a measure of my own skill) but when I see a clip where the female (not altogether fond of male exposition on the subject) appears disinterested or dissolute then it engenders similar feelings for me.

The phrase 'Abject sex' seems to inspire almost exactly the same feelings. If inspire is the correct phrase here.

Pissing seems to be becoming quite popular on the mpeg sites, as does forced. I just can't see the attraction in humiliation.

 

[xssve]

xssve, I enjoy your psychoanalytical viewpoint here as elsewhere. I certainly think that assuming control of the "abjectifying" behavior is one possible model for the behavior.

It's not the only one.

There is never any one explanation for a huamn behavior like this, but there are underlying forces that can make it more or less popular at a given place and time.

In this case, I think it's as dr_mabeuse notes, a bit of an anti-PC backclash, and not just PC - theat term is associated with liberalism, but conservatism has it's own brand of PC - in fact liberal PC is a backlash against conservative PC, which elevates certain catagorical assumptions about people to the level of cannonical truth: unmarried women who sleep around are sluts, Blacks and poor people are lazy, etc.

The problem with both formulations is that there is no logical limit, only informal limits, and these are often hard to pin down - at some point it becomes stifling and there is going to be a reaction formation of people acting out against it.

Radical feminists for example have defined all heterosexual sex as rape, and at some point somebody is going to reason" but I like it, rape or no", I mean it's a basic human drive, perhaps the basic drive after breathing and eating, and comes ahead of eating for some - so in a sense, defining hetero sex as rape ended up trivilizing the whole thing which is what the critics were saying all along.

There remains a huge diffference between rape and roleplay, rape is not so much a violation of the physical self as it is a violation of the psychological self - the reactions of rape and robbery victims are very similar, it's a loss of a sense of safety and control, i.e., you have been robbed or raped of your ability to control your personal space.

In roleplay, you act out on this fantasy of loss of control, really abrogating your sense of social control, i.e., how you're expected to behave, and in so in a sense, contrarily, asserting your control of your personal space over "societies" claims of contol over it - and you retain control because it's consensual, you can theoretically withdraw at any point.

This, because conservative PC often does not recognize the difference between consensual and non-consensual violations of it's codes - women in Darfur will be divorced if thei husbands discover they have been the victims of non-consensual rape, because the conservative social controls ofer female sexual behavior are not so much concerned with human rights as they are about ascertaining paternity.

i.e., you are just as guilty of transgression whether it was intentional or not, it makes no difference, you're still in violation. Hell, even thinking about it is considered a transgression, depending on the situation, i.e., being freinds iwth someone gay is as bad as being gay, etc.

 

[rgraham666]

Just noting, as I recall, dr_m said somewhere, there's a lot of misogyny, and undoubtedly misandry, that masquerades as BDSM.

I think another driving force is that impulse in our society for more. That thought came to mind when dr_m noted "some backlash against the whole idea of considerate sex and gender equality".

For a lot of people, enough is never enough. And they have to push the limits.

Yet another thought, if this is becoming popular among young people, I would suspect it's the usual young person's drive to find their own identity.

Shrugs. I've had my own experiences with D/s. In writing and in life. I've never liked the casual cruelty many display and allow inflicted upon them. As one person remarked in a feedback to one of my stories, "there's a huge difference between dominating and domineering."

My $0.02.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Speaking for myself, I can't think of anything worse than nice, considerate, sex. I'll take the biting and scratching any day.

I just figure society's kind of decided the same thing and gine a bit too far.

--Zoot

 

[rgraham666]

Speaking for myself, I can't think of anything worse than nice, considerate, sex. I'll take the biting and scratching any day.

I just figure society's kind of decided the same thing and gine a bit too far.

--Zoot

I get sex so rarely I've learned not to be fussy.

 

[3113]

What really interests me now, though, is the idea of abjection as a denial of PC principles. Filth will always be filth, but I think that's what's going on now is maybe an anti PC, maybe anti-feminist backlash. People demanding their right to be treated as trash

*Sigh* You know, I'm getting really SICK and I mean REALLY SICK, of this constant insistence that this or that is a "backlash" against PC. Really? Do you know how LONG people have been excusing rude and brutal actions as a "backlash" to PC-ism? Let's try about twenty years now. Thirty if you toss in feminism. Just how long is a "backlash" suppose to last? And at what point does it stop being the "backlash" and start being it's own "movement" to be backlashed against?

[rant]It isn't a "Backlash" of any kind. You can't have a "blacklash" against something that people mocked and made fun of and didn't take seriously (except in regards to company lawsuits) from day one. Something that hasn't had any real power except in the court and only half-heartedly at that. What you CAN have, however, is people making excuses for themselves. "Oh, I'm into abject sex because I'm *rebelling* against all that PC shit!" Yeah, right. Like you've had to suffer and suffer and suffer from the PC shit. NOT.

PC-ism made a few headlines. And then it died--but it was too good a strawman to let go, and so they've kept the corpse around to parade and stab and abuse. So long as it's a great scapegoat, it'll never be buried.

People want to do what they want to do. Some men are misogynistic and want to abuse women. And they want to get away with this abuse. They don't want to think that they've done anything wrong, or criminal or bad. So they make up excuses: "She asked for it!" was the old old excuse, or "She deserved it." or "I'm being a MAN, not one of those sensitive guys women say they want!" And now, Dr. M. your lame excuse: "It's a backlash against PC!"

Bullshit. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

So BDSM is a fad. Whoop-de-fucking-do! In the 60's wife-swapping was a fad. In the 70's group-sex and bi-sexuality was fad. Now it's BDSM. It'll last for a little, and then people will get bored and move onto something else. And ten years from now, they'll laugh at the old pictures and say, "How could we have been into that?" That's all there is to it. Making it into more just gives men who want to act violently and brutally with no consequences, no shame, no conscience, no responsibility, yet another lame excuse. (By the way, I don't know why you're so amazed that BDSM is a fad at all. This country major religion is one with a Deity who was whipped, crowned with thorns, made to haul a heavy cross that he was then nailed to, made to drink vinegar and mocked as he died a slow and agonizing death. Why would it be so amazing that BDSM would be a popular sexual fetish? Christianity glorifies suffering--almost all its saints and heros are martyrs--and it is through suffering that you find spiritual passion).

And if there is ANYTHING that reflect WHY men would be doing this you have only to look at the fact that we're excusing torture in this country. You don't need a backlash of "PC" to want to be brutal, you only need someone to point out that "Torturing" others is what a real man does. It's what the Hero on 24 does and we're a nation of action heroes, aren't we? You don't want to be called a wuss and a pussy online or by a talk radio host do you?

And on the woman's end, you have only to maintain the status quo--which hasn't changed much. Television still has women as sex objects, and still cheers the men who fuck the sexy ones and fuck over the bitches in power. And books currently out on the shelves keep insisting that women need to go back to being meek, obedient, etc., or they'll never "get a guy."

Yep. If we don't let guys rape us, we're going to be left all alone. It's all our fault they don't want us. We're not feminine enough.

So go ahead and be proud of your story and all the shocked reactions it's getting. But don't be giving me this bullshit that you're somehow examining a "Backlash" or a social psychology that has any real depth beyond what's clearly and obviously floating like shit on the surface. There's nothing deep or special or even different about wanting "abject" sex. It's the same old same old for the same old reasons.
[/end rant]

 

[xssve]

True, a lot of people were just "raised that way" and old habits are hard to break, adn BDSM provides an umbrella for this - this goes for both sexes, as well as the fact that there's no shortage of genuinely misogynic males, and probobly not a few women with low self esteem for variosu reasons.

Older women tend to be less into objectification and humiliation, which seems to suggest that self respect enters into it at some point, or at least that the sense of self becomes less flexible over time.

Still, the popularity of "bodice rippers" among middle aged women is legendary, and an indication again as dr_mabeuse suggests: "These aqre normal women who are attracted to the fantsy of abject sex as a vicarious thrill", and I would say, again a manifestation of the rape fantasy, the mythology of the WWII generation which recognized the fantasy of being "swept up" in passion - a concession to what I call "the anarchy of love" that socialization forces traditionally attempt to control.

In recent decades,this sparticular ethic has waned in favor of the more liberated, rational model, but with a return to more conservative social values, the "passionate" model is gaining favor again, with certain modern modifications...

So I would say that at it's core, it represents a basic return to a more passionate ethic of sexuality, with a German porn thing kind of plastered over it.

 

[rgraham666]

Nice one, 3113. http://bestsmileys.com/clapping/2.gif

 

[xssve]

So BDSM is a fad. Whoop-de-fucking-do! In the 60's wife-swapping was a fad. In the 70's group-sex and bi-sexuality was fad. Now it's BDSM. It'll last for a little, and then people will get bored and move onto something else. And ten years form now, they'll laugh at the old pictures and say, "How could we have been into that?" That's all there is to it. Making it into more just gives men who want to act violently and brutally with no consequences, no shame, no conscience, no responsibility, yet another lame excuse.

You might have a point except that we're essentially talking about womens fantasies here - men like pussy, and if we have to act like wimps to get it, we will, if you want us to act like animals, hey, we can do that too.

And on the woman's end, you have only to maintain the status quo--which hasn't changed much. Television still has women as sex objects, and still cheers the men who fuck the sexy ones and fuck over the bitches in power. And books currently out on the shelves keep insisting that women need to go back to being meek, obedient, etc., or they'll never "get a guy."

Yep. If we don't let guys rape us, we're going to be left all alone. It's all our fault they don't want us. We're not feminine enough.

So go ahead and be proud of your story and all the shocked reactions it's getting. But don't be giving me this bullshit that you're somehow examining a "Backlash" or a social psychology that has any real depth beyond what's clearly and obviously floating like shit on the surface. There's nothing deep or special or even different about wanting "abject" sex. It's the same old same old for the same old reasons.
[/end rant]

Yeah right, back when Women were ladies, rapists were let off the hook if "she was asking for it", i.e., acting anything but meek, obedient, etc., or maybe merely walking into a bar for a drink.

This is empowering for women - you can violate societies deepest androcentric patrimonial taboos, and walk away instead of having it hanging around your neck the rest of your life - you can leave it at the door, it's roleplay, it has nothing to do with who you are and how you're treated in public - if you can't appreciate that distinction, you need to to look again.

 

[Stella_Omega]

My guess is that any supposed popularity of this genre among women is a consequence of low self esteem, itself the product of societal pressures, body image issues, self hatred, and other manifestations of the ways in which women are demeaned and diminished by lingering sexist attitudes in both men and women.

Not in my case, at least. The "abject sex" fantasy gets me the hell OFF. (and I like this term for it-- rougher than rough sex) Why? partly because the idea of sensation piled on sensation on sensation--

Of course, no woman is allowed to enjoy objectification fantasies without coming up with an apologetic or three. So, I would just like to say that-- in MY fantasies-- people might be abusing me, but they don't understand that it FEELS GOOD to me, that I'm tough and can take it, turn it into pleasure. Or, in many of my fantasies, (and most certainly in the scenes I've participated in) they do understand this.

I've always felt most selfish when I'm bottoming.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I objectify women out of habit. It takes a looooooooooooong time before they're "people".

 

[3113]

You might have a point except that we're essentially talking about womens fantasies here

That's fine, but, it still leads back to something very old and established, not some new "backlash." The fantasy is a rugged prince who will dash in and take care of everything...sex included (Grimm's fairytales anyone?). The romance novel guy who "rapes" the woman but she likes it is just a lazy-assed fantasy that women have because they don't want to do any work in a relationship. Don't want to get to know the guy, don't want the dinner dates, the phone calls, etc. Girls want just sex, too--but remember, they're not *supposed* to want it. Guys will think them sluts. So it has to be "Forced" on them.

Hence: the fantasy of the no-name guy who breaks into home, rapes (fucks you silly), does all the work, and leaves. No morning after breakfast to cook, no follow-up phone calls to ignore, no need to explain to friends why it didn't work out.

That's all it is. And if it's really "abject" then it's back to the female martyr complex--which is so old it's rusted. Almost every religion on earth, not to mention stories, movies, kids books, glorifies women who willingly suffer. It's the "Giving Tree"--everyone's fave tale! The ultimate mom! She sacrifices everything, surrendering willingly as the guy she loves rapes her of everything she has.

That's the kind of girl *men* want. Older than the hills this complex, and if you want to add even more spice, just have girls question themself, lower their self-esteem (gosh, however will we do that? However will we make them doubt their attractivenss or fear being all alone or be sure that they're not worth anything without a man at their side to the point where abuse = love and any attention, even negative attention, is better than being ignored?).

Is all this really so unheard of that we have to pretend it's actually a "backlash" to something else?

 

[3113]

I've always felt most selfish when I'm bottoming.

Nice point. And this reinforces what I said about the "lazy-assed" fantasy. Those who understand what they want and why they want it, recognize that being "abject" is a matter of wanting someone to take control while they enjoy the sensations.

Those who are aware of their psychology in this, however, are also aware that this is not a "female" thing and, hence, there is no "backlash" to anything in it. There are guys who want to be out of control and just enjoying the sensations; there are women who want to be abject to other women and men who want to be abject to other men...and there are couples who frequently switch between who is being abject to whom.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Nice point. And this reinforces what I said about the "lazy-assed" fantasy. Those who understand what they want and why they want it, recognize that being "abject" is a matter of wanting someone to take control while they enjoy the sensations.

Those who are aware of their psychology in this, however, are also aware that this is not a "female" thing and, hence, there is no "backlash" to anything in it. There are guys who want to be out of control and just enjoying the sensations; there are women who want to be abject to other women and men who want to be abject to other men...and there are couples who frequently switch between who is being abject to whom.

If I were in a male body, I'd still have the exact same kinks. They are gender-inclusive