Acceptable Perversion

[McKenna]

I've had this topic on my mind for a few months now. It started in May or so when I read a thread in the GB about a woman who admitted she had flirted with bestiality. She was eventually razzed off the GB (for whatever reason, perhaps for this admission, perhaps for other reasons, I'm not passing judgment.) This made me wonder just what is acceptable perversion?

I mean, is this not a porn board? What topics must we avoid?

One can cite the rules of Literotica and say that underage sex (18 and younger) and bestiality are not allowed. In stories, yes, but what about general discussion on the forums?

If a man admitted he enjoyed wearing women's pantyhose or a woman said she enjoyed wearing furry animal suits because she got a sexual charge from it, would we look at them askance?

As a board, we do seem to be pretty open about some things, but there must be a line somewhere.

Where is it for you? What is acceptable perversion?

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Not to be pedantic, but if it's acceptable, how is it a perversion? The concept of perversion is based on biblical notions of what "God intends" people to do sexually. If you don't believe in such notions, the idea of perversion goes out the window.

 

[Pure]

yet Freud, the atheist, had no problem speaking of sexual deviations and perverse impulses.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Oddly, McKenna,

I've found some of the people in the GB to be rather prudish while, at the same time, expounding the wonderful images of porn. I even started a story on it once to poke fun but found it to be way too boring.

What you do sexually, as long as it doesn't harm another person, I see nothing wrong with. I may not choose the follow their lead, but it's their choice.

 

[ringle]

there must be a line somewhere.

Where is it for you? What is acceptable perversion?

The line is in constant flux, dependent on the morallity of those in the era in which we live. (Well that sounded good anyway.) It truly depends on the individual. Case in point: Living in Ontario, Canada, many years ago, one fantasy I had while at a public swimming pool was to see all the ladies topless. Well low and behold many years later it is now legal for any woman whom so desires to be in any public place without a top just as men can. Go figure!
Who knows what the future holds...perhap I should have more "perverse" fantasies!!

 

[McKenna]

Not to be pedantic, but if it's acceptable, how is it a perversion? The concept of perversion is based on biblical notions of what "God intends" people to do sexually. If you don't believe in such notions, the idea of perversion goes out the window.

You are being pedantic, and I believe that was your intent. However, I will respond if for no other reason than to encourage others to read beyond your post and share their own opinions, should they be so inclined.

Perversion: Any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal.

I understand you are a master or dominant or something; your sexual "perversion" might seem abnormal to me, and therefore unacceptable. That's my boundary, my line.

My question, again, is what do YOU as an individual consider to be "too much?" Where is that line between acceptable perversion and unacceptable? It's okay to "play" rape, but not okay to actually do it? It's okay to rub a stuffed animal against your cock, but not dress up as one and fall into a pit of rubbing and grinding with other "furries?"

Catch my drift yet?

 

[McKenna]

Oddly, McKenna,

I've found some of the people in the GB to be rather prudish while, at the same time, expounding the wonderful images of porn. I even started a story on it once to poke fun but found it to be way too boring.

What you do sexually, as long as it doesn't harm another person, I see nothing wrong with. I may not choose the follow their lead, but it's their choice.

But what is it for you, personally, that is "too much?"

Frankly, that whole bit on the GB about the gal who had a bestiality experience didn't phase me. <shrug> Talk of pedophilia or necrophilia ... <vomit> Those topics are too much for me.

 

[McKenna]

The line is in constant flux, dependent on the morallity of those in the era in which we live. (Well that sounded good anyway.) It truly depends on the individual. Case in point: Living in Ontario, Canada, many years ago, one fantasy I had while at a public swimming pool was to see all the ladies topless. Well low and behold many years later it is now legal for any woman whom so desires to be in any public place without a top just as men can. Go figure!
Who knows what the future holds...perhap I should have more "perverse" fantasies!!

Good point! Different cultures have different ideas about what is acceptable sexual behavior, or what is acceptable as far as nudity.

I have no problem with topless women. I do not, however, believe the United States as a whole is ready to embrace this concept at its beaches and/or pools. I mean, we seem to have a problem with a woman breast feeding in public! <sarcastic gasp> Imagine if we show a tit for the sake of showing a tit?!

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

But what is it for you, personally, that is "too much?"

Frankly, that whole bit on the GB about the gal who had a bestiality experience didn't phase me. <shrug> Talk of pedophilia or necrophilia ... <vomit> Those topics are too much for me.

Like I said, if it harms ANOTHER person it's over the line. Pedophilia harms children, desecration of bodies harms the family if it's found out. Beastiality, does that hurt the horse or chicken or racoon? Probably not. Therefore, it would be okay. I have no burning desire to have sex with the neighbor's German Shepherd, but to each his/her own.

 

[McKenna]

...I have no burning desire to have sex with the neighbor's German Shepherd, but to each his/her own.

Agreed.






Announcement:
I'm off to bed soon. Carry on without me.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

You are being pedantic, and I believe that was your intent. However, I will respond if for no other reason than to encourage others to read beyond your post and share their own opinions, should they be so inclined.

Perversion: Any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal.

I understand you are a master or dominant or something; your sexual "perversion" might seem abnormal to me, and therefore unacceptable. That's my boundary, my line.

My question, again, is what do YOU as an individual consider to be "too much?" Where is that line between acceptable perversion and unacceptable? It's okay to "play" rape, but not okay to actually do it? It's okay to rub a stuffed animal against your cock, but not dress up as one and fall into a pit of rubbing and grinding with other "furries?"

Catch my drift yet?

Fair enough. I was pedantic. It's my nature at times. I get your point. However, I tend to question even semantics, which was my point. But I wasn't setting out to be mean.

For me, at least, bestiality is hard to stomach on more than aesthetic grounds. It is something that the animal has no say in. That's my problem with it.

 

[cantdog]

I met a woman once, in a bar. We'd been talking for maybe ten minutes when she told me she was into sex with dogs. It's a conversation stopper. I realized she did heavier drugs than I ever want to do, as well. I think she told me to slap me with it, to see what I'd do. But I believed her, because she seemed to be sincere even though leering at me.

Later, I reflected that it would have been an unlikely gambit for anyone who really wasn't fucking dogs, but at the time it never occurred to me to doubt her. I was not offended, but I was about the guy who said essentially the same thing, because he may well have been hurting the dogs, where she wouldn't have been. I lost all concupiscent interest in her, though.

(I shy away from scenes with heavy drugs, because I mistrust junkies generally. They all seem to wind up with the same repellent personality, ultimately, and they are very tribal; they would likely not see me as anyone real, and victimize me without a qualm.)

I dislike scat stuff, too. Boring and repetitive, if you aren't into it. And I think maybe more than slightly reflective of a neurosis. Like Sev, however, I don't think of the weirdness I like as particularly perverse, and I never have had a very detailed notion about what might be 'generally' approved.

On an ambulance, you discover very soon that, however conventional people are, usually, in the public eye, people live wildly different lives from one another behind their own doors. What may seem 'generally' disapproved is practiced with abandon in privacy, and there is more of it out there than you think, even when you have been at it for a while.

 

[ringle]

My personal beliefs and feelings aside for good reasons.
I think sex is much more about the psyche than it is about the physical aspects. A person can achieve sexual gratification and orgasm simply from thinking about or imagining an act or fantasy. Yet if one is ill or really does have a headache (minor pun intended) then the physical act of intercourse will likely not be very enjoyable. The human mind is extremely complex (huge understatement.) How can "rational", intelligent people commit murder, cannibalism, and other (as each individual determines) acts considered "wrong"!
Sex is a form of mental stress release for humans (as well as necessary for procreation.)
Where do I personally draw the line? Very good question. Not sure I want to answer that, really not even sure if i can answer that honestly!

 

[Pure]

Mckenna, i don't think you should set aside fantasy in asking, what's too much. Many people have almost as many rules as to which fantasies are OK.

In any case, the 'what do you actually do or avoid doing' is, i think less interesting--to me-- than 'what do you feel like doing sometimes?' 'what do you feel an urge for, but would never do it?' the actions people do do are for show, or out of fear; they don't reflect the 'real persons' involved, quite often.

I wonder about this talk of '_what harms no one_ is my standard for acceptable perversion.' perhaps--leaving present company aside-- it's intellectual only, or what people want to hear; can anyone really say they've never even felt a little like harming someone? i don't know of anyone whose impulses, including sexual, are simon pure, and almost everyone has sometime done something a _little bit_ selfish. imho.

 

[McKenna]

Fair enough. I was pedantic. It's my nature at times. I get your point. However, I tend to question even semantics, which was my point. But I wasn't setting out to be mean.

For me, at least, bestiality is hard to stomach on more than aesthetic grounds. It is something that the animal has no say in. That's my problem with it.

Okay, I'm going to answer this one quick, but then I really am going to go to bed!

Bestiality... I have heard the argument that the animal has no say in it; here's my question, though: If a dog or horse or whatever REALLY does not want to fuck, is it going to? I mean, isn't that kind of instinctual for them? If they don't have an erection, it aint going to happen. I have to think that for them they're getting something out of it. Aren't they?

In the case I mentioned above about the woman from the GB, I understood that her Dom had tied her up spread-eagle and naked on the bed, then left for work. A few hours later, the dog comes in and has himself a little lick. No inducement, no "forcing," no nothing. Dogs stick their noses in crotches all the time. I guess they do it because they like it?

Maybe I am being naive here, I don't know ALL there is to know about bestiality (a fact for which I am thankful; there are some things I choose to remain innocent about.) Jenny mentioned smaller animals above. <gulp> I can only guess at what they are used for in bestiality scenes, and I must say... eww. Yeah, if the animal doesn't have a choice in the matter? No way, no how. Not cool. A larger animal, however, seems to me to have a "choice."



BTW, thanks for the explanation about semantics/your nature/etc.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Okay, I'm going to answer this one quick, but then I really am going to go to bed!

Bestiality... I have heard the argument that the animal has no say in it; here's my question, though: If a dog or horse or whatever REALLY does not want to fuck, is it going to? I mean, isn't that kind of instinctual for them? If they don't have an erection, it aint going to happen. I have to think that for them they're getting something out of it. Aren't they?

In the case I mentioned above about the woman from the GB, I understood that her Dom had tied her up spread-eagle and naked on the bed, then left for work. A few hours later, the dog comes in and has himself a little lick. No inducement, no "forcing," no nothing. Dogs stick their noses in crotches all the time. I guess they do it because they like it?

Maybe I am being naive here, I don't know ALL there is to know about bestiality (a fact for which I am thankful; there are some things I choose to remain innocent about.) Jenny mentioned smaller animals above. <gulp> I can only guess at what they are used for in bestiality scenes, and I must say... eww. Yeah, if the animal doesn't have a choice in the matter? No way, no how. Not cool. A larger animal, however, seems to me to have a "choice."



BTW, thanks for the explanation about semantics/your nature/etc.

You're welcum. Glad we cleared that up. I'm just a little overly fond of the Socratic method at times.

 

[McKenna]

... can anyone really say they've never even felt a little like harming someone?

Or on the flip side, never even felt a little like being harmed?





Ack. I didn't think this thread would take off so quickly. Excellent responses, all of you. I promise I'll reply in more depth mañana.

 

[sister76]

I don't see why anything can't be discussed, no matter what the topic. Otherwise it's censorship. The whole point here is to discuss sexual craziness.

 

[cantdog]

You didn't have my kind of, um, upbringing. I am distinctly contemptuous of power games. All authority is illegitimate if based on role or force, for me. It prevented me from being a lawyer; I had no respect for authority as such, and so couldn't play that game. My father had no legitimate authority over me. I did not sign up to be a slave, which is what the military looked like to me. A teacher could be just as wrong as anyone. Cops? Don't get me started.

Domming and subbing and all that shit? To me, it's got no fascination, because it is games with an idea I am out of sympathy with. It leaves me confused as to the point of it, and in real relationships, I lose interest quickly if the scene lacks mutuality.

People do seem to love it, and I don't get all righteous on their ass about it. But I don't dig it. I'm not about to campaign against it, because I have no authority to decide that for them . In that sense, it's acceptable, but I have zero desire to do it.

 

[S-Des]

You didn't have my kind of, um, upbringing. I am distinctly contemptuous of power games. All authority is illegitimate if based on role or force, for me. It prevented me from being a lawyer; I had no respect for authority as such, and so couldn't play that game. My father had no legitimate authority over me. I did not sign up to be a slave, which is what the military looked like to me. A teacher could be just as wrong as anyone. Cops? Don't get me started.

Domming and subbing and all that shit? To me, it's got no fascination, because it is games with an idea I am out of sympathy with. It leaves me confused as to the point of it, and in real relationships, I lose interest quickly if the scene lacks mutuality.

People do seem to love it, and I don't get all righteous on their ass about it. But I don't dig it. I'm not about to campaign against it, because I have no authority to decide that for them . In that sense, it's acceptable, but I have zero desire to do it.

That's a good point. When I first looked at the thread, I was thinking about perversions that I felt were "socially" unacceptable. However, if it's going to just be what I find uninteresting, I'd say scat, bondage, and bestiality (although there may be lighter elements of bondage I'd try with the right person).

I'm with Cantdog, my lack of interest in them wouldn't cause me to disparage anyone else. I would only do that with someone hurting someone else (including having sex with someone under a given age...be it boy or girl). I've seen a lot of situations where someone gets power in a relationship and "makes" their partner do things againt their will. This is a difficult subject because some of that may be the partner enjoying doing things they'd never have the courage to try on their own. It also could be someone taking advantage of a weaker person (emotionally or mentally) and using them, which I find despicable.

 

[Huckleman2000]

You know what they say - erotic is using a feather; kinky is using the whole chicken.

Anal stuff. That's where I draw my line. Doesn't do a thing for me.

Although, I don't think it's perverse, really. I mean, it rates a full category here on Lit, and it's a major genre of porn, to it can't be too out of the ordinary.

Sometimes I think it would be fun to have an orgy in a padded room with some kind of slippery stuff all over everyone. That's probably a lot more fun in my mind, though, than it would be in reality. All it would take would be for someone to slip and land on someone's head, and the fun would be over.

 

[cantdog]

That's a good point. When I first looked at the thread, I was thinking about perversions that I felt were "socially" unacceptable. However, if it's going to just be what I find uninteresting, I'd say scat, bondage, and bestiality (although there may be lighter elements of bondage I'd try with the right person).

I've seen a lot of situations where someone gets power in a relationship and "makes" their partner do things against their will. This is a difficult subject because some of that may be the partner enjoying doing things they'd never have the courage to try on their own. It also could be someone taking advantage of a weaker person (emotionally or mentally) and using them, which I find despicable.

There you go. Bondage is interesting technically and can fit in a relationship of mutuality. It brings about interesting tensions and frustrations, changes the muscle map. But we can always leave out the security/insecurity part, since we have a mutual trust. I don't see bondage play as necessarily dominance games or S/M. It could be played more like dressing for a role, but with cord or scarf or belt. Knife play? That seems to me to be intrinsically a power thing. A friend of mine wrote a BDSM how-to on knife play, and it never seemed to leave the power game frame of reference.

 

[ringle]

sister76

I don't see why anything can't be discussed, no matter what the topic. Otherwise it's censorship. The whole point here is to discuss sexual craziness.

I agree in princple, but upon deeper thought this may not be such a pure ideal. As any teenager knows the quickest way to introduce sex into a new relationship is to start talking about it with said new partner to induce a comfort level. As the porn industry knows, what sold yesterday will need to be topped next week to satisfy the ever expanding expectations.

For the above posted comment re: scat. I agree completely with you. I would never even consider it. Can't see how it could even remotely be considered pleasurable. Yet on the other hand ass-to-mouth has become a generally accepted mainstream sexually activity. So does this mean if it is in minute quantities having shit in your mouth is ok? Judging from porns latest trends it's likely most men enjoy having a woman perform this. Just so long as they are far enough away to not have to smell their own penis after the anal intercourse part is finished.

Perversions seem to be as much about power as pleasure. And power is something that is highly sought the world over. Human nature I suppose.


Jesus, all this writing and I still haven't addressed your question. Ok, I shall take a stab at expressing my thoughts as best as I can. I just hope it won't seem even more confusing once I'm finished.

Consentual sex is entirely acceptable. Non-Consentual sex is not. Yet I freely admit I love to read the Reluctant/Non-Consentual stories, as I'm sure many others do.
Snuff is not acceptable. Yet peircing, tattooing, scarrification and branding are if the participants are willing. Again an unwilling participant in theory is much more desirable. (The power trip thingy is stimulating I suppose. I certainly wouldn't want to be the unwilling person though!)
Beastiality is neither acceptable nor desireable for me personally. Can't see the point if there's no mental connection with an animal as there is between humans.
Sex is about the alpha character in males. (My opinion only.) I would hazard to guess that men are much more likely to be concerned with their own gratification than they are about their partner's satifaction. Again in my humble opinion only, the female participant is probably at least equally concerned about their partners enjoyment as their own.

I hope this gives you some insight into my feelings. However I still feel that I haven't totally expressed myself adequately. (Thinking about it more, this last thought may give you a better look into my mind than any of the others.)

 

[Boxlicker101]

To repeat what somebody said earlier, "acceptable perversion" seems o be a contradiction in terms. If something is acceptable, it is not a pervsion or, if something is considered to be a perversion, it would not be acceptable.

Some people think of oral sex as a pervsion. Some think of any kind of sex but a married couple at night, in bed, under covers, using the missionary position during her fertile period as being a perversion. I disagree but to each his own.

I have no interest in things like golden showers or brown showers of D/s of BDSM but if others are into that, more power to them. I say that with the stipulation that all participants are willing. A person who abducts others and ties them up and whips them is the worst kind of sadist, but I am not sure they would be a pervert. A criminal, yes, but that is a whole different issue.

If I have sex with my neighbor's six year old daughter, I am a pervert, and scum. If she is 12 years old and willing, I am less of a pervert. If she is 16, sexy and willing, I am not a pervert at all. Somehow, over a period of ten years, I will have gone from being a pervert to not being one.

 

[cantdog]

I don't see why anything can't be discussed, no matter what the topic. Otherwise it's censorship. The whole point here is to discuss sexual craziness.

I agree all the way. And here, where none of us actually are, we don't even have to limit what we say to make it acceptable even to each other! If you follow. I mean there are really no social consequences in a virtual discussion.

Hell, sex is important! It's one of the most important things to humans and about humans. Love is more important than sex, and I think improvisation may be equal to it, but that's another discussion. I bring it up to say, if you don't get to talk about sex, you don't get to talk about people. You have to skip something basic. It'd be like banning all mention of death.