Acceptable Perversion

[Recidiva]

I've already told Zoot I don't think I'm right about this. People seem to be designed to attack and dominate one another constantly. I am consequently standing in opposition to human nature. Wars and rapes and domestic violence, enslavement of children, coercive and repressive employment practices, financial rapine, graft, the squeeze, torture, empire, all that stuff results from a completely natural drive for power. So I must be wrong. That stuff is everywhere.

That's the rub, really. We're put in an inherent position where we have to compete and fight for resources. It's the nature of the planet, it's the nature of the body and brain we have.

You can't go entirely against it, I don't think. If you do, you end up passively dying. That's noble, but you're also really dead as a result. Choosing your battles is a skill. But you do have to fight, if you want to survive and continue doing, thinking, feeling, what you want to for yourself.

You don't want to oppose others, but you will choose to oppose others that oppose others. Bit of a catch.

The other option is a serious faith in karma, forgiveness, all that stuff, that's hard to demonstrate, or else Buddhists monks wouldn't get shot point blank.

 

[cantdog]

I don't take glee in it, either. What I said was I am not conflicted about it. I don't buy into multiculturalism. All paths are not equally valid. You have to be willing, at any level, to make distinctions. How can you possibly progress, yourself, if you refuse to choose between paths? I can choose not to be a Nazi, and I don't consider it as valid a path as some of the others. Tolerance for Nazis is necessary, though that doesn't make them equally valid. Am I making sense, here, to you?

 

[Recidiva]

I don't take glee in it, either. What I said was I am not conflicted about it. I don't buy into multiculturalism. All paths are not equally valid. You have to be willing, at any level, to make distinctions. How can you possibly progress, yourself, if you refuse to choose between paths? I can choose not to be a Nazi, and I don't consider it as valid a path as some of the others. Tolerance for Nazis is necessary, though that doesn't make them equally valid. Am I making sense, here, to you?

You are, but I think about it differently. Everyone is not on your path, and would be completely lost if you were to try to drag them to your spot.

They may not all be equally valid to you, so when you encounter them, you attempt to change them.

Competition for resources results in boundaries and tribes. Nazis were a tribe. A really virulent one. You can argue it was wrong, you can't argue that it didn't work.

Some thoughts are predatory and virulent like diseases. You can say malaria and AIDS are wrong, but they work for their purposes. They're persisting in their own forms, difficult to change and they survive.

They don't care whether or not you agree or understand, they'll just kill you. So you fight certain things because they encroach on you personally. But if they weren't effective, they wouldn't manage to encroach.

All these things test the immune system of the mind, the heart, the soul, the body, and ultimately make them stronger as a group, or make them weaker. But they become part of the evolutionary process of the way people think, feel, and act.

 

[Pure]

partial response to mab,

dr m I don't need any rationale or logical system to back up my feelings. Some things just disgust me and it's my right to be disgusted.

In an attempt to find some foothold in the slippery slope towards total license, some liberals have put forth some "rational" arguments to support prohibitions such as the one against beastiality—that it's immoral because the animals can't give consent. Fine. But by that logic, then fucking dead animals is just dandy, since they have no more consent to give. I suppose by the same logic, fucking dead people is okay too.

No. The bottom line is that what's allowable here is based on a shifting consensus of the individual tastes and opinions of everyone posting on the board, and we qall have our personal, irrational, taste-based standards whether we admit them or not.

P: it seems you're in a contradictory position, since 1) you affirm that any given rule or prohibition (don't fuck dead animals) "is based on a shifting consensus of individual tastes." the word 'taste' underscores the subjective side, as in "hip hop is not to my taste."
most of us find it not to our 'taste' to fuck dead animals.

2) Yet you seem to imply some kind of validity or defeasibility to your position. You say, "it's my right to be disgusted." Of course, in one sense, go ahead and be disgusted. but in another sense, the issue of your rights should not be invoked, since these are part of a more objective (beyond individual) framework.

In your arguement for 1), you proceed, as far as I can see, to discount "rational arguments", e.g. when you say,

"some liberals have put forth some "rational" arguments to support prohibitions such as the one against beastiality"

You proceed to refute ONE rational argument; but of course that doesn't show that no rational arguments exist on the issue.

One last point about 'rationality' in morals. I think it's often a good thing, and has been so, historically. Here are a couple examples.

A For instance, two hundred years ago the 'shifting consensus of individual tastes' was that because women and blacks were inferior, one could do a number of things to them, both paternalistic and punitive; like beat them for disobedience (you can't reason with 'em!).

But already in the French revolution, 'rational' considerations invoked the 'rights of man' and Olympe des Gouges immediately proposed that they be extended to women, based largely on rational argument.

B. To take a more current example. The view that it's wrong to have intercourse with a menstruating woman rests on a consensus of taste. But I submit it's rational considerations (e.g. what's the harm?) that are responsibile for most of us having no moral position, *even where our taste says 'no thank you.'*

 

[McKenna]

...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.

It's all fun and games until someone loses and eye... or a bends a penis the wrong way, or slips something into a vagina that really doesn't belong, or ...

 

[McKenna]

So stuff like scat, golden showers, bestiality, necrophilia, the more extreme forms of BDSM like knife play make me wonder. "What," I wonder, "is the makeup of the person that requires this sort of thing to get off? Why are they so disconnected from the human experience?"

 

[WARNINGWARNING]

My fantasy threshold and my reality threshold are at into different rooms. I think if I were to try to cross into my fantasy I would be disappointed by the reality of them. In fantasy (MINE anway); anal sex does not involve any pain, fecal matter or smell, beastiality there are no flees or ticks and maybe the horses are actually Centaurs, Group sex there is no jealousy, no disease... and in all I am handsome and muscular and extremely desirable.

Of course, I have explored and even made real some fantasies. Some have lived up to or surpased. I don't think I would ever want to experience participating in any form of beastiality. I can't get my own libido around scat. Necrophelia hold no intrigue. I have never been sexualy attracted to a man, though I have enjoyed seeing naked men on occasion, but not men together. I am thankful that children do not stir any lustful passion in me. Pain inflicted or received is a turn off, with the possible exception of applying some hand spanking... not sure why. Drugs (including alcohol) have no place for me, I want to be totally aware and the only aphrodesiac to be sisuational and relational.

I do like "dressup", fantasy sex clothes. I enjoy the idea of mild bondage with a WILLING participant. I enjoy sex talk including talk of some things beyond reality.

 

[McKenna]

I can think and imagine a perversion as enjoyable when I would never do it in real life.

Me too. "Non-consent" scenarios being one of those perversions. Oops, have I just ostracized myself from the group? I admitted a perversion.

The thing is, I don't always understand the way I feel about things. For instance, I don't know why some incest stories get me off, and others don't. I poke and prod at my "fetish" with a mental stick, trying to understand it at the same time I'm grotesquely fascinated with it.

 

[Recidiva]

Me too. "Non-consent" scenarios being one of those perversions. Oops, have I just ostracized myself from the group? I admitted a perversion.

The thing is, I don't always understand the way I feel about things. For instance, I don't know why some incest stories get me off, and others don't. I poke and prod at my "fetish" with a mental stick, trying to understand it at the same time I'm grotesquely fascinated with it.

I like nonconsent, though I really prefer coercion. I can't go anywhere near incest without mental oogies. But I've met my family.

 

[WARNINGWARNING]

Me too. "Non-consent" scenarios being one of those perversions. Oops, have I just ostracized myself from the group? I admitted a perversion.

The thing is, I don't always understand the way I feel about things. For instance, I don't know why some incest stories get me off, and others don't. I poke and prod at my "fetish" with a mental stick, trying to understand it at the same time I'm grotesquely fascinated with it.

I agree.
I had not mentioned incest. That is one which hold some fantasy appeal, and similarly only certain incest scenarios. I have never had an reality based incest fantasies, I have only read some that were immensely appealling. Curious, Father/daughter does not appeal, yet brother/sister and sometimes mother/son do.

 

[McKenna]

I hope this doesn't get us off topic; I don't mean to start a debate about whether "liberals" have a few of their own subjective values they want to "impose" - if necessary maybe we can start a separate thread. My point is that people do have a conception of "the good life." When they state the "anything that does not hurt another" formula there is often an unspoken second clause: "But you wouldn't catch me dead doing that, and Gaia forbid that my children ever do - that's not the kind of life I want them to live!"

You know, this last bit brought to mind the story of the GB lady I mentioned earlier in this thread. As I watched events unfold, I kept wondering to myself, just how many of these people had closet fetishes themselves? Pot call the kettle black, lately? Who's casting the first stone?

That's the thing I've noticed; it seems the more vocal someone is against a certain subject, the bigger his or her closet fetish seems to be. It's like, "If I can draw attention to this other person, maybe no one will notice my own perversion."

Or something like that.

I live in Idaho. It has a VERY LARGE conservative Christian population, and yet it also has one of the highest rates of incest. Hmmm. Correlation there? Perhaps.

 

[McKenna]

well, roxanne*, i set up a thread on objective values, ones possibly rooted in human beings, nature, and human nature, "flourishing," etc.
drop in some time!

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=456641

-----

*and anyone else

What's this? A commercial advertisment in my thread?!

 

[McKenna]

I like nonconsent, though I really prefer coercion. I can't go anywhere near incest without mental oogies. But I've met my family.

Here's the odd thing: Incest is stimulating to me when it happens to other families. I'm not sexually attracted to any of my family, with the exception of one really hot cousin who thankfully lives several states away.

 

[Recidiva]

Here's the odd thing: Incest is stimulating to me when it happens to other families. I'm not sexually attracted to any of my family, with the exception of one really hot cousin who thankfully lives several states away.

Heh...well, I had an extremely unhealthy family life. Occasionally I think if I liked them more, I'd be normal...into incest, that is.

 

[Nirvanadragones]

or ...

yes?

 

[WARNINGWARNING]

Heh...well, I had an extremely unhealthy family life. Occasionally I think if I liked them more, I'd be normal...into incest, that is.

I am shallow. In my fantasy world there is the physical attractiveness factor (as well as relational). My family does not fit in either catagory even though they are relations. I can, on the other hand, project myself into a different family which I imagine to be sexually stimulating.

 

[McKenna]

Wow

Lots of replies here, fascinating stuff to ponder. Thank you all for daring to voice your opinions here! I've read every single post -even if I haven't responded to all of them.

I think it's difficult for any of us to admit our perceived perversions, with good reason; who wants to be ostracized or thought of as a freak? (Unless that's your thing, I guess.)

Pure brought to the table the separation of fantasy from reality; WARNINGWARNING did as well when he spoke of his fantasy realm not containing any of the realities associated with, say, anal sex or bestiality. In my fantasy world, rapists only rape with damn good reason and usually the rape-victim falls in love with the rapist, somehow making it all "right" in the end. Bestiality exists but with a twist; usually between fantasy characters like mermaids of centaurs or what-have-you, basically beings that are capable of thought and emotion. Fellatio is always performed without the slightest hint of smegma, and cunnilingus always ends in at least two mind-blowing orgasms. That's fantasy.

But now, back to our regularly scheduled reality...

 

[McKenna]

yes?

Here's another of my perversions: With all these hot women running around on the AH, I occasionally wonder what it would be like to be a lesbian. I mean, hundreds of women who practice it can't be wrong, can they?

 

[KinkyRascal]

A Fascinating Consideration.

McKenna,

This is a fascinating consideration and well put by you in your original post. I, too, have noticed the same thing happen here at Lit and have posted my concerns about it briefly a number of times.

Like others here have stated, I'm quite open to whatever others find interesting. In other words, to each their own or, as the Supreme Court said about obscenity I can't define it but I know it when I see it. (Talk about relativism!)

For myself, as I would hope for everyone as a reflection of their basic humanity, there are specific limits. I'm simply open to the fact that what I may find beyonod those limits others do not.

On my own list are definitely children and permanent harm either physically or psychologically. Within those limits there are, of course, a number of other hard limits for myself personally but I need not detail those here.

I am also quite firm on the fact that not being able to talk about one's interests, regardless of limits, is censorship. Being able to actually act upon those thoughts, again of course, places it in an entirely different realm.

Society has a responsibility for the sake of humanity as well as survivability, to protect the most vulnerable and those who would otherwise be preyed upon by those who are so inclined. Do I always agree with those social norms? Of course not. But then again, I don't always agree with individual's limits and interests. But I do fervently uphold their right to talk about them if they so choose just as I do on other non-sexual topics.

As for the "liberal" argument, the writer confuses the political definition of the word with the philosophical definition of the word.

I see no relationship between political liberalism and these issues. Some of the most conservative people I know have some of the most outlandish "kinks" and see no irony in those positions (no pun intended) whatsoever.

As for the philosophical definition of liberalism "having, expressing or following views or polices that favor the freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner of their own choosing," I'm pretty much all for it as long as it doesn't harm or prey on the vulnerable or lead to anarchy which does the same.

Finally, with regard to the animal issue, the opposition here seems self-righteous to me and a "kink" reflection of animal rights extremism as long as no harm is done to the animal. The animals are acting on instinct. To say they have "no choice" in the matter discounts animals' abilities. They wouldn't act on it if they didn't enjoy it or desire it unless the coercion used included the threat of harm to the animal. The latter, however, I see as a matter of animal cruelty rather than perversion.

Just my random thoughts, which, most likely, only make sense to me. An excellent post nonetheless McKenna and, again, well put!

K

 

[WARNINGWARNING]

Here's another of my perversions: With all these hot women running around on the AH, I occasionally wonder what it would be like to be a lesbian. I mean, hundreds of women who practice it can't be wrong, can they?

But that is not part of "the regularly scheduled reality". That is STILL a fantasy.

 

[Nirvanadragones]

Here's another of my perversions: With all these hot women running around on the AH, I occasionally wonder what it would be like to be a lesbian. I mean, hundreds of women who practice it can't be wrong, can they?

To quote one of my favorite people:

" Are you gay yet?"

 

[McKenna]

But that is not part of "the regularly scheduled reality". That is STILL a fantasy.

Shhhh, you're spoiling it.

 

[McKenna]

To quote one of my favorite people:

" Are you gay yet?"

You'll be one of the first to know should it happen.

 

[WARNINGWARNING]

Shhhh, you're spoiling it.

oops.

 

[Nirvanadragones]

You'll be one of the first to know should it happen.