Acceptable Perversion

[Nirvanadragones]

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

That is not part of her "regularly scheduled reality" . . .

It's the only reality for me.

 

[McKenna]

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.

Unfortunately, I have noticed this trend as well.

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 animal's 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.

I agree.

 

[WARNINGWARNING]

That is not part of her "regularly scheduled reality" . . .

It's the only reality for me.

understood.
We are to speak for ourselves.

PERV!

 

[oggbashan]

Acceptable Fiction?

I'm not sure whether this is relevant to this thread or should be a separate one:

Some religions, or sub-sets within religions, do not accept that fiction is any different from reality. To them a fiction is just a lie. The attacks on Salman Rusdie's Satanic Verses were in part a cultural misunderstanding because if you do not see the difference between fiction and reality, any portrayal of revered figures in a fictional environment is unacceptable.

There are people in our societies who would never read fiction. How far they accept some newspaper reports is a moot point. Some of them even believe that if something is written down it must be true.

Do we as authors have any responsibility for those who cannot see that fiction is just that - an alternate reality that does not exist? Fiction assumes the suspension of disbelief and an understanding that what is read is known to be a manufactured reality. As Dorothy L Sayers once said 'We murder in jest - no offence in the world'.

How would you justify fiction to someone who doesn't believe it exists?

Og

 

[Recidiva]

Unfortunately, I have noticed this trend as well.

I agree.

So the difference is compartmentalizing. My husband works at a hotel and he says when the Christian Fundamentalist conventions come to town, their pay per view porn sales go out the roof.

Conservatives compartmentalize their guilt, Liberals flaunt their guilt?

 

[Recidiva]

I'm not sure whether this is relevant to this thread or should be a separate one:

Some religions, or sub-sets within religions, do not accept that fiction is any different from reality. To them a fiction is just a lie. The attacks on Salman Rusdie's Satanic Verses were in part a cultural misunderstanding because if you do not see the difference between fiction and reality, any portrayal of revered figures in a fictional environment is unacceptable.

There are people in our societies who would never read fiction. How far they accept some newspaper reports is a moot point. Some of them even believe that if something is written down it must be true.

Do we as authors have any responsibility for those who cannot see that fiction is just that - an alternate reality that does not exist? Fiction assumes the suspension of disbelief and an understanding that what is read is known to be a manufactured reality. As Dorothy L Sayers once said 'We murder in jest - no offence in the world'.

How would you justify fiction to someone who doesn't believe it exists?

Og

I agree. Between the people who consider imagination a sin, and the people who consider imagination a lie, that's a lot of people. Considering we use thoughts to build our world, they have a point. Should be listened to and considered carefully, that at least for them, it's absolutely true.

 

[McKenna]

Conservatives compartmentalize their guilt, Liberals flaunt their guilt?

That's one way of looking at it.

 

[WARNINGWARNING]

I agree. Between the people who consider imagination a sin, and the people who consider imagination a lie, that's a lot of people. Considering we use thoughts to build our world, they have a point. Should be listened to and considered carefully, that at least for them, it's absolutely true.

Interesting.
Sinning in one's heart (Jimmy Carter).
I am sure that some of my thoughts and imaginations are "sinful". I am also sure that there are some fantasies in my head that I would act on if given the opportunity. There are others in there that I would not.

Uh OH! is this heading towards a religious thread!? ACK!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

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?

" . . . occasionally wonder . . ." ? That's it?

 

[AppleBiter]

Here's my 2 cents, for what it's worth:

My Eeeeeew and/or That's Fucked Up List: Pedophilia, Necrophilia, Bestiality, & Incest.

The things on my list are things I find to be morally objectionable. There are, of course, other things which I either don't understand or find completely disgusting (or both) such as Scat, for example, that didn't make the list because I don't find them morally objectionable to me. Yes, I find them to be icky, but I wouldn't put them under the perverse category.

I'm into BDSM. LOL A lot of people have a problem with what I like to do in the privacy of my own bedroom and that has a LOT to do with misunderstanding. A lot of people don't understand it and don't want to. That's cool. I don't understand Scat and I don't want to. Not only do I not understand Pedophilia and don't want to, but I think the people that are into it need serious fucking help. I guess that's the best distinction I can make.

Sorry to ramble. Carry on.

 

[impressive]

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

Can I be one of the second?

 

[McKenna]

Do we as authors have any responsibility for those who cannot see that fiction is just that - an alternate reality that does not exist? Fiction assumes the suspension of disbelief and an understanding that what is read is known to be a manufactured reality. As Dorothy L Sayers once said 'We murder in jest - no offence in the world'.

How would you justify fiction to someone who doesn't believe it exists?

Oy. This would be like trying to convince someone who desperately believes the world is flat, that it actually is round.

Do I feel I have a responsibility to explain fiction to those who don't believe it exists? Not really, unless that person is a child who hasn't been introduced to the world of fantasy yet. "No dear, there are no monsters under the bed, even if that book says there are."

How would I justify fiction to someone who doesn't believe it exists? Hmm... Crikey. How would I? That would mean they don't believe in analogy or allegory or any other number of teaching tools. Ack. I couldn't imagine a world where there was no "escape," no fantasy world to plug into for an hour or two.

 

[McKenna]

Uh OH! is this heading towards a religious thread!? ACK!

Nooooooooooooooooooooo!

 

[WARNINGWARNING]

Nooooooooooooooooooooo!

I pray it doesn't.

 

[McKenna]

The things on my list are things I find to be morally objectionable. There are, of course, other things which I either don't understand or find completely disgusting (or both) such as Scat, for example, that didn't make the list because I don't find them morally objectionable to me. Yes, I find them to be icky, but I wouldn't put them under the perverse category.

May I ask why you don't consider these "perverse?" You may reply via PM, if you feel more comfortable. I'm just curious about the distinction between morally objectionable and perverse.

 

[Recidiva]

Interesting.
Sinning in one's heart (Jimmy Carter).
I am sure that some of my thoughts and imaginations are "sinful". I am also sure that there are some fantasies in my head that I would act on if given the opportunity. There are others in there that I would not.

Uh OH! is this heading towards a religious thread!? ACK!

I come across this all the time, particularly here on this board, where people are exploring boundaries.

Someone might start to wonder how someone else can have a healthy open relationship (evil, immoral, corrupt) when they can't keep together a monogamous one (good, moral, wholesome). Then start picking apart why they feel the way they do about evil/good, immoral/moral, corrupt/wholesome.

I think there are as many religions as there are people. So for me, I think about religion and philosophy, whatever you're choosing to align yourself or label yourself with, it's still going to be unique person to person.

The better they can express themselves individually, according to their needs, the better I feel for people.

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - Shakespeare.

Many people are afraid of what other people think, while still pursuing private pleasures. They're afraid of what other people rightly so, because other people are thinking judgmental, cruel things, and those thoughts make it easy to commit judgmental, cruel acts.

 

[McKenna]

I pray it doesn't.

<snort>

 

[ABSTRUSE]

My question: does it really matter if the animal sex is consentual?

 

[AppleBiter]

May I ask why you don't consider these "perverse?" You may reply via PM, if you feel more comfortable. I'm just curious about the distinction between morally objectionable and perverse.

That's a good question. I guess the distinction is that the things I find morally objectional also coincide with being, at least to me, something that takes sex and turns it into something it was never intended to be -- if that makes sense. Basically, Pedophilia is destroying a child's life, Necrophilia is desecrating the dead, Beastiality seems to me to be screwing (no pun intended) with the laws of nature, and Incest is both screwing with the laws of nature and (in many cases) destroying someone's life.

The other icky things I mentioned that didn't make my list, while they're gross and I may not agree with them, don't seem to pervert sex. But, that's my view. They may be perverse to someone else. Many people have mentioned my particular kink as perverse and I can see how they might think that, but -- ultimately -- to each their own within the confines of the law.

 

[Recidiva]

My question: does it really matter if the animal sex is consentual?

To me it does.

 

[impressive]

My question: does it really matter if the animal sex is consentual?

To the animal? Yes, it matters.

 

[Nirvanadragones]

My question: does it really matter if the animal sex is consentual?

It's the snake, isn't it?

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Diva, Imp? is this from experience?

is this a sharing moment??

 

[impressive]

Diva, Imp? is this from experience?

is this a sharing moment??

I promised I wouldn't tell. (She's ashamed of me.)


Now, stop jackin' McK's thread.

 

[Recidiva]

It's the snake, isn't it?

She's going to have interesting ligature/burn marks she's going to have trouble explaining to the emergency room team.