Acceptable Perversion

[McKenna]

Women have other things to obsess over - piss, speculums and animals are not 'typically' among them

Damn it. Now you tell me.

 

[Liar]

Actually, the taboo factor is used in more than just incest stories; for some it's anal, or fellatio, or cunninlingus, or <gasp> something other than the missionary position.

And what about the fact that there's an Interracial section here @ lit? Again. A taboo. One that passed the line into acceptane but still remains an alternative to "normal" for some people, even if it's not to be frowned upon, but as a source for extra titillation. Where as other's, like me, wonder what the big deal is. Plain ol' vanilla shagging there too, right?

***Abuse is a whole 'nother subject. I'm not referring to abuse.

Amen.

 

[Liar]

Women have other things to obsess over - piss, speculums and animals are not 'typically' among them

Is it typically among what us blokes obsess over then?

AFAIK, we usually obsess over tits, pussy and ass. But I could be wrong.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Is it typically among what us blokes obsess over then?

AFAIK, we usually obsess over tits, pussy and ass. But I could be wrong.

Particularly pussy and ass, in my case.

 

[Liar]

Particularly pussy and ass, in my case.

Personally, I'm a leg man. I guess I'm weird that way.

It's actually a convenient 'fetish' compared to yours, since legs are much more often on display in public than pussys and asses.

 

[McKenna]

Personally, I'm a leg man. I guess I'm weird that way.

You and the poodles. Just don't start humping my leg, okay?

 

[Liar]

You and the poodles. Just don't start humping my leg, okay?

I'll try to restrain myself. But I'm not making any promises.

 

[CharleyH]

Is it typically among what us blokes obsess over then?

AFAIK, we usually obsess over tits, pussy and ass. But I could be wrong.

Oh, how beautifully, or not, WRONG you are.

 

[Liar]

Oh, how beautifully, or not, WRONG you are.

Mkay? Yannow, if you blurt it out like that, I kind of expect further explanation. Whaddayamean?

 

[McKenna]

<bump>

 

[Guest]

 

[McKenna]

You asked why dogs "hump" legs--that's a dominance behavior not a sexual behavior. Just because the occasional dog attempts to assert dominance over a human does not mean that dogs in general can consent to sex acts.

I have heard this about asserting dominance before, it's one explanation. (Especially whena female dog tries to hump another dog or leg or whatever.) But do males honestly get a stiffie just to assert dominance? I don't know enough about dog physiology or behavior to know the answer to this. I am asking out of genuine curiosity, not to debate your point.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I've been thinking about this and reading all the posts, and I don't know that I have much to add, but here's my take:

The things I think of as "perversions" are those that involve unwilling subjects, either kids, mentally disabled adults or animals, or involve causing death or having sex with dead bodies. And yes, I do think that animals are unable to consent in the same way kids are. You asked why dogs "hump" legs--that's a dominance behavior not a sexual behavior. Just because the occasional dog attempts to assert dominance over a human does not mean that dogs in general can consent to sex acts. Bestiality = abuse in my opinion, and should be punished as such.

Anything that doesn't involve sex with those unable to consent (four above categories) and doesn't involve killing people to get off is to me simply, "Not my kink." Some of it may turn my stomach, but I have no right to judge anyone who is practicing consensual kinky things with a consenting partner. Ask me to take part in some of that stuff and I'll either barf on you or throw something at you, but I won't think you're less of a person because you're wired differently than I am.

When I think of "bestiality" I think of a dog and a woman. There are other types but that is what my dirty mind goes to. I believe the dog is a very willing participant, at least once he knows how good it its. It's a bit unnatural for him so he has to be taught, but after that, he is willing.

 

[Guest]

 

[shereads]

A The Right is right. We have no standards and anything goes. Self-mutilation. Erotic Vampirism. Urolagnia. Figging (inserting a piece of peeled ginger root in the anus prior to sex, if you must know.)

Oh please! That last one is so rigtht-wing in-the-closet, it's nearly impossible to think "ginger root in the anus" without thinking "Ashcroft."

Liberals don't have lower standards; we're just less eager to shun, condemn and punish those whose perversions are wierder than our own.

I personally think that certain people shouldn't have any kind of sex, but I willingly acknowledge that they have every right as long as I'm not forced to watch. Seriously, people, is the thought of Rush Limbaugh all naked and sweaty, grunting 'Who's your daddy' as he services the missus, any less grotesque and repulsive than imagining a faceless stranger masturbating with his own severed foot? Neither of those events can bring harm to me or any innocent person, if they are done in private - provided the Limbaugh image doesn't get stuck in my head like ABBA's "Dancing Queen," which come to think of it is probably the CD he plays during sex.

Sweetjeezus!

That pervert ought to be locked up. With Ashcroft. And some ginger root.




Edited to add: I owe ABBA an apology. I've just learned that Limbaugh does it to Cher's "Gypsies, Tramps and Thieves."

 

[shereads]

What I meant to say is that sexual perversion could be construed as any sex act that isn't intended for procreation.

To meet the dictionary definition of 'perverse,' we need only use the act for other than its right and proper purpose. For that, it isn't necessary to add battery-operated devices, pantyhose fetishes or a whipping post. A condom will do.

Social acceptance is a dangerous way to measure right and wrong. From 'wrong,' the next step is 'illegal.' What we do in this forum might be abhorrent to enough people to meet the US Supreme Court's loose definition of obscenity; we can only hope the majority remain unaware - or are liberal enough to accept that obscene posts to this thread are none of their business.





"I'll know it when I see it."

~ Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, 1964, defining hard-core pornography ('obscenity')



"The motion picture exhibited revealed an entirely naked man and woman in various acts of sodomy (fellatio,cunnilingus, buggery) and adultery -- all shown with close-up camera photography. A more sickening, disgusting, depraved showing cannot be imagined."

~ Utah State Supreme Court Justice Ellet, 1977, referring to the 1964 US Supreme Court ruling

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Eat Me

Anyone remember that business in Germany a while ago where someone ran a personal ad saying he wanted to engage in erotic homosexual cannibalism? I forget whether it was the eater or the eatee who placed the ad, but anyhow, these two guys got together, had sex, then one cut off the other guy's dick (with his permission) and fried it and they ate it.

Unfortunately, the dickless guy bled to death before he finished his meal, and there was all sorts of legal squabbling afterwards - charges of homicide and so on.

Anyhow, the case is a pretty neat refutation of the "no harm, no foul" test of what's an acceptable perversion.

As for bestiality, my objection has never been over whether the animal wants it or not. I don't think the point of bestiality porn is to get off on the German shepherd's erotic excitement. The real message of bestiality (it seems to me) is the degradation of the woman involved, her reduction the status of a barnyard animal. That's what makes me look away. I'm humiliated for her.

It's strange though - in fantasy stories you can have sex between all sorts of non-human creatures. I did a story in which a girl has sex with Dionysus in his form as a bull and it was accepted by Lit, which suggests to me that it's not so much the form of the creature but the intelligence and intent behind his actions that determines whether it's bestiality or not.

 

[Pure]

hi zoot,

the cannibal was named Miewes, and i had a thread about his trial.
so did rebecca; here's the link

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=15761438&postcount=17

he and the victim, Brandes, did eat the Brandes' penis; B had stated he wanted to die; then the victim,iirc, was stabbed to death and partly eaten.

Miewes was sentenced to several years for murder (for sexual gratification), on appeal, since you can't 'consensually' kill anyone.

the case is a pretty neat refutation of the "no harm, no foul" test of what's an acceptable perversion.

on the contrary, there was harm, that's why there was a legal (and moral, imo) offence.

 

[shereads]

As for bestiality, my objection has never been over whether the animal wants it or not. I don't think the point of bestiality porn is to get off on the German shepherd's erotic excitement. The real message of bestiality (it seems to me) is the degradation of the woman involved, her reduction the status of a barnyard animal. That's what makes me look away. I'm humiliated for her.

It's strange though - in fantasy stories you can have sex between all sorts of non-human creatures. I did a story in which a girl has sex with Dionysus in his form as a bull and it was accepted by Lit, which suggests to me that it's not so much the form of the creature but the intelligence and intent behind his actions that determines whether it's bestiality or not.

My objection is on behalf of the dog. He might think he wants it, but he can't give informed consent. No matter how old he is in dog years, he's still too naive to understand the emotional ramifications, the health risks, etc.

From an erotica standpoint, I can't imagine anything less erotic than dogs. The thing I like best about dogs as friends, side-kicks and companions - their silliness - makes them about as sexy as Soupy Sales.

 

[shereads]

Unfortunately, the dickless guy bled to death before he finished his meal, and there was all sorts of legal squabbling afterwards - charges of homicide and so on.

Anyhow, the case is a pretty neat refutation of the "no harm, no foul" test of what's an acceptable perversion.

Homicide isn't acceptable; the perversion is beside the point.

I guess my question about the thread theme is what we mean by acceptable. Legal? Embraced by society? Enjoyed by most sexually active people?

If unacceptable means illegal, who sets the standard? Like pornography, perversion can't be defined fairly because the standard is constantly changing. I doubt it will reach a point where the Humane Society's dog training classes include lessons on having sex with your pet - ewww! - but the fact is, a lot of what we AHers consider healthy sexuality would be illegal if that Utah judge had had his way. He was as qualified as anyone else to impose on others a universal definition of what is repulsive, disgusting and perverse - not qualified at all, but as qualified as you or me.

To prevent deaths by amputation or strangulation, we don't need standards of acceptable perversion. We already have laws that prohibit killing people.

I feel the same way about hate-crime laws. I'm against them because violence is violence, regardless of motive. If you drag someone to death behind your truck, you're a murderer - whether you did it as an act of racial hatred or because he owed you money. If you paint swastikas on a temple or anti-Islamic slogans on a mosque, and you're a vandal. If you paint a direct threat, you're a dangerous vandal.
If you amputate someone's penis so that he bleeds to death, you've committed a homicide. What matters is whether it was accidental or premeditated; not whether it was prompted by a sexual perversion. Otherwise, a good defense would be, "It wasn't about sex. He wanted his penis removed so his pants would drape better."

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Homicide isn't acceptable; the perversion is beside the point.

I guess my question about the thread theme comes down to whether society should set a standard of sexual behavior based on what most people think is grotesque/repulsive/disgusting, or whether we should be content to enforce the laws that already exist against life-endangering behavior - such as amputating a person's penis simply because he requests it.

Is it really relevent that the mutilation that caused this man to bleed to death was motivated by a sexual perversion? Would it be any less criminal to amputate your friend's penis if he requested it for some other reason - "It gets in the way of my zipper," or "I think my pants will look more tailored without that lump."

I feel the same way about hate crimes: who cares that it was motivated by hate? If you drag someone to death behind your truck, you're a murderer - whether you did it as an act of racial hatred or because he owed you money. If you paint swastikas on a temple or anti-Islamic slogans on a mosque, and you're a vandal. If you paint a direct threat, you're a dangerous vandal.

Ah, some common sense. Motive doesn't determine the seriousness of a crime. The inherent harm of the act itself does. Unless it's a matter of consenting adults, mutilation is a crime.

 

[kendo1]

I broke a nail.
Accidental damage.

 

[shereads]

Ah, some common sense. Motive doesn't determine the seriousness of a crime. The inherent harm of the act itself does. Unless it's a matter of consenting adults, mutilation is a crime.

Mutilation that endangers the life of a consenting adult is also a crime. As it should be. That's why we prosecute non-licensed plastic surgeons and doctors who inject their friends with bootleg Botox.

Consenting to an act that's likely to result in permanent harm or even death is a step away from consenting to be killed - which is legal only for the terminally ill and only in Oregon, where no fewer than three physicians have to agree that the request was made by a person of sound mind, for whom there was no reasonable hope for a cure, and that it's not being done to benefit someone else.

"Chop off my penis" doesn't cut it, and I'm not arguing that it should. Only that sexual perversion isn't the issue.

 

[shereads]

I broke a nail.
Accidental damage.

Pervert. You broken fingernail fetishists are worse than the pantyhose fetishists.

 

[kendo1]

I laddered my tights on my broken nail.