Rumple Foreskin
The AH Patriarch
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2002
- Posts
- 11,109
Anytime, dahlin'. Just please take off the spike heels. I'm a bleeder.perdita said:Rumply, can I walk all over you?
Perdita Ruff-Muff
Rumple Foreskin
Krafft-Ebbing
- Thread starter CharleyH
- Start date
Rumple Foreskin
G
Guest
Guest
Aw Rumps, bleeder or not, you've missed the point of this thread. Sheesh.Rumple Foreskin said:
Off to cruise another fetish bar.
Perdita
Rumple Foreskin
The AH Patriarch
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2002
- Posts
- 11,109
The Rumple feels rejected. Not for the first time in his life, or even today for that matter. Oh, that I wasn't a bleeder. Might as well put up the whips and paddles.perdita said:
Rumple Foreskin
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
ooh! maybe you're Russian royalty!Rumple Foreskin said:Anytime, dahlin'. Just please take off the spike heels. I'm a bleeder.
Rumple Foreskin
For your delectaion and amusment, i present
. : Underground Velvet - "Venus In Furs" : .
shiny, shiny, shiny boots of leather
whiplash girlchild in the dark
comes in bells, your servant, don't forsake him
strike, dear mistress, and cure his heart
downy sins of streetlight fancies
chase the costumes she shall wear
ermine furs adorn the imperious
severin, severin awaits you there
i am tired, i am weary
i could sleep for a thousand years
a thousand dreams that would awake me
different colors made of tears
kiss the boot of shiny, shiny leather
shiny leather in the dark
tongue of thongs, the belt that does await you
strike, dear mistress, and cure his heart
severin, severin, speak so slightly
severin, down on your bended knee
taste the whip, in love not given lightly
taste the whip, now plead for me
i am tired, i am weary
i could sleep for a thousand years
a thousand dreams that would awake me
different colors made of tears
shiny, shiny, shiny boots of leather
whiplash girlchild in the dark
severin, your servant comes in bells, please don't forsake him
strike, dear mistress, and cure his heart
G
Guest
Guest
Marry me, cara! You know about the tsarevich and you quoted the Velvet U. It's all coming back now... well, bits of the 60s anyway.Stella_Omega said:
Swooning,
Perdita
Rumple Foreskin
The AH Patriarch
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2002
- Posts
- 11,109
Stella, considering my taste in poetry, this is probably a grievous insult to whoever wrote those lines, but I like the refrain
i am tired, i am weary
i could sleep for a thousand years
a thousand dreams that would awake me
different colors made of tears
Now what old KE would think about it is another unanswered question.
Rumple Foreskin
i am tired, i am weary
i could sleep for a thousand years
a thousand dreams that would awake me
different colors made of tears
Now what old KE would think about it is another unanswered question.
Rumple Foreskin
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
If I get liquored up, I sing Malguena Salarosa, tooperdita said:Marry me, cara! You know about the tsarevich and you quoted the Velvet U. It's all coming back now... well, bits of the 60s anyway.
Swooning,
Perdita
... lucky for everyone that I hardly ever drink...
Rumple, the refrain is probably the best part of the song- now that I see the lyrics printed, they are atrocious as poetry. But with Lou reed's voice giving it shape... it's a good song.
Rumple Foreskin
The AH Patriarch
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2002
- Posts
- 11,109
Reed's voice could make the yellow pages sound erotic.Stella_Omega said:If I get liquored up, I sing Malguena Salarosa, too
... lucky for everyone that I hardly ever drink...
Rumple, the refrain is probably the best part of the song- now that I see the lyrics printed, they are atrocious as poetry. But with Lou reed's voice giving it shape... it's a good song.
Did you ever hear of a SF group called Mother Earth with Tracy Nelson? I heard her recently on Praire Home Companion.
Rumple Foreskin
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
Far as I know there still is no decent theory or explanation of fetishes and paraphilias, and I doubt there will ever be. They cover too wide and varied an area to be manifestations of the same dynamic.
But since Charley seems to have developed something of a fetish fetish, I thought I'd post a link to the Grand Fetish Road Map originally posted by (as I recall) Liar or possibly Lucifer Carrol. (If it was someone else, I beg your pardon.)
http://www.deviantdesires.com/map/mappics/map81002.gif
They at least try to develop a rough map for the terrain of the twisted.
--Zoot
But since Charley seems to have developed something of a fetish fetish, I thought I'd post a link to the Grand Fetish Road Map originally posted by (as I recall) Liar or possibly Lucifer Carrol. (If it was someone else, I beg your pardon.)
http://www.deviantdesires.com/map/mappics/map81002.gif
They at least try to develop a rough map for the terrain of the twisted.
--Zoot
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
One thing that K E got mostly right
Just so there's some primary and secondary material in this thread. The following is from a rather critical summary and review at the website mentioned.
Incidentally, "Ebing" has one 'b.' (Just re-learned this!)
http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/events/1886.htm
Perversion, Perversity, and the Law
Doctors were the primary audience Krafft-Ebing intended for Psychopathia Sexualis, but he included a long section on the legal implications of his "scientific" "medico-forensic" findings. Lawyers and judges had no more respect for alienists than anyone else, and Krafft-Ebing aimed to change that when he wrote that lawyer needed psychiatric help to fairly sentence criminals.
"Law and Jurisprudence have thus far given but little attention to the facts resulting from investigations in psycho-pathology," he complained. "Law is, in this, opposed to Medicine, and is constantly in danger of passing judgment on individuals who, in the light of science, are not responsible for their acts."
According to Krafft-Ebing, judges make a terrible mistake when they sentence offenders based on their acts rather than the reasons behind their acts. In fact, judges need help from psychiatrists to distinguish between two types of offenders, the perverse and the perverts. Cultivated pederasts and others who commit abnormal sexual acts out of lust for sexual thrills or to earn money as prostitutes are, in Krafft-Ebing's terms, perverse. They act against their normal heterosexual natures and deserve punishment from the courts.
Perverts like congenital homosexuals constitute a second class of offenders who commit abnormal acts that accord with their own natures. They cannot help themselves because their degenerate heredity has programmed them differently from normal people. Krafft-Ebing argued that these sick men deserve pity, not punishment.
Armed with the distinction between wicked perversity and sick perversion, Krafft-Ebing launched a powerful attack on Paragraph 175 and other laws that criminalize sex between men. He reasoned that even though the perverse deserve punishment, perverts don't. When a man is charged with a violation of ? 175, he argued, his reputation is ruined even if he isn't convicted, so the law unfairly destroys the lives of congenital perverts.
Though Krafft-Ebing made a lasting contribution by spreading a vocabulary of perversion, the theory of degeneration he espoused fell on hard times at the turn of the 20th Century. Havelock Ellis rejected it in his Sexual Inversion of 1897, and in 1905 Freud published a withering criticism of the idea that amounted to its death knell.
The year before he died, Krafft-Ebing even recanted himself. In a 1901 article in the Jahrbuch f?ualzwischenstufen, a journal published by the Scientific Humanitarian Committee he declared that even though inversion is an inherited variation, it is not morbid or degenerate. Unfortunately, the last edition of his book predated his conversion, and its frequent reprints contain the old model of degeneration.
The book and others of its ilk had another consequence: they formalized and popularized the idea that homosexuals are constitutionally different from heterosexuals, that their minds and sometimes even their bodies set them apart from the heterosexual majority. Ulrichs was the first to articulate this idea in print, but psychiatrists learned about it from Krafft-Ebing.
The idea was popular among psychiatrists and homosexuals, but for different reasons.
Many homosexuals, including many in the case studies Krafft-Ebing used to illustrate his book, welcomed the idea that they possessed a unique personality structure. It seemed better to be considered sick than depraved and subject to prosecution under the law.
Psychiatrists liked the idea, too, because it gave them a position of power as experts in the treatment of sexual pathologies. The older sin model didn't pay for anybody, so the new medical model quickly caught on.
Just so there's some primary and secondary material in this thread. The following is from a rather critical summary and review at the website mentioned.
Incidentally, "Ebing" has one 'b.' (Just re-learned this!)
http://www.gayhistory.com/rev2/events/1886.htm
Perversion, Perversity, and the Law
Doctors were the primary audience Krafft-Ebing intended for Psychopathia Sexualis, but he included a long section on the legal implications of his "scientific" "medico-forensic" findings. Lawyers and judges had no more respect for alienists than anyone else, and Krafft-Ebing aimed to change that when he wrote that lawyer needed psychiatric help to fairly sentence criminals.
"Law and Jurisprudence have thus far given but little attention to the facts resulting from investigations in psycho-pathology," he complained. "Law is, in this, opposed to Medicine, and is constantly in danger of passing judgment on individuals who, in the light of science, are not responsible for their acts."
According to Krafft-Ebing, judges make a terrible mistake when they sentence offenders based on their acts rather than the reasons behind their acts. In fact, judges need help from psychiatrists to distinguish between two types of offenders, the perverse and the perverts. Cultivated pederasts and others who commit abnormal sexual acts out of lust for sexual thrills or to earn money as prostitutes are, in Krafft-Ebing's terms, perverse. They act against their normal heterosexual natures and deserve punishment from the courts.
Perverts like congenital homosexuals constitute a second class of offenders who commit abnormal acts that accord with their own natures. They cannot help themselves because their degenerate heredity has programmed them differently from normal people. Krafft-Ebing argued that these sick men deserve pity, not punishment.
Armed with the distinction between wicked perversity and sick perversion, Krafft-Ebing launched a powerful attack on Paragraph 175 and other laws that criminalize sex between men. He reasoned that even though the perverse deserve punishment, perverts don't. When a man is charged with a violation of ? 175, he argued, his reputation is ruined even if he isn't convicted, so the law unfairly destroys the lives of congenital perverts.
Though Krafft-Ebing made a lasting contribution by spreading a vocabulary of perversion, the theory of degeneration he espoused fell on hard times at the turn of the 20th Century. Havelock Ellis rejected it in his Sexual Inversion of 1897, and in 1905 Freud published a withering criticism of the idea that amounted to its death knell.
The year before he died, Krafft-Ebing even recanted himself. In a 1901 article in the Jahrbuch f?ualzwischenstufen, a journal published by the Scientific Humanitarian Committee he declared that even though inversion is an inherited variation, it is not morbid or degenerate. Unfortunately, the last edition of his book predated his conversion, and its frequent reprints contain the old model of degeneration.
The book and others of its ilk had another consequence: they formalized and popularized the idea that homosexuals are constitutionally different from heterosexuals, that their minds and sometimes even their bodies set them apart from the heterosexual majority. Ulrichs was the first to articulate this idea in print, but psychiatrists learned about it from Krafft-Ebing.
The idea was popular among psychiatrists and homosexuals, but for different reasons.
Many homosexuals, including many in the case studies Krafft-Ebing used to illustrate his book, welcomed the idea that they possessed a unique personality structure. It seemed better to be considered sick than depraved and subject to prosecution under the law.
Psychiatrists liked the idea, too, because it gave them a position of power as experts in the treatment of sexual pathologies. The older sin model didn't pay for anybody, so the new medical model quickly caught on.
Last edited:
dr_mabeuse
seduce the mind
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2002
- Posts
- 11,528
So Freud published a "withering criticism" of Krafft-Ebbing's theories? Well that's a feather in KE's cap.
G
Guest
Guest
You're back in my good fetishistic graces, Rumply. If this thread goes on my whole life might unravel in nostalgia.Rumple Foreskin said:
Perdita
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Good point, mab,
mab So Freud published a "withering criticism" of Krafft-Ebbing's theories? Well that's a feather in KE's cap.
quite perceptive.
after all, Freud did NOT have the last word on homosexuality ("inversion") and, among other things, linked it to non-standard** resolution of Oedipal difficulties. as an enlightened dr., of course, he did not favor criminalizing homosexual acts or persecuting homosexual persons. and he was quite aware of the great achievements of homosexual artists such as Michelangelo, DaVinci, etc.
it is worth noting that the category 'homosexual' is itself suspect and nobody in Socrates' time thought in those terms. to say someone is 'a homosexual' is to define a person by a particular sexual practice. (and many persons have several!)
Doesn't it sound odd to say, Havelock Ellis, an accomplished fetishist, wrote many books?
---
**
one might even say 'non normal' or 'abnormal'
mab So Freud published a "withering criticism" of Krafft-Ebbing's theories? Well that's a feather in KE's cap.
quite perceptive.
after all, Freud did NOT have the last word on homosexuality ("inversion") and, among other things, linked it to non-standard** resolution of Oedipal difficulties. as an enlightened dr., of course, he did not favor criminalizing homosexual acts or persecuting homosexual persons. and he was quite aware of the great achievements of homosexual artists such as Michelangelo, DaVinci, etc.
it is worth noting that the category 'homosexual' is itself suspect and nobody in Socrates' time thought in those terms. to say someone is 'a homosexual' is to define a person by a particular sexual practice. (and many persons have several!)
Doesn't it sound odd to say, Havelock Ellis, an accomplished fetishist, wrote many books?
---
**
one might even say 'non normal' or 'abnormal'
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
Taking off a bit on a remark of Pure's (O, my! ): Homosexuality was only "invented" (labeled) in the past century. For millennia it was hardly thought of seriously, theologically, academically, etc. The ancient Greeks and Romans did not think of m/m sex in the way of 20th c. man. Firstly, women were considered sub-human, nowhere near the status of men. Sex with women was perfectly fine, and necessary to the Republic (later Empire), but sex with men was considered super masculine, i.e., if one believed a male human being was the perfection of person, then sex between such creatures naturally outshone sex with women. (The Greeks were more intellectual about it, e.g., Socrates' famous bits about old men and young boys, but the gist was the same.)
E.g., In history (actual Roman historians' mss.) one can find out that what especially scandalized the Romans about Antony and Cleopatra was that he seemed besotted with her sexually. His troops, and the upperclasses back in Rome, thought he demeaned himself (and Rome) by his seemingly uncontrollable lust for the 'eastern' (read other) whore. This was a social crime, whereas Antony's affairs with men were laudable and spoke to his ultra-masculinity. Shakespeare got this and used it like a genius in his paralleling of Antony/Cleopatra and Rome/Egypt. The play would not work today if one tried to write it 'after' Freud, Krafft-Ebbing and the like.
Perdita
): Homosexuality was only "invented" (labeled) in the past century. For millennia it was hardly thought of seriously, theologically, academically, etc. The ancient Greeks and Romans did not think of m/m sex in the way of 20th c. man. Firstly, women were considered sub-human, nowhere near the status of men. Sex with women was perfectly fine, and necessary to the Republic (later Empire), but sex with men was considered super masculine, i.e., if one believed a male human being was the perfection of person, then sex between such creatures naturally outshone sex with women. (The Greeks were more intellectual about it, e.g., Socrates' famous bits about old men and young boys, but the gist was the same.)E.g., In history (actual Roman historians' mss.) one can find out that what especially scandalized the Romans about Antony and Cleopatra was that he seemed besotted with her sexually. His troops, and the upperclasses back in Rome, thought he demeaned himself (and Rome) by his seemingly uncontrollable lust for the 'eastern' (read other) whore. This was a social crime, whereas Antony's affairs with men were laudable and spoke to his ultra-masculinity. Shakespeare got this and used it like a genius in his paralleling of Antony/Cleopatra and Rome/Egypt. The play would not work today if one tried to write it 'after' Freud, Krafft-Ebbing and the like.
Perdita
BlackShanglan
Silver-Tongued Papist
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Posts
- 16,888
Sorry, sickness has had me offline for a while, and so I nearly missed this thread. Apologies, Charley!
As for K-E - what I think I find fascinating about him is the amazing blend of ideas that's in there. Some of it, like his occasional references to phrenology and Lombroso-esque focus on stigmata and degeneration, is a wonderful embodiment of the most bizarre elements of period science. At other points he's quite insightful; his approach to fetishism I find quite refreshing and un-dogmatic compared to the often heavily politicized modern treatments, and his level of inquiry and curiosity, to me, shines through in the most unlikely circumstances. At times he's very much a creature of his time period; at others he's quite human and real. He's often very funny, as well; at least, I can't personally get through case 98 without smiling. I think that's what keeps bringing me back to him - he's got a sense of the people as well as of the condition, and the text is littered with odd little insights that are often quite touching. It's a very different world of medical practice, and one that I find fascinating.
Shanglan
As for K-E - what I think I find fascinating about him is the amazing blend of ideas that's in there. Some of it, like his occasional references to phrenology and Lombroso-esque focus on stigmata and degeneration, is a wonderful embodiment of the most bizarre elements of period science. At other points he's quite insightful; his approach to fetishism I find quite refreshing and un-dogmatic compared to the often heavily politicized modern treatments, and his level of inquiry and curiosity, to me, shines through in the most unlikely circumstances. At times he's very much a creature of his time period; at others he's quite human and real. He's often very funny, as well; at least, I can't personally get through case 98 without smiling. I think that's what keeps bringing me back to him - he's got a sense of the people as well as of the condition, and the text is littered with odd little insights that are often quite touching. It's a very different world of medical practice, and one that I find fascinating.
Shanglan
Similar threads
