Top-opolis

[Pure]

hi bb,

i guess we'll have to disagree on this one; while conscience and fear of social disapproval control many people, much of the time, i think the sex drive, both vanilla and kinky is, in many people, a kind of acid melting away bits or chunks of superego. a couple posters as well as I myself have experienced that. you are, perhaps, of stronger moral fiber than some of us depraved debauche'(e)s of the thread

 

[bridgeburner]

hi bb,

i guess we'll have to disagree on this one; while conscience and fear of social disapproval control many people, much of the time, i think the sex drive, both vanilla and kinky is, in many people, a kind of acid melting away bits or chunks of superego. a couple posters as well as I myself have experienced that. you are, perhaps, of stronger moral fiber than some of us depraved debauche'(e)s of the thread

Pure,

We're not disagreeing if your contention is that many people choose their desires over their moral convictions when their desires fly in the face of their ethics.

My only point is that such is not determined by the perversity of the desire.

Vanilla people cheat on their partners all the time. Lots of people steal and lie and kill. It's human nature to constantly be weighing between different things that we want. "Do I want that television set or do I want to make sure I stay out of jail?" "Do I want to fuck my co-worker or do I want to keep my marriage intact?" "Do I want to go party with the girls after work or do I want to make sure I get home in time to feed my children?"

Humans are selfish creatures. We do that which we think will bring us the most and the best in any given situation. How we measure that is distinct to the individual. Some people are into instant gratification and others are more geared toward the long payoff. Perverts are no more selfish than anyone else.


-B

 

[Pure]

rephrasing slightly,

what you're saying is roughly equivalent to:

perverts as a selfish as anyone else

we're in the same ball park, i think.

 

[Rickmud]

Women will always be needed

Hey, as long as my dna is in existance, men are always going to need women! There is a lot of my dna out there. LOL

 

[FurryFury]

<snip>---
Furry,

FFI think sexual impulses are sexual impulses. "Ordinary" or "perve" labels do not IMO denote inherently greater or lesser urges. All hard wired sexual impulses are VERY strong no matter how they are labeled.

P:It's tricky to judge what is 'hard wired'; the human is never simply animal, and sexual desire is shaped culturally since birth. So as to 'inherently greater', I don't know. But as to the experienced strength of the desire, this is the evidence I'm thinking of:

Much as with homosexual impulses/desires, we see those with so called 'perverted' ones going to great length, spending much money, taking huge risks-- sometime putting family and reputation on the line.

Of course we see those with criminal impulses or desires in the sexual area are often impossible to 'cure' or control.

So in my opinion as to general impression, besides the morality breaking tendency of the 'nilla or basic, heterosex impulse and drive, the 'perv' likely feels a greater urgency and compulsion.

Add to that, that the submitting person is looking for a 'Master' who is going to dictate certain things. This might easily conflict with the morals of the submitting one. What think you of this, furry?

As to character:
FF: Like all hard wired or acquired impulses it depends solely on the character of the individual how and if they do unethical or illegal things to satisfy their impulses.

I hear you and agree people can 'channel' impulses and, for instance, stay within the law. Suppressing is trickier. I note too that 'character' does NOT always withstand even the normal libidinal push. It's like a dike, true-- but against an ocean, sometimes there are leaks or breaches.

The analogy with 'gay' drives and needs illustrates the point well: the felllow of upstanding rep. ends up in the public washroom of the park.

When I say hard wired, I mean that yes, I do believe we have certain tendencies from birth. I would like to believe that these can be modified by environment and nurturing in some ways.

Not things like whether your are Dom or sub, Gay or Straight but things like how negatively or violent you are wired to be.

I've worked damned hard or trying to modified some of those impulse tendencies or channel them.

There are no excuses that cut any ice with me. Particularly when I make them to myself. *c*

Fury

 

[Pure]

wiring?

hi furry,

[Some tendencies can by modified by the environment, but]
FF: Not things like whether your are Dom or sub, Gay or Straight but things like how negatively or violent you are wired to be.

Without getting into a debate over genes and character...
I see *no reason to believe in the 'hard wiring' of Erotic Dominance; no evidence that such persons whose sexual practice includes performing or undergoing that domination, are 'born that way.' Possibly some tendency or vulnerability is there, innately.

I take 'born Dom' as mostly an audience-directed stance in sexual politics and generally a play for some particular recognition--as gays have achieved--by the psychiatric establishment.

That said, I'm quite open to the claim that general assertiveness, so called 'ascendancy,' has some hardwired component or base. But this is such a tendency as may--and usually does--manifest simply as the Vanilla Dom, i.e., without particular sexual connotation.

My view is that 'Top' (sexual) is not a static set of character traits; it's an evolving inclination to erotic frenzy, imposition and control that is going to have a pathway highly responsive to context, to temptation, and opportunity (means). What sets it in motion is unknown.

In relation to the current topic of 'selfishness' and 'following the moral rules,' my view, already stated, is that the latter presents difficulties; that the 'top' a least as much his straight counterpart, the Don Juan, is going to present--at particular times-- as rather selfish, that is, putting his self interest as a primary goal; some of those times being suggested by the old saw, "Every man desires to be a tyrant in the bedroom" (Sade).

Thanks furry, for inspiring some thoughts, here. They are meant as tentative, no dogmatic, and I hope others will respond.

 

[alice_underneath]

Pure,

We're not disagreeing if your contention is that many people choose their desires over their moral convictions when their desires fly in the face of their ethics.

My only point is that such is not determined by the perversity of the desire.

I agree with you, B.

Postulating a positive correlation between kinkiness and immoral behavior sounds to me like the arguments one hears from prejudiced social conservatives.

Referring to the examples provided in this post -

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=17447141&postcount=2108

If immorality is tied to kink, then the implication of example #4 is that a law firm would be justified in refusing a position to Marquis, on the grounds that he would be less likely to act in an ethical manner than a non-kinky peer.

The implication of example #2 is that mainstream people would be justified in shunning you socially, on the grounds that you would be more likely to seduce and sleep with married men than the non-kinky woman next door.

 

[FurryFury]

hi furry,

[Some tendencies can by modified by the environment, but]
FF: Not things like whether your are Dom or sub, Gay or Straight but things like how negatively or violent you are wired to be.

Without getting into a debate over genes and character...
I see *no reason to believe in the 'hard wiring' of Erotic Dominance; no evidence that such persons whose sexual practice includes performing or undergoing that domination, are 'born that way.' Possibly some tendency or vulnerability is there, innately.

I take 'born Dom' as mostly an audience-directed stance in sexual politics and generally a play for some particular recognition--as gays have achieved--by the psychiatric establishment.

That said, I'm quite open to the claim that general assertiveness, so called 'ascendancy,' has some hardwired component or base. But this is such a tendency as may--and usually does--manifest simply as the Vanilla Dom, i.e., without particular sexual connotation.

My view is that 'Top' (sexual) is not a static set of character traits; it's an evolving inclination to erotic frenzy, imposition and control that is going to have a pathway highly responsive to context, to temptation, and opportunity (means). What sets it in motion is unknown.

In relation to the current topic of 'selfishness' and 'following the moral rules,' my view, already stated, is that the latter presents difficulties; that the 'top' a least as much his straight counterpart, the Don Juan, is going to present--at particular times-- as rather selfish, that is, putting his self interest as a primary goal; some of those times being suggested by the old saw, "Every man desires to be a tyrant in the bedroom" (Sade).

Thanks furry, for inspiring some thoughts, here. They are meant as tentative, no dogmatic, and I hope others will respond.

You're welcome, I'm glad you found my thoughts inspiring to yours. I have no problem agreeing to disagree.

In my opinion, the wiring of a Dom or a sub can not be attributed to environmental or nurturing factors. I base this on what I've seen written about the early childhood of many. There seems to be no consistent or correlating factors even though there is an erroneous tendency for some to believe childhood trauma must have figured into the equations.

As to the gay / straight hard wiring, more and more studies are finding that the brain functions and reacts differently in gay people than in straight people. Hopefully this will help ease some of the, it's a choice and a sin folks POV but sadly, I doubt it will. The blind refuse to see.

Fury

 

[Pure]

fortunately the 'born dom' controversy and an alleged genetic basis of 'domliness' are not central issues of this thread.

indeed, whether practices of 'topping,'--ravishment or angry sexuality generally, or erotic imposition-- are in the genes, or the jeans, or in mother's milk, or the lack of it, is not, IMO, a crucial issue for this thread, nor one that could ever be settled in this sort of forum.

people are as they are. a person's theories and speculations as to how she or he got that way are interesting as signs of other things such as attitude, world view, and self-estimate; they are not necessarily of any particular validity, no matter how urgently clung to and advocated.

 

[Recidiva]

fortunately the 'born dom' controversy and an alleged genetic basis of 'domliness' are not central issues of this thread.

indeed, whether practices of 'topping,'--ravishment or angry sexuality generally, or erotic imposition-- are in the genes, or the jeans, or in mother's milk, or the lack of it, is not, IMO, a crucial issue for this thread, nor one that could ever be settled in this sort of forum.

people are as they are. a person's theories and speculations as to how she or he got that way are interesting as signs of other things such as attitude, world view, and self-estimate; they are not necessarily of any particular validity, no matter how urgently clung to and advocated.

True. I think there's a corollary to perfect pitch though. Something you're born with, something you can't teach. Something you just have.

Then again there's the Larry Bird syndrome. Just live and breathe your ideal and you're the best, despite other natural talents others might have and any drawbacks you have.

 

[Pure]

furry,

i understand your point; i've also heard that some people are born with approximate perfect pitch and are able, through training, to perfect it. maybe they were born with the *capacity?

there are analogies in the domain of sexual inclinations.
===
to return to topic...

ever have a sexual desire that was quite selfish; ever act on it?

 

[Pure]

Reply to Alice

Hi Alice,
I see I neglected to reply to you:
We're talking about perverse desires and immoral behavior.

backing up bb, you said,
AU Postulating a positive correlation between kinkiness and immoral behavior sounds to me like the arguments one hears from prejudiced social conservatives.

Referring to the examples provided in this post -

https://forum.literotica.com/...&postcount=2108

If immorality is tied to kink, then the implication of example #4 is that a law firm would be justified in refusing a position to Marquis, on the grounds that he would be less likely to act in an ethical manner than a non-kinky peer.

The implication of example #2 is that mainstream people would be justified in shunning you socially, on the grounds that you would be more likely to seduce and sleep with married men than the non-kinky woman next door.

P replies: Taking the last example (#2) first. I'm not sure about the 'justified' part, but let's ftsoa say that yes Marquis might represent a 'moral danger' [to the husband next door whose wife is into SM] in the same way that Betty Friedan did and Erica Jong, not to say Victoria Woodhull or Emma Goldman.

Thinking about the question and answer throws some light on the first (#4) example. In essence we're talking what's generally considered a peccadillo. Employees talking a 'mental health' day--M takes a day for some serious sadistic couplings. Firms may not like it, but there is not much they can do, unless it's flung in their face or happens at really bad times, as a pattern. So NO, if the M's behavior is not that far off the norm, they would--practically speaking--not have good reason to, say, fire, him, though they would technically be in the right by their regulations.

I wonder what the Marquis would say.

 

[alice_underneath]

Pure -

You are missing my point here. Let's back up a bit, and I'll try to clarify.

In post # 2101, you postulated:

pervy desires--once let out-- make it** difficult if not impossible to be moral.

In explaining what you meant by 'moral' behavior, you provided these examples of immoral acts (in post # 2108):

2) Whatever your kink, you've not found a good one to indulge you, until Jacob. He's going to take a whip to your ass, just the way you like. At the last moment you find out that he's married, and it's your 'moral code' not to 'date' married men, ie. help him betray another woman's trust.

3) Jacob is available and single, and ready for the encounter to redden your butt; NO sexual relations are planned. BUT you are married, and it will take, if not a direct lie, a deception or omission--e.g., you really do have to go to a convention in NYC next weekend, but it just happens that that's where you plan to have the encounter with Jacob.

4) More innocently (but not quite), Jacob will be happy to whip you and he's single, but he's in town only Friday noon. There's important work at the office, but not crucial.
You can get out of it by feigning something serious, by way of illness. IOW, a lie is required to get what you want and need.

In other words - your assertion relates not just to the private bedroom behavior of consenting kinky adults, but also to the behavior of kinky people when they interact with the world at large.

This theory - that deviance from societal norms in the bedroom is positively correlated with deviance from decent or morally acceptable behavior in society at large - mirrors the specious arguments employed by social conservatives to oppress those whose bedroom behavior they despise.

You refer to your mental health day example as a 'peccadillo', but that is entirely beside the point. Bigots will extrapolate your conclusion regarding relative morality and apply it in a much broader context. That is the point of my post (# 2132) to B.

Alice

 

[Pure]

Bigots will

extrapolate from your posting in this forum that you are a danger to their (adult) daughters... and sons!

and... they're right!

AU: Bigots will extrapolate your conclusion regarding relative morality and apply it in a much broader context.

 

[Pure]

thought for the day**

Once the imagination has been wounded or depraved and become accustomed to those kinds of outrages against good taste and against nature which flatter it so delightfully, it is very difficult to bring this imagination back to the right path; it seems that the desire to serve one's tastes takes from one the facility of controlling one's judgments.

(Sade)






====
**reflecting the specious arguments of the social conservatives

 

[alice_underneath]

extrapolate from your posting in this forum that you are a danger to their (adult) daughters... and sons!

and... they're right!

Ha, Ha.

Sadly, Pure... if you want me to believe that there is a positive correlation between kinkiness in the consensual bedroom and immoral behavior when interacting with society at large, I'm gonna need more than a pithy quote from M de S to be convinced.

Got any data? Results of empirical studies? Theories postulated by reputable professionals who are neither bigoted social conservatives nor pervs eager to wrap themselves in an aura of deliciously dangerous deviance?

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

fortunately the 'born dom' controversy and an alleged genetic basis of 'domliness' are not central issues of this thread.

indeed, whether practices of 'topping,'--ravishment or angry sexuality generally, or erotic imposition-- are in the genes, or the jeans, or in mother's milk, or the lack of it, is not, IMO, a crucial issue for this thread, nor one that could ever be settled in this sort of forum.

people are as they are. a person's theories and speculations as to how she or he got that way are interesting as signs of other things such as attitude, world view, and self-estimate; they are not necessarily of any particular validity, no matter how urgently clung to and advocated.

Ohh and this quote from you Pure would apply to yourself also ..........naturally....smiles

 

[Marquis]

I wonder what the Marquis would say.

What's the question exactly?

 

[FurryFury]

What's the question exactly?

Way interesting av Sugah!

Fury

 

[Pure]

Hi Marquis:

I posted some examples of possible 'immoralities' a person who acts on strong deviant desires might be prone to, moreso that the *usual* vanilla person (but not the extreme lecher Don Juan).

The thesis was that someone acting out strong deviant desires--i.e., in a deviant lifestyle-- is going to have more difficulty remaining on the 'right' side of morality-- not of course, that it is impossible.

Here were the three examples

Pure's examples revised for a deviant male reader:

2) Whatever your kink, you've not found a good one to indulge you, until Janette. She's willing to have you take a whip to her breasts and ass, just the way you want to, and maybe fuck her after. At the last moment you find out that she's married [with the usual promises to be faithful]
and is lying by omission or commission, in order to meet you. It's your 'moral code' not to get involved with married women who are deceiving their husbands, ie. benefit from her lie and help her betray another man's trust.

3) Janette is available and single, and ready for the encounter to have you whip her breasts and butt; perhaps you do not intend intercourse. BUT you are married [we assume in this example], [and we assume your wife is NOT approving of your 'work' in proximity to a strange pussy in an arousing context]. So it will take, if not a direct lie, a deception or omission to free yourself to meet Janette--e.g., perhaps you really do have to go to a convention in NYC next weekend, but it just happens that that's where you plan to have the encounter with Janette.

4) More innocently (but not quite), Janette will be happy to be whipped by you and she's single, but she's in town only Friday noon. There's important work at your office, but not crucial. You can get out of it by feigning something serious, by way of illness. IOW, a lie is required to get what you want and need.

Perhaps these examples make it clearer what I mean by an indirect effect in pushing one to immorality. I have in mind the sorts of immoral--but not yet criminal--things people do who, for instance, really need casual gay sex, or alcohol, or need to gamble.

IOW, Marquis, does having strong deviant desires create any tendency to 'cut a few corners', in moral terms, compared to the ordinary 'vanilla' male. Putting it a little differently, will your actions as an avid, deviate person more resemble those of the Don Juan (sex obsessed vanilla), the closet gay, and the gambler with a problem? (And we assume that all three persons are NOT at the point of criminality, but simply 'cutting a few corners' in moral terms.)

PS: Alice U, in discussing these examples, added some dimensions and possible inferences and further questions than I am asking. These involved other parties' moral justification for discriminating against you should your behavior breach morality as described above.

 

[Marquis]

I posted some examples of possible 'immoralities' a person who acts on strong deviant desires might be prone to, moreso that the *usual* vanilla person (but not the extreme lecher Don Juan).

The thesis was that someone acting out strong deviant desires--i.e., in a deviant lifestyle-- is going to have more difficulty remaining on the 'right' side of morality-- not of course, that it is impossible.

Here were the three examples

Pure's examples revised for a deviant male reader:

2) Whatever your kink, you've not found a good one to indulge you, until Janette. She's willing to have you take a whip to her breasts and ass, just the way you want to, and maybe fuck her after. At the last moment you find out that she's married [with the usual promises to be faithful]
and is lying by omission or commission, in order to meet you. It's your 'moral code' not to get involved with married women who are deceiving their husbands, ie. benefit from her lie and help her betray another man's trust.

3) Janette is available and single, and ready for the encounter to have you whip her breasts and butt; perhaps you do not intend intercourse. BUT you are married [we assume in this example], [and we assume your wife is NOT approving of your 'work' in proximity to a strange pussy in an arousing context]. So it will take, if not a direct lie, a deception or omission to free yourself to meet Janette--e.g., perhaps you really do have to go to a convention in NYC next weekend, but it just happens that that's where you plan to have the encounter with Janette.

4) More innocently (but not quite), Janette will be happy to be whipped by you and she's single, but she's in town only Friday noon. There's important work at your office, but not crucial. You can get out of it by feigning something serious, by way of illness. IOW, a lie is required to get what you want and need.

Perhaps these examples make it clearer what I mean by an indirect effect in pushing one to immorality. I have in mind the sorts of immoral--but not yet criminal--things people do who, for instance, really need casual gay sex, or alcohol, or need to gamble.

IOW, Marquis, does having strong deviant desires create any tendency to 'cut a few corners', in moral terms, compared to the ordinary 'vanilla' male. Putting it a little differently, will your actions as an avid, deviate person more resemble those of the Don Juan (sex obsessed vanilla), the closet gay, and the gambler with a problem? (And we assume that all three persons are NOT at the point of criminality, but simply 'cutting a few corners' in moral terms.)

PS: Alice U, in discussing these examples, added some dimensions and possible inferences and further questions than I am asking. These involved other parties' moral justification for discriminating against you should your behavior breach morality as described above.

I think you're trying to create a moral-kink continuum here that doesn't really exist. I see them on totally different spectrums.

Someone with a shaky sense of morals is willing to "cut corners," as you say, to meet their ends, but what their ends are is pure coincidence. If you're not taking off from work to whup ass you're doing it to whup ass at golf. If you're not cheating on your wife, you're stealing from her retirement fund.

 

[FurryFury]

I think you're trying to create a moral-kink continuum here that doesn't really exist. I see them on totally different spectrums.

Someone with a shaky sense of morals is willing to "cut corners," as you say, to meet their ends, but what their ends are is pure coincidence. If you're not taking off from work to whup ass you're doing it to whup ass at golf. If you're not cheating on your wife, you're stealing from her retirement fund.

I'd agree with that. You put it better, perhaps, than I did.

Fury

 

[Pure]

as was pointed out to me by one of the wise persons of this thread, some deviations, though not tremendously antisocial are *very much* condemned, even something as simple as the taste for serious asswhipping--giving or receiving.

hence these deviated souls, unless they keep everything in the closet, are going to have to resort to lies, coverups and deceptions. perhaps some of these are morally justifiable--e.g. a lie to someone who would persecute you or treat you unjustly. but one may be led to erect of a web of lies that is quite possibly going to shade into some gray or questionable areas.

 

[Netzach]

I think this is one of those balancing acts most people have to do at some point - honesty with yourself or honesty with everyone else.

 

[FurryFury]

I think this is one of those balancing acts most people have to do at some point - honesty with yourself or honesty with everyone else.

God you're hot in that av!

Fury