Top-opolis

[alice_underneath]

Sex drive in its pure form is about selfish pleasure. The question which seems to be forming is: Are things like humilation and conquest part of the "root" of the sex drive or are they add-ons. I would submit that it varies from person to person. In a general sense, which is how the original question is posed, I would say Quint got it 100% right. For most men its about nuttin hard and often. However, I believe that some are wired in such a way where conquest and humilation must be involved for them to nut hard and often. Meaning simply without those aspects thrown in, then there is no nuttin hard or often.

I see two different questions in this discussion.


#1. Is the primal goal of the male sex drive to degrade the object?

From a Darwinian perspective, Quint's theory makes perfect sense to me. The urge to degrade does not.

If the goal of the sex drive is successful reproduction, then reducing the societal status and health or strength of the female you've impregnated (whose Darwinian role will be to nurture your offspring) seems counterproductive, to say the least!

I can see how the urge entered the gene pool (as conquering marauders spread their seed across the planet), but your remark describing this as an "add-on" seems logical to me.



#2. Does the urge to degrade create a problem for men in modern society? (This is the Bill Maher problem posed by Pure, above.)

In my opinion, the difference between degradation and humiliation (in this context) is comparable to the difference between rape and rough sex between consenting adults.

For this reason, I think Maher's query exaggerates the 'problem' to a very large degree.

As far as degrading goes, its been my experience over the span of my life that the one who is degraded the most is myself in some of the things I have tried in order to satisfy my own sex drive. The very few times I have actually degraded someone from a sexual experience has never left me with any kind of satisfaction.

The human conscience is such a confusing thing to contemplate. Where did it come from? Why is it there? Why is it so often in conflict with urges that seem innate?

Substituting greed for lust, I'll give an example from my own life. As a young, unmarried professional working in Manhattan, I once competed for a promotion against a single mother of three. I didn't actually need the extra money, but she did - very much. I worked hard for the promotion anyway.... and won. I'll never forget the look on her face when she came over to congratulate me. That night, I cried for a long, long time.

I don't know if that is the sort of conflict between conscience and urge that you are talking about here. If it is, then you have my sympathy, because this type of conflict can create a lot of painful angst.

Thank you for responding to my question.

Alice

 

[Pure]

[leaving aside the exegesis of quint's 'worshipful' remark', for the moment]
Originally Posted by quint

I think that back-to-basic sex just cares about winning, rather than making somebody lose. But that's my XX perspective clogging things up; I could be totally off base.

Netz: That's how I'm wired. Nice distinction, but I expect you to chime in with those.

P: It's brilliant, quint, but a little 'nice' [Jesuitical] for me. I'm playing gin rummy with you. I say, "I just want to win. And, being magnanimous, I don't care a hoot about your loss, such as it may be. I do NOT care how you think of a loss: as a possible gain, since, for example, you'll be able to remind me of it and your grace, and get a free dinner. Nor do I care if you feel numb, sad, relieved, or whatever."

I have no problem at all with this, but it's less than straightforward in its professed unconcern with your loss. In its favor is the unconcern with your reaction or experience *given that you lose* (objectively--see below).

I think I am now able to answer your question:

quint T has a neat spin on this. He says that a woman would find his sex drive degrading but that's their POV, not his. So are we taking degradation from the male's intent or the object's reaction?

P: The answer, on my view, is that we are talking of the man's intent, and objectively. The woman's [bottom's] reaction is immaterial. This is an old chestnut in this thread and a couple other of rr's threads, and some of my own.

Warning, don't proceed if you are faint of heart or of delicate sensibility; graphic degradation.

I will describe three pictures from off the net. Probably pissloverdotcom. or a similar German site, there are three series called, "Lotti and Mimi" "Lotti and Lillu," and "Mely." [Perhaps they can be found by Google or other search of the 'net; they are not rare] These pictures are from the last series, "Mely":

Pic 1: In the upper left is a cock, held in hand, and one sees the man's leg across most of the top of the shot. Center is a woman's [Mely's] face, turned toward us. She's an attractive 25-ish brunette. (Her shoulder is visible and her body off to the right of the picture). Behind her, we see the far side of seat of the toilet, and underneath her face is the white toilet bowl. In the lower right we see her left hand on the near side of seat (for support).

In other words, she is kneeling, placing her right cheeck on the toilet bowl such that her mouth is more or less over the center. Whatever just flows through her mouth will go into the bowl. Her mouth, however is, at this point, just sligtly open, ie., the lips are parted. Her look in her open eyes is hard to describe, but I'd say it's both sultry, knowing, and accepting. Maybe resigned, but not beaten down or abashed; I see no protest. Note for the concerned: she completes the series in good shape as far as I can see, no injuries, just a bit wet but still compliant and sultry.

Pic 2: Same position, but a stream of piss is arcing to her mouth, which she has opened wide. She's also turned sligtly, i.e., raising/turning her mouth so as to better receive. From her mouth, one sees the piss dropping more of less downward from her mouth. Her look, is, how to say, workmanlike, like "I'm trying to do this." Overall the impression is of eagerness and compliance, even though one eye, the uppermost (left) one is closed for protection.

Pic 3. Same position. Cum is dripping from the cock, it is above her[Mely's] left eyebrow and on her upper (left) cheek. That eyes are squeezed shut for protection. but there is no drawing back or away. I'd say she wants to complete the task (or the photo shoot). In other words, he's almost finished ejaculating on her face, from above, and she's cooperating in a receptive fashioin. Her head is resting on its side, on the toilet bowl.
------

I'm not sure of the order of acts; perhaps the ejaculating is before the pissing.

Le morale de cet' histoire, as my French teacher used to say: We don't know Mely's thoughts, though she seems an eager particpant as a 'sub.'

She shows discomfort but not resistance. Possibly she's thinking, like quint perhaps, "I enjoy the attention," or "I'm prized" or even "He loves me." There are signs of enjoyment or sensuality occasionally. Or so I imagine. (All this is the fantasy of the series; perhaps it's just good acting for a photoshoot). Perhaps she has a certain pride in completing the tasks, which is OK. Objectively, she is placed or puts herself in a lower position, one less esteemed. Hence I'd say this is degradation or humiliation. That is the man's intent. I'd guess he's unconcerned whether she blisses out, gets a soaked pussy or is somewhat focussed more on her occasional physical discomfort. He's satisfied sexually and emotionally, and pleased at her job well done. If she's happy to have done it, fine. If not, so be it. ADDED: he sleeps well that night, perhaps beside her; his conscience is not involved.

 

[Netzach]

Well it's a given that that guy is probably thinking about more than his busting a nut. That's a lot of trouble to go to/foreplay to just get off. What begs the question is this -- is the impulse to pee on a chick prior to busting a nut on her eyebrow somehow more inherently "male" than a woman's desire to pair up and spend the month together inherently "female". Both impulses are extraneous, complicated, likely responses to programming in all -- but simply because they're responses to programming doesn't make them something we can dispose of easily or not pleasurable.

Was it feminine for my lover to get a bit drunk, lean over, and whisper his first terrified "I love you" at the drag show? Or was this as much a valid part of his masculinity as enjoying the sight of me on my knees, getting intoxicated on the smell of his dick through his jeans prior to blowing?

I'll pause for a breath here and to let the say-it-ain't-so shocked faces subside.

Maybe it was very un-guy of him also to defer finishing all over my forehead, but that seems a very porno thing to do. What male in his right mind is going to remove his dick from an attentive mouth before he's got to? I wouldn't.

Maybe *any and all sexual complexity* past masturbation is really extraneous perversion, if you're pseudo Freudian about it.

 

[Pure]

to netz,

i can live with 'sexual complexity' and, yes, imagine it is learned to some degree. a 'drive' or 'impulse' is a theoretical construct, as is any postulation of a 'pure' form.

especially i can live with your complexity since it embraces some or all perversions. (even 'perversion' is a theory laden term suggesting that there is a 'normal' course of things as opposed to 'deviation' and 'perversion.') where 'environment' theories fall down, however is in just this case: it's hard or impossible to reprogram a fetish or an 'orientation' though it can be suppressed. that's quite different from trying to teach someone to break a custom that was learned, like, say wearing clothes. a bit of desentization is all it takes!

i think Freud was onto something, linking a class of perversion to anality and the ass, also in 'urethrism' (urethral eroticism). i don't know if he coined the term 'polymorphous perverse' but iirc, he used it.

the only utility of a metaphor or theory is to aid understanding, and to some degree, thinking of stream of liquid [impulse] as [for example] 'basically destructive', like a raging river, may help predict events. e.g., explain why an 'anger management' course fails.

--
PS, as to your ironic
Maybe it was very un-guy of him
i wouldn't say that; in any of the curre[n]t illustrations, 'bottom' may be substituted for woman, and 'top' for man, and the gender assigments may vary, and need not be opposite either. there are some very hot 'lesbian' [in fact or fantasy] pee scenes.

 

[alice_underneath]

Objectively, she is placed or puts herself in a lower position, one less esteemed. Hence I'd say this is degradation or humiliation.

This rather broad definition covers a lot of ground! If that's how you want to define it, then I would acknowledge that acts of "degradation or humiliation" arouse both my husband and myself, as long as I am the one being placed in the lower position. Flip the roles, and neither of us would be happy with what was going on.

However, I don't see how this disproves Quint's nutting theory, or RJMasters's comment that the urge to degrade or humiliate is an add-on.

 

[RJMasters]

[leaving aside the exegesis of quint's 'worshipful' remark', for the moment]
Originally Posted by quint

I think that back-to-basic sex just cares about winning, rather than making somebody lose. But that's my XX perspective clogging things up; I could be totally off base.

Netz: That's how I'm wired. Nice distinction, but I expect you to chime in with those.

P: It's brilliant, quint, but a little 'nice' [Jesuitical] for me. I'm playing gin rummy with you. I say, "I just want to win. And, being magnanimous, I don't care a hoot about your loss, such as it may be. I do NOT care how you think of a loss: as a possible gain, since, for example, you'll be able to remind me of it and your grace, and get a free dinner. Nor do I care if you feel numb, sad, relieved, or whatever."

I have no problem at all with this, but it's less than straightforward in its professed unconcern with your loss. In its favor is the unconcern with your reaction or experience *given that you lose* (objectively--see below).

I think I am now able to answer your question:

quint T has a neat spin on this. He says that a woman would find his sex drive degrading but that's their POV, not his. So are we taking degradation from the male's intent or the object's reaction?

P: The answer, on my view, is that we are talking of the man's intent, and objectively. The woman's [bottom's] reaction is immaterial. This is an old chestnut in this thread and a couple other of rr's threads, and some of my own.

Warning, don't proceed if you are faint of heart or of delicate sensibility; graphic degradation.

I will describe three pictures from off the net. Probably pissloverdotcom. or a similar German site, there are three series called, "Lotti and Mimi" "Lotti and Lillu," and "Mely." [Perhaps they can be found by Google or other search of the 'net; they are not rare] These pictures are from the last series, "Mely":

Pic 1: In the upper left is a cock, held in hand, and one sees the man's leg across most of the top of the shot. Center is a woman's [Mely's] face, turned toward us. She's an attractive 25-ish brunette. (Her shoulder is visible and her body off to the right of the picture). Behind her, we see the far side of seat of the toilet, and underneath her face is the white toilet bowl. In the lower right we see her left hand on the near side of seat (for support).

In other words, she is kneeling, placing her right cheeck on the toilet bowl such that her mouth is more or less over the center. Whatever just flows through her mouth will go into the bowl. Her mouth, however is, at this point, just sligtly open, ie., the lips are parted. Her look in her open eyes is hard to describe, but I'd say it's both sultry, knowing, and accepting. Maybe resigned, but not beaten down or abashed; I see no protest. Note for the concerned: she completes the series in good shape as far as I can see, no injuries, just a bit wet but still compliant and sultry.

Pic 2: Same position, but a stream of piss is arcing to her mouth, which she has opened wide. She's also turned sligtly, i.e., raising/turning her mouth so as to better receive. From her mouth, one sees the piss dropping more of less downward from her mouth. Her look, is, how to say, workmanlike, like "I'm trying to do this." Overall the impression is of eagerness and compliance, even though one eye, the uppermost (left) one is closed for protection.

Pic 3. Same position. Cum is dripping from the cock, it is above her[Mely's] left eyebrow and on her upper (left) cheek. That eyes are squeezed shut for protection. but there is no drawing back or away. I'd say she wants to complete the task (or the photo shoot). In other words, he's almost finished ejaculating on her face, from above, and she's cooperating in a receptive fashioin. Her head is resting on its side, on the toilet bowl.
------

I'm not sure of the order of acts; perhaps the ejaculating is before the pissing.

Le morale de cet' histoire, as my French teacher used to say: We don't know Mely's thoughts, though she seems an eager particpant as a 'sub.'

She shows discomfort but not resistance. Possibly she's thinking, like quint perhaps, "I enjoy the attention," or "I'm prized" or even "He loves me." There are signs of enjoyment or sensuality occasionally. Or so I imagine. (All this is the fantasy of the series; perhaps it's just good acting for a photoshoot). Perhaps she has a certain pride in completing the tasks, which is OK. Objectively, she is placed or puts herself in a lower position, one less esteemed. Hence I'd say this is degradation or humiliation. That is the man's intent. I'd guess he's unconcerned whether she blisses out, gets a soaked pussy or is somewhat focussed more on her occasional physical discomfort. He's satisfied sexually and emotionally, and pleased at her job well done. If she's happy to have done it, fine. If not, so be it. ADDED: he sleeps well that night, perhaps beside her; his conscience is not involved.

I found your example above to be hot Pure, however in my way of thinking, I place something like this into category three below. I don't associate it with the raw or pure sex drive that I place more firmly into category 1 & 2 below. Admitedly though after thinking about it, perhaps my compartmentalization is of little signifigance by way of distinction.

1. Self preservation - Masterbation
2. Pick a hole and get 'er done
3. The love/kink/fetish connoiseur

It is odd that while thinking on these things, something occurs to me. My thinking is affected in what I see as my right or entitlement. Within my marriage I see it as my right to make love/fuck my wife. I also see it within my rights to choose the manner in which I wish to do that i.e. choosing the position, giving or getting oral, anal/vaginal/mouth. I see this all within my rights as being her life partner.

Going outside of this, like in your example, I do not see that as my right, but something more of what I want. To get that which is above what i consider my right to have, one of two things must happen from a cooperation standpoint. Either she also enjoy the activity you mentioned in your example, or she doesn't enjoy it but is willing to consent to it so that I can have what I want in order to please me. In either of these cases, I do not equate it as degrading. I see it as either both of us getting off on a kinky sexual experience, or I see it as her giving herself for my pleasure which allows me to know that when we are done, she will not feel degraded, but be happy or at the very least content that she was there for me and met my need want or desire.

If she doesn't enjoy it nor is willing to do it for me, then that is something I won't do or force. Its not within the limits or box of consent within my vanilla marriage. Were I to force anyways in this regard, I would then in my mind really be degrading my wife. I just won't do that.

Maybe I am going off topic here...

 

[rosco rathbone]

I was just going to say the same thing, "conquer" being my preferred word.

Thinking about the difference betweeen conquer and degrade in historical terms. The Mongols would accept the surrender of a city and incorporate them into the empire without violence as long as proper tribute was paid. (Resist, and that's another story entirely).

Other tribes, like the Goths, Norsemen and Turks would pillage and despoil, rape and murder, burn, loot, fly the black flag, cut the hetman's ears off, and generally sow the fields with salt and sell the women folk into oral servitude and then move on, leaving charred books, priests with their throats cut, flaming hayricks and one starving dog howling over the body of it's dead master in the village square.

 

[alice_underneath]

Thinking about the difference betweeen conquer and degrade in historical terms.

Thinking about the difference between conquer and degrade in evolutionary terms.


"Genghis Khan had about 500 wives and concubines, producing enough children so that now, if you do the math, they have generated 16 million males alone -- or about 0.5 percent of the world's total."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/01/AR2006050101275.html

 

[Pure]

Axiom

Let's review the bidding, here, to continue a discussion.

It is an axiom at Topopolis that: 1) 'Ethics is an 'add-on'.' I'm using RJ's terminology for the time being.

To put it differently, 2) 'our basic impulses do not moderate themselves' OR 3) 'living by them would not comport with civilization and ethics,' in particular, regard for the other fellow (and his wife).

(I intend that 1,2, and 3 are making the same point, essentially saying the same thing.)

As the Marquis recently put it, paraphrasing de Sade, 'every man aspires to be a tyrant in the bedroom.' or, in other words, 'the (typically male or "top") sexual impulse is tyrannical.'

This is not to say 'no one should ever moderate or control themselves',
or 'you should act without regard for the other fellow's welfare.'

Consider the sadistic impulse, for example (the impulse to cause suffering--pain or degradation-- for the purpose of sexual pleasure.) What does the Axiom suggest.

If someone says, "I act sadistically with my partner, for my own enjoyment AND I always take full account of preserving her self respect," he is not really speaking of *sadistic* behavior (pure and simple). He is speaking of conscientious behavior (with a sadistic tinge, to be sure), showing self restriction and self control. The dictates of his conscience are being followed, according to a decision. Conscience speaks for civilization, and ethics, and heeding it is not always a bad decision.

All of these points are open for discussion, of course.

 

[Recidiva]

I'd add my vote for the issue being control, not tyrrany.

Knowing people better than they know themselves. Like introducing someone to chocolate or ice cream for the first time, knowing something sexual in and out and being so comfortable with it.

 

[alice_underneath]

Pure asked me for help in posting images to this thread.

Below are the photos he originally discussed in this post:

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=17279103&postcount=2002


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e16/alice_emerging/photo1.jpg


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e16/alice_emerging/photo3.jpg


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e16/alice_emerging/photo2.jpg

 

[Kajira Callista]

Pure asked me for help in posting images to this thread.

Below are the photos he originally discussed in this post:

https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=17279103&postcount=2002


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e16/alice_emerging/photo1.jpg


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e16/alice_emerging/photo3.jpg


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e16/alice_emerging/photo2.jpg

beautiful

 

[Marquis]

There's something really hot about a hot girl swallowing piss.

 

[bridgeburner]

I hate to be the one to point out that porn is hardly the best example to hold up as representative of universal human sexuality.

What is the woman in that picture truly thinking about? That she makes more money for doing a piss scene than she does for straight sex or masturbation. The male in the picture could easily be gay --- they could both be gay and not in the least sexually attracted to one another. Porn isn't any more real in most instances than any other kind of movie.

Far better would be to look at the world in general --- if sex were, at root, about degradation then that would be the primary form of sexuality practiced rather than a niche market.

Pure, you said to Quint's post:

P: The answer, on my view, is that we are talking of the man's intent, and objectively. The woman's [bottom's] reaction is immaterial. This is an old chestnut in this thread and a couple other of rr's threads, and some of my own.

If the reaction of the bottom is immaterial then degradation cannot possibly be the root since satisfaction of that urge would require that the bottom show that s/he feels degraded. You know the old adage that the way to disarm someone trying to annoy you is to ignore them and not be annoyed? Similarly, the way to thwart the desires of one who wishes to degrade you is to not feel or behave as if you feel degraded.

Conquering, on the other hand can be acheived without the consent or compliance of the conquered.

 

[Hester]

you guys really know how to split hairs

 

[Quint]

Pure, you said to Quint's post:

P: The answer, on my view, is that we are talking of the man's intent, and objectively. The woman's [bottom's] reaction is immaterial. This is an old chestnut in this thread and a couple other of rr's threads, and some of my own.

If the reaction of the bottom is immaterial then degradation cannot possibly be the root since satisfaction of that urge would require that the bottom show that s/he feels degraded. You know the old adage that the way to disarm someone trying to annoy you is to ignore them and not be annoyed? Similarly, the way to thwart the desires of one who wishes to degrade you is to not feel or behave as if you feel degraded.

Conquering, on the other hand can be acheived without the consent or compliance of the conquered.

Thank you; that's what I was fuzzing over. Degradation is a reaction-based action. There can be winning without losing (although not in your rummy game, pure), but I don't believe there can be degradation without a victim feeling degraded.

Incidentally, it drives T mad when I do that! Ha!

And Alice, you had my perspective entirely correct, except for the tongue-in-cheek as I don't personally really feel worshipped by his nefarious intentions.

 

[Recidiva]

Can someone explain the piss thing to me in terms I can understand? All I want to do is get the girl a shower and never touch her.

 

[Quint]

Can someone explain the piss thing to me in terms I can understand? All I want to do is get the girl a shower and never touch her.

Do you understand boot-licking? I think it goes to the same central core: that stuff is nasty and she still has to be down in it. That's what it's about for me, anyway...I know some people are like "the waste products of my loving Master are as gold to me, their refuse as rubies."

 

[Recidiva]

Do you understand boot-licking? I think it goes to the same central core: that stuff is nasty and she still has to be down in it. That's what it's about for me, anyway...I know some people are like "the waste products of my loving Master are as gold to me, their refuse as rubies."

Isn't that like playing Tic Tac Toe with a kindergartener and then saying "HAH!" when you win?

 

[Marquis]

I hate to be the one to point out that porn is hardly the best example to hold up as representative of universal human sexuality.

What is the woman in that picture truly thinking about? That she makes more money for doing a piss scene than she does for straight sex or masturbation. The male in the picture could easily be gay --- they could both be gay and not in the least sexually attracted to one another. Porn isn't any more real in most instances than any other kind of movie.

Far better would be to look at the world in general --- if sex were, at root, about degradation then that would be the primary form of sexuality practiced rather than a niche market.

I think your argument makes the opposite point. It's not the people taking the money, it's the people paying the money that count.

Pure, you said to Quint's post:

P: The answer, on my view, is that we are talking of the man's intent, and objectively. The woman's [bottom's] reaction is immaterial. This is an old chestnut in this thread and a couple other of rr's threads, and some of my own.

If the reaction of the bottom is immaterial then degradation cannot possibly be the root since satisfaction of that urge would require that the bottom show that s/he feels degraded. You know the old adage that the way to disarm someone trying to annoy you is to ignore them and not be annoyed? Similarly, the way to thwart the desires of one who wishes to degrade you is to not feel or behave as if you feel degraded.

Conquering, on the other hand can be acheived without the consent or compliance of the conquered.

That's a keen distinction, I'll have to put some thought into this.

 

[Marquis]

Isn't that like playing Tic Tac Toe with a kindergartener and then saying "HAH!" when you win?

Yup.

 

[Recidiva]

Yup.

Okay, as long as I'm not missing something.

 

[bridgeburner]

I think your argument makes the opposite point. It's not the people taking the money, it's the people paying the money that count.

But you don't know what all the people paying the money are thinking. Even if one makes an accurate approximation and covers all the bases, the fact still remains that fetish porn is a niche market.

Degradation porn is pretty specific. Most often what you see is a portrayal of women enjoying what's going on however far out that may be.

The argument could be made that ALL porn is degrading, or that it's somehow all degrading to women but not to men, but I'm not on board with that idea much to the chagrin of my anti-porn friends.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Can someone explain the piss thing to me in terms I can understand? All I want to do is get the girl a shower and never touch her.

This makes sense to me. I'm into it for the sheer degradation factor. I was working with a kid who had been quite a gangster and tough guy in his neighborhood, and a Golden GLoves contender, and he was telling us about a fight he'd been in. He'd knocked the other guy out "and then I whipped out my cock and PISSED on him.". That sums it all up, for me.

 

[@}-}rebecca----]

This makes sense to me. I'm into it for the sheer degradation factor. I was working with a kid who had been quite a gangster and tough guy in his neighborhood, and a Golden GLoves contender, and he was telling us about a fight he'd been in. He'd knocked the other guy out "and then I whipped out my cock and PISSED on him.". That sums it all up, for me.

I 'get' as in understand this kind of act I expect to hear my younger brother when he was a teen participated in something like that. He is an adult now and matured intellectually past the need to physically express himself in that manner . Much can be said for 'headspace' being able to encompass internal satisfaction, know when its really down to trivia and move past it. To me its the guy doing the peeing thats degrading. No matter how much adulation he feels in the conquest to me it screams lack of control. Overkill...........