Top-opolis

[evesdream]

Then, I laid a creased 50$ on the bar, ordered a round, and looked away for some reason. I looked back a moment later and the 50$ was gone, replaced by a new 20$ I looked at it in shock and the smiling barmaid picked up and made change for the round. One of those two malaccas had pulled a switcheroo on the gringo. I left immediately, without saying goodbye, filled with sadness.

'Thievery Corporation' would like a word with those malaccas i'm sure

 

[Quint]

Joke of the day, if that article wasn't already it:

What do you say to a woman with two black eyes?

Nothing, you already told her twice.

 

[Marquis]

I thought the article was pretty good. Then again, I would.

 

[Pure]

I like the article too, but some very valid points have been made, in particular, by Eve and Netz. As Eve said, Marlowe leaves the 'solution' entirely unclear, which can be read as, say, return to the 1950s or 1940s or whatever.

Netzach's point is highly relevant also. WHY is this lady claiming so much for the vagina and its alleged orgasm, and that it's as frequent as so called clitoral orgasm? It been my exp that not a single woman has 'come' through simple missionary fucking. Some guys, and porn writers in particular, can't live with this.

As to 'respecting' and being aroused by the male bottom- person. While I take N's word for her particular case, I believe most women, and even most dommes/tops do NOT get off on that at all. They do not like 'a man at their mercy.'

I might add that Marlowe does not even consider the female dominant thing as an option, when it's clear she should: her whole critique is that parity and equality of power don't work.


J.

 

[Pure]

Here are a few thoughts that have been running around my head for a while. Other's comments are welcome.

Marlowe's comment about seeing handcuffs at Sam Goody, is about the mainstreaming of 'polymorphous perversion.'

I think that any alleged 'mainstreaming' is entirely deceptive, if it's thought of as leading to greater 'acceptance' of sexual diversity/perversity; and the DS culture is an example.

First, what's a perversion or deviation; it's some *alternative way to the 'penile insertion in willing vagina' way of coming. Even an alternate way of being aroused that has greater 'kick' than the normal things.

So I propose there are three sorts of perversions, or perverse desires, if you like:

A) Can be satisfied consensually. Call these 'social' perversions.

B) To be satisfied nonconsensually. Call these 'anti social perversions' They fall into two kinds; 1) by choice antisocial; and 2) basically antisocial.

1) could be consented to, but isn't. Example rubbing the prick on someone in public.

2) cannot be consented to. Example, rape, forced sodomy etc. They cannot be consented to either because power must be exerted, or because the harm is more than minor (flogging).

My opinion is that many or most perverse desires are 'anti-social.'

What's been mainstreamed, then is category A), social perversions. These are 'sold' to the public as 'healthy' or at least not-sick 'variations' of normal sexuality. These are satisfied in scenes agreed to, beforehand (pre-arranged enactments).

It (A) roughly includes fetish and DS scening. By prior arrangement, some kink is satisfied: maybe with fishnet stockings on the female; or through one party "dominating" the other. DS acts, then, have the quality of a number of scenes, like doctor/ patient. My preference is to describe it this way: there is no actual 'doctoring' in the dr/patient; similarly one may say there is no actual domination, i.e., exertion of power over, in the typical DS scene.

(I'm not attached to the labels; one may call it 'consensual domination' if it seems agreeable; in that case I'd want to call the actual exercise of power over, by some other term, like subjection, subordination, subjugation, tyrrany.)

For instance: By pre arrangement and consent, certain 'orders' are given, within agreed limits. The 'sub' is 'forced' to carry them out. According to the labels I prefer, what's actually happening is NOT what the words usually suggest. There is no actual order the 'sub' is actually forced (or coerced, or intimidated) to fulfill.

A scene (enactment)--like a psychodrama-- of course may have considerable impact, for example, a whipping. Notice these acts themselves are not 'faked', but their being forced, is staged. They are like the 'real' actions in putting on a play. While a stabbing is faked, acts such as drinking a glass of water, bowing down, or kissing are not.

What's odd is that the whole 'perverse' situation, the community as it appears to the public is now ass-backwards. Social perversion is in the center stage, perhaps the only thing on stage. The aim is for legitimacy, e.g, exclusion from the DSM list of psychiatric 'sexual disorders.'

But what's heading for legitimacy is just a small piece of the whole; and cannot stand for the whole. To put it simply, the 'acceptance' of sanitized 'social perversions', for instance under the SSC banner, is unlikely to lead to acceptance of most perversities or of their practitioners. (There's a parallel in the gay/lesbian area. What's getting accepted is sanitized and a mirror image of bourgeios couple-dom, including 'marriage'.)

The question of what to do with perverse desires is another topic.
But they are marginally let in the door in the violation of limits in an initially consensual encounter or enactment.

The key thing is to recognize them, and realize that they widespread (they're what some writers draw upon). 'Dark' (asocial or antisocial) desires are present in all persons, though well hidden in ordinary circumstances. Mainstreaming of the 'nice' (social) perversions has distracted from this fact.

Note: Of course all ways of 'getting off' are equally valid. Whether they may be vanilla, vanilla with kinky foreplay; scenes/ enactments of whatever. Or maybe even, perhaps, for the antisocial perversions, fantasies, limit violations or careful indulgences.

Well, I tried to be brief. If you've read thus far, post a comment.

[Revised and added to, 11-13]

 

[rosco rathbone]

"No one loses control, loses track of where they are, forgets that music is playing, screams, or weeps, when someone performs oral sex on them. But fucking stirs deep emotions that go to our core as animals and humans."

Well, this is just dead wrong; in my experience. I like the overall tone of the article, though. QBF is right when she says that those guy were always like that. I dunno. Somehow; it makes too much sense that the author namechecks the craigs list.

Old-school macho humping, unfairness, masculine heavy-handedness and all that jazz is still alive and well in the blue-collar world; although, curiously, the blue-collar youth are proud of their prowess with the toungue. Ability to make the bitch come is important to men of all social classes and probably always has been.

I see myself as a rebel against this female orgasm thing. arg

 

[rosco rathbone]

If she's really jonesing for old-fashioned machismo, masculine energy, and fucking that won't quit, she'd be better off hanging out at the bus stop than at yoga class.

We dominant yoga stud resent the implications of this.

I love yoga babes. mmm

 

[rosco rathbone]

justine, no one here bites...too hard. "Women secretly want men with authority, but they fall for insecure passive-aggressive guys who view every aspect of life as a power struggle, or for cranky killjoys or petty sadists." I believe those are what have been known as 'the constituency' around here in the past.

That article does good work being inflammatory, but i think decrying the decline of her definition of manhood, is a difficult argument to make without upholding another, unneccessary, standard for hard-up men and boys to try to live up to. Damning us all to another round of people who cannot be forthright and honest, and must be something they're not for the sake of intercourse.

"They're pussy-whipped and tamed by 30, but just below the surface they seethe with hostility and resentment at women, because they're quite aware that their girlfriends or wives treat sex as a commodity to be doled out in return for something better." I love this part. In fact I do sense this from a lot of men, but I think it's part of the inter-sexual paranoia that American culture oozes with.

Eve is allright. lo five

 

[evesdream]

orginally posted by Pure I might add that Marlowe does not even consider the female dominant thing as an option, when it's clear she should: her whole critique is that parity and equality of power don't work.

Great observation. Netzach did a great job of pointing it out as well. I may have made a good point, but Queen Bee made the more relevant one (to my mind):

Thanks for posting that, Justine.

Salon writers are always so needlessly angsty and navel-gazing. This woman makes a serious mistake when she tries to extrapolate from academia to the rest of American culture. Yes, privileged, intellectual 20-something boys are mostly effete and self-absorbed and passive-aggressive. They always have been!

If she's really jonesing for old-fashioned machismo, masculine energy, and fucking that won't quit, she'd be better off hanging out at the bus stop than at yoga class.

I *do* eroticize a certain type of masculine energy and power and i know where to find it.

I have this recurring riff in my mind of a recent episode with my ---. A big political discussion with him about gender and power that ended with me prone on my stomach and him on my back stating bald, true facts in my ear about gender, and power.

Unfortunately the horny vibe that fills my head every time i think about it extinguishes the details, but he reminded me of what i want in precise, succinct, slow, low, unforgettable tones after which they were allowed to sink in there in silence. There was really nothing else to say after that.

ETA-- for every impulse i have, there is an equal and opposite one it seems.

 

[evesdream]

Pure: The question of what to do with perverse desires is another topic. But they are marginally let in the door in the violation of limits in an initially consensual encounter or enactment.

The key thing is to recognize them, and realize that they widespread (they're what some writers draw upon). Mainstreaming of the 'nice' (social) perversions has distracted from this fact.

true.

 

[Pure]

There is now a longer version (double) of the little piece, above, on perversions and 'mainstreaming' and acceptance. More detail, clearer arguments. If anyone's interested, PM to me, your email addy.
I may later post the longer piece under 'essays' for Literotica.

J.

 

[rosco rathbone]

There is now a longer version (double) of the little piece, above, on perversions and 'mainstreaming' and acceptance. More detail, clearer arguments. If anyone's interested, PM to me, your email addy.
I may later post the longer piece under 'essays' for Literotica.

J.

Why not post here, for the pervy peeple?

I looked for the perv-baiting thing but didn't find much excitement.

 

[Pure]

Should perverts celebrate when a 'spokesperson' appears on the Leno show?

Question: Does the mainstreaming of BDSM imply greater acceptance of perversions or of those who practice them? Are most 'pervs' better off?

{Comments solicited and welcome; this is a work in progress}

Some have said yes, and pointed to contents of prime time TV (typically the Mistress/Domme) and the possible deletion of sadism and masochism from the DSM listings of psychiatric disorders. A parallel might be drawn to homosexuality, gay and lesbian practices which are now deleted as being, in themselves, something mental health professionals should concern themselves with.

While there is something to the analogy, and certainly increasing tolerance of certain sexual practices in some ways, I want to ask if the whole picture is so rosy.

Is there and can there be greater social acceptance of sexual minorities, both including those who label themselves BDSM community, and those who might stick to the older S/M label?

The problem is suggested, by again looking at the 'gay tolerance' that's supposedly developed. Since that's not the main topic, I'll just say that it appears that the tolerance is of a narrow range of gay/lesbian practice, one patterned after the straight example: in particular, monogamous, lifelong, respectable pairings that indeed can even by recognized as marriages, blessed by, if not performed in, the church. One might even add that the acceptable pair does not practice things like BDSM.

Before I start, let me say what I'm not doing. I'm describing, but not ranking. I'm not trying to establish which practices are better than others. Every sexual practice is assumed to have its own validity for those involved, though where there's serious harm to others, the law is going to come into play.

First let's define what a perversion is, and get an idea what's out there: it's some alternative to the 'penile insertion in willing vagina' way of coming/reaching-orgasm. In a time of acceptance of gay sex, certain additional approved ways are added, such as male/male anal intercourse, and perhaps even some lesbian practices such as use of strap-on by the top.

Further, a perversion is an alternate way of being aroused that has greater 'kick' {added: for the pervert} than the 'normal' procedures. In both orgasm and arousal, what makes something a perversion is that it may be more or less completely satisfying in the absence of 'normal' (male/female missionary sex) or even the approved gay practices.
I propose there are three sorts of perversions, or perverse desires, if you like:

A) Can be satisfied consensually. Call these 'social' perversions.

B) To be satisfied nonconsensually. Call these 'anti social perversions' They fall into two kinds; 1) by choice antisocial; and 2) intrinsically antisocial.

1) could be consented to, but isn't. Example rubbing the prick on someone in public.

2) cannot be consented to. Example, rape, forced sodomy etc. They cannot be consented to either because power must be exerted, or because the harm is more than minor (flogging).
There are practices in a gray area around 1) and 2), namely those desires it's pretty damn difficult to get consent to, such as piss and scat/fecal practices. In some cases the difficulty can be overcome with by the pervert-client's paying a large fee.

My opinion is that many or most perverse desires are 'anti-social.' Or, to be more precise, the term 'asocial' might be used; the person with the desire simply doesn't care one way or the other about the other person or persons feelings. Such a description may well apply to the core sexual desire itself, what's there in the 'reptilian' brain, or id or unconscious: get a fuck going and damn the consequences.

Category (A), social, roughly includes fetish scening and DS scening. In the first case, by prior arrangement, some kink is satisfied: maybe with fishnet stockings on the female; maybe the male is to wear 'chaps.' Perhaps the one is to dress in the dr's white coat, and enact an examination of the other.

In the second case, one party "dominates" the other. For instance: By pre arrangement and consent, certain 'orders' are given, within agreed limits. The 'sub' is 'forced' to carry them out. There may be application of force or restraint (cuffs), as per agreement.

DS acts appear to have the quality of a number of fetish scenes, like doctor/ patient. My preference is to describe it this way: just as there is no actual 'doctoring' in the dr/patient; one may say there is no actual domination, i.e., exertion of power over, in the typical DS scene. None of the words, 'dominate', 'submit', 'order' or 'forced' are actually being used in their normal, dictionary sense.** I can 'order' a child to bed, since I can enforce consequences. But am I 'ordering' a sub, in saying "Give me a bj" if s/he has previously agreed to be 'ordered' and to give me such a service whenever I ask?*** ##

A scene (enactment)--like a psychodrama-- of course may have considerable impact, for example, a whipping. Notice these acts themselves are not 'faked', but their being forced, is simulated or staged. This is like what you see in a play; some acts are 'real' in the sense of happening—like a kiss, or drinking water; others are 'unreal', for example, stabbings. But even the 'real' act is in some way, NOT real: Generally the actors are NOT actually kissing as occurs in real life (out of desire and affection).

These distinctions, then, allow us to describe what's been happening in the mainstreaming. The 'social' perversions have come before the public eye; they've occupied centre stage as it were. These are what may come to be called 'non sick' and deleted from psychiatrists' lists of disorders.

To put it simply, the 'acceptance' is of sanitized desires, 'social perversions', as, for instance, those under the SSC banner. And this was a goal a certain segment of the perverse communit(ies) worked for, and why the SSC banner was raised in the first place.
The goal, then, may be achieved for those with the 'social' perversions, or who appear that way; that is worth something.

But, isn't it a first step? Not necessarily.

First, a vast number if not the majority of perverse desires are not included. Those things that pass through the 'civilized' or 'sensitive' mind or occur in dreams and are rejected, i.e., not practiced.

Second, the acceptance often involves a mutation of the practice so that it becomes foreplay, the prelude to 'acceptable' fucking. In other words, there is no longer any perversion, as defined.
Mr. and Mrs. Suburbia, after Bible class, and before fucking, get out and use the hand cuffs bought at Walmart.


Third, if 'social' is what allowed for acceptance, it's clear that the 'antisocial' group are never going to qualify; acceptance of the social is thus, from the point of view of the perverse community, NOT the 'thin edge of the wedge'—it's NOT, I say, going to lead to more. It's all there is and maybe all there can be.

The question of what to do with perverse desires—how to live with or satisfy them-- is another topic. But they are marginally let in the door in the violation of limits in an initially consensual encounter or enactment. So it's obvious that it's not _respecting_ limits that defines most (i.e, antisocial)perversions, but rather transgressing them, perhaps in a controlled, even foreseen, fashion.

The key thing is to recognize them, and realize that they widespread; they're what some writers draw upon. Asocial or antisocial—'dark'-- desires are present in all persons, though well hidden in ordinary circumstances. Dress an ordinary person in a guard's or soldier's uniform and put him or her in 'unit', in a dangerous situation, where the danger comes from 'Others', and you have a possible rapist, or worse.

In conclusion, mainstreaming of the 'nice' (social) perversions has distracted from this fact: While a minority of the perverse minority are indulged and put in the limelight, the majority are ignored. They are the 'disreputable cousins' or 'black sheep' best not talked of, when the BDSM spokesperson is on the Leno show.

The battle of most sexual minorities is barely joined; little has happened to resolve it, since the famous book 'Sexual Minorities" written a few decades ago. Indeed, given the nature of 'polite society' –its correct perception of danger to it, in amoral sexual activities--perhaps acceptance can never be forthcoming.

end

(c) pure
====
====

**
(I'm not attached to the labels; one may call it 'consensual domination' or exercize of a peculiar form of power ['power exchange' perhaps] if it seems agreeable; in that case I'd want to call the actual exercise of power over, as common understood, by some other term, like subjection, subordination, subjugation, tyrrany.)
----

***
(Exertion of force is not necessarily exertion of power over: If A spanks B, at B's request, there is forceful striking, perhaps, but no power over.)
----

##
Yes, in the army, I've agreed, upon enlistment, to be ordered. I subsequently follow most orders 'willingly,' without a gun at the head. BUT what is there in the last resort? When the order comes--'advance to battle' --I can be shot for not complying; I can't say, "This relationship no longer serves my needs. I'm leaving."

 

[Netzach]

Thought on this

Via a sampling of myriad perverted heterosexual males and their fantasies and wishes:

The anti-social, for most people into SM, is what might sound good on paper. The fuel. The thing that makes mr. happy point up.

The social is the level on which this can practically be enacted, where the psychic longing can be given its props and the itch scratched.

Most horny bottom guys want to talk/read about unconditional service, no limits use, surgical feminization, and being made into a street corner whore.

Few want to play hard enough to leave marks or draw blood.

 

[WriterDom]

some unedited pure would rock the world

 

[Pure]

Hi N,

Thanks for the feedback. Some immediate reactions:

Yes, I know what you mean, I think. I'd put it that our fantasies out run what is possible or even satisfying, like a kid's idea of what she want to eat--heaps and heaps of ice cream-- out runs her ability to keep it down.

Example along your line: I've read and reacted to accounts of brutal flayings with blood etc. Lashes with nails in them, etc.
In actual fact, having tasted a whip, it's almost wussy what gentle lashes will do the trick; the nails, knots, etc. would NOT be an actual turn on, methinks.

The feature you point out, however, probably applies to all sexual desires, not just 'perverted' ones. Someone's fantasy of being 'done' by the football team might best be left like that. Asses/pussies do get sore, esp. if used the way some fantasies go. Similarly the desire to fuck the whole female cheerleading squad would probably 'peter out' after a couple, and before a dozen.

But let's say that straight or perverted, _some_ desires will get acted upon. Some seem to 'seize' us. It will be done, even if the result falls far short of the fantasy. Indeed, I'd say it's almost the hallmark of the 'pervert' that his/her desires have an especially strong 'hold,', but that may be because of social sanctions, etc.

Consider the gay guy with money, home, wife, etc., who's caught working a glory hole in a men's room. He could easily find a willing partner, and 'get a room.' One might say there is the homosexual desire, BUT on top is the specification that it be satisfied in an anonymous, degrading fashion--also where there is danger of detection. SO, if we're now very enlightened, the homosexual desire is _not_ pathologicial per se, being found in Michelangelo, Foucault, etc. But the debasement part(manner) may be called 'perverted.' One says, in this case, there is an element of masochism, a perversion.

And your observation may well apply. The fantasy might be to suck a hundred cocks, when in fact five or ten will do.

I shall ponder how your points affect the main argument. I think in the example above, it's clear that your suggestion that the social is what's workable and feasible and satisfying--a scaled down desire-- does not entirely fit, but I can't exactly say why. First of all, though, the desire, here, is to undergo something. Hence the damage, if any, is to oneself. In terms of the typology then, it's a social perversion; one satisfiable without harm to others. As you say, though, its conception may outrun the reality of what's actually satisfying.

More to the point then, would be where the gay fellow envisions ripping into a dozen asses with an over engorged member, where the ass belongs to some hapless, mostly unwilling 'pick up' at the bar. There is a 'gay' desire, but in a sadistic, antisocial form. Again, though, perhaps one ass will do, and the 'unwilling' part may be shammed.

I guess this has gotten rambly. Enough.

Thanks.

J.

 

[Pure]

Hi writer dom,

//some unedited pure would rock the world//

I see your point. But I'm a terrible typist, so at least I like to eliminate typos. Then I find I've left out a "not", etc.

I could write off line, proof and paste, but that is a whole lotta trouble for average 'conversational' piece. I did it, above, so the changes have been purely cosmetic. It will stand for comment, if you should choose to make any.

My one rule is NOT to change a portion that's been responded to and quoted, without noting it.

J.

 

[Pure]

Announcement:

In an overly playful spirit, I did some surfing and posting (including to bdsm), occasionally, under an alternate screenname/identity ("Scarlet Vixen").

While I don't think it's against Lit rules (barring fraud), if any acquaintance or friend feels badly dealt with, I'm sorry.

J.
pure
scarlet vixen

 

[rosco rathbone]

Further, a perversion is an alternate way of being aroused that has greater 'kick' than the 'normal' procedures.

I think you might be on very thin ice here. Who is to say that the "straights" don't get off just as hard on their moon-june-spoon cuddly, kissy missionary position lovemaking? I think the fully healthy ones very well may.

If by "normal" procedures you mean "the boring ways of intercourseing employed by those who have not yet discovered the dark paths"; then you may have something.

 

[Pure]

Of course, I meant, 'a greater kick for the pervert'. I wasn't comparing the perv's high to the Mormon high.

By 'normal' I meant just what you said.

 

[evesdream]

Third, if 'social' is what allowed for acceptance, it's clear that the 'antisocial' group are never going to qualify; acceptance of the social is thus, from the point of view of the perverse community, NOT the 'thin edge of the wedge'—it's NOT, I say, going to lead to more. It's all there is and maybe all there can be.

If antisocial is perverse by your definition or vice versa, this statement might be circular Pure.

If youre sticking by it, make sure to do a fact check. Have there been points in history when sexual fulfilment from nonconsent, for example, was not socially prohibited? A mad world where the antisocials held sway. (I guess I'm thinking of slave societies- although at least in modern times abolishonist letters home marked the goings ons as atrocious) Is it accurate to view these conditions as temporary relapse or social and historical bubbleboys?

(note...if a pervert could not bear to live in a society that glorifies his or her perversion, is they still a perv? Or even more perverse, in that case? And a question like this a pervert's litmus test.)

Also, in some ways it seems that rape and incest have sometimes been seen as normal impulse, avoidable only by whatever happens to be sensible behaviour in any given era. Can something be construed as anti-social, but normal, in your overall argument?

Of course if your argument is fixed in America next week, my comments might not apply. Generally- I wonder- when other people talk about sick people, how could they do such a thing people- do they too silently, secretly understand the whys and the how could yous or are they genuinely so set apart from those things that the acts, the drive is beyond comprehension?

 

[rosco rathbone]

Generally- I wonder- when other people talk about sick people, how could they do such a thing people- do they too silently, secretly understand the whys and the how could yous or are they genuinely so set apart from those things that the acts, the drive is beyond comprehension?

 

[Pure]

//If youre sticking by it, make sure to do a fact check. Have there been points in history when sexual fulfilment from nonconsent, for example, was not socially prohibited? A mad world where the antisocials held sway. (I guess I'm thinking of slave societies- although at least in modern times abolishonist letters home marked the goings ons as atrocious) Is it accurate to view these conditions as temporary relapse or social and historical bubbleboys?//

Interesting comments, all of them. As to above. Well, you can't have an entirely 'antisocial' society, almost by definition; it would be Hobbes' war of all against all, so called 'law of the jungle'.

OTOH, I've heard of societies where, certain kinds of such acts are condoned. I seem to remember stuff in the OT, and also regarding some South Sea Island, where the forceful 'taking' of a woman was no big deal. (There would be exceptions, of course, like don't touch the Princesses; the daughters of the rich and powerful promised to other rich and powerful.)

I believe RR has read a bit about the history of rape. Iirc, in certain parts of the OT, a rape can be made good through marriage; i.e., the marriage erases the problem (defined as the lowering of the worth of the woman--to her father-- as a bride.)
Likewise--in another location and time {Europe}-- the sexual use of a child was viewed without objection, in certain cases.

//If antisocial is perverse by your definition or vice versa, this statement might be circular Pure.//

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I don't say 1)an antisocial desire is perverse, nor 2) a perverse desire is antisocial.

1) The desire to murder for revenge is antisocial, but not a perversion.

2) My three categories explicitly allow for perverse desires that may be satisfied socially. Hence the label 'social' perversion. Anything that can be satisfied by agreement and set-up, is social; as for instance the 'slave' arrangement Sacher Masoch set up with his Adored. (But I think 'social perversions' may be the 'lifestyle' of a minority, compared to the larger number of those with antisocial perversions; iow, it may be that 'most' perverse desires are antisocial.)

As to //it's clear that the 'antisocial' group are never going to qualify;// and your remark about circularity, I see what you're saying. A non circular way of putting it, might be in terms of harm. Seriously harmful acts are not going to be condoned, at least on a general basis, though as you point out, in certain slave societies, the slave can be harmed by his/her master (almost)with impunity, and even killed under the mildest pretext.

Perhaps the simplest way of saying it is that certain fantasies, and certain perverse fantansies (and any corresponding desire) will always be 'beyond the pale.' Sade's attempt to depict a society of masters, is not very convincing {Society of Friends of Crime}. Lots and lots of innocent virgins have to keep disappearing from the surrounding country to keep the lusts (including murderous) satisfied.

Thanks a lot for your response. I will revise after hearing from people.

 

[rosco rathbone]

"The war of the all against all"...I love that phrase. I always picture an overhead, crane-cam shot, swooping past, of a cold, brick-walled courtyard at an English school, with a November wind whipping the leaves about; full of schoolboys in uniform, with red faces and blue caps, all seething in an enourmous melee, hairpulling, scuffed knees, every man for himself and Devil takes the hindmost.

Sorry, Pure, you sent me off on a tangent of reverie.

 

[evesdream]

He is pretty inspiring isn't he