I agree. I totally agree.

Now here's my but...

animals.

I know that people get off and all. There was that case of the man out west who had his internal organs punctured by a moderately hung horse. There are porns where women get down (and dirty) with a variety of animals.

I just think, those poor poor sheep. I guess that speaks toward consent and the crux of your argument is about consent.

So, animals (in my mind) perverse.

 

Well-said. Some would believe that submission is degrading and dominance is brutish or evil, and of course it is not so. Those who allow themselves to be truly degraded will appear as submissive, certainly, only worse. Those who are brutish or evil will appear as dominant, but certainly not in a redeeming way.

 

Very thoughtful and "real." (I want the word there, but I'm not sure it belongs...) You found a good medium in the subject/object dichotomy (or a seeming one -- since subjects are getting off on being objects, and vice versa, in your analysis). Was it written, though, to create distance from porn, in particular? (I'm not advocating either answer...jury's still out, even if I personally find most of it 'way too contrary to the joys of eroticism.)

Interesting to read your ideas after Mark Morford's SFGate column on hiding the "dirt" in your computer, yesterday -- see my blog from lasst night, if you missed it: devifemme.livejournal.com/

Hugs, J

 

Mm. I couldn't agree more. I sometimes do qualify my posts with a 'before you read this, understand this first' paragraph. I dislike the paragraph, but understanding, motive and, most certainly, clarity, are important - crucial - ingredients in any, esp 'alternative,' lifestyle.

I wouldn't want my words/actions to be interpreted solely by the mind and experiences of a person watching the action play out. Rape and 'forced consent' look very much alike, yet have a massive differences that take it from being an violating aberration to a mutual act of passion. In addition, I take personal responsibility for what I write, and would never want some profane act of violation to be assumed acceptable by me because a reader misread a post or didn’t grasp what perhaps someone who knows me better, might.

Free will/choice makes a major difference.

On a side note: Sweaty monkey sex sounds great.

 

Brave and thorough analysis dear O ! Very well done. I could not agree more on many of the points you make. Essentially, nothing is by definition perverse, and only so for the subjects ... of course. Interestingly, many (if not all) of our moral boundaries are not intrinsic, are not in our biology but rather in our education ... So, the other question is why society imposes moral boundaries and what the benefit is for man-kind as a whole ... So very, very interesting and so well expressed ... typically you ;-). Big hugs - A

 

Wow, O, you did it again. Do you ever get tired of being dead-on?

Of all you wrote, I will grab for 2 easy pieces:

You said "This is why enacting this fantasy that contains degradation is not itself actually degrading."

-I agree with that point, on what it means to engage in an act that is seen as degarding. I think that shit is way beyond urine, however. I am not seeing past the external for the internal need, yes I know. I may be a prude but I have to draw the line at all scat fantasies and realities. I have met a few who wanted it. I felt that I would be totally disprespecting them to do such a thing, as I could not find a way to get redemption for myself enough to enact their fantasy. I could not fulfill their wish but I did not like them any less, however. Yes, it was selfish in the end, but I am not up for sainthood...yet.

You said: "It's perverse to not tell your partner all of your perversions."

-Super right-on! I have said it to others but I seldom have seen it open for discussion.

The men I have met that have these various needs but hide it from the wife/gf/signfothr...I think that is the height of disregard. Yes, she may think that he is sick but I doubt she will run off. She is not even given the chance to run, as she is kept in the dark.(I know that some folks like that fact-the secrecy is the actual turn-on). Maybe just to let the need be exposed to the light of day can be enough to make it through the night.

To tell a person that you are intimate with only half the truth, uggh. I say tell the truth and shame the devil. I would be more hurt that I was not informed, than that my lover had a "perversion". I may not indulge it, but I am not going to push them away because of it.

Embracing the truth is good. For what one may lose today, can be regained triple-fold later, if one just opens up to the truth of one's being and desires.
If I did not open my mouth that fateful cold day, I would not have became the princess and cunt I am.

Thanks and thanks again for this topic.

 

I love when you give me such accurate and astute food for thought. It's like the cordon bleu of the blog world.

 

Brilliant :) agree with your comments and it makes you think :)
It's all about consent and treating each other as a person ;)

x

 

Wow! so many comments and so thoughtful--thank you all. This is the first tme I've been able t get access long enough to attempt to answer, and actually, these comments have certainly already given me so much to think about that I will have to do a followup post to do them justice. I'll try some answers however inadequate now, though:

Minxxxy, as I know your expertise in cooking I am especially humbled by your accolade! xxxO

Aragorn,
Darling, we must talk at length and soon, on these and related subjects. I must say that given th elittle i know of biology what you say strikes me as right: I dont think the vast majority of our ethical prescriptions depend upon or are determined by biology.
But perhaps you could help me out here: incest and cannibalism? Prohibitions on these run deep and are pretty damn near universal, barring certain proscribed ceremonial sorts of things, and I wonder if there may not be a biological reason for that? There seem to be good evolutionary biological reasons why an antipathy to those acts might be hardwired. This idea isn't unique to me, I don't think, and i did recently discuss it with a friend. I suspect you will have much to add on it!

love always,
O

 

some girl,
I've missed you!

I'm so glad you brought that up. The original version of this post was a lot longer: i had a short list of things I wanted to argue were always perverse, anywhere, anytime. But the long version was really boring, i think, so i shortened and simplified drastically.

The concept of "perversion" implies that there is a rightful "aim" or "goal" that can be twisted or subverted. I'm claiming that the 'rightful aim' of sex involves a connection between persons who treat each other and themselves as Subjects.
Some people think the rightful aim of sex is procreation: anyone who thinks this will automatically think homosexuality is horribly perverse, and also think (probably) that all sex outside of marriage is wrong, and also birth control and abortion, possibly.

I'm saying the rightful goal of sex cant just be pleasure: the guy who fucks sheep or kids or commits rape probably experiences pleasure. I'm saying the goal has to be a certain kind of pleasure, one that involves treating another person and oneself as a Subject.

So yes: on my original version, i had a whole thing about why its perverse to fuck animals. I completely agree with you, and I think it's very cool that you spotted right away what I had had to leave out. Thanks for reading me so carefully, and catching me on my omission. damn!

love
O

 

Naranja,
Wow, thank you so much for stopping by; i do love your thoughts and tea's always, as you know.

Your own blog and princessc's and Yen's were all much in my mind, in particular some of the recent posts on each. I think that the whole area of domination and submission gets bad press and is misunderstood by many, precisely because of this complicated nexus between sex and power between men and women, and precisely because of the ways in which it can be misunderstood from the outside, or abused within by those with only the most imperfect understanding of these issues.
I always love your blog because of your very obvious awareness of these issues and sensitivity towards them, and the very obvious love and respect that informs your relationship. It's an education and privilege to read.
thank you again for your comment; I am glad you liked it.

Love
O

 

justine,
i have been dying to go see the SFgate column and your post ; thank you so much and I'll be adding your link to my own post here.

In my analysis, no one gets off on actually being an object, but "playing" at being an object is often very arousing--but to "pretend" objectification requires a partner who knows you have this need and wishes to gratify you--and that's the essence of being treated as a subject: having one's desires respected.

I think porn is a vastly complicated issue and I wasn't even trying to talk about that here, because I simply havent thought enough about porn yet. Also, I just don;t feel I have enough experience of porn personally....i really do need to think about it. I'm pro-sex work and pro- the legalisation of sex work. At the very least the legality of it could ensure safety for many of its workers. I'm pro-porn in (at least!) the sense that I'm opposed to censorship. I dont think its wrong to consume porn; studies that claim some of it contributes to violence against women have only succeeded at best in demonstrating that violent offenders often have a lot of violent porn: but that doesnt show the porn *caused* their pathology, at all.

I'm not convinced that porn necessarily objectifies the people portrayed. Tony Comstock;s porn seems like a good counterexample to that claim, from what I know of it.

I'll think more, and let you know; I look forward to your thoughts--mine here are a bit scattered, I'm afraid.
Love
O

 

PC,

there is so much I'd like to say to you---I commented at length on you last night and lost my connection and comment in one go. As to your comment here: You really flatter me too much, but I am really pleased you found something of value here. As i said to N, your recent post was also in my mind when i was thinking of this.

I also find it really perverse to not tell your partner everything you like; unfortunately many people, especially people who marry or pair up young, wind up in that position. This is apart from the people who find secrecy itself a turn-on--you are so right to say that, it's something I've often noticed, and that is also a post in itself. I wonder about that need, and what it means.I find it really troubling. The thesis I'm endorsing here is that the rightful aim of sex is a kind of honesty with another human being: it doesnt require knowing their name, even. But what does it mean if one's sexual life always requires secrets or lies about what you actually like? I find it very troubling.

About scat: there definitely is a class of sexual acts that intrinsically involve humiliation and degradation. Shit seems like one of them, to me. (There are some other practices that may be like that too, some of the more extreme ones in D/s, perhaps. Given how much of D/s involves this business of determining and then carefully extending boundaries, it can be so hard to know or say where any permanent line is, it seems as though it's bred into the practice of it, this potential for going to far.--this was an issue that you raised very recently, and one that has made me think; I haven;t thought nearly enough yet and i look forward to your own thoughts eagerly).

For me, it's very obvious that scat has the "acting" of humiliation or degradation deeply bred into it. I would still claim that its possible for two loving partners to play at it without one necessarily *actually* degrading the other, because they'd be doing it with love and respect for the other's desires.

But for me, I could never do it. I don;t want to enact degradation myself, and I couldn't oblige my partner in that way, no matter how much I loved him or her or wished to please him or her sexually. I couldn't find it arousing to humiliate or degrade my lover even if i knew that person wanted it, even if we'd only be playing at real humiliation because he or she had asked for it.

I've engaged in various acts before that I didnt myself find intrinsically pleasurable,---I had one lover who was a crossdresser, for example---but I have found that I can come to find things enjoyable and arousing because my lover's excitement is so great, and because I wish to give pleasure. But there is a line as to what i could experiement with or try. Shit is out, but so are pretty much all things that involve playing at humiliation. (let alone actual humiliation)

thanks again,

always,
O

 

girlfriend,
Thank you so much for your comment and for liking it; i will stop by and check out you and your boyfriend. :)

A lot of it has to do with consent, but it also has to do with a certain kind of consent in a way...as i was sort of saying to some girl, who spotted this too. I would also think acts that lead to serious bodily harm (by which i mean disfigurement, mutilation or death--and by disfigurement or mutilation I dont mean branding or cutting or piercing or scarring or tattooing, all those things have been considered art after all--I mean the impairment of the healthy functioning of a human body, like blinding or amputation)--I think those acts could be "consented" to, but they'd be wrong to perform.

I guess i think there's a moral imperative to not cause harm (tricky to define! i know) or death to another. My definition of harm doesnt exclude the infliction of some kinds of pain, though, obviously.

There's also th ewhole complicated issue of D/s and the way much of it involves pushing boundaries, as I said to pc--i'd recommend her recent post and the comments for discussion of that.

thanks again,
O

 

Super O (pun fully intended):

I do hug you for you modesty about your writings, but you are very good.

I also can't engage in an act where I feel I am degrading my partner. I have not personally been with a cross-dresser, but I understand fully how some things alarm/shock you so that the become a sticky point-can't move past it. Sometimes, you can. Depends on your goal, as you so rightly pointed out.
Shit is my hang-up, I am not sure I can respect the man I engaged in that with afterwards.

I often make my comments in Word and then cut&paste, as it gets very ugly when the internet burps or the computer gets gas and all you have is dead space. Yucky.

We can hold an all day conference on the whole hidden kink scenario that so many live in. One guy clearly told me he could not be with the woman romantically who sticks things deep into his ass. So he sneaks about and wastes the time of others, along with his own. sigh...

If you post over at my altera mea, I will email you back and then you can tell me what's brewing at your leisure. I will have news to share with you very soon, btw.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply and the kind refs to my ol' dusty posted thoughts,lol.
Smiles for miles,
-pc

 

pc,

darling, we must hold a symposium on the hidden kink issue! Your story is absolutely fascinating. There is so much psychological importance to the act of ebing penetrated, I think....some of that is no doubt operative with the guy you mention.

It's funny, I've known more than one guy with at least a slight interest in something like wearing my underwear; I think that sort of urge is quite normal. It's very unfair that men are not allowed usually (if they're straight) to wear "pretty" or "soft" fabric. As usual, I think the desire increases in a way proportional to how much it's forbidden.(which is probably the whole of it, for those who get off on secrecy itself).

The lover I mention though really had this as a thorough-going kink; his girlfriend knew about it but didn't encourage it.

It wasn't my thing, really: i like my guys to be guys and my girls to be girls, though there's no denying I'm far more hetero than anything else, which is one reason I identify as and also advocate the term hetero-flexible. (I think hetero-flexible, homo-flexible, and bisexual are more informative. Some people are truly bi in the sense of 50/50, some people have a pronounced inclination, but hey, are flexible! and some are straight.)
But as I say I think a lot of guys have a small attraction to women's clothing, and will want to wear our underwear or just pantyhose and rip a hole in it to fuck us through. ;)

But this lover I mention was quite into this, not just in what I consider the normal experimental mode. (Is it Voltaire that says trying everything once makes one a philosopher?)
For example, he wanted proper women's shoes and was too embarassed to buy them; I took him shopping, i talked to the sales clerk. I located stores that specialised in women's clothing in men's sizes. I advised him on makeup. He made a very attractive girl, for a straight guy--having long blonde hair helped, and excellent legs and so on--and i could get off on these things to a certain extent, because it was a desire he hadnt fulfilled before, and I was in love with him.

But also, at the same time, I did have a female lover, and so it was very odd to me for him to go down on me dressed as a girl...because if i wanted to be with a girl, well, I'd be with an actual girl.

But my story has a happy ending. (so to speak). In this case, it really was about the taboo aspect of things, and some months of indulgence and encouragement on my part both gratified him and freed him. If it had continued to be a major part of his sexuality I'd have been less satisfied--instead, his obsession dropped back. We'd sometimes indulge but it was never again everything, and it was all very good.

I agree with you again about the unfairness of secrecy. I wouldnt leave my lover over some specific desire. If it were something I simply couldnt bring myself to do, and we loved each other, I'd encourage him to satisfy that need elsewhere, and I'd help him do so.

But everyone deserves that chance, to say "yes" or "no", or "not with me, but I'll help you".
It's a failure not just of trust but also respect to not give them that opportunity.

love
O

 

Super O: I agree that when kink becomes the focus, both parties have to be on the same page.

I am not sure what I would do with serious bf who liked to wear my panties. I guess...buy him some of his own?
I do like a man to be what I think masculinity is, but I would not treat him differently if he had a thing for a frilly thong.
I have gotten into witt guys over excessive oral, as I told them clearly that I want what I can get only from you-the natural grown penius. If I wanted to be licked all the time, I would go get a chick (Guess how that was received!)

Sexuality does operate on a various scale of black/gray/white. I am way at the end of girliness, as I don't have any attraction for women. I suppose many people are at one end and have a tinge of grey, as well.

I have always said that if a man wants something I can't give, him he has to go get it elsewhere, as I am not dressing up in a rubber/latex bodysuit with the Centurion ponytail, for instance. Hopwever, he should have a right to get his rubber/latex fix.
I have the right to know. I don't like the super-secret Dangermouse crap, although that is a major turn-on for some guys. Is it kinky if everyone knows and doesn't care? Or is it the so-called shame factor what drives the desire? I tried to briefly talk about that on my blog, the whole top/bottom conundrum. I think I will devote a whole post to it. Darn it O, thanks for setting the bar all high, now I have to work extra! hehehe

Get the agenda together for the sympo, I will work on the syllabus and req reading mats. The whole 'secrets are the real kink' thing could be a lifetime work, maybe even a prize winner!

As always, smiles and giggles!
-princessc

 

Very thought-provoking. What fascinates me is how people break that freaky ice. I would love to hear those conversations so I would know how to carry them out myself.

For example, I saw a video online of a woman naked, hogtied and suspended from the ceiling with a metal hook up her arse. Not really my cup of tea, but I'm thinking to myself: somebody thought of this, somebody approached a very attractive woman with the idea, and Very Attractive Woman agreed to not only do it but be filmed for everyone to see. A sociological curiosity if nothing else.

Granted, that's an extreme example, but I suspect that a lot of people have that inner freak. Question is, how do we find it? In others, I mean.

 

It's all a matter perspective.

I love giving blow jobs now, but didn't and wouldn't for years. When I lost my virginity by rape, he tried to get me to suck his dick. That led towards a pretty hard core aversion to dick-in-my-mouth.

Now, I'm happy to be a cock sucking whore. Time heals some wounds, at least.

 

Brilliant editorializing AND a Raymond Carver reference. Will you marry me?

It seems to me that what is significant about an act isn't what's done, but the intention behind what is done.

This is *exactly* what I would have said if I'd chosen to include my personal opinions about sexuality instead of taking the feminism/empowerment bent that I did on my post. If it's okay with you, I'd like to add a link along with the one I listed to Amber. Let me know.

"Perversity," though a fun word to say, and "degradation" really have no meaning for me when it comes to sexuality. To me it's all what you like personally and what you don't...there aren't moral value judgments involved.

The one thing this did make me think about though is what happens if there's an inequity in what partners like and don't. Using your scat example, for instance, and knowing my proclivities and preferences, even if my partner preferred this activity and didn't feel in the least diminished by having it done to him, I think *I* would have difficulty enjoying being part of such an act, no matter how much I wanted to bring my partner pleasure. I couldn't get past how it would make *me* feel to do that to someone, and that would put me out of the moment, even if I managed to do it.

This, of course, ties in to your last point about treating oneself appropriately as the "Subject."

But if both people's "subject-ive" desires are conflicting in one area, what is the balance that can be struck? If one has to concede to the other, is it then a degrading situation for one of them?

Or do such instances reveal a hopless case, where both people would do best to just move on to partners more in line with their preferences? Food for thought.

 

Miss Syl,

Wow, so glad you liked it; I did think we were on much the same page, in particular the part you quote--but there what im doing is really just conceptual analysis, what differentiates an act from an event? events happen, acts are "done", or performed, they require one who acts.

I was trying to give a non-ethical or moral connotation to the terms perversity and degradation though. the first I think ive succeeded with: the second, weellll...ive got some vague handwaving in there about respecting others as persons. I dont give a definition for degradation apart from the implicit one of the conscious decision to treat another person as an object, as simply a means and not an end in themselves.

But if both people's "subject-ive" desires are conflicting in one area, what is the balance that can be struck? If one has to concede to the other, is it then a degrading situation for one of them?

Yes, this is the real issue: it's not enough to say consent has to be present, it's a certain kind of consent. Like you, scat is out for me: I cant enjoy even pretending to degrade or humiliate my partner, and scat seems to me to have that built into it. What do we do when we have a clash like that?

Well, sometimes the thing to do *is* to move on. Sometimes it's to experiment a little: a little indulgence may release one partner from the obsession with it, or convince the other that this is something he or she can enjoy. But everyone deserves the chance to say "yes" "no" or "not with me".

I'd be honoured if you linked me! I'll be adding your link and amber's to this also.

Thanks for the food for thought--you always do deliver some.

best
O

 

So in the end, with sex, as with life, you should be true to yourself?

Or have I, as usual, missed the point?
&