Jump to content

[non-aces only] Do you feel like your body is part of your identity? (poll)


mreid

Do you see your body as part of your identity?   

28 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you feel that your physical body doesn't match how you see yourself psychologically and/or are you non-cis?

    • Yes
      12
    • No
      16
  2. 2. You experience your dreams mostly...

    • In the 3rd person (but my body is the same as my waking one)
      3
    • In the 3rd person (but my body is different from my waking one/ partially different)
      2
    • In the 1st person (but my body is different/ partially different)
      2
    • In the 1st person (but I can't see my body/ don't know if it's different of not)
      12
    • In the 1st person (but my body is the same as my waking one)
      9
  3. 3. Your sexual fantasies are...

    • In the 1st person
      15
    • In the 3rd person and I participate in them
      5
    • In the 3rd person but I don't participate in them
      4
    • I don't have sexual fantasies / N/a
      4
  4. 4. Do you have low self-esteem / body image issues?

    • Yes
      6
    • Moderately so
      14
    • No/ very few
      8
  5. 5. Are you prone to dissociation and/ or depersonalization?

    • Yes to both
      7
    • Yes to dissociation
      3
    • Yes to depersonalization
      4
    • No to both
      14
  6. 6. Do you feel like you inhabit your body rather than see it as part of you? (from @Moon Spirit's thread, see OP)

    • Yes
      8
    • No
      20
  7. 7. Which of the following are accurate?

    • I self-harm
      8
    • My looks changed a lot over the years
      9
    • I was an ugly duckling
      7
    • Have trouble picturing myself/ parts of myself in my mind/ aphantasia-like symptoms
      3
    • None
      10
  8. 8. Do you have depression?

    • Yes
      18
    • No
      10
  9. 9. Do you feel like a part of who you are is being rejected if a partner doesn't feel attracted to your body?

    • Yes
      21
    • No
      7


Recommended Posts

Anthracite_Impreza

@mreid Did you just say being gay was an unacceptable need or did I read that wrong?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Darthleon2 said:

How do we tell the difference between a biological need and a pathological one?

A pathological need, in my opinion, is one that is not caused by/ is contrary to a person's biology. And just because something is part of a person's biology that doesn't mean it should be indulged in.

 

But what I meant by "unacceptable need" is how the society where the person is perceives it. A homophobic society sees homosexuality as an "unacceptable need". Gee I thought the quotes made it clear.

 

9 minutes ago, Darthleon2 said:

How do we tell the difference between a biological need and a pathological one?

There's ways of knowing if something is clearly a pathological inclination rather than the person's real one (like a gay man who pretends to be a hetero womanizer). Others are more ambiguous. But I myself am not sure exactly how, I just know there are biological inclinations and pathological ones. Psychoanalysis can filter out a lot of the pathological ones which is probably why so many people dislike it.

 

12 minutes ago, Darthleon2 said:

 Is having an intense desire (or perhaps even a need) for sexual variety with different people a matter of biology or pathology?

It depends on the person I think.

 

12 minutes ago, Darthleon2 said:

 Does it even matter which one it is if that need can be met in a healthy way?

Yes, it does. A drug addiction can never be met in a healthy way, same way with pathological needs. Because every time you feed it it takes more to satisfy it the next time. It is very common for people with perversions to start out with less kinky stuff and as time goes on that stuff doesn't satisfy them anymore and they get progressively into more extreme things. Like drugs. And with this I don't mean that everyone who has a fetish of some kinky preference is necessarily like this. Some people are into specific things because those things satisfy their needs. A perversion is avoiding what really satisfies your needs, much like a drug is avoiding dealing with your problems.

 

15 minutes ago, Darthleon2 said:

As far as I'm concerned, pathological needs are only a problem if they way that someone fulfills (or tries to fulfill) that need is harmful to themselves, others, or both. If it's not harmful, then why should we care?

Fulfilling a pathological need is always harmful in my view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, mreid said:

There's ways of knowing if something is clearly a pathological inclination rather than the person's real one (like a gay man who pretends to be a hetero womanizer). Others are more ambiguous.

In your opinion, is it the nature of the need itself (the thing, activity, etc., that’s needed) that makes a need pathological, or is it the reason it’s needed that makes it pathological?

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, mreid said:

I think it's like what happens with gays and those gays. You know, the difference between men who are simply attracted to men and carry on with their lives and men-loving without bothering anyone, and the other type who gives the rest a bad name.

What, in your opinion, distinguishes “gays” from “those gays” and thereby causes the latter group/type to “give the rest a bad name”?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mreid said:

A pathological need, in my opinion, is one that is not caused by/ is contrary to a person's biology. And just because something is part of a person's biology that doesn't mean it should be indulged in.

 

But what I meant by "unacceptable need" is how the society where the person is perceives it. A homophobic society sees homosexuality as an "unacceptable need". Gee I thought the quotes made it clear.

I'm not convinced that one can easily make the distinction between a need that is caused by a person's biology vs. one that is contrary to it, but I see your point.

 

As for "unacceptable" needs, I get what you're saying here but that's not quite what I meant. What I'm asking is: How do we determine whether a need is "acceptable" or "unacceptable"? Is personal revulsion enough if enough people share that revulsion? Is it based on the harm those needs cause? Is it because some higher power told us that it's unacceptable? 

 

1 hour ago, mreid said:

Like drugs. And with this I don't mean that everyone who has a fetish of some kinky preference is necessarily like this. Some people are into specific things because those things satisfy their needs. A perversion is avoiding what really satisfies your needs, much like a drug is avoiding dealing with your problems.

This is an interesting perspective that I'd like to dive into. You're saying that a perversion is a form of avoidance? That certainly seems to be in line with how many Christians feel about homosexuality: that is, there's no such thing as gay people, just straight people who are sinning. From that perspective, homosexual acts are just a way of avoiding your own discomfort of sex with the opposite gender.  Nowadays, we know that homosexuality is biological rather than pathological, and I only expect the list of supposed perversions to grow smaller over time. For example, desiring sex with several different people is considered either biological of pathological depending on who you ask. People who think it's biological point to polygynous behavior in other primate species as well as our own past as proof that humans aren't meant to be monogamous. People who think it's pathological see promiscuity as a sign that someone is afraid of commitment, is dependent on sexual validation, and is a slave to their baser instincts. Biological or pathological? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DesertWells

1. Do you feel that your physical body doesn't match how you see yourself psychologically and/or are you non-cis?

Yes (doesn’t match)

2. You experience your dreams mostly...

In the 1st person (but my body is different/ partially different)

3. Your sexual fantasies are...

In the 3rd person and I participate in them, but sometimes the other options too.

4. Do you have low self-esteem / body image issues?

Yes

5. Are you prone to dissociation and/ or depersonalization?

No

6. Do you feel like you inhabit your body rather than see it as part of you? (from @Moon Spirit's thread, see OP)

Yes (I think, that’s a complicated one)

7. Which of the following are accurate?

None

8. Do you have depression?

Yes

9. Do you feel like a part of who you are is being rejected if a partner doesn't feel attracted to your body?

Yes (but again, this is a complicated one)

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, DesertWells said:

In the 1st person (but my body is different/ partially different)

How so, if you don't mind saying?

 

1 hour ago, Darthleon2 said:

What I'm asking is: How do we determine whether a need is "acceptable" or "unacceptable"? Is personal revulsion enough if enough people share that revulsion? Is it based on the harm those needs cause? Is it because some higher power told us that it's unacceptable? 

Personally I think it is based on the harm they cause to those around them. When you have a society that is founded on certain principles and someone's needs seriously disrupt those principles and the normal functioning of that society (ie pedophilia, although I don't think it is biological), then they are "unacceptable" but not in a good-and-evil moral kind of sense, more like in a rational sense. I don't believe in good or evil.

 

1 hour ago, Darthleon2 said:

You're saying that a perversion is a form of avoidance? That certainly seems to be in line with how many Christians feel about homosexuality: that is, there's no such thing as gay people, just straight people who are sinning.

That reminds me of "There are no asexuals, just people who repress their sexuality and/or sick people." ;)

 

1 hour ago, Darthleon2 said:

Nowadays, we know that homosexuality is biological rather than pathological, and I only expect the list of supposed perversions to grow smaller over time.

Homosexuality can still be a perversion if the person practicing it is not really homosexual. If you define "perversion" as a sexual practice that is not understood to be biological then the list of perversions will probably grow smaller, but the list of perverts remains and will always remain the same.

 

1 hour ago, Darthleon2 said:

For example, desiring sex with several different people is considered either biological of pathological depending on who you ask. People who think it's biological point to polygynous behavior in other primate species as well as our own past as proof that humans aren't meant to be monogamous. People who think it's pathological see promiscuity as a sign that someone is afraid of commitment, is dependent on sexual validation, and is a slave to their baser instincts. Biological or pathological?

Depends on the person. In my view, someone who is not naturally wired to be monogamous and is in a monogamous relationship is a pervert.

It's actually quite common and to some people it's a form of masochism and deep down they get off to it, like those guys who spend their youth sleeping around and then settle down and remain faithful to just one woman who treats them like crap and whom they don't even particularly like. This has to do with Freud's Madonna-Whore complex I think, and either the Madonna and the Whore are perversions of an actual woman because these men are usually afraid of emotional commitment.

This is just an example of monogamy used as a perversion. Idk what those guys are really wired to be biologically.

 

However, someone who is wired to be monogamous and sleeps around because of peer pressure of whatever, or because they are afraid of commitment, is using polygamy as a perversion.

 

What I have read in several biology books is that sexually women are wired for monogamy and men for polygamy (don't shoot me, I am just the messenger...). So according to those books monogamy would be a perversion for men and polygamy would be a perversion for women, by my definition of perversion.

 

I suppose it all depends on the person.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DesertWells
3 minutes ago, mreid said:

How so, if you don't mind saying?

No problem, I am often a child in my dreams, and I have certain physical conditions that never exist in my dreams.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@DesertWells Interesting, back when I had acne and was a bit chubbier I would never be that way in my dreams, or very rarely and when I did it was mostly because the dream was about other people noticing it. Another interesting thing to look into.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alejandrogynous

Christ, lol. Every time I revisit these threads, it's worse. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mreid said:

A pathological need, in my opinion, is one that is not caused by/ is contrary to a person's biology. And just because something is part of a person's biology that doesn't mean it should be indulged in.

 

But what I meant by "unacceptable need" is how the society where the person is perceives it. A homophobic society sees homosexuality as an "unacceptable need". Gee I thought the quotes made it clear.

 

There's ways of knowing if something is clearly a pathological inclination rather than the person's real one (like a gay man who pretends to be a hetero womanizer). Others are more ambiguous. But I myself am not sure exactly how, I just know there are biological inclinations and pathological ones. Psychoanalysis can filter out a lot of the pathological ones which is probably why so many people dislike it.

 

It depends on the person I think.

 

Yes, it does. A drug addiction can never be met in a healthy way, same way with pathological needs. Because every time you feed it it takes more to satisfy it the next time. It is very common for people with perversions to start out with less kinky stuff and as time goes on that stuff doesn't satisfy them anymore and they get progressively into more extreme things. Like drugs. And with this I don't mean that everyone who has a fetish of some kinky preference is necessarily like this. Some people are into specific things because those things satisfy their needs. A perversion is avoiding what really satisfies your needs, much like a drug is avoiding dealing with your problems.

 

Fulfilling a pathological need is always harmful in my view.

I don't see how that separates pathological.  Humans do lots of things that are "contrary to biology" if by "biology" you mean what we evolved to do as primitive hunter gatherers on the savanna.   We were not originally evolved to sit at desks all day, or eat cake, or climb mountains, discuss philosophy, etc, etc.   

 

Societal opinions don't seem like much use either since they change so much.  Some societies (including the ancient Greeks) believed that women should stay inside and have no contact with anyone except their husbands, or female servants.   Some  believe in wearing climate-inappropriate clothing, or performing drastic body modification. 

 

 

To me the important criteria are:  Does it significantly hurt other people?  Does it make you unable to function as a productive member of society? Are you able to understand what harm it may do to your self, and choose whether that harm is acceptable to you. 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, uhtred said:

To me the important criteria are:  Does it significantly hurt other people?  Does it make you unable to function as a productive member of society? Are you able to understand what harm it may do to your self, and choose whether that harm is acceptable to you.  

I'd remove the "significantly". If it hurts other people it will inevitably disrupt society in one way or another, because usually other people are going to start doing it. That's the problem with perversions. They often spread like a virus, or like an ideology.

 

Often people who have perversions don't understand how it impacts them and those around them. They like to believe they have an alter-ego that contains the perversion and that it has no influence on their day to day life. This is false, and it's pathological in itself.

 

If someone is harming themselves then that is inevitably disruptive to society, but speaking in less abstract terms it is harmful to those around that person. And from what I read in psychoanalysis self-harm is just a small step away from harming others. A pathology of this kind is not something controllable. The more you indulge it the more difficult it is to control it and keep it separate.

 

The problem here is pathological behavior. It's not healthy for the person, and you might argue that it's only the person's business, they are only hurting themselves. Like I said before, there is a very thin line between masochism and sadism. Masochism is really just sadism turned against one's self, and there is a sadistic side to all masochists. Also masochism is often just a way of hurting those who care about the masochist and making them feel bad, which is sadistic.

 

While your criteria might look reasonable I have never known of anyone who managed to indulge in pathological behavior without harming those around them in one way or another. Usually they just don't realize it, or don't want to see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mreid said:

That's the problem with perversions. They often spread like a virus, or like an ideology.

What are you even classing as perversion here?? Because I've known a lot of people who actively practice all sorts of kinks and fetishes (including hardcore BDSM, consensual non-consent, watersports, even scat) and they're usually some of the most interesting, mature, respectful people you'll come across who have very healthy and fulfilled sex lives. I've practiced some of those things myself and they've only ever had a positive and pleasurable impact on the intimacy I've shared with online partners. Hardcore fetish is a way for two people to enhance their intimacy and their trust for each other, if they both desire it.

 

If someone is out torturing animals or hurting kids or whatever, that's most definitely harmful to society and the person needs to be locked up. But for the most part fetish and kink are healthy explorations of the range of pleasures that people can safely and consensually experience (even if pain is part of the pleasure). As long as no one is doing anything they don't want then no one is being truly hurt. Things are only classed as destructive (harmful) if they are having a direct negative impact on the person's mind and/or life, or that of other people. 

 

It just sounds to me like you really don't have much experience with actual fetish between consenting adults 😕

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

they're usually some of the most interesting, mature, respectful people you'll come across who have very healthy and fulfilled sex lives.

Ok then.

 

27 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

Things are only classed as destructive (harmful) if they are having a direct negative impact on the person's mind and/or life, or that of other people. 

But that's exactly the problem. Often they are not even aware. A good indication that that might be the case is that they have no idea why they like what they like, and I am talking on a psychological level here not physical. If these things are not harmful for anyone and are healthy then I don't see why so many people vehemently oppose those who try to look into the psychology behind them.

 

31 minutes ago, FictoCannibal. said:

Hardcore fetish is a way for two people to enhance their intimacy and their trust for each other, if they both desire it. 

But (and again this is just my personal opinion), that isn't real. It's a completely staged situation usually with role playing. Why not enhance those things in real situations? It doesn't even have to be anything extreme, sometimes it's simple things like communication.

To me it's not "but why not also hardcore fetish or similar?", it's why those things to begin with? It's all fake, isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, mreid said:

If these things are not harmful for anyone and are healthy then I don't see why so many people vehemently oppose those who try to look into the psychology behind them.

If I may: Because people have a knack for finding what they're looking for even if it's not there, especially in cases that involve a lot of ambiguity. Generally, people who set out to study the psychology behind perversions expect to find something pathological there. That is something any Ace should be familiar with: we've all been told that it's actually just our hormones being off or we're just repressing our homosexuality or we have some sort of physical or mental illness going on that is preventing attraction. People who don't believe that asexuality is real will always find evidence that supports their view, so I can understand why people with unusual/disturbing fetishes and kinks aren't too keen on being psychoanalyzed by someone that, in all likelihood, has it out for them. 

 

1 hour ago, mreid said:

To me it's not "but why not also hardcore fetish or similar?", it's why those things to begin with? It's all fake, isn't it?

As an Ace who still has some fetishes, I will say this: My brain and my genitals generally don't care if it's "real" or not. People just wanna get their rocks off and some things work better than others; it doesn't necessarily mean there's some weird, repressed shit going on in the persons brain that is driving the perversion. If anything, it seems fairly common to have an interest in "pretend" forms of a kink while having no interest or being actively repulsed by the thought of the actual thing. How many people that are into consensual non-consent fantasize about getting legitimately raped? Not many, I imagine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, mreid said:

But (and again this is just my personal opinion), that isn't real. It's a completely staged situation usually with role playing. Why not enhance those things in real situations? It doesn't even have to be anything extreme, sometimes it's simple things like communication.

To me it's not "but why not also hardcore fetish or similar?", it's why those things to begin with? It's all fake, isn't it?

Why is the situation staged though? Why is it fake? (Warning TMI) Two people lying in bed together biting and scratching eachother because they both love the way it feels isn't staged. A guy doing anal with a girl (or other guy) while the person receiving poops isn't staged. Pissing over each other and drinking the pee that goes in your mouths isn't staged. Giving your partner permission to do literally *anything* they want to your body while you are bound and gagged isn't staged..(end of TMI) it's just people exploring things they enjoy together which is literally no different than any other kind of sex, it's just more extreme than what some people do. 

 

Do you think the only relevant kind of sex is a woman lying on a bed with her legs open while a man pumps away on top of her? (which is something many women don't even find that enjoyable) 😕

 

I've done fetish, and I've done 'regular sex' and it literally all works the same, just different actions are involved depending on what you're doing. They all have the same outcome though, ie pleasure, intimacy, trust, appreciation. Etc. Oh and generally a great deal of communication, trust, and respect is required with fetish which is something else about it that makes it pleasurable and intimate. 

 

43 minutes ago, mreid said:

If these things are not harmful for anyone and are healthy then I don't see why so many people vehemently oppose those who try to look into the psychology behind them.

Not all psychology concludes it's harmful though, and I've never actually seen anyone in the fetish community vehemently opposing exploration of the psychology behind fetish (except when that psychology is clearly completely outdated and based on dogma instead of reality. Like when psychologists used to say that homosexuality is a mental disorder. People have a right to oppose stuff that is clearly inaccurate and harmful to a great many people).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mreid said:

 

 

But (and again this is just my personal opinion), that isn't real. It's a completely staged situation usually with role playing. Why not enhance those things in real situations? It doesn't even have to be anything extreme, sometimes it's simple things like communication.

To me it's not "but why not also hardcore fetish or similar?", it's why those things to begin with? It's all fake, isn't it?

But the emotions that have brought them together is real, the pleasure from the experience is real, their enjoyment is real.

 

I don't know a lot about sex apart from what I've read in books (a bit of an exagerration) but these things are based on real emotion. In one novel, a character that is a doctor found as a turn on hair growth, flatulence etc etc but on the explanation he gives is that these are signs of life and that is why he felt turned on by them which is understandable.

 

There are things I don't know but if the pleasure is there for all parties because regardless of how it came about, it is there and exists.

 

Fictional stories might not be real but in no way are most of them fake as there are basis for the stories.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Darthleon2 said:

If I may: Because people have a knack for finding what they're looking for even if it's not there, especially in cases that involve a lot of ambiguity. Generally, people who set out to study the psychology behind perversions expect to find something pathological there. That is something any Ace should be familiar with; we've all been told that it's actually just our hormones being off or we're just repressing our homosexuality or we have some sort of physical or mental illness going on that is preventing attraction. People who don't believe that asexuality is real will always find evidence that supports their view, so I can understand why people with unusual/disturbing fetishes and kinks aren't too keen on being psychoanalyzed by someone that, in all likelihood, has it out for them. 

I can understand what you are saying, which is why I try to see things from both view points and then compare. Technically asexuality is defined as a perversion, yet I don't consider myself a pervert. I don't know if it's biological or not. Actually when I look into kinks and my own asexuality I don't do so hoping to find a disease or anything negative, I start by trying to understand in a neutral way what is happening. I see no problem with that.

 

1 hour ago, Darthleon2 said:

People just wanna get their rocks off and some things work better than others; it doesn't necessarily mean there's some weird, repressed shit going on in the persons brain that is driving the perversion.

True, but I still don't see any problem with wanting to look into it.

 

@FictoCannibal. I understand what you are saying, but what I meant is that when people are playing with kinks it's an artificial situation, so any trust that might be built from it is I think artificial. It's the difference between being in an actual situation with an external danger where you build trust by staying together against it and a fake situation created by yourselves where there is no actual danger, just a staged one. This is an exaggeration, but I think it gets my point across. A more simplistic version of this would be talking about themselves, which I guess they kind of do in a sense when they expose their kinky sides but to me that is far from having the effect of words.

 

Still I think it's very interesting how people can get so immersed in those situations and kinky roleplay. Maybe one of the reasons why I don't understand it is because I can't get that immersed.

 

32 minutes ago, iff said:

In one novel, a character that is a doctor found as a turn on hair growth, flatulence etc etc but on the explanation he gives is that these are signs of life and that is why he felt turned on by them which is understandable.

What novel is that? I read similar things on Baudelaire and SuperVert, as they talk mostly about seeing a sort of "beauty" in decay and such. I don't deny that what they feel is real; I'm pretty sure it is. But that's actually the way perversions work: they take elements from an actual situation with different people and re-enact them symbolically. It's a bit how sometimes people can feel aroused from seemingly non erotic dreams; the erotic part is symbolical and felt like it is real.

 

A drug user will also say that their high feels real and might even say that if they get high with someone they will feel like they are bonding with that person, but it's all chemicals not real bonding. With perversions I think it's the same thing but with reptilian mental wiring people don't quite understand.

 

Ok I admit this is complicated to explain. I guess there is a non-verbal communication implicit in those acts, I don't deny that. However if a kink has a pathological root and two people feel intimacy by engaging in and indulging each other's pathology... that's just not very healthy in my view.

 

Most people don't know why they like what they like, kink or not. I myself don't know exactly why I am asexual, whether if it's a biological inclination, psychological or both or whatever. In the end when you dissect these things, from what I have read in books, there's always some explanation. It's up to the person to decide whether that's healthy for them or not. I don't believe people are naturally wired for self-harm so in many cases I think that being aware of their psychological wiring ultimately does more good than harm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, mreid said:

I can understand what you are saying, which is why I try to see things from both view points and then compare. Technically asexuality is defined as a perversion, yet I don't consider myself a pervert. I don't know if it's biological or not. Actually when I look into kinks and my own asexuality I don't do so hoping to find a disease or anything negative, I start by trying to understand in a neutral way what is happening. I see no problem with that.

I actually agree with you, but given the moralizing and judgmental world we live in, I can understand why some people don't want to look too deeply. I consider it similar to examining racial differences in intelligence. Given the very harmful history we have of considering blacks to be intellectually inferior, I can understand why many people would prefer that we don't examine racial differences of this kind, and I also understand why people who hold this view are so suspicious of the people who want to study it anyway. It's understandable that many people take the same attitudes towards fetishes, kinks, and even entire orientations. When someone asks something like: "What makes someone fetishize pee? What makes someone enjoy bondage? What makes someone gay?", it is entirely reasonable to ask in response: "Why do you want to know?", "Why does it matter?", and "What do you plan to do with the information you find?" It is entirely possible that the person who wants to study this sort of thing has totally innocent answers to those questions, and I suspect that you are one of those people. However, I wouldn't put it past most of the people who study these things to have harmful ulterior motives at work. Who has the most incentive to "study"  whether or not homosexuality is an unnatural pathology? Violently homophobic religious people, of course. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, mreid said:

 

@FictoCannibal. I understand what you are saying, but what I meant is that when people are playing with kinks it's an artificial situation, so any trust that might be built from it is I think artificial. It's the difference between being in an actual situation with an external danger where you build trust by staying together against it and a fake situation created by yourselves where there is no actual danger, just a staged one. This is an exaggeration, but I think it gets my point across. A more simplistic version of this would be talking about themselves, which I guess they kind of do in a sense when they expose their kinky sides but to me that is far from having the effect of words.

 

Still I think it's very interesting how people can get so immersed in those situations and kinky roleplay. Maybe one of the reasons why I don't understand it is because I can't get that immersed.

This comment does have some TMI info however it will still be interesting for anyone curious about kinks/fetishes.

 

Danger roleplay (ie literally acting) is only one type of kink and it's actually pretty vanilla by many standards :P You are only thinking of one specific kind of kink, and the kind you are speaking of doesn't actually have any real consequences if it's literally only role-play (though people might still have fun doing it!)

 

Random example of a non-acting kink/fetish:  Giving each other urine enemas. This is something two people who have a very kinky watersports fetish might enjoy doing together. You have to trust each other because you are revealing secret, kinky desires to each other that most people don't consider a pleasurable part of sex. The act itself (if you both want it) builds intimacy and makes you feel like a part of each other, as you've put something that was in your body into your partners body, and vice-versa. There is nothing 'roleplay' about this. It's all real, and can be amazing for two people who are truly into it.

 

Another random example of a non-acting: Adult nursing. Where a couple help the female to induce lactation (this can sometimes take months if she hasn't recently given birth) and she literally 'nurses' her partner once she can create breastmilk. This is another fetish that both partners need to work at, but the process itself is incredibly bonding and rewarding. Many couples who have tried this have found themselves becoming closer than ever before due to how unique the breastfeeding bond is. It's totally real though, as real as any other type of sex. 

 

Those are just two examples of literally hundreds that do not involve acting role-play. You seem to ONLY be speaking of role-play (acting) situations. Consensual non-consent is a type of role-play, but the 'sub' does literally have all power taken away from them - it's a very extreme form that I myself am into (both giving and receiving) but it's very real. You can do literally anything you want to the other person and (the way I have practiced it) the ability to give a safe word is taken away. This truly is incredibly dangerous with the wrong person, you have to know and trust your partner COMPLETELY, and you both have to have total respect for each other for it to work pleasurably and to be rewarding for both. The levels of intimacy this can bring you to can almost be transcendental as long as you do it right, with the right person. It goes way beyond anything regular sex has ever or could ever bring me. You're practically putting your life into someone else's hands which is not something one can experience with many situations these days.

 

Again, these are only some examples. This isn't about becoming immersed into something to the extent you think it's real, it's about actually DOING the acts in the exact same way you'd do any sex acts. Some people drink each other's blood, some poop on each other, some wear nappies and poop in them and their partner cleans them up, all kinds of things. These aren't acting, they're real, real acts that people do together just like they would if they were having any kind of sex, and those who enjoy these fetishes get a lot of pleasure from them, as well as the benefit of enhanced trust and intimacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mreid said:

A drug user will also say that their high feels real and might even say that if they get high with someone they will feel like they are bonding with that person, but it's all chemicals not real bonding. With perversions I think it's the same thing but with reptilian mental wiring people don't quite understand.

I am actually a recovered addict and would just like to say that these examples are not comparable in any way. Alcohol (or any drug) becomes physically addictive as a result of the addictive chemicals in the substance, and you start experiencing real (physical and emotional) pain without it once you're addicted because withdrawals cause actual physical symptoms that can't be dealt with unless you drink more (or inject or whatever). Due to how much you suffer as a result these kinds of addictions are considered extremely destructive.

 

Enjoying the intimacy that kink and fetish brings one is very different, as long as you're only using it as a pleasurable aspect of intimacy and not letting it control your life. Anything can become negative if you let it control your life, but healthy kink and fetish practice is just part of sexual intimacy between two people (or solo for single people too). Some couples might do plain old vanilla missionary, some may drink each others pee while masturbating with dildos up their butts - at the end of the day these are both just different activities that adults can share together to create intimacy, pleasure, and trust between the two of them. Different people desire and enjoy different things, and the acts they do in the privacy of their home as part of their sexual intimacy really isn't anyone else's business - It's not somehow 'fake' or 'acted' or 'perverse' just because it's not a heteronormative couple having heteronormative sex though.

 

I'd also like to add there's nothing wrong with heteronormative missionary sex if that's what one is into, it can just be really boring, repetitive, and not that pleasurable for the lady, for many couples. And gay couples can't even have heteronormative sex so they have to find imaginative ways to get off, doesn't make their sex any less valid or real though. ^_^ 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mreid said:

I'd remove the "significantly". If it hurts other people it will inevitably disrupt society in one way or another, because usually other people are going to start doing it. That's the problem with perversions. They often spread like a virus, or like an ideology.

 

Often people who have perversions don't understand how it impacts them and those around them. They like to believe they have an alter-ego that contains the perversion and that it has no influence on their day to day life. This is false, and it's pathological in itself.

 

If someone is harming themselves then that is inevitably disruptive to society, but speaking in less abstract terms it is harmful to those around that person. And from what I read in psychoanalysis self-harm is just a small step away from harming others. A pathology of this kind is not something controllable. The more you indulge it the more difficult it is to control it and keep it separate.

 

The problem here is pathological behavior. It's not healthy for the person, and you might argue that it's only the person's business, they are only hurting themselves. Like I said before, there is a very thin line between masochism and sadism. Masochism is really just sadism turned against one's self, and there is a sadistic side to all masochists. Also masochism is often just a way of hurting those who care about the masochist and making them feel bad, which is sadistic.

 

While your criteria might look reasonable I have never known of anyone who managed to indulge in pathological behavior without harming those around them in one way or another. Usually they just don't realize it, or don't want to see it.

Many things people do for fun hurt others in minor ways.   Enjoy hiking in the mountains  - you are contributing to global warming by the energy you used to get there. Push a political agenda - almost certainly any major political agenda will hurt some people.   Try to advance in your job - you may be taking a spot another person wanted.  Even sometimes going where you want to eat rather then where your partner wants to eat will cause some reduction in happiness.

 

That's why I used "minor"  I want to avoid discussions of trivial harm.    

 

You keep using negative terms like "perversion", "virus", "pathological". Why? If a couple wants to play dress-up and one spank the other, what is the harm? Lots of people with sexual fantasies have fantasies about domination and control.  How is that worse from any other sort of play that people might decide to engage in? 

 

What are the things you object to?  Do you object to sexual role-playing and mild BDSM (assuming both enjoy the game).  Do you object to two or more people of any genders enjoying consensual sexual activity together? 

 

The great majority of sadists and masochists are not into *real* pain, but into play-pain.  Similar to playing a rough sport.   There are some who are into more serious / damaging play and I think those need to be very sure that what they are doing is consensual and safe.

 

I'm not saying all sexual play is OK.  I draw the line at any lack of consent, or anything involving children or animals (which is also lack of consent).  I think 24/7 role playing is a very bad idea because it appears indistinguishable from abuse, and is not always as consensual as some people want to believe (a topic I'm happy to discuss).  But otherwise if being a naughty schoolgirl punished by your same-sex teacher turns you on, why not (even if you are biologically male)? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Darthleon2 I agree with you, but that kind of people shouldn't keep those who want to learn from doing so. People will always have their agendas, and I am one of those naive people who like to believe that in the end, logic, reason and impartiality will prevail. If progress were to be stopped because some people might use it for bag things then there would be no progress.

 

@FictoCannibal. I get your point, again, it's a staged situation. Yes the pain and everything else is real, the feelings are real, but it's not the same thing as an actual, real situation where you two have no control over. That's where people really reveal who they are and how much they care for each other. It doesn't even have to be some natural catastrophe, it can be even seemingly mundane things.

 

12 hours ago, uhtred said:

What are the things you object to? 

Things that feed a person's pathology. This sort of thing has it's origin in childhood stuff like many other things in a person's thinking, and enabling one thing I think is like enabling all the others. This is why indulging in certain things sustains certain mindsets. You see, my problem is not the acts themselves, it's the mentality that is behind them.

 

12 hours ago, uhtred said:

But otherwise if being a naughty schoolgirl punished by your same-sex teacher turns you on, why not (even if you are biologically male)? 

Hum... is that what you are into? Not judging if you are, just curious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2018 at 6:18 PM, DesertWells said:

3. Your sexual fantasies are...

In the 3rd person and I participate in them, but sometimes the other options too.

When you fantasize in 3rd person do you feel (physically) only what you would be feeling in that situations, or do you experience the feelings of both (or more) participants? Or do you feel a kind of... undefined, mutual "energy" sort of thing that doesn't feel male nor female?

 

Also are your sex dreams in 3rd person as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DesertWells
1 hour ago, mreid said:

When you fantasize in 3rd person do you feel (physically) only what you would be feeling in that situations, or do you experience the feelings of both (or more) participants? Or do you feel a kind of... undefined, mutual "energy" sort of thing that doesn't feel male nor female?

 

Also are your sex dreams in 3rd person as well?

Fantasies - that’s tricky! I think I imagine feeling a mutual energy, but I’m not certain. I’ll let you know if I get some clarity with this.

 

Sex dreams - I rarely have them, but when I do, they’re in first person and I feel what only I would feel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mreid said:

ation. Yes the pain and everything else is real, the feelings are real, but it's not the same thing as an actual, real situation where you two have no control over. That's where people really reveal who they are and how much they care for each other. It doesn't even have to be some natural catastrophe, it can be even seemingly mundane things.

I'm just not understanding how you come to the conclusion that it's staged.

 

How is it more staged than literally any other thing two people do together, like having coffee together, or going tramping together, having a picnic in the woods, or giving each other oral sex. These things are all bonding and intimate in their own way. How are the scenarios I have described 'staged' in comparison to anything else people do to bond? (Keeping in mind I'm not talking about role-play as I can see how that can be viewed as 'staged' because it's literally acting). I'm legitimately interested to hear your answer because I just can't see the difference?

 

And I'm someone who's actually done a fair bit of kink, and my lived experience is that it's no different than walking in the woods together at night, going on an adventure down the beach in a storm, drinking under a bridge beside a dark river in the middle of a big city - it's just its own unique form of activity that people can do to bond for fun and pleasure and intimacy. How is kink different than any of those other scenarios?


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, mreid said:

@Darthleon2 I agree with you, but that kind of people shouldn't keep those who want to learn from doing so. People will always have their agendas, and I am one of those naive people who like to believe that in the end, logic, reason and impartiality will prevail. If progress were to be stopped because some people might use it for bag things then there would be no progress.

 

@FictoCannibal. I get your point, again, it's a staged situation. Yes the pain and everything else is real, the feelings are real, but it's not the same thing as an actual, real situation where you two have no control over. That's where people really reveal who they are and how much they care for each other. It doesn't even have to be some natural catastrophe, it can be even seemingly mundane things.

 

Things that feed a person's pathology. This sort of thing has it's origin in childhood stuff like many other things in a person's thinking, and enabling one thing I think is like enabling all the others. This is why indulging in certain things sustains certain mindsets. You see, my problem is not the acts themselves, it's the mentality that is behind them.

 

Hum... is that what you are into? Not judging if you are, just curious.

But how do you define what "feeds a pathoolgy".  Why do you think these have origins in childhood stuff?

 

My example isn't what I am personally into - it was just a mishmash of sort of generic kinks. I'm not personally into childhood or any sort of official power-imbalance fantasies.   (no objections to those who are - just not my personal kink).

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2018 at 7:32 PM, FictoCannibal. said:

I'm legitimately interested to hear your answer because I just can't see the difference?

It's staged because you know that your partner is not really going to hurt you any more than you've agreed to be hurt, otherwise you wouldn't be doing those things with him. You know, hard limits and all that?

 

On 10/17/2018 at 7:32 PM, FictoCannibal. said:

And I'm someone who's actually done a fair bit of kink, and my lived experience is that it's no different than walking in the woods together at night, going on an adventure down the beach in a storm, drinking under a bridge beside a dark river in the middle of a big city - it's just its own unique form of activity that people can do to bond for fun and pleasure and intimacy. How is kink different than any of those other scenarios?

Because kink happens in a controlled environment where you know (or at least think you know) that your partner is not going to do anything to you that you don't want to. You've said this in other threads, and that the trust comes from knowing he or she is not going to break that agreement. In the other scenarios you are at the mercy of nature and all you can trust to keep you safe if your own discernment and in some cases sheer luck, and also of course trusting that your partner will protect you from an external danger.  If you walk together in the woods at night you can get robbed, in which case trust comes from trusting that your partner will protect you and you will protect them. Same thing with the other scenarios.

 

But in kink there is no external danger, it's just you and your partner in a controlled environment. Unless I am missing something here.

 

17 hours ago, uhtred said:

But how do you define what "feeds a pathoolgy".  Why do you think these have origins in childhood stuff?

Because they do. That's a well known thing from psychology and psychoanalysis. Not saying anything new here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mreid said:

It's staged because you know that your partner is not really going to hurt you any more than you've agreed to be hurt, otherwise you wouldn't be doing those things with him. You know, hard limits and all that?

But I've already said multiple times that kink isn't just about pain 😕 that's just one type of kink. I already said, drinking each others pee, giving each other enemas, using anal dildos etc, and more extreme stuff like scat, and of course adult breast-feeding, to name just a few. None of that involves pain limits or anything (well, some of the anal stuff does, but some people just legitimately orgasm from the anal stuff which is why they love it), but that doesn't make any of it staged. Actual hetero sex (penis-in-vagina) is exactly the same because you still need to trust that the other person isn't going to suddenly do something cruel to you. Or are you saying all intimate interaction is staged due to the fact that you need to know the other person won't do something you don't want? 

 

1 hour ago, mreid said:

In the other scenarios you are at the mercy of nature and all you can trust to keep you safe if your own discernment and in some cases sheer luck, and also of course trusting that your partner will protect you from an external danger.  

I'm not sure when you started comparing the trust built through intimate interaction to things like natural disasters and terrorist attacks etc. They're .... completely...different scenarios, and completely different kinds of trust. The trust a soldier feels for his comrade when under enemy fire is very different than the trust a man builds for the woman he has given his heart to, regardless of what the couple does intimately whether kinky or not.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...