Savage Love Mar 17, 2020 at 4:39 pm

Quickies

Joe Newton

Comments

109

@100 & @101 vennominon: Okay--your request is granted. :)
@105 fubar: It's a deal! I know my little Love Beetle and I will be ready to party when this is over and done. :)
@108 curious2: WA-HOOOOOO!!!! curious2, by default, you have been selected as this week's lucky winner of the Big Hunsky, by request of vennominon. Celebrate your unexpected good fortune. :)
It must be going around---I recently hit a lucky lottery scratch ticket at a local store. It is indeed, nice to be restocked up on groceries and have plenty of red, red wine again. :)
@108 curious2, re demisexual and Demi Moore: I may have to watch A Few Good Men again tonight after practicing music. my apartment building is eerily quiet these days.Nobody comments, but I think my fellow neighbors, landlord, landscapers, and maintenance guys appreciate it.

110

@LavaGirl 83 I don't respond by getting wet when I see or sit with a "hot" man. I can appreciate him aesthetically, like Victorian architecture, flowers, and sunsets.

Even dancing or doing kink things with him generally will bring out other emotions, other reactions. I get get dreamy and glowy, cathartic and crying, lost in the music and synchronicity, etc.

I can only think of a half-dozen times in 45 years when I have felt aroused around someone I didn't have an emotional connection with.

I agree that "demisexual" is an odd label. Supposedly it falls under the umbrella of asexuality.

I am very sexual with someone I love, who I know is attracted to me, etc. I frequently initiate even if I am not aroused. I am confident I will be, once he reacts.

113

I am the very model of a mysologophiliac ...

give me a day for that one....

114

Bullshit MrD, lots of people were gay and the men I knew were all experimenting. I came of age late sixties/ early seventies. Many interactions with multiple diverse groups of people during those sexual, musical and political revolutionary times. Kinks were not a thing. Please don’t patronise me, it’s tedious and it’s you who is flaunting your incest related kink.
/ I just lost a comment I wrote to ciods. I’ll try again.

115

ciods @94, if it’s not about incest then why use terms related to it? Yes. Those with that kink are not really having incest, yet the taboo is woven thru it, by virtue of the names people use. Daddy/ Mommy etc.
Re kinks/ fetishes being hard wired, I think in a sense they are, just not from birth.

116

Let me be clear that I was never arguing that most (for any definition of "most") people know the word demisexual, just that some number greater than zero know the word. Enough to chance using it in conversation. If the person does not know the word, you explain what it means. That's not for the purpose of ten more seconds of talking about oneself, it's for the purpose of educating more people as to what demisexual means.

Re the word slut - Lava, would it help to think of it as a reclaimed word like queer or dyke? Those people who would use the word want to destigmatise sluttiness which, after all, just means freely enjoying sex. Obviously its use is context specific -- I doubt Dadddy addresses his girlfriends as "slut" at the dinner table, for instance: "Slut, would you please pass the salt?" -- and must be consented to. Though one might argue that having sex with a self-declared dominant man is de facto consent to being called a slut during said sex. Certainly one is within one's rights to leave that word un-reclaimed in one's own dealings.

Lava @79, thanks for asking! The situation keeps changing, but it seems for now London is avoiding a lockdown just because essential workers can't get to their jobs without public transport. I ventured to the supermarket yesterday and it was insanity -- no toilet paper or disinfectant spray, nor certain items like cat litter or ketchup, queues like I have never seen. I'm glad I picked up enough basics that I can top up from local shops which were nowhere near as mental. Staying in as much as possible, and learning to socialise via video, which is more fun than it sounds.

Lava @83, that's what you are missing. The demisexual sits next to a hot guy and feels no arousal. The body does not start responding. People do not choose to be demisexual and override sexual urges other people find normal any more than people choose to be gay and override attraction to the opposite sex. The attraction to the opposite sex is not there. For a demisexual, the attraction is not there no matter how hot the stranger is. There has to be a connection, then the hormones kick in, rather than the other way round.

Lava @89, you don't know why Sporty has been disappeared? Really? I for one only hope he has been kicked off permanently rather than arrested for assaulting some woman in his life or worse.

Lava @91, you're being very shamey with these comments. First, I'll second the point that "Daddy" does not refer to a kinkster who is into incest, real or fantasised; it simply means a dominant man, and is derived (correct me if I'm wrong) from the term "leather daddy" which was popular in the gay community in the 1970s. Second, wow to "genuflecting at the altar of kinks." Do you genuflect at the altar of vanilla sex or do you just enjoy it? Kinks have been around for ages. Google Bettie Page, Venus in Furs, the Marquis de Sade. GenX did not invent kinks. All it invented was kinks on the internet, so that kinky people can easily find each other and share information and resources, and vanilla people can easily stumble over those kinks in ways you couldn't, in the 70s or 80s or before, unless you were looking. Before the internet, people with hard wired kinks felt they needed to stay closeted; this does not mean the kinks weren't there. And if the availability of information on kink is broader now, and if that encourages people who previously never thought of certain activities to investigate them, how is that a bad thing? Variety is good; people can try different things and decide whether they like them or not, like Agony and the dirty talk. I'm willing to bet that some of the friends of your youth were kinky as hell and just didn't tell you about it.

117

Cont: The wiring of our brains occur in childhood, and I think many kinks are related to experiences of childhood becoming erotically linked, in order to master them.
For eg, the diaper/ nappy kink. I see this could be linked to experiences the person went thru during toilet training.
Usual age for this is three, and it can be a very difficult process if the caregivers become too rigid and punishing towards the child. Then later, as a sexual adult, this person’s unconscious around the humiliation etc during toilet training is activated and becomes part of their erotic expression.
Why kinks have exploded maybe has a lot to do with fashion, it’s the fashion now to have kinks. A lot of people try it on, I believe. Believing it’s a lifestyle choice, or they want to play.
For many though it’s an authentic expression.
I don’t see why investigating the aetiology of kinks means that would lead to conversion therapy. Some kinks must be very hard to get satisfied, being able to unravel the origins might bring enormous relief. Therapy would help here, if people believed they could loosen the grip kinks/ fetishes have on them.
What has happened culturally for these sexual expressions to become mainstream, I hope there are some sociologists out there looking into it.

118

Fan, I lived in multiple communal houses, was involved thru my twenties with community centres, went to University in Sydney, joined demos against Vietnam war, joined the hippy lot in my thirties, and read copious cultural mags etc, nowhere did I hear or read kinks talked about. This is a recent cultural expression, en masse. Not saying there weren’t kinky people around. Not like this. Like now. So why?

119

Philosophy School Dropout, you haven't been back to answer my question about why the term "intact" is offensive. Can anyone else help out? Do the penis havers of the board agree "intact" is an offensive way to described an uncircumcised penis and if so, why? (Not that I actually use this word myself, I would just say circumcised and uncircumcised.)

Lava @118, the answer is the internet. Previously suppressed topics can now be discussed with others, anonymously or openly. Same answer to the question of why are there so many gender identities now. Because people are talking about them online, and those who a generation ago simply felt they didn't fit in are discovering other people who relate to their gender the way they do and have coined words to describe it. But like I said earlier, kinks were being talked about. They were being talked about by kinksters. Perhaps the kinksters you knew sensed your disapproval and didn't open up to you. Perhaps the only people kinksters discussed their kinks with were the people they were having sex with, and you didn't happen to have any kinky partners, or you didn't inspire them to open up to you. The song Venus In Furs was released in 1967, what did you think that song was about?

120

@119 BiDanFan
"Do the penis havers of the board agree "intact" is an offensive way to describe an uncircumcised penis"

I do not agree. In fact, it would be right to use language that casts shade on the practice of circumcision. In other words, language that speaks perjoritably of something done to people that should not have been done, is right. Speak ill of what was done to my penis because ill was done. Not speaking ill would be to be part of the problem.

121

Ms Fan - Perhaps "reclaimed" words should not quite be considered "rehabilitated". Even Mr Savage, who is more generous with words than most, has restrictions.

124

BDF @116: I second that Lava @91 is being very shamey with these comments. She’s also flaunting some uncharacteristic ignorance. I for one am not willing to be shamed.

As I wrote @105, I’ve been in DD/lg relationships in the past, and those women wanted to be both dominated and cared for. They weren’t fantasizing about their own fathers while moaning and calling me “Daddy” during sex; nor were they fantasizing about gay men in leather. They were, I believe, enjoying the real experience of surrendering and being taken - dominated and used - by a strong, intimate figure which, in the cases I know about, their fathers were manifestly not.

Perhaps it’s true that the childhood experience of having an alcoholic or drug addicted felon for a father has some impact on sexual wiring. Or maybe this predilection has some other origin. Either way, I don't care. It's between consenting adults and completely harmless.

BDF @119: I agree with curious2 @120. I have an intact member (as they were called in Playboy magazine when I was developing my preference for stockings, garters, and heels) and don’t really care how anyone refers to it. I imagine that if I were circumcised, I might have a chip on my shoulder about the nomenclature, but that’s just conjecture.

125

Both circumcised and uncircumcised penises are natural if they're part of a human body; it's a silicone or glass or metal or wooden dildo that's the unnatural penis. As a cis woman, I've got no horse in this race (or foreskin in this game), but it seems to me that "intact" is an accurate descriptor.

126

I've taken a different tack in the past, but this time I'm gonna say that since LG is a mom, it's understandable that she could be emotionally triggered by children-related stuff like pedophilia fantasy-only or (now) incest-derived terminology.  Emotions are not from the land of logic and thinking (which incidentally is why I have little idea what to call my own emotions).  So while I've been hard on her in the past over this, I don't think we should be hard on her about what she's /thinking/, because I suspect that's underlaid by what she (as a mom) is /feeling/.  And it's absolutely normal for people to think things that don't make logical sense, because they're thinking them because of emotions (which inherently are not about logic at all).

I wish emotions were about logic, because lately I've had trouble dealing with irrational fears.

128

curious2 @126: I'm the father of girls. When I first encountered DD/lg, I did some reading about it.

It is not children-related. It is not pedophilia fantasy. It is not incest-derived terminology, any more than "leather daddy" is incest-derived terminology: in other words, not at all.

I'm sometimes uncomfortable with things I read hear, but I try to STFU and refrain from commenting based only on my unexamined prejudices. Can we now stop with the shaming, and give credence to those in the commentariat who actually have some experience with this topic?

It's not fucking incest; not even incest-adjacent.

129

Re: Looking up Former Hookups
Over the past two or three months I've had a surprising number of former buddies turn up... like 6/8. I have no idea why, must be something in the air?
Anyway, as they're mostly great memories (one is not) I'm definitely down for some more. I'm sure your hung natural buddy is too. And if he isn't, he can say so

130

@128 fubar
Thanks for the very informative and well-made point.

I guess I was just meaning that it might, to someone who isn't thinking (because they are only feeling and thus not being rational) be mistaken--out of some kind of traumatic reaction--for looking like quasi-incest-derived terminology.

131

@126: curious2, I'm a mom; I'm a mom to girls. I'm a mom to girls who have been sexually assaulted, including violently raped; I have been raped. And yet my fantasies are about humiliation, loss of control and being ravished (not violently raped). The point is, there's no logic to it and there's no "opt out" button for me to press, even if I wanted to not be aroused by the things that arouse me.

@LavaGirl: I think you're pathologizing kink, especially kink that deals with "incest," or D/s relationships. It's fine to go into therapy in order to fix a problem or to become more self aware (though I don't have the same faith in therapy that you seem to have), but at the heart of what you're saying, is the message that kinks are abnormal and a symptom of some deeper underlying issue, some problematic response to sex stemming from the family of origin; that if someone could know where the kink originated, could understand what triggered it, that issue could be dealt with and the kink would disappear. That sees having the kink as undesirable, if not actually shameful. I can understand why someone whose sexuality doesn't encompass any degree of kink might feel that way, but I think the attitude is harmful.

Here's a long thing I wrote about kink to someone a few years ago; feel free to skip over it--it's quite long--but it comes as close as I can to explaining how I feel about kink and submission.

Recently I was talking with a guy who is a bit ashamed of and definitely mystified by his kinks. He said repeatedly that he wonders where they came from, if “exposure” to porn or simply to the idea of kink isn’t what makes him kinky.

My response was kind of why ask why? “I Yam What I Yam,” I said, and I don’t think it’s important or useful to try and search for an origin. I’m perfectly happy with my sexuality. And besides I think I’ve always been this way, if I stop and think about it; I just didn’t know, back when some of those fantasies I masturbate to today were in their nascent form when I was a child, that they were founded on a base of sexual content. I don't think that my sexuality comes from exposure, but I do think that exposure has introduced me to various specific activities, many of which are kinky.

I have always been this way. I remember as a child playing, I always wanted to play games where I was captured and tied up. The image of the girl tied up on the railroad tracks thrilled me--her utter helplessness, her being at the mercy of the man who had tied her. Her need for rescue. I remember watching old movies where the beautiful girl was at the mercy of some villain, and the unspoken threat of rape not as an act of violence, but rape as an act that would dirty her and rob her of her "virtue" really got me excited. I didn't realize that excitement was sexual; I was a child. But as far back as I can remember, my erotic imagination has been stoked by thoughts or images of damsels in distress, of men "having their way" with women who had no control over whether that would happen or not.

By that I meant that now as an adult, I can trace the interest in kink back to childhood, to the things that captured my imagination in pre-erotic ways because I was unaware of sexuality at the time. I can look back and see the seeds that would bear a dark fruit later on. I can remember being excited by pirate movies as a kid, bodice-rippers as a young teen, cinematic rape scenes as a teen and young adult. I remember spinning a nightly fantasy when I was a child, trying to fall asleep at night, which had all the elements of what is now one of my favorite masturbatory scenarios, only without the sexual aspect. It didn't involve pain or sadism, but slavery and power-exchange. It simultaneously stimulated and soothed me.

I can have and have had very satisfying sex that is completely egalitarian, totally vanilla, in which there’s no pain or submission in any way. I can have and have satisfying sex which is just about sensation, too, but for me, the most satisfying sex has a mental or psychological component to it. I like knowing I’m a dirty slut; I like knowing that my being a dirty slut—or a soiled sweet girl, who is revealed to actually be a dirty slut or who has the dirty slut in her brought out or revealed—is a turn-on for my partner.

I’m at heart a word-girl. That’s why dirty talk is so important to me—even if the talk is fairly vanilla (“you feel so good,” “you’re a dirty slut, aren’t you?” etc.). I often don’t need to get beyond words. I don’t like visual porn and one of the reasons I read and write erotica is that what turns me on is well-articulated expressions of desire, so that I can feel the way the characters feel. I can’t get that from looking at people having sex; I most certainly can’t get that from watching close ups of genitals shoving together. I tell myself stories, and I don’t see images much. The words themselves have power and I repeat phrases as I masturbate. I see/hear them as I come. Except for a flash—not even the entire orgasm, but the orgasm’s peak, the orgasm’s epiphany, I don’t stop thinking the words. Sometimes I see them, graphically represented. Then, for a fleeting moment, there are no words. If a partner can take me beyond words, it is a wonderful thing. But it’s even more wonderful if there is a build-up that includes articulated thoughts, even if they’re only in my own head.

I don't know if the distinction I'm drawing sounds too fine, but I understand it. For me (and I'm only speaking for myself here, and I'm not 100% and exclusively and always submissive--but that has more to do with who my partners are) there is a vast difference between abuse and BDSM, and a non-abusive dom not only exists, but is really the only kind of true dom there is.

I don’t know what the thrill is from the other side. I don’t know why it turns the guys I have been with on to inflict pain, except that I do understand the control aspect of that dynamic. I know that the men I’ve been with who like submission like to feel that they have control over me. I’m guessing that one way to manifest that control is to hurt me and for me to take it. For my part, the pain isn’t very important to me, and I can certainly do without it, unless it’s vitally important to my partner. I don’t like pain for its own sake, so I don’t think I could be said to be truly kinky in that way. That’s why my stories seem to be “kink lite” to me. I recall EricaP, for instance, talking about how much she needs pain, and I have read pieces by kinky people who disassociate pain from sex; pain is a thrill or a reward in its own light for them. For me, the pain is part of the price I have to pay for the great sex. Oftentimes, I want to say “stop,” but the thing is that even as someone’s doing something that hurts me, he’s doing something that feels amazing. So stopping the pain would also mean stopping the pleasure, and I get to the point where I can’t imagine stopping that pleasure. After a while, some positive associations are formed between pleasure and pain. Sometimes also, I enjoy seeing how far I can take it—challenging my own previous limits. I know I can end it if it really becomes intolerable so that lets me keep going. I don’t know how to explain it. One of my FWBs is really kinky—a bit of a sadist, really. When he calls me a pain slut, I feel a sort of validation that comes from having an expert affirm your ability. When he tells me how proud he is of me for taking something, I feel sort of proud, too. And then he rewards me by making me come again and again, doing everything he knows I like. So there is a very big incentive.

I expect to submit, to be told what to do; I expect to be—sometimes—pushed beyond previous felt limits or set boundaries; depending on whom I’m with, I expect to experience pain; I expect to be degraded, humiliated, used; but I don't expect and have never in fact been abused.

I know this isn't true for all dom/sub relationships/dynamics, but I'm not a sub 24/7, and the toppy/dommy men I date aren't toppy or dommy when they're not in the sexual realm. We're equals. Both of us understand that these are roles--perhaps core identities, but roles nevertheless--that we voluntarily take on in a sexual capacity. There isn't a power imbalance, but rather a power exchange and a symbiosis: without a bottom, one cannot top; the dom needs the sub. So it is possible to see the give-and-take or power--indeed, to reconceptualize what "power" is, through dom/sub interactions. There is enormous power in knowing that what you're doing is turning your dom on so much and there's strength in knowing that not everyone could or would take the humiliation or the pain that you're going through (or at least that's how I experience it).

My submission is a gift, freely given to someone who appreciates that it is a gift, who respects me. Neither I nor any man who's ever topped me has seen the fun in topping a doormat, and I don't want to hang around a controlling asshat. None of this has anything to do with the way I was raised. I wasn't punished corporally (and Dan always says that some people say, "I was spanked as a child and it became eroticized for me" or "I wasn't spanked as a child and I was curious about it and eroticized it." I don't eroticize pain, even though I can take a good deal of it. I don't think I'm broken or that I need to get to the bottom of why I no doubt would probably have a good time with either Dadddy or fubar. I feel about the need to investigate the origins of my kink just as I do about the need to investigate what it was in my childhood that made me like pistachio ice cream. I do; others don't. It's not the most popular flavor, but there's nothing wrong with liking it and there's no need to penetrate the non-mystery of why I like it.

132

As to why discussions of and awareness of kinks have become ubiquitous, I think it's more than BiDanFan's assertion that it's the internet. I mean, yes, the internet has made us more aware and more connected, But ever since Alfred Kinsey, the culture has been asking questions about human sexuality, and I think after the more basic questions were at least partially answered, the conversation moved on to less mainstream topics.

133

I, too, am old enough to remember a world before "demisexual" was an identity label, and not only do I think it lacks functional utility, per Dan, I think it's weird to cast the majoritarian behavior as non-normative. In fact, most people do not have sex with strangers to whom the have no emotional connection meaning that "demisexual" behavior is the most prevalent sexual behavior (considering only the particular aspect of whether one is having sex with strangers or, I suppose, people one detests). Existing research suggests that it's a majority share of men, specifically, who tend to want to have sex with strangers and a slightly smaller majority that will actually pursue opportunities, with the net result that such people are a minority of human beings (the 25-40% of men who won't have sex with strangers, plus the overwhelming majority of women who won't - see e.g. this research survey https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sexual-personalities/201706/what-type-person-would-agree-have-sex-stranger ). This suggests that "demisexuality" is a function of treating majoritarian men's sexuality as normative for all humans, even when it's overall in the minority.

So I think "demisexual" is worse than useless, it's acrively harmful because it reinforces a false narrative of human sexuality that serves as the premise for the term. "Nymphomania" is historically a sexist idea that was far too stigmatizing of people (and especially women) who like sex, especially if their sexual behavior deviated from the monogamous norm, but it is more accurate to label frequent sex with strangers a deviation from the norm, as a majority of sexual partners are well enough known to each other to have an emotional bond, and the overwhelming majority of partnered sexual behavior is between people who know each other well, simply as a function of the fact that people in long term relationships have far, far more sex (with each other) on average than people who are not.

Perhaps "endosexual" - sexuality oriented toward people endogenous to one's existing social group - and "exosexual" - sexuality oriented toward people exogenous to one's existing social group - would be more useful (perhaps there are better terms, as I can see those being interpreted as preference for people within or without a group on the basis of broader categories than their specific, personal social groups e.g. ethnicity, nationaity, social class). Such a schema could also model people who forever chase "NRE" or become bored with or unattracted to people with whom they're in relationships for more than a few months or a year or whatever - they exosexual, as they lose sexual interest in people as they become increasingly well-known, and could be useful as a sorting mechanism for both polyamorous and monogamous relationships (people for whom ployamory means an ever-changing cast of partners, exclusively or in addition to a primary partner, versus those seeking multiple long-term partners; people who shouldn't make long-term monogamous commitments at all because they lose attraction for well-known partners versus those who want long-term monogamy). I don't have evidence that "serial monogamy" or frequent-new-partner polyamory correlate with my idea of exosexuality (or that their counterparts correlate with endosexuality), but the hypothesis is consistent with what I do know, and I'll happily accept grant funding to find out.

134

nocutename @131: Superb writing. Thanks!

135

nocutenasme @131: So sorry to read about your experiences with sexual assault. As you've written so well, D/s is the polar opposite of that.

And please sign me up for the shelter-in-place SLOG support group!

ahoyfubar@gmail.com

136

@131 nocute
"@126: curious2"
I don't think I ever disagreed with a word of that.

Oh, wait, when I wrote @130 "quasi-incest-derived terminology" I didn't mean in any individual, I was only talking about language.

@133 JH
"most people do not have sex with strangers to whom the have no emotional connection"

Excellent point! (I think I might've said something related to that upthread.)

138

@136: curious2, I was referring to your saying: "I'm gonna say that since LG is a mom, it's understandable that she could be emotionally triggered by children-related stuff like pedophilia fantasy-only or (now) incest-derived terminology. Emotions are not from the land of logic and thinking (which incidentally is why I have little idea what to call my own emotions). So while I've been hard on her in the past over this, I don't think we should be hard on her about what she's /thinking/, because I suspect that's underlaid by what she (as a mom) is /feeling/. "

And my point was supposed to be that lots of kinky people are parents. Literally everyone who has "incest" fantasies has family members. I see what you're saying about logic vs. emotions, and I agree that emotions have little to do with logic, but I see what LavaGirl is doing as pathologizing kinks she doesn't share or understand, and lashing out at people who have them, basing her response on a model of therapy as a "cure" for the "sickness" of having a BDSM kink. The fact that she deliberately misreads Dadddy's username as a signal that he wants to have actual sex with an actual daughter of his is deeply problematic, especially for someone as well-read and -informed about sex and kink as she is (in addition to reading Dan, she's said that she is on FetLife). Yes, as a mother, no doubt she's sensitive to threats to children, but I don't think she should get a pass on this one. Not mention that a lot of people's "incest" fantasies feature consensual sex between siblings.

She can not "get" incest fantasy or Daddy/little girl or Daddy/boy dynamics, in the same way I don't "get" mummification or scat-play, or bestiality, or true incest or pedophilia, or sounding or Adult Baby/diapering fetishes or kinks, but that doesn't make it okay for her to harangue anyone for his consensual interests.

139

@137: Dadddy, what do you mean, "it's the devotion?" Devotion to you, to making you happy? Could that exist without the kink or Daddy/little girl dynamic?
Is it the devotion a "daddy" has to his "little girl?"

140

@138 nocutename
I didn't disagree with a word you said here.

"that doesn't make it okay for her to harangue anyone for his consensual interests"

I didn't say it was. I was seeking a psychological understanding of the irrational and dysfunctional place LG is coming from. I'm only not calling her on it more directly because I'm not really emotionally up to arguing with people. And I think we can rest assured that she doesn't like my meta take on her behavior any more than she likes what y'all are saying, so she's probably as pissed at me now as at anyone.

In other words, just because I'm looking at the cause of the behavior rather than the behavior, does not in any way mean we disagree on the behavior. It just means that I'm a shadow of myself, and can't actually see myself conducting a debate anytime soon.

141

Congrats Mr Venn, and kind of you to hand the hunsky over to CMD, may they enjoy their good luck.
Yes, lots of food shortages in many places here, though now it seems trucks are going to be delivering more often. I’m sure down the coast from me it’s been a week of panic. I shop at the local big town, mocked by the coast people for being too daggy. Being a dag myself, it suits me fine. Great second hand shops.
Hey Grizelda, hope you going ok. Sending big bursts of colour your way. And hugs.

142

Lava: please translate Aussie for me. What's a dag?

143

Excuse me nocute, I forgot to put my perceptions past you, first. This is a public forum. I didn’t harangue anyone. Just like old times eh? Didn’t think anything had changed.
Sorry I don’t fall over with every new way humans behave towards each other and I dare to investigate and analyse what humans are up too.
Used to be a time when people thought about origins of their behaviours. I keep forgetting how little interest seems to be about these days for such.
To me there is something pathological about incest related kinks, and as this is not a devoted to kink site, and rather one where questioning is still allowed, then I’ll say my bit.
With or without your permission.

144

What’s a dag.. ciods. it’s in the word. You know. Such a dag.. I guess it’s an affectionate way of saying not hip.
Great you’ve been reading Jung. He was a shit husband though. Same as Freud. Rumour has it he was doing his sister in law, when she lived with his family.
Lucian Freud, grandson of Freud. Had untold kids and did stuff all to help rear them. Great artist though.

145

Hey LavaGirl, I was trying to explain my perspective to you.
I don't think I'm in a position to grant approval or permission to anyone; I just thought I'd engage with you as a thinking person, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you could hear my respectful disagreement with your perspective.

I find it interesting that you defend those like Sportlandia who are vicious and throw around the threats freely, but even if someone disagrees with you respectfully, you lash out. Unless you just reserve that for me.

I hope you and your family stay healthy.

146

Sportlandia was straight up, he didn’t play this cat and mouse game MrD has been playing. And both men to me are sexist as hell, one is stuck believing that’s ok, MrD, while one is or was taking people on to try and make sense of it all. Sportlandia.
Not that I have to explain myself to you. Jesus.

/ I’m not judging people because as adults, do what you like. I am observing a culture which wherever one looks is mostly overweight, unhealthy barely educated and culturally narcissistic, like What? I have no problems, because whatever I do I’ll just label it a ‘thing.’

We all do: have problems, neurotic patterns, pathologies.
We’ve all been reared in this ugly greedy culture, where true human health comes last.

147

Oh please with the Princess routine, nocute.
I was opening a discussion. Human behaviour is always changing and adapting. I’m interested in why, why the explosion of kinks. Some of which are strange expressions, if one talks truthfully. You jump in and start defining what I’m doing when what I’m doing is looking into humans. The kink community grows and grows, so what? We say nothing. Not investigate all these ways people are changing, because people are changing.
So. What has happened? Ok. Nobody else is interested in looking into social change, that’s fine.

148

Irrational and dysfunctional place I’m coming from, curious? Why. Because my point of view challenges.

Sorry you’re not feeling good. Are you on your own then? Could you treat it like a retreat perhaps, if you have prayers to follow and the like. Listening to music helps me, a lot.

149

@148 LavaGirl
I'm sorry I said anything.

Thanks for the love, stay safe!

150

Lava- it will be unfair and distracting to turn this discussion into a personal feud. I suspect I’m not the only one who observed a growing self-assured, dismissal, putting down attitude coming from you recently. I personally tried to engage with you on the trans women stealing feminist issues few weeks ago to no avail. On this thread alone you made what I perceive to be an ignorant and offensive comment about demisexuals, then went on to denounce kinks in general and one in particular despite the fact that those of us here who brought it up seem to be practicing it safely with other consenting adults.

Your growing up experience, regardless of history, is no more no less than YOUR experience. Others are have to their own.
It’s ok to say I don’t get it, keep it there and move to where you may feel more comfortable. There are plenty kinks and scenes I don’t engage in and I leave it at that. I accept that others may find it interesting for their own reasons and I hope they show the same respect and understanding, as well as disengagement if they so choose, to where I stand.
I’m not likely to be very appreciative if instead they give me their own I-never-asked-for judgmental analysis.

152

nocutename @131: so much in your post to think about!

"I don’t know what the thrill is from the other side".

I've been giving this some thought, as someone who happily inflicts pain and (what would appear to be) degradation upon the women I love, or with whom I play… I wish I could explain it as articulately as you have your side.

My thing, from a young age, was coercion. I fantasized about obliging girls to do what I wanted. I wonder if this grew from the sense of powerlessness that young men feel, but who knows? Luckily, I was never in a position to actually coerce anyone.

Fast forward to my first encounter with a submissive woman, who became frustrated when I asked her what she’d like during sex. It was an impossible question for her. As it turned out, she’d like to be told to get on her knees, or drop her panties and bend over… whatever and whenever I pleased. She enjoyed being tied up, blindfolded, gagged, beaten, mind-fucked and pussy/ass-fucked in any way that I liked at that moment. She enjoyed it, regardless of how I felt about it.

This seems to have worked for me, over the years.

153

fubar @152: just to add... that submission is a precious gift, which anyone with half a brain would and should cherish.

154

Idk if anyone is still checking comments, but just in case... Found a pretty helpful, straightforward article on demisexuality! (I'd been feeling confused about how demisexuality was different from the "average" person, so this was a good refresher :))

https://www.healthline.com/health/demisexual#common-characteristics

155

Nocute @131, thank you for that. If your erotica is written under an alias, I think a lot of us would be interested in reading it, if it's as well written as your comments here!

"I don’t know what the thrill is from the other side." For me, it is feeling powerful. Which is slightly different from feeling "in control." It's not just that a sub will do whatever I say. It's that every sensation, every emotion, every thrill, every fright they are experiencing is 100% down to me. Seeing my partner enjoying the hell out of what I'm doing to them is a huge turn on, and feeling that in that moment I am an all powerful being, at least to them, makes me feel incredible. As does their gratitude. I think part of it is knowing that I am in a small minority of people who would not only indulge these kinks but enjoy them. It's the positive feedback loop. (And being able to pause whatever is happening and sit on their face when I get turned on enough that my own body demands satisfaction, get that satisfaction, then turn my attention back to them. It's not JUST about them, you see!)

John @133, I think you are confusing non-demisexual desires with non-demisexual behaviour. It's not that it's standard or typical to seek sex with strangers, It's standard or typical to feel aroused by the look of an attractive stranger, but, due to social norms, STIs etc, the vast majority do not pursue actual sex with the strangers who arouse them. They go home and masturbate while thinking about these strangers. In other words, perhaps you could think of it this way: typical demisexual desires are the same as typical non-demisexual behaviour. The typical person has a disconnect between whom they're fucking and whom they want to be fucking; the demisexual has no need to moderate their behaviour in this way, because their desires match 100% with the sort of sex society tells us we should want, namely sex within the confines of a committed relationship. Most people want more sex than they're having. Not so the demisexual. "I do not get independently horny" was a great explanation for me. Most people do get independently horny, but don't go banging strangers because society and then experience tells them this is a bad idea and they should either masturbate or seek a relationship instead.

Your exo vs endo model just states that there is a spectrum of interest in novel sexual experiences/partners. Those people who are naturally monogamous have low interest in novelty of partners; those who are highly polyamorous or risk good relationships by cheating have a higher interest. I have known demisexual poly people. They need a connection to feel desire, but it is possible to have deep connections with more than one person, as the pro-polyamory people always have to clarify ("it's not just about the sex"). You could look at it the difference as, with a sexual person, deep connection follows from good sex, where with a demisexual, good sex follows only if there is a deep connection.

Lava @143, your posts @89-@92 read as haranguing. "I don't genuflect at the altar of kinks" is a very insulting turn of phrase. You also equate kinks with the patriarchy and say, "These kinks, to me, point to deep disturbances in parenting." Can you seriously not read these words and see why you are getting a lot of pushback? If you "open a discussion" by insulting people, you can't expect them to not call you out on your attitude. You're not challenging, you're shaming. And you've shown that you may ask questions but have no interest in actually listening to the answers and learning something; when your "challenges" are responded to, you get defensive, dig in and hold fast to your own preconceived notions. You are not engaging as someone who has an open mind and wants to learn.

156

@155 BiDanFan
"You are not engaging as someone who has an open mind and wants to learn."

Some 18 months ago when someone made this point to LG, her response was along the lines of 'not gonna happen at my age'.

I have previously commented on LG's pattern of writing that a number of men should be listening and learning. Sometimes we are most bugged by the things that subconsciously bug us about ourselves.

/Break/
I retract my lame meta-observances about parenting-related triggers, because behavior with those triggers is only a subset of things LG is problematically judgemental about. I wasn't looking at the big picture.

157

I'm wondering about our missing friends. Ricardo. EmmaLiz (who said she'd be back after Super Tuesday). Etc.

158

I was a little surprised that the census was so much shorter this time than in 2010, as well as being on line instead of a long form. I remembered that the possibility had been floated about a question on orientation (the idea was nixed for some reason I can't recall), and I did wonder whether this will be the last census requiring one to choose either Male or Female without additional alternatives.

159

venn@158~ "...the census was so much shorter this time than in 2010..."
As I recall, in years past most people got a shortened version of the census with a select group receiving a more detailed version.

https://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d3239a.pdf

160

Venn @ 158
The census was about to be canceled altogether by the current regime, fearing it will highlight the fading majority of whites.
It is meant to oppress all minorities, which is why you don't see orientation question and a broader definition of gender.

161

John @133 many people are tempted or aroused by strangers they are attracted to. They choose not to act on it.

Demisexuals usually don't get aroused in the first place. They usually don't get attracted to anyone, or think they are hot, except in aesthetic terms.

162

Curious and Fan. You guys are closed to ideas, closed even to rational thought.
Kinks etc en masse, were not evident , till recently.
The idea that kinks are hardwired from birth, therefore, doesn’t compute. These are generational expressions. My theory is a lot of people just do it for the cache, they want to try. Many many feel the deep connection between their erotic self and their kinks.
If kinks aren’t hard wired since birth, as I contend, then how do they occur for people? My ideas are that they occur during the wiring of brains during our childhoods. To be activated later when our sexual selves mature.
I explained my ideas clearly, fine If you don’t want to entertain them. You choice. Don’t try to imply I haven’t presented them in a rational way. That pisses me off. Obviously thinking thru social changes and why they are occurring is not high on others’ lists.
So again, why the explosion over these last few decades, what has been happening culturally, ( our culture, because I haven’t checked if kinks have exploded in say, Bhutan ) over the last few decades where kinks are now mainstream?
Curious, we are made in our childhoods. That’s why I talk of it, especially to those who don’t have kids and don’t see first hand how we are formed as humans.

163

If my theory has legs, then it releases people to explore their psyches, if the kink they have is making life hard for them. If it’s not, then no problem.
My reaction/ feelings/ perceptions/ neurotic response, what you will, to incest related kinks, I stand by. I wonder how those who were abused as children feel. Do these kinks trigger them? And the only reason I mentioned my reactions, is because we have someone who comments here, from his kink. A kink I finally realised I have a deep negative reaction to.
Fifty to a hundred yrs. from now, if humans still around, the social observers will look to now as we look to the twenties, the war years, the fifties, and see how humans behaved and make assumptions as to why.

164

There's little I'm less of an expert on than kink, but it makes sense to me that (like orientation) kinks can be hardwired. And that, as we're heard Dan talks about, sometimes developed extremely young.

(But in either case they're not effing choices [no one chooses to be attracted to minotaurs], so how is that even relevant?)

@116 BiDanFan
"GenX did not invent kinks...Before the internet, people with hard wired kinks felt they needed to stay closeted; this does not mean the kinks weren't there."

This seems indisputable to me, unless one suggests that all the kink from history consists of people in the future travelling back to the past. (In which case show me the time machine.)

(Knowing so little about kink I can only venture the most well-known examples, but)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Desclos the author of "Story of O" was born in 1907.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquis_de_Sade was born in 1740.

Or were they? Were they transplanted back to the past as infants to make it seem like kink is as old as humanity? Maybe the kink-negative/shaming people have a point.

165

From the moment of conception, curious, we are being formed. From what our mother eats and feels, to every behaviour our care givers do to us. For years, the years of learning. Learning to trust, love, think and mastering oneself.
Many many moments where things can go wrong, and those moments, like the joyful ones get imprinted on our developing minds and contribute to how our brains are created, the pathways our brains form. This process goes on till the brain finally settles, around twenty five years of age.

166

Yes Fan, I was heavy handed. What’s new? Then sometimes I have to be to push thru this resistance I feel in this group, to ideas. All these sacred cows yet everyone’s ready to analyse what the trumpets are up to. Nothing wrong with looking at ourselves, critically. I do it to myself, then I go, yep. I still love myself and all my strange ways. Try to shift parts, though at my age you go, wtf. I met my mother, and my father, I know what sort of experiences formed me. I’m thankful to them for life, and as a parent know how hard it is to do right. I fucked up as a parent many times and it’s the worst regret of all. Then I realise our culture puts this great important task, child rearing, way at the back.. dealt with somehow privately by two already overworked people. No wonder families shatter.
This is what I mean by our fucked culture. We have it arse about, what we need to focus on and support, to have a culture where humans are at premium health. Resting our babies well, then it will all flow on from there.

167

Funny slip.. resting not rearing . Though resting well is true. In some cultures, babies are never left to cry, passed from one adult to the other. Takes a village to raise a child.

168

Every parent I've ever known says kids are not born blank slates. And they are not blank slates at conception, either; they already at the very least have predetermined physiology; much of who people are is in their original bodies and their biochemistry.

Do you also think no one is born gay? History certainly tells us that people have been gay for countless millennia.

169

No of course they are not born blank slates, curious. Did I say that? It’s an interaction between nature and nurture.
The caregivers have the power to facilitate optimum human health and potential, by their actions.
No baby rears itself.
/ Mr D. Truce. I’ll stop reading your comments. I realise further, that yes, I had erotic feelings for my father and I’m so pleased he didn’t violate the trust between us. It was my process of sublimation and integration. I loved my father, and he set a warm model for me for how men can be. Sorry I was a bit rough there. Take it easy.

170

Curious: Homosexuality like heterosexuality has been around amongst humans and other animals forever. I take from that, that I don’t know where our orientations come from. Maybe nature goes, Yeah, why not. Some to reproduce ( sucked in ones), and some to play..

171

@169 LavaGirl
Good for you to share that. I can see how that could make a lot of things loaded for you. I know for sure you're not the only one, as I once told a tale about (like your father) not doing the wrong thing about that with a girl I co-parented for a while. The poor thing wasn't in a good situation, but it worked out great for her.

And congrats on the lucky number!

172

Sucked in, is that more Aussie slang. I’m never sure what comes from where. Means taken for a ride.

173

Thanks curious. I donate my good luck to Muse and Ricardo. Sending it to them both with my love.

174

Yes I forgot to mention Calli, we haven't heard from her either and I've been thinking of her too.

175

@169 LavaGirl: WA-HOOOOO!!!!! Big Congrats to LavaGirl for scoring this week's Double whammy: Lucky @69 Award plus the Big Hunsky @100 (@69 + @100 = @169). So you get to bask in not only the decadence of 69 but you also get your sexy mountain man to boot! Savor your good fortune. :)

May everyone stay healthy, safe, and sane.

Anyone for a Big Two Hunsky? tick...tick..tick...

179

Lava @162: "You guys are closed to ideas, closed even to rational thought."
Lava @166: "I was heavy handed. What’s new? Then sometimes I have to be to push thru this resistance I feel in this group, to ideas."
I can't even start. Have you actually read other people's comments? What resistance? We resist being insulted, yes.
Lava @169: "I realise further, that yes, I had erotic feelings for my father"
And the homophobic senator is caught in a public toilet with a younger man. Anyone surprised?

180

Hunter78 @177: I've never actually heard of a demisexual person saying that. I have, however, heard a lot of other people claim this without evidence, and generally be weirdly defensive every time demisexuality comes up.

Look, some people need whips to get off, some people need feet pics, some people need their spouse to fuck someone else. Some people need emotional connection or at least a sense of familiarity. Why does the last one make you so angry? It's just another variation in the sexual smorgasbord that is human sexuality. Live and let live, my dude.

181

Lava @163: "My reaction/ feelings/ perceptions/ neurotic response, what you will, to incest related kinks, I stand by."

Your persistence in mislabeling and misrepresenting the kink we've been talking about is obnoxious. And the whining that people aren't open to your ideas... Boo hoo!

Again, DD/lg is not an incest related kink. It's not even incest adjacent. What it is adjacent to, perhaps, is the so-called 50s lifestyle. Now that more women have power, some of them are happy to exchange it for endorphins.

182

Lava @ 170
In addition to what others have wrote re your attempted comeback here’s another thought/terminology I found ignorant and offensive:

“I take from that, that I don’t know where our orientations come from. Maybe nature goes, Yeah, why not. Some to reproduce (sucked in ones), and some to play.”

Same sex relations aren’t exclusively “play.” Another new cultural “trend” allows same sex “players” to get married. Many of them want and can have children. Same goes to “reproducers” who may choose to “play” regardless if those who came of age during the 1960’s approve or not.

183

If there is any gender, sex, sexual orientation, romantic orientation or relationship orientation without any members who think being in that particular group confers general superiourity over outsiders, I have yet to encounter it.

185

I'll respond to one of LavaGirl's points, that many kinks or sexual interests or fantasies seem to be products of the patriarchy. Yes, of course. That is the culture in which we have all been raised and steeped. It is impossible for me to conceive of the ways I'd be different if the entire world and its history and traditions were different.

I, too, like to analyze and to consider origins of some behaviors or desires; I don't see everything as tracing back to the way children are parented, but more as being born of a host of cultural and other factors. I saw swashbuckling pirate movies on tv as a child, in which the threat of the beautiful female captive being ravished by the handsome pirate captain was the entire subtext, but rather than it seeming like a truly terrifying, emotionally scarring possibility, it was played as a source of simmering sexual tension. That pirate captain was her captor and capable of inflicting great damage to her, but he sometimes saved her from other, less appealing threats (like every pirate raping her). And he never did rape her, but in the end, they were in love or he handed her safely over to the protective arms of her father. I watched children's cartoons such as Penelope Pitstop and Duddly Do-Right, in which the heroines were tied to train tracks in a nod to 19th- and early 20th-century melodramas, and those heroines were the only female characters in the shows. They were either being menaced or rescued by men, who were alternately threatening or heroic, but always in control of the situation and the heroine. Thinking about it, it only makes sense that those men--the would-be villain and the strong protector--would merge into one figure. Naturally, the threat of rape or the sense of danger would get mixed up with something as primal as sex and sexual desire and the roles I want to play within sexual relationships. None of this has anything to do with the way my parents raised me, and everything to do with the culture at large.

There probably also is a factor of contradiction in D/s fantasies or play. Many women (and some men) who are feminists are disturbed by the fact that they want to take on a submissive role during sex, or that they enjoy being demeaned. It's probably very similar to all those British MPs who go to dominatrixes to be caned or humiliated. On one hand, that could be a reaction to being so powerful and important--wanting to be controlled by someone else, to cede that power for a while. But I think a likelier origin would be the bullying and hazing they experienced (from the perspective of either the bully or his victim) as schoolboys.

Certainly something seems to trigger some kinks, or it might be more accurate to say that deeply nascent desires can be brought to the forefront of our minds and lives with some sort of inciting event or image. And it seems logical that as the patriarchy loosens its grip, it will become romanticized and perhaps fetishized--I would be fascinated to be able to go back to say, the 16th century, when European women had really lost most of their rights, and see if the sexual dynamic of D/s (which, after all, is voluntary) was as common as it is today. If it was a lot rarer, as LavaGirl thinks (even going back only 50 years or so), that would seem to lend credence to my theory that it's the contradictions or juxtapositions with the roles we take on in our non-sexual lives that make these such powerful dynamics.

But just because it is politically and perhaps philosophically inconvenient or embarrassing to have those fantasy-or-kink triggers, it doesn't follow that they are symptoms of illness or wrong-headedness or fuck-up-ness. It doesn't mean that they can be plucked out of people's brains, or that people who have them should wish to excise them. And so long as they are being enacted by consensual adults, there's no problem with them.

186

Comeback CMD.. If I offended you, I’m sorry.
Obviously it’s struck a nerve beyond offending people, because here you all are still talking about it. Sometimes I forget what is allowed around here. Stick with the programme, right?

187

One only has to look on fetlife, to see there are scammers everywhere. It’s a patriarchal man’s dream.
You teach English nocute. Words have meaning. A word like Daddy, like Mommy, imbued with meaning.
D/s, similar dynamic, no deep meaning imbued.
You all think culture started with you, that how you express sexuality is how it’s always been. This is a cultural phenomenon. Pertaining to this time now, under these social conditions. A moment in time.

188

JHorstman - "I don't have evidence that "serial monogamy" or frequent-new-partner polyamory correlate with my idea of exosexuality (or that their counterparts correlate with endosexuality), but the hypothesis is consistent with what I do know"
When I think of serial monogamy, I think of someone who doesn't like others too much, whether in or out of their social group, but can sort of fake it for short periods in order to satisfy their sex drive. It seems like these labels share an appreciation of short term relationships no matter where the new partner is selected from, but the latter also appreciates committed long term relationships. Solo poly seems most similar to serial monogamy, with minimal appreciation of commitment.

There is also a scale of fear of those within or outside of our social group. To me it seems like monogamy and serial monogamy are more related to fear of outsiders, and poly of all sorts related to a fear of relying on a single partner for sex.

189

BORE seems like a serial monogamist. I get no sense he ever loved his wife or really committed to anything, he seems to want to feel justified in an angry divorce because his wife started working more. Agree with Dan that any reason for leaving is ok, disagree that divorce is ever justified rather than unfortunate.

190

As I was coming of age, women could access the birth control Pill. That’s what it was called, The Pill. That’s how significant it was. I point to this as being the major change in the last several decades. It opened the door to sex without consequences. Without babies.
Women demanding very very loudly, that they were not going to follow their mothers, and be stuck at home alone with babies and the washing up, they wanted to study, get real jobs. They wanted their voices heard outside the family, in the town square.
Music, big shifts in music around this time too. The kids took it over and it became the modern poet’s way of communicating. Philosophy. Psychiatry. Birthing. Food. Etc. All subjects spoken of. Courses in Marx no less, at a Sydney University.
These cultural changes helped set in motion where we are today.
/ ciods , you might be interested. I’ve just read of a French Philosopher who is writing books bringing Philosophy to the masses. and a best seller. Beautiful French woman too.. Just ordered her books. Not sure if they will get thru. Marie Robert, is her name.

191

Forgive me. Gay Liberation also occurring around this time. Gay and trans people demanding they be allowed to exist.
Civil rights movement, with Black people demanding the right to exist too.
These are major shifts, eruptions, which occurred in our culture, before many of you were born. They inform today’s cultural expressions.

192

You know CMD, I don’t make comebacks. After these years you should know that. I say what I believe and I think about what I believe.
I get rough. Yes. Sorry All. Like I said, you guys present often as a ‘group mind’. My mind is my mind, and I never judge a kink personally. Do whatever is my position. Because I demand that for myself. Long as all consent.
Doesn’t mean I don’t look at social trends, including any I’ve followed, without a critical eye. We are who we are. Enjoy ourselves. We can still realise where our damage is. And we are all damaged in some ways because our culture doesn’t care about us until we are useful units.

193

LavaGirl @187: And still you persist. Such arrogance. Someone can want a Daddy figure without wanting their own father. It's mind-numbingly simple.

194

@187: LavaGirl, you said: "You teach English nocute. Words have meaning. A word like Daddy, like Mommy, imbued with meaning.
D/s, similar dynamic, no deep meaning imbued.
You all think culture started with you, that how you express sexuality is how it’s always been. This is a cultural phenomenon. Pertaining to this time now, under these social conditions. A moment in time."

Do you even read what I write? Do you actually think about what those words are? Because it sure doesn't sound like you do.

Damn right, words have meaning. Especially yours, as you insult all and sundry around here then defend yourself claiming that's just who you are and you're being true to yourself.

195

Another one. It’s the fucking of the Father figure I have issues with. fubar. Ignorant you say? Right. I’m done with this subject. Obviously too sensitive.

196

It’s not called the Father Figure kink though, furbar, is it? It’s called the Daddy kink.. which as we all know implies a biological relationship. And you call me ignorant.

197

@195: I'm curious: why do you have issues with fucking the father (or Father, to quote you accurately, though "father" with a capital "F" generally signifies God) figure, so long as that father figure isn't actually the person who's fucking him's dad?

How does your having "issues" with role play of father/young person align with your stated perspective that "Do whatever is my position." How does berating Dadddy or me square with "I never judge a kink personally . . . . Long as all consent."

198

@196: What? "Daddy" implies a biological relationship, but "Father" doesn't? Is it the work "figure?" What if we started saying "Daddy figure?" What if we say "adult male" or "male authority figure" or "Male role model?"
The fact is, you seem to be trying to mitigate the damage you do by back-peddling. Maybe the dude on this comment thread with the leather cap avatar should change his user name to "Father figure"--would you lay off him then?

199

@198: Should have read: 'Is it the word "figure",' not 'is it the work "figure."'

200

LavaGirl @187: "Sometimes I forget what is allowed around here. Stick with the programme, right?"

Oh please. People are calling you on your bullshit because it's bullshit.

LavaGirl @196: "It’s called the Daddy kink.. which as we all know implies a biological relationship."

No. It does not. And nobody but you is claiming that it does. Your inability to see beyond your own prejudice is utterly mind boggling.

201

Language matters. You can’t co-opt words and say, oh they mean this now, when we use them. Especially words as powerful as Mummy/ Mommy and Daddy.

202

LavaGirl @201: I've heard that exact same argument - verbatim - from people that used to insist that "gay" can only mean "happy".

Regardless, language is not the point and not the problem, and you're being obtuse and ridiculous.

203

Look I’m Sorry I said anything. Now is not the time.. my apologies to all and stay sane and safe.

204

Lava @ 192
“You know CMD, I don’t make comebacks.”
I agree, which is why this one stands out. Usually you just disengage and come back on the next thread as if nothing happened.

205

Not to change the subject from that awkward moment, but ...
If Dan is not able to do SLLsOTD, maybe we could encourage folks to write in to US, and we can do our own. I mean, we all give our own advice as if Dan weren't here, anyway. Just saying.

206

Griz?

207

@200: Strange. There is no comment @200. By rights, LavaGirl should get the numerical honors.
LavaGirl, if you want it, WA-HOOO!! Congrats on scoring the Big Two Hunsky! Bask in the seductive glory of two mountain men this week . :)
@206: I was just testing.

Love and hugs to all: Dan and everyone stay healthy, safe and sane.
Positrons and VW beeps from my Love Beetle and me.
XO, Griz

208

Griz @207: Comment 200 appears at the end of the 100 page - and it was mine, thanks. LavaGirl deserves no honour this week. I'm an ex-fan of LavaGirl after this week's rampant bigotry and assholery. She can bask in her own bullshit.

209

@209 fubar: That was you who hit the Double Hunsky? My mistake.
Okay, by default, and since LavaGirl already scored the Lucky @69 Award this week,
I say WA-HOOOOOOOOO!!!--fubar, I bequeath the Double Hunsky to you, and offer major congratulations. You landed on the lucky number and deserve the honors fair and square.
Savor the glory of a rare number, indeed, the Double Hunsky and may abundant good fortune shower upon you soon. :).

210

@209: YOIKS!! Griz is waaay off this week----sorry, Dan and everybody!
Correction: It was BiDanFan, not LavaGirl, who rightfully landed on @69 and had scored this week's Lucky @69 Award.
The Big Hunsky ended up going to curious2 by instruction of vennominon, who had landed on @100 by mistake. It is my belief that vennominon is among commenters wishing not to participate in the weekly Lucky Numbers game.

My sincerest apologies to fubar, BiDanFan, vennominon, curious2, LavaGirl, Dan, and everyone for all the unintended mixups. I have been working from home. I am experiencing no coronavirus symptoms to my knowledge (yet?) but I am on painkillers for a chronic condition (long story extending to 43 years back). Music and red wine help.

Please, everybody--stay healthy, warm, safe and sane. We are in this global pandemic together; we will get through it together.

Big virtual hugs, positrons, and VW beeps from my Love Beetle and me to all.
XO,
Griz

211

As I can't sleep (apparently, tonight, drinking a Coke before bed wasn't a wise choice), I've just read through all the comments. Not even going to bother with the actual LW quickies.

When it comes to finding out what it feels like from/for the other side, then being a Switch really is the Best of Both Worlds. The interesting thing is that the D/s inversion doesn't even have to follow the same style.

And, as long as we're sharing, I'll gladly grab my PVC items and add a pair of black patent stiletto heels, something I can no longer wear IRL.

212

Traffic @180, applause. Much better response than anything I could have come up with.

It seems that somehow, despite being a minority of the population, somewhere along the line demisexuals succeeded in getting the kind of sex they want adopted as the generally accepted "moral" kind of sex everyone should be having, and restricting themselves to. Quite convenient really, for most of history. Waiting until marriage and forsaking all others is easy when you don't desire strangers or acquaintances. Since the 1960s, casual sex has become more acceptable, and only now have people who don't want it started to seem like the odd ones out. In @177 Hunter doesn't "explore" anything, he attacks demisexuals more viciously than Lava has gone after kinksters, and can't see that he did anything wrong.

Hunter @184, as Venn says, there are "ego-boosting rewards" for anyone claiming anything. Understanding oneself is rewarding and can boost one's self-esteem, sure. If you've never actually had demisexuals telling you they're superior, you are just projecting how you think they feel because -society- says people who behave in this supposedly moral way that just happens to line up with what demisexuals want. Does the same apply to straight people? Do straight people get "ego-boosting rewards" for not desiring same-sex partners? I'm sure they do, but unlike demisexuals, they don't get people like you going round bashing them for it.

Nocute @185, don't forget we are all raised in the patriarchy and only some of us become kinky, so we can't just write kinks off as being patriarchal in origin, unless we're going to dub vanilla sex patriarchal as well.

Lava @186, first you claim an absolute right to start a conversation by "challenging" people, then you complain that the conversation is continuing, because clearly none of us are interested in a discussion, or are we?

Philophile @188: "Solo poly seems most similar to serial monogamy, with minimal appreciation of commitment." As a solo poly person whose relationships have lasted six years and eight and a half years, I would dispute that solo poly means lack of commitment. It just means not wanting to cohabit. Shacking up is not the only way to show commitment. In fact, a lot of relationships only persist because people don't want to get a divorce or move out -- witness SHAM. If I'm still seeing my partners after this many years, even though I don't artificially HAVE to, does that not prove I am with them because we are committed to each other? You could rephrase it as solo poly allows a great degree of freedom, while coexisting with whatever level of commitment the participants feel toward each other.

Lava @201, the entire English language is people co-opting words and changing their meanings! How about if I decide that missionary position must mean that you are wearing a crucifix during sex, and refuse to accept that it has nothing to do with actual missionaries? That's what you're doing with your crusade against the word daddy. Just because YOU had problematic feelings toward your own father, you refuse to believe this is not the case for anyone using the word Daddy in a BDSM context. Like Fubar said, the mind boggles.

213

Griz @210, thanks for all you do to keep the mood light and the lucky numbers straight! Hope you are well.

214

Hi BDF, thanks for explaining that solo poly can involve long relationships. I agree long relationships are a symptom of commitment. And an accomplishment, congratulations!

And lol, I had a lover who wore a crucifix a few years ago, it was flying around and I asked him about it, and he said "I LOVE JESUS" so enthusiastically while he was fucking me that it felt extremely kinky for some reason. Missionary lol.

215

While we're playing this word game, I'll point out the so-obvious-we-forget example that all throughout the English-speaking world, sexual partners of both sexes are called "babe" or "baby." No sublimated desire to fuck infants is assumed.

216

@212: BiDanFan, I wasn't writing kinks off as being patriarchal in origin, so much as I was trying to say that every meaning we attach to any and every action or incident is informed by our culture, by a narrative we have collectively and traditionally created. This extends to any and all kinds of sex. The idea that sex is an expression of love; the idea that sex belongs only within marriage; the idea that sex should take place only between members of different sexes; the idea that sex is for recreation; the idea that men are always trying to get laid and women are the gatekeepers--and the older idea that women are lust-filled creatures trying to seduce helpless men into sin. The idea that having sex with a close relative is morally abhorrent is common to most societies, but still, it's cultural in nature and origin.

Our culture is a patriarchy. So the narratives surrounding sex--all the different narratives, including slut-shaming and the way sex "should" be--are informed by the patriarchy. Obviously this includes vanilla sex. Some people are aroused by breaking taboos or transgressing typical boundaries, and those boundaries and taboos were set by the culture.

217

Philo @214, no problem. All the terms can be confusing. Perhaps you are thinking of relationship anarchy, which can look from the outside like solo poly except that the participants literally reject the idea of making long-term commitments, structured "rules" or definitions of their relationships. As a solo poly person I would find that maddening for anything longer than a few months.

Nocute @216, I agree with you. It was LavaGirl who wrote off kinks as being patriarchal in nature. I agreed with your response and was expanding on it. Sorry it wasn't clear what I was responding to.

Some other examples of the word "dad" or "daddy" that do not literally mean one's father:
Daddy-O
Daddy long legs
Crawdad
Sugar daddy
Dad bod
Puff Daddy
Dad jokes

218

Ciods @ 215
I grew up in a non-English speaking country. My introduction to the baby baby thing was at a classmate’s birthday party when we were 10 yo or so. His older brother played The Equals 45 single and both him and younger brother started moving their head to the beat, which I thought was a very cool thing to do, yet couldn’t figure out how said baby went away all on their own.
Still love that song.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5q3ALvb16EE

219

@215 ciods
""babe" or "baby." No sublimated desire to fuck infants is assumed"

Superb point!

As a mere matter of etymology I'm guessing of this practice stems from something like the impulse to care for and love infants. In other words, drawing parallels in developing a brand new usage. Which I guess is about how the 'daddy' term may have come about, equally detached from implying fucking of actual parents/offspring with the parallel.


    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.