Bdsm

[A.R.Amistad]

OK, comrades, I'm a bold one, so I'm gonna go where no other here has gone before. What are your views on BDSM and the BDSM subculture/lifestyle? I myself am a proud BDSM practitioner (strict submissive). Anyone else have any opinions, knowledge, etc. on the subject? I feel like engaging in a discsussion about it, and I never posed the subject to other leftists.

[Foldered]

Not something I'm into, but I've never tried it, either. As for an opinion, it's just like any type of sexual practice; people can do whatever they want so long as it's consentual.

[Sasha]

been there, done that, still consider myself quite kinky and stuff but got kinda bored with it.

still joke to my GF that our longterm, straight, monogamus relationship is the kinkyist thing i have done so far. :lol:

[Spawn of Stalin]

I've never done anything like that and I don't like the idea of it one bit, but whatever turns you on I guess, sexual freedom and all that, just don't go tying me up and doing weird shit to me and we're cool

[Invincible Summer]

I personally think it's odd and creepy, but I don't care if others want to do that stuff.

For those of you that enjoy it, what's the attraction?

[Stand Your Ground]

Not something I'm into, but I've never tried it, either. As for an opinion, it's just like any type of sexual practice; people can do whatever they want so long as it's consentual.
This. Me and my girl are pretty open to new sexual experiences, so we might give it a try sometime.

[Jazzratt]

Never tried it on any sort of major scale. A bit of kinky "play" here and there but that's it. Always wanted to give it a go though, sounds awesome and the (vast number of) videos and images I've seen in, ahem, research of the subject make it look very appealing.

[Spawn of Stalin]

I personally think it's odd and creepy, but I don't care if others want to do that stuff.

For those of you that enjoy it, what's the attraction?

Yeah, what is the attraction? I don't want to come across as rude or anything because I'm totally accepting of other people's preferences and stuff but BDSM is something I've never quite been able to get my head around. I like to have sex with women, not get eaten by them

[Os Cangaceiros]

I don't really think it's THAT hard to get you're head around. Some people like the feeling of having control taken away from them, of being submissive. Others like being in control, and being dominant.

Those dynamics exist in "normal sex" anyway, to some extent...BDSM just takes it to another level.

[Vendetta]

Not really my thing, but all the more power to those who like it.

[Angry Young Man]

It just seems like something you depend on when you're old enough to be bored by straight-up sex. I'm only 21 and I've only been active a year (bad, I know :( ), so I still get my fill just by making out and then putting the toad in the hole.
Plus I'm as egalitarian in the sheets as I am on the streets.

[Tablo]

Never tried any of that, but me and my ex got into mutilation for a short while. Was kinda fucked up, but I had never had such good sex in my life before that.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I've been thinking about starting a thread like this myself for a while, I'm glad somebody did. I've found "The Prehistory of Sex ; Four Million Years of Human Sexual Culture" by the British anthropologist Timothy Taylor is interesting in this regard. Despite the strange title its basically a refutation of sociobiology and the "essentialist" ideas of Gimbutas and others that Neolithic Europe was a sort of feminist utopia. Taylor brings up a theory that the 100s of neolithic female statues found though out Europe, thought to be representations of "the Goddess", may have actually been prehistoric porn. He also claims S&M gear have been found in Siberia dating back 12,000 years.The basic idea of TPOS is that "we are in control of ourselves and our destiny". Taylor's not a Marxist, AFAIK, but he seems pretty progressive.

Foucault in "The History of Sex" (I've only read parts of it) says that people's natural drives towards subbyness or dommyness (my terms) have been manipulated and "seduced" by ruling classes in a complex means of social control. Foucault himself was a dom. He knowingly gave AIDS to lots of people in SF gay bath houses in the 80s.

I've wondered if there is a Marxist theory of sexuality.

Yep, I'm a sub. There are way more subs than doms. I've struggled myself with how being submissive can fit in w/a project of human liberation.

[Saorsa]

Never tried any of that, but me and my ex got into mutilation for a short while

As in like cutting yourselves and shit? That sounds... scary :S

[Tablo]

As in like cutting yourselves and shit? That sounds... scary :S
Yep. It was a lot of fun for us. I wouldn't do it now as I don't want anymore scars.

[Pirate Utopian]

I've never done S&M or whatever. I'm willing to try alot but there is some freaky shit I wouldnt do.

Cutting yourself is definitely one of them. I saw something about people with a bloodfetish getting blood from eachother with big syringes on the TV once, not happening either.

[Saorsa]

Yep. It was a lot of fun for us. I wouldn't do it now as I don't want anymore scars.

Hey, I'm not judging you. If it feels good and it's between consenting adults it's none of my business.

Was it the pain itself that turned you on? Or something else?

[Die Rote Fahne]

It's none of my business if you like being smacked and treated like shit by hot, big breasted women.

Auto-erotic asphyxiation? Go for it. The guy from Kung Fu was cool.

But ya, what you and other adults choose to do in your bedroom/home is none of my business.

[Tablo]

Hey, I'm not judging you. If it feels good and it's between consenting adults it's none of my business.

Was it the pain itself that turned you on? Or something else?
We had a blood and pain fetish. It may sound weird, but the feeling of a razor cutting and the separating of my flesh is very, ummmm, pleasurable to me. We also liked drinking each others blood.. we were kinda weird, haha. So I guess I just liked pain and the taste of blood. It is funny because I'm relatively normal and no one expects me to have done weird shit like that. xD

Oh, we also liked having sex in public places, while hidden of course. We fucked in various parts of my school, in the mall, in parking garages, and just about anywhere you can think of.

[Crusade]

My girl likes biting me and wants me to bite her(never have), both to the point of blood coming out. She also wants to cut me with a razor like Tsu said a post above. I've tied her up before, but only for teasing sexually, I don't think I could intentionally draw blood from her, or "whip" her beyond my usual ass slapping. Surprisingly, I wouldn't mind her drawing blood from me or anything. But she REALLY wants me to do it to her so I don't know.

[Crusade]

Oh, we also liked having sex in public places, while hidden of course. We fucked in various parts of my school, in the mall, in parking garages, and just about anywhere you can think of.

My girl and I recently did it at a dollar show and we were the only ones there. I thought we were cool :( I guess not.

[BAM]

Foucault ... knowingly gave AIDS to lots of people in SF gay bath houses in the 80s.

He knowingly did so? Are you sure that's true?


I've wondered if there is a Marxist theory of sexuality.

I don't think there is.

[Saorsa]

My girl likes biting me... to the point of blood coming out. She also wants to cut me with a razor... she REALLY wants me to do it to her so I don't know.

You need to slip out of the house and start running.

[No pasarán]

I've had three girlfriends who were really submisve/ into rough sex... really, really into been bit, pinched, slapped, etc... but tbh never really did much for me? Still I liked the happy reaction sometimes.

[A.R.Amistad]

I noticed a lot of people here are open to it and are non judgmental, which is great and I'm glad everyone is so open minded, but I notice that a lot of you are asking "whats the appeal?" As a masochist, allow me to explain. BDSM is not for everyone. Its not a sexual perversion, or at least it doesn't have to be. Its not so much that I'm into the pain. I don't get turned on by being hurt. Thats not the point. Responsible BDSM practitioners respect and establish limits. I know some subs and even doms who don't like pain, only bondage and domination. Personally, I think pain should only be excercized to a "playful" level in a SM relationship. I just love the idea of the tables being changed, and its just reminds me that I am alive. Its just exotic. You feel alive because you know you can be dominted and "tortured" in a different way. And being dominated (in a safe, consensual way) is a good way of knowing how much you mean to your partner (and the same goes for the dom) Ive been in an abusive BDSM relationship. it only happens with those who know nothing about it and are novices who think they know something, or are just insecure. Like I sid BDSM requires a HIGH level of understanding and agreement.

Sartre has an interesting take on it:

Sartre argued that masochism is an attempt by the For-itself (consciousness) to reduce itself to nothing, becoming an object that is drowned out by the "abyss of the Other's subjectivity" [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadomasochism#cite_note-4). By this Sartre means that, given that the For-itself desires to attain a point of view in which it is both subject and object, one possible strategy is to gather and intensify every feeling and posture in which the self appears as an object to be rejected, tested, and humiliated; and in this way the For-itself strives toward a point of view in which there is only one subjectivity in the relationship, which would be both that of the abuser and the abused. Conversely, of course, Sartre held sadism to be the effort to annihilate the subjectivity of the victim. That means that the sadist is exhilarated by the emotional distress of the victim because they seek a subjectivity that views the victim as both subject and object.

[A.R.Amistad]

BTW, is anyone a male sub or a female domme out there?

[A.R.Amistad]

I've wondered if there is a Marxist theory of sexuality.

Not in the sense of making a judgement, thank goodness. He talks about it totally materialistically, and Engels doesn't make any moral judgements in Origins of the Family, State and Private Property. Marx isn't Freud.

[BAM]

Engels doesn't make any moral judgements in Origins of the Family, State and Private Property.

He does (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch02d.htm):


[Greek] men, who would have been ashamed to show any love for their wives, amused themselves by all sorts of love affairs with hetairai; but this degradation of the women was avenged on the men and degraded them also, till they fell into the abominable practice of sodomy and degraded alike their gods and themselves with the myth of Ganymede. My emph

[punisa]

Really interesting topic all toheather, thanks for sharing your kinks with us comrade Amistad.

BDSM is great fun.
I have tried it on many occasions.
I can't say that I belong into the specific culture, I'm more of a "monkey sees- monkey does" sort of guy :lol:
When I stumble on watching or reading on some cool kink, I usually wanna give it a try or two :p

As far as my experience goes, this is what I can report.
I had a girlfriend who "liked" it cause she "thought" us guys like it - tried it, a bit of fun, but not quite.

Then I was with a girl who was very into it, she basically studied it as one would study a subject. Now that was an amazing experience.
I got the chance to play both roles and I sincerely can't say which one I enjoyed more.

When I am dominant I really enjoy observing the person next to me, trying to push the limits and see how far she is willing to go.
Naturally, respecting the rules set before.
When I am sub - just as Amistad said - you feel this extraordinary passionate feeling that you are alive.
Its like a drug or something. Sure sexual stimulation is present, but it gets mixed with all sorts of emotions. All very pleasurable.

I love "classic" sex, but after some time of constant classic-ness, I get the urge to go beyond this - well, rather mechanical act.

Amistad, a question for you.
In your experiences, did you ever have a partner that preferred "emotional" domination over "physical"?
To remain polite, I won't go into the dirty details. But basically I was with a person who really enjoyed to be treated like that, sort of humiliated.
There was little or no pain involved in the process.

Dunno, maybe just a small example to clarify what I mean - she got very aroused and wanted me to tell her things like "you're breasts are rather small and other girls are hotter then you".
You get my point ? :cool:

As with my experience, I bet many others will conclude the same, BDSM and similar kink practitioners are usually very self confident people and tend to overlay hold progressive views.
This is the people I've met at least.

[A.R.Amistad]

For the record, I have only engaged in BDSM sex. I don't even know what conventional sex is! :laugh:

[A.R.Amistad]

You're welcome, everybody ;)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=472

[Weezer]

OK, comrades, I'm a bold one, so I'm gonna go where no other here has gone before. What are your views on BDSM and the BDSM subculture/lifestyle? I myself am a proud BDSM practitioner (strict submissive). Anyone else have any opinions, knowledge, etc. on the subject? I feel like engaging in a discsussion about it, and I never posed the subject to other leftists.

As much as respect I have for you comrade, I can't stand your fetish/lifestyle, but I cannot judge.

P.S. My parents don't like you calling/texting me. I'm afraid you can't anymore.

[deadmeat1471]

I think BDSM is a symtom of some level of mental distress. Its the same sort of sexual practice as a serial killers motives for killing. Not due to the sex act in itself but due to feelings of power or powerlessness with a mind encumbered by stress of some form.

[A.R.Amistad]

I think BDSM is a symtom of some level of mental distress. Its the same sort of sexual practice as a serial killers motives for killing. Not due to the sex act in itself but due to feelings of power or powerlessness with a mind encumbered by stress of some form.

I'm sorry but you are speaking about that which you know nothing about. Serial killers, rapists, etc. do not have the same sexual drive as people who engage in BDSM at all. BDSM is totally consensual. People with those sort of mental disorders are obsessed with non-consensual sex. They aren't into bondage, light torture, etc in the way BDSM practitioners are. They are actually into making people suffer, and any real person involved with or with knowledge of BDSM will tell you that part of the thrill of it is tht it is consensual. By consenting to be submissive or dominant, you not only gurantee a healthy BDSM relationship, you make it authentic and passionate. Rapists, serial killers and mental sadists engage in sex with no passion. BDSM practitioners are all about passion.

[deadmeat1471]

I'm sorry but you are speaking about that which you know nothing about. Serial killers, rapists, etc. do not have the same sexual drive as people who engage in BDSM at all. BDSM is totally consensual. People with those sort of mental disorders are obsessed with non-consensual sex. They aren't into bondage, light torture, etc in the way BDSM practitioners are. They are actually into making people suffer, and any real person involved with or with knowledge of BDSM will tell you that part of the thrill of it is tht it is consensual. By consenting to be submissive or dominant, you not only gurantee a healthy BDSM relationship, you make it authentic and passionate. Rapists, serial killers and mental sadists engage in sex with no passion. BDSM practitioners are all about passion.

I wasnt comparing them to Serial killers, i was comparing the 'odd' sexual needs to the 'odd' sexual needs of serial killers and other people with unusual needs.
I am in no way saying people into BDSM are or ever will be serial killers.

[A.R.Amistad]

I wasnt comparing them to Serial killers, i was comparing the 'odd' sexual needs to the 'odd' sexual needs of serial killers and other people with unusual needs.
I am in no way saying people into BDSM are or ever will be serial killers.

Yes, but you are implying that BDSM and sexual lifestyles and practices are results of emotional distress. But you are ignoring that the world of BDSM, and all sexual cultures in general, are variegated and are ill-perceived by common prejudices (for example: all masochists secretly hate themselves and all sadists are really people who had a bad childhood. All myths). There is no one type of person that is into BDSM. All sorts of people engage in it at various levels.

[deadmeat1471]

Yes, but you are implying that BDSM and sexual lifestyles and practices are results of emotional distress. But you are ignoring that the world of BDSM, and all sexual cultures in general, are variegated and are ill-perceived by common prejudices (for example: all masochists secretly hate themselves and all sadists are really people who had a bad childhood. All myths). There is no one type of person that is into BDSM. All sorts of people engage in it at various levels.

I posit that someone who wants sexual gratification by being dominant or submissive are missing substantially one or the other in their lives. To say it is a 'culture' does not detract from the fact that it is a abnormal (i use the word with no ill meaning) practice, which more often than not is a result of an emotional disfunction.

[A.R.Amistad]

I posit that someone who wants sexual gratification by being dominant or submissive are missing substantially one or the other in their lives. To say it is a 'culture' does not detract from the fact that it is a abnormal (i use the word with no ill meaning) practice, which more often than not is a result of an emotional disfunction.

Um, no with all due respect I think you are asserting your own morality. What is so "abnormal" about it? BDSM is actually relatively mainstream, its just that not as many people are open to talking about it. What constitutes "normal" sex? Isn't this the same bigoted rhetoric that homophobes use, that homosexuality is "abnormal?"

[deadmeat1471]

Um, no with all due respect I think you are sserting your own morality. What is so "abnormal" about it? BDSM is actually relatively mainstream, its just that not as many people are open to talking about it. What constitutes "normal" sex? Isn't this the same bigoted rhetoric that homophobes use, that homosexuality is "abnormal?"

I used the word abnormal expecting an emotional response, which is why i explained i meant it not as an insult.
I used the word abnormal in a psychological sense, which it is. That doesn't make it good or bad, and my morality doesn't have any issue with BDSM.

Not being bigoted, also i'd like to add their are many behaviors which would be considered abnormal, very few people are what would be considered psychologically 'normal' in every way. Only a very high quantity of abnormal qualities would make a person be even considered mentally ill.

You misunderstood what I meant, I was only saying that I think it is a result of something missing in peoples lives - to put it in a nicer way.

[A.R.Amistad]

I used the word abnormal expecting an emotional response, which is why i explained i meant it not as an insult.
I used the word abnormal in a psychological sense, which it is. That doesn't make it good or bad, and my morality doesn't have any issue with BDSM.

Not being bigoted, also i'd like to add their are many behaviors which would be considered abnormal, very few people are what would be considered psychologically 'normal' in every way. Only a very high quantity of abnormal qualities would make a person be even considered mentally ill.

You misunderstood what I meant, I was only saying that I think it is a result of something missing in peoples lives - to put it in a nicer way.

Fair enough. I am not insulted, or at least I think I catch your drift. But psychologically put I still don't think it's an "abomination" and I know from personal experience that there is no one cause for people's BDSM interests. I think this person put it really well:


I don't really think it's THAT hard to get you're head around. Some people like the feeling of having control taken away from them, of being submissive. Others like being in control, and being dominant.

Those dynamics exist in "normal sex" anyway, to some extent...BDSM just takes it to another level.

Elements that BDSM embraces exist already in "conventional" sex and all sorts of sex. The concepts aren't particular to BDSM, BDSM just highlights them in a unique way, so really I don't think BDSM, psychologically, is any different than "conventional" sex.

[punisa]

I used the word abnormal expecting an emotional response, which is why i explained i meant it not as an insult.
I used the word abnormal in a psychological sense, which it is. That doesn't make it good or bad, and my morality doesn't have any issue with BDSM.

Not being bigoted, also i'd like to add their are many behaviors which would be considered abnormal, very few people are what would be considered psychologically 'normal' in every way. Only a very high quantity of abnormal qualities would make a person be even considered mentally ill.

You misunderstood what I meant, I was only saying that I think it is a result of something missing in peoples lives - to put it in a nicer way.

The way I see it my friend, everything you mention here is just a nice way to tame down this comment:


I think BDSM is a symtom of some level of mental distress. Its the same sort of sexual practice as a serial killers motives for killing. Not due to the sex act in itself but due to feelings of power or powerlessness with a mind encumbered by stress of some form.

..which is deeply incorrect.

I don't blame you, but perhaps the sources you've been reading up.
Motivation for killing and for sexual "deviations" such as BDSM (and many others) is diametrically different.

Misconceptions usually arise from early 20th century / late 19th century psychology which was still very dominated by a conservative patriarch society.

Although not sex related, I'd suggest to everyone a book by Erich Fromm - "anatomy of human destructiveness" (1973.)
- http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Human-Destructiveness-Erich-Fromm/dp/080501604X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1273913597&sr=8-1

Fromm clearly distinguished a passion for love (life) and a passion for necrophilia (death), interesting read and quite updated concepts.

The only thing I would ever consider abnormal in sex is if you somehow "force" your views upon me, everything else is pretty healthy and very normal.
Nobody has the right to call some act normal or abnormal, unless you are a devoted Christian, Muslim or some other religious person who views sex as something needed only to procreate.
This seems abnormal to me..

Majority of people have a huge array of sexual fantasies, but its shocking to discover that a large percentage takes these to their graves. really sad stuff if you ask me.

Bottom line - sex in any form is an act of pleasure - killing is always an act of aggression. These are two different terms and do not belong in the same topic.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Elements that BDSM embraces exist already in "conventional" sex and all sorts of sex. The concepts aren't particular to BDSM, BDSM just highlights them in a unique way, so really I don't think BDSM, psychologically, is any different than "conventional" sex.

Though of course this also reflects the fact that "conventional sex" is incredibly boring.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I like the look of some of the outfits and accessories, but I would be more apprehensive about the whole sub/dom thing. I'm not sure where or if I would fit in either role.

[A.R.Amistad]

I like the look of some of the outfits and accessories, but I would be more apprehensive about the whole sub/dom thing. I'm not sure where or if I would fit in either role.
There are switches, its not strict. lso, If you are curious, don't rush into it. It takes "training" to become fully comfortable with it. Not everyone engages in BDSM in the sme way or level.

[Sentinel]

BTW, is anyone a male sub or a female domme out there?


The former. I haven't had sex with a man willing to try the more advanced stuff yet though, but definitely mean to sooner or later.

[Robocommie]

Yep, I'm a sub. There are way more subs than doms. I've struggled myself with how being submissive can fit in w/a project of human liberation.

Similarly, I've struggled with whether or not being a dom makes me a total hypocrite as a Marxist, but when I really think about it, I think it's a non-issue. It's all a game.

And actually, as I was talking to an ex-girlfriend once about the subject, when BDSM is done right (ie, responsibly) the subs in truth have more power because they can set the limits and call it off at any time.

[A.R.Amistad]

Similarly, I've struggled with whether or not being a dom makes me a total hypocrite as a Marxist, but when I really think about it, I think it's a non-issue. It's all a game.

And actually, as I was talking to an ex-girlfriend once about the subject, when BDSM is done right (ie, responsibly) the subs in truth have more power because they can set the limits and call it off at any time.

The power dynamic in BDSM is an illusion. In reality, the domme is not in any more control of the situation than the sub. The sub is sometimes said to be in more control, but I don't think this is so, or should be the case. Healthy BDSM relationships are egalitarian in essence. The submissive has chosen to be a submissive, and the domme has chosen to be a domme as well. Being into BDSM doesn't mean you are a chauvanist, a sadist or a willing slave in society. Like I said, its all an illusion of any sort of sexua inequality. Arguably, people who engage consciously in BDSM have a greater sense of equaloty in a relationship because BDSM requires so much consciousness of the other to be successful.

[gorillafuck]

Arguably, people who engage consciously in BDSM have a greater sense of equaloty in a relationship because BDSM requires so much consciousness of the other to be successful.
I see how bdsm is equal but saying people who do it have a greater sense of equality in a relationship is a stretch.

[al8]

It is o.k to call BDSM abnormal, because it is. It is not something that is or shouldn't be normal conversation even - it should be a taboo. Or acceptable in normal circumstances. It is exactly that which conveys such a strong demarcation of intimacy when people engage in it together. It is appropriate in those settings not others. Sex is supposed to be a deviation from normal every-day mode of behaving. So there is no contradiction in being a Marxist and then change into something uncharacteristic in ones sex life.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

There is no such thing as "normal". I can't help thinking of the Marx quote "Nothing human is alien to me". We're thinking animals and, by definition, human sexuality has always been infinitely diverse. There's evidence of s/m gear in Siberia 12,000 years ago.

The motto of the BDSM "fetish scene" is SSC "safe, sane, and consensual". There is an ethic of responsibility and caring.In the early Gor novels, hack writing but interesting, the dom is concerned with every detail of his sub. This looks like oppression but is a two way voluntary power exchange, rooted in caring.

I think these drives can become oppressive, drawn into "narratives of oppression" in Foucault speak but it doesn't have to be this way. We can reclaim all types of sexuality and use it for our own liberation.

[S.Artesian]

T
The motto of the BDSM "fetish scene" is SSC "safe, sane, and consensual". There is an ethic of responsibility and caring.In the early Gor novels, hack writing but interesting, the dom is concerned with every detail of his sub. This looks like oppression but is a two way voluntary power exchange, rooted in caring.



Sounds like displaced infantilism to me, as the parent/child relationship can be both oppressive and caring, and usually is.

I don't know when we're talking about need we should be talking about "voluntary."

My own view? Pretty well summed up by W.H. Auden: "The passions of the human heart are as twisted as a corkscrew." And he was one to know.

Actions between consenting adults are mostly OK with me, except for necrophilia.

[Robocommie]

Actions between consenting adults are mostly OK with me, except for necrophilia.

Can you consent if you're dead? :lol:

[S.Artesian]

That was kind of the point. Supposed to be a joke.

[Chambered Word]

Can you consent if you're dead? :lol:

Who's going to tell the cops though? :cool:

[scarletghoul]

Necrophilia isn't illegal in a lot of places, including many US states. It was only outlawed in the UK a few years ago too.

just thought i'd drop that in there

[eyedrop]

Necrophilia isn't illegal in a lot of places, including many US states. It was only outlawed in the UK a few years ago too.

just thought i'd drop that in there

Are there any legal ways to get hold of corpses though? Unless you're a med student.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Or an Egyptologist. But then of course, there's the age difference.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I do have a thing for older men but then again, I came of age during the Clinton Administration and we're talking what...the reign of Thutmose V?


I have read somewhere that as part of the mummification process the Egyptian embalmers used to pull the brain tissue out from the nose. This is too bad, I always like aguy with some brains.

[Robocommie]

That was kind of the point. Supposed to be a joke.

Sam B mode: Jokes are supposed to be funny! ;)

[A.R.Amistad]

It is o.k to call BDSM abnormal, because it is. It is not something that is or shouldn't be normal conversation even - it should be a taboo. Or acceptable in normal circumstances. It is exactly that which conveys such a strong demarcation of intimacy when people engage in it together. It is appropriate in those settings not others. Sex is supposed to be a deviation from normal every-day mode of behaving. So there is no contradiction in being a Marxist and then change into something uncharacteristic in ones sex life.

Sex should be taboo? Don't you feel like Pat Robertson saying this?

[A.R.Amistad]

I see how bdsm is equal but saying people who do it have a greater sense of equality in a relationship is a stretch.

People who have more confidence in their relationship lead a more respectful and egalitarian relationship. Those who don't are usually insecure and shy about their sexuality with one another because they don't see each other as equal, and don't trust each other. BDSM requires full trust and confidence, and therefore requires a secure relationship to work.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It was only outlawed in the UK a few years ago too.

Did that have a chilling effect on your love life? ;)

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Sounds like displaced infantilism to me, as the parent/child relationship can be both oppressive and caring, and usually is.

Actions between consenting adults are mostly OK with me, except for necrophilia.



Necrophilia isn't illegal in a lot of places, including many US states. It was only outlawed in the UK a few years ago too.


Are there any legal ways to get hold of corpses though? Unless you're a med student.


Or an Egyptologist

I want my Mummy!

[A.R.Amistad]

I want my Mummy!

You have just successfully combined incest with necrophilia :laugh::laugh::laugh:

[gorillafuck]

Necrophilia jokes are fucking weird.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

They get old. Especially necrophilia and BDSM. Its kind of like beating a dead horse.

[Chambered Word]

They get old. Especially necrophilia and BDSM. Its kind of like beating a dead horse.

Necrophilia and bestiality. You're on fire, comrade. :lol:

[al8]

Sex should be taboo? Don't you feel like Pat Robertson saying this?

No, he is quite open about sex. But he pontificates publicly about deeply private matters in a reactionary way. The thing is too guard discussion with taboos and strictures so as to maintain the normal place of sex and its intimate denotation. Pat Robertson does not observe proper strictures and taboos. Pat Robertson is also an incorrect extremist and religious deviant - so everything he says is more or less mangled and obfuscatory no matter what the subject. As a religious man and servant to the capitalists he should shut up or have his tongue cut out.

[Chambered Word]

No, he is quite open about sex. But he pontificates publicly about deeply private matters in a reactionary way. The thing is too guard discussion with taboos and strictures so as to maintain the normal place of sex and its intimate denotation. Pat Robertson does not observe proper strictures and taboos. Pat Robertson is also an incorrect extremist and religious deviant - so everything he says is more or less mangled and obfuscatory no matter what the subject. As a religious man and servant to the capitalists he should shut up or have his tongue cut out.

The Far-Left: for freedom of sexuality and choice...as long as sex is intimate and with someone you are emotionally attached to. :rolleyes:

[Jazzratt]

No, he is quite open about sex. But he pontificates publicly about deeply private matters in a reactionary way. The thing is too guard discussion with taboos and strictures so as to maintain the normal place of sex and its intimate denotation. Pat Robertson does not observe proper strictures and taboos. Pat Robertson is also an incorrect extremist and religious deviant - so everything he says is more or less mangled and obfuscatory no matter what the subject. As a religious man and servant to the capitalists he should shut up or have his tongue cut out.

You're weird, mate.

[al8]

The Far-Left: for freedom of sexuality and choice...as long as sex is intimate and with someone you are emotionally attached to. :rolleyes:

Have I spoken my mind fully?

Fine sounding decontextual slogans don't amount to much. The devil is in the details and when you get to the nitty gritty of it - there are lots of quite sensible taboos and strictures around sex and human behavior in general. There is a time and place for sex, sex descussions etc.

One of the biggest disasters I've seen are lefty feminists who want to talk openly about sex in a public and hostlile setting - starting it off, as usual, with insensitive slurs against the private and personal matters of males. Fruitful and open discussions did not ensue.

[Jazzratt]

Fine sounding decontextual slogans don't amount to much. The devil is in the details and when you get to the nitty gritty of it - there are lots of quite sensible taboos and strictures around sex and human behavior in general. There is a time and place for sex, sex descussions etc.

I'd like to know what these "quite sensible taboos and strictures" are because the only ones I've encountered have been quite arbitrary and limiting. There really isn't any harm in frank, demystified discussion of sex and sexual practices and limits placed on them always seem to have their basis in odd morality systems.


One of the biggest disasters I've seen are lefty feminists who want to talk openly about sex in a public and hostlile setting - starting it off, as usual, with insensitive slurs against the private and personal matters of males. Fruitful and open discussions did not ensue.

I can honsetly say I've never ha personal experience of what you're talking about. Did a feminist say you have a very small willy or something? I'm completely at a loss to what "insensitive slurs against the private and personal matters of males" entail.

[al8]

I'd like to know what these "quite sensible taboos and strictures" are because the only ones I've encountered have been quite arbitrary and limiting. There really isn't any harm in frank, demystified discussion of sex and sexual practices and limits placed on them always seem to have their basis in odd morality systems.

It is an in-group out-group thing. Sexual acts are simply certain markers for levels of intimacy and closeness. Talking about sex just as making crass jokes about sexual matters are markers of intimacy. Fx. rude jokes about sex are funny or accepted in a friend group (or a group that strives to be a friend group) and marks the intimacy level and closeness the members of that group have amongst each other. If it is not accepted it is because there is not closeness to that specific degree in the group. There are numerous social cues to mark these statuses, social standings and relations. Those social cues are more than words, they are short hand signals that are hard to fake and have instant emotive appeal. Explaining them with long informative speaches sometimes defeats their purpose and is annoying.
That is why there are taboos and strictures - they vary slightly; so it is sometimes up to dicussions and working agreement between social agents what social cues are appropriate to what intimacy level at what time. But they are still quite often uniform. So two prospective lovers decide if they hold hands, kiss or progress towards other social cues denoting more intimacy or less.



I can honsetly say I've never ha personal experience of what you're talking about. Did a feminist say you have a very small willy or something? I'm completely at a loss to what "insensitive slurs against the private and personal matters of males" entail.

Hehe, no - it was even more silly than that. It was a male sex/porn-negative feminist rileing some harpies up into a hysteria about the evil male masturbators that consume the cultural products of the american mainstream hetero porn industry, specifcally rough porn. His tactics were so deviously crooket I don't think I can explain it in detail in any concise manner. Anyhow his contention was that the porn industry objectifies women and exploits them, which isn't all true btw. It is exacty because these women aren't objects that make them so sexy to men to view. Else common houshold appliences could become pornstars, which simply does not happen. It is men in the industry that are made into de-personalized semi-objects (that get less pay as well than women) - quite naturally since they are meant to be nautral avatars. His second contention was that porn freed up men from being properly dependent upon normal women. To top it, a man who tryed to point to the wider-exploitation of all laborers (a valid point) got clapped down by a group of exctaticly angry women incuraged by this male feminist lecturer, before he could finish his point. In this sort of hostile atmosphere this idiot feminist expected, starting out with attacks, slander and devious lies, a discussion where males would open up and talk frankly about intimate matters regarding male sexuality -- that are really only spoken of in intimate settings with trustworthy and sensitive persons. I.E. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! Basically the lecturer was a Gleen Beck version of a feminists - "just asking questions" but actually leveling shamelss and false accusations.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

It is an in-group out-group thing. Sexual acts are simply certain markers for levels of intimacy and closeness. Talking about sex just as making crass jokes about sexual matters are markers of intimacy. Fx. rude jokes about sex are funny or accepted in a friend group (or a group that strives to be a friend group) and marks the intimacy level and closeness the members of that group have amongst each other. If it is not accepted it is because there is not closeness to that specific degree in the group. There are numerous social cues to mark these statuses, social standings and relations. Those social cues are more than words, they are short hand signals that are hard to fake and have instant emotive appeal. Explaining them with long informative speaches sometimes defeats their purpose and is annoying.
That is why there are taboos and strictures - they vary slightly; so it is sometimes up to dicussions and working agreement between social agents what social cues are appropriate to what intimacy level at what time. But they are still quite often uniform. So two prospective lovers decide if they hold hands, kiss or progress towards other social cues denoting more intimacy or less.

I think I see what you mean, but those standards arose in face-to-face conditions, and vary from culture to culture.

But the internet provides a degree of anonymity - most people won't go to the trouble of finding out who other people on the internet really are. So, one can be more frank with a much reduced risk of embarassing themselves.


Hehe, no - it was even more silly than that. It was a male sex/porn-negative feminist rileing some harpies up into a hysteria about the evil male masturbators that consume the cultural products of the american mainstream hetero porn industry, specifcally rough porn. His tactics were so deviously crooket I don't think I can explain it in detail in any concise manner. Anyhow his contention was that the porn industry objectifies women and exploits them, which isn't all true btw. It is exacty because these women aren't objects that make them so sexy to men to view. Else common houshold appliences could become pornstars, which simply does not happen.

I agree that kind of talk can be tiresome, but looking at some porn I can understand why someone would come to that conclusion.


It is men in the industry that are made into de-personalized semi-objects (that get less pay as well than women) - quite naturally since they are meant to be nautral avatars. His second contention was that porn freed up men from being properly dependent upon normal women.

Porn actresses aren't "normal", according to him?


To top it, a man who tryed to point to the wider-exploitation of all laborers (a valid point) got clapped down by a group of exctaticly angry women incuraged by this male feminist lecturer, before he could finish his point. In this sort of hostile atmosphere this idiot feminist expected, starting out with attacks, slander and devious lies, a discussion where males would open up and talk frankly about intimate matters regarding male sexuality -- that are really only spoken of in intimate settings with trustworthy and sensitive persons. I.E. NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! Basically the lecturer was a Gleen Beck version of a feminists - "just asking questions" but actually leveling shamelss and false accusations.

Well, one can hardly be expected to talk about intimate matters in such a hostile context. But I don't think this thread is hostile, do you?

[gorillafuck]

No, he is quite open about sex. But he pontificates publicly about deeply private matters in a reactionary way. The thing is too guard discussion with taboos and strictures so as to maintain the normal place of sex and its intimate denotation. Pat Robertson does not observe proper strictures and taboos. Pat Robertson is also an incorrect extremist and religious deviant - so everything he says is more or less mangled and obfuscatory no matter what the subject. As a religious man and servant to the capitalists he should shut up or have his tongue cut out.
Who else besides me has absolutely no idea what this post means?

[Foldered]

One of the biggest disasters I've seen are lefty feminists who want to talk openly about sex in a public and hostlile setting - starting it off, as usual, with insensitive slurs against the private and personal matters of males. Fruitful and open discussions did not ensue.
Of course they didn't, that's more of a matter of social respect as opposed to discussing taboo subjects openly.
I mean, I've talked about some very "off limits" things in settings that would be surprising to most; there is a way to do it.

[A.J.]

My understanding is that men who had a lot of Female authority figures in early childhood tend to end up as submissives.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

My understanding is that men who had a lot of Female authority figures in early childhood tend to end up as submissives.

Oh no, not the pseudo-psychological categorisation tricks!

[eyedrop]

Oh no, not the pseudo-psychological categorisation tricks!
If we should play that game, I always thought it was men in strong authority positions that were the stereotypical submissive.

Would sex where one partner takes the leading/dominant role qualify as BSDM, or do you need the toys, leather, insults and humiliation for it to be called BSDM?

[A.J.]

Oh no, not the pseudo-psychological categorisation tricks!

When I was a small child I came to associate female attention with physical punishment. A skelped arse to be precise.

It was sort of an incentive to be bad.

And the rest is history. ;)

[A.J.]

If we should play that game, I always thought it was men in strong authority positions that were the stereotypical submissive.

Would sex where one partner takes the leading/dominant role qualify as BSDM, or do you need the toys, leather, insults and humiliation for it to be called BSDM?

If the former is the case then surely all sex is BDSM?

[eyedrop]

If the former is the case then surely all sex is BDSM? Nah, there's still plenty of sex which doesn't entail dominant and submissive roles.

[black magick hustla]

you people are crazy. the only bdsm people i know are crazy as in emotional tsunamis

[4 Leaf Clover]

i hate that shit , i really dont see the pleasure , dont know , im kinda sophisticated type

but , ouch man , you really want to be spanked in sex , lol :lol:

[A.R.Amistad]

but , ouch man , you really want to be spanked in sex , lol :lol:

Yes. I do. :tt1:

[gorillafuck]

People who have more confidence in their relationship lead a more respectful and egalitarian relationship. Those who don't are usually insecure and shy about their sexuality with one another because they don't see each other as equal, and don't trust each other.
I really don't see how you equated insecurity and shyness with not seeing your partner as equal.

If I was in a relationship that was very egalitarian, I would still find BDSM to be something that I don't like the idea of doing.


BDSM requires full trust and confidence, and therefore requires a secure relationship to work.That I don't doubt.

[Chambered Word]

When I was a small child I came to associate female attention with physical punishment. A skelped arse to be precise.

It was sort of an incentive to be bad.

And the rest is history. ;)

:lol: