Sexuality and Paraphilias...

Luke:

     Sorry that you see that *I* had 'created' a...PROBLEM (not sure exactly for whom, but...I'll go no further down that line.)

     Thought that I was pointing one out for others to consider. Obviously, you disagree.

     ONE use of the term 'children'...and the bonfire starts. Obviously, the term should be anathema...to the thread's title.

     Thank you for correcting...me...to others.

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 3/03, 8:17pm)

Post 21

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 8:16pm

Sorry, John.

Now I'm really confused.

You're nitpicking because I used the word "children", but "legally defined minors" never came into the discussion by any of the others, either. No one was talking about infants, toddlers, preschoolers, preteens, high schoolers, or any other type of "legally defined minor." (Did I cover all the bases? There's been a lot of discussion lately about unborn fetuses, too...so maybe I should add them as well.)

No one was thinking of them, no was mentioning them...until you did. That was my point. And then you said,

I do hope that we're all keeping in mind here that what we, here, publicly 'advocate' as morally allowable re legal-minors (most prefer to use the terms 'children' or 'kids'), we are advocating that *we* would DO/ALLOW such, re our own...legal-minors.

And my reaction was, "Huh? When the hell did anyone say that??"
Which is why I asked why you had that impression. That's all.
No, wait, that's not all.
I also mentioned, in the following post#14, the fact that this is hardly a fetish site openly advocating anything, legal or illegal.

I repeat, John: (correction for Ted K.'s benefit :-)

Why are you so worried?

Please help me understand your concerns better.

Erica

Edit: I wrote this before you posted, John.

Also, the word "children" did not set me off. (I'm no genius like Luke, but I'm not that simple, either, thank-you.)
In my mind, "legally defined minors" and "children" meant the same thing for purposes of this discussion. But if you are now wanting to drop this, then disregard my plea for further clarification...and let this thread become officially un-hijacked. Works for me.

(Edited by Erica Schulz on 3/03, 8:23pm)

Post 22

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 8:21pm

Yahoo! has an entire listing of fetishes at

http://members.yahoo.com/Romance___Relationships/Adult/Fetishes/

which includes Furries and many others. I do not see any efforts being made to shut down this particular site.

Post 23

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 8:21pm

The word infant is only unclear to those who chose to use words they cannot define. It comes from the Latin infans un-speaking and refers specifically to those from birth to 18 mo. or so, when speech usually begins. Disabled older children who do not speak are not infants but rather are disabled. That is, the term, while derived from the ability, now describes a class based on age alone, and is not unclear in any pediatric sense.

This is one reason why I believe that all English speakers should be required to study at least one additional modern and one classical language. Understanding the Greek or the Latin or even the IE roots of a word makes it so much harder to enage in sloppy thinking. Come to think of it, Rand spoke at least four tongues. Indeed, knowing only one's mother tongue is a form of infantilization.

Ted Keer

Post 24

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 8:23pm

Erica:

     I'm sorry to have caused you confusion, but, methinks anymore I have to say here will...probably only cause more.
     *I* have no prob with the term 'children' other than it's not necessarily what *I* had meant when *I* used the term Legal-Minor.
      It's others that have a prob with the term (which *I* was accused of as 'dragging in')...as was clearly specified to me in this thread.
      I have no more to say about any of this...in THIS thread.
Bye, all. See ya elsewhere.

LLAP
J:D

Post 25

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 8:30pm

John:

Read my edit to post#21.

And please stop insisting that everyone else simply reacted emotionally to a specific word, and that was the real issue. It wasn't. Trust me. (And it's a little insulting for you to keep saying so.)

Erica

(sorry, all...back to your discussion...)

Post 26

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 8:41pm

Ted,

"This is one reason why I believe that all English speakers should be required to study at least one additional modern and one classical language. Understanding the Greek or the Latin or even the IE roots of a word makes it so much harder to enage in sloppy thinking."

"English" speakers only should be "required" to study other languages? By whom? As adults? During the period and children when we are "wired" to acquire language? As a job requirement? As a prerequisite for voting?

I would rather "require" all adults to master the basics of the PE exam so they understood basic physics, civil, mechanical and electrical engineering. Lacking the basic understanding of these fields definitely results in sloppy thinking, i.e. "global warming".

Post 27

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 8:48pm

Well, this list sure is going �jot and jevi!

I think the most erotic and, at the time, scandalous film I have ever seen is Pedro Almod�var's ��tame! or "Tie me up, Tie me Down" with Antonio Banderas and Victoria Abril. It is about and ex-junky porno actress filming a slasher flick for a priapic paraplegic ex-porno director. She is kidnapped and raped (a la Fountainhead) by a lunatic asylum escapee who had met her once for a one night fling. In one scene, before the kidnapping, the heroine pleasures herself with a bath toy.

At some point during the kidnapping, the hero goes to leave, and the "victim" reminds him to "tie her up." Another seen that steals the film is a simple Spanish dance by the set manager where the director, like a dog after a bitch in heat, follows behind her in his wheel-chair.

This is one of the most sexy and brilliant (in the senses of both thought and color) movies I have ever seen, and I have purchased it for many friends, and recommend it unreservedly.

Ted Keer

Post 28

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 8:55pm

Required by their parents, Mike, in the same sense that their parents should require them to master multiplication, in order to be fully realized human beings. It is never too late to start though. Objectivists are used to using such terms without having to recourse to the state to enforce them, and I am no Prussian, just 1/8th Bavarian.

The psycho-epistemological benefits of learning a second language include coming to understand your first language as a vehical for thought, not just a bodily function. Clear thought makes it unnecessary to get a science degree to recognize fallacies and demagoguery. But one can't gradute high school in NJ without passing basic algebra, two years of a lanuage, and two years of science.

Ted

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 3/03, 9:01pm)

Post 29

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 9:12pm

Bridget had a legitimate question that got lost in the resulting fire-storm.

I�ll paraphrase it:

How do we go about distinguishing a particular liking for an activity (sexual or otherwise) from bad, unhealthy or obsessive interests?

Bridget, that�ll teach you to phrase questions in a more general fashion so as to not set the population agog with images of strange furry doings J If you do that many will become agitated, excited or angry and then lose their way.

Post 30

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 9:20pm

What I want to know is, since I am in bed with my chronic condition, and have an excuse, what are the rest of you doing here posting when you could be out boinking?

As for the answer to the question, can you actually enjoy sex with a stable partner? Are you not paying your bills, harming your health, losing sleep, finding other joys and necessities going unfulfilled?

I don't think there are special criteria, sex or no. All one's pursuits must be examined in accord with your special nature, (which for some of us requires more work than for others,) but be integrated into your full human nature. Career, Romance, Friendship, Family, Hobbies - if you have them, and sleep well at night, congratulations, you are a happy person.

Ted Keer

Post 31

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 9:54pm

What I want to know is, since I am in bed with my chronic condition, and have an excuse, what are the rest of you doing here posting when you could be out boinking? (Ted Keer)

Hey!...You're not the only one with an excuse. My boink buddy lives 400 miles away...:-)

Seriously, though,

Steve Wolfer said,

Bridget had a legitimate question that got lost in the resulting fire-storm.

While I agree with Steve's point wholeheartedly, I not sure about the term "firestorm"...I thought only John D. felt it was that explosive...he went all paranoid on us, we asked him why, and he picked up his toys and went home. Unfortunate, yes, but a firestorm? Nah...I've definitely seen worse on this forum. :-)

Erica

P.S. I would very much like to see people start to address Bridget's original question, as well.

Post 32

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 10:08pm

I did answer, so far as a prude like myself can, in post 30 and somewhat before. I want to hear from other people. I think my criteria are what matter, and again, I deny that the question, just because it is sexual, has a unique urgency.

At the pharmacy the other night, I watched a gambling addict pester the lotto clerk like a junky begging for a fix. I know people who spend all their money on shoes. I think the question is one of balance within one's overall life, and the fulfillment of one's special needs. As I have said before (on the serial killer thread - remember) some people have natures which vary from the norm. They have to work harder to know themselves, and lacking traditional models, to integrate their needs. Reason and philosophy and a willingness to admit the truth about your self to yourself will address any problems. I have mentioned my kinky adventures, and my favorite erotica. Lets see some jpgs, hear some reminiscences, read some reviews.

I am tired of carrying this thread alone, and think the rest of you are just shy.

Ted

Post 33

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 10:55pm

Ted says,

"I deny that the question, just because it is sexual, has a unique urgency."

All things that have carried the label of "sin" - especially sex - acquire a special psychological intensity for anyone who accused of , or worried about, their moral status or normality. In our culture to be different - out of step with the conforming majority is bad enough- but to be sexually different is much more intense.

And, as if that weren't enough, sex comes (no pun intended) with a built-in urgency as the biological drive serving the continuation of the species. It has certainly been powerful enough such that every single one of the billions of people alive today has an unbroken string of ancestors stretching back to the earliest life on the planet. Not a single one of your ancestors, or theirs, failed to successfully couple. (Got that image from one of Dawkins books)

I'd say that any issue of sexual deviancy (ala Christian customs) combined in our psyche with that built in life-sustaining, energizing-bunny power-source called sex is significant.

Having said all of that, I do agree that obsession is a general purpose mechanism. It isn't at all limited to sexual content. And sex-related obsessions are not any more intense or debilitating in their effect. Still, I'll bet anyone, any time, that more people felt worries or had questions about sexual normalcy than anything else.

And if I might point out, Bridget's question said "...an activity sexual or otherwise..." {emphasis added}

Erica, "firestorm" was poorly chosen word - I just meant a flurry of rapid activity, much of it showing a fair amount of agitation, and very little having anything to do with the question.

Post 34

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 11:26pm

Having picked on Ted's last post, I think he gave a good answer earlier:

As for the answer to the question, can you actually enjoy sex with a stable partner? Are you not paying your bills, harming your health, losing sleep, finding other joys and necessities going unfulfilled?

I don't think there are special criteria, sex or no. All one's pursuits must be examined in accord with your special nature, (which for some of us requires more work than for others,) but be integrated into your full human nature. Career, Romance, Friendship, Family, Hobbies - if you have them, and sleep well at night, congratulations, you are a happy person.

I disagree with aspects of the concept of "special nature" as a standard for evaluation - but we have had that discussion. And I would look at one's pursuits in terms of their purpose in one's life and the results (what are you thinking you want? Is that what you're getting?).

Luke mentioned some things earlier as well:

"...provided [sexual activity] remains voluntary and respects the lives and wellness of the participants..." and that a persons life not become so involved with the sexual activity that they are robbed of the chance of actualizing their "...full potential for flourishing..."

There are lots of issues involved: What is bad, what is psychologically unhealthy, what constitues an obsession (these not the same things).

I'd add to the list of rules-of-thumb: Do nothing that humiliates another person or let oneself be humiliated - those actions, or even desires, are indicators of an internal struggle with self-worth and should be worked on - it would be an issue that will be good to resolve.

Same goes with a desire to create or recieve pain. That is evidence of an underlying issue that would reward the person for the time and effort to resolve it as well.

Obsessions are more complex to explain (beyond the rules-of-thumb Ted and Luke gave about balance and not 'being locked' into patterns that keeps a person for moving for their potential). Obsessions are about fear and self-maintained blindness.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 3/03, 11:33pm)

Post 35

Saturday, March 3, 2007 - 11:48pm

Well, being trans-gendered or homosexual does seem to me to be distinguishing enough to speak of a special nature, especially that within Rand's Objectivism there was no room for either. For special, one can substitute "specific" or personal nature. imagine living in a tribe of thirty, and being the only transgender-oriented person you ever encounter. There is no handbook - what do you do? Introspect, experiment, adapt.

As for my big five values, they are all implicitly lifelong, so I did not feel the need to mention that in following them one should examine one's life-goals. I see them as co-extensive.

Other than your nurturing perspective and my combative one, I think we are essentially in agreement.

Oh, and believe me, I have never seen sex addiction take on the allconsumingpower of the drive of that poor lottomaniacally obsessed addict. We ended up on the same train a few minutes later, and the shame with which he averted his eyes from mine was indeed - sexual.

Ted Keer

Oh, and again, out with it people. Is Steve's paraphilia counselling? I want to hear confessionals or, at least anecdotes. You are all so Victorian!

Post 36

Sunday, March 4, 2007 - 12:54am

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 3/04, 1:10am)

Post 37

Sunday, March 4, 2007 - 6:12am

Whoa, talk about turning a benign a chemical into a volatile catalyst. O_O

-- Bridget

Post 38

Sunday, March 4, 2007 - 6:31am

Let's talk about the really good stuff. REAL 'fetishes.' -> Anyone seen Cronenberg's '97 car-crumpling orgasmic CRASH ( Spader, Winona and Arquette) or Lynch's '93 foreplay-filled amputee-fantasy BOXING HELENA (Sands and Fenn)?

Oh, gawd, John,

That (CRASH) was THE worst movie I've ever ejected from the VCR in the middle of. Horrible, just horrible.

Post 39

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - 12:01am