My feelings about any porn -- no matter how degrading *or* sweet and fluffy -- are that as long as no one is coerced or hurt in its creation, the consumers have the right to enjoy whatever they like, so long as they do it where I don't have to see it. My kinks are horrifying to some people; some people's kinks horrify me
( ... )
Since I share most of the stance you've written here, I really can't argue. ^_^ I freely admit to having lifted the ideas about there being a difference between fantasy and reality from your journal, by the way.
Something you said does make me wonder about the existence of kinks *only* in a fictionalized form, e.g. chan. Not that there isn't real life chan, but I think a lot of people only like the fictionalized version, and now I'm wondering why.
There's no such thing as lifting ideas. Using and restating them, yes.
Real life chan is morally reprehensible. Making photographic/video chan would be illegal, child abuse and child porn; faux chan is 'barely legal' whatever. I know there are lots of people who *do* like that. I'm just not one of them.
True, but the interwebs is a small place, and crediting your sources is a general good idea.
I'm right there with you, believe me. I'm just wondering *why*. What creates the yen for non-realism-only kinks? Is just a general kink, all of whose *actual* expressions are icky? Or something else?
By the way, I appear to have either read-and-put-off-responding or just not seen a number of your posts... expect to get spammed.
Re: General Commentschibi_squirtApril 10 2007, 18:05:28 UTC
It makes you the maker of a damn good pie, is what it makes you.
I really don't think it's a line. I mean, I use the term line above, but that's because it's a common-use metaphor. What I actually think it is is a continuum, and you can't define the line because it isn't one.
Re: General CommentsolegrizApril 10 2007, 18:15:30 UTC
Oh, I agree that it is a continuum and that any line would be arbitrary and cannot be specified for all situations. I just think that on the continuum there is at least a grey region in which people can reasonably differ on the merits of. For example, a parent may not wish to have their (insert age here) child see and Arnold Schwarzennegger film because it is too violent, while letting them see "The Passion of the Christ", which is more graphic in its depiction of violence. Another parent may take the opposite tack seeing the violence Arnold commits as simply cartoonish or unrealistic in comparison. This is why we shouldn't establish a line, but both these hypothetical parents believe that a line exists somewhere.
I don't think I've heard the phrase "sexualized man", either, now that you mention it. So apparently, men being sexual isn't at all unusual. Unsurprising, but still annoying.
I would respond to the rest of your post, but I'm still to distracted by the idea of "Men at Work: Cleaning the Shower."
I promise a more extended reply after I recover completely from my migraine. For now - you aren't lazy, you're selfish. All subs are selfish. A great many inexperienced ones are also vastly insecure, but not all.
Saying that someone is selfish for always insisting on being the sub is one thing, but always *wanting* to be the sub? Different. Not that there's no rule that says I'm not all three...
I kind of think sex is one of those areas in which your *allowed* to be selfish, though, as long as your willing to repay your partner's unselfishness.
On the other hand, I know of one guy who really, sincerely likes to top, and hates being topped. (I'm SURE there are others, I just don't know who they are.) Part of me says, "I kinda wish I could have that," (although I am slowly training up my topping skills...) but then I remember that that guy is kind of a jerk, and worry that the two go hand in hand.
Comments 18
Reply
Something you said does make me wonder about the existence of kinks *only* in a fictionalized form, e.g. chan. Not that there isn't real life chan, but I think a lot of people only like the fictionalized version, and now I'm wondering why.
Reply
Real life chan is morally reprehensible. Making photographic/video chan would be illegal, child abuse and child porn; faux chan is 'barely legal' whatever. I know there are lots of people who *do* like that. I'm just not one of them.
Reply
I'm right there with you, believe me. I'm just wondering *why*. What creates the yen for non-realism-only kinks? Is just a general kink, all of whose *actual* expressions are icky? Or something else?
By the way, I appear to have either read-and-put-off-responding or just not seen a number of your posts... expect to get spammed.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Also, not to worry, a) the boyfriend in question is past tense and b) he really wasn't that good at it, anyway. Thus, I am still questing.
Reply
Reply
I really don't think it's a line. I mean, I use the term line above, but that's because it's a common-use metaphor. What I actually think it is is a continuum, and you can't define the line because it isn't one.
Reply
Reply
Reply
I would respond to the rest of your post, but I'm still to distracted by the idea of "Men at Work: Cleaning the Shower."
...
There could be Soap.
Reply
Reply
I kind of think sex is one of those areas in which your *allowed* to be selfish, though, as long as your willing to repay your partner's unselfishness.
On the other hand, I know of one guy who really, sincerely likes to top, and hates being topped. (I'm SURE there are others, I just don't know who they are.) Part of me says, "I kinda wish I could have that," (although I am slowly training up my topping skills...) but then I remember that that guy is kind of a jerk, and worry that the two go hand in hand.
Reply
Leave a comment