Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Havohej]

Well this thread suddenly took a turn back toward the interesting.  Thanks for womaning up and re-sparking it, Eva

[scagga]

I generally think too many EvE IC interactions are sexualised, but that could be a thread in its own right.

[Havohej]

I dunno, judging from the thread on that topic, I think FTB is more popular than I would've expected it to be.

[Casiella]

And it dawns on me that I put all this in the wrong thread.

* Casiella fails utterly again.

[Inara Subaka]

I generally think too many EvE IC interactions are sexualised, but that could be a thread in its own right.

I'd agree with both sentiments.

Not really spoiler, but severely off topic:
[spoiler]However, that said... Capsuleers are immortal. They are humans that don't have to "answer for their choices" in the long run. This leads to an interesting situation as the only morality they honestly have to answer to is their own because it becomes nigh impossible to enforce another perspective of morality upon them.

Example of this that's not sexualised: murder. Every day capsuleers are killing off millions of people of various breeds around the cluster (thank the stars there's thousands of star systems with inhabited planets and station; or willing suspension of disbelief), yet you can't force any one of them to abide by a "Do not murder" philosophy if they don't agree with it. They only answer to themselves at the end of the day... no restrictions.

What happens when social/moral/philosophical restrictions are removed from a human? They resort to their baser instincts without reservation typically.[/spoiler]

[Casiella]

Inara, that would indeed make a great thread.

[Shae Tiann]

Despite my affection for corsets, pvc, silk and leather, as well as spiked collars, I'm about as vanilla as you can get these days. Just a goth who likes wearing pretty things 

...Though judging from the rather fierce reactions I've had to things boyfriends have suggested in the past, I'll say that I'm probably not a 'sub' type.

[Arnulf Ogunkoya]

Well while we're sharing.

I'm not sure I'd county as kinky by the standards of most people here.

By mainstream standards, sure. I'm Bi (about a Kinsey 2 or so) and Polyamourous.

[Stitcher]

Funny how we use "vanilla" to describe people like me. I mean, I always felt that describing something as "vanilla" had some negative connotations - implying that it's bland, ordinary and uninteresting. It's a peculiar quirk of the language even of the mainstream that the term we use to describe the kind of conventional relationship people have devoted boundless energy into finding also has that undercurrent of suggesting that exotic is better. Curious.

Maybe it is better, I don't know. I'm hardly in a position to judge for the simple reason that the whole idea of having a dom/sub relationship is totally alien to me. I don't feel like I could ever be either.

[Vikarion]

Ok, Havojeh and I had a fairly long discussion the other night, and he suggested that I post here, though I admit some reluctance in doing so.

First, a little personal info which will be relevant later: I'm twenty-five, male, neither overweight nor ugly, fairly buff, and of decent intelligence. I'm also a virgin, and I never intend to have sex, get married, or even get close to either.

What initially spawned our conversation, and thus this post, was my inquiring of Havo how anyone could enjoy the "sadism" part of BDSM, and from there expanded into a discussion as to how a person could enjoy submission/dominance, etc. I'm putting my view out here as Havo asked, and he's planning, as I understand, to post his own reply.

To me, I find the idea of dominance/submission deeply disturbing, because it seems to me to be a role play of a relationship I find deeply disturbing: namely, slave and master. I'm philosophically opposed to the idea of a person being the property or possession of another, or treating someone as such.

Granted, role-playing such a thing is not the same as the actual relationship; nonetheless, I fail to see the attraction in such play-acting. It was explained to me that some people desire the release of putting themselves completely into the hands of another - and, again, I cannot see the attraction of doing so.

Most of my life, I have struggled for mastery of my mind and body, in whatever I put my mind to do. Whether my work, or my recreation, I have tried to control what I do, to make better and better choices. My desire to control who I am and what I do is responsible for my desire to remain celibate - I do not want to be controlled by any urge, including sexual ones.

The idea of having my choices in the hands of someone else - to belong to another human, even for fun - is alien to me. To me, the S/D role play is horrific - because you are acting out situations without choice, and the idea of being without choice is a nightmare to my mind. That it's such a personal and intimate matter makes it much worse to me.

Now, I'm definitely not posting this to flame, denigrate, or hurt anyone. This is just where I'm coming from, and it wouldn't even be here without Havojeh asking. So blame him. 

[Casiella]

I actually remembered this about you, though I made my comment in the other thread to Nataclya about you before I saw this.

Issues of sexual (non-gaming ) RP side, I don't know that engaging in sexual activity should be regarded as losing control. You give in to the urge to eat, to drink, to sleep, to defecate, to recreate (as in the sense of entertainment), to have non-sexual relationships (friends). What makes this different?

[Vikarion]

Issues of sexual (non-gaming ) RP side, I don't know that engaging in sexual activity should be regarded as losing control. You give in to the urge to eat, to drink, to sleep, to defecate, to recreate (as in the sense of entertainment), to have non-sexual relationships (friends). What makes this different?

Understand, this is rather incidental to the issues I have with s/d. This is a choice, and one that I may one day decide to change, though I don't see that happening.

That said, I would argue that, at least where I live, I'm bombarded with a fairly heavy dose of the "males think with their penises" trope, both entertainment and in actuality. It's not that I despise sex, in and of itself - I'm very attracted to some people, and am apparently attractive to them. However, I loathe the idea that I should allow myself to be swayed from rational courses of action by an irrational instinct, one which does not have my best interests in mind.

The goal is not the avoidance of sex or intimacy, but to hammer my soul, as it were, mind and body, into a disciplined tool of my will. It's difficult to truly do this with other things - if I go without food or water, for example, I'll die. This is not a - from my point of view - desirable result. But sex is an innate urge that can be denied, triumphed over. If I could find a way to do without other bodily needs - sleep, food, water - I would, and I've done without them for limited times.

I don't believe that there is virtue in simple denial of wants. Christianity doesn't deny these things either, (though it does impose some restrictions) so it is not a facet of my theological beliefs. Rather, it is just my desire to make myself as free as possible, and as possessed of as much self-control as possible - to not be subject to instinct, but have my instincts subject to my will.

[Casiella]

Do you hug or otherwise display affection, even in a non-romantic friendship? I'm not asking to try to "convince" you, Lord knows. Only two individuals' sexuality is really my business, mine and my wife's. But you have an interesting perspective, one with which I am only familiar in an ecclesiastical setting.

[Vikarion]

Do you hug or otherwise display affection, even in a non-romantic friendship?

With my family, yes. Again, I'm not against, by any means, having relationships with other people. I can be rather picky about who are my friends, but I'm not trying to avoid contact or interaction with others, at all.

[Mizhara]

Funny how we use "vanilla" to describe people like me. I mean, I always felt that describing something as "vanilla" had some negative connotations - implying that it's bland, ordinary and uninteresting. It's a peculiar quirk of the language even of the mainstream that the term we use to describe the kind of conventional relationship people have devoted boundless energy into finding also has that undercurrent of suggesting that exotic is better. Curious.

Maybe it is better, I don't know. I'm hardly in a position to judge for the simple reason that the whole idea of having a dom/sub relationship is totally alien to me. I don't feel like I could ever be either.

I like vanilla. However, it's not intended as 'bland or uninteresting'. Ordinary, perhaps. Mainstream perhaps? I don't know about others, but I don't like using the word 'normal' or anything like that in this case. It brings negative connotations on the lifestyle as 'abnormal'.

Vanilla's tasty. It's something almost everyone can enjoy. Nothing bad about that. In fact, I should probably write some kind of disclaimer somewhere about how vanilla has absolutely no negative connotations in this particular debate.

There's more interesting posts here, but I have to hit the station now, be back in... an hour or so to reply to those too.