Extreme Fetishes?
G. HJ
normal....(i.e...foot fetish D/s bondage type stuff.) These "fetishes" I
consider mild or border on roleplaying. when I say "extreme" I mean
bestiality,rapefantasy incest and the like. I would even consider
plushiphillia an extreme fetish.
What do you think causes some people to go to these extremes to get
satisfaction. Is it mental illness, is it the "taboo" that turns them
on or what?
What's the turn on?
GHJ
Serene
> Normal fetishes I can understand....that is if you can call a fetish
> normal....(i.e...foot fetish D/s bondage type stuff.) These "fetishes" I
> consider mild or border on roleplaying. when I say "extreme" I mean
> bestiality,rapefantasy incest and the like. I would even consider
> plushiphillia an extreme fetish.
And the stuff you consider mild, other people consider to be extreme.
>
> What do you think causes some people to go to these extremes to get
> satisfaction. Is it mental illness, is it the "taboo" that turns them
> on or what?
It's probably a mix of the same things that turn you on about any
"taboo" stuff that gets you hot. Me, I like fantasizing about really
taboo stuff (I don't tend to do it, just fantasize about it) because
it's at the edge of what's acceptable to my brain. I'm not sure I can
explain it any better than that.
serene
--
http://serenejournal.livejournal.com
http://www.jhuger.com
Remus Shepherd
In Levine's textbook, 'Essay on the Diagnosis and Nature of Paraphilia',
he theorizes that paraphilias (strange sexual attractions) are caused
by several factors:
1. Defense against poor parental relationships. Case studies show
that many people with paraphilias were abused as children, whether sexually,
physically, or emotionally. The paraphilia is a coping mechanism against
the memories of a tragic childhood by recreating the childhood, this time
with the paraphiliac in the position of power.
2. Defense against an unstable self identity. By performing acts
that are on the outer edge of sexual bravery, the paraphiliac may be using
the act of breaking taboos to compensate for his lack of identity. This
can be either confusion with one's sexual identity or just with one's place
in the family or in the world. Shoring up one's self-esteem with 'extreme'
acts allows the paraphiliac to see himself as master of his world, and
eventually he develops a new sexual identity to supplant the original,
failed identity.
3. Defense against dysphoria and the demands of life. Sometimes the
world presents what seems like an unmatchable challenge. Paraphilia gives
a person a retreat from feelings of anxiety, loneliness, guilt or anger,
allowing them to form a safe private world removed from the challenges of
life. For some this retreat into compulsive deviant behavior can be almost
psychotic, while others who are better able to adapt may retreat into their
erotic private life as a reward or vacation.
There are also biological factors, environmental factors, and
addiction. But it basically boils down to three things: Self Empowerment,
Self Identity, and Self Delusion.
... ...
Remus Shepherd <re...@panix.com>
Lusus Naturae
It appears that you are talking more of "paraphilias" than of
"fetishes", although there is no clear line of demarcation
between the two.
Now, which are the "extreme" paraphilias?...Oh, yes, I remember;
they're the ones which seem to *me* to be farthest from what *I*
would do. Of those you mention, I find bondage, faux rape and
incest well within my comfort zone, so those cannot be
considered extreme. If you'd care to divulge them, I'd be more
than happy to tell you, on that basis, which of your own sexual
practices are extreme.
What's the turn on for people who do it somehow different from
you? Amazingly, it's exactly the same as it is for you, doing
your thing -- except it's with different things. If it's mental
illness that causes you to be sexual in your way, then it may be
mental illness that causes someone else to be sexual in a
different way -- or perhaps not. If it's the taboo that thrills
you, then it might be the taboo that lights up someone else --
or perhaps not.
The questions all answer themselves, once you accept that your
own preferences are someone else's fetishes and paraphilias.
--
Lusus Naturae
just a guy
> Normal fetishes I can understand....
>
> satisfaction.
>
because its fun
Lusus Naturae
> In Levine's textbook, 'Essay on the Diagnosis and Nature of Paraphilia',
>he theorizes that paraphilias (strange sexual attractions) are caused
>by several factors:
If we use that definition of paraphilia ("strange sexual
attraction"), and if we agree that my interest in bondage
qualifies as such strange sexual attraction, then Levine's three
suggested causes fail to explain it.
> 1. Defense against poor parental relationships. Case studies show
>that many people with paraphilias were abused as children, whether sexually,
>physically, or emotionally. The paraphilia is a coping mechanism against
>the memories of a tragic childhood by recreating the childhood, this time
>with the paraphiliac in the position of power.
I had zero abuse as a child; and I couldn't, in any case, have
developed this attraction in order to re-create childhood, since
I *was* a child when it developed. I can trace my interest in
bondage back to my earliest childhood memories at (probably)
five years of age. True, the interest wasn't rampantly or
overtly sexual at that age; yet I was, even then, more
interested in females in bondage than males.
> 2. Defense against an unstable self identity. By performing acts
>that are on the outer edge of sexual bravery, the paraphiliac may be using
>the act of breaking taboos to compensate for his lack of identity. This
>can be either confusion with one's sexual identity or just with one's place
>in the family or in the world. Shoring up one's self-esteem with 'extreme'
>acts allows the paraphiliac to see himself as master of his world, and
>eventually he develops a new sexual identity to supplant the original,
>failed identity.
Can't see myself in any of this, either. Though I do have
self-esteem issues, my sexuality has never been part of that.
I've always been pretty sure that my sexual preferences and
practices were OK. Didn't let my parents convince me that
masturbation might due me harm or affect my athletic
performance. Have never felt the need to take offense or
counter-demonstrate if someone suggested I may be gay. Have
never felt uncomfortable, icky or evil just because I like
bondage.
> 3. Defense against dysphoria and the demands of life. Sometimes the
>world presents what seems like an unmatchable challenge. Paraphilia gives
>a person a retreat from feelings of anxiety, loneliness, guilt or anger,
>allowing them to form a safe private world removed from the challenges of
>life. For some this retreat into compulsive deviant behavior can be almost
>psychotic, while others who are better able to adapt may retreat into their
>erotic private life as a reward or vacation.
This comes the closest to explaining me; I am a retreater.
However, though this paragraph may illuminate how I *use* my
kink now, it doesn't explain the original impetus displayed in
early childhood, while I was still living in childhood's cocoon
and had not yet had much exposure to the demands of life.
> There are also biological factors, environmental factors, and
>addiction.
We can't trace the development back beyond earliest memory, so
we can't know what factors may contribute before age four.
Being an early developer myself, I tend toward a biological
explanation. Someone whose quirky interest came later in life
would probably be predisposed to look for later causes. And
we're likely both right; else why would there *be* both early
developers and late developers.
(From my reading, it appears there is the same duality among
gays. Some, from earliest memory, are aware of being different,
and even know that the difference is sexual (though they may not
yet have any concept of what that means). Others have not an
inkling until, as adults, they fall in love with a MOTSS.)
> But it basically boils down to three things: Self Empowerment,
>Self Identity, and Self Delusion.
Or perhaps, just self? Whether biological factors predominate,
or environmental ones, I would say that kink is usually quite
seamlessly integrated into one's nature. It can't be eliminated
without doing violence to that nature.
--
Lusus Naturae
G. HJ
Remus Shepherd wrote:
______________________________________
Thank you for the information and reference Remus........outstanding!
I have also heard of some apparent "occult religious" reasons for
paraphilic behavior which could account for some of the identity issues
associated with this kind of deviant behavior.
I know some people are of the opinion that "different strokes are for
different folks" I understand the need for a rich fantasy life so
excluding those who just have extreme "fantasies"..........
Should paraphilia as an actual "sexual practice" within a
population be considered as a epidemic of sexual dysfunction caused by a
defense mechanism? (to be treated like mental illness)
Or as deviant criminal behavior? (barring all legal sexual
practices between 2 or more "consenting" adults)
I wonder about this because imprisonment rarely corrects the behavior.
Thanks
GHJ
Remus Shepherd
> Should paraphilia as an actual "sexual practice" within a
> population be considered as a epidemic of sexual dysfunction caused by a
> defense mechanism? (to be treated like mental illness)
>
> Or as deviant criminal behavior? (barring all legal sexual
> practices between 2 or more "consenting" adults)
> I wonder about this because imprisonment rarely corrects the behavior.
Psychologists pretty much agree that paraphilias cannot be 'cured' once
they become ingrained behavior. You can teach a patient other ways to cope,
however. Think of it as akin to alcoholism -- the patient will always feel
the urge, but they can learn to not actively engage in deviant activities.
Should they be considered 'sexual practices'? Well, it's interesting to
note that homosexuality used to be considered a paraphilia. In the early
70's a gay lobbyist organization convinced the psychology associations to
change their diagnostic criteria, relabeling homosexuality as a sexual
identity.
Paraphiliacs don't get thrown in jail to correct their behavior. They
get thrown in jail for two reasons: One, because some paraphilias cause
harm to others (pedophilia, for example) and imprisonment is the only way
to protect the public, and Two, because in the Judeo/Christian ethos
breaking the taboos of society requires punishment even when the paraphilia
causes no harm.
G. HJ
If we use that definition of paraphilia ("strange sexual attraction"),
and if we agree that my interest in bondage qualifies as such strange
sexual attraction
<snip>
______________________________________
If you read my initial post you would see that I excluded (bondage) as
an "extreme" fetish
Bondage isn't above experimenting with for most people. So defending it
as part of the content of this subject is void. Bondage doesn't even
fall into the same category if you read the context of the post,.....
although other legal forms of parphilic behavior (between two or more
consenting adults) would...... for example "plushiphillia"........I only
included that one cause its really weird!!!!!
Jana
<snip>
>
> Should they be considered 'sexual practices'? Well, it's interesting to
> note that homosexuality used to be considered a paraphilia. In the early
> 70's a gay lobbyist organization convinced the psychology associations to
> change their diagnostic criteria, relabeling homosexuality as a sexual
> identity.
>
I would like to add that it was *not* only gay lobbyist organizations.
They did play a role, but there was also research.
Gays would turn out deviant in clinical diagnostic tests time and again.
Then someone thought about giving the tests without telling the sexual
orientation of the subjects to the diagnostician. And all of a sudden,
the diagnosticians couldn't tell who is gay and who is not.
Sometimes people jump up at this and say it proves how bad the tests
are. It's true, the tests can be pretty widely interpreted. However,
they are the best definition of normality that we have at the moment,
and the one that's accepted by the community that spends its work life
studying normality.
Jana, whose clinical psych teacher talks about lobbyists and makes a
point of showing the class that homosexuality is not normal :-(
suzee
And some people think bondage is really weird too! So those people
*would* consider it an extreme fetish. Some people consider fetishes
extreme sex anyway.
sue
Remus Shepherd
> Remus Shepherd wrote:
> > Should they be considered 'sexual practices'? Well, it's interesting to
> > note that homosexuality used to be considered a paraphilia. In the early
> > 70's a gay lobbyist organization convinced the psychology associations to
> > change their diagnostic criteria, relabeling homosexuality as a sexual
> > identity.
> I would like to add that it was *not* only gay lobbyist organizations.
> They did play a role, but there was also research.
> Gays would turn out deviant in clinical diagnostic tests time and again.
> Then someone thought about giving the tests without telling the sexual
> orientation of the subjects to the diagnostician. And all of a sudden,
> the diagnosticians couldn't tell who is gay and who is not.
> Sometimes people jump up at this and say it proves how bad the tests
> are. It's true, the tests can be pretty widely interpreted. However,
> they are the best definition of normality that we have at the moment,
> and the one that's accepted by the community that spends its work life
> studying normality.
Fair enough. But note that *I* show up as normal in clinical tests,
when I am clearly not. :)
Janet Hardy
> Jana, whose clinical psych teacher talks about lobbyists and makes a
> point of showing the class that homosexuality is not normal :-(
Well, it's not "normal." Neither is left-handedness. Normalcy is a
statistical concept. The question is, is homosexuality any likelier --
absent sociocultural pressure -- to cause other psychological problems
for its practitioners?
It's hard to tell. It's not all that easy to be happy, healthy and
functional in a culture that hates you. It would be more useful to look
at homosexuality in cultures where it's accepted, but those are pretty
uncommon in postindustrial societies -- we don't have the ancient Greeks
or the early Native American cultures to use as yardsticks.
Janet
--
TWO NEW TOYBAG GUIDES! "The Toybag Guide to Foot and Shoe Worship" by
Midori, "The Toybag Guide to High-Tech Toys" by John Warren. A workshop
in a book, just $9.95 each! Available soon from your favorite bookstore,
on-line bookseller or at www.greenerypress.com.
Jana
> Jana wrote:
>
>> Jana, whose clinical psych teacher talks about lobbyists and makes a
>> point of showing the class that homosexuality is not normal :-(
>
>
> Well, it's not "normal." Neither is left-handedness. Normalcy is a
> statistical concept.
Yes and no. In the world of diagnostics, one uses the DSM or ICD manual,
which this guy was teaching us about. Some of the things listed there
are very extreme and rare, so the statistics involved are different for
different behaviors. Normalcy is not *only* a statistical concept, it
encompasses some other concepts as well, and the DSM people try to make
some sense out of it. But this teacher of mine didn't *say* it's not
normal - he covered his butt and pretended to run away from a gay and
did other "funny" things while talking about homosexuality.
Others are better. They don't say: "We now know homosexuality is not
psychologically deviant", but they do say that it's not been considered
deviant since '73/74, which is better than covering their butts... Some
use the word "abnormal".
> The question is, is homosexuality any likelier --
> absent sociocultural pressure -- to cause other psychological problems
> for its practitioners?
>
> It's hard to tell. It's not all that easy to be happy, healthy and
> functional in a culture that hates you. It would be more useful to look
> at homosexuality in cultures where it's accepted, but those are pretty
> uncommon in postindustrial societies -- we don't have the ancient Greeks
> or the early Native American cultures to use as yardsticks.
>
I understand what you're saying. I actually share your views. But this
was a much more dangerous thing - teaching psych students that getting
the diagnostic category out of the manual was not because gays aren't
mentally deviant. The students do know what tests we're talking about,
so they are lead to think that gayness inherently brings some serious
mental, and especially emotional problems. And all that in a society
where an attempt to make a gay pride parade finished with hooligans
bashing the gays and priests and police standing by, watching.
> Janet
>
Jana
G. HJ
I would like to add that it was *not* only gay lobbyist organizations.
They did play a role, but there was also research.
Gays would turn out deviant in clinical diagnostic tests time and again.
<snip>
______________________________________
I am not a big fan of "clinical diagnostic tests" for the simple fact of
how psychologist create these test and the criteria for which they judge
the "relevant" questions.
For example if they ask 100 pedophiles if they like "tuna fish" and 100
"normal" people if they like "tuna fish" and all 100 pedophiles love it
and all the "normal" people hate it...if they put it on a psychological
test as a "relevant" question that means everyone that likes tuna fish
is a pedophile. Now I know this is just an example but thats basically
how they set the criteria for these test.
Many normal people score as abnormal on these test and vise versa. I
have no dought that many people that have deviant sexual tendency would
score as "normal". IMHO the criteria for what should be deemed "deviant
behavior " is actually criminal behavior. For what ever reason science
has yet to separate the two.
Jana
> Jana wrote:
>
> I would like to add that it was *not* only gay lobbyist organizations.
> They did play a role, but there was also research.
>
> Gays would turn out deviant in clinical diagnostic tests time and again.
> <snip>
> ______________________________________
>
> I am not a big fan of "clinical diagnostic tests" for the simple fact of
> how psychologist create these test and the criteria for which they judge
> the "relevant" questions.
>
Neither am I a big fan... But I still need to go through a big battery
and write up some case studies before I really form an opinion. Anyhow,
there seem to be some ok ones, and there seem to be ones that are pretty
faulty. But I don't think anybody gives a diagnosis, ever, with one test
only.
However... I am a much bigger fan of relying on a big battery of tests
than on a single person's view, even if that person is the biggest
expert on earth.
> For example if they ask 100 pedophiles if they like "tuna fish" and 100
> "normal" people if they like "tuna fish" and all 100 pedophiles love it
> and all the "normal" people hate it...if they put it on a psychological
> test as a "relevant" question that means everyone that likes tuna fish
> is a pedophile. Now I know this is just an example but thats basically
> how they set the criteria for these test.
>
Er... Not really. Making a test takes several years of constant work. At
least. And that's with a big team and a lot of cooperation from
everybody. Believe you me, I had to do a revision of an attitude scale
once. Just the revision is taking almost two years now - and I had all
the test items I needed right from the start. Making a test that
measures something rare is *much* harder. That's one of the reasons they
are often inconclusive if you use just one test.
> Many normal people score as abnormal on these test and vise versa.
Yep. That's why you need an expert to tell you what the results mean.
"Crazy" people are not all that different from us nice, healthy,
"normal" ones :-) Anybody can, given the right conditions, go into a
period of acute crisis with a wide spectrum of serious symptoms, which
can actually be a normal reaction to an abnormal situation.
> I
> have no dought that many people that have deviant sexual tendency would
> score as "normal". IMHO the criteria for what should be deemed "deviant
> behavior " is actually criminal behavior. For what ever reason science
> has yet to separate the two.
>
I don't follow. Would you mind stating a few of these deviant behaviors?
And what test would they score normal on? Are you trying to say that gay
people have deviant, criminal behavior? Please don't tell me that's what
you're saying.
The thing is, if the behavior does not stop people from forming
fulfilling, healthy relationships with their surroundings, if they can
still work and be productive (and there we have the modern,
economical-capitalist definition of normality), if they can set goals
and achieve them, if they aren't biting their own fingers off or don't
have hallucinations and so on, then you can't say that it's their sexual
orientation that *causes* mental illness. All you can say is that people
with a different orientation have a certain percentage of mentally ill
people, and compare it with the hetero population. In the case of gays,
no statistically significant difference was found once the testers
didn't know the sexual orientation of the tested.
Jana
Tom Allen
> Normal fetishes I can understand....that is if you can call a fetish
> normal....(i.e...foot fetish D/s bondage type stuff.) These "fetishes" I
> consider mild or border on roleplaying. when I say "extreme" I mean
> bestiality,rapefantasy incest and the like. I would even consider
> plushiphillia an extreme fetish.
First, let's look at what we mean by these terms. In general usage,
bondage, foot worship, D/s, etc., is more often referred to as "kink".
That is, it's something that's neat and interesting, and adds enjoyment
to one's sex life, but is not essential for sexual satisfaction. In
contrast, a "fetish" is some practice (or object) that one needs in
order to achieve satisfaction, and sometimes even orgasm.
> What do you think causes some people to go to these extremes to get
> satisfaction. Is it mental illness, is it the "taboo" that turns them
> on or what?
Well, are they really extremes? That is, what's more "extreme" about
incest than about bondage? In fact, one could argue that bondage is more
extreme because you're now into using some kind of tool not found in
nature. You dont' need any equipment to rape someone, or to have sex
with a family member; but someone with a kink or fetish for, say,
leather or latex (common as they may be) has developed a desire that
requires something that requires the manufacture of something.
And diverging slightly, it makes me wonder if cavemen had fetishes?
Could there have been people "kinked" to enjoy shiny black leather
before it was invented? And if so, then how would it manifest itself?
Were there thousands of people wandering around dissatisfied because
there was no way for them to express this kind of desire?
There is a kink toward medical bondage; instead of a leather clad dom or
dominatrix, one fantasizes about white lab-coats and shiny stainless
steel equipment of uncertain functions. Do you suppose that some people
have kinks for situations as yet undiscovered?
Just mental meanderings while I'm on hold.
Tom
Norton
No offense intended (after all those are not *your*
definitions) but they really squick me.
Most of what gets called strange sexual attractions
are nothing more than cultural. The mainstream's
current obsession with oral sex was considered not
only very strange not so long ago, but was subject
to criminal prosecution.
Now you are considered strange if you don't care for
it.
Anal has been "in" at times (think classic Greece) and
"out" at times.
People have been having intimate relationships with
sheep for many many centuries.
Rape has often been considered inexcusable, and sometimes
been considered a right and a privilege.
So I tend not to blame my parents for my particular
ticks. I just accept them.
But then, others, mainly psychologists et al, differ
with me.
Norton.
Norton
>> In Levine's textbook, 'Essay on the Diagnosis and Nature of Paraphilia',
>>he theorizes that paraphilias (strange sexual attractions) are caused
>>by several factors:
>If we use that definition of paraphilia ("strange sexual
>attraction"), and if we agree that my interest in bondage
>qualifies as such strange sexual attraction, then Levine's three
>suggested causes fail to explain it.
>> 1. Defense against poor parental relationships. Case studies show
>>that many people with paraphilias were abused as children, whether sexually,
>>physically, or emotionally. The paraphilia is a coping mechanism against
>>the memories of a tragic childhood by recreating the childhood, this time
>>with the paraphiliac in the position of power.
>I had zero abuse as a child; and I couldn't, in any case, have
>developed this attraction in order to re-create childhood, since
>I *was* a child when it developed. I can trace my interest in
>bondage back to my earliest childhood memories at (probably)
>five years of age. True, the interest wasn't rampantly or
>overtly sexual at that age; yet I was, even then, more
>interested in females in bondage than males.
I'm not an expert (not being active in bondage) but I've
read many times that people do recognize this interest
very early in life. So I think that you are not only not
alone, but that you also have much company.
Norton.
Norton
><snip>
Some day someone will tell me how to get a behavior classified
as "normal". Do I need a petition signed by 100 people? Or
will having it in a Hollywood movie count?
Perhaps you should tell you clinical psych teacher that
thinking that homosexuality is abnormal is not normal?
Norton.
Norton
Aha! Perhaps you *are* normal?
You may not know this but I am the person ultimately in charge
of deciding what is or is not normal.
Yes, it is a dirty job but someone has to do it.
Remus, you are normal.
Tell them I said so.
Norton, United States Normal Warden
Jana
In the world of diagnostics today, it's most likely going to be whatever
doesn't prevent you from working. So if you're getting all your work
done despite the ssg, you should be ok ;-)
> Perhaps you should tell you clinical psych teacher that
> thinking that homosexuality is abnormal is not normal?
>
> Norton.
>
Oh, he is a very strange fellow indeed. Talks about sex all the time.
I'm sorry to say I didn't react to his little act - it was just after
I'd been through an extremely unpleasant 20 minutes of... hm, making up
for the sin of asking a question in class... A normal, honest question
that I really wanted to know the answer to. But, as I found out, one
just does not do that.
Jana
Delila
"Norton" <nor...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:d4mare$e62$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>
>
> No offense intended (after all those are not *your*
> definitions) but they really squick me.
>
> Most of what gets called strange sexual attractions
> are nothing more than cultural. The mainstream's
> current obsession with oral sex was considered not
> only very strange not so long ago, but was subject
> to criminal prosecution.
So you agree with me that people today seem obsessed with oral sex. Thank
you. :)
>
> Now you are considered strange if you don't care for
> it.
That's so true.
>
> Anal has been "in" at times (think classic Greece) and
> "out" at times.
I don't care if it's in or out, *I* don't care for it, so I won't do it.
>
> People have been having intimate relationships with
> sheep for many many centuries.
Why sheep? How did it occur to shepherds to screw the animals? Didn't most
of them have wives or other human females available?
D.
Sarah
> Why sheep? How did it occur to shepherds to screw the animals? Didn't most
>of them have wives or other human females available?
Not really, no.
Traditionally, (at least in the british isles) a shepherd lives all
summer in a small hut high up and away from other humans, where the
best pasture is. He often lives completely alone, and is likely to be
an adolescent boy.
And sheep are about the right height. It's unsurprising to me that
quite a bit of interspecies fondling went on.
--
Sarah
Guys like thinking about being so thick that a woman can't
get her hand around his penis. That's great, but the downside
is that then the woman can't get her hand around his penis.
- Norton.
Jana
> "Norton" <nor...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
<snip>
>
> >
> > People have been having intimate relationships with
> > sheep for many many centuries.
>
>
> Why sheep? How did it occur to shepherds to screw the animals? Didn't most
> of them have wives or other human females available?
>
My guess would be that they are the right height and have a lack of horns.
And when did having a wife count as reason enough not to have a little
extramarital fun? ;-) But from what I've read - I don't know if it's
true though, these sheep-lovers were mainly boys in puberty.
>
> D.
>
Jana
Norton
>> Perhaps you should tell you clinical psych teacher that
>> thinking that homosexuality is abnormal is not normal?
>>
>> Norton.
>>
>Oh, he is a very strange fellow indeed. Talks about sex all the time.
>I'm sorry to say I didn't react to his little act - it was just after
>I'd been through an extremely unpleasant 20 minutes of... hm, making up
>for the sin of asking a question in class... A normal, honest question
>that I really wanted to know the answer to. But, as I found out, one
>just does not do that.
Oh my. That does not sound right at all. In the
US he could be in some trouble, especially at a
school where the students pay tuition.
Norton.
Norton
> "Norton" <nor...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:d4mare$e62$2...@reader1.panix.com...
> >
> >
> > No offense intended (after all those are not *your*
> > definitions) but they really squick me.
> >
> > Most of what gets called strange sexual attractions
> > are nothing more than cultural. The mainstream's
> > current obsession with oral sex was considered not
> > only very strange not so long ago, but was subject
> > to criminal prosecution.
> So you agree with me that people today seem obsessed with oral sex. Thank
>you. :)
> >
> > Now you are considered strange if you don't care for
> > it.
> That's so true.
> >
> > Anal has been "in" at times (think classic Greece) and
> > "out" at times.
> I don't care if it's in or out, *I* don't care for it, so I won't do it.
Gee Delila, nobody was suggesting that you do it.
But you protest so much that sometimes I wonder...
> > People have been having intimate relationships with
> > sheep for many many centuries.
> Why sheep? How did it occur to shepherds to screw the animals? Didn't most
>of them have wives or other human females available?
Because the sheep were horny?
Norton.
Jana
Oh, he did answer me. He stood towering above me, locking his eyes on
mine, not moving a muscle on his face, and telling me gruesome stories
about patients. One story involved a little girl her father "invested"
in a poker game he lost, so all his buddies raped her while the father
watched. The monologue lasted a full twenty minutes, in which the whole
class went into a creepy silence. And he stood very, very near me. It
was really unpleasant. And he didn't even come close to answering the
question (a rather technical one at that: what technique was used in the
third trial of the so-and-so experiment).
But as for sex, I need to say something sexy here, right? Um, he'd start
a lesson on Freudian slips like this: "Today we will talk about penis
envy. All the young women in class who have a problem listening to this
should cover their mouth... oops, I mean ears!"
Jana, in love with clinical psychology ;-)
suzee
My bf remembers being about 5 and seeing one of those old Police Gazette
magazines with a picture on the cover of a woman tied up. He was
fascinated by it then and remembers being turned on by it. He still like
bondage photos though it's more of a kink than a fetish for him.
sue
suzee
Usually not. They were often stuck in pastures far away from home
watching the sheep eat grass and keeping the wolves away. They had only
the sheep and a dog or two for company. In southern Idaho and northern
Nevada there are a lot of Basques descended from sheepherder emigrants
who came over from Spain and France to tend the herds for Americans.
They were pretty isolated, living in horsedrawn caravans wherever they
could find grass for grazing. (Sheep pretty well devastate pastureland,
eating the grass down to the roots and beyond, leaving no grass for
other grazing animals. Hence the big sheepmen vs cattlemen wars in the
Old West.) They didn't marry until they'd worked to save enough money to
buy their own herds, then ranches. I have no idea about their sexual
practices, but when you're cut off from other companionship, some may
make do with whatever's available.
sue
suzee
Despite the professors... A very creepy guy.
sue
Delila
"Jana" <jana.pe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d7sr7F...@individual.net...
>
> My guess would be that they are the right height and have a lack of
horns.
Hmm, okay. I always thought this was more myth than fact.
>
> And when did having a wife count as reason enough not to have a little
> extramarital fun? ;-) But from what I've read - I don't know if it's
> true though, these sheep-lovers were mainly boys in puberty.
I read somewhere that they'd have the sheep stand right in front of a
cliff, so that there would be some resistance during the act, or else they'd
just have walked forward the whole time. I guess that makes sense. Good
thing that a ewe can't get pregnant from a human, LOL! Imagine the
offspring...
D.
Delila
>
>
>
> Gee Delila, nobody was suggesting that you do it.
> But you protest so much that sometimes I wonder...
I'm not protesting, I'm just saying... And you can wonder whatever you
like.
>
> Because the sheep were horny?
Oh? Did they say so? ;)
D.
suzee
> Delila <WATERT...@spampeoplepc.com> wrote:
>
>> "Norton" <nor...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:d4mare$e62$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>> >
>> > People have been having intimate relationships with
>> > sheep for many many centuries.
>
>
>> Why sheep? How did it occur to shepherds to screw the animals? Didn't most
>>of them have wives or other human females available?
>
>
> Because the sheep were horny?
Ahhhh. Montaaaaaahnaaaaah. Where the men are men and the sheep are
nervous...
sue
suzee
I've heard that sheep will walk off a cliff if they're frightened enough...
sue
Remus Shepherd
> > People have been having intimate relationships with
> > sheep for many many centuries.
> Why sheep? How did it occur to shepherds to screw the animals? Didn't most
> of them have wives or other human females available?
Others have answered you -- the shepherds were often adolescent boys
with no other outlet.
This isn't just confined to ancient civilizations, though. A study in the
60's recorded that about 1 in 6 American teenage boys living in rural areas
had had penetrative intercourse with an animal at least once.
It seems that often, the question is 'why not'? :)
Remus Shepherd
> >when I am clearly not. :)
> Aha! Perhaps you *are* normal?
> You may not know this but I am the person ultimately in charge
> of deciding what is or is not normal.
> Yes, it is a dirty job but someone has to do it.
> Remus, you are normal.
> Tell them I said so.
> Norton, United States Normal Warden
I'll tell the FBI that you said I'm normal, despite the results of the
polygraph test they gave me that cost me a job. :) I really do hope they
listen to you and ignore my taped admission of screwing horses. :)
G. HJ
First, let's look at what we mean by these terms. In general usage,
bondage, foot worship, D/s, etc., is more often referred to as "kink".
That is, it's something that's neat and interesting, and adds enjoyment
to one's sex life, but is not essential for sexual satisfaction. In
contrast, a "fetish" is some practice (or object) that one needs in
order to achieve satisfaction, and sometimes even orgasm.
<snip>
<snip>
Well, are they really extremes? That is, what's more "extreme" about
incest than about bondage? In fact, one could argue that bondage is more
extreme because you're now into using some kind of tool not found in
nature.
You dont' need any equipment to rape someone, or to have sex with a
family member; but someone with a kink or fetish for, say, leather or
latex (common as they may be) has developed a desire that requires
something that requires the manufacture of something.
And diverging slightly, it makes me wonder if cavemen had fetishes?
Could there have been people "kinked" to enjoy shiny black leather
before it was invented? And if so, then how would it manifest itself?
Were there thousands of people wandering around dissatisfied because
there was no way for them to express this kind of desire?
There is a kink toward medical bondage; instead of a leather clad dom or
dominatrix, one fantasizes about white lab-coats and shiny stainless
steel equipment of uncertain functions. Do you suppose that some people
have kinks for situations as yet undiscovered?
Just mental meanderings while I'm on hold.
Tom
______________________________________
When it comes to this whole subject I generally put what I consider
"kinky" and what I consider "paraphillia" and what I consider
"fetishes" into categories.
"Kinky" for example... using sex toys,dressing up,roleplaying..... for
me that means something most people wouldn't have a problem with. Hell
some sex theropist recomend this for bored couples to spice up their sex
life.
"fetishes".....to me means not the (sexual norm) but not the (extreme)
either..... that would include ....Bondage,D/s footfeishes s&m and the
like.... and I would even go as far as to say rapefantasy and incest as
long as it involves "consenting adults" wouldn't be extreme.
"paraphilia"....pedophillia,rape,murder, beastiality
,necrophillia ,scat lovers,bloodlust ext.......
paraphillia to me would be the extreme........... something that most of
us wouldn't do and in most cases find sickening. But not always illegal
GHJ
G. HJ
I don't follow. Would you mind stating a few of these deviant behaviors?
And what test would they score normal on? Are you trying to say that gay
people have deviant, criminal behavior? Please don't tell me that's what
you're saying.
______________________________________
Rape,murder,pedophillia,........what test would they score "normal"
on.......if they are not mentally impaired........almost any of the
standardized psychological test used to determine "stability". Many
sociopathic criminals score normal for some reason.
(at least thats what I am told by the unit psychologist)
Norton
>> Remus, you are normal.
Well, the horse was probably the problem. Knowing
the FBI they interviewed the horse and asked if
informed consent was given.
The answer was undoubtedly "neiiiigh".
But then, nobody ever credited the FBI with either
empathy or intelligence.[*]
Norton, United States Normal Warden.
[*] Ask your local law enforcement about this.
Remus Shepherd
> When it comes to this whole subject I generally put what I consider
> "kinky" and what I consider "paraphillia" and what I consider
> "fetishes" into categories.
>
> "Kinky" for example... using sex toys,dressing up,roleplaying..... for
> me that means something most people wouldn't have a problem with. Hell
> some sex theropist recomend this for bored couples to spice up their sex
> life.
> "fetishes".....to me means not the (sexual norm) but not the (extreme)
> either..... that would include ....Bondage,D/s footfeishes s&m and the
> like.... and I would even go as far as to say rapefantasy and incest as
> long as it involves "consenting adults" wouldn't be extreme.
> "paraphilia"....pedophillia,rape,murder, beastiality
> ,necrophillia ,scat lovers,bloodlust ext.......
> paraphillia to me would be the extreme........... something that most of
> us wouldn't do and in most cases find sickening. But not always illegal
A clinical diagnosis of 'Paraphilia' has to have at least some of these
three criteria:
_Obsession_. There is an obsession with the subject (or object) that the
patient cannot avoid. Someone with a 'kink' might use chicken feathers when
having sex. Someone with a paraphilic obsession would put up feather
decorations in their home and at the office, and would spend much of the day
thinking about feathers.
_Compulsion_. The paraphiliac is compulsed to engage in the deviant sexual
behavior. The feather fetishist might start dry-humping a feather display
in a public store. They can not help themselves.
_Dysfunction_. The paraphiliac often cannot have sexual relations without
the presence of the deviant behavior or object. Returning to our feather
fetishist, they wouldn't be able to get off (or, for males, not even get an
erection) without a feather somewhere in play.
Not all of these criteria are necessary for a diagnosis of paraphilia,
but generally either compulsion or dysfunction are present when a patient
talks to a psychologist, because those are the two most likely to cause a
person legal and/or emotional problems.
*Any* fetish, any 'kink', can be a paraphilia if taken to extremes.
Similarly, any paraphilia can be reduced to the level of a kink if the person
keeps it firmly under control. A pedophile might just be kinky if the only
deviant act he ever did was to occasionally ask his (adult) wife to dress in
a schoolgirl costume. And my personal opinion is that many goths are just
kink-level necrophiles. ;)
What makes it a disease is not what you do, nor how you do it, but the
degree to which it affects your life.
Jana
Partly, that's true. At least for rape and pedophilia - there are no
paper and pencil tests to catch that. My secret opinion is that we don't
know enough because we haven't studied them enough. First of all, many
don't get caught anyway, so our sample is bad (we get the dumber ones
who are more easily caught), and second - and more important IMO - we
don't really go a very long way to treat them. We usually punish them. I
don't know of many cases where someone has actually *listened* to a
pedophile talk about what exactly turns him on in children. We usually
just want to change them, without knowing how they tick. And this
doesn't work.
As for sociopathy (serial murder included), there have been some
advances. There are some tests with gambling with cards, and some things
tend to show up on brain scans... It's all very new and not explored
enough (and explored only on very extreme cases), but to me it seems it
won't be much of a mystery in a decade or so. It is clearly connected to
emotional functioning, but emotional functioning wasn't really explored
in much detail before the 90's or so.
So anyway, I don't want to get too carried away with this topic, there
really is more than one definition of normality included in the books
diagnosticians print. Like... hm, like, there are some moral categories
in the world which, when overstepped, make almost anybody cringe (like
murder), and overstepping them is seen as deviant. There are other moral
categories which are drilled into our heads in childhood, and they are
seen as less of a problem (like stealing). So partly, the categories
have to do with searching which of the moral categories are universal
cross-culturally, and which aren't. It's a very complex subject. Not one
I'd care to get tangled in in my work - partly for the fact that I
respect the complexity.
Jana