Degrading Sex

[viscousmemories]

I was raised to believe that all sexual activity prior to a christian marriage is sinful, and some activities (homosexual sex, masturbation, etc.) are sinful no matter what. When I abandoned “faith in god” as a reasonable justification for the basis of my morality, I began searching for a humanistic framework on which to build my opinion of various forms of sexual exploration. That journey is ongoing, and I hope I can advance my appreciation of different attitudes about sex through this thread.

So let’s begin.

I have heard some people claim that they derive sexual pleasure from physical pain, emotional torment, and/or psychological degradation and humiliation. My gut reaction, having grown up in a strongly “self-help” oriented America, is to suspect that anyone who gets off on “abuse”, be it physical or psychological, would be better off in therapy than in a chat room.

However, as I said, I’m on a quest and open to different interpretations.

What do you think?

[Linda]

Moving to the proper forum, MF&P

[Ab_Normal]

I have talked to friends who are into B&D/S&M and they have said that the emphasis in their relationships is what is mutually enjoyable. On those terms, I cannot object to anything they do to get their jollies, as long as nobody is hurt (against their will, that is. ;) ).

Doesn't mean I understand how they can do some of what they do... :eek: but I think they should be free to do it.

[Ab_Normal]

Had another thought; bear with me, it's wiggly and I'm sure the Infidels will poke great big holes in it. Plain ol' vanilla "missionary position" sex can be degrading sex, if force (physical or mental) is involved. I guess that's my definition of degrading sex, as sexual contact that is not voluntary. F'r instance, one party in a relationship does a sexual act they don't really like, because their partner browbeats them into it. I draw the line between doing things you don't like because of the pleasure it gives your partner, and doing things you don't like because you don't see any way out of it.

Fire at will.

[tronvillain]

Well, I think that physical pain is distinct from emotional pain and psychological degredation or humiliation. I myself enjoy inflicting and recieving a certain amount of pain during sex or as foreplay or as an activity in of itself. As for degredation or humiliation, if people happen to be wired that way and are not affected otherwise, I fail to see any problem with it. Personally, I have trouble imagining anything sexual that would be especially degrading or humiliating - silly or boring perhaps, but not degrading or humiliating. I might enjoy watersports and cumshots, but it's not about humiation or degredation.

[echidna]

Degrading Sex
I miss MadMordigan.

[christ-on-a-stick]

Me too. I keep *expecting* to see him pop in here with...something shocking/offensive/freakin' hilarious.

:(

Back to your regularly scheduled programming...

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Ihave heard some people claim that they derive sexual pleasure from physical pain, emotional torment, and/or psychological degradation and humiliation. My gut reaction, having grown up in a strongly “self-help” oriented America, is to suspect that anyone who gets off on “abuse”, be it physical or psychological, would be better off in therapy than in a chat room.

However, as I said, I’m on a quest and open to different interpretations.


I have a big problem with anyone who gets off on inflicting pain of any kind. However, pain per se I don't regard as inherently wrong--if someone wants to receive pain that's their business. Nor do I feel their partners have done anything wrong in inflicting said pain in a sexual situation.

Other than this case, I would say anything involving a lack of consent (including by deception) is wrong.

[braces_for_impact]

I say whatever two people ( or more) do in the privacy of their own bedroom is nobody else's business.

Until I sneak in there with a camera and open up my new internet domain. Then all bets are off!



:D

[Oxymoron]

Any time that someone states something to the effect of "sex is for (blah)" then I can't help but wonder "who told you?"

Sex fulfils many functions over the population; no individual or group can be the repository of the "right" function.

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
I have heard some people claim that they derive sexual pleasure from physical pain, emotional torment, and/or psychological degradation and humiliation. My gut reaction, having grown up in a strongly “self-help” oriented America, is to suspect that anyone who gets off on “abuse”, be it physical or psychological, would be better off in therapy than in a chat room.

However, as I said, I’m on a quest and open to different interpretations.
Well allow me.

It shouldn't surprise you to hear that my gut reaction to your gut reaction is that the psychological underpinnings of other people's sexual tastes are most royally none of my business. The assumption seems to be that the association of sexual desire with torture both physical and psychological stems from a painful history of abuse and self-loathing. That may be accurate in some cases, but certainly not in all.

Even if it were, once the taste is developed I consider it a taste like any other. I don't really give a shit why someone doesn't like lobster dipped in warm clarified butter. I may suspect they are out of they minds crazy, but why delve? I just won't serve it when they come over for dinner.

Like tronvillain, I also don't think much of anything is intrinsically degrading. However, as Ab_Normal mentioned, I do believe just about anything can be degrading. If you do it right, that is. Which clever quip brings me to my next point. Assuming the consent of all parties to a clearly stated range of activities, including intentional infliction of any kind of agony, morality simply doesn't enter into it for me.

[dangin]

I myself don't care for much more than occasional spanking. And the idea of people who use knives in sex has always creeped me out. But, my experience with consensual sex that involves "extreme" acts is that there is usually an "escape" word that once uttered by the receiver, the giver will stop all activities so that everyone can get a grip and discuss where things went too far.

In any situation like the above, I don't think there are any moral issues involved at all. Failing to stop when asked creates a moral issue, but that is not about sex, that is about respecting another's limits.

[Infinity Lover]

The massochist begs: "Hit me!"
The sadist answers: "No!"

[luvluv]

I started a thread on the subject here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44819

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by luvluv
I started a thread on the subject here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44819

That's an interesting thread you started, luvluv, and I may even participate in it (though I confess it's unlikely, given the time it would take to respond to each of your 12,000 points independently) but I don't think it adequately addresses the point of this thread.

Your thread asks (if I may summarize) "Is it possible that we have evolved to have a natural resistance to sexual activity that doesn't promote procreation, such as sex with children and/or sex with billygoats?".

This thread, on the other hand, asks (though I confess this was only implied, not explicitly stated) "Is there anything inherently wrong with any particular sexual activity between two consenting adults?"

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by luvluv
I started a thread on the subject here:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44819 How rude. Plugging your very tangentially related thread on this one without a single comment on the actual topic at hand is poor form, to say the least.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by livius drusus
It shouldn't surprise you to hear that my gut reaction to your gut reaction is that the psychological underpinnings of other people's sexual tastes are most royally none of my business.
Thanks for your response, Livius. I think your point is quite valid as concerns the judgments of strangers. However, what about the opinion of your sex partner? Which is to say, I know you feel that it’s inappropriate for strangers to offer unsolicited psychoanalysis, but is it inappropriate, in your view, for your lover to try to understand what psychological motivations you might have for requesting certain behaviors from him or her? It seems to me that as an involved party, your partner has a right, if not an obligation, to try to understand and respect any possible emotional or psychological dysfunctions you might suffer from.
The assumption seems to be that the association of sexual desire with torture both physical and psychological stems from a painful history of abuse and self-loathing. That may be accurate in some cases, but certainly not in all.
Fair enough. That does seem to be what my gut reaction was based on and I can see how you might argue that it’s not necessarily true. So let me modify my statement. Instead of suggesting that someone who requests to be abused during sex is necessarily psychologically dysfunctional, let me just ask: “What, other than a history of abuse, might motivate a person to want to engage in abusive sex play?”
Even if it were, once the taste is developed I consider it a taste like any other. I don't really give a shit why someone doesn't like lobster dipped in warm clarified butter. I may suspect they are out of they minds crazy, but why delve? I just won't serve it when they come over for dinner.
I think I understand your point, but I’m not sure if this really addresses the issue adequately. Let me clarify. I have learned a few things about psychology in my lifetime. Granted, most of what I have been exposed to is from the client viewpoint, but through books, a class or two, and conversations with friends in the field, I have picked up a few things from the clinician viewpoint too. With this knowledge, and with a desire to be a humanitarian, I feel as though I have an obligation to respect the mental health of people with whom I am in a relationship.

Therefore, if I feel like participating in a particular activity is potentially damaging to a person, I will want to avoid doing that activity. In such a circumstance it seems that I would be most honest and compassionate for me to be forthright about my concerns. I would not feel morally justified in simply saying, “Well, that’s your preference and I’m not into it”.
Like tronvillain, I also don't think much of anything is intrinsically degrading. However, as Ab_Normal mentioned, I do believe just about anything can be degrading. If you do it right, that is.
I think this is an excellent point.
Which clever quip brings me to my next point. Assuming the consent of all parties to a clearly stated range of activities, including intentional infliction of any kind of agony, morality simply doesn't enter into it for me.
It’s late and I’m tired, so I’m having a hard time finding the words to respond to this as I would like to, but let me try to call up an analogy that may do the talking for me. A person you love is killing himself with a drug addiction, say, heroin addiction, and asks you for another hit. Does morality enter into this scenario? You clearly have the consent of the person who wants the dope. Do you have a responsibility to consider the outcome of their request from a moral standpoint?

As I said before, I’m not being judgmental or saying I have an opinion about what is right and wrong. I’m just fishing for religion. (Figuratively)

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Ab_Normal
I have talked to friends who are into B&D/S&M and they have said that the emphasis in their relationships is what is mutually enjoyable. On those terms, I cannot object to anything they do to get their jollies, as long as nobody is hurt (against their will, that is. ;) ).

Doesn't mean I understand how they can do some of what they do... :eek: but I think they should be free to do it.

Thanks for the response Ab_Normal.

I didn't mean to ask whether or not anyone should be disallowed from participating in any particular sexual activity. While it could be argued that people need to be legally protected from abuse, even if they request the abuse, I didn't start this thread to raise that issue. I'm more interested in what are the moral implications of indulging someone's desire to be abused.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Ab_Normal
Had another thought; bear with me, it's wiggly and I'm sure the Infidels will poke great big holes in it. Plain ol' vanilla "missionary position" sex can be degrading sex, if force (physical or mental) is involved. I guess that's my definition of degrading sex, as sexual contact that is not voluntary.

On questions of semantics, I tend to turn to my trusty dictionary. I'm not saying that to be condescending at all, I really turn to the dictionary. The reason is that I figure everyone else who has discussed the topic in the past has already come to a rough understanding of what is generally meant by certain words, so I usually just stick with that.

In this case, the word is degrading. Here are a couple of possible definitions of the word from Dictionary.com:

1. To lower in dignity; dishonor or disgrace
2. To lower in moral or intellectual character; debase.

With this in mind, it does seem unlikely to me that any sex act agreed upon by the parties in question could fit the definition of degrading, since it doesn't seem likely that someones dignity, honor, or character could be debased by willing participation in an act.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by tronvillain
Well, I think that physical pain is distinct from emotional pain and psychological degredation or humiliation. I myself enjoy inflicting and recieving a certain amount of pain during sex or as foreplay or as an activity in of itself. As for degredation or humiliation, if people happen to be wired that way and are not affected otherwise, I fail to see any problem with it. Personally, I have trouble imagining anything sexual that would be especially degrading or humiliating - silly or boring perhaps, but not degrading or humiliating. I might enjoy watersports and cumshots, but it's not about humiation or degredation.

So, if someone asked you to humiliate them during sex, would you feel any moral responsibility to question the impetus of their request?

[tronvillain]

As I said, not unless it seemed to have a negative impact on their lives outside of the bedroom. I am good with pretty much whatever turns them on, as long as it doesn't bother me too much.

[Jackalope]

Originally posted by viscousmemories



I think I understand your point, but I’m not sure if this really addresses the issue adequately. Let me clarify. I have learned a few things about psychology in my lifetime. Granted, most of what I have been exposed to is from the client viewpoint, but through books, a class or two, and conversations with friends in the field, I have picked up a few things from the clinician viewpoint too. With this knowledge, and with a desire to be a humanitarian, I feel as though I have an obligation to respect the mental health of people with whom I am in a relationship.


A thought to keep in mind. The people who see a therapist, psychologist, or psychiatrist generally have a problem. That is, the fetish has moved on into maladaptive behavior. Those who are well-adjusted never end up in a shrink's office. This is why for such a long time, there were textbooks blathering on and on about how homosexuality is a disorder. The only people the clinicians were seeing were the ones with serious problems. They never saw (and with very few exceptions never sought out) the well-adjusted homosexuals to give them some perspective.

In general, clinicians see the worst cases, not the ones where it doesn't make much of a difference to everyday life. This is why the last couple DSM editions include the criteria that a behavior must interfere with everyday life before it can be considered a disorder.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Originally posted by livius drusus
Well allow me.
Assuming the consent of all parties to a clearly stated range of activities, including intentional infliction of any kind of agony, morality simply doesn't enter into it for me.

Leaving aside the question of morality, do you think that is a healthy state of affairs. After all many of things that are morally not wrong are not healthy. I think that's the point viscousmemories is trying to make.



BF

[Anon Sockpuppet]

viscuousmemories, have you ever considered the possibility that some people are actually born with their fetishes? I know I've had my fantasies ever since I was a small child, and I was never abused in any way.

If someone likes being humiliated during sex, and their partner gives them what they want, I don't think anyone could call that 'degrading.' They're participating in a consensual act. Both partners know that the "humiliating" words being uttered are not really how the couple feel about each other. It's sorta like my interests - I love being beaten up, but if I had a partner that just started beating up on me, without asking me if I wanted it, I would still consider that abusive behavior, and wrong.

[Talulah]

This has always been an interesting topic to me. I can remember being about eye level to the middle hinge of a door and vividly thinking that I would like someone who 'really loved' me to spank me. I got an odd tingling feeling all over. I also remember some odd lurid fantasies of being a nun by day and a prositute dressed in a nun costume at night. Whether these were inborn, I don't know. I would suspect, that if visciousmemories and others are right, that the abuse that caused the feelings happened early enough to cement the fetish in place at early/middle childhood.

The other explanation that I teeter between is that these oddities are just a part of human nature. I think we can all agree also that there is a differance between a playful spanking or pushing around in the heat of sex and serious pain, drawing blood, actual fear, etc.

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
Thanks for your response, Livius. I think your point is quite valid as concerns the judgments of strangers. However, what about the opinion of your sex partner? Which is to say, I know you feel that it’s inappropriate for strangers to offer unsolicited psychoanalysis, but is it inappropriate, in your view, for your lover to try to understand what psychological motivations you might have for requesting certain behaviors from him or her? It seems to me that as an involved party, your partner has a right, if not an obligation, to try to understand and respect any possible emotional or psychological dysfunctions you might suffer from. Well, not to indulge in excessive truism, but there are lovers and there are lovers. If by lover you mean a sexual partner of any kind including the fleeting what-was-your-name-again variety, then I would say there is most certainly no basic right or obligation to probe their psyches. If by lover you mean a person you actually love, then I can see how you might feel compelled to ensure that you are not complicit in any damage they might wish to inflict on their mental health. That is not the same thing, however, as attempting to unravel the whole psychological cableknit sweater because you feel you have the right or obligation to know what makes them tick.

I don't think participating in whatever sexual scenario arouses them can be assumed to be detrimental to their psyches. I would also add that if they do not wish to expose the root causes of some of their more unusual (I intentionally resist the use of the pejorative and so far unjustified term dysfunctional here) proclivities, then I believe that is entirely their right and should be respected without reservation.Fair enough. That does seem to be what my gut reaction was based on and I can see how you might argue that it’s not necessarily true. So let me modify my statement. Instead of suggesting that someone who requests to be abused during sex is necessarily psychologically dysfunctional, let me just ask: “What, other than a history of abuse, might motivate a person to want to engage in abusive sex play?” People are fucked up in many ways, babe. We all have character flaws and obsessions and neuroses that we usually keep under fairly tight control in order to function in society. I think sex can be the ideal venue to duke some of that shit out. It is of limited duration and scope. With a minumum of effort and some decent communication, any freak spill-over into the rest of the relationship can be contained quite easily. Whether our impulses are social or anti-social, vanilla or rocky road, sex provides a language for self-expression which is unparalleled in terms of its potential reach and satisfaction.I think I understand your point, but I’m not sure if this really addresses the issue adequately. Let me clarify. I have learned a few things about psychology in my lifetime. Granted, most of what I have been exposed to is from the client viewpoint, but through books, a class or two, and conversations with friends in the field, I have picked up a few things from the clinician viewpoint too. With this knowledge, and with a desire to be a humanitarian, I feel as though I have an obligation to respect the mental health of people with whom I am in a relationship. Jackalope pointed out already that just because someone's a freak doesn't mean they're psychologically incapacitated by it. Besides, respecting the mental health of a sexual partner, relationship or no relationship, does not necessarily translate into forcing them into exposing their hidden motivations for things. I could understand if you felt their life was being affected by their sexual tastes, but the simple existence of said tastes is not sufficient grounds, imo.Therefore, if I feel like participating in a particular activity is potentially damaging to a person, I will want to avoid doing that activity. In such a circumstance it seems that I would be most honest and compassionate for me to be forthright about my concerns. I would not feel morally justified in simply saying, “Well, that’s your preference and I’m not into it”. Expressing your concerns is fine, of course. Would you be willing to take her at face value, however, if she assured you she was simply taking her inner demons out for a spin? Or would you insist that she focus instead on shackling them with self-help programs or going to a surgeon to have them removed?It’s late and I’m tired, so I’m having a hard time finding the words to respond to this as I would like to, but let me try to call up an analogy that may do the talking for me. A person you love is killing himself with a drug addiction, say, heroin addiction, and asks you for another hit. Does morality enter into this scenario? You clearly have the consent of the person who wants the dope. Do you have a responsibility to consider the outcome of their request from a moral standpoint? Not an apt analogy, I'm afraid. The concrete harm of heroin addiction cannot be compared to garden variety kink. I'm sure there are extreme circumstances where the comparison might be valid, but as I said above, the mere existence of degrading or abusive proclivities in no way implies dangerously self-mutilating dysfunction.I’m just fishing for religion. (Figuratively) Now that's what I call degrading. ;)

[livius drusus]

Originally posted by Benjamin Franklin
Leaving aside the question of morality, do you think that is a healthy state of affairs. After all many of things that are morally not wrong are not healthy. I think that's the point viscousmemories is trying to make. I really couldn't say, Benjamin. I don't think there is a general rule. I can guarantee you, however, that you cannot assume that mental health is in serious danger based solely on the nature of the sexual taste.

[tronvillain]

You know, it's been quite a while since I started a thread. Perhaps I should start a poll on spanking or bondage in MD.

[dshimel]

I developed a particular taste in sex that my partner of 16 years did not enjoy. In fact, she dis-enjoyed it quite a bit. It came to a point of being an issue in the marriage, and thus was a sexual disfunction on my part. I would preasure her, and a couple times a year she would give in.

Now, what I wanted wasn't anything WAY out there like bondage, torture, dangerous, unhealthy or something that should involve a bathroom. You'd have to put some effort into finding a XXX movie that didn't contain this activity.

Now, was it immoral for me to presure her? Sure. Was it equally immoral for her to not volunteer activity I had "a thing" for? Probably not. Would it have helped to keep the marriage together? Couldn't have hurt.

About 3 months after splitting with my now-ex, I started dating again. First women I dated actually seemed to enjoy said activity. She would initiate the activity on occasion and willingly participate if I initiated. Suddenly, my sexual disfunction was no longer a sexual disfunction but a healthy sharing activity.

So, how would one begin to decide with whom the sexual disfunction resides? I always thought it was her disfunction as she was unwilling to participate in something so "normal". She thought it was my disfunction as I'd get hung up on it, and not be able to enjoy other things.

I now believe that ANY sexual disfunction resides between the couple. It is a WE issue, not a her/his (or her/her, his/his) issue. The problem was that WE wanted different things. The problem was not "she is a prude for not doing X" or "I'm a freak for wanting X".

[Captain Pedantic]

...people who like BDSM etc are drawn not so much to the actual pain aspect of the whole thing as the theatrics of it. They like to, perhaps, wear the costumes of a dominant/submissive pairing. They like to, for the duration of the sexual act, pretend to be someone else. I remember a magazine article on a high-class dominatrix which quoted one of her clients as saying "I have to be dominant all day in my job. Being submissive is how I relax." It's a fantasy, a game. Nothing very much more.

There is also the idea that some people like to be bossed around, to be told what to do - and those people might like to be "submissive". And some people might well get a thrill from being dominant, and having "power" during sex.

An abusive relationship isn't just sexually abusive, and if someone needs help because their relationship is fucked up, you'll be able to see it in everyday interaction, in non-sexual things.

As with the oft-explained difference between homosexuality and pig-fucking, consent is the key. Any beating which was not asked for is abusive, anything which someone was forced into is abusive.

[ju'iblex]

i could be wrong, but i remember hearing that pain releases similar endorphins and adrenalin as those released during sex, hence why some people enjoy the pain sex equation.

but, dont take it as gospel.

[tronvillain]

Captain Pedantic:
...people who like BDSM etc are drawn not so much to the actual pain aspect of the whole thing as the theatrics of it. They like to, perhaps, wear the costumes of a dominant/submissive pairing. They like to, for the duration of the sexual act, pretend to be someone else. I remember a magazine article on a high-class dominatrix which quoted one of her clients as saying "I have to be dominant all day in my job. Being submissive is how I relax." It's a fantasy, a game. Nothing very much more.

No. Pain can be an extremely important part of it.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by ju'iblex
i could be wrong, but i remember hearing that pain releases similar endorphins and adrenalin as those released during sex, hence why some people enjoy the pain sex equation.

but, dont take it as gospel.

I have heard similar things.

I have also noticed that with intense sexual excitement you hardly notice pain. Once I had my leg a bit wrong. At the time I noted it wasn't the most comfortable position but moving it would have caused us to fall back from the edge of orgasm and I regarded that as worse than the minor discomfort. (We like to stay at the edge as long as we can. However, once there if we drop back I have a very hard time lasting long enough to bring her back up.)
Oops--afterwards I was limping!

[Captain Pedantic]

Originally posted by tronvillain
Captain Pedantic:
No. Pain can be an extremely important part of it.

Fair enough. I'm open to learning, you know :)

[tronvillain]

Loren Petchel:
I have also noticed that with intense sexual excitement you hardly notice pain. Once I had my leg a bit wrong. At the time I noted it wasn't the most comfortable position but moving it would have caused us to fall back from the edge of orgasm and I regarded that as worse than the minor discomfort. (We like to stay at the edge as long as we can. However, once there if we drop back I have a very hard time lasting long enough to bring her back up.)

I know what you mean. In the middle of sex having someone rake their nails down your back doesn't really hurt that much, though now I prefer my partners to have shorter nails. Another thing that can hurt a lot later is rug burn. *ouch*

[LLaurieG]

Why did Jesus die on the cross?


He forgot the safety word.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by tronvillain
Loren Petchel:


I know what you mean. In the middle of sex having someone rake their nails down your back doesn't really hurt that much, though now I prefer my partners to have shorter nails. Another thing that can hurt a lot later is rug burn. *ouch*

Never had either of these happen to me.

[keyser_soze]

Lazarus job, just for viscous.

[Jackalope]

BD/SM definitely isn't all theatrics. Role playing can be a big part for some people, but for others the pain is the thing. The dancers I play music for have a...unique way of attaching their bells. They do temporary piercings with monofilament through them and tie the bells on. So they essentially sew the bells to their arms. Even at fetish street fairs, this can get some extreme reactions from onlookers. It's always fun to see huge, burly leathermen cringe and say "EEEeeeeeew!" in their best sweaterfag voices.

Anyway, at one of these fairs a woman aproached us and started talking about how we must do this because it's a "spiritual" experience. One of the dancers said, "Nope, I just like pain." "But you must be overcoming your personal hangups." "Nope, I'm just a sick fuck. I like pain." At that point, the woman fled to safer fields, where whipping was part of wiccan ceremonies (and definitely not done just because one liked pain).

The thing about the BD/SM community, is that by and large they're more careful about making sure there's consent before doing anything. "Safe, Sane, and Consentual" is one of the slogans you'll hear. While a lot of the things done won't turn the average bystander's crank, the people participating want the activity and consent to what is being done.

Oh, and safewords are usually picked as something that'd never come up in a scene. The funniest one I've heard to date is "Rutabega!"

"Did you see that? How sick! And they have an accordion too!"

[schki bum]

Why do some people assume that a taste for certain sexual activities must stem from psychological problems or abuse? I have friends who are into a sort of softcore BDSM. As far as I know, they were never abused, have no psychological problems beyond what everyone puts up with, and can hold down good jobs. They just get a kick out of bondage and pain, and enjoy giving pleasure to the other person.

What about people who were abused or who do have psychiatric disorders, but are not into BDSM?

Fetishes are not a sign of psychological trauma, disorder, or abuse. As long as everyone is consenting, have at it. Whatever floats your boat.

[Daggah]

Oh, and safewords are usually picked as something that'd never come up in a scene. The funniest one I've heard to date is "Rutabega!"

Oh, I can beat that. I've heard of a dominatrix, working with a very respectful and submissive client, choosing something like "you fucking cunt" as the safe "word."

He didn't use it much.

Personally, I like the green/yellow/red system. Green means "more please," yellow "ease up on what you're doing," and red, of course "stop immediately."

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by viscousmemories
On questions of semantics, I tend to turn to my trusty dictionary. I'm not saying that to be condescending at all, I really turn to the dictionary. The reason is that I figure everyone else who has discussed the topic in the past has already come to a rough understanding of what is generally meant by certain words, so I usually just stick with that.

In this case, the word is degrading. Here are a couple of possible definitions of the word from Dictionary.com:

1. To lower in dignity; dishonor or disgrace
2. To lower in moral or intellectual character; debase.

With this in mind, it does seem unlikely to me that any sex act agreed upon by the parties in question could fit the definition of degrading, since it doesn't seem likely that someones dignity, honor, or character could be debased by willing participation in an act.

I think it is possible for someone to be sufficiently messed up that they expect to be treated poorly, and therefore ask for it. (They may not describe themselves that way, but that does not mean that it is inaccurate; after all, it is a rare individual who has an accurate self-image.) But that does not mean that they really deserve poor treatment, or that they would want it if they understood why they feel about themselves as they do.

So, I think people can agree to being degraded (whether sexual or other activities).

I do not, however, mean to imply that all activities that others would label "degrading" must be so to the parties involved.

I don't think you are likely to get a nice, clean, easy answer to your original question. But remember this: You don't have to agree to something if you don't want to participate in it.

[viscousmemories]

Originally posted by Anon Sockpuppet
viscuousmemories, have you ever considered the possibility that some people are actually born with their fetishes? I know I've had my fantasies ever since I was a small child, and I was never abused in any way.

If someone likes being humiliated during sex, and their partner gives them what they want, I don't think anyone could call that 'degrading.' They're participating in a consensual act. Both partners know that the "humiliating" words being uttered are not really how the couple feel about each other. It's sorta like my interests - I love being beaten up, but if I had a partner that just started beating up on me, without asking me if I wanted it, I would still consider that abusive behavior, and wrong.

Hi Sockpuppet,

Sorry it has taken me over six months to respond to this, but better late than never, eh?

My OP reflects an opinion that I had for years, right up until I posted it. Then, the comments I read here as well as comments and discussions I had elsewhere around the time I started this thread made me seriously reconsider my viewpoint. The unfortunate result was that my thoughts on the subject were so altered that I lost the desire to defend my OP, and so let the thread die out.

I guess what I'm saying is that when I created this thread, I didn't understand your POV and I didn't really care to. I didn't understand that an exploration of pain and degradation, both giving and receiving, could not only be done within the confines of a loving, compassionate relationship, but might actually enhance a loving, compassionate relationship.

Similarly, I didn't believe it there could be a difference between "abusive" play, and genuine abuse. Now the two seem so different to me I can't imagine confusing them.

Anyway thanks for your post, and again I'm sorry it took me so long to respond. :)

vm