Imagine: Self-Absorbed Sex

[Pure]

Hi sunny,

I was able to re-view DL this eve ('cruel intentions', tomorrow), and you've picked some of the key and memorable words of the two leads. Thanks, it's handy to see exact words.

Probably there's a difference between Meurteuil and Valmont not quite captured in the quotation about her love of cruelty; his, of betrayal. For certainly he is exceptionally cruel to Tourvel, apparently virtually causing her to become mortally ill.

{{Added: It's this cruelty which perhaps didn't receive enough mention in the original formulations of self absorbed sex; and didn't receive nearly enough emphasis in characterization [from memory] of Valmont (played by Malkovich), the libertine. In relations to an old discussion with Phoenix, I'd have to revise and say, that the harder, most unscrupulous libertines like Valmont, DO, on occasion maximize cruelty, for specific reasons. He maximally hurts Mme de Tourvel.
It remains true, however, that that is not his goal in every encounter with every woman. Indeed, there's an intriguing suggestion that it's his new found love that panicked him into his very sadistic way of getting rid of her.}}

I agree the 'do them before they do you' is common in people; the avid unscrupulous pursuit of gratification and power/triumph over the other; their abasement. On grounds they'd do it to you; yes, that's fairly frequent. However it seems to fit Meurteuil better than Valmont. Perhaps reflecting the danger of her situation.

Certainly the unscrupulous libertinism of Valmont isn't just protective; Tourvel wasn't about to dump him, I don't think. His motto is also 'Do others for amusement if they can be done, and for thrill, if they present difficulties; and keep moving.' If you recall, he initially turns down the assignment of Cecile's seduction on grounds it would be too easy: 'a dozen men would be fit for the task' (roughly).

As to the limits of his transgression, note the scene where Mme de Merteuil talks to Cecile after her 'ruin':

[roughly, from memory]
"Did he force you?"
"No, not exactly." Cecile continues, "I didn't know what to say."
" What about 'no'?[ironic]"
"I said it, many times, but I kept on doing quite different things."

In short she's in no position to cry 'rape.' (Firstly, because she gave his the key to her room.)

In a word, then the libertines didn't invent selfishness or avid pursuit of sex. Most all of us have the first, and, at times, the second. Some have a lot of both. But the two took something 'normal,' very much further. This isn't different from many a deviant; a normal tendency is taken to an extreme.

What's the qualitiative difference (if any)? the recurring question. It seems to involve some things already mentioned: coolness, cunning; often choosing a challenge; and most prominently, based on just seeing the film, letting it all hang out for the other, at least by the end; relishing their dismay.

The simple sexhound concentrates on the available, the easy; don't try all that much to heighten expectations and feelings; and, quite noticeably, is often content just to move on. There's the old scene of the guy quietly zipping up, and disappearing into the predawn.

It's the difference from the midnight thief of bicycles and the executors of the Great Train Robbery in Britain a few decades back.

By the way, I want to thank lara for reminding us that it's a mistake to feel sorry for the 'prey' as victim in all cases. Some set out to be devoured by the sexualy voracious; to be cruelly used by the selfabsorbed erotist. Any moral crusade to wipe out this legal predator seems entirely misplaced.

To pet, roscoe, lara, netzach, bridgeburner, sunny, phoenix and others... You rock!

 

[Phoenix Stone]

I think being compared to a mass murderer for one's sexual exploits *is* kind of offensive, PS.

Since this is directed at me -- did I say it wasn't offensive? Or did I say it was: 'a bizarre leap,' 'over the top,' that I initially thought it was a spoof, that it was outrageous and disrespecful?
Shall I add 'offensive' to the list? No objection.

Btw, I believe the objection EM made was to the idea of having fun from deliberately hurting someone who hadn't consented to it, if I remember correctly. And that she suspected this is where something like the ability to kills for fun STARTS. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable stretch hypothetically. Highly offensive when responding to a particular person, of course, but hypothetically logical. Of course she said it with a lot more hyperbole....

A question was asked and the poor woman made the mistake of replying in candor that she's not perfect.

The 'poor woman' replied about a lot of things -- and where they were directed at me, and incorrect, I corrected.

I've gotten taken to task for pages on pages about a relationship that I value because it's extramarital and told I have no ethics by people who didn't know me from adam, for PAGES.
I think I have ethics. I think I just don't happen to SHARE their ethics and telling me that for pages isn't going to change that.

I'm sorry you had an unpleasant experience in which those who don't share common ethics with you, took you to task for pages and pages. And...?

I've asked questions, and mostly they've been answered by Pure, who has responded directly, objectively and without, er, misrepresenting my position or his own. Have the courage of your convictions, stand by them and I'll disagree with you straight out or not, but don't say you didn't say what you said, eh?

I've been asking about limits and parameters here, mostly, because that interests me. I've also posted 3 experiences, one done by me, one by my sister, and one done to me, asking whether they qualify. Hard to stick to the request for stories if you don't know exactly what is being sought, eh? (No, I'm not Canadian. Will stop saying 'eh.')

But when you post here you run the risk of drawing offensiveness, and being offensive I guess.

Could happen from time to time.

Chill.

Gee, I'm having fun here, aren't you?

 

[Phoenix Stone]

What's the problem? I'm being a meany and enjoying it, even letting you know about it.

Oh, we were supposed to have sex first? One of the posts Did say sex was only secondary and not even the point but... lets take it as a given.

Sex first. Does it Have to be mutual, then? Sorry, it didn't work for you, didn't give anyone's 'little masochist' a thrill. But how do you know I didn't get off? Could be jilling my little pussy off at this very moment!

No multiples? No vicarious enjoyment of the meanness of others? Thought those were all allowed.

Ahhh! Non-consent! Well, you're welcome to pour a beer on my head (thought I've really developed more of a taste for a good Merlot at this age.)

As to the 'chill' command, as stated on previous threads, I really only respond to commands of a sexual nature. Now, 'go fuck yourself' might have gotten you somewhere!

Much love and kisses to you all! Let's play again sometime!

 

[Phoenix Stone]

Oops, don't want to scare the newbies. Easy to forget I'm not just talking to veterans. Why (and how) could I do this? To my friends, yet. (Well, formerly friendly acquaintances, anyway, who've done me no harm.)

Same source. The 'hypothetical' EM so crudely raised. Any conceivable first step relationship between enjoying/getting off on cruelty, and the long road to getting off on killing.

One personal, non-hypothetical, connection I make, is that one way I can tell when I've gone too far, is that it gives me a little sexual twinge. In rl, this I take as a signal to immediately back off.
Another is self-righteousness about one's stance. This, too, seems to be a necessary but insufficient condition, and one I recognize in myself and have a pretty good detector for recognizing in others. Outrage at being called on one's own shit, is one of the signs.
Call me on my own shit, fine. Unfairly call me on somebody Else's shit, you bring out my self-righteous Outrage;> What gives me the right to do it, what gives you the right to object? Self-righteousness can be seen as a form of selfishness, as can self-absorption. It's all about me, here, ya know? Btw, I don't think this is a hijack, as aren't I giving you a marvelous first-hand view of the sport? Or doesn't this qualify?

Now for 'the road to hell being paved with...' cruel and selfish intentions:> Raised by wolves, remember? Well one of those wolves used to enjoy hurting those who loved her, especially the ones she didn't love in return. She 'graduated' to enjoying inflicting physical as well as emotional pain to the non-consenting. Didn't just 'enjoy,' got off on.

And then, let's see, one day.... Well, admittedly, the first time she tried to kill anyone, it was more to make a point, than for purposes of enjoyment. The second time however, when it was just me, well that time she could barely contain her glee. There was even a bit of sexually-related talk first, this time, for a warmup.

So (note the proper use of the word 'so' here), I have a little firsthand knowledge which leads me to believe that the Possibility of a hypothetical connection between enjoyment of inflicting pain on the non-consenting as the start of the road to enjoying killing the again, non-consenting, is not inconceivable.

Think I answered the 'How' question, already -- learned from the best. Thanks, Mom.

Ps. One of the worst things about experiencing rl non-consensual sexual sadism, true for rl rape as well, is that it can ruin a perfectly good fantasy:> (And can make one a bit sensitive to even the mildest forms -- did that come thru?) And to make this all about Me again -- getting the picture as to probably why I'm not your probably more typical 'play nice' sub?

(edited because, well, I really don't talk enough, don't you think?)

 

[Pure]

Phoenix said,

So (note the proper use of the word 'so' here), I have a little firsthand knowledge which leads me to believe that the Possibility of a hypothetical connection between enjoyment of inflicting pain on the non-consenting as the start of the road to enjoying killing the again, non-consenting, is not inconceivable.

I don't doubt at all that there are continua for many types of life events. Some progress from pulling off flies' legs to serial killing.
Some progress--exactly as we were warned-- from pot to heroin and speedballs. And death. Belushi.

Nor, Phoenix do I doubt your experience of persons moving to the extremes of some of these.

That said, some of us did manage to stop at pot--and so there is such a thing as soft drug, recreational use. Even the most unscrupulous and cruel of libertines, Valmont, apparently managed not to set himself up for a rape charge; in that sense to stay within the law. He's at one extreme of the libertinism demarcated in this thread.

Pet has mentioned and illustrated the further distinction between active deception (which fits Valmont, I admit) and less direct ways of misleading or 'letting people think what they want.' So Valmont appears as the more unscrupulous, but still legal, libertine.

The Don Juan character in several stories, however, is a poisoner and/or murderer. The extreme, criminal libertine.

All the lines are blurry, of course. One can discuss the perhaps moral equivalency of 'jilting' a lover (like Mme de Tourvel), leading to fatal illness or suicide, and actually killing someone, say by strangling.

That said, I'd still lean on the law; charges can't be laid over jilting. Yes there are 'mental harms' but it's not *criminal* to inflict these, in general. In my friend's case, left one day before the wedding, I'd like to see jailtime, but that's only fantasy.

As pet and others have said, life has its 'hard knocks'; many from encoutering people with their self serving agendas. But bellyaching over the routine ones, or moralizing about the routine inflictors seems pointless.

Has it struck anyone as odd, that one 'line' in the thread is the ordinariness, and 'ho hum' of these sexual exploitations "I don't see any taboo." Another line is that we're on a slippery slope to murder and perdition. The latter fears, to me, illustrate the 'taboo' or transgressive nature of the acts originally described.

J.

 

[Phoenix Stone]

As pet and others have said, life has its 'hard knocks'; many from encoutering people with their self serving agendas. But bellyaching over the routine ones, or moralizing about the routine inflictors seems pointless.

Has it struck anyone as odd, that one 'line' in the thread is the ordinariness, and 'ho hum' of these sexual exploitations "I don't see any taboo." Another line is that we're on a slippery slope to murder and perdition. The latter fears, to me, illustrate the 'taboo' or transgressive nature of the acts originally described.

J.

Ah, yes. Agreed with everything you said, up to this point.
To the first: one man's 'bellyaching' is another woman's Fun. (See: difference in taste, visa vi, enjoyment of deliberate infliction of cruelty addressed previously.) Also, I don't see a bit of moralizing in my posts, and would appreciate your pointing it out.

Did I miss something? WOULD like to know where I moralized or cried about my aching belly from routine 'hard-knock' encounters. Nope, just a bit of explication. I thought I was having fun.
Oh, let's see, moralizing? Was that using the phrase 'road to perdition?' I thought it was rather colorful and fun but if you perfer scientific and evidence-based, well, you did a bit of that, yourself with the flies and potsmokers, which I followed up on.

As to the second, I Don't personally believe that one who behaves cruelly to sexual partners in this manner has any but the most infinissimally small chance of becoming an axe murderer, or that once having tasted blood, they are likely to gain a taste for more, more, More! That, to me, is laughable. (See previous posts as to that aspect of the argument.)

Is it odd, however, that one might find cruelty both ordinary, ho-hum, and still reognize a connection between levels of cruelty? Be able to recognize that while the average pot user doen't end up a junkie, the average junkie didn't start out by shooting up? Please recall that I didn't say I found EM's argument anything but a bizarre leap, especially in the way she presented it. That I considered her response to be both over the top and offensive. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that I can't defend it as a viable view.



(edited to say: Oh, poo! Was on a roll before but am running out of steam -- lucky you! -- so this post is for sale 'As-Is' only. No money back for any inaccuracies or inconsistencies contained herein. In fact, I refuse to stand by them or be held accountable for them in any way whatsoever. Take at face value and at your own risk.)

 

[Netzach]

What's the problem? I'm being a meany and enjoying it, even letting you know about it.

Oh, we were supposed to have sex first? One of the posts Did say sex was only secondary and not even the point but... lets take it as a given.

Sex first. Does it Have to be mutual, then? Sorry, it didn't work for you, didn't give anyone's 'little masochist' a thrill. But how do you know I didn't get off? Could be jilling my little pussy off at this very moment!

No multiples? No vicarious enjoyment of the meanness of others? Thought those were all allowed.

Ahhh! Non-consent! Well, you're welcome to pour a beer on my head (thought I've really developed more of a taste for a good Merlot at this age.)

As to the 'chill' command, as stated on previous threads, I really only respond to commands of a sexual nature. Now, 'go fuck yourself' might have gotten you somewhere!

Much love and kisses to you all! Let's play again sometime!

*chuckle* touche. Good merrlot, at least.

 

[sunfox]

Hang on. Lemme wipe the blood of my latest victim off my hands so I don't stain my keyboard.

Is the leap from indifference in sexual exploits to murder inconceivable? No. But is it likely to have been the 'jumping off point', so to speak? Not according to most studies of murderers, no.

Cruelty that results in actual physical harm to the subject is a stepping stone to murder. Not fucking someone then dumping them for their best friend, because he has a bigger cock.

Think pulling wings off flies, then graduating to throwing kittens off overpasses, then breaking horses' legs with shovels... okay, this is getting morbid, and I'm sure you see the bigger picture.

Saying that self-absorbed sex has a link to murder is like saying that telling a friend she does actually look fat in those jeans leads to tying her down for a home liposuction attempt with your ginsu knife set.

Now if you don't mind, I'm going to go toss this body to the dogs.

 

[Phoenix Stone]

Hang on. Lemme wipe the blood of my latest victim off my hands so I don't stain my keyboard.

Is the leap from indifference in sexual exploits to murder inconceivable? No. But is it likely to have been the 'jumping off point', so to speak? Not according to most studies of murderers, no.

Cruelty that results in actual physical harm to the subject is a stepping stone to murder. Not fucking someone then dumping them for their best friend, because he has a bigger cock.

Think pulling wings off flies, then graduating to throwing kittens off overpasses, then breaking horses' legs with shovels... okay, this is getting morbid, and I'm sure you see the bigger picture.

Saying that self-absorbed sex has a link to murder is like saying that telling a friend she does actually look fat in those jeans leads to tying her down for a home liposuction attempt with your ginsu knife set.

Now if you don't mind, I'm going to go toss this body to the dogs.

All right, All right! If your gonna put it That way!

But I still think I argued it very nicely.

(And only if you have don't Like her looking fat in those jeans, right? Or is that wrong? There's something wrong with that whole fat jeans/ginsu knife thing -- besides the obvious -- somewhere, but I just can't quite put my finger on it...)

(ooh la, la -- we're getting Quite kissy around here, aren't we?)

 

[rosco rathbone]

Hang on. Lemme wipe the blood of my latest victim off my hands so I don't stain my keyboard.

Is the leap from indifference in sexual exploits to murder inconceivable? No. But is it likely to have been the 'jumping off point', so to speak? Not according to most studies of murderers, no.

Cruelty that results in actual physical harm to the subject is a stepping stone to murder. Not fucking someone then dumping them for their best friend, because he has a bigger cock.

Think pulling wings off flies, then graduating to throwing kittens off overpasses, then breaking horses' legs with shovels... okay, this is getting morbid, and I'm sure you see the bigger picture.

Saying that self-absorbed sex has a link to murder is like saying that telling a friend she does actually look fat in those jeans leads to tying her down for a home liposuction attempt with your ginsu knife set.

Now if you don't mind, I'm going to go toss this body to the dogs.

If indifference to the sexual pleasure of one's partners leads to murder, lock me up. I have killed and will kill again!!

 

[sunfox]

All right, All right! If your gonna put it That way!

But I still think I argued it very nicely.

(And only if you have don't Like her looking fat in those jeans, right? Or is that wrong? There's something wrong with that whole fat jeans/ginsu knife thing -- besides the obvious -- somewhere, but I just can't quite put my finger on it...)

(ooh la, la -- we're getting Quite kissy around here, aren't we?)

Ahh, you did argue quite persuasively. I'm just stubborn.

The link there is one thoughtless/mean-spirited act being a gateway for cutting someone up/murdering them. It's just rather absurd, and I wanted to make it even more absurd by my example.

I dunno... I only like kissing the girls lately. Maybe I'm having a bisexual moment!

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Imagine: Self-Absorbed Sex

Does it hurt a little having someone say mean things to you -- when you did nothing to hurt them personally, and in fact were only sharing something you thought would be appreciated? Ow. Rather a slap in the face, eh? And going out of their way to tell you in 'harsh words... coldly, calculatingly and with no remorse.'
What, Laughing at someone's pain isn't fun? Ohhh, laughing at YOUR pain isn't fun. NOW I get it.

ok..i get your point. My point was that I don't pursue relationships..i pursue fucks. Which makes me unqualified to answer any of your questions concerning how far too far is.

any questions?

(as for whether or not it hurts to have someone say mean things to me? On a forum? Someone I will never meet? Ummm, no. Quite frankly, it does my heart good to have a good disagreement...Since I usually just run rampant and flirt with anyone who writes decently.)

all righty then....

 

[sunfox]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Imagine: Self-Absorbed Sex

ok..i get your point. My point was that I don't pursue relationships..i pursue fucks. Which makes me unqualified to answer any of your questions concerning how far too far is.

any questions?

(as for whether or not it hurts to have someone say mean things to me? On a forum? Someone I will never meet? Ummm, no. Quite frankly, it does my heart good to have a good disagreement...Since I usually just run rampant and flirt with anyone who writes decently.)

all righty then....

Does this mean I can score some meaningless sex with pet and be left exhausted and brokenhearted? Because if so....

Where do I sign up?

 

[Pure]

Sunny said,

Cruelty that results in actual physical harm to the subject is a stepping stone to murder. Not fucking someone then dumping them for their best friend, because he has a bigger cock.

Think pulling wings off flies, then graduating to throwing kittens off overpasses, then breaking horses' legs with shovels... okay, this is getting morbid, and I'm sure you see the bigger picture.

I think we've all lawyered our way out of the problem that struck ethereal and bridgeburner. So if I may--as it were--switch sides for this posting). Without getting carried away in virtue, consider the position, for a moment.

While the law is pretty leery of getting into non physical harms, they are certainly real. [The law does recognize some, as in child abuse cases, that lead to 'apprehension', seizing and removing the kid; wife abuse, non physical, has a legal dimension.] As a couple posters have proposed, the longer term set ups, are esp. cruel: I.e., hanging around someone for their body or money or whatever, then one fine day disappearing.
And sometimes no message is necessary. The 'why' is obvious.

In Dangerous Liaisons the scene with Pfeiffer being told "It's something beyond my control." and being dismissed is quite heart rending. And the wound is mortal (I know, only a story).
("Cruel Intentions" is more upbeat; only Valmont dies, not his love.)

So I don't think it's quite so easy as that last sunny quote makes it out to be. IF one sees depraved indifference to suffering, and joy in inflicting it, one is moving on a continuum from ordinary selfishness to psychopathy. And even if the latter succeeds in being noncriminal--- as in marrying old ladies for the money, then dumping them--it's highly destructive.

What I'm saying is that yes physical cruelty is a predictor of later criminal physical cruelty, but other cruelties may predict non criminal or 'white collar' unsavory, mentally brutal, activities.

One point worth remarking, that's gotten lost, is that the thread originally described 'acts' of self absorbed (libertine) sex. And these are done occasionally by quite a lot of us. The shift to _persons_ is significant. The libertine person, like Valmont, being one who routinely and constantly does these acts, and thus to whom we can ascribe a callous _basic disposition_. So suddenly we're looking at a hundred acts, constituting a 'career' as it were.

Taking pet's last posting, "I pursue fucks" may mean 'on occasion' or it may mean, "routinely and constantly". The one case indicates a quite common person, and the latter might indicate something a bit off the beaten track. Leaving aside pet as a person, IF someone *constantly* does this stuff, leaving a trail of psychic ruins, he or she would tend toward what can only be called 'brutal' ('cruel' in the idiom of Dangerous Liaisons).

I'm enjoying the hell out of 'Cruel Intentions' this time around, and pet, if you're anything like Sarah Michelles character, I'd love to run into you! (joke)

Anyway, that's the other side of the story, and I appreciate those who've brought it up and been 'beaten about the head and shoulders' by the rest of us. Your point was worth examining, even though, in the end I do NOT 'buy' a duty to be nice always and never exploit anyone (within the law). We're humans with 'agendas'; we're wired, in large part, to seek for the needs of 'number one.'

J.

 

[sunfox]

Ahh, but I never said that it wasn't cruel to use someone purposefully.

I just said it wasn't to be construed as a stepping stone to homicide.

Pfft.. as if I'd get blood all over my DKNY skirt.

 

[Pure]

But if I may be brief, this once!-- there are destructions other than homicides.

Though again, given how humans are wired, human living is going to result routinely in lots of pschic hurts/wounds. (Sunny, your example of one being 'rejected' in favor of another, based on cocksize is quite good.)** It's quite impossible to forswear doing them. (Gandhi's biographer, Ericson, was appalled at his everyday cruelties to his wife.) So this thread's attempted an objective ('extramoral') look at them.

Sunny, if you can, better than I, re-create the Cecile, Meurteuil dialogue where Cecile talks of her being taken-- but somehow cooperating-- that would be interesting. The Cecile figure in 'Cruel Intentions' seems much stupider in being seduced, and Selma Blair's acting is nothing to rave about.

J.

**Puts me in mind of the old story of the man having a difficult choice between women of various fantastic gifts, be it intellect, talent, or even devotion. The punchline q & a, being. "Which one did he choose? The one with bigger tits."

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

(so far I have enjoyed the hell out of this thread)

I understand where my posts may strike some as being callous. Hell, when I write about it strikes me as if it were someone else doing these acts. My main reason for participating in this particular thread was to admit that I had done such things before and that the doing was fun for me. I never took anyone's feelings into account because in my mind they did nt matter.

However (this is to re-iterate what I said in my first couple of postings) this type of pursuit was in my past. I have 2 little girls and I did not want to teach them this type of behavior. A tiger can change her stripes when she has to.

As for *Cruel Intentions*, I own the movie and have always enjoyed Sarah Michelle Gellar's part. I used to aspire to be something like her. *Dangerous Liasions* on the other hand...well I was torn between John Malkovich's character and Michele Pfeifer's (but that was probably because they both got played in a way that was too over the top..)

My point I believe is simple. Everybody (at some point or another) has a cruel streak within. You can call it whatever you'd like (honesty no matter how badly it hurts the other person, grudge fucks, something to do, payback) but it's mybelief that it's the way we carry it that either makes us *run of the mill* or *psychopathic killer* material.

The pursuit of *prey* all the time, the callous disregard of people's feelings etc, etc either begins to take it's toll or it doesn't. When it doesn't..when it becomes a way of life..that is when one should worry. The rest of it is just modern day cruelty and we have all been the recipient of that in one form or another.

 

[Pure]

A bit of dialogue and a question.

And for the 'newly minted' pet; whose daughters may remain without certain lifeskills!!

From Dangerous Liaisons (a similar dialogue is in Cruel Intentions). After Cecile is seduced by Valmont, according to the two libertines' plans, she confides her distress to the 'helpful' Mme herself.

Mme de Meurteil: You resisted him?
---Cecile: Of course, as much as I could.

Mme: He forced you?
---Cecile: No, not exactly. But I found it impossible to defend...

Mme: Why was that? Did he tie you up?
---Cecile: No, he has a way of putting things so that you can't
---think of an answer

Mme: Not even 'no'? (a trifle sarcastic)
---Cecile: I kept saying 'no' all the time, but somehow that was
---not what I was doing. ... I'm so ashamed.

-----
Not to ignite the war between the genders, but given the commonness of 'taking advantage' and acts of the sexually self absorbed, Is it not appropriate that the burden is always on the alleged 'victim' to prove that neglect of precautions and putting oneself in (alleged) harm's way, did not constitute implicit consent?

In DL, Cecile provides a key to her bedroom, and agrees to a kiss. In CI, Cecile goes to visit Valmont's apartment in the wee hours, is persuaded that she's agreed to have oral sex performed on her, and allows it--to her great enjoyment! The second case seems more clearcut.

Do you agree: It's appropriate that both Ceciles take responsibility--as they do-- for their allleged 'misfortunes'.

I know, it's so callous an un-PC to 'blame the victim' and so inappropriate for 'victims' to blame themselves, BUT, one must face up to the world out there, its sharks, tigers, etc..

Hence holding the so-called 'victim' responsible is the only appropriate stand to have--for the case of adults-- where that person has failed to take the most obvious precautions and voluntarily placed her/himself in an obviously compromising and vulnerable position. (We assume no physical harm has been perpetrated.)

We're not discussing physical harm, but the metaphor is otherwise apt: If you go swimming in shark infested waters, and you know--or should know--about sharks, don't complain if you lose a leg. Camille Paglia has made this point.

What say you, sunny, pet, phoenix, bridgeburner, roscoe?

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

Not to ignite the war between the genders, but given the commonness of 'taking advantage' and acts of the sexually self absorbed, Is it not appropriate that the burden is always on the alleged 'victim' to prove that neglect of precautions and putting oneself in (alleged) harm's way, did not constitute implicit consent?

Do you agree: It's appropriate that both Ceciles take responsibility--as they do-- for their allleged 'misfortunes'.

I know, it's so callous an un-PC to 'blame the victim' and so inappropriate for 'victims' to blame themselves, BUT, one must face up to the world out there, its sharks, tigers, etc..

Hence holding the so-called 'victim' responsible is the only appropriate stand to have--for the case of adults-- where that person has failed to take the most obvious precautions and voluntarity placed her/himself in an obviously compromising and vulnerable position. (We assume no physical harm has been perpetrated.)

We're not discussing physical harm, but the metaphor is otherwise apt: If you go swimming in shark infested waters, and you know--or should know--about sharks, don't complain if you lose a leg. Camille Paglia has made this point.

What say you, sunny, pet, phoenix, bridgeburner, roscoe?

Pure:
Actually, i would have to agree with your assessment. To me, if some one came to my apartment knowing (as they usually did) of my usual modus operandi (fuck em and leave em) then anything I did or did not do was allowed by them to happen.

It wasn't like I raped them or forced them..i just did what was needed and told them to leave. (It was my house after all!!) Of course, one does wonder if they assumed it would be different with them, but that wasn't really my fault. No one had told them to assume anything.

I will await everyone's answers with bated breath...

pet

 

[sunfox]

I am, perhaps unsurprisingly, in agreement with pet again on this score.

I don't pity an adult for making adult choices... choosing to sleep with someone who has questionable intent for a further relationship, etc. You're a big boy/girl. If you want more than I'm going to give you, then find another person to screw into panting, sweating exhaustion....because I've told you I'm not interested in long term.

Though, let me point out that while I do think the Cecile in CI is as much to blame as Sebastian... I don't agree that the Cecile in DL is to blame. She is convent raised, and rather unaware of the wolves in silk clothing that she has been thrown among.

A lamb to the slaughter, so to speak.

 

[Pure]

Sunny said,

//Though, let me point out that while I do think the Cecile in CI is as much to blame as Sebastian... I don't agree that the Cecile in DL is to blame. She is convent raised, and rather unaware of the wolves in silk clothing that she has been thrown among.

A lamb to the slaughter, so to speak.//

There is something to what you say, though I wasn't talking blame, but responsibility.

But, examining the dialogue I posted, and what follows, we see Cecile (DL) [Thurman] does not say she was forced, or tied up and overcome, or claim to be a victim of a crime.

A further point that pet, I believe, made: What exactly happened to her? She was sexually initiated. In the interview quoted, she is next advised by Mme de Meuteuil to continue learning from Valmont; and she does, and is shown enjoying it. (As is Cecile in CI, in her own dumb way.) Does this really look like a slaughtered lamb's behavior? Does this look like signs of deep psychic injury (soul destruction)? Even her 'shame', as Mme observes, quickly passes.

There a clear contrast with Mme de Tourvel (Pfeiffer), who does hurt a lot. I wonder if it's too much to suggest that the author doesn't want to encourage the reader to see Cecile as victim. What is the hard-to-pin-down characteristic of her that perhaps makes the author willing to write off her 'ruin', but not that of de Tourvel? Is it perhaps lust?
====
In another thread, 'Trust and Honesty,' where the ethical ones post, I see

Shadowsdream:
Honesty and Trust

Two extremely innocent and unassuming words. Study them. Think about them. Taste them. Inhale them. Devour them. Commit to them if your desires take you past the bedroom games of Domination and submission and into the lifestyle you say you crave. Without one the other cannot exist.

Honesty is the backbone of integrity and tests the vulnerability of a submissive as he or she lays their life completely open at the feet of the Dominant they have chosen to present the gift of their submission to.

[...]

Honesty has no less importance when it is presented by the Dominant. To mouth the word in insincerety shows Her weakness. Her honesty must be in all things and at all times for it is the strength of Her committment.One digression can bring down Her house of cards.{my bold}

One appreciates the eloquence of SD. And there's no disputing how some others might want to conduct their longstanding relationships. Those, rather than shorter 'stands' appear to be the topic of her 'trust and honesty' thread.

But one may still ask, Does the above apply to the 'self absorbed' seeker of sex, the libertine ('top', if you stretch the term a little)?

It's been mentioned that there's minimal level, 'letting the other mislead him/herself' which is a practice of the more scrupulous libertine; actively deceiving is part of the unscrupulous libertine's practice, e.g., Valmont, in either DL or CI.

Notice that SD seems to use honesty very broadly, and links it with sincerity, which, to me, suggests not just avoiding lies, but being truthful and disclosing of intentions.

In that sense, even the scrupulous libertine (which pet has so well described; also netzach) fails in 'sincerity.'

Question: Let's assume SD's guidelines apply to her dom/sub activities, and leave that fact aside since it's based on choices of the participants (one notes the responses, in agreement, of those similarly inclined). Let's note that SD is NOT addressing the situations of this thread.

BUT does the libertine (assumed to be scrupulous[non-lying] and legal), the self absorbed seeker, have a duty to be sincere, for instance, to fully disclose intentions? Must all 'topping' be carried out with sincerity?

Let me give a more recent example: the publisher, the Hugh Grant character in "Bridget Jones Diary" gets it on with her for a couple or a few weeks; she falls in love. She then finds him with another woman (after he made a bs cover story). Iow, he didn't disclose his involvement with this other woman, NOR his intentions to keep fucking her alongside Bridget, as it were. She made the commonplace, utterly familiar, assumptions of great sex leading to exclusive arrangements.

A couple posters in this thread have commented on similar situations. The partner is making castles in the air and future plans. The libertine is honest to a point, e.g., in suggesting absense of long term commitment ideas. But the libertine certainly does NOT say, "I will fuck you and move on; than is my plan." S/he choses not to say this, for the time of the encounter. Is that a problem? Is that morally scummy?

J.

PS, I will let SD know of this posting, so that she may respond to its responses, if she chooses.

 

[Phoenix Stone]

Ahh, you did argue quite persuasively. I'm just stubborn.

The link there is one thoughtless/mean-spirited act being a gateway for cutting someone up/murdering them. It's just rather absurd, and I wanted to make it even more absurd by my example.

I dunno... I only like kissing the girls lately. Maybe I'm having a bisexual moment!

Me stubborn, too. But not in mood for fighting right now. Got it all out of my system for now -- which is why I haven't been around on this thread and am just catching back up.

Haven't run out of ammo, just tired of shooting for now. Thank you all for the opportunity to kick some ay-asssss, as they used to say in my old neighborhood.

And Rosco, nope can't lock you up pre-murder. Just like we can't lock up little boys who pull wings off of flies, much as some of us might like to. All we can do is say No No No, and wag finger, eh?

Now going on to read the rest of the thread -- lions and tigers and snakes, oh my! Hope I'm gonna be able to stick to passive resistance and such.

 

[Phoenix Stone]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Imagine: Self-Absorbed Sex

ok..i get your point. My point was that I don't pursue relationships..i pursue fucks. Which makes me unqualified to answer any of your questions concerning how far too far is.

any questions?

(as for whether or not it hurts to have someone say mean things to me? On a forum? Someone I will never meet? Ummm, no. Quite frankly, it does my heart good to have a good disagreement...Since I usually just run rampant and flirt with anyone who writes decently.)

all righty then....

Oooh, la la, I know the feeling (about flirting with all the good writers, or wanting to)!

You answered Surprised me! I LOVE that!!! Just love it!

Here I was all set to respond based on your expected response and I get to scrap it -- that's so cool.


Reminds me: meant to express my gratitude and appreciation to you all for good arguments.
It is SO tedious to give a great counter and get back something like, 'you bitch-cunt,' as some are wont to do on other boards. What a waste of good ammo. (In one case, I couldn't help it -- after the guy spent some time patting himself on the back for being such a good purveyor of putdowns, which were completely of the George Carlin 7 words you can't say on television variety -- I finally lost my temper and lowered myself to slinging epithets right back. I called him Poopy-Head.
In response, he had the nerve to refer to me as infantile! 'Childish' I would have taken in good spirit. Even 'toddlerish' I could have bowed to as well-deserved. But infantile just shows a lack of familiarity with early childhood developmental staging. Sheesh. One has to be At Least one and a half years old, even if one is a prodigy, before Poopy-Head rears its ugly, well, head.
The point being, it's nice to be in a place where even the insults, such as 'you are a mere sub-brat, not a True slave' are at a higher level, and require explication, even philosophical reasoning.

(Wouldn't mind your Opinion, pet, on how far is too far, based on your experience, or even based on nothing , which is actually what I'd been trying to get at in the first place.)

For You All!

 

[s'lara]

So far an interesting topic. Good going Pure.

i also agree that there is a certain amount of personal responsibility we all have and to disregard familiar signs of danger is that persons folly. Whether we choose to exercise our personal responsibility is another matter all together.

There is something to be said for ignorance when approaching an unfamiliar situation. If one does not have the information needed to discern between a harmful or safe situation, then they shouldn't necessarily be held accountable for their mistake. However, if that person continues with the same pattern of behavior, i would have to question whether that person deliberately sought to put themselves in harms way. We learn much through repetition and if you put a mouse in a maze and the cheese on the electric shock lever, it will eventually starve.

There was a discussion recently where the the phrase "damsel in distress" came to bear on the topic. i think Cecile's character fits the bill in that she felt there was no amount of defense on her part which would have changed the outcome of her initiation into sexual activities. While i know it's hard to conceive of a woman (or man for that matter) living in present day and believeing they are defenseless to the extent Cecile believed herself to be, it is certainly possible. All it takes is a strong belief that a charateristic exists within oneself which prevents self-protection on any level. With enough time and conviction, combined with a particular natural trait, you can ingrain a damsel in distress mindset quite easily.

i don't necessarily believe that everyone wants the responsibility of self and as a result, they often become victims of their own making. With that possibility, it is tough to say they should have known better. In fact, they do know better and may be unwilling to retain a hard lesson previously learned. Not my cup of tea, but i do gather there are some who prefer it this way, even if it is to their detriment. i don't advocate this kind of mindset, but i do acknowledge its existence.

lara

 

[s'lara]

Further, to respond to Pure's examples above, imo, yes it makes a person wrong if their intentions for the duration of the "relationship" aren't expressed fully. It is dishonest. Whenever you intentionally withhold pertinent information from another which could influence their decision making process it is definitely wrong.

That said, it is also wrong to make assumptions about another especially if a) you do not know that person at all, b) you have not directly questioned the other as to their intent and c) you project your wants/desires and allow it to distort the "reality" of the relationship. Without indicators either way, don't build on a shaky or non-existent foundation.

lara