SMACK--a concept, a gathering. Welcome.

[rosco rathbone]

[B But transgression to me, is riper when it's a conspiracy of two, rather than a transgression of one against one.

I'm just hashing these ideas out...some piss for thought, as it were. [/B]

By this you mean "the war of the two against all" to paraphrase Hobbs.

 

[Netzach]

poo is one of the Big Three. You pervert.

 

[rosco rathbone]

poo is one of the Big Three. You pervert.

NO SCAT, NO KIDS and er what's the other one? Beasts of the field?

 

[Netzach]

yeah, that which goes moo meow or mehhhh.

 

[Pure]

There are attempts to define what's beyond the pale. The 'cambria list,' for instance. Here's another example:

L A Prosecuter. Deborah Sanchez

thanks to dr mab for the pbs link

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/interviews/sanchez.html


[Question:]
.. Are there guidelines [according to which you prosecute porn and/or obscentity]? Are there reference points that you all know to file?

Sanchez: I have an acronym for it, called "CURBFHP."

The "C" stands for "children involved."
The "U" is for urination or defecation in conjunction with sex acts. The "R" is for rape scenes.
The "B" is for bestiality.
The "F" is fisting or foot insertion.
The "H" is for homicide or dismemberment in conjunction with the sex act. And
the "P" is for severe infliction of pain. So those are the seven general categories that we prosecute.

We have looked at, and are looking at, videos that fall outside that category. They're currently being evaluated for filing. So there are other videos out there that don't generally fit into those categories, but are pretty far out there.

[Adding "B" to the list]
[Question:] There's one category, the name of which I can't pronounce. ...

Sanchez: The "bukkake" film. ... I'll tell you what this is. I saw the video. Basically it's a woman who masturbates on top of a table or in a park. You see her by [her]self, and then later you see about maybe 60 to 80 men around her. And there's a clap. The people then take off their shorts. And there's a clap. And then you see the men throwing the shorts at the woman. The next scene is every man ejaculating on top of this woman, who has her eyes closed. She's laying down on the table and it's dripping off of her hair and her head, and her face and her mouth. ...

And then the crescendo of the film is a woman who has like a bong, with the tube in her mouth, and the men are standing around. They're ejaculating onto her face and into this upside-down cup, and she's drinking it. And that's the end of the film.

 

[Pure]

Hi Netzach

Thanks for a provocative post.

here's a partial answer:

pure: I can certainly see pee and/or peeing as fetish. It need have no 'heavy' or 'power' overtones. A asks B. Would you pee in this cup? B does and hands it to A, who starts to drink it and get highly aroused.

Netzach "Right, but that's not SMACK either? It's still just perverts doing perverted things....If I'm catching your vibe correctly SMACK requires someone not getting off on it and having it imposed. Never mind the basic intrinsic anti-social nature of piss drinking, the fact that the vast majority of the western world and probably the rest of the world would view this as really...wrong in context. Do we need a Jacobean revolution and a Church to be asocial?

To me, that's what's missing, is a discussion of totally mutually fulfilling, easily agreed to, complicit asocial behavior. Fuck force. When a piss fiend drinks a champagne flute of pee pee two people have just gone to sexual bat with a wide world of disapproval....is this renegade stance simply, in and of itself, not SMACK?"

The short answer is "complicit asocial behavior" and its practicers are welcome!

There is no problem, necessarily, if each person, in an easily agreed encounter obtain gratification, though the general, ongoing routine of obtaining life satisfactions in established longterm relationships was said to be outside the scope of the thread.

If I'm catching your vibe correctly SMACK requires someone not getting off on it and having it imposed.

I can see this impression, but on re-reading the opening statement it specifies, most broadly, amoral, deviant impulses. (See also the 7 or 8 listed in the previous post as of interest to LA Prosecuter Sanchez.)

You are addressing a specific [SMACK-ish] analysis of 'power'; one topic that gets perhaps too much emphasis because it's a counterpoint to 99 other (DS) threads in this forum. A SMACK view is that power is understood as imposition, and this was one statement among 17 in the original posting. BUT there is certainly no limitation here, to those deviances which involve imposition. In fact here's what was said,

- SMACK is a look at the kinks that get neglected in
the general focus on DS in this forum.

SM deviancies are intriguing, including those involved in inflicting or undergoing pain or humiliation; but also others ordinarily labeled 'fetishistic' and transgressive.

More to follow. For now, just passed the fluted champagne glass and let's stop yakking in mostly imaginary disagreement!

J.

PS. This thread defines itself; it has no pope. Netzach and bridgeburner-- like rr.--you are a part of it. The genuine renegade is always welcome here!

 

[Pure]

Thought of the Day

http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/2450/perversion.html


Devin Peterson
Defining Sexual Perversion

[start excerpt]
Some excellent guidelines [according to which perversions may be defined] are the universal basic rights of a human being. {my bold} These rights are guaranteed to all persons by the United Nations. Some of these rights include the right to expect others not to harm him or her, to seek uncoerced consent, to respect the dignity of the person and not to humiliate her or him. These rights are not all encompassing but provide some direction on the issue of perversion. As these rights are universal in nature, they can be easily used to provide some direction to the definition of perversion.

[1]If one were to use the right to not be harmed or uncoerced consent, this could be used to define rape as a perversion.
[2]The right of dignity and not to be humiliated could be seen as defining master/slave sexual activities as perversions.
[3]Sadomasochism would also be a perversion because a person has the right not to be harmed or humiliated.

While there is nothing wrong with engaging in the latter two activities on a casual [basis](rape is a perversion no matter what), [it is] when the third condition (inclination) is applied that the definition of perversion can be used. [I.e. if there's a violation of rights and that's what one 'leans to' in terms of character, it is a perversion; but if the 'violation' is for a lark, and non-routine, it's not.]

[end excerpt]

 

[Pure]

Thought of the Day

Robert Stoller defines perversion as 'the erotic form of hatred' and offers critical analyses of fetishism, rape, sex murder, sadism, masochism, voyeurism, paedophilia. He sees in each of these 'hostility, revenge, triumph and a dehumanised object' (Stoller, 1986, p. 9). (cited in D Peterson).

Does fetishism belong on the list with sex murder? In what sense is perversion or fetish--assuming FTSOA it does not break the law--aggressive and/or hostile?

 

[Netzach]

I think the degree of fetishism that we talk about casually is much like a clinician's intepretation of "Sadism" versus an SM player's.

Sadists in one context get off on pain with a masochist who likes pain.

Sadists in another context could never get off with someone who enjoys pain.

Fetishists in one context really like cavorting in rubber pants.

Fetishists in another context are unable to orgasm without rubber pants.

The problem with this analystical query in my own philosophy is that more and more I see SM as a spatial construct, as something much like "ritual space." While religious people are bound by laws and politics, their religious psychospatial idea of the sacred is not.

So why can't I have a similar experience in relation to SM? Not to push a new-agey woo woo feel onto SM, but to recognize the separate sphere, and the symbolic mark of mundane actions.

The destructive drive is there in SM, who could possibly negate it? It doesn't have to be so damn literal. I can eat your heart without frying your winkie up with a side of onions, to be crude.

 

[Pure]

I believe Meiwes said,

"I can eat your heart out, after frying up your winkie with a side of onions."

Just for the record.



PS, What's entailed in 'eat your heart out'?

 

[Pure]

N: The destructive drive is there in SM, who could possibly negate it?

But the author's stronger pt was that it's there in fetishism, voyeurism, etc...

What say you?

 

[Netzach]

I guess if you equate objectification with destruction, it is. I don't necessarily, but I think that we all exist as objects and bodies in the world and get altogether too hung up on the intricacies of our animae .

That said, I'm gonna go out and chack for some tulips today before making myself a nylon bound pony to abuse.

 

[Pure]

It's a beautiful clear day here, too. Buds on the trees.

Saw "Kill Bill" (1). Wow! Mannered, but packs a punch. Best sword fights since Crouching Tiger.

 

[Quint]

I believe Meiwes said,

"I can eat your heart out, after frying up your winkie with a side of onions."

Just for the record.



PS, What's entailed in 'eat your heart out'?

"Well, which is it? That seems like a pretty crucial conjunction." --Emperor's New Groove

If a destructive, dehumanizing act makes one feel fulfilled, isn't it actually an act of creation and affirmation?

 

[Phoenix Stone]

Could be Both/And, doesn't have to be either or. ie. the Phoenix rising from the ashes (and can Only rise from having burned).
Or 'break up to make up,' if you prefer the rock and roll version.

Netzach said: 'The problem with this analystical query in my own philosophy is that more and more I see SM as a spatial construct, as something much like "ritual space." While religious people are bound by laws and politics, their religious psychospatial idea of the sacred is not.'

And both inner and outer spatial construct, for that matter. When reading about and experiencing subspace, I'm reminded of the way people talk about being in the Zone, when they exercise, or create art -- time drops away, you feel 'right' in yourself, reacting and going with the moment, all that stuff. We do all that ritual stuff, the sacred in the mundane, to create an effect.

N: I guess if you equate objectification with destruction, it is. I don't necessarily, but I think that we all exist as objects and bodies in the world and get altogether too hung up on the intricacies of our animae .

And this, too. The need to both be more fully in our bodies and to have an out-of-body experience, to not be hung up on our bodies. So, yeah, metaphysical. The box outside the physical.

 

[Pure]

I don't know if it needs to be 'objectification', but isn't there something aggressive about a man saying to a woman "It's only your mouth" that appeals to me?, (i.e., her pussy is discarded).

 

[Quint]

I don't know if it needs to be 'objectification', but isn't there something aggressive about a man saying to a woman "It's only your mouth" that appeals to me?, (i.e., her pussy is discarded).

A particular gentlemen refers to cunts as "three-hole" because it is the third on his list of priorities. That wildly flies in the face of Female Power, where man's control over woman is inversely proportional to the need for his dick to be inside her. Or that's the theory, at least.

 

[rosco rathbone]

A particular gentlemen refers to cunts as "three-hole" because it is the third on his list of priorities. That wildly flies in the face of Female Power, where man's control over woman is inversely proportional to the need for his dick to be inside her. Or that's the theory, at least.

Good point.

 

[rosco rathbone]

That said, I'm gonna go out and chack for some tulips today before making myself a nylon bound pony to abuse.

YOu'd be the Martha stewart of domination if martha herself wasn't already the martha stewart of domination.

 

[Netzach]

craft project #8882

Insert rubber horse bit in subject's mouth. Observe instantaneous erection in the orally fixated, and the added emphasis when the drool begins to flow.

 

[Esclava]

craft project #8882

Insert rubber horse bit in subject's mouth. Observe instantaneous erection in the orally fixated, and the added emphasis when the drool begins to flow.

Then pull on the reins so the real fun begins...

Esclava

 

[Pure]

Evil Projects 1-100

Ways of defilement involving the face, particularly the mouth.

Note rr has a thread on spitting {go and visit!}, also covered in the first page here, but let's look more generally.

Since lara has posted here on this topic, I'm quoting her here, more recently.

Not even contemptuous ... more of a labelling of another as lesser; beneath contempt actually. To show another this kind of disregard is to raze them to the ground on a psychological level. At one point or another, through person-to-person comparison, life altering events, etc., we've measured our self-worth. To allow a person to take our sense of self (take as in control, mold and twist) and deem it lacking on a basic human plane ... well, that is beyond debasement, it's dehumanizing. And while it may seem immoral or even evil, it meets the needs of those who want objectification in the extreme. What an attractive thought.

She mentions self worth, and dehumanization. Sounds right. I'm not sure about 'objectificiation', one of Netzach's key concepts.
I never quite understood this, since the 1970s feminists like Dworkin introduced it. It means somehow 'reducing the person to [for example] a pussy' and/or indicating a value, or more accurately a 'devaluing', of the sort, 'this pussy is only worth a fuck.'

These are fairly subjective judgements.

But I want to get to the core. Sex workers and prostitutes frequently declare the mouth off limits, except under strict control by them. The famous 'no kissing' rule.

If I may take a page from Aury and the rapscallion. Another defilement is the stranger, even repellent one, doing this. IOW, if A and B and lovers, A sets it up that B is kissed by stranger(s) in whom B has no erotic interest, or even finds off-putting. B, then, is less than most prostitutes, even apart from being fucked and as has been mentioned, in the case of a woman, her pussy may be entirely ignored.

The mouth is the most intimate avenue inward, the most 'us.'
I think that's the reason lara's comments apply. To spit in, come in, piss in etc is to go to the core, as it were, in hot pursuit of the self worth, even identity of the person.

It's worth noting--for the sake of Netzach-- that a 'power' issue, may or may not be present, as I understand the term. It would depend on the 'willingness' of the party. To take a simple example, wherein A is the professional. If B simply pays A to be around her apartment, or in her bathroom as a urinal for x many hours, shows up eagerly, and pays, I see this as a consensual fetish-like scene. Question: Does this scene seem like --N's memorable term-- 'dreaded mutuality'? Not in my view.

J.

 

[Pure]

. [deleted]

 

[Pure]

Let me put it simply:

How does defilement of the mouth strike you? (too extreme?)

Does doing it or undergoing it have its morbid fascination for you?

 

[bridgeburner]

Defilement of the mouth just squicks me rather than turning me on, but I think it's maybe because I'm a bit orally fixated to begin with.

I don't like to experience pain or revulsion through my mouth but I can put up with nearly any amount of ineptitude from a lover if he's a good kisser. If he's a lousy kisser then I'd rather skip it entirely ---- my standards for kissing are more strict than for screwing. Weird, I know, but whatcha gonna do? It just is what it is.

That being said I imagine it would be fairly easy to really piss me off and frustrate me by making me experience things though my mouth that I didn't want to. I wouldn't like it or be turned on by it but that would be the entire point for certain purposes of the SMACKish individual, right? Of course, the most likely result is that I would puke and that's not very attractive at all. ;->

-B