Sexual Fetish Patterns

[Zed]

I got reminded in the shoutbox about my proposed fetish typology thread. Rather than procrastinating until I can write a 30k word essay, I’ll think I’ll try to post my ideas about it over time - starting from the most basic.

Brief story: Long ago, I wanted to make sense of the patterns I observed on f-list, /d/, and elsewhere relating to sexual fetish clustering patterns. The basic heuristic was that certain classes of fetishes naturally tended to cluster. Obviously, the most superficial pattern is naturally related to dominance or submission, but there was a host of more subtle ones (Eg, one notes a foot fetish/cuckolding/femdom pattern). In general, the basic typology I came up with was roughly the following: Fetishes could either be oriented towards other people, towards autonomous experience, or towards objects. Typically, people gravitated strongly towards one class or another, allowing for a natural degree of overlap when certain fetishes could not be placed nicely in just a single category.

The idea was to work out such a basic classification of common fetishes, and then work out secondarily archetypal patterns of sexual deviance and the disposition/personalities of those who tended to fit those patterns. When you’ve seen enough of these things, you can start to intuitively identify the kind of person someone is based on their kink. Autism is often extremely easy to spot, but one could also reliably spot BPD and similar such things.

Basically, the proposed typology starts with three broad elements of a sexual fetishes. As mentioned before, these are not necessarily exclusive categories - a fetish can have elements of all three.

Social (Collaborative/Symbiotic)

A social fetish is one that is grounded in a specific act involving at least one other person. Generally, the social element is present in most fetishes that most people think of when they consider fetishes. BDSM, vouyerism, pet play, cuckolding, exhibitionism, anal… etc. In general, these are fetishes which are inherently coupled with other people. Most social fetishes have either a power affirming (dominant) or power negating (submissive) aspect. For example, fetishes favoring acts of willful transgression elements tend to be power affirming. Those that fetishize humiliation elements tend to be power negating. As general rule, media catering to social fetishes is generally well served by video.

Experiential (Autonomous/Imagined)

A experiential fetish is essentially a sexual attraction to an experience that is fundamentally autonomous. My standard example is transformation fetishes, where the individual fantasizes about being transformed into a woman, robot, demon, and so on. Other examples are sounding, age regression, omorashi. Roughly speaking all experiential fetishes all tend to either some combination of transformation, stimuli, and explicit scenarios. For example, inflation sexual fetishes tends to involve both stimuli and transformation. Generally, these fetishes tend to rely strongly on imaginative faculty. Experiential fetish porn tends towards erotica, or things that directly simulate the experience (sissy hypno). If visual imagery is used, it functions as a catalyst for the internal fantasy.

Fixation (Particular/Focused)

A fixation fetish is fetish focused on a specific object, attire, or body part. The most well known fixation fetish is feet. Other examples: latex, corsets, uniforms, diapers, kigurumi. All of these can have experiential aspects (such as a fetish for wearing diapers, or the ‘smooth’ feel of latex), but they can also be fundamentally independent. For example, there is a specific group of people that just masturbate to woman’s shoes. Not wearing the shoes or looking at the shoes on women, but the shoes in and of themselves. See also the people that masturbate to microwaves and toasters. Contra most experiential fetishes, fixation fetishes are well served simply by pictures and videos and require minimal to no imagination.

Since I’ll write more in this thread over time, I’ll content myself with a few basic observations for now:

In a certain sense, I tend to see social fetishes as first order deviations from normative sexuality. The common elements of dominance and submission are usually present and mutated. Moreover, most social fetishes tend to appear around puberty and seem to be incubated by exposure to porn.

By contrast, experiential/fixation fetishes have more abstract and unaccountable origins. A fetish for inflation/stretchiness can arise simply from having a weird reaction to a children’s cartoon. A fetish for getting turned into a vampire can come from watching an innumerable number of movies. A diaper fetish might emerge in a young child who is told they can no longer wear them. I've known people that could trace their ultra-specific fetishes to singular formative experiences during their childhood.

Anyways, perhaps this is a good and interesting direction for this thread to start with - what is the origin of experiential/fixation fetishes? What are the common patterns and subcategories?

[JohnTrent]

This was already said, but glad to see the thread is up. There is an excessive amount of insight that can be drawn from this subject in particular.

The discussion of fetishes is often troubled because our understanding comes from second-hand summaries of Kraft-Ebbing, or clinical categories of paraphilias (if we want to go that far). What conjecture exists is only applicable to this manner of understanding, and not so much with the variety of fetishes present in the Experiential category, for instance. Even with the Fixation category, a true understanding is lacking: the fetish was previously envisaged (in both Psychopathia Sexualis and Freud's Three Essays) to be a danger once it impeded the act of sex, but the Internet Fetish has next-to-nothing to do with this. The vast distribution of pornography results in an entirely different approach to pornographic imagery: for the average person in the US pre-1990s, the pool of available imagery would involve real-life models. People do not masturbate the same way because their way of seeing has changed. Within this change, the imagination of the fetishist is altered too. So when the Fixation category comes to mind, there are objects that have tenuous connections to the sex act, or none at all (e.g., as you have said, microwaves and toasters). In the most pathological case of the Traditional Fetish, a person uses a certain object to fulfill the imagination, evoking the impression of the sex act.

What I've said above isn't an absolute, of course. Robert Crumb said that he was the first generation to be raised on mass media, and some of his sexual fixations might come to mind in that respect. He is a case of premature sexuality, not towards girls around him, but Disney cartoon characters designed without erotic intent (in my opinion). The immersion experienced through the television screen can produce early examples of what would later become the Internet Fetish. I am sure that, given enough time, other examples could be introduced in this thread to similar effect.

My continual interest in the subject falls somewhere in the Experiential category, which is imaginative almost to the point that it diverges from reality. The first example that comes to mind is something like dinosaur fetishes, restricted only to those who are furries. The problem posed here with this one fetish is that there is little reference to reality. This can be held true for other furry fetishes, but dinosaurs are the most extreme example. For one thing, the furry must consume pornography that is at once anthropomorphic and zoomorphic. It could be anthropomorphic in the sense that it must imitate the human body to a degree, and zoomorphic with perceivable animal characteristics (ranging from common distinctive features in the face to genitalia). When something like a dinosaur fetish appears, however, the anthromorph-zoomorph structure dissolves. It has nothing to do with humans, and, I would argue, little to do with animals either. Someone inclined to consume bestiality pornography is only someone who is interested in bestiality, but the person who has a dinosaur fetish is operating on the imagination of an animal that does not currently exist. Like with the general condition of the furry, it is a mental approximation for sexual ends, but the desire is based off of another person's visualization (i.e., "this is what [x species of dinosaur] looked like"). It's a collective fantasy producing the popular image of the dinosaur on one hand, and a distinctly sexual counterpart for the fetishist on the other.

The reason I chose this example is because the collective fantasy has been instrumental in producing new fetishes. It is almost like a primitive call-and-response, seen best in Rule 34 or erotic thoughts about animated characters. Going back to the Crumb example, video games are an excellent conduit in creating fetishes, since the impressionable mind is considerably immersed when playing the game. Tangential, but whenever I play Doom I have the exact feeling that Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold described, which is that you play to such an extent that you begin to see the imps and zombies in your head when stopping the game. You can hear the noise of the shotgun, the illusory feeling of conflict. When I first started playing Half Life 2 as a kid, I was so immersed I forgot what reality was for a few moments after pausing it. People would speak to me but their identities, for a half-second's time, were completely unknown. All that existed was the virtual world. Perhaps this is a symptom of personal mental illness, but you can see how this could (unintentionally) seed fetishes in a person's mind during states of immersion. Further, considering how Rule 34 is a constant reaction to ZOGslop media, each newly released movie/show awakens a chain of reactions that can feed the fetish or feed an erotic reaction.

You might be wondering here about what I think the cause really is, porn or mass media itself, and it is my opinion that the former is the most pivotal element. In previous times, the porn industry could be secluded from standard patterns of media consumption (best way I can phrase it atm); you were not likely to be exposed to anything with strong fetishistic elements. Now, when it comes to browsing the Internet, a different approach emerges, where the true fetishist with amorphous tastes can be molded, shaped by the pornography that others use. Other fetishists can indulge in their own specific taste to excessive degree, and perhaps gain more in that process. For this reason, Experiential and Fixation fetishes are far less involved with real life than it would be in previous generations.

I am not finished with this line of thought but I wish to post this before more remarks are made.

[The_Author]

I've always suspected that fetishes emerge when one's vital powers are constrained by the environment and are not allowed to grow into more natural desires.

This is corroborated by the fact that people on steroids develop wild sexual appetites followed by fetishes. The sexual impulse, unexpressed in the usual way, festers in the mind with other miscellaneous thoughts and becomes attached to them.

It is possible to counter this by education. Sexually repressive cultures and subcultures sometimes educate people from a young age about the exact role of sex, and in a non-sexual sense about the importance of marriage and so on, therefore attaching the impulse to the proper thoughts.

There are some fetishes that are not "paraphilias", to my mind. For example, the desire of men for domination is not really unusual, and it is clear that the ability to exercise dominance over a woman is of reproductive import. The true paraphilias are those that are of no reproductive import.

[Zed]

In the most pathological case of the Traditional Fetish, a person uses a certain object to fulfill the imagination, evoking the impression of the sex act.

[...]

My continual interest in the subject falls somewhere in the Experiential category, which is imaginative almost to the point that it diverges from reality. The first example that comes to mind is something like dinosaur fetishes, restricted only to those who are furries. The problem posed here with this one fetish is that there is little reference to reality. This can be held true for other furry fetishes, but dinosaurs are the most extreme example. For one thing, the furry must consume pornography that is at once anthropomorphic and zoomorphic. It could be anthropomorphic in the sense that it must imitate the human body to a degree, and zoomorphic with perceivable animal characteristics (ranging from common distinctive features in the face to genitalia). When something like a dinosaur fetish appears, however, the anthromorph-zoomorph structure dissolves. It has nothing to do with humans, and, I would argue, little to do with animals either. Someone inclined to consume bestiality pornography is only someone who is interested in bestiality, but the person who has a dinosaur fetish is operating on the imagination of an animal that does not currently exist. Like with the general condition of the furry, it is a mental approximation for sexual ends, but the desire is based off of another person's visualization (i.e., "this is what [x species of dinosaur] looked like"). It's a collective fantasy producing the popular image of the dinosaur on one hand, and a distinctly sexual counterpart for the fetishist on the other.

The reason I chose this example is because the collective fantasy has been instrumental in producing new fetishes. It is almost like a primitive call-and-response, seen best in Rule 34 or erotic thoughts about animated characters....

[...]

The role of symbolism is probably my favorite aspect of this topic and I'm glad you brought it up. Fetishes manifest explicit patterns of association within the subconscious, and this is one of the most interesting ways to approach the subject. I've always preferred these kinds of angles, eg Bataille's account of the relationship between sex, sacrifice, and the sacred. I'll digest your post a bit more before responding to it properly. For now, let me note that my interest is primarily also in the experiential category, but the experiential retains strong connections with both social and fixation. I'll write about social at another point, for now let me note one relation I find interesting -

There is a rough object/symbol duality between fixation and experiential fetishes. Moreover, they often appear jointly in a kind of mutual synchronicity. Put briefly, fixation fetishes *encode* sexuality onto the object where experiential fetishes *decode* the symbolic association of the object. I think this brings out the nature of both a little bit.. Maybe some examples will get across the idea:

The manifestations of autogynephilia is relatively well understood. One finds both a fetish for various feminine experiences, as well as fixation fetishes. Although AGP remains largely experiential in nature, it still retains definite fixation markers on things that symbolize femininity, such as particular articles of clothing, make-up, etc. Here, we see intuitively the relation between the experience and the fixation is one of mutual encoding/decoding. As an aside: One notes that the kind of AGP that tends towards transsexuality tends to completely abandon the fixations in favor of the experiential. 

As another example — diapers and age regression exist naturally within this duality. The diaper fixation functionally encodes the age regression experience, where age regression decodes the diaper fetish.

As a third and particularly simple example, latex/bondage fixations encode BDSM but are simultaneously decoded by it.

In each of these cases, the fixations manifest direct reference points to the symbolic experience, and acquire erotic weight via experiential associations – or vice versa. If you dwell on this a bit, you start to sense a certain chicken-and-egg problem lurking behind these dualities —

Does the child acquire a fetish for diapers first - and thus decodes an experiential fetish for age regression from it? We can speculate a possible developmental trajectory: The attraction to diapers increasingly trends towards fantasies relating to the potentialiy of actually wearing them, thus sublimating the object into an experience - crystallized as an infantilization fetishes. From that point on - one imagines a general kind of transference from the erotic content of the object to the erotic experience.

Let us consider an alternative and particularly Freudian potentiality: We may imagine another child, one who feels a tremendous jealousy in the way his mother showers adoration upon an infant. Perhaps that child desires to be adored in such a manner, and so fantasizes about their own infantilization — thus we may imagine the transference running in the opposite direction, whereby the diaper fetish functionally manifests as a representation of the infantilization.

Of course, this is just speculative - we can’t account with any precision for the origins of fetishes - but I believe *we* can somewhat grasps the kind of patterns of movements and flows between them (As an aside, one of my major gripes with sexology is the common presumption that fetishistic sexuality is inherently fixed, rather than existing in a state of constant mutation.)  These movements seem to exhibit at least one core pattern - the direction of attachment strongly tends from the fixation to the experiential (even if it always allows for a possible bidirectionality). Why might this happen? The experiential fetish has nearly unlimited extensionality, and libidinal potentiality. It attenuates to eros freely and liberally, in contrast to the inherent rigidity of the fixation fetish. Note that people often admit to having specific object fixations in their youth, and ‘growing out of them’. How does this happen? Why? It *could* be shame or repression, but I think it is likely that the libidinal attachment to fixations weakens gradually over time in most people.

To draw out that last observation more precisely: I’ve always had a sense that fixation fetishes are inherently juvenile in comparison to the other classes. One finds that often people who still hold strong fixation fetishes past their teenage years tend towards a particular and unique form of weird - as if they spiritually undeveloped in a certain way. There is a strong autistic correlate here, possibily a mind-body age misalignment. I would love to meet someone who masturbates to microwaves and is not terminally autistic, but I would guess that such types do not exist.

[Muskox]

The way fetishes cluster certainly is interesting. The intersection of latex, corset and femdom fetishism has interested me for a while. Latex fetishism, aside from the obvious appeal of skintight clothing, is confusing to me, but corset fetishism and femdom are much more understandable. From an outside perspective, though, I don't think most would assume there would be such a strong overlap. Corsets are the symbol of male domination par excellence these days, so why are they so popular with dominatrices? The entire pattern of male corset fetishism is mystifying to me. One would think that the most typical expression would be a dominant male using the corset on a submissive female as a tool for bondage or body modification or whatever. But this isn't the case, nor does it seem to have ever been. In fact, the more typical expression seems to be men who are interested in cross-dressing. I touched on this before in the Tranny Sociology thread, I think. Going all the way back to these early quasi-fetish magazines like London Life, they seem to be dominated by stories written by men from a women's perspective, with not infrequent instances of men openly writing about cross-dressing. Even someone like William Granger (husband of Ethel Granger), who at first glance appears to be exactly the first type, seems to have cut his teeth on cross-dressing.

The fact of the matter is that these types of historical body modification, like corseting and foot binding, while appreciated by contemporary men to varying degrees, were the domain of women. It is universally the mother, or some other female authority, who imposed corseting or foot binding or whatever on the girl. It stands to reason that men who take an interest in this process would generally be effeminate, in the same way that effeminate men today become makeup artists or fashion designers. Does this hold true for other garment-related fetishes? I'm not sure, but it certainly does for bimbofication, which is a tranny hotbed if there ever was one. This could also explain the popularity of the corseted dominatrix, who stands in as a perverted form of the mother introducing her daughter to womanhood.

Another possibility is that, as blanched_chards and The_Author said, fetishes tend to grow from frustrated sexual development, in which case fetishes of all kinds self-select for men who are less dominant and assertive by nature and therefore less likely to be sexually successful during adolescence. I wonder what the breakdown is for men who engage in non-social fetishism. Are they more often dominant or submissive? I imagine that it trends very submissive for experiential fetishes, but I'm not sure about fixation fetishes.

[Zed]

The way fetishes cluster certainly is interesting. The intersection of latex, corset and femdom fetishism has interested me for a while. Latex fetishism, aside from the obvious appeal of skintight clothing, is confusing to me, but corset fetishism and femdom are much more understandable. From an outside perspective, though, I don't think most would assume there would be such a strong overlap. Corsets are the symbol of male domination par excellence these days, so why are they so popular with dominatrices? The entire pattern of male corset fetishism is mystifying to me. One would think that the most typical expression would be a dominant male using the corset on a submissive female as a tool for bondage or body modification or whatever.

I'll take this as an opportunity to decode some symbolism.

I think a core aspect of femdom is a particular perversion of the male/female dynamic, but structured within careful bounds. Fundamentally, it is a humiliation-adjacent fetish - but humiliation is maximized in so far as the male/female dynamic is turned on its head. The woman is not a substitute for a man, and the man truly desires to be dominated by a woman - which must be fundamentally more transgressive and humiliating than being a dominated by a man. Men dominate other men all the time in life (and sometimes in sex) --- but to be dominated by a woman is to experience a deeper and more profound degradation. Thus the femininity of the woman is requiredm and it is better if it is exaggerated. Just as he becomes less man than man --- the fetish demands she must become more woman than woman. Thus, rather than act as a man, she must become Lilith and he her child in need of discipline.

Symbolically, the dominatrix is never a short pink haired dyke. Femdom insists that the dominatrix manifests elements of extreme femininity, but twisted in an alien design. This becomes her archetype: She is usually long haired, slim (at worst, motherly), well-kept, between 25-35, and wears conventional make-up. The corset augments her femininity with a certain feminine self-mastery, it can epitomize submission, but it can also epitomize her own discipline - in heart of the man, it is effectively a martial uniform. And the dominatrix must wear *something* - a nude woman is always rendered vulnerable by her nudity. 'Pretty' and 'cute' is not the desired association either - almost certainly too warm. The corset is cold, beautiful, and inhuman - it fits the dominatrix like a glove.

[capgras]

Every post itt was written while jerking off (except this one)

[JohnTrent]

Let us consider an alternative and particularly Freudian potentiality: We may imagine another child, one who feels a tremendous jealousy in the way his mother showers adoration upon an infant. Perhaps that child desires to be adored in such a manner, and so fantasizes about their own infantilization — thus we may imagine the transference running in the opposite direction, whereby the diaper fetish functionally manifests as a representation of the infantilization.

Of course, this is just speculative - we can’t account with any precision for the origins of fetishes - but I believe *we* can somewhat grasps the kind of patterns of movements and flows between them (As an aside, one of my major gripes with sexology is the common presumption that fetishistic sexuality is inherently fixed, rather than existing in a state of constant mutation.)  These movements seem to exhibit at least one core pattern - the direction of attachment strongly tends from the fixation to the experiential (even if it always allows for a possible bidirectionality). Why might this happen? The experiential fetish has nearly unlimited extensionality, and libidinal potentiality. It attenuates to eros freely and liberally, in contrast to the inherent rigidity of the fixation fetish. Note that people often admit to having specific object fixations in their youth, and ‘growing out of them’. How does this happen? Why? It *could* be shame or repression, but I think it is likely that the libidinal attachment to fixations weakens gradually over time in most people.

To draw out that last observation more precisely: I’ve always had a sense that fixation fetishes are inherently juvenile in comparison to the other classes. One finds that often people who still hold strong fixation fetishes past their teenage years tend towards a particular and unique form of weird - as if they spiritually undeveloped in a certain way. There is a strong autistic correlate here, possibily a mind-body age misalignment. I would love to meet someone who masturbates to microwaves and is not terminally autistic, but I would guess that such types do not exist.

I would agree that fixation fetishes have a rigid and maybe ephemeral quality to them, opposed to the experiential. Something that just occurred to me is that the fixation, as a trait in the sexual image, is usually not exhaustive enough for the mind. So whenever a person opens up a hentai gallery tailored towards a certain uniform or feature of the drawn character, there is always something else which must be evoked. That very mind drawn to fixations must be open to a series of situations where the fixation is present. They must attempt to parse out what is an appropriate situation for the fixation and what is not. The reason why others could find this difficult is that most drawn hentai is in the doujin format, not usually video: there is no motion to it beyond what is alluded to in the pages, the bodies or positions are frozen in time. You must actively observe the content of the pages to properly fulfill the urge, whereas the experiential fetish does not require such stringent aims. It is almost a combination of elements that must appear together for the desired result to take effect. 

Most normal people, when they say they have a fixation fetish, are lying. They may want a specific uniform for a special occasion, but it is the situational element which is desired, not so much the uniform in isolation. Those who are autistic, as you said, are misaligned to some degree: their fixation is static, when sex is inherently dynamic (even when it is repetitive). For there to be such importance assigned to the fixation, it has to be in a mastubatory context; otherwise, it is simply dissolved into something that eventually imitates regular sex. For an example, the foot fetishist of past may gawk at the female foot, jerk off, then ask for a footjob or regular sex. The autistic fixation in that time would be something quite rare, which is masturbating at the sight and completely ignoring the woman. Of course, this cannot be replicated near as much as pornography, and even the equivalent of this today is still irregular. If I had to guess about what drives the autistic fetish fixation, it would have to involve isolated characteristics that can be put to use. It could involve a complex set of different characteristics, all meant to be categorized, but usually revolving around one feature (feet is the best example of this). When certain images or videos are brought under this lens of categorization, the dynamic trait of sex gradually disappears. If masturbation or a fetish preference transforms into something experiential, it must fall outside of this categorizing process.

[Lohengrin]

I'll corroborate with experiences, anecdotes, thoughts of my own and whatnot.  Growing up, I held a predilection towards seeing women in bondage.  I couldn't really explain how or why I was greatly aroused at the thought, but I remember how well it amused five-year-old me to imagine a woman in that predicament.  Might have been a film my parents watched or one of those damned (Western) cartoons, a common vector for development of fetishes in children, I presume, what with all the revolting smut on Rule 34 and other sites.  I affirm that numerous fetishes are derived from, or at least popularised by, Western cartoons. Inflation, macrophilia, furries and their posterity, they exist in some hyperreality that makes no real sense, but it does in their mind... that which they continue to depict in those odious Western art-styles.

Contrarily, Japanese/Anime-inspired paraphiliae are often grounded physically, you can imagine people developing penchants towards "omorashi" (piss) or "futanari" (dickgirl) without exposure to it, though I suspect that's less likely with the latter.  Go and show me a hentai where girls transmogrify into chairs, turn into glory-holes, a car, or inflate as balloons and pop (please prove me wrong on this, it will greatly amuse me).  Remarkable that Chris-Chan held few unnatural paraphiliae, if any at all, outside of his furry art that comes par for the course of a Sonic fan.  A point about object-derived paraphiliae, both physical and (Western) drawn, is the focus on the object itself, to the deprivation of the essence that makes the experience so titillating.  How am I to be aroused if the target receiving my desires with the object is not the least bit attractive?

My continual interest in the subject falls somewhere in the Experiential category, which is imaginative almost to the point that it diverges from reality. The first example that comes to mind is something like dinosaur fetishes, restricted only to those who are furries. The problem posed here with this one fetish is that there is little reference to reality. This can be held true for other furry fetishes, but dinosaurs are the most extreme example. For one thing, the furry must consume pornography that is at once anthropomorphic and zoomorphic. It could be anthropomorphic in the sense that it must imitate the human body to a degree, and zoomorphic with perceivable animal characteristics (ranging from common distinctive features in the face to genitalia). When something like a dinosaur fetish appears, however, the anthromorph-zoomorph structure dissolves. It has nothing to do with humans, and, I would argue, little to do with animals either. Someone inclined to consume bestiality pornography is only someone who is interested in bestiality, but the person who has a dinosaur fetish is operating on the imagination of an animal that does not currently exist. Like with the general condition of the furry, it is a mental approximation for sexual ends, but the desire is based off of another person's visualization (i.e., "this is what [x species of dinosaur] looked like"). It's a collective fantasy producing the popular image of the dinosaur on one hand, and a distinctly sexual counterpart for the fetishist on the other.

For those with the stomach, or just plain curious, search for anything on a Rule 34 site or browse some fetishist on DeviantArt and ignore any anime art.  Particularly object-fixations, and double points for searching with 'furry' or 'anthro' tags.  Observe the exaggerated features or sole focus on the paraphilia at hand.  What sensations are there to be stirred here?  One would think some of these are designed for comedic purposes, but they are not.  Merely a hyperreal simulation of something that ought not to exist.  And some autist out there is gooning to "Hazbin_Hotel diaper inflation Sangheili chastity_cage threesome handholding".


From here on out, I will discuss people I had met who expressed such fetishes rather than primarily on the paraphilia itself.  Years ago, I had once held moderation status over a community of adolescent youths, a janny if you will, and witnessed first-hand the development of such paraphiliae among them.  When we had moved to Discord, a porn channel was created for our server, though discussion and promotion was rife in our earlier time on our forum, a decree had been promulgated with my input to outlaw the use of explicit pornography as user avatars.  Out of our community primarily attentive towards video games and anime, one could observe the most overt paraphiliacs among them were furries or passionate consumers of Western cartoons.  Plenty of which, as of today's writing, identify as alphabet people, primarily "non-binary".  As of today, many of those have calmed, others not so much, even developing further fixations as time passed.  I have written a tangent about certain observations below, marked by spoilers as it's devoid of analysis and merely a narration of events, in addition to rather objectionable material.

Show Content

Spoiler
Pokemon figures were rather popular to my dismay, as you could expect, soon the furries, and later some had readily admitted to the consumption of seminal fluids.  A common theme was their admission to consuming copious amounts of pornographic material every day, spending countless hours browsing sites such as Pornhub on their Nintendo 3DS devices.  Pivotal moment for me was my consternation at the banishment of at least two users for their almost-obsessive fixations about their anime wives, and yet these fetishists received only mild reproofs for their ostentatious acts.

Long before Lord Elon blocked X (formerly Twitter) from lurking accounts, and before the imposition of age restrictions, I used to cyberstalk one such subject who held a predilection towards Pokemon figures and considered himself gay, to eventually discovering 'sissification' and chastity devices, in addition to his furry fantasies.  As of late, a companion of mine had shown a revolting screenshot of the man pledging allegiance to the "BNWO" (Black New World Order) and "artwork" of nigger futa, in addition to the swathes of regular deviantart porn he normally posted.  A similar fate happened to a closer friend, still agonising to this day.  He had been a Patriot both times Our President needed us in 2016 and 2020... only to also fall victim to nigger sissification diaper fantasies.  My friends, please do not allow this to happen to you or someone you hold dear.  Regardless, his taste was, how shall I put it; more "refined" than the aforementioned furry.  His twitter feed, rather than the nauseating "artwork" of Western cartoons was mostly that of lolicon, and tweets notably overt about his paedophilic fantasies... primarily his desire to be a 9-year old girl gang-raped by a pack of feral niggers.

I'll refrain from writing further on this, it disheartens me as I'm certain it does for you, but I wish to note their common theme of degradation and humiliation.  This former companion had been rather reticent, obviously having repressed these tendencies for a time though never speaking of it, before eroding what left of his dignity remained and... devoted himself to this.  The only explanation I had received was a penitent and melodramatic letter describing his guilt and admonishing himself for having supported Trump, having felt alienated all his life, and wishing to make amends and repent... which naturally devolved to sissification, of course.

This desire for degradation is so common, I cannot help but pity them.  So many fallen to basal desires when restrained by the world around them, in conjunction to early access to pornography and possible sexual energy emitted from degenerate cartoons they remain fixated on.  I often shirk pondering about some of these figures, delving deep into their minds, it disturbs me greatly.  One last analysis from me, is that an exceedingly small minority of users from this former community were connoisseurs of child pornography.  Besides one, they did not seem the type to be paedophiles, I had and continue to presume that collections of the sort are only developed to experience a thrill of something that which is illegal.

[capgras]

Not only is analyzing sex in such detail disgusting, it follows the same pattern as all leftist intellectual output. Seethe at normal people acting normally leads to the invention of a false absolute (capital, racial difference, unreflective heterosexuality) that is 1. in reality conditioned by something (or some things) higher than itself and 2. is presented as necessarily prone to corruption in and of itself. This sleight of hand divorces any proceeding discussion from higher concerns and changes the terms of victory from accuracy to success at arbitrary word games. The etiology of almost all fetishes is incredibly self-explanatory and treating it as worthy of serious discussion is beyond foolish.

[Zed]

I'll refrain from writing further on this, it disheartens me as I'm certain it does for you, but I wish to note their common theme of degradation and humiliation.  This former companion had been rather reticent, obviously having repressed these tendencies for a time though never speaking of it, before eroding what left of his dignity remained and... devoted himself to this.  The only explanation I had received was a penitent and melodramatic letter describing his guilt and admonishing himself for having supported Trump, having felt alienated all his life, and wishing to make amends and repent... which naturally devolved to sissification, of course.

I get shit on every time I make this point - but it is an observation that I hold to: First, degradation/humiliation fetishes can only ever take root in those that spiritually acknowledge the significance of degradation. Second - and this is the part that pisses people off -  typically these are men born to innately right wing dispositions. If one doesn't implicitly acknowledge a form of natural order and assign moral valuations to the sexual act, then one is precluded from the possibility of a thrill at transgression, degradation, and humiliation--- profanity demands the attendance of the sacred.

We can examine this from another lens - online fetish communities, particularly those associated with fandoms (having a naturally leftist bent), consistently take a fairly critical position on humiliation/degradation. For a person to acknowledge that a certain act is humiliating or debasing is to collectively cast aspersions everyone who indulges in it. You are free to talk about your perversion in so far as you maintain positive affirmative tones. These communities will literally encourage you to let your partner force feed you human excrement, so long as it fun, safe, consensual, and has a good after-care protocol. I cannot conceive of finding sexual pleasure in eating shit, but if I try to imagine a world where I did - the idea of framing it in a 'fun, safe, consensual' manner would surely annihilate any erotic potential.

Now eating shit is an extreme example and I've never actually knowingly hung out with shit eaters, but I have seen the analog with trannies, furries, and gays. There are of course gay men that are aroused by being uh... 'broken in/emasculated' for a lack of a better phrase. Essentially, they conceive of anal sex in the way that the ancients did, and fully acknowledge a degradation experience by the passive partner. As it stands, this fetish is probably not even uncommon, but I've gained a sense that - amongst many normie gay circles - it is rather taboo to acknowledge any sort of degradation inherent to being the receptive partner. Leftists in particular seem notorious for policing these things, and implicitly associate such fetishes with 'creepy' and 'toxic' people. Likewise, I've had rather normie women tell me of related experiences - deep discomfort at the idea of telling their male lover that they wished to be slapped and disciplined.

People joke about the incel2tranny pipeline, and of course the idea has merit - but there was also the less well-known (but not uncommon) /pol/tard2tranny pipeline. It is not really a surprising phenomena. The tension in the contradiction between libidinal desire and the noble spirit has two effective ends - a culmination in extreme violence, murderous rage  - or an absolute sublimation/acceptance. For many, they asymptotically approach the former before eventually surrenderin to horrifying reality of it. As the process terminates, they unconditionally accept the fetish completely and willfully graft it onto their identity - thus obtaining a sense of ownership and control over it.

[Zed]

Not only is analyzing sex in such detail disgusting, it follows the same pattern as all leftist intellectual output. Seethe at normal people acting normally leads to the invention of a false absolute (capital, racial difference, unreflective heterosexuality) that is 1. in reality conditioned by something (or some things) higher than itself and 2. is presented as necessarily prone to corruption in and of itself. This sleight of hand divorces any proceeding discussion from higher concerns and changes the terms of victory from accuracy to success at arbitrary word games. The etiology of almost all fetishes is incredibly self-explanatory and treating it as worthy of serious discussion is beyond foolish.

We're at a particular point of time where sexual development is unmoored by innumerable external sources detached from the formative conditions of our species. What is clear - if nothing else - is that the formation of a well-disposed sexuality is a more fragile process than it should be. Aside from that, the nature of libidinal desire is interesting if only because the reproductive drive (in either a direct - or sublimated - form) profoundly orients the course of the human animal. 

One understands the nature of subatomic particles by engineering high speed collisions and analyzing scattering patterns. By analogy, the libidinal nature of the life drive always betrays hidden elements of its nature in the corresponding failure modes. It is worthy of discussion for the same reason that hallucinogenic drugs are, not because it enables higher insight or because it allows a communion with the divine --- but in that what remains after the waves are torn asunder is a view of the ocean floor. Word games are a risk, but probably unavoidable when the topic because the weakness of our words necessitates at least a (mild) esotericism.

[Guest]

Doesn't it seem that there are fundamentally different modes of sexual arousal? When I think about flirting with cute flustered girls and how such a situation may progress into intimacy I get aroused but more notably I start to sport a wide grin- unconsciously, automatically. Nothing like that happens when I look at porn or even classy/sexy pictures of majestic women. This reflects a difference in the fundamental character of the experience. Are goonchads real, or are they all just in fugue?

I saw a 0HPL tweet that said something like "your instinctual disgust is abused against you to promote/reinforce fetishes" kind of in a "neurons that fire together wire together" sort of way. Does this strike true for anyone? I have habitually consumed porn that often clusters with porn that incites disgust in me if I pay it any attention. I never crossed over into appreciation of that adjacent type of porn despite about two decades of consumption of the former sort. Do people actually jack to things they find disgusting? Are people just not that good at ignoring gross stuff?

now quoting @capgras btw

analyzing sex [...] it follows the same pattern as all leftist intellectual output. Seethe at normal people acting normally leads to the invention of a false absolute (capital, racial difference, unreflective heterosexuality)...

Okay, I read your thing over a few times and the third thing "unreflective heterosexuality" is the absolute you think is at risk of concepting if we talk about such things?

invention of a false absolute... that is 1. in reality conditioned by something (or some things) higher than itself...

Okay, so the false absolute vassal to a higher cause is in this case the normal sexuality and its actual corruption as a reflection of some higher more broad/abstract pollution. I accept that, but I think it would be a good tack for the thread to take rather than an excuse to stifle/spore this conversation.

How does this fetish stuff actually reflect the failure of zoomies to relate to the matrix movies aka the desire to exist in a real world? See first paragraph of post.

Or, like other people bring up, how much of this is just downstream of a drought of confidence/will mixed with guilt over edgelord transgressions? I speak of the desire to be an entity that would be held redeemed by this cringe society "hey maybe if I were a faggot it wouldn't be so neurotically distressing that I had been an edgy racist in 5th grade and anyone could mention that to me at any time or could be thinking it inside their heads because someone told them" even if they never reveal this crafted self publicly, preferring even just to be something that would be acceptably neutered.

and 2. is presented as necessarily prone to corruption in and of itself.

It seems that corruptibility of the basic sexuality package is dependent on particular circumstances and mental deficiencies. If there is a different conclusion to draw then argue it.

This sleight of hand divorces any proceeding discussion from higher concerns and changes the terms of victory from accuracy to success at arbitrary word games.

I don't get what you mean here and if someone does word games we can just call them out for pilpul? What arguments are you thinking of? I can't imagine what dialectic hyperparameters you see doing this? Do you just mean the fake absolute inducing this by its presence?

The etiology of almost all fetishes is incredibly self-explanatory and treating it as worthy of serious discussion is beyond foolish.

arguable, i am surprised by people saying that they are attracted to things because they saw them as kids. but yeah for the most part.

[JohnTrent]

Not only is analyzing sex in such detail disgusting, it follows the same pattern as all leftist intellectual output. Seethe at normal people acting normally leads to the invention of a false absolute (capital, racial difference, unreflective heterosexuality) that is 1. in reality conditioned by something (or some things) higher than itself and 2. is presented as necessarily prone to corruption in and of itself. This sleight of hand divorces any proceeding discussion from higher concerns and changes the terms of victory from accuracy to success at arbitrary word games. The etiology of almost all fetishes is incredibly self-explanatory and treating it as worthy of serious discussion is beyond foolish.

I cannot speak for other posters, but my posts in this thread have no aversion to normal people. Normal people are almost necessarily excluded from this, in fact; they do not have fetishes in the same way that the autist does, and so on for other pathologies. My motivation for posting here was noticing how bizarre certain Internet fetishists were.

[Lohengrin]

...

I get shit on every time I make this point - but it is an observation that I hold to: First, degradation/humiliation fetishes can only ever take root in those that spiritually acknowledge the significance of degradation. Second - and this is the part that pisses people off -  typically these are men born to innately right wing dispositions. If one doesn't implicitly acknowledge a form of natural order and assign moral valuations to the sexual act, then one is precluded from the possibility of a thrill at transgression, degradation, and humiliation--- profanity demands the attendance of the sacred.
...
People joke about the incel2tranny pipeline, and of course the idea has merit - but there was also the less well-known (but not uncommon) /pol/tard2tranny pipeline. It is not really a surprising phenomena. The tension in the contradiction between libidinal desire and the noble spirit has two effective ends - a culmination in extreme violence, murderous rage  - or an absolute sublimation/acceptance. For many, they asymptotically approach the former before eventually surrenderin to horrifying reality of it. As the process terminates, they unconditionally accept the fetish completely and willfully graft it onto their identity - thus obtaining a sense of ownership and control over it.

I wholly concur, and I've often been made mockery of as well for asserting my belief that a significant demographic of interracial porn and cuckold consumers are of Right dispositions and inclinations.  They accept propriety over women, they accept racial superiority, so on and so forth, only with the Negro supplanted over the White man.  Simply put, all of our beliefs but reversed and flipped on its head.  Either already accepting from the start, or having submitted to the "BBC" propaganda relentlessly spammed from certain avenues across the interwebs, especially on 4chan.  Repetition of "eugenics" about the "superior genes" niggers possess, that women desperately require for the survival of our species.  I assume it's also very difficult for a 'sissy' to explain how he happily adopts these beliefs in a similar manner, how he eagerly accepts his position as a modern puer delicatus.  They understand how domination and submission works, and chose the side of submission.  I haven't myself made very many anthropological studies on them, but I have observed among trannies that something is "off" about them, that they are not merely content with a looser gender identity, but rather that women are the inferior sex, and they see themselves as the same level, if not substantially lower.  In correspondence with friends, I've often made the comparison this is a continuation of classical Roman sexual mores.

[GraphWalkWithMe]

The outlandish "experiential/fixation" weirdosexual fetishes are the most interesting to think about. Not just because of their lurid sideshow-geek character, but really because they ostensibly originate from a baseline animal instinct that's so removed from its biological function, and yet persist across a seemingly broad strata of socially unconnected people. When I checked out 4chan's /d/ board some odd years ago, one the first threads on the page was on anime girls transforming into giant snails, with something on the order of 5 dozen replies at the time, and not all of them from the same person. How can there be a group of people with a collective sexual fixation on this kind of thing? I don't think mere "cartoon-exposure in childhood autism" can explain it in full.

Some of these people are (or maybe were) otherwise capable of getting married!
Look at this dude.


(Does this man have "gayface"?)

Posters above raised the point that paraphiliacs/etc. tend to be fixated upon ruinations of a certain type or other. But balloon dood says his sexual emergence came when he was 5 years old and heard a hospital nurse pop a balloon while he was bedridden, and since determined to fill every square inch of his property with inflated balloons. He's gone so far as to stop any of the 50K balloons in his house from popping that when he notices one in deflation, he holds a "natural funeral" (~6:00) of sorts by embalming it in chalk or something to prevent that.

I don't know how to tie all this shit together. Anyway, I'm sure at least some of you have seen the video about the guy in gaylove with Chase, his cool car.

 

[Zed]

I haven't myself made very many anthropological studies on them, but I have observed among trannies that something is "off" about them, that they are not merely content with a looser gender identity, but rather that women are the inferior sex, and they see themselves as the same level, if not substantially lower.  In correspondence with friends, I've often made the comparison this is a continuation of classical Roman sexual mores.

Infamia ---This is acute and hits the heart of certain tranny pathologies. What you're getting at here is a deeply repressed trait within trannies. I should note that there are qualifiers to attach here, fine distinctions between millennials and zoomers and various social strata... but I'll play fast and loose for a minute.

Autogynephilia is both a complex of fetishes and a memetic bugbear existing within discourse. It simultaneously serves the purpose of description, but assumes an independent role as a classifier operating within discourse - associated with a positive production of stigma. Amongst trannies, there is an aversion to acknowledging autogynephilia, for two reasons -

1. It accepts the frame of the adversary, and seems to undermine any claim of expressed femininity. 
2. Openly autogynephilic autistic trannies are always disconcerting and are universal social pariahs - both within tranny culture and outside of it.

I'll focus on reason one. The autogynephilic sexualization of femininity implicitly involves the objectification of women within a submissive and subservient frame. TERFs correctly intuit this and cast their rhetoric around it, and trannies tend towards defensive reaction, insistent on negating the largely correct thesis. This, together with the second reason, leads to broad internal stigma against the acknowledgement of AGP. If one acknowledges it is at all, it is often done in apologetic and defensive tones. Insistence that it 'went away' after transitioning. A rather pathetic state of affairs -  but such is the nature of tranny culture. Let me note that liberal trannies do fetishize the submission and the condition of infamia - but they are discrete, rather ashamed of it. They feel heavily the social conditioning implicit to the broader (tranny) culture and repress themselves accordingly. 

The examples you describe represent a distinctive strain, which is both fundamentally more honesty and fundamentally self-annihilating. In crossing a vast strata between two opposing frames, the /pol/-tranny lacks the tempered and conditioned repression experienced by their more liberal counterparts - they embrace the full consequences of becoming infamia erotically. Their transition is not a negotiation, or a recasting of the self an 'agreeable form' - it is a full on descent into the most taboo elements of their sexuality. They do not actually want to be woman - for women is inclined towards submission by nature - that is expected and proper. To them, their submission an an infamis is an altogether deeper one - because it came at the price of status.

[JohnTrent]

I've always suspected that fetishes emerge when one's vital powers are constrained by the environment and are not allowed to grow into more natural desires. The "type" of a fetish is a reaction to the kind of constraint/repression that one experienced during early sexual development (this is probably where the particular/focused fetishes come from). This would explain why fetishes seem to be more common among the urban (people whose vital forces are subject to more intense repression). Both Sadism and Masochism derive their names from 18th-19th century European aristocrats, which is telling.

While everyone is still focused on this thread, I will use your post as a means to branch off from the Experiential/Fixation fetishes and into a subject I'm more familiar with: de Sade and Leopold von Sacher-Masoch. I have only read Venus in Furs from Sacher-Masoch, but have read (with the exception of Juliette and Aline et Valcour) most of de Sade's works.

Anyways, something that's troubled me ever since is the distinction of sadism and masochism: how it emerged and why their works were used. To some degree, I don't find that people involved with research into "sadism" were properly equipped to handle the weightiness of de Sade — the appropriation of his name is a simple reference for clarity's sake, after his notoriety seeped into the minds of learned Europeans. I will save a discussion on de Sade for later. For now I'll turn to masochism. The use of Sacher-Masoch's name I consider to be a great injustice that is opposed to the purposes of Venus in Furs. Consider the moment near the end of the novella, where the Greek has begun to apply the whip to Severin.

The sensation of being whipped by a successful rival before the eyes of an adored woman cannot be described. I almost went mad with shame and despair.

What was most humiliating was that at first I felt a certain wild, super-sensual stimulation under Apollo's whip and the cruel laughter of my Venus, no matter how horrible my position was. But Apollo whipped on and on, blow after blow, until I forgot all about poetry, and finally gritted my teeth in impotent rage, and cursed my wild dreams, woman, and love.

All of a sudden I saw with horrible clarity whither blind passion and lust have led man, ever since Holofernes and Agamemnon—into a blind alley, into the net of woman's treachery, into misery, slavery, and death.

It was as though I were awakening from a dream.

Subsequently after, when he has awoken from this dream of degradation and the delusion of the super-sensual, he decides to grit his teeth and return to his family. It is notable that whenever this awakening is complete, he wished to go to war. The Greek Alexis was a war-faring character himself, he is said to "play with the souls and lives of men". But I'm getting ahead of myself, and probably will leave this unedited, so you'll have to bear with this narrative darting back and forth. So here is an earlier passage, which is said by Wanda near the beginning:

The ideal which I strive to realize in my life is the serene sensuousness of the Greeks—pleasure without pain. I do not believe in the kind of love which is preached by Christianity, by the moderns, by the knights of the spirit. Yes, look at me, I am worse than a heretic, I am a pagan.

I don't know how Sacher-Masoch could make it more obvious that, by including a Greek man devoted to warfare, "pleasure without pain" is an illusory statement. Submission is required, pain is required, which is why the arrangement between Severin and Wanda becomes dangerous. Severin, being a man of self-admitted "sensitive" insight, readily sees hostile conditions in nature, but he understands this in an inverted way. Look at how this description a third of the way into the novella lapses into woman-worship:

I developed a perfect passion for reading stories in which the extremest cruelties were described. I loved especially to look at pictures and prints which represented them. All the sanguinary tyrants that ever occupied a throne; the inquisitors who had the heretics tortured, roasted, and butchered; all the woman whom the pages of history have recorded as lustful, beautiful, and violent women like Libussa, Lucretia Borgia, Agnes of Hungary, Queen Margot, Isabeau, the Sultana Roxolane, the Russian Czarinas of last century—all these I saw in furs or in robes bordered with ermine.

He understands violence but regards women as a part in the profane imagination; it is by nature of its unreal quality that it should be included with gruesome tortures, cruelties unparalleled. For him to no longer believe that torture is a super-sensual delight (especially if committed by a woman), he must be dispossessed of his fantasy. The world of cruelty must intrude into the false delights of the imagination, through the figure of Alexis Papadopolis. "Misery, slavery, death". That is what occurs when the fantasy is brought to its fruition; it is inherently flawed, and dissipates at it continues. Let us then turn to the humorous end of the novella, when the moral is stated in such an upfront fashion. Forgive the length of the quotation.

"And the moral of the story?" I said to Severin when I put the manuscript down on the table.

"That I was a donkey," he exclaimed without turning around, for he seemed to be embarrassed. "If only I had beaten her!"

"A curious remedy," I exclaimed, "which might answer with your peasant-women—"

"Oh, they are used to it," he replied eagerly, "but imagine the effect upon one of our delicate, nervous, hysterical ladies—"

"But the moral?"

"That woman, as nature has created her and as man is at present educating her, is his enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion. This she can become only when she has the same rights as he, and is his equal in education and work.

"At present we have only the choice of being hammer or anvil, and I was the kind of donkey who let a woman make a slave of him, do you understand?

"The moral of the tale is this: whoever allows himself to be whipped, deserves to be whipped.

"The blows, as you see, have agreed with me; the roseate supersensual mist has dissolved, and no one can ever make me believe again that these 'sacred apes of Benares' or Plato's rooster are the image of God."

Venus in Furs is a novella about intellectual development, of an enduring interest in violence, and the follies of revering women. There is not too much to say about the subject, but it is incredibly distinct from what is now considered to be masochism in the popular sense. If masochism were modeled upon the narrative of events within Venus in Furs, it would be a young sensitive man preoccupied with violence and torture, suddenly led astray with a false fantasy of womanly power, then being set on the right track. Hierarchy is re-established, and pain is properly administered.

[Guest]

I've always suspected that fetishes emerge when one's vital powers are constrained by the environment and are not allowed to grow into more natural desires. The "type" of a fetish is a reaction to the kind of constraint/repression that one experienced during early sexual development (this is probably where the particular/focused fetishes come from). This would explain why fetishes seem to be more common among the urban (people whose vital forces are subject to more intense repression). Both Sadism and Masochism derive their names from 18th-19th century European aristocrats, which is telling.

While everyone is still focused on this thread, I will use your post as a means to branch off from the Experiential/Fixation fetishes and into a subject I'm more familiar with: de Sade and Leopold von Sacher-Masoch. I have only read Venus in Furs from Sacher-Masoch, but have read (with the exception of Juliette and Aline et Valcour) most of de Sade's works.

Anyways, something that's troubled me ever since is the distinction of sadism and masochism: how it emerged and why their works were used. To some degree, I don't find that people involved with research into "sadism" were properly equipped to handle the weightiness of de Sade — the appropriation of his name is a simple reference for clarity's sake, after his notoriety seeped into the minds of learned Europeans. I will save a discussion on de Sade for later. For now I'll turn to masochism. The use of Sacher-Masoch's name I consider to be a great injustice that is opposed to the purposes of Venus in Furs. Consider the moment near the end of the novella, where the Greek has begun to apply the whip to Severin.

The sensation of being whipped by a successful rival before the eyes of an adored woman cannot be described. I almost went mad with shame and despair.

What was most humiliating was that at first I felt a certain wild, super-sensual stimulation under Apollo's whip and the cruel laughter of my
Venus, no matter how horrible my position was. But Apollo whipped on and on, blow after blow, until I forgot all about poetry, and finally gritted my teeth in impotent rage, and cursed my wild dreams, woman, and love.

All of a sudden I saw with horrible clarity whither blind passion and lust have led man, ever since Holofernes and Agamemnon—into a blind alley, into the net of woman's treachery, into misery, slavery, and death.

It was as though I were awakening from a dream.

Subsequently after, when he has awoken from this dream of degradation and the delusion of the super-sensual, he decides to grit his teeth and return to his family. It is notable that whenever this awakening is complete, he wished to go to war. The Greek Alexis was a war-faring character himself, he is said to "play with the souls and lives of men". But I'm getting ahead of myself, and probably will leave this unedited, so you'll have to bear with this narrative darting back and forth. So here is an earlier passage, which is said by Wanda near the beginning:

The ideal which I strive to realize in my life is the serene sensuousness of the Greeks—pleasure without pain. I do not believe in the kind of love which is preached by Christianity, by the moderns, by the knights of the spirit. Yes, look at me, I am worse than a heretic, I am a pagan.

I don't know how Sacher-Masoch could make it more obvious that, by including a Greek man devoted to warfare, "pleasure without pain" is an illusory statement. Submission is required, pain is required, which is why the arrangement between Severin and Wanda becomes dangerous. Severin, being a man of self-admitted "sensitive" insight, readily sees hostile conditions in nature, but he understands this in an inverted way. Look at how this description a third of the way into the novella lapses into woman-worship:

I developed a perfect passion for reading stories in which the extremest cruelties were described. I loved especially to look at pictures and prints which represented them. All the sanguinary tyrants that ever occupied a throne; the inquisitors who had the heretics tortured, roasted, and butchered; all the woman whom the pages of history have recorded as lustful, beautiful, and violent women
like Libussa, Lucretia Borgia, Agnes of Hungary, Queen Margot, Isabeau, the Sultana Roxolane, the Russian Czarinas of last century—all these I saw in furs or in robes bordered with ermine.

He understands violence but regards women as a part in the profane imagination; it is by nature of its unreal quality that it should be included with gruesome tortures, cruelties unparalleled. For him to no longer believe that torture is a super-sensual delight (especially if committed by a woman), he must be dispossessed of his fantasy. The world of cruelty must intrude into the false delights of the imagination, through the figure of Alexis Papadopolis. "Misery, slavery, death". That is what occurs when the fantasy is brought to its fruition; it is inherently flawed, and dissipates at it continues. Let us then turn to the humorous end of the novella, when the moral is stated in such an upfront fashion. Forgive the length of the quotation.

"And the moral of the story?" I said to Severin when I put the manuscript down on the table.

"That I was a donkey," he exclaimed without turning around, for he seemed to be embarrassed. "If only I had beaten her!"

"A curious remedy," I exclaimed, "which might answer with your peasant-women—"

"Oh, they are used to it," he replied eagerly, "but imagine the effect upon one of our delicate, nervous, hysterical ladies—"

"But the moral?"

"That woman, as nature has created her and as man is at present educating her, is his enemy. She can only be his slave or his despot, but never his companion. This she can become only when she has the same rights as he, and is his equal in education and work.

"At present we have only the choice of being hammer or anvil, and I was the kind of donkey who let a woman make a slave of him, do you understand?

"The moral of the tale is this: whoever allows himself to be whipped, deserves to be whipped.

"The blows, as you see, have agreed with me; the roseate supersensual mist has dissolved, and no one can ever make me believe again that these 'sacred apes of Benares' or Plato's rooster are the image of God."

Venus in Furs is a novella about intellectual development, of an enduring interest in violence, and the follies of revering women. There is not too much to say about the subject, but it is incredibly distinct from what is now considered to be masochism in the popular sense. If masochism were modeled upon the narrative of events within Venus in Furs, it would be a young sensitive man preoccupied with violence and torture, suddenly led astray with a false fantasy of womanly power, then being set on the right track. Hierarchy is re-established, and pain is properly administered.

I was just reading this article and felt that it had similar points with what you were talking about.https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-...eo-strauss

On the surface, Bloom offered Reagan’s America a defense of the literary canon and old-fashioned morality against the “relativism” of the post-’60s left. But perspicacious readers—including Bloom’s former student, the queer theorist Eve Sedgwick—would notice he argued that the true pedagogue awakens intelligent young men to free thinking by inculcating contempt for democracy and mass culture, and that this awakening includes a (homo)erotic element.

As his friend Saul Bellow reports in Ravelstein, his novelized version of Bloom’s last days, the philosopher spent much of their conversations speculating about the sexuality of his students—and thus, potentially, their sexual availability. He had a passion for bringing young male minds to philosophy and young male bodies to his bed. Indeed, Closing of the American Mind and Bloom’s final essay in his less-read but far more brilliant Love and Friendship are semi-clandestine justifications for a postmodern version of the original “Socratic method” of combining erotic and intellectual approaches to pedagogy.

With what @Lohengrin said earlier about right wing people being sexual deviants I would say that sexual deviants are instead attracted to the master morality, but they can only enjoy it in a perverted way. They lack the true ability to make themselves master from some foible in their psyche, but they still endeavor towards it imperfectly. This is why you get homosexuals like Milo Yiannopoulos and that other brown gay who hung out with Fuentes on the right. A weak minded person breaks from the idea of such cruelty. They can only approach it through a sexual way.

[Guest]

It is all the same 'mah dick'. Some just rationalize this way or that way. Ugly people don't matter.