Did I? My apologies.
Don’t take it quite so much to heart. I did try to make it clear that I wasn’t taking offense but simply observing the dynamic. I use myself as the vehicle for the points I want to make because it is more meaningful to be able to point to a real person with lived experiences than to posit some ‘everyperson’ who could, possibly, theoretically think/feel/experience <something> … but that doesn’t mean I necessarily take everything you say in response as aimed directly at me — I’m pretty confident that my reading comprehension skills are sufficiently developed for me to differentiate between those occasions when you are talking about me from those on which you are talking to me 😀
If you’d prefer to re-read those words as “spend your time trying to persuade them that, no, they are in fact this thing you say” then by all means do so — the argument remains the same. irrespective of whether I am them or ‘they’ are
As it happens you did do it to me personally, but I’m not affronted by it; sooner or later, we all treat someone else in a way we wouldn’t dream of doing consciously because our minds are on other things at the time (we’re none of us perfect) and I don’t, for a second, imagine that it was because you were trying to do so deliberately but because you were trying to make your point and convince me of its legitimacy — just as I have been doing in my turn. All I was doing was pointing out a dimension of it that you cseemingly hadn’t considered.
From my point of view, we got into this conversation the way we always do, pressing random buttons on the control board to see which one gets the “ping”.
Hmmmm …
Maybe.
I suppose it depends upon what you mean by ‘random’.
I know where your hut is and, on random occasions, send a volley your way to see if I can’t provoke a reaction of some kind
… sometimes for the sake of a bit of an adrenaline-fuelled chase-around … sometimes because I’m interested in a more serious conversation … sometimes because I figure something might amuse/interest/inform/entertain you
If I’m feeling particularly … I don’t know what the word is, but the upshot is that I’m seriously in the mood for a chase-around … then I’ll come up to the doorway and poke a stick through it … see if I can’t provoke you into leaping at me
But I generally have a specific intent when I do so and the only random element for me is when I do so.
By now I think we each have some idea which direction of buttons we should be pushing —
Pretty much, yes … and we do seem to keep it light-hearted, I think — I haven’t noticed any nastiness anyway.
and yes, I know you get a bit defensive about deviancy.
Do I indeed?
Well, yes, I suppose I do.
But do I mean it?
I am many things … some of them, I’m not ashamed to admit, even admirable in their way … but (albeit good natured) I’m a troll — how certain can you be of the seriousness of anything I say?
But … whether I’m serious or not, some things spring to mind now:
- You’ve been trolling me with it
- And I’ve been too dense to realise
- REVENGE!!!!
- You may be right and I may be sensitive/defensive about it
I’ll have to think about ‘4'.
If I am, there are probably some deep-seated reasons, the origins of which are to be found in my childhood and I’m probably beyond repair at this stage in my life and it’s probably best not to dig:
😉
But we’ve accused each other of worse.
We have?
Well, okay, I’ve called you a pervert a few times, but I didn’t anticipate you taking it seriously — I’m sorry, if you did … I didn’t mean you to 😒
And sure, I did get a bit of a laugh from seeing you state with a straight face that what has been described as primal is actually just all sex,
I didn’t mean to imply that everyone behaves that way all the time — not even I behave that way all the time (I did say I’d been informed I can be uncommonly tender to, so that must be a reasonably core element of my repertoire too).
But … be that as it may … fallacious argument is fallacious.
The fact that someone who has the agenda of being correct in their opinions (as do we all) has chosen to define my sexuality with a label does not mean they are right to do so … not even if there are others who evidence the same sexuality.
Jewish people have been described, by some, as mean, grasping and obsessed with money. Well, okay then … if they’ve been described as such then they must be, no matter what anyone else says, right?
Are you seriously going to try and tell me that every man … every. single. man … you have bedded has been silent all the way through?
That not one of them has ever
Not so much as even once?
since that’s not been my experience at all.
And your experience is the measure of things, is it?
Okay, fair enough, I’m making the same argument myself.
But you don’t win an argument by countering with the same one, do you? Behave yourself.
Some of your counter arguments, if not flirting with, are at least making eyes at “no real Scotsman” from across the room.
That’s a bold statement.
Justify that argument, please.
And I want to see evidence, not non-sequiturs.
There’s no need to get aggy about it; if you can make a decent point, you know that … if I don’t immediately concede that, okay, you have a point there … I’ll at least agree to think about it some more before coming back with my further thoughts (and may well, as a result, concede that you have a point) — opinionated I may be … entirely unreasonable I am, however, not.
But I’ve been spending my time putting my understanding of the concept of ‘kink’ and ‘vanilla’ into words, and reading yours, which is very helpful since I’m writing erotica for pay and I’ve been told to do so for “the general audience” — which is vanilla-ish. Defining what is and isn’t considered vanilla is the first step.
Since you believe I’m kinky (a ‘primal predator’ ‘dom’ in denial), in what way could my opinion of what is, or isn’t, vanilla be of any help to you in determining what will appeal to a‘vanilla’ readership?
😛
In my last response I’ve not spoken about you at all, that’s been 100% personal experience and personal opinion.
Where exactly do you mean in your last response?
As I said, I’m pretty confident in my ability to discern when you switch from one ‘you’ to the other … and you’re a pretty clear communicator … but I may have got my wires crossed somewhere along the line, so, I’m not sure at this stage.
I did say “you” in the Baskin Robins metaphor. I didn’t know you’d take it as me putting you, as a person, into the same category as me, as a person. I was making the case that the labels you object to; the language and definitions of sexual behavior, were, in my opinion, created out of a desire to connect with a base understanding more than a desire to control. To share the flavor of sex you enjoy most.
I‘m pretty sure I got that, yes.
But I don’t agree that because there is the potential for that to be the case … or even that because it were, in many instances, the case … it rules the alternative out. Nor that it cannot be, as I described, consciously the one whilst subconsciously the other simultaneously … or even simply both because different people do it for different reasons.
The fact remains that the laws of Systemantics hold true in multiple dimensions and whatever the original intent might be of labels they ultimately mutate to perform other functions as well/instead — just as jargon starts out as a means to facilitate communication between the initiated but mutates to become a means to render it opaque to the uninitiated … just as a religion espousing the core belief that one should love others as oneself and harm them not becomes a philosophy of oppression and murder … or farming tips mutated into Astrology.
And you have to admit that … even though to you it is anything but a pejorative (and, as a result, I do not take it amiss) … having previously observed that “And that, my friend, makes you a deviant” … which, in the specific context in which you said it can only be taken to mean that you are referring to me specifically by extension of the general rule, because you have already established that there is a label for my sexuality in the kink ‘community’ … that you fundamentally are putting me, as a person, into the same category as you, as a person. As said, you don’t view that as a pejorative, so I don’t take your doing so amiss. But please don’t give with one hand only to take with the other by putting forward a proposition so full of holes it’s Swiss cheese — come on … you know that’ll upset me, because irrationality burns my very being like sunlight does a vampire.
Have you ever tried to organize a movie night without narrowing down the genre? I have. Those were the days in my late teens/early twenties where I wandered through the DVD rental place for hours before returning home empty handed.
No.
You wanna pick the films, you come to the shop with me.
You don’t come to the shop with me, you watch what I pick without complaint.
Circling back to the vocalization topic, I suppose I should have looked up the word beforehand, because I thought it meant “using your voice” (which doesn’t need to be words) and not so much “dirty talking”.
I’m not altogether comfortable with talking ‘dirty’ myself.
- for all the reasons described previously
- because it’s an active performance on my part, it’s fake … and I don’t want to be fake with you — we’re making Love and/or fucking, surely that’s as much evidence of my feelings for you as a person and as an object of desire as you need, right?
If you want to bellow obscenities whilst I batter your twat with my love-truncheon then go right ahead … what makes you happy makes me happy (which is why I will talk dirty, if that’s what does it for you).
But it’s not my preferred way to express my feelings for you. If you’ve seen Plunkett & Macleane, think of the scene where he’s taking Lady Estelle from behind and waxing lyrical about whatever he thinks might arouse her and she says “Oh, shut up and fuck me.” I know exactly why she says it and was cringing all the way through that scene up until that point; which you are supposed to do, because it is cringeworthy (he’s just so obviously faking it).
By the way, I know there’s going to be situations where you have to be quiet. My comments were about my experience overall, before and after kids on either side. Also I’ve had lovers who were really good with foreplay, where my orgasm count was already at a point where they could have comfortably used me to masturbate as you so eloquently put it, and still didn’t grunt, growl or moan.
So …
On the one hand, they were so good in bed that, by the time you/they were ready for more than foreplay, you were so far gone they could’ve done what they wanted with you.
But on the other, their silence meant their performance was so subpar that you don’t want their like in your bed any more.
I don’t really know what to say.
as you so eloquently put it
That got to you, did it?
Just grunting growling and moaning doesn’t make one primal. But your statement “everyone” does it during sex is just false. People who identify with the primal kink do all grunt, growl and moan. (not every animal is a cow, but every cow is an animal)
As I said, I didn’t mean that everyone did it every time.
Nor did I mean that absolutely everyone necessarily growled per se, or moaned as such … just that everyone involuntarily makes noises of some kind, even if it’s only the high-pitched noise that happens as air escapes when you move whilst holding your breath.
As it happens, as I previously mentioned, there will be some growling with me … towards the start … for the reasons explained … but it’s not something I keep up all the way through; that would require a level of performance … of artifice and fakery I’m only prepared to keep up, if I don’t care about you and, as a result, don’t care whether or not I climax myself … all that matters is that you go home bandy-legged and it pops into your head during every sexual encounter for the rest of your life (admittedly, I do have to seriously dislike you to engage in that particular activity, however) … and even then, there’ll cone a point when I change my behaviour so as not to give the game away (I’m better at it than Macleane, you see) — even with the love of your life, you can only growl and snarl for so long before it gets boring for them, let alone a transparent lie.
I am not conservative. I am progressive-authoritarian. And I think you’re progressive-libertarian and that’s why we’re butting heads right now. I don’t believe most people can be trusted to act in their own good, let alone the good of the community, without regulation and oversight. I do approach rules as lines not to be crossed as opposed to lines to be followed, but I firmly believe the most freedom comes within clear set boundaries otherwise we’ll just be subjected to choice-paralysis.
You did read this, right?
And this?
You’ll get no argument from me about your stance there.
For all the Sam Vimes I channel, it seems there’s more of the Patrician about me than people (including my former self) might think.
Sure, I’m liberal, but I’m far from libertarian — sociopaths and narcissists the lot of ‘em!
I may be very broad minded and have a very relaxed attitude toward acceptable limits of behaviour, but I’m a moralist … and a strict one at that: I give you unparalleled leeway to just do whatever you like without interference … but there are certain lines (and a surprising number of them too) you do not cross under pain of the kind of justice that will see me go down in the annals of History as its greatest monster — do NOT take the piss.
But there’s more to being conservative or liberal than simply the sociopoliticoeconomic realm ... and most of us are a chaotic mix of both in different areas — which is why I wrote the Proud Libtard post, because the model underlying the Political Compass fails to capture that fact any more than has any other taxonomy of human behaviour outside the realm of (scientific) Psychology … any more than Marx or Rand captured the reality of it in their models, of humans as units of economic activity.
Conservative is as conservative does … not as it takes itself for … and the fact that someone may be as liberal as you like in any other area does not mean they aren’t strongly conservative in the area in question.
However good naturedly, you have been insisting that I conform to the doctrine of a minority group of the World’s population simply because … well, you tell me?
Why does it matter whether I (or anyone) accept the label or not? If the label applies, it will do so whether I do or not, so what difference will it make, if I don’t? What is it that offends your sense of what ought to be … of how things (Life, the Universe, Everything) should be ordered … if I don’t? What difference will it make, if I do? What difference will it make if the label doesn’t apply? Will it change your life in any way? Will the past lovers suddenly become more or less of a disappointment? Will your relationships suddenly be more or less meaningful? Why is it so significant in your mind that I (anyone) conform and accept the label?
Maybe I am wrong … maybe I am unusual … maybe I am a member of a very small group, the members of which, to greater or lesser degree ‘play’ at being animals during foreplay, if not throughout the sexual encounter … maybe I am deluded and I only think everyone is like me because I only have my own experience to go on …but how does my acceptance or rejection of the label ‘primal’ (let alone ‘kinky’ or ‘fetishist’, never mind ‘deviant’) influence any of that in any way? What is so significant … so important …. about any of it that a label not only need be attached to it but that someone (in this case I) needs must accept it?
If your answer to the question is “Nothing” then you aren’t conservative.
But if there is even the least part of you that thinks “Because … <anything>” … (and it doesn’t matter if it’s simply abstract pedantry, like my upset at people’s abuse of grammar because it’s the principle of the thing, dammit!) … then, even if only in that one dimension of your life … you are conservative.
Do not get the wrong idea … I am not animated about this issue because I feel personally affronted and am defensive about it. This is, for me, about the principle of the matter … about an insistence on the clinical clarity of thought arising from an unflinching separation of concerns: things are what they are, not what we will them to be … even if, paradoxically, the most fundamental reality is that everything is a figment of our imagination and everything, therefore, by definition, whatever we will it to be — yes, Life is paradoxical, people … call the Samaritans, if it upsets you so, snowflakes.
