Is Playing Into fantasies Sometimes Harmful? - Page 2

Thrift as in used? Or as in Ewwwwsed? If so, I think I'd rather save up for a few years. I used to get all my stuff from stockroom.com. Their prices for equipment are pretty fair and it's all solidly constructed with quality. The idea of using pre-used stuff makes me a bit queasy, yo.

Are you gonna bitch about using used condom next, Read? Think about people who can't afford them, you elitist asshole!

You make me wanna hurl, Savage.

We have some cool consignment shops in my area, along with a good will and some retro clothing stores. You can make some good finds, but I wouldn't necessarily label anything I've seen in those places as fetish wear. I mean, you can find cool outfits or pieces that can be repurposed into a vaguely "fetish" accessory, but I've yet to come across any pvc or rubber at goodwill. So I would not worry about finding any pre-used stuff like that at a second chance clothing store, Van Read. The only places that sell it around here are the shops in NYC, or the Internet. It is hundreds of hundreds of dollars for most of the full outfits though which seems totally nuts to me. If I can buy a plastic (rayon) top from walmart for 9 dollars, why is a plastic (PVC, rubber etc) item at a specialty shop selling for literally hundreds or thousands of times the Walmart price?

Because they aren't made by children in Gibraltar. You shouldn't compare Walmart to anything but porkrinds and sorrow.

I just do not see how the labor costs alone could account for such a huge price discrepancy for the outfits.. Even if they were made by union labor in the US I do not see how it could cost so much to make plastic clothing.

I guess it's a niche market. People WILL pay for it, so whatever.

I guess so... I still do not think that is a very nice way to run a buisness. Grossly overcharge your customers because you know there are few other shopping options.

Well, that's the thing. You CAN get stuff like this on the cheap, but you get what you pay for. A lot of the high priced items are made to fit. You don't get that from "Hollywoodcostumes.com" or some swill. Stockroom.com requires full measurements.

Well, sure. I can see how the custom fitted stuff would cost more if you don't want it to be all bunched and wrinkled everywhere which is the main problem with the cheaper stuff (that and seams coming undone). Still though I just find anything that costs $500 plus a little depressing... Though maybe the Fortune 500 Chewers out there feel differently

I don't think I've ever been in a thrift store where I would describe the stuff as Ewwwwwsed.... What kinda places are you going to? Unless you have some OCD tendencies there's nothing icky about buying something that's basically new for 4 dollars instead of 40.

I find the idea that fetish wear has to be PVC or rubber or just like what everyone else bought at the fancy goth store kind of depressing, I've always preferred to hunt around for unique pieces and put my own thing together to avoid the whole 'uniform' look. It's so boring to see 20 women wearing basically the same outfit that cost them all 600 dollars.

I agree , I've not run across anything I'd describe as "Ewwwsed". The stores around here that deal with used clothing all have mostly almost unused or like new items, though sometimes the Good Will can be kind of ratty. We even have an anual used clothing sale in my town that sees all the rich people donate designer items for the tax breaks, so you can buy awesome stuff that is literally only a year or two old for $1.

You're right, fetish wear can mean many different things to different people. I have never been to a big city meet up though, so have not run into a situation where 20 people are dressed the same way. Everyone should have their own style and not feel preasured to conform to an idea of what fetish is supposed to be or mean. It is different for everyone so just find how you fit in. As far as what I feel drawn to, I do not see anything wrong with the 'uniform' solid color look of rubber or latex. It appeals to me because of how it looks and how it makes me feel when I am wearing it. If you like putting together your own one of a kind look from many interesting pieces, then more power to you. I am strongly against the idea of anyone feeling preasure to be a certain way at those kind of things. Exactly why I also agree with the idea that people in street clothes and jeans should not get in. I know that for me at least that would make me feel less able to feel comfortable at what can be an already intimidating situation.

Absolutely! There are some smaller fetish nights around here like Sanctuary that let in people in street clothes and although it's still fun and it's cheaper it really does kill the mood to have some guy in jeans and a baseball cap drinking a beer and staring at everyone.

An 'anything goes but street clothes' policy is the one that works best in my experience, you can see some amazing creativity on display. I've seen some really bizarre and elaborate costumes out there. My comments about rubber and latex were just referring to the generic yet expensive Hot Topic cookie cutter look I've been noticing more and more people choosing lately, there's nothing wrong with traditional fetish wear at all.

It really is just a case of living in a big city and therefore seeing a whole bunch of people wearing pretty much the same thing, that can get a little boring.

You know, there was a discussion in class that made me think of this thread.

It concerns the 'phenomena' of something feminist art historians call "The Gaze". It concerns the direct marketing of works of art to a heterosexual male artist, most prominent in works by Manet and Renoir and the genre of paintings of women in various states of undress looking towards the viewer and breaking the fourth wall.

There was something tawdry in this concept, something that reeked of a voyeurism and objectification of women. Something that struck me as pornographic, almost. While I don't doubt Miss Grey is sincere in her 'sex-positive' idea, perhaps it's not so much her performance as the ones directing it. While I don't think that her more extreme videos will cause men to beat and force their fantasies onto women, I think there might be a legitimate concern that the popularity resulting from these extreme videos is much less about actual sexual thrill and erotic titillation as it is about a more insidious, subtle reinforcing of the degradation of women and reduction of them to objects like Manet's Zola or Renoir's Woman at the Opera. I don't want to assume things, but could we maybe argue that there a negative, sexist interpretation that is more the product of the director and producers rather than Sasha Grey. Unfortunately sexism and racism is not a thing of the past, but this could serve as an outlet and source of validation with those that would rather watch videos that reinforce their gender bias rather than challenge their backwards and regressive perception of women.

Or not!

Not to further derail, but my wife ordered the CB-6000 and locked that fucker on me last night. Today is day one. This should be interesting.

Thing is, that there is definitely an air of sexism to many of these fantasies but it's a kind of consensual sexism, if that's possible. The men fantasise about objectifying women, and the women fantasise about being objectified and vice versa. Many people who get turned on by these things struggle with that idea.

Googled it... yikes! LOL

Isn't that going to be painful?

Well I would say objectification and sexism (whether consensual or not) are not in danger of causing damage the way Sasha Grey's films could cause harm. Like, with what waywardwoman said, even if we were to say that a certain Monet was pornographic, I still wouldn't be able to call a painting dangerous... where as I think I'd feel comfortable labeling some of Sasha's films dangerous.

EDIT: i just realized the thread is about whether or not its "harmful", not dangerous. My point remains the same though

Surprisingly not in the slightest. I may start blogging about it soon. I'm just so fucking lazy. We're experimenting with orgasm denial and what kind of effect it'll have on me.

Wow, interesting. I may not have the right qualifications to judge this, but it seems almost certain to be painful judging by the picture and what its supposed to do. Hopefully your blog does not end abruptly with an ER visit

I doubt it. Unless some fuckhole decides to slip a viagra in my morning coffee.

I've been to a show or two. I don't go for costumes or role-play because it feels fake so I get my hands on a nice tuxedo and walk in there like I'm James fucking Bond instead. Maybe I'm just jaded because I was introduced to the scene by a couple that was swingin' in the 70's, settled in the 80's and 90's, and are seniors now, or maybe I'm jaded for reasons that have nothing to do with them, but playing dressup is silly.

But no one should let my opinion stop them from doing whatever blows their hair back. It's just not for me.

I never took art history, but I googled the paintings you mentioned and they do not seem pornographic to me. I am not saying that painting as an art form cannot be, but those did not seem to be.


This is a photo of a painting found in my home town museum. It has always struck me as pretty clearly a work of pornography dressed up as art.

http://www.shafe.co.uk/crystal/image...rket_1860s.jpg

It is an orientalist painting but contains nudity so i am not putting the image in the thread. That always struck me as a pretty obscene thing to stick on the walls of a museum. Whenever we went on school trips, it was like, "Um... WTF? Thats OK because it is 'art'?"

My wife and I have been together for nearly twenty years. In that time, we've regularly engaged in rape, dominance and bondage activities. We're still married, happy, well-adjusted people. In fact, I would say, a good deal more healthy than we were when we met. Which leads me to this point:

Kate, your insistence that porn films "encourage" these fantasies as if that's a bad thing is an attitude that's more likely to cause harm to people than the fantasies themselves ever would. People do not have any control over what turns them on, any more than they have control over what makes them laugh. What you're saying is designed to make people feel bad about themselves over something that they have no say over. You may as well denigrate people for being gay or black while you're at it. I didn't ask to be into this stuff, it just turned out that way. The same goes for my wife. We found each other, we have an outlet.

Growing up, I truly thought that there must be something terribly wrong with me. And why? Not to be overly strident about this, but basically, people like you. People who can't keep their judgments out of my fantasies. I have no problem with porn of that type because, to slightly overstate, those fantasies should be encouraged. If you can find an outlet for these activities in a safe, secure environment, have at it. Nobody's getting hurt, and everybody is enjoying themselves.

Any human being who would see these movies, then go out and rape somebody because the movie thought it was okay, was pretty damaged goods to begin with. That guy was gonna hurt somebody no matter what. Saying that Ms Gray's porn can turn an otherwise normal, healthy guy into a rapist is absurd. It's no more valid than the old bit about how heavy metal albums can make a normal teen commit suicide.

In short, get off your high horse. You're hurting people more than Ms Gray could ever dream of doing.

Ok... I am about to head out but will reply to this later. In the mean time, NO. I am not trying to tell anyone else how to live their lives. In fact, I think I specifically said several times in the thread exactly the opposite of that sentiment. Maybe reread what I've written.

I may not have been as clear as I should have been. I'll try to correct that later. But what you are thinking I meant by what I said was not at all what I meant.

I don't have anything to add to this thread but:

No it isn't.

Nice dodge, and you use it a lot. But your intent is pretty clearly that porn based on fantasies that make you uncomfortable shouldn't be made, because such fantasies shouldn't be encouraged.

Are you sure? Do you have a background in art or pornography that allows you to speak with such athority? Because it seems a pretty tawdry painting to me

Well I am sorry I mangled my point so badly that it could be subjected to such wild misinterpretations. Sent you a PM to try and clarify, but I am done discussing it in the thread.

It doesn't seem that way to me.




See how this works?

Ah ok. Well by the standard of Wayward Woman regarding art-as-porn, who said the Monet was pornographic, I was citing the painting I linked to as an example I felt more fit the description. I would not say it is off the wall vulgar, I just think the artist had titillation as one of his goals when he painted it.


and see how what works?

Many artists have tittilation as one of their goals when they paint.

I had a pretty good grasp on the subjective nature of interpretation before I came into this thread.

hehe

This comment is violently pornographic, Jake. And it's not art.

*puts hand up*

I have a question!

Whilst I understand and respect the appeal of a rape fantasy, surely it's not a rape fantasy if the other participant willingly engages in rape fantasies? It's merely forceful sex where they're being submitted to an act they didn't agree to on the spot, but clearly don't disapprove of since they agree to it in advance.

I find the baffling details highly unerotic.

I think you have to find a hiding place and club them over the head. Meaning it's more about the element of surprise than anything else. I think. I'm horribly uneducated on this whole rape thing so I'll shut up now.

That's kinda what I mean though - despite taking them by surprise with a club, they've already agreed in advance they'd quite like to be raped - so it's surely at least partly consensual?

Does this mean you have to take your rape fantasies out on unwilling victims? Isn't that just regular ol' rape?

Think of it this way - a good actor is not hindered by the knowledge that the people with whom he acts are not really the characters they're playing. Someone fully and successfully engaging in fantasy is likewise able to put him or herself into the role and background the consent underlying the fantasy of non-consent. There's a reason this is called role-playing, after all.

I have no empirical data to back this up (but no one else has cited any in this thread, either), but I'm just gonna put this out there: people self-aware enough to engage in fantasy role-playing are probably far less likely to engage in the real thing.

Also, I bet that if you conducted a study on sexual predators, you'd find that the pornography they watch isn't significantly more violent than the pornography that others watch.

How many people are dating good actors though, or are themselves good actors for that matter? Unless you are married to Daniel Day Lewis it can be much more difficult with someone you know really well.

Trust me, you don't have to be that good an actor to get into sexual roleplaying. The story kind of tells itself.

Plus, if you ARE married to Daniel Day Lewis, he'd probably actually rape you. He takes his craft very seriously.

What if you're dating Chris Klein?

Awesome post! Seconded.

Funny, I never thought there was anything wrong with me.

He's too tired from raping the acting profession to rape his girlfriend.

Seriously though? Fuck what other people think. What goes on between you and your partner is no one's business but your own. Anything is game between consenting adults. In fact I find the whole 'roll on top of your wife, pump to completion, roll off' much more indicative of psychological problems than a couple having fun together doing 'weird' stuff.

I will repeat the fact that Greg David completely misread what I was saying