I read a few of the test-taker comments after I completed the inventory. One of them was from someone who scored right around there (~25%). Their comment was something like ‘well, looks like the only things left for me at this point are screwing animals and corpses’.
It’s not that bad. I’ve had a really dull life, scored 21.4% and thought of a good few questions they were missing.
If I’d have been into drugs, abuse and dishonesty, it would have been much lower.
Petting, I’ve really got to try this petting thing they keep mentioning…
Please don’t let that the be the cue for ‘furries’ jokes to ensue…
*lolz
Apparently one of the few things that’s not one of my things.
Damn, I got 64.2%
Now see, I would have gone old-school and posted a still from a Luis Buñuel film.
Before my time, alas.
So in what way is that not a perfect analogy for “normal” sex?
Anyway, if I have a fetish, it is for people with fetishes. For me the only thing that I’m really interested in sexually is positive feedback about how interested someone else is. My observation is that people with fetishes get very turned on by those fetishes, moreso than non-fetishists are turned on by a typical sexual encounter. If I find myself on the market in the future, I’m going to be actively seeking out kinksters to indulge them.
So I kind of don’t get how people don’t get fetishes. What turns you on? Looking at naked people of a sex you are attracted to? You know how that feels? Having a fetish feels the same, except probably more.
It’s a very appropriate analogy for those who recognize that ‘normal’ sex itself is complex and wonderful. It’s just that popular use of the term ‘vanilla’ as a modifier (for anything, not just sex) is meant to suggest ‘simplistic’ or ‘boring’, both of which sex, when done right, is most definitely not.
EXACTLY. There’s few things sexier than someone else getting to indulge that thing that turns them on more than anything else.
You fool! That kind of recursion can only lead to some kind of sexual singularity!
So the orgy’s back on, then?
Perhaps. I find the librarian thing more interesting as a specific subset of the Madonna/Whore binary. Because you are either this:
or this:
I’d suggest that the problem lies not in the terminology, but in the attitude (regrettably common in kink communities) that non-kinksters are in some way “lesser”.
Kink supremacists are no less tiresome than any other sort of supremacist.
Vanilla is fine, snobs are dicks.
It does always seem to come back to those two 1-dimensional stereotypes, sadly.
Yeah, Savage has addressed this on a number of occasions. One of his dictums has always been ‘if there’s no problem, there’s no problem’ as in ‘if you’re ‘whatever’ and your partner’s ‘whatever’ and you like being ‘whatever’ together, then to hell with anyone who thinks your ‘whatever’ is somehow inferior or otherwise less acceptable’.
Same goes for poly, which I couldn’t figure out how to capture in the construction of that previous sentence.
Not that I don’t agree with you, but I’ve long since accepted that people in small “outsider” communities get no small part of their thrill from feeling special. It’s by no means restricted to kink scenes. And frankly, it does serve some small purpose in that it demands that people show a sincere interest before others contribute time and effort to their initiation. Unfortunately, it also reinforces the hierarchical pecking order that leads to varying levels of impunity, which is destructive in any group, but has particularly vile implications in those centered around sexuality. I met some great people in the kink scenes of two of the cities I’ve lived in. But when a known predator was allowed to rape a friend of mine (ignoring her safe word), and the community didn’t so much as censure him and his female partner, I decided that human beings simply aren’t mature enough to make sex a safe and fun group activity. Too much willingness to enable toxic people to ruin it for the good majority.