Sex, and I, are proud to be back at The Escapist, with a short piece called “After Sex,” all about the questionable future of MMOEG’s. Once sex is a given, what will grow up in the social cracks? Economy? Politics? Or just more sex? And, speaking of sex, is that our basic function? Or are we up to something more primal still when we try to interact with other people?
 |
March 1st, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Speaking of new forms of sex, someone please, please, explain to me the baby fetish. I was alt-ing today in SL, and came across a perfect subject, except that she/he likes to play a baby during sex. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with it, I’m just saying I don’t understand. Most fetishes, even if I don’t dig them myself, I can at least get a sense for why they would be attracive. But babies? Just seeing that diaper made my stomach turn in a way that things like hardcore blood or fluid play never has. Maybe it’s just a hang up of mine…?
March 1st, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Frank Booth from Blue Velvet, remember him? “Baby want to fuck, wah (inhales nitrous) wah!” That was the single most disturbing moment of the whole film for me.
Now Frank Booth was primarily a sadist, but he does delve into the Baby fetish in that one scene.
The baby fetish takes the biological, so-called “natural” effect of sex, babies, and closes the loop by making the end the means. So thats why it strikes you as so fucked up, its not a sexual hang-up so much as a logical breakdown. Think about the liar’s paradox, “This sentance is false”, you’re brain can’t really process that, because its contridictions goes down to the nueral level, its like a snake eating its own tail.
Those kind of logical anomalies have their own tinge of nuerochemical flavor to them, because our feelings and thoughts are both results of the same electrochemical system. Now when I think about something crazy like omnipresent paradox (which is an implication about space you might take from quantum loop gravity theory) I don’t get an erotic tinge out of it, but thats space, space is space. Apply the same mind-blow to the topic of sex itself, and thats something. The brain is the greatest erogenous zone.
Sorry the main thread at the magazine blog got dilutted with a totally irrelevant issue. At least you GET comments;)
March 2nd, 2006 at 1:25 am
I was alt-ing today in SL, and came across a perfect subject, except that she/he likes to play a baby during sex.
How does one “play a baby during sex?” Babies don’t have sex. (And people who find actual infants erotic belong in cages.)
What is wrong with these people? Is it so hard to just get laid, talk dirty, ‘cyber’ or whatever as two adults?
This unapologetically judgmental post proudly brought to you by Brummbar, Defender of Babies. :)
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:38 am
Well, I’m glad that other people are freaked out, and that there’s some logic behind my freaked-out-ness (Thanks, Patrick).
“Sorry the main thread at the magazine blog got dilutted with a totally irrelevant issue.”
No worries, I always enjoy inspiring controversy.
March 2nd, 2006 at 12:33 pm
Hunh, and here I just thought that was really effin’ weird. X-P I’m with Brummbar on this one: is it so hard to get oneself off on being two (or more) adults?
Though I suppose if guys who fantasize about the “Catholic schoolgirl” look aren’t really creepy pedophiles, guys with some sort of baby fetish aren’t…y’know.
March 2nd, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Ok, here I come- KellyRued, Defender of Pervs (face it, that’s what my recent posts all boil down to, lol)
There are lots of cool blogs online about age-play, and yeah infantilism requires you to step outside of the obvious and into the emotional headspace of the people who enjoy it. They are deriving some sense of satisfaction from pretending they are a different age (or their partner is a different age) and in reality there is little connection between a post-pubescent human playing dress up and a physiological infant/child so wtf to all those who think these people are pedophiles.
It’s about emotional regression most times- wanting to return to feelings of safety, warmth, innocence, etc. and explore happiness (even trauma or loss) associated with childhood. Everyone is different though and I’m sure there are plenty who just like the humiliation and power play that comes from putting themselves in a totally helpless “baby” position with zero dignity or self-direction (hell, you don’t even decide when and where to poo or pee comfortably). Like everything erotic, there are more reasons people dig it than any one of us can probably fathom.
The school girl outfit is a staple of porn- so a lot of guys get into it from sheer repitition/association (my bf saw a very hot stripper once in that sort of outfit dance to a fav band of his and do some pole things he really liked and well, it carved some kind of groove in his brain that will probably always map “school girl outfit” to “incredibly turned on”). It happens with anything that gets routinely eroticized. But once again the Catholic school girl outfit is more symbolic of innocence (or rather the ridiculous veneer of it- take it from me as I was a Catholic school girl). Corrupting innocence is a powerfully fun taboo. It’s not about children, it’s about symbols of relitious/cultural sex-negativity more than anything. Repression freed- finding what’s underneath the presentable surface. And plain old interesting contrast. A whore dressed as a whore isn’t half as intriguing as one dressed demurely, innocently, etc. And that’s most of what these outfits are about- not pedophilia.
Pedophiles are attracted to the actual pre-pubescent bodies of children which, if you’re familiar with the types of women most men and women like to see in school girl outfits… yeah “pre-pubescent” doesn’t really describe it. Unless you like hentai. There is a totally different “very young eroticized girl” thing happening in some Asian cultures that wouldn’t float over here at all. But most of our so-called school girls are sex bombs in barely buttoning uniform tops with plaid skirts so short a real Catholic school would suspend you for wearing it. :)
March 3rd, 2006 at 2:47 am
Like everything erotic, there are more reasons people dig it than any one of us can probably fathom.
Or maybe these people just have a screw loose.
March 3rd, 2006 at 10:37 am
Kelly: good post. I was being flippant before: I realize those into infantilism, schoolgirl outfits, etc. aren’t really latent pedophiles - because, well, pedophiles are into children, not grown-ups who dress in childish clothes - I just wasn’t sure what was going on inside their heads. Still not sure I know, but I appreciate the insight. :-)
When it comes to the Catholic schoolgirl fantasy - or cheerleaders, or any other “teen girls in miniskirts” look - I just presume it’s usually fairly simple: guys remembering what turned them on as teenagers and still responding to that stimulus, all Pavlovian-style. I’m not sure most guys get as far as thinking about the “seduction of innocence” angle…usually we save that for the “naughty nun” fantasy. ;-)
“There is a totally different "very young eroticized girl" thing happening in some Asian cultures that wouldn't float over here at all.”
Gaaah, let’s not even go there - already seen more than I ever, ever would want to… X-P
March 3rd, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Interesting article.
March 6th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Super Kelly! Sorry to make you have to rush to the rescue. I don’t mean to imply by any means that I think people who are into baby play are sick, or pedophiles, or anything of the sort. And, as one of those supposed weirdo’s who gets off on the idea of being young and vulnerable myself, I understand where they’re coming from. All I’m saying is that, for some reason, it feels different to me. I’m not into everything, obviously, but most things I understand — on a gut level at least. Baby play sits with me wrong.
So my question isn’t, “What’s wrong with these guys?”, it’s “What’s different about this practice that makes me — and others, apparently — respond so differently to it.” Any thoughts?
March 6th, 2006 at 2:19 pm
"What's different about this practice that makes me "” and others, apparently "” respond so differently to it."
Well, continuing the theme of emotional regression Kelly mentioned: I think I personally have a problem with sexualizing - however indirectly - stuff associated with childhood. I’m fine with the various “sexy teen girls” fantasies because, well, who doesn’t remember what it was like to be a hormonally addled adolescent rollicking through puberty? I don’t mind adults who want to re-explore that period in their lives in various role-play fantasies. In that case, the overlap between innocence and sexuality seems “safe,” for lack of a better term for it.
Whereas sexual fantasies involving anything preadolescent, even if it’s just dress-up? Just weirds me out: the cognitive dissonance it produces bothers me. Again: I realize it ain’t about pedophilia. But the overlap between innocence and sex in those types of scenarios is unpleasantly jarring to me.
Sorry, I’m probably not explaining my gut feeling very well, but it’s the best I can do at the moment.