X Close

Keep your kinks to yourself Destigmatising sexual depravity can only end badly

Naff: sexual depravity will never be eliminated(Photo by: PYMCA/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)

Naff: sexual depravity will never be eliminated(Photo by: PYMCA/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)


July 7, 2021   6 mins

Is “vanilla” sex old hat? Increasingly, this sort of bland, un-adventurous congress is deemed to be a Bad Thing, and it’s now reasonable to ditch a partner for not being kinky enough. But why?

Behind the social pressure to add seasoning to your sex life lurks a particularly ugly compound word: “cisheteronormativity“. Roughly speaking, it means that human sexual expression is constrained by oppressive, patriarchal norms including heterosexuality (and being “vanilla’). We should bin these, the argument goes, and accept that the range of human sexual and gender expression is infinite, and that queer sexualities have always been around.

Certainly, tales from classical antiquity support the idea that unconventional tastes have a long history. According to Suetonius, the Roman emperor Nero (37-68AD) enjoyed dressing in the skins of animals and savaging the genitals of bound slaves. And the emperor Elagabalus (204-222AD) is said in the Historia Augusta to have (among many other things) attempted self-castration, enjoyed performing in live sex shows during banquets and scandalised Roman society by raping a Vestal Virgin.

Instead of clutching our pearls, theorists argue that we should celebrate the full rainbow of erotic expression. In this spirit, recent queer scholarship has promoted Elagabalus from his classical depiction as a depraved maniac who appointed ministers based on penis size to a transgender icon.

But the debate doesn’t just concern how we read ancient history. It also invites questions about the boundaries we set on sexuality today. Should anything be taboo? Last week, Lauren Rowello argued that these boundaries are nowhere near liberal enough. Not only should sexual fetishes be openly on display as part of Pride parades, she claims, but she believes it important for her children to see it – because kids should be taught that “that alternative experiences of sexuality and expression are valid”.

Normalising the public display of kinky proclivities, she argued, encourages children to pursue their own desire and pleasure: “We don’t talk to our children enough about pursuing sex to fulfill carnal needs that delight and captivate us in the moment.”

The dreary alternative to this is the old-fashioned “respectability politics” that used to be used to oppress gay people. This view is perhaps best summed by the Edwardian actress Mrs Patrick Campbell: “Does it really matter what these affectionate people do — so long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses!” But Rowello argues that the fact gay people are now imposing the same ‘respectability’ on kinky people means they’ve sided with the oppressive, bourgeois forces of stodgy old heteronormativity.

Whether or not Elagabalus viewed himself as bursting the bounds of bourgeois oppression, Rowello’s vision of “carnal needs” as an end in themselves dates from the beginning of the Enlightenment. Notably, we owe these ideas to the Marquis de Sade (1740-1814), an egalitarian, anti-Christian and proponent of absolute freedom, who served under the revolutionary regime as “Citizen Sade”. His prolific literary works interweave attacks on Christianity and conventional morality with philosophical musings about the nature of freedom and graphic descriptions of kinky sex.

He was, in other words, a very modern kind of liberal indeed. It’s no surprise to find him among the first high-profile advocates of sexual liberation. As one of his characters puts it in Juliette (1797) “Sex is as important as eating or drinking and we ought to allow the one appetite to be satisfied with as little restraint or false modesty as the other”. It’s not such a big step from here to Rowello’s advocacy of “pursuing sex to fulfill carnal needs that delight and captivate us in the moment”.

But de Sade also thought the usual rules of political equality, which he embraced so eagerly as Citizen Sade, didn’t apply to sexuality. In Philosophy in the Bedroom (1795) he wrote that “every man wants to be a tyrant when he fornicates.” That is, buried deep in every free and liberal citizen is the longing to dominate and be obeyed, and this is most freely expressed in a sexual context.

De Sade thought the best way to square freedom and equality with these naturally violent and domineering sexual instincts was to have a class of women whose job was to act as outlets. As the historian Peter Marshallnotes, he advocated the establishment of free public brothels where men could sate their sexual desires and longing to dominate – because in his view, not gratifying these desires would result in criminal acts.

Today, of course, we don’t do anything as crude as compel women to act as human disposal units for men’s baser urges. Or at least, we insist on ‘consent’. That is, by ensuring that the violence, rape and humiliation visited fictionally on weeping, unwilling women by de Sade only ever happens IRL to women who like it. The byword for advocates of ‘BDSM’ is ‘safe, sane and consensual’.

I dare say there are some for whom this theory hangs makes sense. But evidence is mounting that it’s prone to the same pitfalls as many other efforts to replace normative rules with individual choice. That is, it may work if you’re a highly educated, well-adjusted adult with plenty of social capital. But it leaves those who are impulsive, emotionally needy or otherwise vulnerable at risk of abuse.

A poll conducted last year by BBC Scotland reported that two-thirds of men under 40 have slapped, spat at, gagged or choked a partner during sex. Maybe some of the women enjoyed it, but all of them? I doubt it. Perhaps unsurprisingly, a growing chorus (mostly of young women) is complaining that for them, “kink” turned out to be less a mutually pleasurable exchange than a vector for abuse.

The question of “consent” is further complicated by the fact that normalising “alternative experiences of sexualty and expression” creates perverse social pressure not to be “vanilla”. Even Women’s Health magazine has suggested its readership try choking if blindfolds and roleplay “have veered into vanilla territory”.

And here we get to the core difficulty with trying to liberate human sexual expression from social norms: it doesn’t work. Young women now feel the need to say “It’s okay not to want violent sex”. The fact that it’s now cringe to have “vanilla” tastes suggests normalising “kink” has not created an open space for free, tolerant self-expression at all, but a surreal inversion of “respectability politics” in which you’ll be shamed if you aren’t depraved enough.

Worse yet, this upside-down respectability isn’t even the promised nirvana of pleasure. De Sade summed up the problem in 120 Days of Sodom (1785): “If it is the dirty element that gives pleasure to the act of lust, then the dirtier it is, the more pleasurable it is bound to be.” So what happens when “dirty” proclivities are so normalised people are OK with their kids seeing them?

The most likely outcome is they will stop feeling “naughty”. This helps to explain the aura of naffness which clings to the kind of people who like to be “open” about their “BDSM lifestyle”. But it also points to a structural problem with the idea of normalising “kink”: it is (as someone once said of Brexit) less an event than a process.

The opponents of cisheteronormativity argue that the whole point of Pride is broadening what’s acceptable in the mainstream, which in turn means rejecting “respectability politics”. As Vox puts it: “Queerness, at its core, is a rejection of that respectability.”

But if you reject respectability politics, you’re rejecting the whole structure of social stigma that surrounds forbidden practices, and as such endows them with frisson. What, then, is even the point of such practices, when the campaign to destigmatise them has rendered previously dark and thrilling scenarios as exotic and forbidden as a trip to Asda?

We may have embraced wholesale the idea that “anything goes” provided it’s “safe, sane and consensual”. But if the excitement of sexual taboos is precisely their forbidden-ness, then sooner or later someone will come for the taboo of consent itself — and especially on violating the consent of those who aren’t deemed able to consent in the first place: children and animals.

A steady tap-tap-tap on that door can be heard today. When Tom Chivers mused in these pages about why we’re disgusted by people having sex with animals recently, the ensuing brouhaha illustrates the extent to which this remains, thankfully, a no-go area; but earlier this year Joanna Bourke wrote a whole book seeking to question the taboos around bestiality.

Elsewhere, the internet is full of edgelords seeking to “complicate” the boundaries of underage sexual consent. This also extends into academia: Allyn Walker recently published a sympathetic study of non-offending paedophiles.

In other words, the “slippery slope” is not a conservative bogeyman. It’s a structural inevitability. Kink without “respectability politics” has no endpoint; or rather, its endpoint is well beyond the tolerance of even your average whips-and-chains hobbyist.

History suggests it’s not realistic to imagine sexual depravity can ever be eliminated. Humans are simply too perverse for that. But if we’re not to chase the high of sexual transgression even further into the terrain of sexual abuse, or perhaps trigger a puritanical backlash so monumental it sweeps away even moderate gains in sexual tolerance such as the acceptance of normal gay and lesbian couples, we need to reclaim ‘respectability politics’.

This should be a win all round. After all, it’s in the interests of those who enjoy transgression to restore the thrill of the forbidden. This means, in effect, a pro-pervert defence of bourgeois hypocrisy; a kind of degenerate’s Fight Club, where the first and second rules are: you don’t talk about it.

Those who are ineluctably drawn to the dark side will find their way there anyway, in due course. And those who would not otherwise be tempted are well out of it. But no one who is incapable of discretion is mentally equipped to enjoy depravity – and besides, proper enjoyment of the forbidden means something must be forbidden in the first place.


Mary Harrington is a contributing editor at UnHerd.

moveincircles

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

56 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Peter LR
Peter LR
3 years ago

It’s interesting that in a whole article regarding sex there is not one mention of the word love. Not that I blame Mary whose writing I find searching without personal agendas. It shows how far off-field the ‘pleasure narrative’ takes us. It strikes me that people who talk derogatorily of ‘vanilla’ have no genuine experience of monogamous love and how lasting it can be. Perhaps the euphemism ‘making love’ should be changed to craving pleasure.

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
3 years ago
Reply to  Peter LR

People entering into sexual liaisons for pleasure are often ambushed or surprised by the tender feelings of attachment that follow.

Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
3 years ago
Reply to  Peter LR

One of the people I admire more than any other, Thomas Sowell, has said exactly the same about love.

Judy Englander
Judy Englander
3 years ago
Reply to  Peter LR

I notice that ‘making love’ is hardly used now. It’s been replaced by ‘having sex’ which is a significant change. I’ve also noticed how the word ‘fun’ is used for one night stands especially by women, signifying the move to recreational sex decoupled from relationship. I suspect women don’t really want this but feel pressurised because it’s only ‘fun’, a trivial matter which they are supposed to forget the next morning. Except they often don’t.

Last edited 3 years ago by Judy Englander
Sue Ward
Sue Ward
3 years ago
Reply to  Peter LR

You put into words most eloquently exactly what I felt.

Chelcie Morris
Chelcie Morris
3 years ago
Reply to  Peter LR

Love never comes into the equation because these people don’t know how to love in the first place. They are so deprived of human connection that they equate sex with fun instead of the connection between two people.

Ludo Roessen
Ludo Roessen
3 years ago

First they come for you… and then they come for your children

George Glashan
George Glashan
3 years ago
Reply to  Ludo Roessen

As the manic street preachers sang: if you tolerate this then your children will be next.

Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
3 years ago
Reply to  Ludo Roessen

I think it might be the other way round. It was certainly that way for the Nazis and Stalin, and children are being used to promote belief in a climate crisis.

Marco S
Marco S
3 years ago
Reply to  Ludo Roessen

In the 1980s i was in San Francisco at the time of a gay pride procession. There were several trailers promoting “man boy love” I was as shocked then as I would be now

Last edited 3 years ago by Marco S
mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago
Reply to  Marco S

Is AMBLA still a thing? Bit like Labour’s PIE thing in the Loony Left London Local Authorities (AKA LLLLAs) 70s-80s?

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago

A few months ago an Unherd article linked to one in The Atlantic about the “sex recession”. This is the phenomenon that 20-somethings are less sexually active now than their parents were; 20% of 30-year-old are virgins, or something.
The link included a quote from someone in charge of pastoral care of freshmen at an American university, who found it necessary to tell 19-year-old men that the first time they sleep with a woman, they should not choke her, ejaculate on her face, or attempt @n@l sex.
My reaction to this was to marvel at the qualification “the first time”, as opposed to “ever unless expressly invited”, but more that this sort of behaviour is apparently becoming so normal that men have to be told it’s not. All of these are disrespectful, painful, or frightening ways to have sex with a woman; some are all three; the boys don’t realise because they’ve been looking at smartphone pr0n for 8 years, they think it’s normal and they use apps to hook up.
So there is something going on. Latter-day de Sades arguing that the real weirdoes are the normals are part of the problem. It’s a problem that affects young women (who are the objects of this stuff) worst but also indirectly young men, who either can’t get into, or have no idea how to conduct, a healthy boy / girl relationship.

Hardee Hodges
Hardee Hodges
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

Whether the inability to establish a relationship that bear truth, there is a tendency to imagine the degraded society envisioned by deSade. I suppose this has been a social worry forever. Caring for others, certainly a partner, must be enjoined at an early age. I’m not so sure that modern po7n removes that caring nature. I suspect the search for non-vanilla happens during the middle years, but have no way to know. I do think that a lot of people engage in fantasy but still enjoy the good old, same old.

Addie Schogger
Addie Schogger
3 years ago

Every great civilisation coming to the end of its power descends into licentiousness and the loss of all restraints. We are heading the same way.

Jeffrey Chongsathien
Jeffrey Chongsathien
3 years ago

Mary and Freddie are why I subscribe to Unherd.

Al M
Al M
3 years ago

I had the misfortune to share a flat with some ‘kinky’ people in my youth. Also held anarchist views. Complete pain in the backside they were.

But, more seriously, they were forever trying to convert you or proclaim that everyone is on a spectrum somewhere and nobody is straight/gay/male/female. Essentially, trying to invalidate the normal experience of the overwhelming majority. I still shudder when I recall those days.

Clara B
Clara B
3 years ago
Reply to  Al M

I remember somebody trying to do the same with me, but in respect of drug-taking. He argued that I was super-straight and fearful because I didn’t want to take whatever poisonous substance had addled his brain. He was into kink as well (thankfully, I was not his girlfriend).

Christopher Gelber
Christopher Gelber
3 years ago

I find troubling the bit in here that a poll in Scotland found that c.66% of men under 40 have slapped, spat at, gagged or choked a partner during sex. I assume the vast majority of these partners are women. Ok, it was Scotland, but still, I can hope that most of this behaviour was light slapping of the ass or similar (a hand under a chin, etc), but God knows. I have heard of things some young men regard as normal these days which are for sure in fetish territory. I have also heard stories of how young women can feel pressure to replicate certain behaviours, and hope they understand they have real agency in sexual encounters as they continue to grow up.

Last edited 3 years ago by Christopher Gelber
mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago

TBH i think the poll was made up. Think about how many ppl in your immediate social circle are into BDSM or chemsex or whatever – hardly any and certainly not 66%, probably 10-20% tops ( ie real friends you’d turn to if the cops were after you, not “friends” who you only know from being neighbours or business contacts or social media etc)

Christopher Gelber
Christopher Gelber
3 years ago
Reply to  mike otter

And the poll was conducted by the BBC. And was done in Scotland. I do, however, very much like your definition of a real friend.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
3 years ago

Cops after you because of some sex game gone bad?

John Kozakiewicz
John Kozakiewicz
3 years ago

How on earth could any ‘poll’ determine such a thing? Far too much naive credulity on display here.

Chris Eaton
Chris Eaton
3 years ago

Vanilla gets a bad rap. Vanilla is sweet, Vanilla tastes good, Vanilla is satisfying. Sometimes I like a little bit of chocolate syrup on my Vanilla…sometimes my wife wants some caramel and peanuts on her Vanilla…or maybe we want some peaches, or strawberries, or whipped cream…I tell you what we don’t want: jalapeno peppers, mustard, hot chili peppers, or hot dogs. Yeah, that last one was kind of random. Been a Vanilla guy my whole live and been married to a Vanilla gal for over 30 years…and we still get our Vanilla on at least twice a week. Is that love or what?

Christopher Gelber
Christopher Gelber
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Eaton

Nice one, Chris.

Joe Donovan
Joe Donovan
3 years ago

So much of the madness now washing over us goes back to one source — Michel Foucault. Does anyone on the Left hold him accountable for his own, personal depravity, or are we supposed to take him for a model in this as in things more conventionally “philosophical?”

John Kozakiewicz
John Kozakiewicz
3 years ago
Reply to  Joe Donovan

I know I must have been adversely influenced by Foucault from an early age, even before I could spell his name or identify him in a police lineup! In later years, I extricated myself from a Foucault cult, where our guiding principle was WWFD (What would Foucault do?) Now, blessed by the wisdom that all-too-rarely comes with age, I can attribute all my past transgressions to this man – Foucault made me do it!

Last edited 3 years ago by John Kozakiewicz
L Walker
L Walker
3 years ago

He definitely should have been in a police lineup.

John Riordan
John Riordan
3 years ago
Reply to  Joe Donovan

The sole contribution this man has made to the world is in the inadvertently-revealing expression “I know Foucalt” by his disciples.

Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
3 years ago
Reply to  Joe Donovan

Derrida, Nietzsche, Foucault…. three of the great looseners of evil on society, sick memes which replicate and spread, worse than any Covid in harm

John Kozakiewicz
John Kozakiewicz
3 years ago
Reply to  Galeti Tavas

“…three of the great looseners…” I think perhaps they were ‘loosers,’ not ‘looseners’!

Al M
Al M
3 years ago
Reply to  Joe Donovan

Notably, Macron has spoken out against ‘US’ style woke/cancel/intersectionality as a threat to the French way of life. One can only assume that much as ‘bof’ has no direct equivalent in English, there must be nothing in the French language or consciousness for the concepts of irony and, more importantly, contrition.

Alastair Herd
Alastair Herd
3 years ago

A lot of this stuff makes more sense with the label “Expressive Individualism”. Sexuality has just become another vector for self-definition, and so it needs to be weirder and weirder to help you feel unique.
It might be a Christian book, but nothing I’ve read comes close to charting how we got where we are now like “The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self” by Carl Trueman.

andy young
andy young
3 years ago

Personally I’m into bestiality, flagellation & necrophilia.
Some might say I’m flogging a dead horse.

James Chater
James Chater
3 years ago

Yes, there has been a marked ‘inflationary devaluation’ of Taboo. Probably regrettable? (I note the author’s honest defence of the indefensible – ‘bourgeois hypocrisy’.)
So, what before was ‘kinky’ now becomes ‘normalised’. And? Is there really going to be a huge uptake of ‘perverse’ sexual behaviour, everywhere, anywhere, at every opportunity?
Trying to posit some sort of ‘oppression’ of the ‘hetero-normal’ majority is ridiculous.
Agreed, any glorification of coercive, nonconsensual behaviour, actual or simulated, is of real concern. ‘Kinky’ and ‘straight’, hetero, homo,[not my asterisks] should be able to agree on that.
Yes, we have to blame all media, with electronic & social media (obviously the ‘dark net’ is of major concern) pushing the bounds.
With an emphasis on the subjective, I wish there was less public display of any kind of sexual ‘pride’ or ‘merit’, ‘straight’ or ‘bent’. But, to misquote the author, ‘humans are simply too ‘sexy’ for that’.

Last edited 3 years ago by James Chater
Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  James Chater

Is there such a thing as straight pride then? If I announced – let’s say on Twitter – that I was proud to be straight, would I receive applause or abuse?

James Chater
James Chater
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

You might receive both? Let’s be honest though – can’t imagine there’d be as many LGBTQ+ sponsors of a Straight Pride as there are straight sponsors for the LGBTQ+ Prides.

Last edited 3 years ago by James Chater
Judy Englander
Judy Englander
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

The whole idea of pride in our s*xual preferences is absurd. Our s*xualities and preferences are not – or shouldn’t be – the most important things about us.

Jon Redman
Jon Redman
3 years ago
Reply to  Judy Englander

Agree Judy, as these are also involuntary. You might just as well be proud of having brown eyes.

Don Lightband
Don Lightband
3 years ago
Reply to  Judy Englander

Hold on one shining moment – imagine if your desire tended ever more strongly toward ‘paedo’ (which after all, let’s face it, everybody’s ultimately does, it’s just buried in lashings of acceptable gushings of ‘cute’), but you soon realized saying a word about this will be socially fatal – wouldn’t your agonizedly supressed feelings inevitably now become ‘the most important thing about you’ ?

Ed West says multiple taboos and.speech codes are swiftly returning us to the ‘normal’. In the very next piece, Mary Harrington says wicked “kinks” are oozing out upon the market all over the place.

I for one don’ t know what to believe – do you?

Fintan Power
Fintan Power
3 years ago
Reply to  Jon Redman

There is such a thing but they have been attacked for daring to say so.

John Riordan
John Riordan
3 years ago

“But Rowello argues that the fact gay people are now imposing the same ‘respectability’ on kinky people means they’ve sided with the oppressive, bourgeois forces of stodgy old heteronormativity.”

But so what? The alternative, surely, would be to say that there is no equivalent in the gay sexual world to conventional vanilla sex, which surely is equally oppressive?

What’s really going on here is that “normal” sex is being misrepresented anyway. There is a reason why it’s a “norm”, and it’s simply that in straight sex, about three positions and a general absence of accessories is enough on its own to please most people – if done right, of course, because there is considerable skill involved in getting it right even as far as that.

So, why should not gay people be entitled to operate on similar principles? I say this as one who has tried quite a few things in my time, by the way, and I would never judge the more adventurous for their preferences. But this argument here seems to rest upon throwing a mirror image of such judgement back at the less adventurous, who are, after all, only asserting that they know for themselves what form intimacy ideally takes in private between themselves.

Sorry if the gays don’t want to support your constant attacks on social norms, but it’s not their job, and you shouldn’t expect it.

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
3 years ago

Vanilla’s a fine and subtle flavour and gets a bad rap, due , I presume to it being the default flavouring of “plain” ice-cream.
This is not a recent misconception – over 40 years ago I suffered a friend making a yoghurt sauce for souvlaki dressing from vanilla yoghurt, because he thought it was the same as “plain”.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
3 years ago

Bad rap? I think he went downhill after ‘Play that funky music’ personally….

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
3 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

Vanilla Ice – now there was a guy who couldn’t sing under pressure.

John Kozakiewicz
John Kozakiewicz
3 years ago

“A poll conducted last year by BBC Scotland reported that two-thirds of men under 40 have slapped, spat at, gagged or choked a partner during sex.”
Oh, the credulity! Ms. Harrington’s breathless and uncritical reference to a very questionable ‘poll’ serves to undermine her entire article. This supposed poll undoubtedly served as a vehicle for sex-deprived and testosterone-addled young men to wax grandly about their imagined bedroom activities. I would have expected a serious journalist to recognize male locker-room boasting and posturing when it is staring her in the face (so to speak). My hunch is that there is a great vanilla-hued middle ground on the continuum of human sexual practices, with the disinterested occupying one extreme and the overachievers the other. In any case, neither panic nor hand-wringing seems to in be order!

Last edited 2 years ago by John Kozakiewicz
Hugh Marcus
Hugh Marcus
3 years ago

Yes there may be a bit of exaggeration in the figures but simply dismissing it doesn’t deal with the issue. I suspect that the notions of slapping a partner etc etc probably first happened in the heads of those younger men when they saw it on a porn site somewhere. Statistically most of the partners would be women & I’d live to know if any of them felt cheap & used. What’s missing in the vocabulary of the ‘anything goes’ advocates is the notion of respect.

Alan Thorpe
Alan Thorpe
3 years ago

Also the poll didn’t ask women about their views.

Dan Nicholas Mr.
Dan Nicholas Mr.
3 years ago

Brilliant and bold. Great think piece. I’ve been kinky. Ive been vanilla. I’ve even been a Street Preacher. And I still believe in love….and making it. Mary is spot on, how the profane cannot even exist without the holy. I’ve gone from the traditional church to Fulsom Street Fare and back. We need both. Both are valid, I say. And this having lost a ten year love in part due to the madness of “Consensual Non Consent” in kink. Yes, without love as the key, we are doomed to ever find true pleasure. Just finished my memoir, Sex With Librarians and God yesterday. Mary’s work here is indeed heartfelt and helpful.

John Kozakiewicz
John Kozakiewicz
3 years ago

We need the true sexual pioneers, although I’m not exactly sure why. Mr. Dan Nicholas, do you really think there is anything new under the sun sexually, and that you have accomplished some bold and heretofore-unknown act of kink? If so, when asked by the breathless paparazzi why on earth you even attempted to ‘pull off’ such a dangerous and seemingly unattainable endeavour, you can modestly reply, “Because it was there.”

Last edited 3 years ago by John Kozakiewicz
Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
3 years ago

The core of the problem was summed up, in a couple of throwaway sardonic sentences, once upon a time (well 1981 but it’s the same thing) by Clive James in a review, while taking the mickey out of Malcolm Muggeridge:

There is no point in being shocked that God gave healthy male human beings ten times more lust than they can use. He did the same to healthy male fiddler crabs. He’s a deity, not a dietitian.

Unlike fiddler crabs, we know pretty much exactly the mechanics of the trick being played on us by nature, so why are we still, both women and men, such willing victims of our biological nature?
And I contend, *now* is pretty much the last of it (as in the next few decades) before that all is voluntarily removed from us, by us, from our nature. Notwithstanding the utter meaninglessness that would superimpose thereafter on all past human sensibility, all art, all striving, all production to date. I mean, if you had the choice, would you remain chained to a barely controllable maniacal doppelganger for decades on end? Ok, it might be fun for a bit, but seriously?

Last edited 3 years ago by Prashant Kotak
Galeti Tavas
Galeti Tavas
3 years ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

Malcolm Muggeridge, if only his kind still was regularly on popular media…..

I really feel our Entertainment industry, MSM, Social Media, Education industry, have been taken over by Satan; what a degenerate world we live in, but historically every period of absolute degeneracy was fallowed by a period leaning towards decency. Although in this electronic age the pendulum swing may not correct.

David McDowell
David McDowell
3 years ago

A rather drawn out whinge from what is essentially the sex snowflake perspective.
I’m not averse to more centralised control of what people do in bed where there a benefits to doing so. But let’s start with the big things, the ones that would make a difference, and leave the minority kinks aside for the time being. Let’s make access to contraception and abortion harder, prohibit divorce and criminalise adultery.

Al M
Al M
3 years ago
Reply to  David McDowell

I notice that fornication is missing from your list. Interesting.

David McDowell
David McDowell
3 years ago
Reply to  Al M

Fornication on its own does not directly undermine the family unit. Divorce and adultery do.

Al M
Al M
3 years ago
Reply to  David McDowell

It will do without contraception.

David McDowell
David McDowell
3 years ago
Reply to  Al M

Fair point.