/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19778781]

Any books on perverts and sexual fetishists?

Looking for good theories on why do some people are sexually abnormal.

[Anonymous No.19778792]

So far I am enjoying Becker's Freud-inspired analysis. The basic idea is that abnormal sexual behaviour is subconsciously driven by a need to escape biological determinism:

>The pervert is the clumsy artist trying desperately for a counter-illusion that preserves his individuality—but from within a limited talent and powers: hence the fear of the sexual role, of being gobbled up by the woman, carried away by one’s own body, and so on.

[Anonymous No.19778802]

>>19778792
It seems that Becker referring to homosexuals as neurotic perverts really bothered modern readers. Freud called them "inverts" on the other hand.

[Anonymous No.19778804]

>>19778781
Tell me more about this book. Seems intellectually stimulating.

[Anonymous No.19778823]

>>19778781
I would let that girl have sex with me

[Anonymous No.19778963]

>>19778823
She does seem to have a perky firm butt.

[Anonymous No.19778973]

>>19778781
I would reaf this in public

[Anonymous No.19778984]

>>19778781
Wtf, isn't that a child!?

[Anonymous No.19778989]

Everyone is sexually weird and perverse anon. The only real distinction between normality and abnormality when it comes to sex is between
sexual sadists and non-sadists.

[Anonymous No.19779025]

>>19778989
Of course it's subjective but we'd have to take a statistical approach to define normality, otherwise we can't even discuss abnormality.

[Anonymous No.19779027]

>>19778781
I don't know why anyone bothers to entertain the empty speculations of "philosophers" when questions like this can have real answers within the domain of science.

[Anonymous No.19779032]

>>19779027
I say this as someone working in biology (molecular genetics). You sound extremely naive and give scientists a bad name. Especially because the empirical sciences have to be based on some philosophical assumptions. For example, are transexuals "suffering" from a condition, or should we consider it an acceptable preference. Please don't say shit that makes people accuse you of scientism.

[Anonymous No.19779049]

>>19779027
waiting for you to post the 'real answers' bro

[Anonymous No.19779054]

>>19779025
Not sure I agree with that. Most men and women want to fuck eachother by putting cocks in pussy, which is obviously strongly tied to reproduction. This could basically be seen as base sexual normalcy, and everything beyond that as weird and perverse.

[Anonymous No.19779064]

Gravity's Rainbow

[Anonymous No.19779073]

>>19779032
Not that guy, but those aren't the same thing.
"Why do people want to be trannies?" is purely descriptive and thus a scientific problem (although they haven't really figured it out yet).
"Is it a good thing that people want to be trannies and should you support it?" is looking for a value judgement, so not a scientific problem.

Similarly, "Why do men like schoolgirls with fat butts?" is in the realm of neuroscience.

[Anonymous No.19779103]

>>19779054
So would you consider grabbing tiddies or liking a big ass to be sexually abnormal?

[Anonymous No.19779114]

>>19778792
>biological determinism
No such thing

[Anonymous No.19779122]

>>19779073
Correct to some extent, but (1) you can't escape all of the philosophical assumptions required for the methodological framework of science, and (2) the scientific/empirical findings have to be interpreted - the interpretations are what we find meaningful, and they are largely speculative/philosophical. But the biggest issue here is that all scientific inquiry starts with philosophical speculation. Even simple observations are "theory-laden", as they say. The idea that the scientific process is mechanical or free from philosophising is ridiculous.

>>19779114
Great input. Thanks for that.

[Anonymous No.19779128]

>>19779054
>strongly tied to reproduction. This could basically be seen as base sexual normalcy
Kissing isn't normal then?

[Anonymous No.19779140]

>>19779032
>Especially because the empirical sciences have to be based on some philosophical assumptions.
The extent of which I feel is implicitly over-stated and irrelevant given the obvious, historical triumph of the scientific method in every practical sense over "philosophical" bickering.
>For example, are transexuals "suffering" from a condition, or should we consider it an acceptable preference.
I think you are confusing is with ought. Whether we consider it acceptable or not has no bearing on whether it it is distressing (i.e., a measurable definition of suffering). The question of it being a preference or involuntary should be answerable as well, since we can imagine experiments that could distinguish the two in principle. Similarly, OP's question question can be answered (in the limit, ofc., since the method is approximate/iterative) without any suggestion of what should be done about it or if it's "natural" or "right".

>as someone working in biology (molecular genetics)
I work in Physics. One of the most important lessons I learned in undergrad was the futility of debate. We (the field) had a "great debate", where data was insufficient to reasonably determine whether observations of distant, luminous patches in the night sky were part of or separate to our galaxy. Two great minds brought forth excellent arguments, but neither could convince that their's was correct. No, more data did.

To drill the point home, Quantum Mechanics has, for decades, been without a philosophical backing. What do the wave functions represent? What happens at collapse? We don't know. Yet the "shut up and calculate" party has continued to make phenomenal progress in understanding the behaviour of quantum phenomena - if not some abstract "true nature".

Since you seem chill, I'll disclaim that I'm bored and feeling trollish.

>>19779049
Not my field, not my interest. I'm just baffled by why anyone would look to unfalsifiable speculation over reproducible research. Only excuse I can think of is the ongoing reproducibility crisis in the soft sciences, but that still beats some armchair philosopher's ass as a source of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.19779147]

>>19778781
Yes. None of them are good though, because neither mainstream or academic publishers are willing to touch the kinds of things you read about each and every day on 4chan. If you want to understand fetishes, then read blogs on twitter and deviantart.

[Anonymous No.19779160]

>>19778781

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViXSzU8UjbI

[Anonymous No.19779176]

>>19779140
Funny you mentioned QM. I take it you've never read any of its history, since all of the founding fathers were heavily obsessed with the interpretation and philosophy. The "shut up and calculate" was intended as a criticism, not as a guiding principle. I can't imagine anyone but a technician drone being satisfied with "the maths checks out". I don't know much about the attitudes of physicist today but in a recent book I read, apparently they are changing. The Copenhagen interpretation is amassing a fair share of critics.

Once you move past physics, by the way, interpretation becomes more necessary. The "data" alone are worthless. The whole of evolutionary theory, the second great accomplishment of the sciences, is largely theoretical since it consists of filling blanks and creating models from sparse data.

You also seem to be under the false impression that speculation is unfalsifiable, but this just shows how dogmatic some people have gotten about the very idea of thinking. "Scientists" (bad technicians who pump out shitty papers) are obsessed with doing "objective" empirical science, so they focus on small, worthless studies and worry about nothing but p-values.

The point of speculation is to have something to work with, to test, and to develop. What's wrong with that? I don't see why people are so concerned with the philosophy-science dichotomy as though we don't always do both (unless, again, you're a boring technician).

[Anonymous No.19779181]

I think it's become obvious fetishism is either born from childhood incidents or a search for different pornography out of boredom, i.e. lesbian porn isn't enough, I need something new.

[Anonymous No.19779204]

>>19779140

[Anonymous No.19779273]

>>19779122
The philosophy of science is about big questions (inherent subjectivity, possibility of real knowledge, validity of inductive reasoning, etc.). But you wouldn't ask a philosopher "Why is the sky blue?", because the question is entirely about the details of external reality, and thus only makes sense in a context where you accept at least part of those concepts (unless you believe the blueness of the sky is a fundamental property of our awareness, which I doubt).
My opinion is that OP's question about sexual perversion falls into the same area.

[Anonymous No.19779340]

>>19779176
>>19779204
>all of the founding fathers were heavily obsessed with the interpretation and philosophy.
And? Newton was obsessed with alchemy. Hell, almost all scientists until recently were religious and many insisted on religious underpinnings for their theories, yet the death of god and alchemy has not halted the march of material understanding. That is to say, obsession with interpretation and philosophy was a fashion for intellectuals that has fallen out of favour, and this is an appeal to authority.
>The "shut up and calculate" was intended as a criticism, not as a guiding principle
And? Shroedinger's cat was also a criticism but here we are in a world where larger and larger bodies are being put into superposition. The story of "shut up and calculate" mirrors that of faggot and chud.
>I can't imagine anyone but a technician drone being satisfied with "the maths checks out"
For me, it's humility. Sure, I'd love to know the one-true-interpretation of QM, the reason for why anything exists at all, etc., but the truth is that unless an answer can be falsified, we can never know with the same certainty we know the mass of the electron. If we can't know, then why torture ourselves with asking? With patience and good fortune, perhaps, the situation will change and a method of discerning the truth will arise but until then debate is useless.
>I don't know much about the attitudes of physicist today
To be fair, most treat it as a job or are pseuds in my experience.
>The "data" alone are worthless.
For you, perhaps. Could you elaborate on this further? An absolute knowledge of psychology, physiology, etc. sounds like it'd be very useful to people with values and philosophies align towards medicine/helping others. Just because I think it's silly to look for answers in philosophy doesn't mean I ignore that people find meaning & motivation in it. It just shouldn't be confused with knowledge, is all.
>The point of speculation is to have something to work with, to test, and to develop. What's wrong with that?
Nothing, ideally. But when it metastatises into shit like >>19778792 with the ambition of somehow being knowledge, then it serves only to delude people in the same way a "just so" religious origin story does. Were it not a book and instead something closer to a short essay proposing the idea for further research (presumably by someone with experience in the field), I wouldn't have a problem with it - it'd be just a hypothesis and nothing more. Same thing with the dumbass debate over interpretations of QM: propose the idea and move on until you can prove it one way or the other.

[Anonymous No.19779360]

>>19779204
The Dawkins quotes are perfectly defensible

[Anonymous No.19779379]

>>19779340
I should also add that practically speaking, the scientific method is a search/optimisation algorithm and appears to care very little about what its worker units think so long as they obey the protocol (reproducible experiments and predictive models). Therefore, philosophy is largely unnecessary to the enterprise of accumulating material knowledge, even if it might accelerate or hinder the rate of said accumulation.

[Anonymous No.19779416]

There's no such thing as normal when it comes to sexuality

[Anonymous No.19779427]

>>19778823

faggot

[Anonymous No.19780078]

>>19779340
>Newton was obsessed with alchemy.
Ya, he was one of those "puffers and charcoal burners" who didn't know how to understand the coded texts, and interpreted them literally. I heard he died of mercury poison. Plebs should stick to science.

[Anonymous No.19780104]

>>19779128
Nothing that involves the mouth in any sexual way is normal and natural
Hugging could be closer to natural than kissing
Dunno

[Anonymous No.19780118]

>>19778781
that's a man

[Anonymous No.19780263]

>>19778781
>sexually abnormal
start by defining this

[Anonymous No.19780271]

>>19780263
Yeah. Liking Japanese girl’s butts is normal

[Anonymous No.19780298]

>tfw sexually abnormal (TF fetish)

[Anonymous No.19780748]

>>19780298
>sexually aroused by descriptions or depictions of transformations, usually the transformations of people into other beings or objects

i can't believe this is real

[Anonymous No.19780773]

>>19778781
that's a good question. my fetish came online at the exact same times as my sexual anything- around 11. does that mean a fetish can get uploaded before you're even sexually aware? it just gets filed away for later, or something?

[Anonymous No.19780941]

>>19779340
>>all of the founding fathers were heavily obsessed with the interpretation and philosophy.
>And? Newton was obsessed with alchemy.

terrible analogy. jean bricmont wrote a recent book on quantum mechanics, and you can't accuse him of being wishy washy given his other books
plus the distinction between theory and interpretation is all in your head. an interpretation can be tested just like any theory, and in addition helps us make sense of things. stemlords seem to be deluded into thinking that explaining things means you're a dumb armchair philosopher. cringe

[Anonymous No.19780950]

>>19780773
what was your fetish?

[Anonymous No.19780991]

>>19780748
Sadly it is. I am sexually attracted to people transforming into animals and basically nothing else. I am joining a community of fellow degens to cope with my shit life.

[Anonymous No.19780993]

>>19780950
birth

[Anonymous No.19781335]

>>19778984
That’s what I thought too

[Anonymous No.19781390]

>>19780104
>humans kissing is unnatural
Do you have any idea how retarded you sound? Any at all?

[Anonymous No.19781404]

>>19778984
>>19781335
Why? Japanese women are always posing in their school uniforms

[Anonymous No.19781441]

Any literature on autogynephilia?

[Anonymous No.19781454]

>>19778781
For the record those aren't bloomers. Those are pantsu. Who wrote that trash?

[Anonymous No.19781462]

>>19779073
>"Why do men like schoolgirls with fat butts?"

The only question that has mattered in this thread.

[Anonymous No.19781586]

>>19778781
Anyone got a ahhh....zlibrary link or somethin'?

[Anonymous No.19781633]

>>19778781
Around 30% of people have a fetish, so it's in fact quite common and considered normal by experts.

[Anonymous No.19781721]

>>19779114
>t. "queer" either foulcaldian or butlerian hypocrite who's actually straight and just a hypocritical manipulative narcissist

[Anonymous No.19782111]

>>19780773
>a fetish can get uploaded before you're even sexually aware?
Oh certainly! A psychoanalytic theory is that the fetish serves a protective anxiety reducing role: what your father couldn't regulate or you couldn't handle about sexuality and gender roles is symbolized and condensed in the fetish.

[Anonymous No.19782326]

>>19779128
It's not a universal gesture and you know it.

Unless your a burger

[Anonymous No.19782655]

My diary.

[Anonymous No.19782660]

>>19778781
Havelock Ellis Studies in the Psychology of Sex

[Anonymous No.19782662]

not trying to meme but most of houllebecq's works go fairly deep into fetishism

[Anonymous No.19782898]

Libido Dominandi

[Anonymous No.19782949]

>>19778781
>spend time on a thing
>get tired of a thing
>experience new thing kinda like old thing but different in some ways
>people who spend a lot of time on a thing develop niche interests
>as access to a thing is more efficient, the more possible time spent on a thing
>people today are sexual weirdos because they watch a lot of porn
now the more interesting concept is the idea of sexual new-sincerity where degenerates loop back to fetishistizing over hand-holding. even though its probably just ronery-from-being-niche taking over.

sexual postmodernism and sexual new sincerity was caused by the agricultural revolution.

[Anonymous No.19782959]

>>19782660
This: early sexology is extremely fascinating. Both because it deals with sex in a direct, honest, and unusual way that's refreshing. And because they make you a better reader.

What I'd recommend is reading the great sexologists almost like novelists. Who were they? What were they interested in? Their work becomes extremely interesting as you see the discipline start to slide into place.

The anthropologist Clifford Geertz has done this with many of the early figures in that discipline. It is extremely fruitful. Applying it to sexuality is a no-brainer.

Modern work comes out of this tradition but is largely ignorant of it. That's a shame. We need to both move past and reassess it.

If you read them in a discerning way the insights are extraordinary. We live in a time where sexuality is so blatant - look at pornsite homepages, the unconscious is alive and well - and quantitative studies are welcome. If you read them critically, acknowledging their faults, but also their virtues, you'll love it. A good hundred years of work has been written on these people. Eat it up.

(just be cautious of the Foucaultian style readings of these figures. They're useful to a point. But there's lots of dead ends... don't take Butler seriously lol)

[Anonymous No.19783007]

>>19782959
I think the thing that gets me about sex and it's study and everyone's obsession with gender roles and fetishes and all this bullshit is that it's a fascination of a human action that doesn't involve tools. Like, beyond the baby making part (which isn't even the focus of most of this bullshit) sexology is about 'relationships' and other bullshit no one on /lit/ is ever going to feel. It's this weird conception where, like, there is no massive industry built to study the prospects of humans ability to skip or do jumping jacks. People's identities aren't defined by one's ability to snap their fingers or tap their foot in 4/4 time.


I get that sex is the way our species propagate, so it's pretty important, but it seriously just pisses me off so much. 4chan didn't turn me into a nazi or a racist, but by god it's turned me into someone that hates women. It's all they can define themselves by.

[Anonymous No.19783044]

>>19779140
The scientific method is philosophy you retard.

[Anonymous No.19783050]

>>19782959
The testimonials people gave to those old Victorian sexologists like Ellis who compiled them are, you're right, refreshingly uncompromising

[Anonymous No.19783088]

>>19783007
Don't hate women: hate that we've lapsed into a culture preoccupied with labeling and technological logic. Don't put any stock in HR speak. People harping about relationships and togetherness are often just looking for those things themselves. Don't let them sanitize sexuality.

>>19782662
This Anon is right when he brings up Houllebecq. His strength as a writer is that, almost like a cartographer mapping out a new territory, he's taking stock of how market mechanisms effect sexuality. Of course this has always been a factor. But he's so precise in mapping out that this is a world we've consciously created - or rather fallen into... - and that other arrangements are possible.

The classic sexologists give you access to a world in which sex was treated differently. It felt different. The epistemological and ontological foundations were slightly different. Jump into their world and let it seep into you. At the very least, you'll have a stamp in your passport from a different world. At best, you'll be able to talk about sexuality and understand it in a more precise way.

Whenever you read someone and you disagree with them strongly sit with that feeling. Work out why you don't like it. Otherwise, you're just hitting the block button and choosing to ignore it. Don't become one of those HR harpies you hate!

>>19783050
It's incredible, innit. It's such a shame that our models of what sexuality is reduces that complexity into a caricature. The strength of Havelock and especially Freud is that they're obsessed with simplification but in such a discerning way - that complexity lingers

[Anonymous No.19783093]

>>19778781
all of sex has become 'abnormal'. Look at how animals fuck and now find your avg. Zoomer girl and ask her whats she's into. animals fuck like boring pong pixels on a screen and Zoomer girls want the brutal DOOM VR rendition of sex. The video game metaphor should also mean something to you.

[Anonymous No.19783174]

>>19779114
Ask a dog if it agrees with you.

[Anonymous No.19783226]

>>19778792
Thanks for the recommendation anon, I'm enjoying it so far!

[Anonymous No.19783366]

>>19783093
Any sex is abnormal. It is of the material world.

[Anonymous No.19783482]

>>19778792
Hmmm I'm very mad at the seeming reality of lack of free will so I found this theory convincing at least partially for nme

[Not That Anon No.19783517]

>>19779360
That's fair, especially the first quote most philosophers would often even agree with. Philosophy most definitely doesn't get the recognition it deserves, however, as usual I suppose.

[Anonymous No.19783534]

>>19780773
I think there are at least some fetishes that you have innately. People talk about "getting" fetishes from this or that piece of media, this or that internet post, but there are also fetishes that seem to be hard-wired into you from birth, or at least from early childhood. I've had my main fetish all my life. Even as a kid, depictions of it in media would make me "feel funny," with childhood me having no idea why.

[Anonymous No.19783572]

>>19778781
All my fetishes stem from fear.

[Anonymous No.19783575]

>>19783534
I don't understand how there are people that dislike thigh highs???

[Anonymous No.19783625]

>>19778781
I want to have anal sex with her

[Anonymous No.19783634]

>>19778984
Do you really think that models and pornstars in Japan don't dress up in school uniforms all the time?

[Anonymous No.19783782]

>>19783572
Same for me. Here is a list of my degenerate interests if anyone is interested in how my fears tie into my sexuality:

>Spanking
I was always scared of it when I was younger. My parents never hit me but stories from my friends would terrify me. I would ask the girl next door to spank me when I was like 5 just to understand how it'd feel (she was the same age). I'm not still scared of being spanked, obviously, but I think childhood fetishes are impossible to get rid of.

>SPH
For obvious reasons.

>Cuckolding
I used to be into this when I was a teenager; I was terrified of being cheated on. Nowadays I don't care, I'd just leave in that scenario.

>BBC
I'm racist and it's a huge taboo however I have noticed my interest in this fetish beginning to wane. I'm honestly not sure why. It was acquired later in life so maybe it doesn't have as strong a hold over me as the others do, similar to cuckolding.

>Humiliation
I am constantly worried about what people think about me. I hate being laughed at in regular life yet love it sexually. This fetish and spanking have been with me since childhood.

>Findom
I have always been conservative with my money so spending it so wastefully was a huge rush in the beginning. Findom gave me my most powerful orgasms but, unless my 'tribue' was bigger than anything I'd given before, my orgasm would be disappointing. After reaching the max tribute I could justify, I lost interest. Haven't been into findom for 5 years. I am not sure if I would pick it up again if I earned more money.

I was hypersexual as a kid. Started masturbating at 6 or so. I was never abused or anything like that. I have always had a natural interest in the taboo. I will often put myself in dangerous situations to experience something new. I have met people from Craigslist, prostitutes, professional (and not so professional) dommes and so on.

[Anonymous No.19783801]

>>19783782
Have you ever been tickle tortured by a girl anon

[Anonymous No.19783819]

>>19783801
When I was a teenager I told my girlfriend I had incredibly ticklish feet and she would often tickle them but that's about as far as I've gone. Not something I'm really into, sorry anon.

[Anonymous No.19783855]

>>19783819
That's quite cute. I'm surprised you're not into being restrained and tortured if you're so sensitive and love humiliation. Did she ever spank you?

[Anonymous No.19784024]

>>19780748
You haven't been here long, have you?

[Anonymous No.19784883]

>>19781462
Youth and beauty. It's no shock that men prefer 18 year olds, as they're women at their prime; young and vigorous, fertile but unlikely to have had any children yet. The school uniform simply accentuates the youthfulness factor.
>>19781586
Seconding. Checked zlib but found nothing. If this is an actual book discussing perversion I'd be interested in reading it.

[Anonymous No.19784898]

>millions watch the Willy Wonka movies as kids
>thousands of those end up with the blueberry inflation fetish

How does this happen?

[Anonymous No.19784935]

>>19778781
really nice ass

[Anonymous No.19784936]

>>19781441
i just want to test drive a cute female body. simple as.

[Anonymous No.19784961]

I have a burp and fart and belly stuffing fetish explain that

[Anonymous No.19784965]

The only people seriously interested in discussing, writing, or reading about fetishes are fetishists.

[Anonymous No.19784969]

>>19784965
OP here. Never had a fetish. I watch anal porn sometime. That's way too common to be abnormal.

[Anonymous No.19784978]

The serious, off-the-deep-end fetish art I've seen, there tends to be this uncanny quality to it, above and beyond the strangeness of the fetish itself. Colors will look weirdly desaturated, the world the fetish subject inhabits will look dystopian, evrything just looks dank, musty, not as idealized as you might expect (the way, I don't know, a vanilla sex doujin is idealized).

You have to wonder if this conveys, even accidentally, the mental turmoil these paraphilliacs live in, where their obsessive fantasies (many of which are impossible to ever consummate) have taken them in life.

[Anonymous No.19784982]

>>19784969
The quickness with which you said, unsolicited, that you watch anal porn suggests that you are a fetishist who is lying to himself.

[Anonymous No.19785001]

>>19778781
>Any books on perverts and sexual fetishists?
What about books for Japanese/weeb perverts and sexual fetishists?

[Anonymous No.19785008]

>>19784982
I was just thinking about every type of porn I masturbated to and the only ones that stood out as possibly abnormal were: anal, MILFs (at a young age), Asian women (as a non-Asian), PMV (porn music videos), nurse role-play. It would seem almost silly to bring any of these up other than anal, but even anal seems wholly routine.

Are you sure you're not projecting here, anon? I am asking earnestly. I don't see why someone interested in fetishes would also need to be a sexual deviant themselves. In fact, to a sexual deviant this stuff would probably sound boring and mundane.

[Anonymous No.19785026]

>>19784935
i know right. it's not big or round but goes well with the legs. nice and firm. i'd take a big bite out of it. hope it is stinky.

[Anonymous No.19785073]

>>19784978
It’s usually Westerners that draw that way, Western fetish art puts heavily emphasis on realism, which is very much unimportant in the East.
Also their drawings look very similar to those made by schizophrenics I’ll admit.

[Anonymous No.19785123]

>>19784898
With the arrival of the internet what was once something only known by insiders and obsessive fans has become an open secret: animators insert their fetishes into kids’ media.
Usually this is supposed to only be noticed by adults, as a way to keep parents watching with their kids entertained.
Turns out exposing children to this material causes them to develop those fetishes as they grow older, furries are an obvious example, ask them and they’ll tell you they became interested in furry after watching movies like Disney’s Robin Hood.

[Anonymous No.19785170]

>>19785123
Roald Dahl didn't write that as a fetish thing, though, and it probably wasn't that way for either of the films' producers. But for thousands of people (themselves probably furry or furry adjacent) it became that way.

And it probably wasn't even 1% of people who saw Robin Hood that went on to become furry. I don't think it's just the media that causes this.

[Anonymous No.19785347]

>>19781390
Anon, kissing is not normal everywhere. Calm the fuck down.
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/aman.12286

[Anonymous No.19785431]

>>19779054
>Weird and perverse
You can spot the ones who wank over "big dick shemale" on here.

[Anonymous No.19785438]

>>19779204
Dawkins doesn't deserve to be on there. Read the Selfish Gene again.

[Anonymous No.19785453]

>>19785347
Bro I just read this paper and the methodology is weak as fuck. They emailed a bunch of researchers in various cultures and asked if they witnessed anyone kissing. Cultures may not kiss in public, but they do in private. I know for a fact some Arabic cultures are like this.

This is a classic feeble social science paper making big claims from email surveys.

[Anonymous No.19785456]

>>19785453
>researchers in various cultures
By this I mean, Western researchers who spent a few weeks abroad studying peoples across the world.

[Anonymous No.19785541]

>>19780748
It is.

[Anonymous No.19785582]

>>19785541
You think these people are genuinely aroused by this, or is it just attention-seeking via claims of outlandish sexuality?

[Anonymous No.19785596]

>>19778792
My problem with becker is that pretty much everything he says is completely unfalsifiable.

[Anonymous No.19785597]

>>19785582
They are genuinely aroused.
You can FEEL if from the drawing.

[Anonymous No.19785606]

>>19785596
It could be broken down into testable hypotheses. I can't go into it now but I think it's a worthy starting point for analysing neurosis in modern man.

[Anonymous No.19785613]

>>19785606
Sure, but I'm pretty sure that they weren't able to replicate it.

I find that whenever you have any theory saying that "all of humane existence is about x" it tends to be wrong

[Anonymous No.19785615]

>>19778781
Can anyone confirm this girl is not a junior idol?

[Anonymous No.19785747]

>>19778781

Oral sex and pantyhose down instead of off is about as kinky as I get. Otherwise I like a girl who's shorter than me, cute face, and an hourglass figure. Especially hips and butt. I think foot fetishists, furries, deviant art shit like vore, these insane freaks: >>19783782, >>19785541, all of them are mentally ill. I even think anal sex is gross, I'm genuinely frightened and upset by human shit and the possibility of it. With a lot of men I guess the wires for disgust and sexual arousal cross over. I wouldn't trust somebody if I knew they had a weird fetish

[Anonymous No.19785829]

>>19785747
>Otherwise I like a girl who's shorter than me, cute face, and an hourglass figure. Especially hips and butt

Translation: I am a male of the homo sapiens species.

[Anonymous No.19785837]

>>19785747
You generally get kinkier with age. How old are you? At 25 I was pretty vanilla but now I don't mind anal.

[Anonymous No.19785982]

>>19785008
>Are you sure you're not projecting here, anon? I am asking earnestly. I don't see why someone interested in fetishes would also need to be a sexual deviant themselves. In fact, to a sexual deviant this stuff would probably sound boring and mundane.
I am quite sure, and that is because the symptom of the fetishist is an obsessive interest in their fetish. They never tire thinking about it, talking about it, keeping it hidden, opening up about it, and investigating their fantasies as to "why" they have the fetish: it all gives the fetishist the same kind of pleasure as the fetish itself and their exhaustive interest in examining the fetish is part and parcel. That is why fetishists, like obsessives, are difficult to treat in talk therapy: they just talk over and over about their fetishism, and getting pleasure from this, to resist understanding the actual sources of their fetishism. They talk your ear off about how ashamed they are of it, and how excited they are by it, and ask why they have it: all to no avail, because that is a component and acting out of the fetish. Some but not all fetishists can associate their own obsessive interest onto the fetishes of others.
The person who is not a fetishist on the other hand does not have this compulsive interest in the fetish by virtue of not sharing in the fetishism. The fetish is furthermore, from a non-fetishistic outsider perspective, totally mundane and arbitrary because it is. Say someone has a shoe fetish: I don't give a shit about their shoe fetish. I might be curious about why they have it, but that information will not be contained in the fetish itself: the fetish is a displacement from the original issue that the fetishist takes pleasure in.

[Anonymous No.19785995]

>>19785982
I am sitting here wondering what my fetish -- which, as someone interested in deviant sexuality, should apparently be consuming my psyche (according to your analysis) -- could possibly be, and I am struggling...

[Anonymous No.19786001]

>>19778781
Georges Bataille wrote an essay on foot fetishism. There was some Japanese perversion wave in the 80s zine space but none of it is in English. Nekogirl has an essay on Japanese society and sexualization of the schoolgirl.

It sucks. Intersectionality/Sexology has brought ‘deviant’ sex out in the open, but so generally, permissively and in a feel-good way as to integrate it with the ‘inside.’ There is still no access or even interest in the pervert outside of fiction and pornography, which imo is exactly the person our society needs more of.

[Anonymous No.19786017]

>>19785995
Fine, maybe you just have an inordinate but disinterested curiosity in "sexual deviancy." Can't say it sounds like it. Although then the natural question is: why? But consider also that the source of your interest, fetishistic or not, is unconscious (not accessible to consciousness at all) or preconscious (capable of becoming conscious but not at the moment): this is also not uncommon with fetishism. Just imagine how many people have a fetish who do not know that it is a fetish.

[Anonymous No.19786067]

>>19786017
>Just imagine how many people have a fetish who do not know that it is a fetish.
If a fetish doesn't manifest itself in any real way, what subconscious effect could it have?

I guess my interest stems from reading Freud, who I know was totally off with his psychosexual analysis, and I wanted to see if there is a better thesis on the topic. It's also interesting from an evolutionary perspective. I guess that's the main question, what human traits evolved that led to people fantasizing about turning into diapers, and why did they evolve?

[Anonymous No.19786162]

Technically related tangent: any good books on the futility of trying to analyze, understand, and explain absolutely everything? I've started to really hate the constant need to know "why"/"how" that permeates so much thought and so many fields. Why can't we accept the mysterious and the unknowable? I'm not a luddite or anything. I work in a STEM field, and I understand the practical value in understanding the "why"/"how" of physical phenomena, but applying this sort of analysis to the human mind, society, culture, etc seems fruitless or even damaging. I'd like to be able to explain my views on this in a more eloquent way. This thread kinda brought it up, because I have never read any snippet of psychological analysis that doesn't annoy me, with sex related ones usually being the worst offenders. Psychology as a philosophical subject is fine, but psychology as a science seems legitimately evil.

For the purpose of the thread, I am somewhat a fetishist (femdomfag), but I felt a lot better about it when I stopped trying to analyze it and explain it. When I started looking at it as just another random, unknowable aspect of myself that I have to accept and manage like anything else (laziness, vices in general, temperament), it lost its specific negative power over me. Maybe my hatred of psychoanalysis is just me coping.

>>19779064
It's funny that you mention it, because GR is the book that got me started on all this. A lot of the novel can be boiled down to "analysis is futile" I think.

[Anonymous No.19786181]

>>19786001
>Georges Bataille wrote an essay on foot fetishism.
What's the name?

[Anonymous No.19786304]

>>19786162
>Why can't we accept the mysterious and the unknowable?
because some people (a minority, really) don't feel the need for mystery. they get nothing out of it. most people really WANT god to exist, magic to be real, the mind to be some ineffable inaccessible thing, the human to be mystical. but these things are really not special, and they should be studiable just as the physical world.

>Psychology as a philosophical subject is fine, but psychology as a science seems legitimately evil.
you don't have a good reason for this other than wanting to be more than just a creature. try reading becker, he addresses this directly.

[Anonymous No.19786328]

>>19786162
In all fields, there is a certain point where ontology becomes meaningless as it's either a spontaneous event too complex to ascribe an origin to or turtles all the way down. That leads to the applied sciences, which themselves aren't sciences, but do use the science towards forward thinking questions.
>What can I do with this?
>Where do we go from here?
>How can I work around this?
Understanding what led to a given situation is certainly helpful in trying to move on from it, but not entirely necessary. Psychology as an applied science (therapy) tends to follow this line of reasoning, especially in light of how much we don't know.

What you see in those writings is guesswork that helps to inform an applied method that tends to work, but isn't itself reliable or to be relied upon. A shitty model is better than no model at all and the models are but basic maps of a vast metaphysical territory. Considering them "known" at this level is pretty much calling it all a mystery, albeit one with an obvious face (the shape and number of other facets unknown and extending into unknown places). That said, it's as good a place as any to start from.

[Anonymous No.19786366]

>>19786181
The Big Toe. You can find an English translation in at least the pink book

[Anonymous No.19786385]

>>19785582
>>19780748
>>19780748
>>19785541
>>19785582
>>19785597
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0D2U_u1ZGE&ab_channel=FoxFamily

This will explain the appeal.

[Anonymous No.19786555]

>>19778792
this entire book is about him having a mental breakdown that humans shit

[Anonymous No.19786574]

>>19783482 I'm this post.
>>19786162 and I've also come to think and feel similar to this dude over here
So it seems very likely that you're right >>19786304 I should stop with my periods of mysterious and instead try my best to be content with the materialism of all that there is.

[Anonymous No.19786627]

>>19784978
I think this is somewhat due to lack of drawing skill, it's not confined to westerners like >>19785073 says, japanese niche fetish doujins also tend to be poorly drawn in desaturated full color
I agree they tend to have a much more depressing tone because the fetish is totalizing, to the fetish enjoyer it completely fills the mental experience and there is no focus on anything else so it becomes sterile - I think most healthy people are at least emotionally aware of the environment and the mood when sexually aroused
another aspect is that almost all very deviant fetishes revolve around pain, destruction or humiliation of some sort

[Anonymous No.19786727]

>>19786067
>If a fetish doesn't manifest itself in any real way, what subconscious effect could it have?
A fetish that is unconscious manifests itself in real life, the individual is just not conscious of its source, effect, and motivation. Same way anything that is unconscious can steer a person's behavior and mental processes without that person being capable of consciously recognizing it. Oh and Freud was right about fetishes and about everything.

[Anonymous No.19786931]

>>19786727
Literally the one thing that most Freudians agree on is that Freud was clueless when it came to sexual deviancy.

How does a fetish steer behaviour, and what makes you think that behaviour is the result of a repressed fetish?

[Anonymous No.19787045]

>>19786067
As with every other symptom there's absolutely no problem if it didn't cause subjective suffering and does its job (i.e. to cover one's castration and allow him to enjoy himself).
You're wrong about Freud .

[Anonymous No.19787065]

>tfw you will never have the opportunity to explore your fetishes in any shape or form since no one will ever have sex with you

I sometimes wonder to what degree my fetishes are just the result of being incapable of finding intimacy with the other sex, and having to compensate by fantasizing about increasingly bizarre or specific scenarios

[Anonymous No.19787127]

>>19787065
Fetishes have nothing to do with sex. The people with the most feitshes are often virgins.

[Anonymous No.19788027]

>>19780748
>>>/an/4045936

[Anonymous No.19788425]

>>19786555
Human excrement is lacking in philosophy. Why must we poop?

[Anonymous No.19788768]

>>19778792
I buy it.
>T. Coomer perv

[Anonymous No.19789098]

>>19788425
Take high school biology and find out.

[Anonymous No.19789260]

>>19778781
Literally not a single book on the topic itt. Why does /lit/ use book rec threads as discussion threads?

[Anonymous No.19789317]

>>19789260
The board is full of retarded tourists who just want to throw shit about caveman tier topics, and then mask this by posing the question as a book recommendation thread
>books about why coffee is bad for you?
>OP pic is nubile Swedish teenager
>thread devolves into five separate normalfag shitfights, extended rants on progressivism, plus maybe one or two board schizos ranting about Jesus / buddhism / gnosticism on a forced tangent
This is why people make book rec threads about pedestrian crap and why those threads are extremely successful

[Anonymous No.19789683]

>>19778781
no one replied with a book

[Anonymous No.19790267]

>>19789260
>>19789317
You realise discussing books just means discussing ideas contained in books? Nothing wrong with that, as long as the books are referenced. and here they are (mostly)

[Anonymous No.19790376]

>>19782111
Any way to fix what went wrong or get rid of a fetish and get turned on by "normal" stuff?

[Anonymous No.19790459]

Story of the Eye by Georges Bataille