Have it sex your way.

One of the things that I find myself constantly running across, both professionally and browsing blogs that touch upon sex, are comments that reek of self-important pronouncements of what is or is not sexy. For example, on one blog a man I shall only label as "E" had this to say;

"I will never understand what is so please or "cool" about shooting it all over some chick. I think it is nasty. How could someone even ask to do that? Very low class."

"Hey, if someone is into wad shooting, peeing on someone or some other crazy shit, more power to them. What someone does in their bedroom is their business, I just can not personally find anything sexy about that shit.
What the fuck is wrong with people today? Porn is ruining us righteous, sexually-enlightened males."

"That kind of kinky shit is not hot. What is so hot about watching some chick wipe your cum all over herself? Please explain, enlighten me. Or even better, while we are at it, explain what pleasure you get out of someone pissing or shitting on you. They do that stuff too. How is that hot?"

To put it in limited context, he was responding to someone who wrote about having sex, where the man asked/desired to ejaculate over the woman's chest. And this is something to get that bothered about?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with expressing that a particular sexual variation holds no or limited appeal to oneself. Sex has never been a "take it or leave it" proposition. There are endless variations upon the theme, if you can't season to taste, you're missing the point.

However, this guy crosses a very real line with me when he asks how anyone could indulge in a particular fetish. The act of posing that question is forcing his audience to take a side and the phrasing is such that insinuates those who disagree are lesser. He assumes his stance is normative, which by default places those who do not share his opinion into a tactical conversational stance. Their options are to go on the offensive, to which he can wave the flag of "only stating his opinion" and the implication that those dissenters are thin-skinned and adversarial or they can go on the defensive, to which they have to address his aspersions as to their character before they can address the specific fetish which tends to neatly divert his adversaries into easily dismissed squabbles.

He mouths the platitudes of acceptance for other people's preferences, but they only serve as a backdrop to his attack. His references to other fetishes are phrased dismissively, crudely. It is abundantly clear he does not view them as legitimate embellishments. In exactly the same way a child will preface a statement with "No offense but..." under the assumption that those three little words magically allow them carte blanche to verbally attack the person they are addressing, E is using his "more power to them" as a tactic to get away with deriding them still further.

He ends one section with a wonderfully open question about humanity in general to establish a pretense of deeper thought and concern for his fellows. This in turn allows him to name a scapegoat for his perceived ills while simultaneously painting himself liberally with the brush of rational, healthy male.

Porpoise Pus! Mankind has always been a sexual creature. If we haven't as a species been attempting to discover new ways to kill something, we've been attempting to discover new ways to fuck it. Often times, both. History has echoed since the dawn of time with people lamenting the decadence and lechery of their society. It's nothing more than a hollow emotional bid to gain the audience's sympathy.

Porn makes a fantastic font of all evils. It takes no thought or creativity to throw into motion the machinery laid in place since the Puritans. Sure, the industry is ugly, bloated, and hardly virtuous, but they are not the architects of humanities hypothalamus either. All of which makes his insinuation that he is a "righteous, sexually-enlightened male" all the more hypocritical.

His questions, if rhetorical, are nothing more than digs at the reader's emotions. Someone that enjoys one of his "proscribed" activities is enticed to feel ashamed or guilty about it. He leaves no room for other people's perspective. If his questions are not taken rhetorically, then the reader is forced to justify what they like sexually. No one has to justify their sexuality to anyone else. The presumption that someone should or needs to is the most hideous form of arrogance. Once again, the phrasing forces the dissenter to assume the role of seeking acceptance by the self-defined "normal, healthy" population. The author is not seeking to open a dialogue or gain understanding of something outside his experience; he is inviting people to provide him more ammunition with which to turn on those who do not share his own narrow view of sex.

From time to time, he would even attempt to inject a greater sense of authority for the subject into his verbal assault.

"You know that sign over McDonalds that says "over 4 billion served"? Let's just say I am competitive. Yeah, I know NOTHING about pleasing a woman."

Sorry there, Skippy, but just because you might have some skill at getting them into bed, it does not mean they aren't running screaming for their shower to run a cheese grater over all the places you ineptly touched them. However, be that as it may, it means buggerall in terms of what revs another person's libido. It's a throw away comment. It does however add weight to the argument of hypocritical self-delusion mentioned above.

"My rules are if a woman does not please me the first time (after I tell her what I like), I am not going to be with her again. I do not have the time or will to teach someone. There are far too many women in this world that can do it than to waste time with one you have to teach."

Perhaps this might explain his purported high numbers of sexual partners. In any case, though it does not expressly tie into his condemnation of sexual practices he doesn't enjoy, it does illustrate a pattern of intolerance for what is not directed at him. One can deduce from his comments that anything that fails to be rewarding or convenient for him is without merit.

The tragic thing is that this sort of person/event is so prevalent. This is only one instance of what is out there out of thousands if not millions, but the common elements are all present, which is why I selected this particular specimen. In conclusion, I can only feel a caustic contempt for such a commenter. Such narcissistic parochialism is ill tolerated in my store.