Your kink bores me.

[mrissa]

Is there anything that can be coopted by le bourgeois faster than a game of épater le bourgeois? If there is, I'm not sure I've seen it. I am really, really sick of people trying to shock me. Do you know why? Because mostly other people's sexual tastes are just not that interesting. And the more convinced the people are that they are the most rebellious transgressive thing in the world, the more likely I am to be thoroughly bored by the account of it. It's not that I don't want to hear it because I'm too squicked, too freaked out, not edgy enough. It's just that what you like in bed, for vast, sweeping values of "you," is not at all my concern. Not my business. Don't have the energy to bother.

Is this because I am the coolest, hippest, most jaded kid on my block? Not at all. I am not particularly hip. I am not particularly unhip, either, and I hate it when people try to be hip by proclaiming their unhipness. "I am so far out of the mainstream! I march to my own drummer! I define my own drummer as the opposite of other people's drummers!" No. Cut it out; move along with your own life. I don't think I'm particularly outstanding here. I just...don't...care.

Here are the circumstances under which your specific sexual tastes matter to me:
1) I have agreed to have a sexual relationship with you. This leaves out the vast, vast majority of humanity: thank you, move along.
OR 2) You intend to do something that will do lasting damage to someone, particularly someone I care about (possibly including yourself, depending on who you are).
OR 3) There is an interesting story that requires knowledge of them. I mean story, not series of facts or events: not just, "You won't believe what the goalie did with the Roomba," but, "You won't believe what the goalie did with the Roomba. The queen died of grief." Interest points are especially awarded for storytelling skills, geekiness (science/engineering jokes/discoveries particularly), and hilarity. I judge what's hilarious for myself, so if you tell me a story and it's just not that funny, well, find yourself another audience; insisting that I need to loosen up is probably beside the point. I could be loosened up enough to be a gelatinous Mris-puddle on the floor, and you could still be boring me.

Extra points will be removed for persisting after I tell you I don't care (no matter how funny the story ends up when you finish telling it), for instructing me to broaden my horizons (why don't you broaden yours to include the concept of people who don't care?), and especially for informing me that your interest is "the ultimate taboo" and/or "more rebellious/transgressive than being gay." I would imagine there are a few exceptions, but for the most part gay people are not gay in order to be shocking. They are gay because they're genuinely interested in members of the same sex. Also, there is no ultimate taboo. One person's shocked nausea is another person's pleasant evening and a third person's bored yawn.

In many cases that third person would be me.

If you're talking about your sex life in your lj, I am perfectly capable of skimming or skipping those bits, or of reading them if you've met criterion #3 above. (Or, if applicable, of not friending you, or of de-friending you, or of asking to leave that filter.) It's like being at a party: not every conversation between interesting people will be of interest. That's fine. But I want relative strangers to stop accosting me with this kind of information. I want to go on the record here: I. Don't. Care.

Comments

[sensational.livejournal.com]

...and this touches on a pet peeve of mine, which is the whole "I'm so unique!" mindset. Because most often what makes a person think they are unique or interesting is not at all what makes them unique or interesting and that kind of drives me batty.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Yes. I understand that many people felt weird and marginalized in high school. We are not in high school, thank you, move along.

[orangemike.livejournal.com]

Recently spotted bumpersticker:

YOU NONCONFORMISTS ARE ALL ALIKE

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Awesome.

[orangemike.livejournal.com]

Reminded me of an ancient Bizarro strip from Dan Piraro's very earliest years. It's in the first collection, I think....

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I thought you might be able to relate.

[nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com]

Oh boy, discussion what kink initiated this post?

Was it someone who likes to have sex with stone lions outside public libraries?

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Better that than inside public libraries; some people are trying to read there.

[mamapduck.livejournal.com]

Amen!

[aet.livejournal.com]

"I am really, really sick of people trying to shock me."

Interestingly enough sex is not a topic that comes to my mind reading that sentence.

I guess the weirdest thing about ... I should not generalize, so I should say "about some Americans I have encountered online" is the weird attitude towards children they have. Hence, the first topic I would be careful with, afraid to shock my American fellow conversationalist, would be children related issues (of course, to get children there has to be some sex involved most of time, but somehow sex does not seem to be a generally a shocking topic to me).

Then again, may-be I give such asexual vibes that no one could feel any temptation to shock me sexually? May-be it just means you are sexy?

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Is there something about children that's particularly shocking? Schooling, discipline customs, caregiving customs...?

It may be that people want to shock me more if they think I'm hot; heaven knows some people have that reaction in general, so it may apply here. But I still don't really appreciate it.

[(Anonymous)]

I guess the caregiving customs are the ones different.

Aet

[mamapduck.livejournal.com]

Discipline is a huge one. Hitting vs. not hitting is a big one- oh, and to be fair, I should add the "Of course I spank, but spanking isn't hitting" faction to the mix.

(Yes, people really say that. A lot)

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

Yup - except for me it's often squickiness too. And it doesn't really have much to do with the nature of the kink - it could be the most vanilla missionary thing around and I'd still be squicked. I would just frankly rather not have to think about a large fraciton of the people I know / have met / have seen having sex.

[mmerriam.livejournal.com]

I would just frankly rather not have to think about a large fraciton of the people I know / have met / have seen having sex.

Amen to that.

[anne-mommy.livejournal.com]

Oh my gosh, I too can hear you on that. I do, however, understand that for many of us, sex is an important part of our relationship (not the beginning and end of it, just an important component) and sometimes (I at least) need to talk about that with my girlfriends. Not because it's taboo, but because we draw support from one another, and gain insight and advice which we then take back to our relationship, hopefully bettering it.

I'm thinking that's not what this post is about however.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

Friends, yes, sometimes, if they and you are comfortable with it as your friends are.

Strangers, not so much.

[anne-mommy.livejournal.com]

I agree. And even with friends, dirty details are not really necessary!

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Uh, no, that was not really the focus.

And when I've had friends who wanted/needed to talk about something in their sex life with me, mostly they've either had a fun story (as per #3) or else they've known which details could be left aside. And they were not trying to make me go, "Oh my goodness, how shocking!" Except for maybe one friend who seems to have grown out of it.

[ckd]

I think that this is the inverse of the puritanical "I want to know all about your sex life so I can disapprove of it" impulse, in the same way that love and hate are inverses; their common opposite is indifference.

[ellameena.livejournal.com]

This is a problem I haven't encountered. I admit I'm vaguely mystified by the way some people seem to make sex a hobby--that it's not good enough to "just" have sex. One has to involve all kinds of gadgets and find a good, sturdy ceiling stud to anchor your equipment and have lots of flavored lubricants and costumes (or uniforms?) and involve all sorts of extra people, etc. etc. I guess I'm just lucky. My sex life is very satisfying and I still have time to watch my favorite TV shows some nights.

There is a saying about evil and how boring it is, but I can't quite remember it this morning. Now, I now "evil" is your basic value-laden, judgmental word, but, then again, so is "transgressive." But the point of it is that often when we are being "bad" we are really indulging the most mundane, commonest, boringest thoughts and urges ever invented. *yawn*

On the other hand, I've heard some people have invented kinds of *meditation* and *prayer* that are so satisfying that they don't need sex anymore. Now, THAT, I find very interesting. I'm not sure I'd want to be accosted by a stranger on this topic, but it would get more than a passing glance as an LJ post. :-)

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Well, some of us don't watch much TV.

I don't think I'd be more generally interested in the meditation/prayer thing than in anything else: hope it works for them, not my business. People have devised forms of meditation to help them avoid all sorts of things, and some of the neurology might be interesting, but I don't much care about the practice.

[ellameena.livejournal.com]

That's actually a bad example (because I can easily imagine it getting weird), but in general I find it more interesting when people have overcome difficulties or made choices contrary to their natural urges rather than choices that pander to or indulge those urges. Vows of celibacy, mountain climbing, olympic athletes, brilliant scientists, single moms--these folks all have stories to tell that I care about. People who like to have sex wearing flippers on their feet while listening to klezmer music--not so much. :-)

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

And that fits neatly with my own perception of the situation: I am not all that interested in mountain climbing. It seems to me to be exalting the difficult over the interesting. All sorts of things are difficult that I don't find interesting at all. It would probably be difficult to make the world's largest ball of twine at this point -- probably more difficult than reading a short story -- but I'm more interested in the short story. I mean, unless it's a bad, boring short story, in which case, toss-up.

Tangenting, because I do that

[redbird]

Mountain climbing can be interesting for the climber for the experience itself, whether that's the feeling of the muscles or the wind blowing off the nearby ocean or a sudden surprising rain. And you can get some good views up there.

But when I do it (rarely), it only makes a story when something goes wrong and I spend a Worldcon explaining that the reason I'm limping is that I put my leg down in a hole and wrenched my knee. And I could have done the exact same thing at sea level.

Re: Tangenting, because I do that

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I've gone up and down a few mountains. I rarely tell stories about it except within a discussion of the topic. (On the other hand, I frequently tell the story of the time *not* climbing the mountain was much better, which I think proves your point. (It was at Uluru / Ayers Rock.))

On the other hand, I do show pictures from mountain climbing, and people seem interested in seeing them. Maybe that means that pictures are not so much worth a thousand words as just saying a different sort of thing entirely. Or else it's because the pictures are not of mountain climbing but rather of mountains.

[skylarker.livejournal.com]

Not my business.
Amen.

I'm truly amazed by the number of people in the world who seem to think that the sex lives of strangers are their legitimate concern.* Especially when it comes to actually trying to legislate them.

*Aside from those instances where somebody's rights or choices are being violated in the process.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Yah, the fact of posting it does contradict the sentiment posted, a bit.

Still and all, I understand the temptation.

[redbird]

I think this connects to a distinction cattitude was drawing last night (in discussion of sythyry's journal, which is fiction with strong soap operatic elements), between queer and "pervy."

As he uses it, if you're having sex with someone of your own gender because that's what you like, you're queer. If you're doing it because it's taboo and you want to shock people, you're pervy. And if you're an innocent queer person who gets involved with that sort of perv, you're likely in for a rough time.

[matastas.livejournal.com]

So, telling you about that thing I do with the pudding, the squirrel, and the 1/4" chain. That waits for a dinner party, or Sunday brunch...?

I'm so confused.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Sunday brunch, definitely.

Now if it was a trifle instead of a pudding or a rabbit instead of a squirrel, dinner party.

[timprov.livejournal.com]

And if it's a 1 1/2" chain, it's more of a barbecue thing.

[matastas.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah, naturally. 'cause 1 1/2" chain is manly. Goes with the whole open-fire thing.

Ultimate Taboos

[mackatlaw.livejournal.com]

Since no one else has mentioned this tangent, I thought I would. I seem to remember from my Anthropology 101 class (way back when) that there are sexual taboos common to most societies, which I suppose could be seen as "ultimate taboos." I'm rusty on this, but they were more couched in terms of "avoiding these practices seem hardwired into the human animal." They generally tended to be things that were bad for long term survival of the human species, such as close incest (bad for genes); sexual interest in waste products (unhealthy); sexual interest in the dead (very unhealthy). Interest by adults in young children was probably discouraged, though the age of menarche in most societies was generally when a girl became a woman.

(I have left out homosexuality from this post, because I've also heard the theory that it serves as a natural way of reducing birth rate, and in any case does not seem to be as universal a taboo as the others.) I'm getting into deep waters I have not charted well, though, but I should dig out my Anth textbook sometime.

Mack

Re: Ultimate Taboos

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Most people who attempt to regale others with tales of their kink don't want to be arrested, is my assessment of this one, and something like necrophilia can easily go that way.

Re: Ultimate Taboos

[mackatlaw.livejournal.com]

I've never run into the "regaling with tales of kink" problem. I don't know; it's weird to me that it's happened to you. Sex goes through everybody's brain and is important, but there's a lot more stuff happening in society and with us...

Re: Ultimate Taboos

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

You are male. I think that's part of the reason why it's happened to me and not you: in this culture, mostly women don't accost men to tell them what they really like in bed. Also, women are arrested for exposing their genitals to strangers less often, and I don't think the two are unrelated tendencies.

Not that everyone who goes for tales of Wild Sexx0rs is the verbal equivalent of someone who whips it out on the subway. But some are.

Re: Ultimate Taboos

[mackatlaw.livejournal.com]

I'd buy that for an explanation, since I can't imagine a woman accosting me and belaboring the conversation enough to bring her sexual fantasies into it. (I mean, not except in my own private fantasies... But I digress. See how easily the floodgates are opened?)

You may be onto something about the psychology involved. I hadn't thought it from this angle before.

[adrian-turtle.livejournal.com]

I react very differently. I don't mean to suggest there's anything wrong with your way of doing things, or that I would want to trespass on your boundaries, but I don't define mine the same way, and I have a problem with the idea that telling friends about kink (or sex in general) is inevitably boring or unfriendly.

I have friends who like to talk about food they enjoy, and I can share their pleasure, indirectly, without sharing the meal. I can enjoy descriptions of food preparation for meals I won't be sharing or imitating. Or restaurant reviews for restaurants I'm never going to see. Sometimes I'm more interested in the friend talking about the food than in the food being described, but that's the nature of friendship -- it can illuminate a lot of things.

Sometimes I'd rather focus on something else than food, so I change the subject. But I don't see it as blameworthy that a friend presumed to tell me about something I wasn't interested in, whether it was food, or pets, or video games, or anything else. Among my friends, the impulse to talk about what is making a person happy tends to be generous.

It doesn't have to be part of an interesting story to be interesting to me. An awful lot of interesting stories seem to be about relationships going wrong, but I'd prefer to avoid that, for all the people I care about.

>One person's shocked nausea is another person's pleasant evening and a third person's bored yawn.

Well, yeah. But those aren't the only possibilities for kinky sex. I can manage "pleasant evening" all by myself. With the right partners, there have been some remarkable emotional transformations. You may not give a fuck. *shrug* But some of our friends are happy for us.

1) Some people talk about their sex lives with their friends because their sex lives are important to them, and they want to share their joy, or sort out their confusion, with their friends.
2) Some have "transgressive" sex because they happen to be having the kind of sex that appeals to them, and it happens to be unconventional, countercultural, or somesuch.
3) Some people are deliberately trying to be shocking, in words, dress, or action.

I don't see a whole lot of overlap between the 3 groups. And I have a problem with your statement that "for the most part gay people are not gay in order to be shocking." If you're going to look at motives to determine identity, then OF COURSE the "real" gay people will be having sex with members of the same sex because they are genuinely attracted to them. (And the real sadomasochists will be doing other stuff because they find it genuinely exciting.) But how can you tell if a relative stranger is experimenting with bisexuality because of genuine attraction or just because the person wants to be shocking?

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Here's how I can tell: if a relative stranger says to me, "I'm involved with Mary, and last year I was dating John," right-o, on we go: if they're doing something rebellious in their head, it's all the same to me, because they have presented the situation in terms of relationships. If a relative stranger says to me, "I'm bi! I know it's really kinky and out there -- probably more taboo than being gay -- but I'm that kind of crazy person! You never know what I'm going to do next!", then I back off several steps and say, "Actually I don't find bisexuality all that shocking. Love who you love, treat your sweethearts well, and good luck to you." And if the person says, "Oh. Well, good!" then I suspect they were being a bit defensive based on bad past experiences -- but if they insist on going on about how I don't understand how truly shocking they are for being so daring as to be bisexual -- or if they will not leave off talking about what they, John, and Mary put in which places and with which adverbs and lubricants, even when asked to stop, then we have the situation I have been discussing in this whole entry. (That's where the épater le bourgeois in the first sentence came from. That's where the focus on "trying to shock me" came in.)

Here's the thing about remarkable emotional transformations and sex: I find that it has been extremely difficult for people to communicate emotional transformations in general, whether brought about by their sexual relationships or not. Sometimes they can describe them a bit, but often it's not a very verbal experience. I have never once dealt with someone who was able to communicate an emotional transformation by describing in great detail what bits were where and under what circumstances. "The sex I had with X was just transformative. I feel like I understand myself better in the following [interesting!] ways...": fine. "The sex I had with X was just transformative. I was wearing Y, and X's Z was in my Q, and then we got out the N"? I have never had a conversation where that was relevant to the emotional transformations at hand. Which is why I said "specific sexual tastes," not "sexual relationships." Maybe you've had that conversation where it was relevant, and are likely to have more -- and also didn't find emotional transformations to be an interesting story, which is totally confusing to me. But I haven't. When people have "overshared" physical details and I have tried to steer them to the emotional aspect of things, it has not worked, because if they wanted to talk about emotional transformations, they do not in my experience start with whose Z was in whose Q.

Also, I am a Minnesotan. (I know you know, but it keeps being relevant.) I think there's a certain level of trust necessary to reveal emotional transformations to someone. Relative strangers ought not to trust me that much. I don't intend to do anything to betray that trust, but it is still a lot of burden to place on a relative stranger. (It is still not the situation I was talking about, though.)

lack of trust

[aet.livejournal.com]

"Also, I am a Minnesotan. I think there's a certain level of trust necessary to reveal emotional transformations to someone. Relative strangers ought not to trust me that much."

I have a suspicion that many Estonians will never trust anyone enough to reveal emotional transformations.

But the need to talk may be strong and then we seek for different kind of trust - when we can trust never to see someone again (or, like on web - never see face to face), then off we go with the shocking life stories (sex, though, usually is not as good as tales from Siberian deportation if the goal is to shock someone).

[redbird]

I am reminded of a Dorothy Sayers short story in which Peter Wimsey tells a new-met acquaintance on a train that that's what total strangers are for, to tell things to.

Because if you tell a relative, or a friend, or the supermarket cashier (especially in a small town or in your own neighborhood in a city), you then are asking or expecting the amount of trust you refer to. If you tell a complete stranger on a train, who you'll never see again, you can get it off your chest, maybe even get some insight into the weird thing that happened, without that ongoing relationship.

Not everyone wants to be that confidante, of course, nor is obliged to be. And it's a risky thing and more of an imposition if there's any likelihood of seeing the person again, because there's no room for the ordinary getting-to-know-a-person stuff, and because if they run into you again, it stops being "I ran into this guy on a train in Kowloon, and he told me this really weird story." (For me, it can be Kowloon--if the speaker lived in Hong Kong, it would have to be Ealing or the Bronx or Kathmandu.)

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

So one question is: is the internet more like a train in Kowloon, or more like the bus that stops a few blocks from your house?

I think you can make the internet more like a train in Kowloon for yourself, if you like, but for me it's really more like the bus: I post under my own name (or one of them), and I am quite clear about my interests, who I am and what I am and where I am, and so the anonymity anyone has with me only goes one way, because I am me. I also think that people stick around the internet in general a lot more than they do trains in Kowloon (unless they live there), and so you have to be awfully careful if you don't want that guy whose sister once ate a hamster to be connected up with that guy who likes to watch show-jumping. It's very hard not to become a person, and most people don't go to the trouble.

I live in a world where I assume I will see people again -- except my dad's father and my cousin Janet, because even if they see me, they won't see me. But everyone else I expect will turn up again sometime.

[redbird]

The Internet is definitely like a bus that stops near my home, complete with (to go back to where you started) the person who talks on their cell phone, loudly, about their sister's boyfriend's misbehaviors and their own medical stuff.