What the hell is wrong with me?

[ali_cdb]

I do not understand how come I and people like me enjoy violence as a sexual act?! Any ideas?

[LadyAsh]

The French call an orgasm the little death. When I play out my death my body reacts as though I'm having an orgasm. Death and sex are so closely related in the human psyche that I don't think you can separate the two. This is the short answer, the long one takes several volumes.

[ali_cdb]

Thank you, I guess yall are right, can't really blame myself, when I was younger I used to think I was the only person with this kind of desire, at least now I know there are many out there just like me.

[Bluestone]

Hi ali_cdb,

Like the other posters have said, no one really knows where these thoughts come from; however, one theory is that we are imprinted by watching TV or movies when we are young and just developing sexually. As children, we are not allowed to be exposed to sexual intercourse, but we are exposed to women (sexual objects to our young minds) being impacted by phallic objects (knives, bullets, etc.) or being placed into a lethal embrace (strangulation) where their reactions mimic sexual orgasm. It's the closest thing that our young (and impressionable) minds had to viewing sexual intercourse. Those images excited us and stuck in our minds. If you ask many of the members here, they'll be able to tell you the earliest such images that they viewed on TV or at the movies that had this effect on them. This is my pet theory, because I can remember seeing beautiful women being killed on screen and being both excited and confused by my thoughts. I couldn't understand how anyone could destroy a beautiful woman, but the concept intrigued me to no end. Eventually, I found this community and, like you, I realized that I was no alone. I have since learned to cope with these thoughts and to set limits for myself. I try to avoid obsession with this subject matter, but I personally do not see the production and viewing of such material as inherently bad. As Dalila has pointed out elsewhere, this type of material is in classic operas and has been part of the entertainment industry in various forms for many, many years.

I hope that helps

Blue

[Sandi]

Attempting to stay with Lady Ash's 'short version' answers, I'd merely say that the positions and looks and body movements and moans and approaching emotional climaxes are VERY similar in either a sex scene or a death scene. The woman has a sharp intake of breath at the 'start' (whether from a silk scarf around her neck, a pretend bullet to her belly or breast, or whatever the 'method')....it hurts, also.....'going in'....then it becomes pleasure.....then comes a woman's surrender to Self and to the c..k....then comes 'the top of the wave', whether wriggling and increasingly moaning sexually or reacting in a death scene...then there is the ride down the other side of the wave....she's 'dying'....or 'coming'.....and then there is the finale.
Most of us here (and I have been 'here' 13 years, Ali, and a Woman.....LOL!) see those similarities in images and body movements and looks and facial expressions that show what a woman is feeling. I don't see it as 'violence', Ali, I see it as symbolic sexual movements and reactions.

Well, for Sandi that's a short version!

Sandi

[Max5s]

Interesting. This is probably 10,000th time this question has been asked. It is a homozygous recessive trait--call it "ff" for the Femme Fatalities gene. It has a very low frequency in the population and is particularly rare in females. Most women produce an enzyme called antidegeneratase which blocks activity on the promoter for the ff gene (on chromosome 17). Men do not produce this enzyme, although latent activity in the christianase gene can have the same suppressing effect. The same can be said of the other reverse transcripturases (budase, islamase, pseudomormonase, and the bhramavishnupanindic autoimmunases). The long and the short of it is it's genetic.

[smudger]

Genetic?
I thought it was BS.

[Bluestone]

BS for Blue Stone? Now I am offended... and after I spent hours looking up all of those deep scientific terms that Max5s was throwing about. I discovered not only that one can be genetically predisposed to transcripturases, but one can also catch it like a viruses from others who become infected with this condition, and that the recessive ff gene can mutate and have serious lifechanging effects on the carrier of this recessive, latent gene. It is very interesting, but my scientific background being limited, I will leave further discussion of these genetic issues to those more qualified in pulling our collective legs.

Now, Smudge, you take that back! Only my mother is allowed to call be BS, and then only when she is particularly mad at me

Blue Stone

[Sandi]

In nearly 13 years of 'knowing' Max online, he has amazed me many times, thrilled me many times, impressed me many times with the variety and depth of his intellect and experiences, and now.....he has confused the hell out of me.

I'm Blonde. I relate to words of no more than three letters......such as 'ooh', or 'aah', or 'you got me', or 'YES!'. or, for the simple version....'SEX'.

Those words with all those letters jumbled together as if they should form a word, such as those Max included, are just 'too big' for me. I guess that means Max is too big for me. Well, at least I can scratch one off my list of potential bedmates. I'm looking for someone with an intellect that understands those three-letter words. Length of his 'member' is not important; as a friend of mine said about a lover "he's not much on length, but sure can bang the hell out of the sides'. Good enough for me. And my head doesn't get all hurting from the big words, either.

I don't need men with 'suppressing effects', Max! None of this 'latent' stuff, I want a MAN. Geesh.

Genetic?

Garbage. I'd say. If it feels good, do it, and don't worry about having to explain it. All that science stuff only dulls the libido from natural reactions.

Besides, isn't it obvious that the reason we use 'BANG' for a gunshot sound is that it thrills a woman to be 'banged'? Much simpler explanation for it all, Max, and one I can understand!

sigh...which I guess means that when I have some time I actually will go look up these absurd terms. Why we need justification for what feels good, I just do not know...I sure do not, and that I DO know....LOL!!!

I'd just say again, "Don't worry, be happy. If it feels good and harms no one, do it, because there is absolutely NOTHING wrong nor unusual about these fantasies, they are just another way particular people absorb stimuli and find them erotic."

Of course, Blondes are known for rather simple answers, but......

Once I reread your post about 3000 times, Max, maybe I'll understand at least part of it and open what little there is of my mind to whatever the hell it is that you say about genetics....

Plus, the root of the word 'genetics' is obviously 'gene', so it's all Gene's fault! At least, using that analogy, the word is not 'genotics'!!

Sandi

[Max5s]

Sandi,

I think that if you really look deep into the world of genetics, you'll find that it is really all about the three letter codeword for ecstasy; SEX. I mean there are jumping genes, independent assortment, and my personal favorite--crossing over. I mean what could be symbolically more erotic than two naked homologous chromosomes wrapping around each other and exchanging bits of DNA on a hot summer night. And it happens throughout the genome like a mass orgy. Talk about a big BANG! Talk about obscenely interesting. Talk about the devil's playground! The cell has it all. And for the molecular snuff fetishist there is the apoptosome (aka "Wheel of Death"), the executioner procaspases and caspases and the "cleavage of death" substrates. The latter is something to keep abreast of. Don't be intimidated by their long, strange names as it isn't all that different from a science fiction fantasy novel, except it's not fiction. So check out the death receptors and their respective domains....or watch the PSA for blondes below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gio5V5psZio

[Sandi]

Ok, Max...I looked up 'apoptosome', and here is the crystal clear explanation that our always-reliable friends at Wikipedia give us. Simple, to the point.

"The apoptosome is a large ternary protein structure formed in the process of apoptosis. Its formation is triggered by the release of cytochrome c from the mitochondria in response to an internal (intrinsic) or external (extrinsic) cell death stimulus. Stimuli can vary from DNA damage and viral infection to developmental cues such as the loss of tadpole's tail.

Once cytochrome c is released, it binds to the cytosolic protein Apaf-1 in what is believed to be a two-to-one ratio of cytochrome c to apaf-1. It has also been shown that the nucleotide dATP as third component binds to apaf-1, however its exact role is still debated. The formation, the apoptosome, had never been crystallized, but APAF-1/cytochrome-c apoptosome has been imaged at lower (2 nm) resolution by cryogenic scanning electron microscopy, revealing a wheel-like particle with 7-fold symmetry. Using molecular modeling, it was possible to infer likely positions of all the APAF-1 domains (CARD, NBARC and WD40) and cytochrome c. Once formed, the apoptosome can then recruit and activate the inactive pro-caspase-9. Once activated, this caspase can then activate other caspases and trigger a cascade of events leading to apoptosis."

Say what f'ing WHAT? Nary a WORD makes sense in there, Max! Other than 'trigger', that is. That's a horse, right? See, they can't fool me, I keep my eyes on the prize, and refuse to be confused by this utter babble that must make no sense to anyone.

Yes, I will keep 'abreast' of all you try to teach me, mon ami. "Abreast", indeed, in case you thought that one would 'slip' by me. I'm SHARP, you know!

What I discern from the above daffy-nition, Max, is what I already knew! Of course "I pop to some".....what don't know that? Or, to one, anyway

Also, 'caspases'.....you can't fool me, that's a clear derivative of 'gazpacho'. I can see an analogy about good things to 'eat' there, but it would be most helpful if you would use the original word that people understand.

And this 'substration' stuff is just not for me, Max. He would still have his tongue, and that would be divine, but I don't need him substrated! That IS, I assume, just another form of 'castrated'.....it seems you have a problem with the letters 'cas'. Just substitute them for 'sub' and you're speaking Truth that I understand. As soon as he returns from his daily Perkins breakfast, which never takes him more than 3-4 hours, I will con'firm' with him that I do not want him substrated!

geeesh....you make things SO 'hard', Max. I just can't handle.....the Truth....I guess. Too hot to handle for me, anyway, though I do like warm buns in my oven! It's just too much truth for me to get my hands around, I guess.

Thx for all your help, you've been marvelous in forcing me to reconfirm by reading that Wiki entry that I shall leave ALL of science to Others!

substrata.....layers.....I just don't git dis 'substration' stuff....sigh......but, based on that hilarious YouTube link (where you came up with THAT one would be an interesting tale....LOL!), by being a Blonde, I am totally confident that I can figure it all out, just as well as the two Blondes in the Youtube clip did.......I knew they were on my level when they were 'discussing' (far too high level a word for their...'dialogue'!) 'that stuff when a light flashes in the sky and that other thing....what is it now?', asks the One. "Lightning", replies the Other. YES...now that conversation is directly on my level!

arrghhhh..



Sandistraights

[Max5s]

Of course it's confusing to you. The APAF domains is wrong and slicking up the slippery slope toward greater obfuscation. They also left out the role of p53. Oh my wiki!

[kevin67]

Max, you are a devil, and very clever.

There are at least two genes on the chromosomes that determine any trait. A homozygous
trait is one where the two genes which determine a trait are the same.(for instance the two genes on the paired chromosomes are for brown eyes.) .Certain genes (although not too many) dominate or show up in the individual, even if the chromosomes have two different genes. For instance, a person with one gene for brown eyes and one for blue eyes will be brown eyed, because the brown eyed gene is dominant over the blue eyed gene. The blue eyed gene is called recessive or hidden. However a person can inheriit the recessive genes, which is sometimes rare and sometimes not ,and the recessive trait (like blue eyes) show up.
Max is saying that the death fetish gene (FF gene) is rare in the popukation and even rarer in females. Considering the size of this community he is right on the money.

As far as I can interpret, Sandi, anything that ends in -ase in Biology, as Max says , is an enzyme. An enzyme, in brief is a protein, that serves as a catalyst. A catalysts is a substance that lowers the heat required to allow a chemical reaction to occur at the low human body temperature (98.6 degrees). Our body is constantly breaking down food ,and then building up substances needed by the human body using thousands of different enzymes. For instance, we break down animal protein and change it into human protein.

Now the substrate is the substance that the enzyme acts upon, and is specific for only one substrate. For instance, fructase is an enzyme that can only help break down the sugar fructose, not any other sugar. Max can correct me, if he disagrees with any of this.

Now let us look at what he wrote. Women have an enzyme called antidegenertase, but men don't. Take off the -ase ending and you have women less likely to be a degenerate, and have the death fetish.

Christianase in the male, take off the -ase ending and you have Christian. In short men may be subjected to this latent enzyme and turn into a practicing Christian, and thus lose
his fervor for the death fetish.

If you are still awake by now, I will let you interpret the rest yourself. It is true that genetics determines the proteins made by the body, and I am a great believer in its role in determining behavior. However these specific enzymes mentioned by Max do not exist. My hats off to him on his clever twist on words, he must have drove his biology teacher insane.

[Sandi]

Kevin,

Thx for at least clearing up some of Mad Max's absurd usage of English. Obviously, he and I both enjoy playing with words. I do hear both of you (and even understand both of you, yes....lol).

I still think an 'end' means an 'ass' and not an 'ase', but, that aside, I understand.

Being serious, I hear you from what we can SEE, or measure, in terms of differences in the number of males or females with any of these fantasy tendencies, but so many are latent, or dormant, that I don't feel these factoids explain the largest segment of women, those who have never consciously thought about such things, but might indeed be titillated, and often are, with some 'help' from a Lover.

So I continue to believe that most of the Men who say 'My wife is disgusted by my fantasies' or "my girlfriend would dump me if I tried anything like that for fantasy', or whatever....are (with no criticism of the Men intended here!!!) simply not knowing or pursuing the 'right' ways with their particular Partner. I believe that totally, though the vast majority of men will disagree with me. I'm TELLING you that, if you will, from a Woman's perspective. Find the 'right way' to introduce a concept, and a person will be at least open to it. Women are SO uptight, since the beginning of TIME we've been the 'weaker sex', the one meant to 'follow' and not 'lead', and yada yada. Women have guilt trips re sex, through religious stimuli or whatever that say somehow that sex is bad, or dangerous, or that a woman must always 'be on the bottom', or whatever.

So it's all the fault of the Men. But who didn't know that?....lol.

I'm back to a point I've made frequently over the years, that ALL of us like 'some' form of pleasure/pain, or domination/submission, or those shaking little quivers created by some action on the body during 'normal' sex (whatever THAT is!.....who defines 'normal'?!!!!).

Show me a woman who does not like at least some form of these things, and I'll show you NOT a woman who is genetically adverse to stimulation for our fantasies, but who simply has never opened herself or been opened to certain erotic stimuli.

Blowing in the ear. A bite on the neck, hickey or whatever. Nibbling of a nipple, or, better yet, of both at once. Even a light slap on the ass. Even the very sex act of 'entrance'! Or something 'sharp' playing around the folds of the navel.

All have some form of 'pain' associated, yet I maintain there is NO woman who is not stimulated in some way by SOME of these actions upon their body...and their MIND. The woman 'needs' mood....I really never concern myself with 'what', scientifically, makes me that way. No, I don't 'always' need mood, of course, but mood enhances a 'scene' for a woman, just as it does during a candelit dinner, or other form of 'romancing' and/or foreplay leading to some climactic thoughts, if not actions also.

So it seems to me, intuitively (hold the jokes on the value of a Blonde's intuition, please...lol),
that all that wonderful explanatory material you two have provided does not explain to me why EVERY woman has such stimulations, somewhere or somehow. They ARE there, inside, and I continue to believe very strongly that if woman allowed themselves to be more 'free', more open with their sexuality and sensuality and inner selves and all of that, that MANY more women would be identified in the category of 'turned on' by SOME form of these actions, ergo it is not a long 'stretch' to get from there to some form of our fantasies.

"Jumping genes", Max referred to early here. Jumping BEANS I understand, love it when a bean jumps inside me, in my mouth....or elsewhere. Very stimulating when those beans jump, Max...not GENES, but BEANS.

Thanks, guys, but, being serious again, I am unable to dissociate myself enough to believe these scientific realities are sufficient explanations, because there are millions upon millions of women who are SO 'uptight' about sex and guilt and all of that from 'over the years and millenia of Time', that they have never been exposed to, or allowed their minds to be free enough to explore, certain of these titillations that I believe are latent in all of us.


Just like the Army....all we need is a few good Men around here, and the female population of FF and such sites would grow tremendously. I do not view my fantasy thoughts as 'unusual' or rare, I really do not. The specific WAYS we feel certain stimuli and associate them with some 'moods' are one aspect, but it does not matter to me what specific things turn on a woman, I'm just saying there are varietals among all the wines on the shelf, ya know?

I dialogued years ago online with a fantastic Scientist, who under phenomenal pressure (his company had 'sold' this process he was developing, though it was NOT developed yet in totem!!!...how typical is that!), had been able to create a new method for coating glass, the type used in skyscrapers and such. He also had a side hobby of studying The Brain, and was attempting to build a 'working model'. I mentioned something to him about how, in Sports, I was always able to SUPPRESS emotion, CONSCIOUSLY, at 'crunch time', or 'pressure time', and enable myself to perform at my best at those times.
He 'fought' me, intellectually. He could not see, from his Science, that such a thing was possible TO control. He viewed it only scientifically, and could not explain my ability to do what I claimed I always had done, for YEARS, which was to consciously CONTROL certain areas of the Brain.

It was a fun discussion, not argumentative, because I kept insisting, and he continued to not believe it. Then one day, he sent an emaili that said 'VOILA! I see now how that CAN happen!". And it changed his entire approach in terms of his views on what the Brain 'can control' and what it cannot.

So while that may seem an extreme or off-topic analogy, to me it is not. I have no scientific knowledge of 'why' a person can do certain things, or why one can and another cannot exercise certain 'controls' over their own Brain and/or actions. But I know this absolutely dedicated, career scientist who studied the Brain for YEARS, had to have a woman with no knowledge of the science of it all, show him that things were possible that he never believed were possible, from the Brain. He went back and back and back, and finally found some scientific justification that proved to him that this 'control' was possible.

So I hear you on the science, love the explanations and thank you for them, but...as I probably mentioned before, it's as with 'creation', if you will, of The Earth, or Life As We Know It, and all of that. Some insist it was a Big Bang. Others insist it was a God or planned Universe.
Science explains things 'to a point'...and beyond that point, science so far has failed also on the biggest question of all, 'how we got here'. If science was absolute and our current Science 'knew everything', there would be no debate, except among the most fundamentalist of religious preachers.

Science....comes from Man's studies. It's not 'obvious' stuff, and requires details such as all the apostosis (never defined, by the way!) talk and genes talk and enzyme talk and all.

The Answers may ALL be there, about everything, through 'science'. But Man is limited by his own KNOWLEDGE at this point in time, so I find the scientific explanations given for stimulation for our fantasies...or not....to be incomplete also, based on simple studies of the Human Condition, and simple examples like ass slaps or pinching or breast-nibbling or whatever. Sure, maybe some women love their nipples BITTEN, maybe they enjoy 'more pain' or whatever, and I'm sure there are explanations for that, also.

But I simply do not believe that there is such a vast gap in ACTUAL, latent stimulating factors between men and women. On the surface, yes. Underneath, it's all your fault, Guys, because there are millions of women out here, like ME, who at 26 had no CLUE that I was, or would be, stimulated by these things! It took a real Man, you see.....lol....to show me.

And I do not believe I am any different from any other Woman in those regards. Do I have evidence? Only from the women I've discussed these things with. And the worst theories are those based on nothing scientific, like mine here. I just believe that empirical evidence, if we could find 1000 'average women' and place them in some kind of Test Environment that attempts to discern 'how many' of those 1000 would enjoy at least SOME form of the stimulations mentioned above, or of some form of 'our' fantasies, that you'd be shocked by the number among that 1000 that do not fit the 'model' presented by your science.

Of course, that's what makes women the adorable creatures we are....we believe what we wish to believe, all evidence to the contrary be damned....LOL.

Thanks, guys, it IS interesting stuff! And at least Max knows that I am not nearly as facetious about it all as I sound. I love studying this stuff in attempts to find 'reasons' for things re behavior. But I do believe what I have said here, also.

Sandi

[CapgunChuck]

I don't see it as 'violence', Ali, I see it as symbolic sexual movements and reactions...

Sandi

Nice post, Sandi. That's how I see it.

CC