Kink discussion?

[rawTOP]

13 hours ago, BicuriousScott said:

How would hucows be categorized?

If she’s bound I can see it under BDSM but what if she isn’t bound?

Hucows is hetero. Posting hetero content anywhere but in the hetero section will get you (temporarily) banned.

The fetish section is only for gay masc content.

[ErosWired]

The entire concept of a “mainstream fetish” seems like an oxymoron - fetishes by their nature are not expected to be part of normative sexuality. I think this is best thought of as ‘the most common of the uncommon’. Foot fetishes are not all that rare; only being able to orgasm in the presence of a Ken doll would be.

BDSM, while as pointed out above stands for a specific set of fetish types, has as a term among its adherents grown to include a wide array of practices related to power exchange, control, humiliation, submission, and varying degrees of schadenfreude. In that sense, making BDSM one of a list of fetishes for purposes of categorizing post content isn’t all that useful - a great many fetish practices lump into it, and others may fall under it depending on the context.

On 11/12/2020 at 9:04 AM, boy4you said:

BDSM is like for play just before the main event. It Hyten the senses of the mind for a greater experience of sex. 
 

I was told at a rope class why do you put someone in bondage? It’s so you can fuck then. 

Your rope class was not taught by someone very familiar with the lifestyle. I started out as a bondage submissive. I cannot count the number of times I have been restrained. I was seldom actually fucked in bondage. For those truly practicing it and not just playing around with it, BDSM isn’t foreplay; it’s the main event. I’ve had Dominants use me for hours without taking off any of their own clothes, and not taking any kind of sexual release. For them, the reward was in power and control of me, my body, my orgasm, my humiliation.

That, too, is fetish. How (and whether) you make a place to express that kind of story on a website about bareback fucking is something I don’t have an answer for. This isn’t FetLife. BreedingZone serves its niche very well, I think, but at some point stories may simply end up so far removed from the site focus that they simply aren’t topical for the forum. If, for instance, someone decides to treat us to a multi-chapter tale of a young man’s bukakke experience in which 20 hung men cum buckets all over his exposed toes, the foot fetishists among us may cream their shorts, but what does that have to do with barebacking, or even fucking? There’s nothing wrong with the story itself, but does it need to be here? Or wold the poster be better off sending it to a forum with a more sympathetic readership of that kind of material?

[BootmanLA]

2 hours ago, ErosWired said:

The entire concept of a “mainstream fetish” seems like an oxymoron - fetishes by their nature are not expected to be part of normative sexuality. I think this is best thought of as ‘the most common of the uncommon’. Foot fetishes are not all that rare; only being able to orgasm in the presence of a Ken doll would be.

You're not wrong here, but I would argue that "mainstream fetish" might have an alternative, valid meaning: a fetish (as per a definition like this: "a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc.") that while uncommon, is accepted by the mainstream as quirky but harmless. I think a foot fetish is a good example: someone not into it, hearing that an acquaintance does enjoy it, is not particularly likely to be squicked out.

"Most common of the uncommon" of course plays a role in that: the more practitioners of a fetish there are, the more likely it is that other people are to take a "live and let live" approach. But I think both factors (commonness, and acceptance) are important.

[Guest Somebody]

8 hours ago, ErosWired said:

The entire concept of a “mainstream fetish” seems like an oxymoron - fetishes by their nature are not expected to be part of normative sexuality. I think this is best thought of as ‘the most common of the uncommon’. Foot fetishes are not all that rare; only being able to orgasm in the presence of a Ken doll would be.

BDSM, while as pointed out above stands for a specific set of fetish types, has as a term among its adherents grown to include a wide array of practices related to power exchange, control, humiliation, submission, and varying degrees of schadenfreude. In that sense, making BDSM one of a list of fetishes for purposes of categorizing post content isn’t all that useful - a great many fetish practices lump into it, and others may fall under it depending on the context.

Your rope class was not taught by someone very familiar with the lifestyle. I started out as a bondage submissive. I cannot count the number of times I have been restrained. I was seldom actually fucked in bondage. For those truly practicing it and not just playing around with it, BDSM isn’t foreplay; it’s the main event. I’ve had Dominants use me for hours without taking off any of their own clothes, and not taking any kind of sexual release. For them, the reward was in power and control of me, my body, my orgasm, my humiliation.

That, too, is fetish. How (and whether) you make a place to express that kind of story on a website about bareback fucking is something I don’t have an answer for. This isn’t FetLife. BreedingZone serves its niche very well, I think, but at some point stories may simply end up so far removed from the site focus that they simply aren’t topical for the forum. If, for instance, someone decides to treat us to a multi-chapter tale of a young man’s bukakke experience in which 20 hung men cum buckets all over his exposed toes, the foot fetishists among us may cream their shorts, but what does that have to do with barebacking, or even fucking? There’s nothing wrong with the story itself, but does it need to be here? Or wold the poster be better off sending it to a forum with a more sympathetic readership of that kind of material?

I was going to provide a similar -- albeit briefer -- response regarding BDSM often not involving sex per se, but then I realized that no one wanted to hear from me so I abstained.  Moreover, I have never met -- as in simply chatted with online, much less in real life -- anyone who I would consider actually into BDSM.  Many claim to be, but the "Doms" or  "Sirs" or whatever that I have encountered all run and hide when it actually comes to anything resembling true BDSM.  So, I can only conclude that the "BDSM Community" -- a dubious term in and of itself -- is only comprised of fakes, flakes, and otherwise uncategorized bullshit artists.  See Recon dot com for an almost endless parade of such "fucktards".

Edited November 15, 2020 by Somebody

[rawTOP]

12 hours ago, Tallallman said:

I was going to provide a similar -- albeit briefer -- response regarding BDSM often not involving sex per se, but then I realized that no one wanted to hear from me so I abstained.  Moreover, I have never met -- as in simply chatted with online, much less in real life -- anyone who I would consider actually into BDSM.  Many claim to be, but the "Doms" or  "Sirs" or whatever that I have encountered all run and hide when it actually comes to anything resembling true BDSM.  So, I can only conclude that the "BDSM Community" -- a dubious term in and of itself -- is only comprised of fakes, flakes, and otherwise uncategorized bullshit artists.  See Recon dot com for an almost endless parade of such "fucktards".

Given that when I was younger I was a member of GMSMA (Gay Men's S/M Activists), there at least used to be a vibrant BDSM community. It's waned as being gay has become more acceptable and the hyper macho type has gone out of "fashion". And the fashion component of it isn't to be discounted. I remember getting close to some hot guys at the LURE (NY's top leather bar), only to realize they were actually rather fem/campy when I heard them speak to friends. To them the leather scene was theater. But them participating in that "theater" gave a physical space for people who were more serious about it to express themselves. Now those physical spaces are gone for the most part. IML, MAL, CLAW – the community still exists there (believe it or not those events aren't just about being a cumdump for a weekend – they actually have other things going on). But I get the sense that the leather / BDSM scene is more of a thing in red states where being gay is still a bit edgy.

[rawTOP]

21 hours ago, ErosWired said:

The entire concept of a “mainstream fetish” seems like an oxymoron - fetishes by their nature are not expected to be part of normative sexuality.

Would "softcore fetish" be a better term (since the non-mainstream fetish is defined as "hardcore")?

Or is there a better term to use? (Please suggest if you can think of a better term).

BootmanLA sorta hit the nail on the head when he said "hearing that an acquaintance does enjoy it, is not particularly likely to be squicked out." To me, work environments are probably the ultimate test. If a straight (and straight-laced) boss learned about your fetish, would it affect your chances of promotion or bonuses, etc.? If they learned you were into sports gear fetish, almost certainly not unless they think your fucking the 15 year old high school soccer star. Foot fetish, they'd probably think "that's weird, but whatever", so probably not. Furries / cosplay fetish, they'd get a laugh out of it, but again probably not. But hardcore BDSM, being a fisting bottom or a piss bottom, or large gauge genital piercings, or brandings – those could seriously affect your career if they were found out by certain people.

I make the distinction because of how I market porn. Certain fetishes I can show on "mainstream porn" sites, and other fetishes need to go on a site dedicated to hardcore fetish. In other words I make the distinction based on the fetish's need for a "safe space", or how likely it will be to turn off the target audience of the mainstream site.

But certain fetishes cross the boundaries. A twink with a pink fluffy "whip" casually hitting his sex partner – that's not really "hardcore" or true BDSM. It depends on if you're "playing at" the fetish, or actually truly doing the fetish.

[rawTOP]

I've changed "mainstream fetish" to "softcore fetish". I think that should solve some of the objections above.

[kinkysuBB]

@rawTOP, is it permissible to mention “enhancements” in these new forums (or the hardcore one, really)? I know enhancements and fetish don’t have to go together, obviously, but they often do, especially with WS and FF in my experience anyway. So far I’ve sort of alluded to it where it’s relevant, rather than being very blunt about it. Is this ok? Or does any discussion of enhancements, even as pertains to kink, belong in the “enhancements” forum?

Edited November 18, 2020 by subBottomKink

[rawTOP]

11 hours ago, subBottomKink said:

@rawTOP, is it permissible to mention “enhancements” in these new forums (or the hardcore one, really)? I know enhancements and fetish don’t have to go together, obviously, but they often do, especially with WS and FF in my experience anyway. So far I’ve sort of alluded to it where it’s relevant, rather than being very blunt about it. Is this ok? Or does any discussion of enhancements, even as pertains to kink, belong in the “enhancements” forum?

No. The fetish forum is not chem-friendly.

[ErosWired]

On 11/15/2020 at 8:44 AM, rawTOP said:

Or is there a better term to use? (Please suggest if you can think of a better term).

For your purposes as you have explained them, ‘softcore fetish’ is probably as good a term as any, unless you wanted to use ‘softcore kink’, which would to my mind imply more a sense of play and less a sense of psychology. Either/or.

As I said above, I certainly don’t have an answer to how one bridges the conceptual gap - we’re dealing with two overlapping, yet in some ways quite separate communities, between which understanding is remarkably poor and assumptions remarkably high. My immersion in the BDSM lifestyle (and yes, @Tallallman, it does have many genuine adherents) shaped me and supplied my training, but by my service nature I have always straddled both it and the Vanilla world. Between the two, approaches and attitudes to fetish/kink can be starkly different, and even the definition of ‘softcore’ may not be well understood - to some, ‘softcore’ may simply be anything that doesn’t actually draw blood. (I have subbed for such men.) To others more accustomed to the Vanilla side of things, ‘hardcore’ may be anything that causes actual discomfort.

It’s interesting that you and others here adopt the ‘workplace standard’ as a measure of what will pass muster in terms of mainstream content. This is not unlike the general standard for obscenity, in which ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ finds sexually explicit material ‘patently offensive’. Note the wildly subjective nature of that entire ‘standard’. Trying to avoid squicking people out on such a basis seems necessarily to gravitate to the most conservative understanding of the average person’s mindset, to the disadvantage of those outside the mainstream. But in the end, I suppose you’re trying to cordon off an area safe for that very sort of mindset, so I guess perhaps it does end up working for the purpose.

I don’t envy you the task of having to make sure the content produced by men who run the spectrum of sexual predelection lands in places where it will a) find a sympathetic audience and b) not draw the attention of regulators.

15 hours ago, subBottomKink said:

does any discussion of enhancements, even as pertains to kink, belong in the “enhancements” forum?

Even if it weren’t prohibited, no responsible BDSM practitioner scenes under the influence of substances. I have participated in, and been the subject of, dozens and dozens of scenes, private and public, and the use of substances was out of the question every time. They have no place in serious scening because of the danger involved. If the men you are doing BDSM practices with are doing so with chems, I would urge you to weigh the risks of continuing that association.