Non-Demonic?

[PIGTONIGHT]

it seems that there are a lot of satanic connections to people on this site.

 

Are there any perverts who don't connect it to Sarah Palin?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, PIGTONIGHT said:

it seems that there are a lot of satanic connections to people on this site.

 

Are there any perverts who don't connect it to Sarah Palin?

Oink !

[descartes70817]

Insofar as I am a non-active member of the The Satanic Temple I've never given Sarah Palin a moment's thought.

[hntnhole]

Actually, this is an area of discussion I knew nothing about at all.  I'd heard of it through the years, so I investigated a bit on what this really is.

From what I learned, there's not much to it.  Substituting one historical (and dramatically altered through the millennia)  figure for an even more ancient mythological figure seems not worth the bother - at least to me.  Religiosity, in whatever form, seems to require beliefs that only support the believer's personal viewpoints, outlook, strengths or weaknesses. 

There's not much more than meets the eye (I mean, the drawings, symbolism, iconography of "Ms. Palin") to it.  Just another belief-system that depends on silly magic stuff like the virgins giving birth, walking on water, resurrection, blah blah blah.

[ErosWired]

8 hours ago, PIGTONIGHT said:

it seems that there are a lot of satanic connections to people on this site.

 

Are there any perverts who don't connect it to Sarah Palin?

If you are asking to what degree the members of this site are adherents to the principles, philosophies, practices or beliefs associated with modern satanism, either atheistic or theistic, I think you will find that those persons are actually relatively few in number; indeed, discussion of it is not encouraged by the site’s management, hence the automated word substitution of ‘Sarah Palin’ for the name in question.

While there don’t seem to be all that many here who profess to actually follow the tenets of any of the dogma from this movement, some of the underlying ethos you will encounter here is compatible with the philosophies of LaVeyan satanism and its subsequent developments. It should be noted that the majority of such organized groups are atheistic in nature and neither believe in supernatural beings nor worship demons or devils. Such entities are used, rather, as symbols against which to put forward traits or characteristics considered desirable to the adherents.

 I won’t attempt to detail the core philosophies of satanist movements here (Wikipedia is your friend) but the generally positive and accepting atmosphere here toward sexual liberty, personal responsibility, and the pursuit of physical gratification align closely with them. That is to say, most of us may not be satanists, but we admittedly share some things in common with them.

 It should be noted that a person who is drawn by the philosophies of modern satanist doctrine has not thereby automatically become “evil” - rather, he has adopted an amoralist viewpoint, one that places personal interest and personal survival above the communal interest. His attitudes may be asocial or antisocial, and he may not exhibit behaviors that one expects from responsible, participating members of society. To that degree, however much our lusts may resemble one another’s, you will find that most of us are very different.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, ErosWired said:

It should be noted that a person who is drawn by the philosophies of modern satanist doctrine has not thereby automatically become “evil” - rather, he has adopted an amoralist viewpoint, one that places personal interest and personal survival above the communal interest.

A central and important aspect of modern Satanism is personal freedom including sexual liberty.
Of course this is not absolute as ones freedom ends when it trespasses on someone else's.

This same balance between people's rights and liberties is debated in libertarian philosophies. 

In serious Satanism I find morality is still there and based on the consequences it has for oneself and others. Satanists are - as a rule - critical of norms that limit freedom, for no good reason and only based on some religion's dogmas.
There is more room for your personal interests, wants and indeed survival but this is not unlimited and the welfare of especially children and animals is considered 'Holy'. This philosophy is not intended as a justification for evil or amorality. People who are thus inclined should seek professional help, not identify as Satanists and certainly not hide behind some kind of 'anti-God' they imagine to be real.

(My apologies to the OP for going off-topic. No disrespect intended when I felt a little elaboration on the morals was needed).

[cannero]

While I have horned theistic tendencies in my pagan beliefs, I recognise that all religious beliefs are written (almost exclusively) by men, so there is no argument against creating your own viewpoint. Following that it can then go in the way of group worship or you can remain solitary. Of course it follows further that there would be a diversity of approaches. There is no right approach.

I found the the most challenging, for me, was the recognition that rejecting Abrahamic doctrine, I had to own my own moral choices and couldn't hand the responsibility to others. This ultimately become worthwhile as I found I was kinder, more tolerant and laid back. But I do keep the general pagan tenet of not trying to harm others including yourself.

[ErosWired]

I think there is often a tendency among those who have not sought a deeper understanding of the subject to equate any form of paganism with satanism, which is of course not so. One can easily follow such thinking to church doctrine that any influence that points a person away from the church is “the work of the devil”.

The “Prince of Lies” that we are referring to is specifically a product of the Abrahamic/Judeo-Christian belief systems originating in the Middle East, but paganism may draw upon influences from entirely different sources such as Celtic or Teutonic tradition, or even entirely modern secularist and New Age movements.

The common thread appears to be a rejection of the paternalistic, top-down, restrictive, repressive nature of Abrahamic religions as (regrettably) interpreted and practiced by most mainline churches, synagogues and mosques. Those interpretations are not surprising given that, on a social scale, religion is leveraged as a tool to control populations. At the individual level, however, the approach that serves to control the mass fails to meet the needs of the individual, and generates dissatisfaction and doubt. Ultimately, this may lead to personal rejection of the common religion and a search for something that meets the human needs of the individual.

Thus, because humans are at first animals whose animal needs must be tended, we find some attracted to LaVeyan satanism, which among its guiding principles is the sense that humans are animal creatures and we are at our best when be align ourselves with the desires if our animal bodies - sex being prominent among them.

Forms of paganism likewise celebrate the human connection to earth and nature and the animal world in a way that the Abrahamic beliefs reject.

I am a Christian, but I stepped away from the organized church many years ago because it became clear to me that the institutions no longer practiced the actual philosophy of their professed beliefs. I have sought my own spiritual path, and I say spiritual because I do not believe I am first and foremost an animal - an animal body is merely the vehicle that transports my spiritual being during the time I am in this material existence.

My personal observation - from the outside - is that satanism seems to predicate itself on the existence of the individual solely as a creature of the material universe. It does not seem to address questions of existence beyond the material, and is therefore less bound by considerations of morals, ethics, and judgments in relation to acts performed in life.

Which is actually somewhat ironic, because the whole point of inventing Hell as a place one could be sent to was to deter people from doing amoral and unethical things. But when you’ve rejected the possibility of Heaven altogether  to start with, I suppose there’s nothing left to say when tempted but: Eh, what the hell…

[ErosWired]

The OP’s question actually brings me to ask a related question (with the OP’s indulgence - perhaps any response might further inform your own inquiry):

From time to time I’ll get a hit on an app, or a text, that instead of saying “Hi” or “What’s up” says “Hail”.

 I always take this to mean that there is a man who practices satanism (or something he calls satanism) on the other end.

 I don’t answer these hails. I suppose if I’m being honest, part of it is my Christian background wanting nothing whatsoever to do with the devil, but even after I remind myself that the devil does not actually exist, I’m still left with concern that if I invite this guy through my door I’m consciously inviting someone who has chosen a path with behavioral tendencies that incline him toward sociopathy. Obviously, not every person on the Lefthand Path is a sociopath, but my instinct tells me I’m asking for trouble if I do.

What do others do in this situation, when you’re approached by someone who you think may be a satanist?

[Guest]

22 hours ago, PIGTONIGHT said:

it seems that there are a lot of satanic connections to people on this site.

 

Are there any perverts who don't connect it to Sarah Palin?

I believe there are as many answers to this question as there are those of us on this planet.

As for myself, I have never associated it with Sarah.  I was a late starter in the lifestyle, but once I was introduced and began having experiences, I eventually came around and knew it was who and what I was born to be and to enjoy.  It took me many years of confusion, listening to others and their opinions and beliefs to come to the understanding that they were just that, " their beliefs and opinions", and not necessarily mine, and to fully understand who and what I am.  Just as with the politics of today, I don't necessarily think and believe as others do, they do not think and believe as I do,  and that is ok,  I don't try to push my beliefs off onto others and do not allow them to do it to me.  I just do and live what I feel is right for myself and I don't associate it with Sarah in any way.   

[hntnhole]

30 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

The common thread appears to be a rejection of the paternalistic, top-down, restrictive, repressive nature of Abrahamic religions as (regrettably) interpreted and practiced by most mainline churches, synagogues and mosques

I agree.  The silliness of the human construct of the ancient Judeo-cum-Christian belief-systems is off-putting to anyone who pauses to reflect on that institution's actual value.  The deity we call "God" today went by other names in the distant past, probably the earliest of which is "El", a regional war-god who inspired Joshua to butcher the residents of the "God-given" land in the Middle East.  Without going into all the manupilative bs, and having rejected Organized Religion since my teens, suffice to say that I have arrived at the following:

We human beings have, within ourselves, the capacity to choose our path.  We have the capacity to recognize Good, and also Evil.  If (X) exists, then Anti-(X) must also exist, and we either make a conscious choice which to follow, or drift aimlessly within our lack of making that choice.  Some folks never bother to ponder these greater issues, and that's a shame. Maybe some are not able, and that's an even greater sorrow.  

No one is perfect; we are all, to some extent, victims of our own human-ness. For myself, I reject the manipulations of O.R., and walk my own path, my own search for a deeper understanding, my own spirituality.  Each of us needs to choose which path to follow.  Every one of us messes up in small or large ways, every day; it's part of being a human being. What's different is, we have the capacity (if we use it), to try to do better next time.  Plus, we get to decide what "better" actually is.  

29 minutes ago, ErosWired said:

From time to time I’ll get a hit on an app, or a text, that instead of saying “Hi” or “What’s up” says “Hail”.

Well, that has never happened to me, even when I used the cruise apps.  I'm guessing that the guy who initiate communication with "hail" falls into one of at least two camps:

1.  He's made his choice to follow a certain path, and is announcing his decision by using that greeting.

2.  He's fundamentally misinterpreted what the term "cumdump" means (if that word appears in any of your profiles/text on the apps - it does here on BZ, so logic would say it may on other profiles too).  For many, that is somewhat of a pejorative, when in fact, it reflects a high calling indeed.  A life of service - particularly when that service engenders personal danger, and offered to all, is to be upheld, honored, and respected.  

In the darkrooms, I don't give a hoot what path the bottoms I rut in follow, or if they follow any path at all.  In those places - "meat-markets" - there is only one purpose.  Yet, even in those places, we can avoid harming others, do our best to give pleasure sating their lusts while sating our own.  In other words, giving what we have to those who need it.  Sharing.  Celebrating.  Connecting.  While I have never had the experience of some guy trying to initiate a chat with that particular term, I would probably merely reply with something like "thanks, not interested", or similar.  That said, I don't even use the cruise apps anymore, for reasons explained in another thread.  

1 hour ago, ErosWired said:

an animal body is merely the vehicle that transports my spiritual being during the time I am in this material existence.

Well thought out.  I believe that this temporal plane is not the only level of consciousness, and probably lower in value that other, more ineffable ones.  If I believed that I would never, ever "experience" my life-partner again, in some unimaginable way, I would be less of a human being than I am, holding that hope.  What that plane of existence is, I cannot begin to say.  But, as the saying goes, Love conquers all, and I remain hopeful.  While I know that "religiousity" isn't for me, I simply feel that one fine day, in some way or another, I will.  

[Guest]

2 hours ago, ErosWired said:

My personal observation - from the outside - is that satanism seems to predicate itself on the existence of the individual solely as a creature of the material universe. It does not seem to address questions of existence beyond the material, and is therefore less bound by considerations of morals, ethics, and judgments in relation to acts performed in life.

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but are you making the point that ethics etc. don't exist without a religious force?

Personally I feel that an atheistic or humanistic view of life still allows for moral judgements and on the whole most people whatever they believe, or don't, would agree on the basics of what it means to live well: Basically most of the Ten Commandments about not killing, stealing, lying etcetera. 

[ErosWired]

7 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but are you making the point that ethics etc. don't exist without a religious force?

Not at all. How you define what is ethical depends on how you define what is good, and value judgment is highly variable. Even among LeVay’s core principles for satanists one finds positions that are ethical by almost any standard - for instance, the injunction “Do not harm children.”

A philosophy that prioritizes the satisfying of individual personal desires and the pursuit of pleasure and the sating of lust, however, necessarily places the individual in the position an some point of choosing to do so at the expense or to the detriment of another person - it is the nature if the world that resources and opportunities are limited and not everyone gets everything. It is at this point the man walking the Lefthand Path may find himself less burdened by the sort of ethical or moral thinking that constrains a person of a traditional religious, or even humanist, background.

I was once used at at BDSM event as a submissive in a public demonstration of a rather diabolical piece of equipment that consisted of a round stool with eyebolts affixed to the legs to keep a sub’s manacled feet from touching the floor, and a bar overhead with attachments fir wrist cuffs. In the center of the stool’s seat was a large hole, through which the end of a very long dildo just emerged. The rest of it was attached to the jack for raising and lowering a car to fix a flat tire. Attached to the jack where a crank would normally be was a power drill. The point was to lock the submissive in place where he could get no leverage, and then impale him from beneath with nearly 14” of dildo as he struggled to pull himself upward and away from it, only to succumb in the end to the implacable force of gravity and the infinite determination of the machine.

 I say “he” - I got to enjoy that vile stool three times for demonstrations. But I’ll never forget the last one, because there was a young Dominant in the small group who had watched the second demo with absolutely rapt attention. He kept his eyes fixed on me throughout the whole ordeal, watching carefully each thing that was done to fully impale me.

When it came time for the third one, I was mildly surprised when my Master told me that that young Dom would be assisting - he had apparently asked for the chance to use the machine on me. He didn’t say much of anything to me as it was happening, but as he was operating the drill, forcing the phallus deep into me, drawing it out, and then forcing it in again, I looked down at him in my torment and saw an expression on his face that radiated joy - and ravenous hunger - and an almost giddy delight in his power over me.

I learned later that he went by an online username of Devilspawn.

 I have often wondered about that man’s state of mind that derived such bliss from publicly torturing me. He found an opportunity to indulge his personal desire, and seized it with both hands - and clearly was not troubled in the slightest that he was inflicting suffering. One might argue that he was unburdened by any ethical restraints.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Not at all. How you define what is ethical depends on how you define what is good, and value judgment is highly variable. Even among LeVay’s core principles for satanists one finds positions that are ethical by almost any standard - for instance, the injunction “Do not harm children.”

I think the name's spelled 'LaVey'. His words about (modern) Satanism are the most well published. There was another principle, to only have sex when your partner or mate is ok with it. I think this sort of contradicts your next segment, and your personal experience as a sub:

 

4 hours ago, ErosWired said:

A philosophy that prioritizes the satisfying of individual personal desires and the pursuit of pleasure and the sating of lust, however, necessarily places the individual in the position an some point of choosing to do so at the expense or to the detriment of another person - it is the nature if the world that resources and opportunities are limited and not everyone gets everything. It is at this point the man walking the Lefthand Path may find himself less burdened by the sort of ethical or moral thinking that constrains a person of a traditional religious, or even humanist, background.

Besides that Satanism like (most) societies as a whole do not condone rape or molestation, personally I don't experience sex as something to only satisfy my own pursuit of pleasure and lust. I think that's wanking off, not sex. Sexuality is as much as about giving pleasure as about receiving it.
But that may just be me of course, I can't speak for the rest of the Satanic community. 

 

4 hours ago, ErosWired said:

I learned later that he went by an online username of Devilspawn.

Sometimes a rose, is not a rose even though one calls it such.

Hope you enjoyed the experience and reading it I'm not sure what differentiates this (last) Dom from your own master at the time, and his handling of the contraption from the two first rounds he wasn't involved in. 

[ErosWired]

10 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

I think the name's spelled 'LaVey'.

You are of course correct, and I knew that. Don’t know why I ended up typing it that way - the devil made me do it?

10 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

There was another principle, to only have sex when your partner or mate is ok with it.

Yes, and I almost included that as an additional notable example. Please don’t think that any of my comments attempt to characterize all satanists - stereotyping is a meaningless exercise because individuals are far too variable. From my perspective, any person who has chosen to follow the Lefthand Path are seekers just as those who look to religion are seekers, and their psychological motivations are understandably human. I may not personally be able to put my own brain in a place where I can fully understand them, but I can’t wrap my head around Trump supporters either, and I know which of the two groups I consider a greater threat to society. (Sorry, satanists, but in terms of quintessential evil, the Orange Antichrist makes Baphomet look like a tame billy at a children’s petting zoo.)

 

10 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

Sometimes a rose, is not a rose even though one calls it such.

Hope you enjoyed the experience and reading it I'm not sure what differentiates this (last) Dom from your own master at the time, and his handling of the contraption from the two first rounds he wasn't involved in. 

And sometimes the soup in the can is what’s printed on the label.

The risk of my including this anecdote was that I couldn’t supply all the relevant bbackstory and subsequent developments without bogging it all down. We had a couple of subsequent private sessions with Devilspawn in which his practice of some form of satanism became clear. I cannot tell you whether he had a grasp of what constitutes what you and I might acknowledge as the ethics of satanism, but his predilections concerned my Master to the extent that he would not give Devilspawn permission to fuck me. And my Master is a Sadist.

 I have, I think, commented elsewhere on the forum about the irony of the fact that my former Master, a calculating Sadist apparently numb to any sort of sympathetic reaction to the pain experienced by the subjects of his acts, is also a deeply caring and humane person, a first responder, staunch protector of children, and Samaritan for the dispossessed and downtrodden. Aside from the fact that he drove .18 gauge needles through my testicles and deliberately shaped my psychology into that of a cumdump faggot, he’s one of the finest human beings I know.

The difference between his application of the vile stool and Devilspawn’s was that he was doing it as a public demonstration (with my full participation) and not for his own fulfillment, and he cared for my wellbeing before, during and after. Devilspawn seized the opportunity to essentially violate me to the greatest extent he could in plain view of the audience and relish the ability to do so, not only not caring about my discomfort, but doing whatever he could to exploit it. Mind you, it wasn’t so overt or egregious that my Master felt the need to intervene; much of what I understood about him from that scene came from his movements and expressions as he worked, and as they transmitted into my body through that dildo. I didn’t have to guess at his intent, his motivation, or his level of enjoyment - I could feel them.

Edited January 20, 2022 by ErosWired