Fuck Decaf, or The Two Tribes of Perversion

[image error]There are two tribes of perverts. Those who believe and those who don’t; real perverts and fake perverts. I contend today that the world is dominated by the fake ones.


I’m not a wholehearted fan of the Yugoslavian philosopher, Slavoj Zizek, but he has proposed an interesting theory I embrace. He says that the world has become appallingly inauthentic and that this is the engine that powers an obscene system. It is the practice of perpetuating fantasies, which we know to be fantasies, in order to doggedly maintain the system. It is not necessary to actually believe in the ideology of the system. No one does. But it is necessary to pretend we do, in order for the wheels to keep turning. It is the reign of the wink and the nod.


He says, there is real fundamentalism, and pseudo-fundamentalism. The Amish, he says, are real fundamentalists. They really believe. They don’t want you to join them, or share their beliefs. They don’t have a problem with science. Science is simply on another plane of existence. They don’t debate its veracity. They dismiss it as irrelevant to their way of life. They let you get on with your life. Just keep your distance. Then there are the pseudo-fundamentalists who are manic proselytizers, who attempt to insinuate themselves into scientific debate by arguing that creationism is some scientifically acceptable alternative to Darwinism. They find a way to weave all their supposed transgressions into some narrative that fits with their dogma. But, most telling all, says Zizek, is that they have envy. They suffer tremendously from a fascination with the “jouissance of the other”. They constantly dehumanize and demonize other groups as a part of their doctrine. They hate homosexuals and imagine that gays have far better sex than they have. They demand that people envy them for their ‘born-againness’ and their personal relationship with god.


It’s very much like the myth of Santa Claus. A parent pretends to believe in Santa Claus for the sake of his or her children. The child pretends to believe in Santa Claus for the sake of the parent, and for the presents. No one actually believes in Santa Claus. He’s an agreed-upon fallacy.


I see a similar pattern in the majority of the people who make a pretence of perversion. I’m so filthy, I’m so dirty, I’m so naughty, so ba-aaaad, so perverse, they say. But if you really ask them whether they think they’re doing anything wrong, you get this incredible answer. Of course not! What I do is perfectly natural. As long as it’s all-consensual, there’s nothing wrong with it at all. It’s all about respect and ethical humanism. There’s no inherent disdain or humiliation about five guys coming all over a tied up girl. She’s up for it; they’re up for it. Where’s the ethical problem? Of course I have no shame in the fact that hurting someone and making them cry gives me a raging erection. I don’t do it to anyone who doesn’t want to be hurt. It’s just a natural variation on the long continuum of sexuality. So all that initial ‘I’m so naughty’ stuff is all… marketing hype. But for who?


I call bullshit. If you really believe that, you’re not a pervert. You’re a tourist.


Real perverts believe with deep sincerity in the rules they break. They have faith that what they are doing is wrong. They have a firm model in their heads of exactly what human dignity is and when they transgress it, either by what they do to themselves or what they do to others, regardless of consent, they know it’s unacceptable. It’s not right. Not natural. Not okay. It’s monstrous and ugly and perverse. Robert Stoller has called perversion ‘the erotic form of hatred.’ I agree with him unreservedly.


This strange and, in my mind, truly corrupt practice of perpetuating fallacies has poked its bony undead fingers into all parts of our society and, at the bottom of it, is a pure, unadulterated consumerism: “You can have whatever you want without consequence. You can have coffee without caffeine. Sugar doughnuts without sugar. Weight loss without calorie reduction or exercise.” And, my very favourite – and the one that squicks me beyond measure – BDSM without risk or even sex!


I’m here to tell you that coffee without caffeine isn’t coffee. Sugar doughnuts without sugar aren’t sugar doughnuts. You can’t loose weight without either exercise or cutting your calories. And no real BDSM is riskless or sexless. There is nothing remotely ethical about being aroused at someone else’s pain, or at suffering it yourself, pissing on someone, pushing needles into their flesh, using someone else’s body as a vat for your semen or, indeed, getting off on having yours used that way.


So, what has this to do with me as a writer of erotic fiction?


It occurs to me that I need to make it clear that I do not write the stories I write as how-to manuals for kinky couples. I do not make moral excuses for the rotten and perverse things my characters do. I do not give them nice happy endings because I do not want to send the message that there are no negative consequences to their behaviours.


I am a pervert. I believe that my sexual proclivities are deeply unethical and, in fact, a good deal of the jouissance I get from them comes from the fact that I know, in every fibre of my being, that they are wrong. Most of my characters are like me.


None of us need, or want, your absolution.



2 likes ·   •  11 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on April 07, 2014 23:56
Comments Showing 1-11 of 11 (11 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by Gary (last edited Apr 14, 2014 03:30PM) (new)

Gary Spaulding Thank you, and again, I say thank you for writing this essay. You have validated many of my thoughts on perversion, and answered many I was unclear about. I am a pervert, and you have helped me to realize, that that is o.k.

I have one question to ask,

Is it wrong or unethical to experience erotic joy and pleasure when receiving or giving pain, humiliation, etc-- if the other party feels the same way as you do and desires it as well?

Do we derive joy from receiving and or giving pain simply because it's "taboo", "wrong" or "unethical"?

Thank you, Jay.


message 2: by Remittance (last edited Apr 14, 2014 06:28PM) (new)

Remittance Girl Hi Jay,

"Is it wrong or unethical to experience erotic joy and pleasure when receiving or giving pain, humiliation, etc-- if the other party feels the same way as you do and desires it as well?"

I'm pretty sure that having a partner who shares your proclivities doesn't really change the rightness or wrongness of anything. But it's nice to have company. I notice you're something of a reader, so if you have time, check out Gilles Deleuze's Masochism: Coldness and Cruelty & Venus in Furs

What I found interesting about the book is that it underscored my own experience that sadists and masochists are not the neatly paired erotic opposites that they have traditionally been viewed as. And this accords very well with Lacan's argument that the fantasies that give substance to our desire are almost entirely unique to each person, and that true erotic alignments almost impossible without love.

"Do we derive joy from receiving and or giving pain simply because it's "taboo", "wrong" or "unethical"? "

I'm relatively convinced that, from everything I've read, the tabooness or wrongness of the act plays a significant role in the eroticism of inflicting pain. Whether that is the case for receiving it is a slightly different question. I know that some people derive concrete physical pleasure from feeling pain. Their brains interpret the stimulus differently. For them, I guess it's purely a physical reaction. But for others, I gather, taboo plays a very large part.

Two interesting writers on this issue are Georges Batailles ( Erotism: Death and Sensuality and, specifically on the interesting paradox of transgression, Michel Foucault, ( A Preface to Transgression in Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews)


message 3: by Gary (last edited Apr 14, 2014 07:46PM) (new)

Gary Spaulding I don't have time at the moment to comment sufficiently and adequately.

I just wanted to say, thank you for the quick response and taking the time to suggest different books, writers and essays. It's exactly what I needed, it would have taken me a week at least to narrow down specific, quality, artistic literature based on the subjects talked about.

You have malleable, articulate and progressive mind-- but more importantly, a liberated mind.

I will respond as soon as I've looked through and read the links to the authors and literature you have provided.

I hope to have many conversations with you in the future. I'm contemplating on possibly writing erotic literature at some point in the future. And after going through your profile and reading some of your essays, your just the caliber, liberated, imaginative and unwavering authentic writer and person I would love to have the opportunity to get to know and learn from.

Multiple thank you's for such a great response to my question.


message 4: by Gary (new)

Gary Spaulding P.s. I have no schooling really to speak of outside of high school, so I apologize in advance for the plethora of syntax errors that will abound in my messages... I hope your able to see the substance and depth of my messages through the unforgiving web of syntax error's.


message 5: by Remittance (new)

Remittance Girl Gary wrote: "P.s. I have no schooling really to speak of outside of high school, so I apologize in advance for the plethora of syntax errors that will abound in my messages... I hope your able to see the substa..."

You seem perfectly literate to me.


message 6: by Gary (new)

Gary Spaulding You know just what to say. Thanks.


message 7: by Gary (new)

Gary Spaulding P.s. Your website is designed beautifully. Really well done.


message 8: by Gary (last edited Apr 16, 2014 12:29PM) (new)

Gary Spaulding "Remittance wrote: "What I found interesting about the book is that it underscored my own experience that sadists and masochists are not the neatly paired erotic opposites that they have traditionally been viewed as. And this accords very well with Lacan's argument that the fantasies that give substance to our desire are almost entirely unique to each person, and that true erotic alignments almost impossible without love."

Not to sound vain, (which I can be full of myself from time to time), but I have always looked at the world in general through the same lens as what you said in that comment. Nothing is neatly paired in life, there is always some sort of variation, even if it be minute and microscopic in it's differences, nevertheless they are not the EXACT, same. And it would naturally carry over into any human being and their relationships with other people, whether it's sexual in nature, platonic, or just friendship-- the amount of variables each human being brings to the table in those relationships is vast and limitless in it's scope. So it stands to reason that a Dom/Sub relationship will be a mixed variable of what each person is. No human being is 100% male or 100% female, just as there is no human being 100% dominant, and 100% submissive. Just within the imagination alone are a profound amount of variables at play, and it's mathematically impossible for two human beings to ever see the world exactly the same way, or practice the art of Domination and Submission, Sadism and Masochism the exact same way--. Nothing black and white about life, and nothing black and white about BDSM or the primal desires of the animal we call, human beings. Everything is grey, everything. An odd, obscure and abstract perspective I supposes. But I really believe this to be true.

And love is the key to connection, whether it be a sister and brother friendship, or a Dom/Sub relationship-- without love at some level and degree, the human being is just going through the motions, much like a person who loathes their job goes through the motions of work. We want love, because it makes us feel alive, and the antithesis of love is, emptiness, "death" if you will.

Side note: I feel like a cheap side chair philosophical hack trying to debate and have intelligent conversation with you. Kind of out of my league perhaps?...


message 9: by Remittance (new)

Remittance Girl Yes, I think it is. It is incredibly hard to consistently practice the high degree of empathy necessary without it. Love destabilizes the integrity of the subjective armor we need to survive in the everyday world. Which is why it can be both wonderful and terrifying.

Side note: I feel pretty much the same.


message 10: by Gary (last edited Apr 17, 2014 10:05AM) (new)

Gary Spaulding Remittance wrote: Love destabilizes the integrity of the subjective armor we need to survive in the everyday world.

I can remember many a time when I felt jaded or bitter, and a small act of love from someone, (kind word, hand on shoulder, a smile) would cause that jadedness and bitterness to crumble to the ground in one fell swoop. So well said. I enjoy reading your comments, they are so acute and insightful.

To be so bold, yet so humble all in the same breath, is somewhat of a rare feat and occurrence within the human condition. So refreshing you are Remittance girl.


message 11: by Gary (new)

Gary Spaulding *** "Subjective armor." So true and so well said.


back to top