24 books
—
14 voters
Experimental Books
Showing 1-50 of 7,147

by (shelved 234 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.09 — 193,430 ratings — published 2000

by (shelved 127 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.02 — 109,064 ratings — published 1979

by (shelved 71 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.53 — 153 ratings — published

by (shelved 68 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.46 — 97,297 ratings — published 1959

by (shelved 66 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.75 — 171,197 ratings — published 2017

by (shelved 66 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.85 — 28,310 ratings — published 2013

by (shelved 65 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.10 — 94,518 ratings — published 1972

by (shelved 61 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.17 — 56,333 ratings — published 1962

by (shelved 59 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.77 — 139,010 ratings — published 1922

by (shelved 57 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.20 — 47,782 ratings — published 1963

by (shelved 44 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.01 — 263,937 ratings — published 2004

by (shelved 43 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.14 — 51,723 ratings — published 1931

by (shelved 41 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.01 — 47,191 ratings — published 1973

by (shelved 40 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.10 — 1,458,827 ratings — published 1969

by (shelved 40 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.92 — 7,143 ratings — published 1988

by (shelved 39 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.25 — 99,349 ratings — published 1996

by (shelved 38 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.05 — 12,646 ratings — published 1947

by (shelved 35 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.40 — 154,990 ratings — published 2019

by (shelved 33 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.17 — 7,498 ratings — published 1983

by (shelved 32 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.00 — 757,294 ratings — published 1962

by (shelved 32 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.59 — 6,128 ratings — published 2012

by (shelved 31 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.05 — 55,510 ratings — published 2009

by (shelved 30 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.90 — 6,583 ratings — published 2014

by (shelved 30 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.18 — 9,919 ratings — published 1978

by (shelved 29 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.73 — 22,792 ratings — published 1767

by (shelved 28 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.68 — 13,484 ratings — published 1939

by (shelved 27 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.87 — 1,145 ratings — published 1969

by (shelved 26 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.81 — 49,563 ratings — published 2015

by (shelved 26 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.65 — 4,174 ratings — published 2015

by (shelved 26 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.76 — 58,383 ratings — published 2014

by (shelved 26 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.83 — 10,122 ratings — published 1988

by (shelved 26 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.76 — 7,079 ratings — published 1969

by (shelved 26 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.23 — 5,838 ratings — published 2006

by (shelved 26 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.83 — 21,404 ratings — published 2007

by (shelved 25 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.66 — 26,935 ratings — published 2014

by (shelved 25 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.84 — 3,794 ratings — published 2010

by (shelved 25 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.94 — 56,639 ratings — published 2001

by (shelved 25 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.03 — 1,582 ratings — published 2001

by (shelved 24 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.65 — 25,430 ratings — published 2018

by (shelved 24 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.54 — 53,800 ratings — published 2021

by (shelved 24 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.97 — 5,743 ratings — published 2019

by (shelved 24 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.84 — 218,281 ratings — published 1951

by (shelved 24 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.86 — 85,029 ratings — published 1987

by (shelved 24 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.69 — 94,414 ratings — published 1966

by (shelved 23 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.70 — 245,592 ratings — published 2010

by (shelved 23 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.81 — 209,174 ratings — published 1927

by (shelved 23 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.04 — 1,761 ratings — published 1999

by (shelved 22 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.26 — 19,920 ratings — published 1973

by (shelved 22 times as experimental)
avg rating 3.94 — 70,653 ratings — published 2020

by (shelved 22 times as experimental)
avg rating 4.03 — 3,894 ratings — published 1982

“The role of dominance and submission in human sexuality cannot be overstated. Our survey suggests that the majority (over 50%) of humans are very aroused by either acting out or witnessing dominance or submission. But it gets crazier than that: While 45% of women taking our survey said they found the naked male form to be very arousing and 48% said they found the sight of a penis to very arousing, a heftier 53% said they found their partner acting dominant in a sexual context to be very arousing. Dominance is literally more likely to be very arousing to the average female than naked men or penises. To say: “Dominance and submission are tied to human arousal patterns” is more of an understatement than saying: “Penises are tied to human arousal patterns.”
We have a delectable theory about what is going on here: If you look at all the emotional states that frequently get tied to arousal pathways, the vast majority of them seem to be proxies for behaviors that would have been associated with our pre-human ancestors’ and early humans’ dominance and submission displays. For example, things like humiliation, being taken advantage of, chains, being used, being useful, being constrained, a lack of freedom, being prey, and a lack of free will may all have been concepts and emotions important in early human submission displays.
We posit that most of the time when a human is turned on by a strange emotional concept—being bound for instance—their brain is just using that concept as a proxy for a pre-human submission display and lighting up the neural pathways associated with it, creating a situation in which it looks like a large number of random emotional states are turning humans on, when in reality they all boil down to just a fuzzy outline of dominance and submission. Heck, speaking of binding as a submission display, there were similar ritualized submission displays in the early middle ages, in which a vassal would present their hands clasped in front of their lord and allow the lord to hold their clasped hands in a way that rendered them unable to unclasp them (this submission display to one’s lord is where the symbolism of the Christian kneeling and hands together during prayer ritual comes from). We suspect the concept of binding and defenselessness have played important roles in human submission displays well into pre-history. Should all this be the case, why on earth have our brains been hardwired to bind (hehe) our recognition of dominance and submission displays to our sexual arousal systems?!?”
― The Pragmatist's Guide to Sexuality
We have a delectable theory about what is going on here: If you look at all the emotional states that frequently get tied to arousal pathways, the vast majority of them seem to be proxies for behaviors that would have been associated with our pre-human ancestors’ and early humans’ dominance and submission displays. For example, things like humiliation, being taken advantage of, chains, being used, being useful, being constrained, a lack of freedom, being prey, and a lack of free will may all have been concepts and emotions important in early human submission displays.
We posit that most of the time when a human is turned on by a strange emotional concept—being bound for instance—their brain is just using that concept as a proxy for a pre-human submission display and lighting up the neural pathways associated with it, creating a situation in which it looks like a large number of random emotional states are turning humans on, when in reality they all boil down to just a fuzzy outline of dominance and submission. Heck, speaking of binding as a submission display, there were similar ritualized submission displays in the early middle ages, in which a vassal would present their hands clasped in front of their lord and allow the lord to hold their clasped hands in a way that rendered them unable to unclasp them (this submission display to one’s lord is where the symbolism of the Christian kneeling and hands together during prayer ritual comes from). We suspect the concept of binding and defenselessness have played important roles in human submission displays well into pre-history. Should all this be the case, why on earth have our brains been hardwired to bind (hehe) our recognition of dominance and submission displays to our sexual arousal systems?!?”
― The Pragmatist's Guide to Sexuality

“But there are those who starve to death and all I can do is be born. My rigmarole is: what can I do for them? My answer is: paint a fresco in adagio. I could suffer the hunger of others in silence but a contralto voice makes me sing—I sing dull and black. It’s my message of a person alone. A person eats another from hunger. But I fed myself with my own placenta. And I’m not going to bite my nails because this is a tranquil adagio.”
― Água Viva
― Água Viva