Pee snuff?

[steve25805 121,106]

This is highly controversial and I think a pic that is both erotic and shocking at the same time.

I will post it because it is after all only an erotic drawing.......

It clearly depicts a man laying on the floor with his head sealed into a large glass container, into which a naked woman is peeing with many others sat around watching, having also peed in the container judging by how full it is.

Now at first glance this pic looks like just another erotic pee drawing, until it dawns upon you that they are apparently actually deliberately drowning him with their pee for their pleasure.

Once this hit home I found it quite shocking, considering what is actually being depicted.

I wondered what other members actually think about this, from a moral viewpoint, an erotic one, a fantasy one, an artistic one, and so on. It IS only a drawing and therefore no one is actually being harmed at all. Presumably it is just a visual drawn manifestation of someone's fantasy.

It may even - as is the way with art sometimes - be deliberately intended to be both erotic and shocking at the same time. Artistic representations sometimes like to use imagery in such a way to trigger contradictory feelings and reactions, shaking people out of their comfort zones in order to encourage deeper thinking.

Would be interested in any input from others.

Cue, "It's a great way to go" type jocular comments, lol.

[steve25805 121,106]

Well, that is the perennial debate and both your scenarios demonstrate the dilemma. Is a mere fantasy, however extreme, harmless because it is only a fantasy? Or does the fantasy itself increase the likelihood of real  bad things being done? I think clearly the latter has sometimes been the case, and your own imagined scenarios are themselves entirely plausible demonstrations of how that can be.

And yet it is easy to surmise the likelihood that for some people, finding harmless outlets for certain desires might actually help them avoid the temptation to act them out for real. And there could be a whole debate about that. Because we pee fetishists know from personal experience that we cannot repress our own fantasies and desires. We cannot stop ourselves being into pee. All we can do if we want to keep it a secret is employ strategies to avoid acting it out for real. But of course because our fetish is a harmless consenting adult fetish, we do not have to do that. We have the option of seeking out consenting adults with similar interests.

But those with extreme interests involving, for example, strangling someone to death or sexual activity with children, do not have such an easy option. So if they are not to cross the line and do harm, they need to manage their sexual desires which in practice might often mean finding harmless ways to satisfy them. So does the artificial satisfying of such desires protect society from becoming the victims of someone who'd otherwise become a dangerous offender? Or does it merely encourage them and make their offending more likely? Fact is, it could be either, depending upon the situation or person so there are no easy cut and dried one size fits all ways of viewing this.

As far as the picture above is concerned, whether or not it is potentially pandering to twisted and harmful desires - either satisfying them or encouraging them - is probably in the eye of the beholder. Most of us here would focus upon the peeing aspect of it - that is what we would get out of it - which we know some members of society disapprove of but which is a harmless consenting adult fetish. But some people might see the peeing in that pic as wholly incidental, and be aroused by the idea of a group of naked women murdering a man by drowning him for their sexual pleasure. So the same pic can be both harmless and potentially harmful, depending upon which aspect is being focussed upon.

And then there is the nature of the medium itself. This is only a drawing so no real people are involved at all. It might even be thought of simply as art. Does that make it entirely harmless? And if so what if that entire same scene were acted out by real people in a porn video, with the realistic acting out of a man being drowned to death with pee? Exactly the same scene but real people in moving pictures?  Does that alter the degree of it's harmlessness or unacceptability? And if so, why? And what if the video, though acted out, is circulated as real snuff, with people viewing it in the true belief that they are watching someone die? And that is why they are watching it, to satisfy a sexual kink involving death? Where does acceptability lie now?

In many ways there are more questions than answers with a pic like that and the issues it raises.

[Scot_Lover 1,777]

This pic may have been drawn because "this has been done before". The Pashtun women in Afganistan used to do this with captured prisoners, British and non Muslim from the 1830's and even some Russians from the later time period. They would peg the victim to the ground, force his mouth open wide preventing him from swallowing, then would take turns peeing into his mouth. There were conflicting reports that these women 'had their way' with the unfortunate soul first, but given the barbarity of the region, not sure how that went. 

 

I'm not sure I agree on the video game reference, I know some things have been blamed on video games, but in most cases the person involved had a previous condition, mental illness is usually mentioned. The 3 of us play a variety of games, we have a PS3, 2 PS4's, an Alienware gaming laptop and the monster PC in the spare room. We play everything from Superbike racing, car racing games (the girls have their own posse in Driveclub) to games like Destiny, Wolfenstien and No Mans Sky. We have no sudden urges to take any of this into the real world, for whatever reason.

 

 

[Brutus 2,110]

Well to start, I have seen this artist's work before and all of his drawings focused on amazon, dominant women using men in some way. There was one where a bunch of men were on their knees side by side, with their hands bound as a bunch of women stood over them, forcing the men to give them oral sex. Others depicted women using men as chairs, forcing them to eat their ass. This is what he was into. As to the moral dilemma, how people interpret it is based on their sensitivities. It is ultimately a person's fantasy, nothing more. We've all thought heinous things. Plenty of women have rape fantasies, but society does not condone rape of women at all. Even a man that is proven to be falsely accused of it still is ruined in the eyes of society, as people will always associate him with rape. Rape jokes about men are commonplace, though. Both men and women laugh at the thought of a man being raped. I believe the lower concern for men's well-being is at the heart of this artist's drawings, the underlying theme being that these women's attitude is that these guys are just objects for their enjoyment and disposal. I think this subliminal theme was intentional, and he was interested in how women may act toward men if they had the physical size to do so, as well as just being into female domination.

I would say that art imitates life, and life imitates art. We go to war, war movies and games are made, we go to war still. We have sex, sex scenes in cinema, as well as porn are made, we have sexual trends that follow the films. It's a yin and yang relationship between art and life. With regard to the videogames, I don't think it's fair to place all of the blame there when some kid kills, and then it's discovered that he loved Grand Theft Auto. That's the media doing what it does best, that being to stir up controversy for viewership. To be mentally disturbed enough to go on a killing spree is a problem with the individual, not the media consumed. Little to nothing is mentioned of the mental problems he had, abuse at home and endless bullying he likely sustained. May the games have moved him along a bit? Maybe, but the same could be said about the latest action movies with car chases and gun scenes. The media never mentions anything about movies because they aren't a new and still-growing media like games, so they're easier to attack. Plus many people don't game, making such attacks very easy. They wouldn't be eager to entertain the idea that their favorite movie may have influenced that kid. He would've done something violent regardless. Murderers existed long before games did.

With regard to the effect of it being circulated as snuff, it would be difficult to find, just like real snuff and therefore would be interpreted the same. Some people get off on it, but that will always be the case. There's always a good 10% of the population that is too far gone to help. That's just the way things are. Aside from punishing them when they harm others, there's not much we can do that doesn't cross a line of infringing upon someone's human rights because we don't like them. That's dangerous territory to go into.

[steve25805 121,106]

There can for me be something erotic about the idea of dominant women doing whatever the fuck they like to men and their property, which has often been a theme in some of your fiction, @Brutus .

There is something alluring about a woman who says "Fuck you!" as she just pisses right there on my carpet without giving a shit about anything I might think about it.

A dominant woman pissing on me, in my face, whatever in a similar kind of "Fuck you." way also appeals.

Personally, I am so focussed upon the significance of pee for my arousal, that such "Fuck you!" dominant female behaviour only really works for me sexually if pee is involved in some way. But it is enough for me to understand and appreciate the concept of the enjoyment of dominant women doing whatever the fuck they like to men because they can, being applicable more widely.

And like you say, fantasy and reality are not the same. Many of us go places in our fantasies which we would never entertain in real life. The popular rape fantasy that some women enjoy is a typical example. And with me too, in reality I'd probably only enjoy being peed on in a mutually consenting situation. The "Fuck you!" pissing fantasy works much better for me as just that - a fantasy.

But although our boundaries are much wider in fantasy than in reality, most of us still have boundaries for our fantasies too. They are just wider than our real life boundaries. Where those boundaries lie will differ from person to person. Some people might get off on the fantasy of being drowned in piss by dominant women, though they'd never want that to happen in real life. Others just wouldn't go there even in fantasy. So the boundaries can differ, but only a true sociopath has none at all. All of us here - hopefully - would never entertain a fantasy that involved pissing on babies, for example.

Personally, I could enjoy a fantasy similar to that being depicted in the pic, with a load of women forcibly pissing on a man's face. The drowning aspect of it, though, is beyond the boundary of where I personally would go even in fantasy and it therefore does nothing for me. It would become a slightly disturbing turn off for me if I were to focus upon that aspect of it. But that's just me.

[Brutus 2,110]

@steve25805For me, the drowning part kind of amplifies the arousal because I like female sexual immorality. My early fiction here was heavy with that, which is why I wanted them removed. That kind of stuff didn't belong on a forum with class, like this one. My tolerance does go a bit farther than yours and probably most people, I admit. But something like babies or children, I absolutely agree with you; that is too far even for me. When I first came across this guys work, I immediately understood his vision. It felt like he drew what I would draw. Big beautiful amazon, voluptuous women that have zero empathy for men, and I do sometimes wonder what the world be like if women were bigger and stronger than us. Such thoughts intrigue me.

I think it's also intriguing that most of us have dark thoughts/fantasies that we keep in our imagination. Would we really not act them out if there were no possible legal ramifications? Why is there a darkness inside of us that we actively restrain in the first place, and what does that say about our capacity for evil? Scary stuff.

[steve25805 121,106]

1 hour ago, Brutus said:

 

I think it's also intriguing that most of us have dark thoughts/fantasies that we keep in our imagination. Would we really not act them out if there were no possible legal ramifications? Why is there a darkness inside of us that we actively restrain in the first place, and what does that say about our capacity for evil? Scary stuff.

Scary indeed @Brutus. A lot of people may have dark fantasies such as yours but would never act them out for many reasons. Firstly there are of course the legal ramifications which you mention. But there is also the fact that morality and guilt can largely be taken out of the equation in fantasy, but they matter much more in real life. Along with the factor of what will everyone else, especially those you care about, think about you when they know you've done something they'd regard as terrible? And there is the guilt factor that could come into it after you'd crossed a particular line in real life and hurt someone badly. And then there is empathy. The people in our fantasies are nothing more than objects of our own creation. Even if we are fantasising about real people. it is merely a simulacrum of them that you are imagining into existence in your own head, and not the real person. Whatever happens to them in a fantasy harms no one for real. But when it's a real human being with feelings, emotions, and loved ones just like yourself, for most non-sociopaths that makes us want to draw back from hurting them unless they have done serious wrong to us. 

All of that provides massive psychological barriers - not just legal ones - to the real life acting out of dark fantasies.

But it is notable that where those barriers have been systematically and deliberately removed, mundane and ordinary people can sometimes behave in terribly evil ways, and be seen after the fact - when normal barriers are built back up - as monsters. The obvious example of this were the Nazi concentration camp guards - women as well as men. Some of the female ones come closest to resembling those that might inhabit your darkest imaginings. Basically normal everyday people from mundane and unremarkable family backgrounds who just applied for - and got - jobs as camp guards for similar reasons in many cases that the rest of us apply for jobs in Tesco or wherever for. It was just a job that was going at the time which promised a pay packet at the end of the week. And they found themselves in positions of absolute authority over defenceless inmates, with all legal restraints totally removed. They could do anything they wanted to them or with them with no fear of negative consequences for themselves. They were told that these people were less than human and no better than vermin, thus they learned to have no empathy for them. They were also told that they were mortal enemies of their nation and people and of their own families, thereby encouraging hatred for them and a belief that they deserved no empathy and deserved to suffer. Then they were encouraged to be brutal and strict and to instil fear, whilst acts of cruelty were approved of as a sign of strength which also made the inmates as docile with fear as possible. And amidst all this, they had total power in an environment where deliberate acts of cruelty and sadism earned a slap on the back rather than reproach. In other words, the crueller and more sadistic they were, the more kudos they had with their colleagues and superiors.

Effectively and systematically, all restraints to freely acting out their darkest impulses, were wholly removed and instead their expression was given full license and even encouraged. Thus normal everyday men and women became the sort of monsters who could be capable of indulging in - or take pleasure in watching others indulge in - behaviour of barely believable barbarity and sadism. When consequences were put back in place after 1945, some of them ended up on a date with the hangman's noose because of their actions.

[Scot_Lover 1,777]

Hmm, this is where I'm different. I don't have such dark thoughts although I did have my share of erotic ones.

Unfortunately, we have seen what can happen when someone goes beyond acceptable behaviour and he got 10 years for it, although he did get out in 7. And yes, the paranoia remains, Maigh is still jumpy around people, scared easily, little things can quickly turn into big ugly monsters. Mary is brilliant at settling her down when this happens, a quiet word, a hug or two and she is fine again.

The morality issue is something the 3 of us have talked about, but it was a while ago. Mary had her way with me one time Maigh was out shopping, and in the middle of our sweaty workout, she muttered something like "how she was turned on fucking someone's husband". She apologised later on, but it made us think about our relationship with each other. They say that they have sorted it this out, but sometimes I wonder if it has gone away completely.

My estranged sister doesn't get on well with my ladies either, she looks at them sideways and I can almost hear her thinking that she "hopes they don't try anything with me". She knows about our other perversion (as she calls it, lol) but strangely, that takes a back seat against the way we live. Wallowing in pee is fine, but 3 people in a king sized bed is too hard to accept. Mary's sister in law back in Scotland is another, it is just beyond her that Mary likes girls as well as guys, there is no room in her world for a girl who is bisexual. Is a 3some relationship so wrong to so many people?

If you could see people's faces when we check into a hotel with only a double bed, the looks we get are priceless, and all of them will ask if we need another bed, or a different room. Shopping with them can be hilarious too, when they turn on wench mode, either with themselves or include me too, people just don't know what to think or where to look. They don't do this in the small town where we live, but when we go out, anything can happen, and usually does.

I was thinking of doing the interview thing like a few people have done, but what would happen?

Would I get ripped up for living like this? 

 

 

 

[Brutus 2,110]

@steve25805I agree with all of that. When legal and social repercussion is removed in response to cruelty and even encouraged, we are capable of horrific things. Human history is full of barbarism and sadism. We wouldn't be able to sustain societies if our darkest primitive nature was encouraged. We have to be policed, plain and simple. I believe this need to control our nature is the reason religion exists. Though it is often used as a tool of destruction, it is intended to be a moral compass. It makes perfect sense. Every society in human existence had some sort of code to be followed, which is all religion and laws really are. Every society has their own code but the common theme is that punishment must be present to scare people into resisting their nature. It's not surprising that we are capable of evil when you understand that from the dawn of our days, we knew that our nature needed widely accepted restraints. That's a sad self-awareness for a species to have. Sometimes I think that maybe sociopaths/psychopaths are a design by nature to serve as a beacon of awareness as to what we as a species need to condemn for the greater good of everyone. A darkness to point us to the light. 

@Scot_LoverYes you would get ripped up!! No good would come of it. Most people would interpret it as a molester trying to justify themselves. The ironic thing is, our biology is suited to one alpha male with multiple females. It happens with plenty of animals. One should wonder why monogamous relationships are so damn hard. Why do we find it so hard? Because it's not natural. A lion doesn't have to fight itself to do anything, it just does lion shit, with no thought necessary. I think the monogamy may be in the same vein as laws and religion, that being it's a tool to control our nature that if left unrestrained would cause immense heartache. Think of the chaos, at least in our modern society, that would result if everybody just had multiple sexual partners and made no effort to be with one person. Unchained sexual promiscuity is wrecking havoc right now. Low marriage rates, single parent homes, which are terrible for children if you know the stats on how bad they tend to fare in society versus two-parent homes. In Africa, men have dozens of wives. But, Africa isn't necessarily a shining example of an ideal country. Maybe polygamy could work on a large scale in western nations but there's this thing called feminism in western nations and they tend to frown upon such ideas, lol. Thus you'll never make progress with an interview that reaches mainstream ears.