I think one of the greatest ironies of life, is an author who is dismissive of semantics.
Semantics being the meanings of words, their sense and implications. For instance, "paraphilia," Truly a nasty word, especially when we don't understand the meaning of it. Let's look at it's meaning; "philia", like bibliophile (which means someone with a fondness for books: biblio (books) phile (fondness)) so philia expresses a fondness, and para. Now what's word segment similar to para-normal. By itself, it refers to the odd or unusual. So paraphilia, refers to the fondness for the odd and unusual. Of course that's a clinical word, and most people have a disdain for clinical words; they are so... antiseptic. Another word for paraphilia might be "kink," or "fetish." Those aren't words we mind, are they? Lets try a different term; deviant! Now THERE is a truly sick, and repulsive word!!! Of course, when you say "a deviation of course" it means you have taken a turn to something sick and repulsive, right?!? or does it just mean you have taken an uncommon turn?
Obsession. There's a trigger word if ever I'd heard one. By definition, it means "an idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes on a person's mind." Wait a minute... I didn't see the words "need" or "necessity" in that definition? Curious; that. It's almost like obsessions aren't equal to air, water, or food. But we are more than just animals, we need love, and human interaction. Ahh, but then we are back to those annoying semantics. What is love or human interactions, and do spankings fall under the purview of love, or obsession?
I think that is defined by if you control your obsessions, or if your obsessions control you.
I find it amusing that Alan keeps trying to manipulate Jessica's words into bullying the OP, when she has never addressed the OP pointedly, but mentioned "advice" pointedly and by reference a couple times. But, I guess that's more of those semantics though, because it deals with "implications" on both sides of the discussion.
For the record, I'm a baby-boomer generational. For me the internet came... much later. I am neither fearless, nor is my life to be envied. Not only did I have an obsession with spankings to wrestle with, but I was also hypersexual (that's the unisex clinical term for Satyriasis (old school male version of nymphomaniac)). So, you might say, I had to wrestle with two obsessions in my life. This hardly means I've experienced great amounts of sex and spankings, au contrare. The few times I have been in relationships, it usually culminated in my being referred to as broken, or that there is something "wrong" with me.
Yes, Jessica, some of us (me, pointedly) feel we are broken (and maybe sometimes immoral). ((No, I'm an adult, "big boy" and didn't feel you were singling me out, but your words help in the discussion))
Does this make me a "force majeure" for having two obsessions while most in this thread have more than likely only one? Hardly, but I think it explains why I think I'm more than qualified to speak about obsessions.
As Alef mentioned and to use his words as my own, "(I've) run the risk of living alone to the end of (my) days." There isn't a minute of my life, where I've thought "if I didn't have these obsessions, I might have lived a normal life and married someone long ago." Let me paraphrase a common saying, "it's better to have loved, and been loved, than to have never been loved because of your obsessions."
In other words, I envy being married to a vanilla, even if that meant never to have delved in these obsessions.
So, I hope this explains my 7) Suck it up, Buttercup comment and where that mindset comes from.
Another way of saying all of this is, The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. |