GeniesLoki

the way i interpret your language you’re talking as if fun is an intrinsic property of activities and that doesn’t make ontological sense to me. obviously some things are fun for some people and not others and that’s exactly the phenomenon under investigation

most of the common kink stuff is stuff i would not find fun personally, i don’t find pain fun, i don’t find degradation fun in either direction, etc. in my view there’s a lot to be explained here!

Do you also feel that there's a lot to be explained about why some people are into D&D and some people are into football?

some but less?

For what it's worth, I do think it's generally not that hard to understand why any given thing is fun, and it's usually not that complicated and for reasons that generalise. Individual variation is usually more down to whether you can / it's worth it to get into it.

On specific examples: * Pain is fun because it increases pleasure sensitivity and grounds you in your body. * Degradation I'm less clear on, but I think it's a total surrender thing - it forces you to fully immerse yourself in and engage with your enjoyment of the experience.

Aren't these similar to the trauma theories, though? E.g. "if you generally feel like you can't take care of yourself, then a submissive fantasy is fun because that being someone else's responsibility lets you more fully immerse yourself in an experience without worrying".

I think they're similar in the sense that trauma can dial up or block aspects of what causes them to be fun, but my point is that that because they are fun the trauma is not needed as an explanation for why people are into them.