Conversation

I don't mean that it's "just fun" in the sense that it has no other emotional dynamics involved, I mean that the fun is a sufficient explanation for being into it. As to what that means... it's a physically pleasurable creative social activity. What's not to like?
1
3
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
2
8
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.
4
6
I think it's probably worth separating out two things: 1. There are things in this that are fun. 2. There are things in this that I actively want to avoid. The second doesn't preclude the first and I think has a lot more variation.
1
4
I feel like you're also looking at fairly extreme examples of kink? Like almost nobody jumps in at the deep end of pain and degradation kink, and there's already a lot of variation at entry level dom/sub stuff.
1
3
Replying to
If it helps, a lot of this is a perspective that I've arrived at through trying to model other people. I don't exactly have a well-functioning healthy sexuality myself, though I think we have different problems there.
3
No, it's not abundant to me, but I'm working on getting to a point where it is. Hmm. Stepping back a bit, are you familiar with the brake/accelerator model for sex? Basically you can be turned on (accelerator) or turned off (brake), and if they don't work in sync you go nowhere.
1
3
Show replies