Jump to content

burn baby burn


Guest tom4fur
 Share

Recommended Posts

My girlfriend who is a very sweet lady, will do a "cruella de Linda" every now and then. She will wear only her full length tanuki fur , as she takes the most seductive puffs from her cigarette in a long slender holder.She will then proceed to lead me to the kitchen.With a sexy smile she will donate live lobsters to a pot of water.She is not very quick about it ,so as the poor things get there tails burned she will say things like "burn baby burn"",looks like your your all hot because of me" She always teases me because the lobsters last longer! I have never seen"Linda"with a cigarette, only when she does this. I know smoking is bad ,but It is so sexy!!!

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I alone here , or does anyone else find this thread somewhat distasteful.

 

I have nothing agaisnt SM play amongst consenting adults, but the idea of someone getting turned on using the slow application of pain and eventual death to another, non willing living, creature as a stimulus (even if only as one aspect of the entire scenario), is surely abhorent, and not to be condoned here on the forum

 

I am surprised that the mods have not taken any action on this.

 

If I am wrong and everyone thinks it is OK, then I stand correected and will shut up.

 

And before anyone says anything. I spent part of my working life as a zoologist. And whilst I agree that a lobster may not be self aware of suffering, there is no doubt that it feels pain. Pain is nature's way to galvanise an organism into action to remove itself from danger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...and I know the lobsters should die a little faster ,but It is so sexy!!! "

 

Perhaps there could be a prop used during this 'play session' and a plastic lobster used instead. I enjoy an occasional lobster tail, but the lobster while living should not be made to suffer or toyed with in this manner.

 

In any case, this post seems to fall under a stronger fetish tone and should be move elsewhere, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I alone here , or does anyone else find this thread somewhat distasteful.

 

I have nothing agaisnt SM play amongst consenting adults, but the idea of someone getting turned on using the slow application of pain and eventual death to another, non willing living, creature as a stimulus (even if only as one aspect of the entire scenario), is surely abhorent, and not to be condoned here on the forum

 

 

I'm sure many PETAzoids would agree with you and wonder how a fur lover could say something so contrdictory. We don't need anything that gives PETA fuel here. Also one of you're more out spoken friends might start accusing you of being a PETA plant if you keep up this line of protest.

 

 

I am surprised that the mods have not taken any action on this.

 

If I am wrong and everyone thinks it is OK, then I stand correected and will shut up.

 

 

Second guessing the mods and playing backseat mod are not and never were appreaciated here.

If you think you have a valid concern please feel free to PM a mod.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wallee,

 

If there was any second guessing, he was in fact second guessing himself when he mentioned, "..if I am wrong..".

 

Bringing up PETA to his objection is a far stretch and a bit of a shot. We all have an interest in fur, but even the poster admitted the cruel action of slowing dipping the lobster. We often mention the humane methods used to harvest furs in the industry. Should we not supply the same standard to posts here that move into the 'grey area' of festish cruelty? We certainly have standards regarding under age posts among other guidelines. Lets not follow too loose a logic pattern just because fur is involved.

 

I suggested this thread be moved to a more adult forum and stand by that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks bindwithasmile, you obviously understand completely what I was trying to say.

 

Wallee, you missed the point completely. There was another post some months back, where a member (can't remember who) posted about getting a thrill from fur by thinking about how the animal had suffered. That post generated some debate where it was pointed out by some that that way of thinking was not really acceptable.

 

It is nearly ten days since Tom4fur's post, so you cant accuse me of trying to upstage the mods, that's ridiculous.The mods have had plenty of time to do their job , if indeed the job needed doing ( I wasnt questioning that). I was merely trying to find out whether other members thought like me. or like Tom4fur, There's no harm in that. And as for being a petafile? mods are allowed to insult us, but we are not allowed to insult mods right?

 

There is a world of difference between enjoying fur, which we all do here, and getting erotic pleasure from inflicting pain on non willing living creatures.

 

In Tom's post the only connection with fur was that his girlfriend was wearing a fur coat whilst doing the lobster thing. It has nothing to do with the suffering of animals in relation to fur, which is what all the peta anti fur stuff is all about (allegedly, although we all know it has other, more sinister aspirations)

 

So come on wallee, give us the decency of reading and understanding a post before you reply to it -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the idea of a petrochemical lobster

 

It's good that a member stepped up to express their distaste with tom4fur's choice of and erotic experience.

 

OFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, I think I should point out that I, for one, have been trying to be a little less restrictive in moderating. 1) I've got bigger fish to fry, now. 2) I think we ALL need to let things cool off a little while longer.

 

Now, if we can pursue this line of discussion without getting emotional and degrading to name-calling, I think there IS something interesting to talk about here.

 

Lobsters are barely one rung above spiders on the evolutionary ladder.

Their nervous systems are rudimentary. They have little brains, if you could call it that. Sure, their nerves transmit impulses that loosely relate to "pain" but there's no way they can "suffer" as mammals do. They just aren't wired for it.

 

Lobsters have no vocal mechanisms. They can not "scream" when cooked.

They can barely make clicking sounds with their claws and mandibles under water. I can hardly think they communicate that way, if at all.

 

In short, I can hardly think of cooking a lobster as being cruel in any way, even if you DID dip them slowly into the pot of water.

 

Cripes! Asians (Chinese and Japanese) make sashimi by cutting a live lobster in half with a cleaver!

 

No. We need to think about this in a different way.

 

Ask yourself the question, "Why do people enjoy doing things like take thrill rides (roller coasters) at amusement parks?"

 

It's because they want the thrill of doing something exciting and dangerous without the risks of doing something that could actually get them hurt or killed.

 

You can ride in an open-car roller coaster, going 80 miles per hour and flip upside down and do barrel rolls but you have very little risk of actually getting hurt.

 

I think the "Cruella imitation" is similar.

We can do something that feels bad without the associated risk and guilt of doing something that is ACTUALLY cruel.

 

It's a fantasy. It's a way for us to get our jollies without really hurting anything.

 

Besides... What guy HASN'T had the fantasy of boffing his woman right there in the middle of the kitchen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, Worker, but I disagree. I was offended the first time I read the post and if anything I was more offended when I reread it this evening. I think Satan's minions are preparing special padded cells in hell for those who take pleasure in the suffering of defenseless creatures. I mentioned in passing to a Mod shortly after the post in question was made that I thought it was in very poor taste and I hoped to never see another one like it. My opinion has not changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still stand by my theory but I do take your point.

 

Boiling a lobster is not cruel, even if you do it slowly.

I still hold to the analogy that pretending to be cruel to a lobster has a similar basis in psychology as pretending to be in danger when riding a roller coaster. They are both "safe outlets" for a primal desire.

 

That, having been said, does NOT speak to the question, "WHY would a person feel the need to satisfy such a desire?"

 

Nor does it answer the question, "WHY would a person feel the need to seek a safe outlet for such a desire?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boiling a lobster is not cruel, even if you do it slowly.

 

Perhaps not, but my interpretation of this delightful little story is that the writer and the object of his desire both took pleasure in the idea that they were prolonging the death of the lobster. That's disgusting -- And wrong -- And indefensible -- From where I'm sitting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said, I wasn't speaking to the point of WHY a person would feel the need to do this. Only that it was an alternate way of dealing with a psychological need.

 

When we are children, we often do cruel things to animals as a way to establish out supremacy over nature. Many kids burn bugs with magnifying glasses and squash frogs and other cruel, icky things like that.

 

But the thing to remember is that we GROW OUT OF IT.

We are taught that this is wrong. We learn that it's not as satisfying as we thought it was. We understand that we are only doing it to make ourselves feel like we have power over things smaller and less powerful than ourselves.

 

Then, PRESUMABLY, we become adults and learn other ways of interacting with our world that aren't considered cruel.

 

So, why is a person who is supposed to be a rational adult still trying to satisfy such an immature, childlike urge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, why is a person who is supposed to be a rational adult still trying to satisfy such an immature, childlike urge?

 

Okay, Doctor Freud, it appears we can at least agree that the behavior is inappropriate for a rational adult ... I'll take that as a small victory and go to bed. 8)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we are children, we often do cruel things to animals as a way to establish out supremacy over nature. Many kids burn bugs with magnifying glasses and squash frogs and other cruel, icky things like that.

But the thing to remember is that we GROW OUT OF IT.

We are taught that this is wrong.

 

That was the ONLY point I was trying to make Worker. I think it is morally wrong, and therefore is distastefull. I wasn't questioning or even Judging Tom4fur for his actions. i dont even know the guy. What he does is up to him.

 

I was criticising the posting on the den of what many might be taken to be a distastefull and morally wrong action. It's not even just the slow boiling of the lobster, its the derivement of erotic pleasure from the action.

 

Oh! did you not see my signature Worker?. It doesnt matter how rudimentary an organism's brain is, pain is pain, and only functions in a "usefull" way if it is just that - painfull and unpleasant. If it wasn't unpleasant, there would be no imperative for the organism to move away from the source of pain. I believe we should not willfully inflict unpleasantness on another living creature for our pleasure . And if we have to kill something whether to eat it , for its skin or fur, to cull it, or even just because it is in the way, then we should always do it as humanely as possible and with respect for the life we take.

 

Suffering is something totally different. Pain may sometimes be an aspect of suffering, but suffering isn't an inherent aspect of pain.

 

This has gone way off topic, so I wont say any more on this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you guys take this somewhere else? It's beginning to sound like the "bad ol' days" in The Fur Den again!

 

Sorry, Dude! That particular post really bothered me and when someone else announced it bothered them too I fear I may have gone overboard.

 

I did not like Worker's analogy equating the actions in the post with a thrill seeking roller coaster ride. In my mind if you get bored with coaster riding you move on to something else like skiing a glacier or rappelling. In the lobster scenario, in my mind the next logical progression would be Glenn Close in red fox dangling a pet rabbit over a boiling pot. But I digress yet again ...

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see both sides of the argument here, but I don't feel it's right to spout my opinion about this (and escalate this argument any more), this place is not supposed to be a place to bicker about correcting each others morals and opinions, irrespective of what they are. If it was, we would end up tolerating all sorts of piffle from PeTA and co! Let's remember what this place is for and all I can say, if people are bothered, wouldn't it be better to PM a mod in private?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's remember what this place is for and all I can say, if people are bothered, wouldn't it be better to PM a mod in private?

 

Excellent idea Foxkid.

 

Wish I'd thought of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very sorry my post upset some people. I must say that six lobsters went to "the pot" over a span of three years. ALL were compleatly covered in boiling water within FIVE to TEN seconds AT MOST, rather than plunged in. WE DONOT hurt or kill any other animals. "Linda" and I read that lobsters dont feel pain as much. AGAIN I am very sorry to have upset some of you nice folks. Think what you want about us but I can't wait 'til the next fur wearing chef nite!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good for you is right. this is no place to be passing judgement upon fellow members (unless what they've admitted to is extremely illegel) when we already have so many people passing judgement upon all of us for the one thing we all have in common here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for explaining that tom4fur. I wasn't meaning to criticise you. Your initial post certainly came across as a little bit worse that it apparently was, so I apologise if I got it wrong. I stress again. It is the action of using the idea of suffering as a turn on that I find ditastefull. That's a statement, it's not a criticism of you or your actions.

 

Oh! and for the record? I LOVE lobsters (Cooked) you lucky guy.........Oh yeah AND I love girls in fur coats too! ( you lucky guy)

 

And Dappleboy? I went out of my way to explain i wasnt casting judgement on Tom4fur in any way, so please dont mislead people, Things are all there in black and white

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...