Quicksand Fans

SuckMeDeeper wrote:In some sources - Quicksand Fetish listed as BDSM subfetish...
Is what true?

Never thinking about it before...

Some people consider a kink as apposed to a fetish. That distinction alone has caused me to wonder about the fetish classification.

This can get pretty nebulous in a hurry. And many of the so-called experts are throwing darts, because they don't have a closely related kink of their own to ground a realistic opinion.

Many of the people that would offer 'insight' to researchers cannot be relied on to set aside ego/ego-centrism and other hangups. It's the silent ones that are probably more accurately self-aware.

My advice is to not think about it too much. If something arouses you, run with it if you can, without causing harm to yourself or others.

i never read or saw 50 Shades of Gray but i like the image that there is a spectrum of desires and interests

i'm content being into B... don't really care about D and i'm turned off by S & M
for QS i want the damsels to be struggling against their fate... some have called quicksand "nature's bondage"

but many here prefer their damsels happily enjoying the sensuality of the ooze... even getting off sexually themselves... it's hard for me to see that as at all related to BDSM

I may be all wrong here but I prefer to follow what I believe is, more or less, the clinical definitions of "fetish" when using the term. My understanding of that is some sort of non-sexual thing that is essentially required to be present for one to be able to engage in sex (with the definition of the latter undefined). This is to say, its only a "clinical" fetish when it interferes with what would normally be called, well, normal, function. I use the term "normal" here in the sense of being typical or usual.

By this definition, quicksand would be a fetish for only a very small proportion of us here. My understandding of the term "kink" is that it fits much better the idea of something that perhaps enhances sexual behvior but not in way that most reasonable people would describe as negative in any way. My own preference, for a term, would be something like "turn on," or just "interest."

Agreed. That's the way I define it also, except I put "turn on" as the mildest form, then "kink" and then "fetish" at the top. Using fashion boots as an example: If you think a wo(man) wearing fashion boots is sexy (more so than if not wearing them) that's a turn on. If you want your partner to wear fashion boots while you're having sex, that's a kink. If your total sexual interest is in the boots themselves, that's a fetish.

Fred588 wrote:I may be all wrong here but I prefer to follow what I believe is, more or less, the clinical definitions of "fetish" when using the term. My understanding of that is some sort of non-sexual thing that is essentially required to be present for one to be able to engage in sex (with the definition of the latter undefined). This is to say, its only a "clinical" fetish when it interferes with what would normally be called, well, normal, function. I use the term "normal" here in the sense of being typical or usual.

By this definition, quicksand would be a fetish for only a very small proportion of us here. My understandding of the term "kink" is that it fits much better the idea of something that perhaps enhances sexual behvior but not in way that most reasonable people would describe as negative in any way. My own preference, for a term, would be something like "turn on," or just "interest."

Fair enough. And this thread illustrates the assertion that if you ask three members of qsfans what they think about something you will get at least five different opinions. lol

nachtjaeger wrote:Agreed. That's the way I define it also, except I put "turn on" as the mildest form, then "kink" and then "fetish" at the top. Using fashion boots as an example: If you think a wo(man) wearing fashion boots is sexy (more so than if not wearing them) that's a turn on. If you want your partner to wear fashion boots while you're having sex, that's a kink. If your total sexual interest is in the boots themselves, that's a fetish.

Fred588 wrote:I may be all wrong here but I prefer to follow what I believe is, more or less, the clinical definitions of "fetish" when using the term. My understanding of that is some sort of non-sexual thing that is essentially required to be present for one to be able to engage in sex (with the definition of the latter undefined). This is to say, its only a "clinical" fetish when it interferes with what would normally be called, well, normal, function. I use the term "normal" here in the sense of being typical or usual.

By this definition, quicksand would be a fetish for only a very small proportion of us here. My understandding of the term "kink" is that it fits much better the idea of something that perhaps enhances sexual behvior but not in way that most reasonable people would describe as negative in any way. My own preference, for a term, would be something like "turn on," or just "interest."

nachtjaeger wrote:Agreed. That's the way I define it also, except I put "turn on" as the mildest form, then "kink" and then "fetish" at the top. Using fashion boots as an example: If you think a wo(man) wearing fashion boots is sexy (more so than if not wearing them) that's a turn on. If you want your partner to wear fashion boots while you're having sex, that's a kink. If your total sexual interest is in the boots themselves, that's a fetish.

This is very well put, especially if the goal is to distinguish a turn on from a kink from a fetish.

Thank you.

It still leaves a lot of unfinished business regarding quicksand. And I think Fred is correct in saying that segments of our community could be analyzed distinctly. But unless there was a strong (medical or legal?) reason to do so, I don't think it's worth the trouble. But that's just me. (For example, Faith will get us where we need to be, but there are biblical scholars all the same).

To extend what I think is Dave's point, to try to say what quicksand is, in this context, is to iss the entire point. Something is a turn on, a kind, an interest, a fetish, or something else for an individual. Its not the object that is any of these things - its how it is reacted to by the individual. Quicksand itself is, at best, a phenomenon of nature or perhaps a substance. To use a different object, a shoe is something worn on the foot. A shoe fetish is a response to such an object.

dlodoski wrote:

nachtjaeger wrote:Agreed. That's the way I define it also, except I put "turn on" as the mildest form, then "kink" and then "fetish" at the top. Using fashion boots as an example: If you think a wo(man) wearing fashion boots is sexy (more so than if not wearing them) that's a turn on. If you want your partner to wear fashion boots while you're having sex, that's a kink. If your total sexual interest is in the boots themselves, that's a fetish.

This is very well put, especially if the goal is to distinguish a turn on from a kink from a fetish.

Thank you.

It still leaves a lot of unfinished business regarding quicksand. And I think Fred is correct in saying that segments of our community could be analyzed distinctly. But unless there was a strong (medical or legal?) reason to do so, I don't think it's worth the trouble. But that's just me. (For example, Faith will get us where we need to be, but there are biblical scholars all the same).