Do you think our interest is Misogynistic?

[PM2K]

I think that was the point I was trying to make about the differences in qs material earlier in the thread. I can tell from an MPV, Studio 588, PRP or DIDVP production the subjects are respected and well treated, just from the vibe I get from the videos. Especially in scenes where they are supposed to be having a good time, it doesn't seem like they are acting at all...

Their obvious enjoyment makes viewing more enjoyable for me as well.

[whizbang18]

I've been lately questioning certain aspects of my strange and unusual turn ons in regards to this matter. Now granted, almost all of the content on here and past forums involves women in peril but at the same time, I've sometimes felt uncomfortable with how much it overlaps with potential 'misogyny' especially when it involves the classic 'grim ending', but in real life, I'm a complete supporter of gender equal opportunity and against discrimination, both gender and orientation.

Of course two, as some earlier posts pointed out, our community seems to have felt increasingly painful stings from the PC mindset, both 'feminine' and 'traditional family' camps.

This doesn't just apply to quicksand but also other 'women in peril' fetishes such as bondage, plant vore (I like the softvore type, NOT the hardvore), and other various situations of a lovely woman in a precarious position. A few 'radical feminists' or even conventional 'feminists' have treated sexual matters, even consensual, as being 'anti-woman' or that all men should 'cleanse their souls'. Never mind that some elements of 'neo-feminism' exhibit a misandry (Hatred of all men) that I find equally as repulsive and counterproductive to addressing gender inequality, both in the Western and Eastern hemispheres. Many feminists WERE actually married, many in stable loving marriages and had families AND had children, some multiple. A few of the later generations of the movement gave us some crazier radical elements that likely gave the movement, a bad rap and offended even male supporters who stood alongside them in normal circumstances.

On the other extreme, a few of the more 'religious' types have come down hard on our camp in the sense of many of us being 'Satanic' or exhibiting 'sinfulness' and not acting according to some pseudo-diety's will. I went to a special ed school as a young child and anything that was 'sexual' in nature would get one into really, REALLY, serious trouble and could ruin your week. This same camp's version of PC would likely be not much different than the Taliban or the more ultra-patriarchal leaders of Iran in the sense of forcing women to completely cover themselves and any display of body shape would be offensive to their distorted view of gender roles. A lot of old-time patriarchies especially in the European Middle Ages and nowadays in the Middle East operated this way.

So my take on this is that we must do our very best to separate our bizarre fantasies from reality but also acknowledge that all of us have turn ons that in terms of fantasizing, can go counter to how we strive to be. That's why QS Fans and other forums exists, to channel this other side of ourselves out in a positive manner.

It is here that I sometimes feel that having a 'split personality' can be of use. I could very well watch House M.D. and picture Lisa Cuddy in a tight low-cut shirt, and tight knee-length skirt hogtied, barefoot, toes-tied together, and cleave-gagged, in terms of fantasizing. Or I could be watching 'Castle' and draw Kate Beckett being absorbed by Cell (From Dragon Ball Z) or "That 70's Show" or "Desperate Housewives" and fantasize Laura Prepon or Eva Longoria ending up in a bottomless quicksand pit. Hell, I could even watch "Criminal Minds" and not have an evil grin at the thought of Emily Prentiss being a snack for a giant hungry plant (No chewing involved, just a hungry slimy muscular mouth) Any hot actress could in my bizarre fantasy mind end up plant food, quicksand fodder, or toe-tied. Even female friends who I care for deeply in real life aren't immune to this. HOWEVER, none of these I would wnat to happen to them in real life and real life events that would cause harm or worse would make me ill with anger or grief. I often changed the channel or covered my eyes when scenes of domestic violence on TV Shows or movies play. I could easily even fantasize of female friends in quicksand but in real life terms, if they were hurt or in seriously ill health, I would be beside myself with grief and sadness, and anger too.

Yet, as much as I might be a damsel-in-distress fanatic, I could just as easily be a fan of women in immense positions of power, even versions of TV characters being nearly Stalinist in scale. The extreme dark opposite of 'damsel in distress'. Not necessarily always in a sexual way but I've written AU fictions of CSI characters particularly Stella from CSI:NY being not so much a 'CSI detective' but some vicious American ultra-nationalist leader who I'd describe as a cross between Joan of Arc, and Pol Pot. Not that I sexually fantasize about those kinds of extreme villainesses, the same of 'damsel in distress' but I almost consider this as kind of a counterweight to the 'damsel in distress'. But like I said earlier, I hate violence against women period.

And yes, I've even felt turned on by the tables being turned and where the guy is in peril and either the woman is in control or having to rescue him or have his precarious situation continue.

In the end, I think that there might be some very bad apples among our interest camp though none of them have reared their ugly heads here but even then, I've sometimes sensed increasing amounts of unnecessary hoopla among the so-called 'PC' crowd towards this topic. Not that I expect anything of it but it reminds us to be careful about how deep we get ourselves wound up in this and it is essential, to separate fantasy from reality. That's why QS Fans exist.

I myself consider myself as kind akin to a very large city. The respect for women is like the downtown areas with commercial activity, and beautiful landscapes but the 'women in peril' would be the bad neighborhoods that exist within those borders too. Kind of like if I were Chicago, respect, admiration, and love (In terms of compassion and empathy, and generosity, and treating well) are the downtown areas, the Wrigley Field, the Comiskey Park, and Lakeview, while the turn ons and weird fetishes would be the West Garfield Parks, and/or Englewoods within. The two sides are like fundamentally opposed to each other but are equally a part of who I am.

In the end, I'm at peace with having this, and a few other strange turn ons, and see both genders as complimentary halves of the human race. And yes, there are women out there who are as turned on by 'Dudes-In-Distress' as we are by 'damsels in distress'. God only knows some woman classmate probably draws Ashton Kutcher in quicksand, just like I drew Laura Prepon in quicksand too.

Anyway, I don't see actual misogyny in this topic but more of a way of expressing this strange part of ourselves in a way that conventional means just simply cannot to.

And I totally agree that there is something amiss when a chick in quicksand gets many worked up yet countless scenes of shootings, explosions, and the graphic wounds in movies caused by gunshots, lacerations, and bloodshed are treated with little more than a cross between shrugs and/or slight visceral disgust. Hell, I've seen friends and even family members react with more disgust at the concept of boogers and zit popping than from scenes of someone's head getting blown off by a shotgun or sniper rifle in a movie or TV Show. Now that's screwed up IMO.

Your opinions may vary but this has always left me feeling like walking a thin rope at times. Your opinions may differ from mine but this is where I stand as of this writing.

So in the end, is my love of quicksand fanaticism motivated by mysoginy? Hell no!

Ultimately, the respect for women as equal/complimentary halves of humanity, and the quicksand/softvore/bondage fanaticism, in my view are totally separate parts within me that operate independent of each other.

[rhinodynamo]

For me, it is misogynous AND misandrous .

[Nessie]

For me, it is misogynous AND misandrous .

You're right! It's both! There's proof!

There's more than one kind of fetishist here. Some of us are out in the mudpits, sinking ourselves. Whatever gender we happen to be, male or female -- if we sink our own bodies, that's the gender we're sinking. When doers watch (and it does happen, especially in winter), sometimes we like to see videos of our own gender sinking because the sinker stands in for us. Many heterosexual men fall into this category. They like to watch other men sinking for that reason.

Gay men are present here and they're into men, whether they're doing the quicksand themselves or imagining someone else in it. If we ever get a gay male producer on board, gay men will be here in much greater numbers than they are now.

Therefore, the quicksand fetish itself cannot be anti-woman. The quicksand fetish is not anti-anyone. It's what we do with it that counts. It can be good if we choose to make it so, and it can be bad if we make it so.

Whizbang and I are on the same track about separation of fantasy from reality. Instead of "split personality", though, I call it a healthy realization that some things need to stay separate from others. I too completely separate my fetish, and all thoughts and things associated with it, from the rest of my life.

The fastest way I can think of to prove that this separation must be maintained is to suggest that we all go to work on Monday and treat the attractive sinkable co-workers of the opposite sex not like the strong and capable professionals that they are, but as if they are our fantasy sinking-in-quicksand object of desire.

I'm not a fan of the politically correct thing as it relates to the useless censorship of harmless entertainment. I agree that it's stupid to ban old "Road Runner" cartoons for too much violence and to put down our forum for showing scantily clad girls in quicksand. But since people here are complaining about PC in general like it's just totally wrong, I feel compelled to point out one thing that this movement accomplished -- wonderfully.

It's not okay to put women down at work any more. These days, being a sexist pig on the job will get you fired.

Cheers, confetti, noisemakers, party hats...YAY!

I'm old enough to remember when things were different!

Nessie

[kwiksand1]

For me personally, I certainly do not think it is misogynistic at all!

I like to do the sinking (and yes, in these winter months, I like to watch both men and women sinking). However, my quicksand fantasies don't revolve around scantily clad ladies sinking helplessly in quicksand. Rather, my fantasies involve me sinking into deep quicksand with no solid ground nearby... I am the one hopelessly and helplessly stuck in quicksand. Where my lady comes in is that she is the one who has to rescue me.

She can't quite reach me by extending her arm for me to grab hold of her hand... So she extends her legs as she plants her rump firmly on the solid ground at the edge of the sucking mire...

Her heavenly, bare feet are now stretched out and in front of my face as I am sinking in the quicksand. She commands me to worship her sweaty feet, and worship them properly, if there is any chance that she will pull me out. I have to prove that I am a good slave to her feet in order to be worthy of rescue.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fantasy here for me if both the quicksand and her divine feet! She is in control - and I am loving every minute of that! I know that I am in the minority of my fellow male quicksand fans in that I want to give up control in my quicksand fantasies, but for me, that is where the sexual part comes into play.

[General Woundwort]

No.

The barrier between the fantasy realm and real life is, speaking for myself (the only one I can speak for), impenetrable. If I watch a dramatic scene I enjoy it for the fantasy; if I encounter a real-life woman drowning, I will rescue her if at all possible, and the fantasy will never enter my mind. That's why I lose no sleep or inner peace over the fantasy, nor do I think any less of women because of it.

[PM2K]

No.

The barrier between the fantasy realm and real life is, speaking for myself (the only one I can speak for), impenetrable. If I watch a dramatic scene I enjoy it for the fantasy; if I encounter a real-life woman drowning, I will rescue her if at all possible, and the fantasy will never enter my mind. That's why I lose no sleep or inner peace over the fantasy, nor do I think any less of women because of it.

I always love the way you sum up the core issue of this discussion in one elegant slice of prose.

[jack c]

I like the jungle rescue scenes best - female self-rescue scenes rock (Xena), so I think it is pretty benign. Look at the violence in Saving Private Ryan, or Band of Brothers - it is part of the story - I don't think people just want to see other people blown to bits. If there is an occasional submersion, it is part of the story.

[voidexistensia]

You bet it's misogynistic! Also it's sadistic/masochistic trauma worship you name it! I'm sorry I'm just adding a bit of reality here. Trying to deny that sinking fantasies are connected directly to our base instincts is purest bullshit. Most people can't deal with the harshness of there reality,hence the creation of fantasies to give our selves a euphoric mental vacation. And I'm the biggest fantasy lover so I'm included in this denial fest we humans create for ourselves. In fact it's the depth of irony that our interest is called a community. Death comes to all. Hopefully painlessly and without complication. Enjoying sexual sensations thinking of death pretty much puts us all in the mental delinquent category. A pretty exciting and fun delinquency though.

[Fred588]

This is an old thread but I will reply since its been revived. First, I think to equate n interest (quicksand) with a prejudice (misogyny) makes little sense. If one watches and enjoys a, say, disaster movie does not equate with liking disasters. Yes, I know that liking disasters is not a prejudice but I think my point holds just the same.

I am sure that some percentage of people who are part of the quicksand community, and I believe a very small percentage, are misogynistic but the overwhelming majority are not. I have met dozens of people from this community and have yet to hear anyone express such ideas (well one on occasion).

I believe it is a fantasy and that's all it is. Perhaps its sorta like a Roarchach ink blot test. One sees, in the ink blot, what is really in his or her own subconscious.