So I discovered my SO has been masturbating to videos of women swallowing live fish.... (self.sex)

sex

459 ups - 168 downs = 291 votes

I (23f) was aware that he(25) has a giantess and vore fetish. I thought this was extremely strange, I don't get it, but whatever it's not hurting anyone.

I talk to him about it, find aspects he enjoys, and make sexy times involving some of those aspects.

Well now I know the one aspect he never intended me to find out, that he masturbates to women swallowing fish alive.

This is a natural repulsion to me. I can't help it, but it makes me want to vomit.

I don't know if this is a deal breaker for me, and I'm having a really hard time trying to understand, and get past it. I'm not even sure if I should get past it. Any thoughts whatsoever, on previous experience, advice, anything. I'll take it.

edit: I realize this post might seem like I'm trolling, I'm really not. I am currently full of anxiety and desperately wanting to talk to someone about this, but due to the nature of things, I can't.

edit: to clarify, I am a vegan, and my boyfriend is a vegetarian. I am having trouble coming to terms with this because my mind processes videos where real fish actually die as harming something. I am totally okay with everything as long as it is consensual and isn't harming anyone. If it had been a video of a fake fish, I would have no problem.

edit: I have talked to my SO about this once already, and briefly another time, he is aware that I posted on here and has read through many of the comments already. We have a very open relationship and communicate really well.

390 comments submitted at 15:47:09 on Mar 17, 2013 by supersecretthroaway

  • [-]
  • Kharn0
  • 67 Points
  • 18:38:37, 17 March

As someone who is aroused by vore, its really hard to explain what exactly arouses us about it. Sure, imagining being plastic army men size and crawling all over a womans' clevage and such can be easily explained, but being/watching something get swallowed alive?(real or not)

Its partially a power thing(your either predator or prey), but it could also be that which we fear most, arouses us(for me anyway, I mean, c'mon, imagine being swallowed alive be something and knowing thats how you die? terrifying)

Some just think its hot to be inside another person, whether its vore, vaginal or anal. There really is nothing more intimate than literally being in another person.

Anyhow, my advice is to talk to him and get him to stop watching something that involves real animals, since your love of animals is why its upsetting you, theres' plenty of other erotic things on the internet.

Oh, and for the record, I've been with my SO for 2 years and haven't even come close to telling her(or anyone else) about my fetish, for fear of being seen as a freak and weirding her out/disgusting her, so even though its weird, remeber how much this means his trusts/comunicates with you, to share this side of him that he is no doubt ashamed of

  • [-]
  • supersecretthroaway
  • 28 Points
  • 18:55:53, 17 March

Thank you! If you don't mind I would like to hear more from your perspective. He says that it is almost a compulsive behavior to watch those videos. Is this something you can relate to? Or explain to me?

Also I am totally okay with the over all fetish, and I do enjoy incorporating what I can during our sex. I don't want him to feel bad, or ashamed, and I don't think he has any reason to.

The part I don't like is that for me, those videos are not a consensual act that ends up ending the life of something in reality.

The fantasy of it, I don't care, doesn't bother me a bit, and is nothing to be ashamed of.

He shared the vore and giantess fetish with me. I am extremely happy about that but the fish videos I actually stumbled upon and he is extremely ashamed so I tried to talk to him about it without making him feel bad, but also expressing how I thought those particular videos are not an okay outlet for his fetish.

He claims he will stop, and that he wants to, but I'm not sure he can if it is a compulsive behavior.

  • [-]
  • lmhoward726
  • 2 Points
  • 21:07:44, 17 March

Do you think fish can consent to anything?

Edit - I mean this seriously - what does a fish do to signal consent? Nothing.

  • [-]
  • bahlgan
  • 13 Points
  • 22:52:12, 17 March

That's the problem, that they can't consent. Not that they can consent and are not.

  • [-]
  • supersecretthroaway
  • 7 Points
  • 23:30:47, 17 March

This sounds like how I view it. A fish can't consent, so it makes it none consensual act. I have problem overcoming this morally because of it.

  • [-]
  • mandrewradams
  • 1 Points
  • 02:31:09, 18 March

Why is that a problem? She's just eating very fresh sushi. Do fish consent to being eaten as sushi? I don't understand why you are feeling the need to get him to change something that he does in private. If he watched it before and your relationship is fine. Then, clearly, it's okay.

  • [-]
  • supersecretthroaway
  • -1 Points
  • 02:52:24, 18 March

I don't want to change him, if he wants to do this that is fine. I just don't want to be with the sort of person who is okay with animal cruelty because I feel very strongly about that personal moral of mine.

My problem is I love him, so I am unsure if my love for him is more than my hatred of animal cruelty. I thought understanding it and perhaps getting different perspectives would help me to figure it out.

  • [-]
  • mandrewradams
  • 1 Points
  • 03:18:27, 18 March

It seems like a conflict that he's a vegetarian. But, he's not eating the fish. So, he doesn't care if other people eat meat. The only thing I can think of that's getting him off is the thought of it wiggling (read: dying) inside her stomach. It's weird. But, it's not my position to judge.

  • [-]
  • supersecretthroaway
  • 0 Points
  • 03:34:29, 18 March

And I don't think it's really my position to judge, but we all have those things of "I couldn't be with a person who..." And for me I don't know if I can be with a person who is okay with that sort of animal cruelty. If this is something he needs, I'd prefer for us to have a mutual break up so we can both find people who are a better fit for us. He claims he doesn't like the videos either but I don't know if he is being honest or not.

  • [-]
  • Manny_Kant
  • -1 Points
  • 23:41:30, 17 March

To which moral paradigm do you subscribe? Do you think fish are conscious, moral agents?

  • [-]
  • supersecretthroaway
  • 1 Points
  • 03:10:39, 18 March

Just a little bit of how my personal morality is set up, is everything is okay as long as it doesn't hurt anything or anyone else. There are obviously different degrees of this depending upon something capacity to suffer. I recognize that fish have a lower capacity to suffer than people, or mammals in general. Science has shown though that fish do have a capacity to suffer, so to cause suffering to something is morally wrong to me. There are also different degrees to this depending upon the situation that you are causing the harm, the more frivolous the need, the more morally wrong. So for me, eating a fish in a survival situation is not wrong, eating a fish for sexual gratification would be morally wrong. It goes a lot more in depth but that's just a quick view on how I personally judge my morals. I know that it is different for everyone, and not trying to push my system, just explain what it is.

  • [-]
  • Manny_Kant
  • 4 Points
  • 04:28:38, 18 March

>is everything is okay as long as it doesn't hurt anything or anyone else.

Why? Why does the absence of suffering make something okay? And why is pain inherently immoral? If I go for a run and I'm suffering through it, am I doing something immoral? What if I step on a bug while I'm running?

>Science has shown though that fish do have a capacity to suffer

Well I didn't know science had shown it! Could you show me where "science" determined that fish suffer?

>morally wrong to me

This isn't how morality works. Morality is, by definition, universal.

>the more frivolous the need, the more morally wrong.

Why?

>It goes a lot more in depth

I don't believe you.

>how I personally judge my morals

So much hedging.

>I know that it is different for everyone, and not trying to push my system, just explain what it is.

You don't have a "system" - you have a set of half-baked rationalizations for a gut-reaction to eating a chicken nugget when you were six.

  • [-]
  • bahlgan
  • 0 Points
  • 23:50:33, 17 March

Moral paradigms are hard to pin down. I'm sure she can tell you about her specific beliefs, but after hearing your question I can't imagine labeling my beliefs into a neat little box.

  • [-]
  • Manny_Kant
  • 1 Points
  • 00:06:45, 18 March

They aren't hard to pin down... at all. In fact, it's fairly easy if your thoughts are formally developed.

The problem is not that morality is "hard to pin down" - the problem is that no one in this thread has any idea what morality is, ontologically or epistemically.

  • [-]
  • smellyhippy
  • 1 Points
  • 02:02:31, 18 March

We can't really communicate with fish, so we don't know whether they are capable of understanding the situation enough to consent, and we definitely can't explain that they're going to be eaten and ask for their consent.

Maybe if it was an animal we could communicate with easily, like a great ape or a dolphin, it'd be possible for them to be eaten consensually... but it's really hard to swallow a whole dolphin.

  • [-]
  • Manny_Kant
  • -1 Points
  • 02:23:21, 18 March

>so we don't know whether they are capable of understanding the situation enough to consent

You're very clearly anthropomorphizing. Why would you even assume that they are capable of any type of cognition, much less intentionality?

>Maybe if it was an animal we could communicate with easily, like a great ape or a dolphin

Can you ask a dolphin for consent (or like, anything)? I can't.

  • [-]
  • Manny_Kant
  • 1 Points
  • 23:38:51, 17 March

Why is that a problem?

  • [-]
  • bahlgan
  • 8 Points
  • 23:56:32, 17 March

Most people are okay with eating animals. An animal dies in the process, but humans need to eat, and have a wide variety of dietary needs. It's not perfect by any means, but there generally aren't any moral qualms with killing an animal for the sake of eating them. In fact, people work towards making such animals lives and death as comfortable as possible.

People also generally have no qualms with human sexuality, with the extra "rule" that it is between two consenting adults.

The problem is here is that this act promotes the (quite painful)death of an animal to satisfy human sexuality, while the human can(in theory) go get their kicks somewhere else, so as to not cause animals suffering and death.

  • [-]
  • Manny_Kant
  • -3 Points
  • 00:04:39, 18 March

>(quite painful)death

>animals suffering

Oh, really? Can you explain to me how the nervous system of a fish is capable of suffering? Given that suffering is an emotional state, and fish are not even debatably neurologically sophisticated enough to have something resembling a theory of mind, I think it's a pretty safe guess that these fish aren't suffering.

Any other reasoning you'd like to proffer?

  • [-]
  • bahlgan
  • 6 Points
  • 00:09:52, 18 March

Oh, so you're uninformed.

It has been scientifically proven that animals can suffer. Source: my college biology, ethics, psychology, and philosophy classes. It is not an emotional state, and does not require sentience.

Animals have pain receptors, and do not want pain. They will flee from pain. It is very clear visually, chemically, and neurologically when animals are in pain. To cause them pain unnecessarily is to cause them to suffer. Do you have any reason outlining why it should be permissible or commended to do this to an animal?

Edit: actually, fuck my education, education is biased. Read up on how to qualitatively define suffering from here.

  • [-]
  • Manny_Kant
  • -4 Points
  • 00:39:06, 18 March

>Oh, so you're uninformed.

Lol.

>It has been scientifically proven that animals can suffer. Source: my college biology, ethics, psychology, and philosophy classes. It is not an emotional state

Can't argue with that! (Though I'd love to know how someone has scientifically proven (always love the juxtaposition of these two words!) that fish suffer.)

Ironically, though, your edited link can:

>The word suffering is sometimes used in the narrow sense of physical pain, but more often it refers to mental or emotional pain

>"pain is physical, suffering is mental"

Suffering is not a synonym for pain. If it is, then sure, they experience suffering. If suffering has meaning beyond pain (and any utility as a word), then it does involve affective states, and is very much an emotional state. You're free to make an argument to the contrary, but telling me you learned it in school is not an argument.

>does not require sentience

Sentience is the ability to perceive or feel things... so how exactly does it not require sentience? If you meant consciousness, just say that.

>Animals have pain receptors, and do not want pain.

That level of "suffering" can happen within the vertebrae, and is biologically indistinguishable from any other reflexive or motivational behavior. If you boil things down to "fish are capable of responding to stimuli" you've just argued that all life (including plants and bacteria) is worthy of similar moral consideration. A fish experiencing nociception and responding is functionally equivalent to a plant growing toward a source of light. What distinguishes simple pain from suffering is the involvement of a conscious mind.

>To cause them pain unnecessarily is to cause them to suffer.

Luls. What does the pain being unnecessary have to do with it becoming suffering? Do you think the fish thinks, "This didn't need to happen!"?

>Do you have any reason outlining why it should be permissible or commended to do this to an animal?

It's pretty simple, actually. Animals are not conscious, they have no theory of mind, they do not experience an intentional relationship with reality, nor do they utilize reason. There's no reason to believe that non-human animals, generally, have anything other than instrumental value. They are certainly not moral agents (given a system of agents exists - though without agents, morality is moot).

Even a consequentialist would have to concede that this guy is likely experiencing more pleasure from watching this fish get swallowed than the fish is experiencing pain. There really isn't a single moral theory under which this argument holds any water. Seeing as you're college educated(!), in philosophy and biology, no less, how about you describe or name a system where swallowing a fish is wrong?

  • [-]
  • smellyhippy
  • 5 Points
  • 02:07:18, 18 March

Teleosts are probably capable of suffering. I think it's likely that other actinopterygians have similar capabilities.

Fish don't mind cold, but hate acid and heat: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000689930701582X Fish probably feel fear, stress and pain in a similar way to tetrapods: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168159104000498 Teleosts (bony fish) respond to nociceptor (pain reception) stimuli: http://www.frontiersin.org/publications/17578252

  • [-]
  • bahlgan
  • 3 Points
  • 01:34:13, 18 March

As someone equally at least equally as educated, I'm sure you understand that any classification or "moral theory" is only an ideal, and discussed within the realm of academic discourse. I can tell you there is no theory that satisfies my beliefs enough for me to label myself with it.

You actually disproved yourself, specifically you quote the part that says that there are many ideas that are considered "suffering", but you argue that what happens to fish doesn't fall under your definition. Well, by that admission, fish do suffer through the broader definition, and thus your earlier comment was wrong.

Instead, let me give you a relevant read from Wikipedia, tackling the exact questions you pose, and explains why some of your beliefs are erroneous.

Link

  • [-]
  • happyplains
  • 1 Points
  • 01:46:41, 18 March

>There really isn't a single moral theory under which this argument holds any water.

Umm...have you ever read anything by Peter Singer?

  • [-]
  • lmhoward726
  • 1 Points
  • 00:19:53, 18 March

>[Suffering] does not require sentience.

What??

  • [-]
  • bahlgan
  • 0 Points
  • 00:39:17, 18 March

According to Wikipedias definition