|
You realize that stories are designed to be entertaining for people watching them, not the people in them, right? They introduce conflicts because conflicts speak to troubles in the viewer's own lives. R&J especially has the conflict represent not just 'forbidden love' but the conflict between social responsibility and individual desire, the sort of conflict people have to deal with everyday. That song 'let it go' from frozen deals with accepting that you may never live up to the expectations of others (and that's okay), which is why it's really loving popular. That doesn't mean that love has to be forbidden to be erotic, or that it can only obtain that forbidden nature through transgression of moral laws, or that erecting arbitrary taboos for the purpose of eroticization is a good idea. You don't have to live some dumb fairy-tale about the symbolic conflict between X and Y to actually live a happy life, and the conflict in people's lives does not necessarily have to be between good and evil. That you honestly believe that happiness = evil and shame = good is....it's hosed up. It's totally hosed up. No wonder you seem to want to people to live in theocratic hellholes, seeing as how you hate humanity that much. So yeah, no poo poo humanity is incrementally moving away from your depressing and lifeless philosophy, because you have nothing to offer them. That it ever existed in the first place is the real tragedy. Maybe when you wake up from this dumb melancholy you can actually enjoy yourself. Alternatively, keep pointlessly fighting it, then end up committing suicide when it's too much to bear. Your choice.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
rudatron posted:You don't have to live some dumb fairy-tale about the symbolic conflict between X and Y to actually live a happy life, and the conflict in people's lives does not necessarily have to be between good and evil. That you honestly believe that happiness = evil and shame = good is....it's hosed up. It's totally hosed up. No wonder you seem to want to people to live in theocratic hellholes, seeing as how you hate humanity that much. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xm1JuYGNalQ
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 10:31
|
|
rudatron posted:You realize that stories are designed to be entertaining for people watching them, not the people in them, right? They introduce conflicts because conflicts speak to troubles in the viewer's own lives. R&J especially has the conflict represent not just 'forbidden love' but the conflict between social responsibility and individual desire, the sort of conflict people have to deal with everyday. That song 'let it go' from frozen deals with accepting that you may never live up to the expectations of others (and that's okay), which is why it's really loving popular. That doesn't mean that love has to be forbidden to be erotic, or that it can only obtain that forbidden nature through transgression of moral laws, or that erecting arbitrary taboos for the purpose of eroticization is a good idea. To be fair, I have heard Kyrie's complaints before. The sort of members of parliament who used to used to fellate guardsmen in public toilets before turning up to debate the legalisation of sodomy in the house often complained about the fun being taken out of it - but they're from a privileged class that had been able to get away with almost open homosexual behaviour for a long time without much fear of reprisal.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 12:10
|
|
|
Eh, then it's debatable whether or not it's the transgression, or the fact that you are special enough to get away with it where others can't. Either way it's a real stretch to then claim that 'real' sexuality cannot exist without that dynamic. Also, while you're here, I'd like your input on something: define totalitarianism. I don't mean strictly in terms of policies or structure of a state, but whether modes of thought are totalitarian, and what characterizes them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 12:58
|
|
rudatron posted:Also, while you're here, I'd like your input on something: define totalitarianism. I don't mean strictly in terms of policies or structure of a state, but whether modes of thought are totalitarian, and what characterizes them. I personally am of the school of thought that theories of totalitarianism have not been a very successful tool in analysing authoritarian state structures etc. As you say, totalitarian modes of thought is a slightly different proposition. I would still, I think, say that I don't like it, because the taxonomy serves to lump very different things together: Marxism-Leninism or Stalinism, say, with Nazism or Italian fascism. I would want to differentiate between theory as an abstract and the way theory functions in the world as a praxis. Having said all that, I think one can kind of take the Umberto Eco Ur-Fascism methodology and say something about the strong-authoritarianisms that have existed: (1) Usually absolutist in every sense, in that (a) Believes in some form of absolute monarchy (b) Believes in absolute truth (c) Demands the world cohere to the structure of this absolute truth. (2) Correspondingly, believes that open historical questions have final and definitive solutions, and that it is possible to bring them about. One can immanetize the eschaton. (3) Again, correspondingly, the belief that human life is subordinate to these considerations. Usually accompanied by the demand for absolute loyalty until death, and the belief that the subordinate should rather die than be disloyal. In this sense, particularly in fascism, it is a militarisation of society. (4) Cults of personality and the iconography of that will usually be present. (5) The cult of personality will be wrapped in the aesthetic of the individual absolute monarch or oligarchy, who claim to be balancing the forces of history or to have divine knowledge or inspiration. To legitimise absolute authority, someone will have to make such a claim. (6) The concept of private life as such will be abolished. All areas of life are fit for regulation. May even accept the feminist premise that family life is political, but probably reject the feminist thesis. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Jun 6, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 13:41
|
|
|
What do you mean by absolute truth (what does 'absolute' signify here)? Also your last three points are descriptive, what I'm after are assumptions or certain thought-forms. What are the assumptions underlying the abolition of private life? What function does the cult of personality play, in your opinion? What I'm trying to corner here is the psychology. I have ideas, but I need another perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 14:55
|
|
rudatron posted:What do you mean by absolute truth (what does 'absolute' signify here)? Also your last three points are descriptive, what I'm after are assumptions or certain thought-forms. What are the assumptions underlying the abolition of private life? What function does the cult of personality play, in your opinion? What I'm trying to corner here is the psychology. I have ideas, but I need another perspective. I'm no psychoanalyst, of course. By absolute, I mean almost the full gammut of possible meanings of the term. To reference wikipedia: quote:The term absolutism may refer to: I think mean in all of these senses a totalitarianism tends to be absolutist in its thinking. But not always. The radical left has not always been as bound up by this stuff - as I said, I don't like the concept of totalitarianism. Cult of personality is a practical necessity of a totalitarianism headed by a single individual who claims to understand special truths or to be able to balance great historical forces. It can arise whether or not the leader wants it to - Lenin was not a tremendous fan of his own cult of personality. But if you exercise such absolute power, and claim such transformative knowledge about the world, people will begin to consider you as a quasi-religious figure. People will refuse to accept the idea that such a person came from anything but extraordinary origins - either the leader, as with Hitler, will invent an improbable origin story for himself (in Mein Kampf Hitler claims to be constantly ouwitting his schoolmasters etc.), or it will be invented for them: after Lenin died an enormous quantity of propaganda about Lenin was taught to children about his extraordinary precociousness and moral heroism, a lot of which was invented or embellished. In both cases though, the leader did overcome real adversity - Lenin's family was somewhat ruined by Tsarist persecution, whereas Hitler had a distinguished and difficult wartime record. I think the thought pattern of mytholigising these figures is a necessity that arises out of how enormous they make themselves by pure virtue of their power, ideology and the propaganda that surrounds them. People will turn them in to mythological heroes because it is very difficult to conceptualise a person who wields such enormous arbitrary power over your life as just being another average person. And with fascists, especially, the fascists really do believe their own press: they aestheticise all of politics as a creative act of will. It also works like monarchy - although the servants of Stalin are killing you, you can cling to the hope that Stalin knows nothing of these injustices carried out in his name, and if only you could tell him he would fix it: monarchs tend to become personifications of justice and virtue upon whom one throws ones hopes. This happened even in colonies in early colonialism, where Brazilian natives would petition the king of Portugal to remedy the injustices carried out in his name, and so on. One can see there also how it personalises an enormous government apparatus of control that is otherwise very inhuman and difficult to relate to, and gives people some kind of narrative to explain the seemingly arbitrary experience they have: usually, power is exercised pretty arbitrarily in totalitarian regimes, and one is almost like a pre-scientific person wondering whether ones sins cause lightning strikes and volcanoes etc, because the regime never has to tell you why it's doing what it's doing to you. To ask is a sin in itself - as is to fear a punishment, since that is a sign of guilt. Why regulate the family etc? Well partly because you believe in absolutes of a kind. But this is a complex area between the totalitarians and I don't think there is an easy one-size fits all answer. The situation of women markedly improved under Soviet Communism, for example. But where communism is very cruel is in exactly the elevation of its emancipatory concept to a total absolute idea. It regards all people who refuse to participate in the specific mode of emancipation as being traitors to the emancipation in general. This is more obviously the case with Jews: although Lenin and Trotsky both derided anti-semitism as a counter-revolutionary concept and something associated with Tsarism, and though Trotsky himself was a Jew, both were tremendously cruel to Jews in their own way. Both men believed that Judaism was not really an acceptable category of identity - it was a false, religious identity, and must be abandoned in favour of class identity. Pure eastern European Jews who wished to remain culturally and religiously Jewish, instead of becoming secular communist Jews, were really thrown under the bus pretty badly. Stalin then accelerated this in to full-blown anti-semitism and was preparing a holocaust of his own before he died: he, like the Nazis, regarded the Jews as eternal agitators, inconsistent with the revolution. Fascism on the other hand will try to reinforce traditional 'organic' concepts of truth on every area of life. Both will subvert science to the ruling ideology. I'm sorry I can't be of more help. I'm writing about fascism at the moment elsewhere on the forum, but I must confess I hadn't thought much about the psychology of fascism before. I would suggest the best place for you to go for this kind of analysis is, today, Zizek, but probably more influentially you should look to someone like Adorno and The Authoritarian Personality. There, of course, is a Freudian analysis, so many people have had grounds to dispute it, but he also did some sociological work on the subject. The amount of paper that book has created is astonishing. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Honestly, there's not much fear of the shame being taken out of it. Being sexually submissive is always by its very nature going to be shameful. A submissive person learns to eroticize being shamed; a dominant person learns to eroticize inflicting shame (but actually with a certain post-coital tenderness); and anyone who wishes not to participate becomes asexual. If the government tried super hard to make a campaign of saying "you can't consider sexual submission shameful" and started silencing people who made jokes about it and throwing them in prison or whatever, it wouldn't actually take the shame out of it, it would just put a lot of innocent people in prison.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
BDSM, the only true form of sex. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
This was in the news today and seemed relevant to the thread. Arousal is a very complex thing, and I don't think a pill is going to solve many problems. In 'The Pervert's Guide to Cinema' Zizek goes off on a tangent about how women should have fantasies that men must always struggle to keep up with (and modern consumerism has produced shallow, universal fantasies eclipsing personal, intimate ones) Mc Do Well fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Honestly, there's not much fear of the shame being taken out of it. Being sexually submissive is always by its very nature going to be shameful. A submissive person learns to eroticize being shamed; a dominant person learns to eroticize inflicting shame (but actually with a certain post-coital tenderness); and anyone who wishes not to participate becomes asexual. I thought you wanted a submissive wife?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Honestly, there's not much fear of the shame being taken out of it. Being sexually submissive is always by its very nature going to be shameful. A submissive person learns to eroticize being shamed; a dominant person learns to eroticize inflicting shame (but actually with a certain post-coital tenderness); and anyone who wishes not to participate becomes asexual. You don't have to be dom or sub to have sex you know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
McDowell posted:This was in the news today and seemed relevant to the thread. Like most psychological pharmaceuticals it's probably a big fat placebo, but the woman allows herself to act sexy when she's on it instead of having to uphold her Dignity or whatever. Women today have been taught to shun their natural receptive sexuality as against women's liberation (how ironic). SedanChair posted:I thought you wanted a submissive wife? How is that in conflict with what I said? OwlFancier posted:You don't have to be dom or sub to have sex you know. Yeah I guess technically all you need is a mechanical operation, I'm talking about the nature of eroticism though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
You don't need it for that either, it's quite possible to be attracted to things other than the opportunity to degrade or be degraded. I mean I can't speak for you but I can definitely say that I don't find degradation sexy at all. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:How is that in conflict with what I said? Not at all, it's just rather upfront that you want a wife rolling in shame.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
I thought you hated eroticism kyrie, so why would you want a submissive waifu from your animes
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
It must be frustrating for you, Kyrie, knowing that the best you'd ever be able to get out of a partner wouldn't be shame but pity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
If man is in the image of God, then he has a nose. And is everywhere. So earlier God was smelling the horrendous sphincter tearing poo poo that I took, it had me in tears myself. But thankfully my olfactory senses are limited so I could only inhale a small amount of the deadly gas that had me half wretching. But God smelled every nano-particle of it, in full techno-color, every miniscule poo poo piece floating in the bathroom convection current, every molecule of bean fart filled air. God smelled my farts, he huffs that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
Yeah kyrie, it's women's liberation that's shaming women for their sexuality, not the guy who thinks shame is a necessary component of eroticism. Thanks for the response, link your other fascism stuff when you're done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Natural Receptive Sexuality would be a good username, imo
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:I thought you hated eroticism kyrie, so why would you want a submissive waifu from your animes i don't hate it, it's just sinful, that's all. I'm uncontrollably drawn to it. happyhippy posted:If man is in the image of God, then he has a nose. Haha yeah. He'll also kill you though Who What Now posted:It must be frustrating for you, Kyrie, knowing that the best you'd ever be able to get out of a partner wouldn't be shame but pity. Why do you underestimate me? Bringing a woman to shame is just opening her to her true self. A man's sensual duty is to help a woman to be a woman. As a famous singer says, "You make me feel like a natural woman"
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
The whole "tee hee I'm a sicko" thing is getting played out.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
drat if that ain't some creepy, rapist poo poo.Series DD Funding posted:Natural Receptive Sexuality would be a good username, imo
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 10:43
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:i don't hate it, it's just sinful, that's all. I'm uncontrollably drawn to it. I think I'm starting to understand. "Sinfulness" is a property of that which we are drawn to which is good in and of itself. "Godliness" is a property of that which we can only be manipulated into seeking through applied compulsion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 11:36
|
|
|
Op I need your opinion on something (maybe  ):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsvfofcIE1Q
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
Series DD Funding posted:Op I need your opinion on something (maybe His hair is stupid, he sings all gay and looks like a dork. SedanChair posted:The whole "tee hee I'm a sicko" thing is getting played out. rudatron posted:drat if that ain't some creepy, rapist poo poo. Here's that anti-sex, un-erotic prudishness I was referring to. quote:I'm just curious as to what makes an Artificial Receptive Sexuality. When a man is conditioned to be receptive, obviously...
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:His hair is stupid, he sings all gay and looks like a dork. Don't 80sshame
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
"You don't rape women? Whatever, Puritan prude!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 19:17
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Here's that anti-sex, un-erotic prudishness I was referring to. gently caress you. If only you could find a woman to consent to being degraded. But women (and men) who crave sexual degradation usually want some sense of stylishness to accompany it, which a room decorated with Madoka body pillows would be unlikely to provide a setting for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:gently caress you. If only you could find a woman to consent to being degraded. But women (and men) who crave sexual degradation usually want some sense of stylishness to accompany it, which a room decorated with Madoka body pillows would be unlikely to provide a setting for. Sounds pretty stylish to me, op.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Hey guys, remember 50 Shades of Grey? Very popular.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Hey guys, remember 50 Shades of Grey? Very popular. Hi I'm a stupid dumbshit liberal itt and I think that the commodification of sexuality is good because conservative America opposes it. I eat poo poo and drink piss for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Hey guys, remember 50 Shades of Grey? Very popular. One of these days you need to post your liveblog of The Passion of the Christ...
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 21:05
|
|
rudatron posted:Yeah kyrie, it's women's liberation that's shaming women for their sexuality, not the guy who thinks shame is a necessary component of eroticism. https://abriefhistoryoffascism.wordpress.com/ It's a bit disordered since it started as posts in the milhist thread but it's coming together slowly.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Hi I'm a stupid dumbshit liberal itt and I think that the commodification of sexuality is good because conservative America opposes it. I eat poo poo and drink piss for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Nobody liberal spoke out against 50 Shades
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Nobody liberal spoke out against 50 Shades No, it just sucked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Nobody liberal spoke out against 50 Shades They did because they didn't like the way BDSM was portrayed, not because it was commodified sexuality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
I don't think Jesus Christ matters too much. He's dead and gone, if he ever existed at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Men have a prostate, by your logic they are receptive. Emotionally abusing women no more opens them up to their 'true self' then me cutting off your dick does.Miltank posted:Hi I'm a stupid dumbshit liberal itt and I think that the commodification of sexuality is good because conservative America opposes it. I eat poo poo and drink piss for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:10 |
|
|
Conservative Christianity uses different rhetoric but makes the same point. Sex is understood to be a intimate and spiritual act and its commodification is at least as sinful as abusing sex in other more traditional ways like hedonism and adultery. I did a google search and quickly found some articles, and the first one on the page included the word 'commodity.' http://www.globalchristians.org/articles/sexinads.htm http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/december-web-only/fifty-shades-of-sexuality.html The major evangelical magazine Christianity Today did a piece on Fifty Shades of Grey which included this little beauty of quote. Christianity Today posted:To find sexual arousal through the domination of women, regardless of who you are, is incredibly unhealthy," said Mimi Haddad, president of Christians for Biblical Equality, an organization that supports equal gender roles. Christianity Today posted:She suggests a biblical alternative: the eroticism in the Song of Solomon, which tells of a woman "continually taking initiative" in a sexual relationship with a shepherd.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 05:45
|
|