Porn

Post questions or suggestions here.
kjones
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Australia

Porn

Post by kjones » Sat Feb 25, 2006 4:36 pm

DHodges wrote:Come on! This is the brothel. A thread about movies, and no one's mentioned any porn. What's with that?

I can't really afford to get movies, and was thinking of checking websites. Any you'd recommend, Dave - and why would you recommend them?

I'm not particularly interested in the following sort of website, as my aim is to figure out sexual desire, as the plain old biological characteristic of humankind:
There were a few directors who used the porn movie as a vehicle for serious artistic expression - those who had some truly bizarre ideas that could not be expressed in a more conventional movie without serious compromise. Or something. Anyway, some pretty strange movies.

kjones
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:23 pm
Location: Australia

Post by kjones » Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:23 pm

No, I am very well-equipped to create any kind of sexual fantasy. It is therefore unnecessary to go looking in a website. But how interesting that I don't want to look at any websites.

I relate this stress reaction to several things:

- primarily to the biological preparation, of having to expend so much more energy, in going through any experiences of sexual arousal. For instance, running/chasing, keeping a close eye on the subtle signs of the prey/predator, and trying to control the situation as logically as possible while under huge emotional strain.

- and partly from attachment to a self-image, and all its associated attachments: celibacy, purity, clarity of mind, power, freedom from suffering, happiness, tranquillity, health, and --- in a very small degree! -- emptiness.

I think this imaginative investigation is far more deepening than any voyeuristic experience. But how much more challenging to keep going at the investigation, while engaged in voyeurism.

My aim is to build up such strong experiences of emptiness, that, late at night in dreams, my mind will reflect these experiences. And then, on awaking in the morning, there will be more reflection, immediately breaking the hold of any animalistic resistance. And again, and again!

This is what Kierkegaard was on about with the Religious Divertissement, his outing to the Deer Park. He occasionally went for a trip into a druggy mentality, with the aim of celebrating emptiness there. This was equivalent to fishing for monsters in his soul, only the monsters were "happiness", "glee", "bliss", "tranquillity", "excitement", "pleasure", etc.


-


Hi, jouster at unconsciousness! Drive the lance deeply, all the way to the other side!

User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Re: Porn

Post by DHodges » Tue Feb 28, 2006 12:27 am

I can't really afford to get movies, and was thinking of checking websites. Any you'd recommend, Dave - and why would you recommend them?
I don't actually visit any porn websites, so I can't help you there.
I'm not particularly interested in the following sort of website, as my aim is to figure out sexual desire, as the plain old biological characteristic of humankind:
Regular, plain vanilla human sexuality is of not much interest to me; it's the same in humans as it is in chickens.

I'm more interested in the extremes, the unusual fetishes and perversions. Anything can be found on the web, including lawn chair porn, lego porn, and so on, so that it can be hard to tell if something is really a fetish or someone joking around.

This might be an interesting place to look:
http://memepool.com/Subject/Sex/


Actually, I think that if you understand the extremes, you will necessarily understand the middle as well.

Hi, jouster at unconsciousness! Drive the lance deeply, all the way to the other side!
Nice one.

propellerbeanie
Posts: 154
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:06 am

Post by propellerbeanie » Thu Mar 02, 2006 11:42 am

I don't do porn. I think sex without love is violence, and I cannot reconcile the fact that what I do as no shit serious business everybody looks like monkeys doing. I'd burst out laughing if not for the fear I might look like that if anyone cared to look. Welcome to the monkey house. Ooo ooo aah aah aah ahh!

User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Porn and non-porn

Post by DHodges » Tue Mar 28, 2006 2:54 am

propellerbeanie wrote:I don't do porn.
I meant to come back to this topic, and never got around to it.

The point I wanted to get at was, that there isn't really any distinction between porn and "regular" entertainment. It's all meant to stimulate in some way.

There are action/adventure movies that are meant to stimulate viscerally through adrenalin, there are tearjerkers meant to stimulate emotionally, and even movies designed to stimulate thought on a more intellectual level.

Not that there's anything so great about porn - my point is that most entertainment is actually porn. It's meant to stimulate, although not necessarily in an explicitly sexual way.

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Tue Mar 28, 2006 4:01 am

I think sex appeal is what makes anything work.

I sell these digitised German-English dictionaries from the early 1900s at http://www.dvdictionary.com. The only thing that makes them work is the feeling you get after reading one of their entries. It's like you really understand the term and are on top of it, and it gives you a real high, sexual in nature. It's almost anti-intellectual in that way, although literary pursuits are not seen like that.

User avatar
oborden
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:38 am

Re: Porn

Post by oborden » Sun Apr 02, 2006 6:20 am

kjones wrote:
DHodges wrote:Come on! This is the brothel. A thread about movies, and no one's mentioned any porn. What's with that?

I can't really afford to get movies, and was thinking of checking websites. Any you'd recommend, Dave - and why would you recommend them?

I'm not particularly interested in the following sort of website, as my aim is to figure out sexual desire, as the plain old biological characteristic of humankind:
There were a few directors who used the porn movie as a vehicle for serious artistic expression - those who had some truly bizarre ideas that could not be expressed in a more conventional movie without serious compromise. Or something. Anyway, some pretty strange movies.
http://www.xnxx.com More porn than you can shake a stick at.

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Porn

Post by Kelly Jones » Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:38 pm

Oborden,

I had a look at http://www.xnxx.com and realised immediately what sexual desire is about. It's not to do with categories of how to do sex. Rather, it's the emotional vagueness of *anticipating* something downright frightening. In that sense, sexual desire hasn't really got anything to do with the sexual act, and has all to do with the ego.

The ego dreams of what empowers: which is conquering the always-frightening. The only thing that is always-frightening is egotism itself: egotism is by nature unstable. That's why people get strung up over sex: they imagine fears of the self embodied in a person, and wish to deal with the person as a bland psychological type, to penetrate, or seduce, or lead back out of Hades.

They are vaguely operating in a theatre of dreams.

That is why sexual desire is rampant for the unenlightened, and especially detested in anyone seeking enlightenment. The student of Truth cannot stand the instability of sexual desire, ie. the next-to-dying emotions of always lacking power (ego). Nor can they stand having power, because that is the same fear.

The only porn that arouses is that which has the identity of this anxiety-desire: ie. when some thing is interpreted as being both frightening and powerful. An enlarged penis, or a witch-like female, aren't at all frightening and powerful, but one obsessed with imaginary possibilities will find their combination arousing.

Porn is off-track when it comes to sexual desire. As Bodhidharma said, sex is basically immaterial, and cannot harm. With sexual desire, it really is a childish phenomenon: The mind of sexual desire wants to return to the stark clarity of childhood's terrors, and repeat the terrors, to control those ghosts. The harmfulness is projected.

----

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:57 pm

I gotta say I struggle with a lot of stuff you say Kelly. I mean there is a clarity issue - you just have to point to what you're saying more simply and not dress it so much. I know I'm not the only one here either who finds it trying to understand what you're on about.

User avatar
oborden
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:38 am

Post by oborden » Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:35 am

I too have toruble fully understanding Kelly's words, but I do think I understand that the ego dreams of what empowers. I believe I will understand better when I have thought more about the human psyche. But, Kelly if you would answer a few questions of mine:
Kelly Jones wrote:The ego dreams of what empowers: which is conquering the always-frightening. The only thing that is always-frightening is egotism itself: egotism is by nature unstable. That's why people get strung up over sex: they imagine fears of the self embodied in a person, and wish to deal with the person as a bland psychological type, to penetrate, or seduce, or lead back out of Hades.
----
When you say 'egotism itself,' do you mean characteristic of those having an inflated idea of their own importance?

Fears of the self? Like we see first in others what we dislike in ourselves?

User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden » Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:48 am

It's funny, I thought that post of Kelly's was excellent.

Read it again. Then, look at some porn. Then, read it again.


Dan Rowden

User avatar
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by sschaula » Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:55 am

I also think Kelly's posts are too hard to understand. The way she forms sentences is confusing. Sometimes it even seems that she strays from the point.

What the http://www.xnxx.com site seems to be about is fetishes. Even porn such as "softcore" is a fetish. Basically, all porn is fetish. Understanding sexual desire is tough. It comes before the fetishes begin. Fetishes come from a lack of having real sexual desire, in my opinion. Also in my opinion, real sexual desire is purely physiological...what I mean by that is little or no thought goes into it. It's not based on anything, as fetishes are. Fetishes come from odd events in your life. If a person has an experince such as peering through a window and seeing a beautiful woman when they were younger, then they may develop that window peeper fetish later on in life.

Kelly, I think what you're looking for is what causes someone to INITIALLY become aroused when peering through a window. What causes young children to feel these things?

I think it's just built into us. When I was in preschool I was flirting and pulling up girl's skirts. Where does that come from? I wasn't taught that at home. I remember the first time I became aroused, it was when a commercial with some almost naked supermodel came on tv. What caused me to become aroused at that? It's not like I had some experience beforehand which made me feel those things.

At least for me, real sexual desire came naturally. It is a function of the body.

When the ego gets involved, it's a different case - fetish. I found myself growing up trying to chase after those same initial experiences. When I was younger, I had a deck of playing cards with an illustrated cat woman on one. I found her attractive initially for whatever reason, then I would think about girls having either fur or cat tails and become aroused. That was a fetish. Becoming attracted to an illustrated cat woman was probably also a fetish. I don't know.

Anyway, after a while I think people that desire their fetishes will lose contact with their actual sexual desire. They'll seek out their fetishes more and more until they just become freaks...who wish for real sexual desire yet can only experience the fetish. This is probably the cause of a lot of rape, but it's just speculation on my part.

Lennyrizzo
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 am

Post by Lennyrizzo » Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:29 am

Well, besides whether something said or written is good or not, excellent or sucky, expresses truth or not, there is the matter of how effectively it enlightens the hearer or reader. Sure there is great satisfaction expressing oneself as unencumbered as possible, for instance paying little mind to the abilities, language or learning style of the student, however to be a good teacher of whatever stripe, you may measure this on the effectiveness of your message, how well and how many can be touched by it, and not touched emotionally but to reach therein their higher mind. Some of the greatest minds tend at times to pay little mind to the receptiveness of their message, for whatever reasons.
Some are unsure of themselves and will tend to couch their message in poetic garb or with excess words. Certainly this post here we're discussing could be translated and explained in such a way as it would be easier to understand by more people. Dan could, for instance, say "well he simply means to say .....(and so on)" and with quite probably one third of the words make the exact same point, or insight. This is at times problematic for many, understanding the style of some writers, and the best teachers have learned how to tailor their message to the audience and its capacities and limitations. These get more of my respect, as they have eliminated more of the ego from their work and care not who critisizes or is impressed by them.
Most of what we find to read in these forums is the ego wanting to be witnessed, appreciated, agreed with, confirmed, even amongst lovers of truth. I doubt you will find a single writer here who can deny experiencing this at times.
The more the feminine component is in the thinker, the more you can be sure this is so. I personally would hope and like to see changes here in these writers, and believe I will. Sometimes those closest to these are reluctant to be as frank as with others, not wanting to harm the beneficial bond that's between them, they know where they're at psychologically and their weaknesess too, and the strangers watching here do not. But I'm glad to see some have spoken up, it can only be a good thing at this juncture.
Had I the time to give this here post more consideration, certainly it itself would be easier to understand, for that I can only apologise.
I would caution those the friends of writers here, to be careful in their defense, to try to be more objective (though I doubt it will be 100%), and not to mislead the student as has happened in the past, and seems to be on-going. That cannot be a good thing at all. Not in my book.
OK people? NO one here gives a flying shit about how wise and enlightened you are, just write as clearly as you can, perhaps simplify your expression,
and if you can't manage that then know that you're not helping anyone but your own ego.

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:46 am

I had a funny experience working with a group of young girls in an office recently.

The most egotistical, self-seeking of them was nearly impossible to understand, while the other two were easy. We had to share a lot of information as a team solving IT problems and the worst problem was comprehending this girl.

In the end this girl pulled strings to get me fired because she was such an egomaniac, despite the fact I had never done anything to her. Even her work colleagues started to think she was crazy after that.

There is some kind of link between being comprehensible and not having a raging ego.

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:23 am

Kelly wrote:
They are vaguely operating in a theatre of dreams.


Good sentence.

Sex is exactly like that. I did not learn this from watching porn. I learned it through my own experiences. A theatre of dreams is a very apt description. Sex is theatre for many, if not most, people -- especially females.

One thing that always struck me -- BIG STRUCK -- when I have seen porno -- the first time was when my cousin and younger sister got out my uncle's films -- actually had to set up a screen and run a projector -- mid-sixties -- was the sheer "biology" of the act. Nothing romantic about it. Struck me how the locked up couple looked so much like a crab of some kind.

Kind of odd that people could get off watching the gyrations of a rather monstrous looking crab with two heads.

Astonishing the romantic notions we attach to something that is purely a biological act.

Understanding of the birth-sex-death cycle is rather interesting.

Faizi

MKFaizi

Post by MKFaizi » Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:52 am

Funny. I have always thought of Kelly as one of the clearer or better writers here. She is usually pretty concise and to the point.

I may sometimes think that she is full of crap but I think she is pretty clear when she is full of crap. No guesswork. She writes clearly what she thinks.

Lenny, babe, listen -- you might want to try breaking up your paragraphs. When something is easy to read, it is more likely to be read.

Faizi

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:41 pm

I value talking plainly, so I'll keep working on my expression.

Oborden wrote:KJ: The ego dreams of what empowers: which is conquering the always-frightening. The only thing that is always-frightening is egotism itself: egotism is by nature unstable. That's why people get strung up over sex: they imagine fears of the self embodied in a person, and wish to deal with the person as a bland psychological type, to penetrate, or seduce, or lead back out of Hades.

Oborden: When you say 'egotism itself,' do you mean characteristic of those having an inflated idea of their own importance?
Egotism is just the simple concept of thinking that I (defined as any kind of self that has some form) has some kind of real existence. It's unstable, because it's a delusion.

This thought struck for me last night:

There's an I supposed to organise the bodily organism (when should I eat?). Another I drives certain thoughts, because of memories, and likes and dislikes (I enjoy thinking about....). There's another I of all thoughts and experiences (I am conscious). And another I that is the Mind (I am ultimately inseparable from Ultimate Reality)

....so no I is formally "I". The notion of some kind of stability to be found in I is ludicrous.

Fears of the self? Like we see first in others what we dislike in ourselves?
No, we only see ourselves, we never really see anything but our own thoughts and imaginations. Thus, the sex-addict perceives his or her vague emotional existence as having bodies in the form of other people, and tries to wrangle with those bodies.


Look at the images of the penis stuffed into a vagina: and see how closely related it is to images where it's stuffing the mouth. The penis is an entity imagined to choke a "I-can-tear-down-anyone-with-a-mere-snotty-look" female, to prevent her from having any threatening come-back; or something that can spit out a bodiless slime, to indicate that female isn't even worth one's effort to form hateful words.

Also see that sex is a penis vs female story. There's no male identity in sex, he's not really there, and doesn't want to be there. It's far too undignified. If he is involved, porn immediately turns into an art form, such as homosexuality, with some deeper meaning and personality. Then he will show his face.

Sexual desire is psychological violence through and through.





--

Marsha

Would you expand on your thoughts on the birth-sex-death cycle?


-

User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

The Message is the Medium

Post by DHodges » Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:45 pm

Lennyrizzo wrote:Well, besides whether something said or written is good or not, excellent or sucky, expresses truth or not, there is the matter of how effectively it enlightens the hearer or reader. Sure there is great satisfaction expressing oneself as unencumbered as possible, for instance paying little mind to the abilities, language or learning style of the student, however to be a good teacher of whatever stripe, you may measure this on the effectiveness of your message, how well and how many can be touched by it, and not touched emotionally but to reach therein their higher mind. Some of the greatest minds tend at times to pay little mind to the receptiveness of their message, for whatever reasons.
While you make a good point, Lenny, not every message is for every audience. Sometimes, to express some more advanced, subtle points, you may need to assume that the reader is familiar with certain basics, or even certain jargon.

Not every message can, or should, be understood by everyone.

User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Consciousness Reconsidered

Post by DHodges » Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:57 pm

Kelly Jones wrote:There's an I supposed to organise the bodily organism (when should I eat?). Another I drives certain thoughts, because of memories, and likes and dislikes (I enjoy thinking about....). There's another I of all thoughts and experiences (I am conscious). And another I that is the Mind (I am ultimately inseparable from Ultimate Reality)

....so no I is formally "I". The notion of some kind of stability to be found in I is ludicrous.
Kelly, I recently read a book that explores that idea is some detail. It's called Consciousness Reconsidered. It was an interesting approach, combining philosophy with scientific (psychological and neurological) information about how the brain actually works. This book would probably make more sense if you have already read Consciousness Explained, which it draws on pretty extensively.

He also develops the idea of the "I" as a narrative center; a way to organize the story we tell ourselves about ourselves. And that story is central to a notion of "who I am". People do love a story.

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:46 am

Kelly wrote:
Porn is off-track when it comes to sexual desire. As Bodhidharma said, sex is basically immaterial, and cannot harm. With sexual desire, it really is a childish phenomenon: The mind of sexual desire wants to return to the stark clarity of childhood's terrors, and repeat the terrors, to control those ghosts. The harmfulness is projected.

Also see that sex is a penis vs female story. There's no male identity in sex, he's not really there, and doesn't want to be there. It's far too undignified. If he is involved, porn immediately turns into an art form, such as homosexuality, with some deeper meaning and personality. Then he will show his face.

Sexual desire is psychological violence through and through.


Given the overall context of the above paragraphs, Kelly, should not the two bolded terms in the second paragraph above read “sexual desire” rather than “sex”?

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason » Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:25 am

Kelly Jones wrote: This thought struck for me last night:

There's an I supposed to organise the bodily organism (when should I eat?). Another I drives certain thoughts, because of memories, and likes and dislikes (I enjoy thinking about....). There's another I of all thoughts and experiences (I am conscious). And another I that is the Mind (I am ultimately inseparable from Ultimate Reality)

....so no I is formally "I". The notion of some kind of stability to be found in I is ludicrous.-
You've just created a self fulfilling prophecy. Why break up the I into these diffferent parts in the first place? Maybe a single "I" can do it all? I'd suggest that is how most people conceive of the "I", as a single thing that co-ordinates all those different activities.
Last edited by Jason on Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason » Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:39 am

Kelly Jones wrote: Look at the images of the penis stuffed into a vagina: and see how closely related it is to images where it's stuffing the mouth. The penis is an entity imagined to choke a "I-can-tear-down-anyone-with-a-mere-snotty-look" female, to prevent her from having any threatening come-back; or something that can spit out a bodiless slime, to indicate that female isn't even worth one's effort to form hateful words.


First of all: I LOVE PORN. I look at porn all the time. I masturbate over it all the time. I like all different types and categories of porn. So I might have something worthwhile to say on this subject.

Reading subtext into some things is just silly, and a case of severe projection. I had this English teacher in High School, and when the class would watch a video of a book we had read, she would pause the video every two minutes to point out a phallic symbol. When it wasn't phallic symbols it was some other arcane symbolic hogwash. If a character moved his little finger she would say that was symbolic of the US military industrial complex and its integral part in the quasi-fascist capitalist oligopoly. Sometimes I think things really don't need some maze of complex interpretations, they are pretty much what they appear to be on the surface.

Male monkeys get excited by videos of female monkey porn. The interest in female genitals and putting a penis in them is very very old. Now obviously there can be complex psychological reactions to sex and porn in humans, but I don't think you can write off the power of pure biological sexual desire, especially in males, and the simplicity in it. I have a penis and I really desire and like the idea of inserting it into a vagina. I like looking at vaginas and tits and arse and curves and pretty female faces. During their teens and twenties at least, many men would probably, in an ideal situation, like to have sex with a different beautiful woman or three, every day. I find it fascinating and maybe terrifying that such a force is able to be contained by civilisation.

Addressing your point about symbolic silencing of women: not all porn is about this domination of females in some sort of female-is-victim anti-porn-feminist type of way. Many guys like having sex, and watching porn involving sweet girls who we want to see receive pleasure and tenderness, and who we feel attracted to because they are not perceived to be threats who we must dominate into mute submission with our penises. There is plenty of domination themed porn and sex out there for sure, but I don't think your statement is accurate for much of porn. There are so many variations in porn that have nothing to do with a penis entering a vagina too. Lesbians, dildos, masturbation, straight nude ect etc. I think men seek out all these types of porn with similar feelings of sexual desire.
Kelly Jones wrote:Also see that sex is a penis vs female story. There's no male identity in sex, he's not really there, and doesn't want to be there. It's far too undignified. If he is involved, porn immediately turns into an art form, such as homosexuality, with some deeper meaning and personality. Then he will show his face.
Way off base on that. I think the reason males are kept out of the picture in general is very simple - heterosexual men look at porn to see females. We don't want to see some guys face, or his hairy arse. We want to see sexy females. A lot of porn is just a type of virtual sex simulator. When we masturbate while looking at porn, we imagine we are having sex with the girl. If there is another guy there it just interferes with that.

Also, I don't think it's anything about the guys in the video thinking it's undignified at all. Have you watched any of the porn videos? A lot of these guys probably feel like great big studs being on video fucking. It's a notch on their belt, it's a dream job. It not unusual to seem them looking into the camera with smiles on their faces giving thumbs up and stuff. It is the audience that demands removal of the male from the picture.

Which also would explain why gay porn shows male faces: it's just a turn on for gays to see guys faces. Have you seen gay porn? Why do you think it is more artistic? I haven't seen much, cos it hasn't done anything for me yet, but all the stuff I've seen is almost exactly the same straightforward banging as any heterosexual male oriented porn. If you don't see meaning or personality in heterosexual porn, I doubt you'd see it in homosexual male porn.
Kelly Jones wrote: Sexual desire is psychological violence through and through.
I know you are probably using a rare definition of psychological violence here, but I'm having a hard time seeing psychological violence in enjoyable consentual sex. But then you might see psychological violence in happiness too. Marsha has said some things in the past about the differences between how men and women see sex, and how she got over seeing sex and love as being very linked. I wonder if you might be viewing this subject, Kelly, from a more stereotypically female perspective where sex is more romantic/psychological and less physical/biological than the stereotypical males view.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason » Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:08 am

sschaula wrote:What the http://www.xnxx.com site seems to be about is fetishes. Even porn such as "softcore" is a fetish. Basically, all porn is fetish. Understanding sexual desire is tough. It comes before the fetishes begin. Fetishes come from a lack of having real sexual desire, in my opinion.
That's a weird one. Sexual desire and sexual fetishes generally go hand in hand as far as I can tell, in the majority of cases. And porn is all about sexual desire. Teens after puberty start getting sexual desires, they start looking up porn. Seems pretty simple to me.

I think a fetish is more a case of associations being made between sexual desire and something that is not generally considered sexual.
sschaula wrote:Fetishes come from odd events in your life. If a person has an experince such as peering through a window and seeing a beautiful woman when they were younger, then they may develop that window peeper fetish later on in life.
I think that is true in some cases for sure, but looking at all the various fetishes, and looking at what I like myself, I don't think that all fetishes are tied to specific unusual life events. I just can't see the links. I think a considerable amount is just to do with variety being the spice of life. New thrills, new experiences, experimenting - keeps things fresh and interesting.
When I was younger, I had a deck of playing cards with an illustrated cat woman on one. I found her attractive initially for whatever reason, then I would think about girls having either fur or cat tails and become aroused.
Leyla's gonna have to buy a catsuit. Meow! Hissssss!
Anyway, after a while I think people that desire their fetishes will lose contact with their actual sexual desire. They'll seek out their fetishes more and more until they just become freaks...who wish for real sexual desire yet can only experience the fetish.
I think I've heard other people, maybe experts say things like that about fetishes. I dunno. I tend to be skeptical of sex experts, as I think that a lot of opinions on sex are still severely distorted by culture, morality and religion. If sexual desire comes before the fetish, how can the fetish remove the sexual desire?

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Consciousness Reconsidered

Post by Kelly Jones » Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:24 am

DHodges wrote:
Kelly Jones wrote:There's an I supposed to organise the bodily organism (when should I eat?). Another I drives certain thoughts, because of memories, and likes and dislikes (I enjoy thinking about....). There's another I of all thoughts and experiences (I am conscious). And another I that is the Mind (I am ultimately inseparable from Ultimate Reality)

....so no I is formally "I". The notion of some kind of stability to be found in I is ludicrous.
Kelly, I recently read a book that explores that idea is some detail. It's called Consciousness Reconsidered. It was an interesting approach, combining philosophy with scientific (psychological and neurological) information about how the brain actually works. This book would probably make more sense if you have already read Consciousness Explained, which it draws on pretty extensively.

He also develops the idea of the "I" as a narrative center; a way to organize the story we tell ourselves about ourselves. And that story is central to a notion of "who I am". People do love a story.
It doesn't matter what organisational identity is used. Each one gets made up. This answers Jason's post also: I was just illustrating the point.

I is essentially just the same as "galaxy" or "mountain".


-


Leyla,

Yes, for "sex" as defined as a story involving a penis and a female, read "sexual desire". Or egotism, which is essentially the same thing (sexed or schizophrenic mind).


-


Jason/Scott,

A fetish is a way of bringing the psychological nature of sexual desire more to the forefront. It is like increasing conceptual skills to clarify thoughts. Essentially the psyche is trying to personify its struggles in a less bland way, by adding symbols to articulate that struggle. Thus, it is an intellectual step upward from the boredom of sex, but a very basic form of intellect. It's like someone trying to express themselves using art therapy.


-

[edit: Addition:]

Martin's example of being aroused sexually by understanding a term and "getting on top of it" is clarified in the light of the ego's story in sex (how a self is trying to clarify thoughts).

He also made it clearer when he said that comprehensibility is related to ego. This is definitely true. The logical thinker is utterly ruled by Occam's razor, out of habitually zooming through similar categories and slotting in the simplest and most accurate, to know a thing.

Egotism cannot express its story accurately as long as it keeps slotting in the fundamental opposite category for itself. Because it never reaches truth (A=A), it believes the truth is A=not-A. This initiates complexity, and fetish-finding, to fill the abyssmal notion that "anything can be true".

An obvious example of this is currently at the Common Ascent forum, where Kevin Solway has been sheer Occam's Razor in a discussion of A=A. However, no one comprehends him. Thus, comprehensibility is indeed related to ego.

--

User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones » Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:51 am

Jason,
First of all: I LOVE PORN. I look at porn all the time. I masturbate over it all the time. I like all different types and categories of porn. So I might have something worthwhile to say on this subject.
You've immediately disqualified yourself from being able to say something worthwhile about porn or sex, because you are attached to an image.

If you are attached to conceptualising about the meaning of attachments to images, you would be slightly less disqualified from being able to articulate the meaning of porn.

So I can safely ignore whatever you say as being dribble from an insane monkey:

I have a penis and I really desire and like the idea of inserting it into a vagina....I find it fascinating and maybe terrifying that such a force is able to be contained by civilisation.


It takes a robotic mind to recognise and define emotions and other inarticulate intuitions, with clear abstract terms, and not become vague.

Another example, in case you need it:

Addressing your point about symbolic silencing of women: not all porn is about this domination of females in some sort of female-is-victim anti-porn-feminist type of way. Many guys like having sex, and watching porn involving sweet girls who we want to see receive pleasure and tenderness, and who we feel attracted to because they are not perceived to be threats who we must dominate into mute submission with our penises.



---

Post Reply