My Question: Does pornography hinder the philosopher in thought? ie: Is pornography "below" philosophy...?

I surmise that it is not. More once I get done shuffling the old knuckles.

in a way I would say yes.

Sexuality has often been described as a way of grounding the higher intellectual thoughts.

Pornography tends to get the philosopher thinking earthy physical thoughts. So in this way it distracts from the higher pursuits.

In the esoteric sciences the sexual vibration is very low and very physical the colour being a sort of burnt orange.

When exploring the sexual realms it is thought that the thinking processes are at this vibration. It's a bit hard to have good sex and think about Plato at the same time.

For some philosophers the sexual act is an extreme way of keeping in touch with reality thus it's grounding effect.

The problem is in the balancing of all these energies so that a comfortable medium can be achieved.

According to Socrates through Plato's Phaedo

The Body knows pleasure through senses, whereas the sould gains wisdom through the intellect. The ultimate of philosphy, can be achieved only when the sould is no longer deceived by sessual pleasures. So, the Philosopher's soul longing to be free of bodily wants , desires an escape fom the body's sntrapment.

This is the most important part: From body's lusts and fears come fighting, greed and warbut from the intelelct come justice and beauty.

So, yes Pornography is bad for a philospher and it hinders the thought for sure.

I don't know. Sex could be a muse for resplendent, contemplative thoughts, in philosophy and definetly for the literary arts. I see it this way, it depends on how the philosopher approaches his art. Through utter seclusion from any sensual desries and distractions or through embracing every aspect of life, be it "harmful" to his profession or not.

I think that containing sexual urges and building up that tension leads to the best possible explosion of creative ideas, energy, and philosophical ideas .Pornography is also addictive

The old saying "Do it to much and you'll go blind" has some relevance to this discussion.

It could be said that sex can blind a person to loftier pursuits. And that sexual craving can diminish the ability to see clearly. I would even say that this is quite proveable.

However to deny ones sexuality is also blinding the person to the physicality of life as well.

Maybe there needs to be a distictinction between pornography and the reality of sexual relations.

Pornography is designed to inspire a fantasy, a fiction, an unreality.

Losing ones self to pornography could be a form of escapism.

Too much pornography could lead to a distorted view of real sexuality. ( as often is seen to be the case)

The men and women etc. that are portrayed in pornography are being used by the viewer with out consideration for the reality of the persons portrayed. And in this sense could be construed as a form of self abuse.

I use the vagueness of "Could" deliberately. For this is not always the case.

this could also be a religious question and I'll post it there as well but for this thread it isn't as such a religious question.

Why do you think that religions such as Christianity and Islam have such strong views about pronography? IN the context of this discussion about how pornograpghy may or can diminish our higher thought processes.

I think that containing sexual urges and building up that tension leads to the best possible explosion of creative ideas, energy, and philosophical ideas

This is v much how I feel. But then, what sort of weakness is it that compels a "thinking man to do the opposite?" Is does deny us energy and...



den[ies]ones sexuality... blinding the person to the physicality of life

So where is my middle ground?

My opinion

The problem for the philospher is that regardless of how much he/she wants to be free of his/her body the body is necessary for his/her survival.

The body, including it's sexual needs, are all part of the picture.

One could ask how denying ones sexuality distorts the thinking processes as well, if distortion is the right word.

Just like eating, shiting and peeing, sexuality is also just a fundemental of physicallity.

But because pornography requires fantasy to work the imagination is more taxed than say the act of eating ( not entirely true of course)

The middle ground is to find a balance that you and your society is comfortable with. With out excesses of denial or over indulgence.

In other words we have to accept that we can't always get what we want.

What an incredibly stupid discussion.

Originally posted by Xev
What an incredibly stupid discussion.

Yes, you added immensly to it.:rolleyes:

Hmm... I believe pornography and sex can be addictive- and therefore can cloud the mind. And a clouded mind can lead to revolutionary ideas; yet most of the time leads to nothing.

Democritus, why would a clouded mind lead to revolutionary ideas? I think a perfectly working mind would lead to revolutionary ideas.

pornography raises many philosophical questions when you think about it..like the relationship between sexuality and the soul.

If we define Pornography just as consentual explicit sex, then I have no problem with it.
OTOH, if we define it as it typically exists, then it is a degrading practice with the absurd notion of trying to portray women as loving cum.....ask your girlfriend to be so obliging and see how she reacts:eek:

There are other disturbing practices that occur, but that's enough for now.
So degrading pornography is inconsistent with moral philosophy, but watching explicit sex, especially when the women are gorgeous is hardly undesirable or intellectually compromising IMO.

Originally posted by David Mayes
[So degrading pornography is inconsistent with moral philosophy, but watching explicit sex, especially when the women are gorgeous is hardly undesirable or intellectually compromising IMO. [/]

What, no-one has a view on this, for ****sakes what's wrong with you ****ing people?

David Mayes:
OTOH, if we define it as it typically exists, then it is a degrading practice with the absurd notion of trying to portray women as loving cum.....ask your girlfriend to be so obliging and see how she reacts

Try dating live women.

Pornography is occasionally necessary, visual stimulation to facilitate fantasy. Fantasy is often more straightforward than having to go out and deal with all the inane social conventions surrounding getting laid. Ergo, pornography is useful for satisfying one's sexual needs without wasting too much time doing so. Practicality frees the mind.

That we even have to discuss this shows how dumbassed society has gotten. You all suck.

Pornography is occasionally necessary, visual stimulation to facilitate fantasy. Ergo, pornography is useful for satisfying one's sexual needs without wasting too much time doing so. Practicality frees the mind.

Xev.

Do you make a distinction between pornography as just explicit sex and thus acceptable, and the degrading lie-based content that usually appears in most porno?

And also: who's being pornographic? The actors or the viewers? Can we fantasize pornographically? Or are we simply fantasizing?

Pornography can be either...but that's not my point.
It's one thing to tell mom and dad you're going to have sex on film, it's quite another to tell them that you're going to place a shit smeared penis in you mouth as well....LOL.

David Mayes:
Do you make a distinction between pornography as just explicit sex and thus acceptable, and the degrading lie-based content that usually appears in most porno?

What "degrading lie based content"?
I don't know "most porno".

...This is amusing.

I rarely make moral judgements, only aesthetic ones. Presumably whoever appears in an average porn flick is doing so by their consent, therefore whether they find it unpleasent or not is a matter of their own concern. I don't like my job either. Chances are I'd find something truely abhorrent to be truely abhorrent, thus not sexually stimulating, thus the question is one of practicality more than anything else.

I don't think there's an argument here.

You don't think that women being told to pretend to love cum, swirling it, gargling it, swaping it with their girlfriends is morally questionable behaviour?

What about the Chocolate dip or whatever the hell they call it?....LOL

David Mayes:
You don't think that women being told to pretend to love cum, swirling it, gargling it, swaping it with their girlfriends is morally questionable behaviour?

1: Whose morality? You can't make a blanket statement like that without specifying the standard of morality you're using.

2: No, I don't think it's morally questionable. If some chick gets off on passing a mouthful of semen back and forth with her girlfriend, good on her. Since all parties involved are enjoying the act, I fail to see how it could be convincingly argued as immoral.

Not that morality can be argued convincingly at all. But what's wrong with pleasure? Struggle against the fundamentally unpleasant nature of the universe is what forms man's nobility.

What about the Chocolate dip or whatever the hell they call it?....LOL

I have no idea what this is.

One mans pornography is another mans art.
One mans obscenity is another mans beauty.
When sex has come to represent sin, as it has for many that have been infected with religious filth, then it becomes something to fear and suppress, making the pornography industry possible, as prohibition made alcohol more popular and the drug war is making drugs so also.
I think the popularity of pornography speaks more on how repressed and sexually unsatisfied most are in modern societies and in fundamentalist regimes.
I know married men who see two or three porn films a week, raising the question:
Why would someone with access to sexual gratification need pornography?
The answer:
This sexual gratification is artificial and forced and no longer natural.
Most marriages are based on comfort once the lust has been left behind and on insecurity, the fear of not being able to attract someone else, so most satisfy their inner desire for other sexual partners through fantasy.
Most women do it through romance novels, men through pornography showing once more the gender differences in how they percieve sexual intimacy and romantic love.

Pornography can also be used to satisfy hidden unconventional desires, such as pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia [homosexuality up until recently] and many, many others. So it correctly serves as a pressure release valve that pacifies inner desire that could become harmful if it is repressed for long.

Some of the deformities and defects of prolonged sexual repression can be seen in many Christian and Muslim individuals and in how they label dirty things like the naked human body and the natural sexual act itself and in how they try to repress sexual activity in others that are more healthy than them.

People fantasize whether they are married or not - the degree to which you fantasize (and masturbate for that matter) doesn't have that much to do with whether you're married or have a partner, it has more to do with how much free time you have.

Xev

1: Whose morality? You can't make a blanket statement like that without specifying the standard of morality you're using.

How about yours?

2: No, I don't think it's morally questionable. If some chick gets off on passing a mouthful of semen back and forth with her girlfriend, good on her. Since all parties involved are enjoying the act, I fail to see how it could be convincingly argued as immoral.

They don't get off on it....go hire one and look at their faces or....meet me at the corner of **** and **** and I'll help you decide if it's a lovely experience....LOL.

Not that morality can be argued convincingly at all. But what's wrong with pleasure? Struggle against the fundamentally unpleasant nature of the universe is what forms man's nobility.

As I've already mentioned, I have no problem with pornography as in explicit sexual contact between consenting adults...my problem is the degrading content that the porn industry tries to pass off as normal, they try and pass it off as normal by it's repetitive degrading content.

Have you ever watched an X-rated video, have you ever received x-rated spam?

What about the Chocolate dip or whatever the hell they call it?....LOL

Don't know it's exact name, but this is where a guy takes his penis out of the girls bum, and places it in her mouth....would you do that, would you like any of your girlfriends to do that?

Try explaining that to mom and dad.

One mans pornography is another mans art.
One mans obscenity is another mans beauty.

Wanderer...I thought you agreed with my comments on human nature...yet here you say that anything goes....well if so, do you want to meet at 4th and **** and experiment?

I define pornography as explicit sex between consenting adults.
I define the sex that seems to be the norm for the porn industry as debauchery.

David Mayes:
How about yours?

As a semi-nihilist, I have no set of moral standards. I have my preferences, I do not arrogate onto myself the need to set them as fact.

They don't get off on it....go hire one and look at their faces or....meet me at the corner of **** and **** and I'll help you decide if it's a lovely experience....LOL.

You'd be suprised what some women enjoy.

As I've already mentioned, I have no problem with pornography as in explicit sexual contact between consenting adults...my problem is the degrading content that the porn industry tries to pass off as normal, they try and pass it off as normal by it's repetitive degrading content.

And isn't the impulse to degrade one's partner more or less inherent to a man's sex drive?
We all know it is. If the "dirty little secret" is exposed by the pornographers, is that the fault of the industry or of human nature?

Besides, who says they try to pass it off as normal?
Part of the allure of pornography is that what they depict is decidedly abnormal. Bataille would say that the sexual urge is inherently linked to transgression. I suspect that it has more to do with marketing - porn is safe fantasy, and the more "transgressive" or "abnormal" the act is, the more exciting it is.
Don't believe me? Look at the way pallid, weakling academics hero-worship the Marquis de Sade. The powerless fantasize about being the brutal, transgressive sadist. The unattractive fantasize about being beautiful studs (why do you think male actors are so goddamned ugly?) and everyone wants to escape reality and come.
Only a moron sees it as reality.

Have you ever watched an X-rated video, have you ever received x-rated spam?

Yes. And?

Don't know it's exact name, but this is where a guy takes his penis out of the girls bum, and places it in her mouth....

That's nice. I needed to know this.

Try explaining that to mom and dad.

Tell the truth, I wouldn't want to talk about even the most prosaic sexual acts with my parents.

Quote: "Most women do it through romance novels, men through pornography showing once more the gender differences in how they percieve sexual intimacy and romantic love"

That's a gross generalization about female sexuality, especially with the variety of porn shops for women I see popping up all over NY ie: Babes in Toyland. Paraphilia is not solely the domain of men and there are just as many men who seek intimacy and romance. Not all women confuse or link sex with love. You may be suprised at how many women watch porn, alone and with their partners. Also the porn industry is not simply run by men there are quite a few women cashing in on the very lucrative business by marketing themselves and others, producing films etc.

I find it amusing that some believe sex and sensuality to create an imbalance in the mind, neither I believe has anything to do with porn but eroticism. I would think a healthy mind is one unified with the body, an integrated individual does not struggle with the body or any of its urges.

Yes Mayers there is quite a bit of debauchery in porn, perhaps most do not get off on a mouth full of excrement but that is besides the point. Like the female character in Belle Du Jour some women don't get off at all unless they are being humiliated and debased (live and let live). Western sex-trade workers do have choices, there are a variety of ways for them to get paid in the sex industry without having to submit to what they perceive as a degrading act.

The morality of men's minds is just that, OF THE MIND. It differs from one to the other.
I've noticed that this topic has been discussed at length, and I find this a great perturbation, I myself regarding it a matter of simple sense.

None on this Earth should be so bold as to stand forth and pronounce 'moral' sentence on others.
Whether or not you not you realize it, your 'moral' accusals and arbitrations reflect on none but yourself.

If it is true that some women can condone, even exult in these eroticisms, such be they to your eyes or not, then these are not wrongs for you to point out.

Whether or not God deems these sins is His prerogative, and, if you remember, even our Lord dined with the sinful.

Truly, likings for these odd practices would be perversions if the entirety of relevant Scripture be taken seriously, but they were and are, perhaps, indulged by ignorance, not design.
Remember, God does not judge as men do, for He is perfect.

"But one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows."
~Luke 12:48~

I am so confused. On the one hand you have the lord dining with the sinful and on the other the sinful is being beaten with a few blows?

The Lord dined with the sinful in order that He might be their "physician". The point I was trying to make is that even the most perfect being to ever exist did not balk when faced with depravity: He did not stop to denounce and brand them, and neither should we.

After all, we are to emulate Him in all the ways we can.
"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
~Matthew 5:48~

The point of the pasage about "few blows" is one of the most important points of Christianity there is, I believe.

What is says, basically, is that all humans will be judged in accordance with the conditions of their lives, the circumstances of their existence.
What you do not and cannot know will not hurt you.

God is all-knowing, and He holds you not accountable for things you could never have helped. For this He will show mercy.
If the perversions mentioned earlier in this thread were not fostered intentionally, God will show mercy to their possessors.

This could bring up the issue of free-will, which is something even I'm not clear on, admittedly.

Quote:What you do not and cannot know will not hurt you.

Haha. That is the best argument I have heard in a very long time for living in ignorance.

One point though, unknowingly sleeping with an AIDS infected partner will and does hurt. All action has a consequence.

These are not actions which the person himself might perform.

These are circumstances, known or unknown by the person. These are the very elements of the person's life, elements whose purpose cannot be understood by the person or coped with by his free-will.

This passage is not a call for "living in ignorance"; it's an assurance that God will not charge you with crimes you could not control due to your lack of divine understanding or transcendence. Sometimes, in life, you don't get a choice, and, in these instances, God is merciful.

Lucysnow, welcome back.

Rappaccini: Please keep religious discussions to the religious sub-forum. Philosophy is a rational discipline - or should be guided by rational principles.

Thanks Xev.

Wanderer...I thought you agreed with my comments on human nature...yet here you say that anything goes....well if so, do you want to meet at 4th and **** and experiment?
Where do I say anything goes?
I'm describing the reasons why porn exists and is so popular in our modern civilization. I'm not saying I agree with it or like it.

You're not my type, besides I don't think you want to meet me.

I define pornography as explicit sex between consenting adults.
I define the sex that seems to be the norm for the porn industry as debauchery.I think much of the pornographic industry depicts just how fucked up most men and women are and how sex has turned from an act of intimacy and connection between two people to just an act of entertainment with no meaning or purpose.
In a culture believing that the purpose of life is pleasure or happiness and wanting immediate satisfaction and throw-away consumerism, it is evident why porn exists and is necessary.
The misogyny revealed through images of ejaculation on female faces, bestiality and so forth is just a way for many men to exact revenge upon the women they fear and are resentful towards.
What more demeaning act than to have the one you despise lower herself/himself by having sex with animals or by coming all over their face as if they are nothing but objects or by defecating and pissing all over them or I dare say by having them have sex with base, simple inferior males.
Besides the few examples of sick pornography I believe pornography in general to be necessary as masturbation is a healthy outlet for sexual desire.
Many males and females today use porn as they use all entertainment [video games, movies and so forth] to live vicariously through the characters depicted. Through porn most men actually get to have sex or stop feeling insecure about their penis size and performance or become attractive, well built womanizers as they also become masculine through violent games and movies that pacify their desire for action, aggressiveness and brutality.
In a world that values femininity because of its conforming and accepting character masculinity and maleness is defused through surrogate methods.
Freud said that fantasy is evidence of dissatisfaction. If he is right then how dissatisfied are we as a culture with our sexuality, sex lives and our lives in general?

David Mayes:

"They don't get off on it....go hire one and look at their faces or....meet me at the corner of **** and **** and I'll help you decide if it's a lovely experience....LOL."

David, sound like you have had, shall we say, a somewhat limited experience with human sexuality?

Actually LOTS of females enjoy playing with their man's semen, and derive a tremendous sexual enjoyment and power from having it on them, in them. This is from my experience - but I'll grant you that there is a lot of prudishness out there!

It isn't surprising really, that this would be erotic or stimulating to either sex, it is a basic primate urge. Let's face it, semen is probably the most powerful substance in the human body as it contains the genesis of new life. I think our psyches developed the sensuous "cum ritual" as a mechanism to get more of it where nature wants it - in, on or around a receptive female! And there is also the "marking territory" aspect of the ritual, as well. And you can't discount the submissive aspect of cumplay either, that is also deeply ingrained within human sexuality.

So, I find your comments on this topic to be rather odd, but definitely congruent with typical American prudishness. That anyone considers cumplay to be "pornographic" is completely baffling to me.

Watcher says:
Let's face it, semen is probably the most powerful substance in the human body as it contains the genesis of new life.

?

What a weird view of this you have. Your girlfriend probably plays with your semen 'cause it's funny sticky stuff. I think you're reading too much into that.

From "Dr. Strangelove: or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb":


Ripper:
You know when fluoridation first began?

Mandrake:
No. No, I don't, Jack. No.

Ripper:
Nineteen hundred and forty six. Nineteen fortysix, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your postwar commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard core commie works.

Mandrake:
Jack... Jack, listen, tell me, ah... when did you first become, well, develop this theory.

Ripper:
Well, I ah, I I first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love.

Mandrake:
(sighs fearfully)

Ripper:
Yes a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I was able to interpret these feelings correctly: loss of essence.

Mandrake:
Yes...

Ripper:
I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women... women sense my power, and they seek the live essence. I do not avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.

So, I find your comments on this topic to be rather odd,

This topic has a horde of over-educated twits discussing sex. It's by nature odd.

but definitely congruent with typical American prudishness. That anyone considers cumplay to be "pornographic" is completely baffling to me.

Generally, depictions of sex acts are by nature pornographic.

What a weird view of this you have. Your girlfriend probably plays with your semen 'cause it's funny sticky stuff. I think you're reading too much into that.

He's probably close to right. But this is goddamned funny.

Quote: I think much of the pornographic industry depicts just how fucked up most men and women are and how sex has turned from an act of intimacy and connection between two people to just an act of entertainment with no meaning or purpose.

Why do you think it necessary to place a halo around the sex act? Intimacy and connection take place BEFORE one enters the bedroom if it is to take place at all. The same people who look lovingly into each others eyes can have the raunchiest sex imaginable. Outside of procreation the only 'meaning' and 'purpose' behind sex is pleasure. One need not feel emotionally intimate to achieve this pleasure.

Yea, yea we're curious.
Dearprudence haven't you ever experienced the completely uninhibited freedom when encountering someone who understands all your evil little predilictions and sexual psycho drama without having to 'speak' it? Having them unearth desires you were too afraid to acknowledge? Haven't you had an emotionally intimate bond or affinity...I'll call it love for simplicity...with this person? Its a beautiful thing Dearprudence. Being able to experience almost anything with someone without reserve, judgement or hesitation; to explore everything and still find desire driving one further into debauchery only to discover your liberation and licentiousness beautiful, pristine, pure, sublime? I know you know (smiles)
And yet there are those who call laying in the missionary position with some idiot humping away, looking into your eyes with a maudlin expression and stroking a teet a DEEP connection. What bores!

There is no need of promises. Sweet smiles are for candy vendors and kindness directed towards the dying. The hurt? Would it have been worthy of mentioning if it hadn't hurt?

Don't get me wrong Dearprudence there isn't anything 'wrong' with meetings with strangers.

Why bother hanging around till morning? So Dearprudence do you consider yourself a philosopher and if so how have you managed to keep all those kinky desires from degrading your pure musings humm?

"A garden that knows nothing of man's morality"

Now that is beautiful.

Dear dearpointless:
One man's art is another man's pornography?
One man's beauty is another man's obscenity?
Rings a bell?...

Wanna ring mine 'cause I wanna ring yours?
Wonderboy is a pussy I preffer Wolverine. He's macho.
What's your point? Do you have one or are you just here to vent your anxieties and insecurities in public?
Are we supposed to act like your therapist or as a friend that you don't have?
Just wondering.

Tsk. The last lover I gave myself to, I mean, give my entire self to, I ended up slapping his face and finding my glasses splotched with blood.

But I know what you mean Lucy. The thing that bugs me though is... the morning. And then it all changes. We are so... kind to each other. Kindness! Full of empty promises and sweet smiles that... that I thought were sacred.

God.

It hurts. It hurts.
It sounds more like you are a delusional slut who'll fuck anybody and then wonder why it was so empty.
Heightened expectations leads to heightened dissapointments. A common modern plight of the over-pampered.
I hope you're a female cause you sound kind of gay.
If you had slapped me I would have shoved your head through the nearest wall and then licked the blood off of my face and smiled as I walked away.
Is the predator always to blame or is the prey responsible for its own stupidity also?
When will we stop blaming others for ourselves, when will we accept responsibility for our own choices?
The universe is indifferent sweetheart, deal with it or get the fuck out of the way!!!!

ACTUALLY -- LOL! I find strangers... sumptuous. Dark figures. Dark rooms. Dark sex. Dark mornings.
Dark spots on your genitals, dark circles around your eyes, dark coffee, darkness in your soul.
Are you so vacuous?
You would rather give yourself to nothingness than have nothing at all, pathetic.
Have you heard of dignity? Its looking for you.

That was the freakiest part. You see, my father was an "intellect" -- but I was "not". He turned me onto Nietzsche for some queer reason, probably wanted to show off, like all of them... could never figure that one out.
Ah, but you not understanding is excactly what is wrong with you.
Did you know intellectualism like baldness skips a generation? Some say we inherit our minds from our mothers.
Tough luck.
The fact that you took it as "showing-off" says more about you than him or these others.
Maybe you should become a 'born-again' Christian and find solace in myth and servitude.
The wilds are no place for stray sheep. There are wolves about...wait....what was that?!....run....run it comes.

Oh -- the talking clouds, and the growing trees... and still, the stars twinkle.
Now I feel like I'm showing off.
Showing-off what, your rambling romanticism?
Are you pure emotion or do you have reason as well?
Stop crying and start acting or just write me a poem.

Wouldn't God approve of thought? Divine thought? And in choice expect reason for it, right? It is reason He demands -- not "divine" thought that's already tired and a template for conduct. A hard cock is a beautiful organ: can you justify it? Hence your ignorance. And your distain. Don't accuse your God for your shortcomings.
Who's this 'He' guy you mention?
Man, you are an idiot.
If one needs to see first hand evidence of the effects of Christianity on the mind look no further. Follow 'dearpointless' and her postings through time.
A fascinating example even if quit pathetic.
Why must I justify my hard cock to you or at all?
The only thing I accuse my god of is your existence.

Riiight... back on subject. You know Lucy -- I'm not anything special.
I could have told you that sweetheart.
Now why don't you answer Lucy's question or are you afraid of it?

Dearprudence:
I don't understand: philosophy is expected to argue against the irrational in the Religion sub-forum, but the irrational is not invited to make its challenges known here in the Philosophy sub-forum?

I don't moderate those forums, hence comparison is inappropriate.

Are you so weak? Pedantic Bigot.

Congratulations on your ability to string random words together. I'd ask how I am pedantic or a bigot, but I'd not wish to task your limited intelligence overly much.

Nietzsche would not approve. And I find your sexual fantasies about Nietzsche very... unflattering.

To whom? From your postings, I probably have better acquaintance with Nietzsche than you do with any of the people you fuck.
That said, I only fantasize about Hegel. Hegel was a babe.

You're not my type, besides I don't think you want to meet me.

Wanderer

I'm in AUS and I believe you're in USA, so it would be difficult for the moment, although apparently the FBI might be wanting a word with me...I've been a bit naughty elsewhere, LOL....so if they round me up and ship me stateside, you can come visit.

I think much of the pornographic industry depicts just how fucked up most men and women are and how sex has turned from an act of intimacy and connection between two people to just an act of entertainment with no meaning or purpose.

As depicted via the media, definately.


In a culture believing that the purpose of life is pleasure or happiness and wanting immediate satisfaction and throw-away consumerism, it is evident why porn exists and is necessary.

I have no problem with porno{explicit sex between consenting adults}, I have a problem with what I consider degrading content.
You obviously have a unique theory which overcomes what I consider as "objectively" degrading.
This objectivity is relative to having firm but provisional agreement about the acceptable categories that define meaningful human behaviour and reflective of the actualization of mans primary potentiality, that of productiveness.


yny revealed through images of ejaculation on female faces, bestiality and so forth is just a way for many men to exact revenge upon the women they fear and are resentful towards.

I certainly expect the necessity of a variety of cathartic releases in an era whose focus is moulded by the dictates of scientism, but YOU seem to be making excuses for their behaviour, which I consider rationalizations as you've obviously been influenced by the insanity of scientism...although you're still a wise individual.


aid that fantasy is evidence of dissatisfaction. If he is right then how dissatisfied are we as a culture with our sexuality, sex lives and our lives in general?

Freud also said that mans innate nature was evil/destructive, E Fromm says destructiveness is the secondary potentiality and actualizes when conditions are pathogenic, obviously mans primary potentialities actualize when conditions are conducive to productiveness.

Also fantasizing seems to be pejoratively slanted here, it would seem to me that when overcome by reality, fantasy is a necessary process which can facilitate and sustain spiritual and mental growth.

You'd be suprised what some women enjoy.


Xev...enjoyment that is derived from degarding acts is not something I condone.

And isn't the impulse to degrade one's partner more or less inherent to a man's sex drive?
We all know it is. If the "dirty little secret" is exposed by the pornographers, is that the fault of the industry or of human nature?

You presume that you have human nature all figured out, and your conclusion is that of Freuds, destructiveness/evilness.
I will NEVER agree to engage in such debauchery, I would never expect a women to mimic the behaviours of the porno/wackos that inspire her spiritually comatosed self.

David, sound like you have had, shall we say, a somewhat limited experience with human sexuality?

Watcher.

Yes darling!!

Actually LOTS of females enjoy playing with their man's semen, and derive a tremendous sexual enjoyment and power from having it on them, in them.

You must pick up sluts, I pick up women!



So, I find your comments on this topic to be rather odd, but definitely congruent with typical American prudishness. That anyone considers cumplay to be "pornographic" is completely baffling to me.

I'm Australian, and I find cumplay as typically presented by the media as degrading{I have no problem with pornography}.
BTW, open WIDE BOY.

So...Xev, what's a semi-nihilist?

So...Xev, what's a semi-nihilist?

An atheist cunt who loves cumshots....LOL.

David Mayes you have a quote stating "They don't get off on it....go hire one and look at their faces" and then later write "degarding acts is not something I condone."
In order for you to know the look on their faces you would have had to sample quite a number of hired help so what is it you do not condone? Paraphilia lies on the periphery of sexual norms, it is a special department within porn for those who have those particular predilictions. Most pornography is NOT paraphilic as most purveyors desire standard sexual interactions wrapped around fantasy ie: having sex with the secretary after work hours, having the nurse make a pass during examination, having the girl next door offer up her silicone breasts, threesomes etc.
Why do you focus on the most extreme forms of porn? The women who perform in a beastiality video or swallows excrement, allows a load of semen on face or swallows would have to also have an attraction for that particular paraphilic turn on. Most porn participants do not perform in extreme porn which is why you will see the same ten faces in a paraphilic flick. From your knowledge of the sex-trade there are ample examples of women entering the industry because they enjoy the business, the sex, the money they do not need you to condone their behaviour. You have strong feelings against porn so I will assume you stay away from it, not purchasing magazines, avoiding it on the net and not paying for sex. Since this thread is about porn and the mind isn't it safe to say that even if the images of debauched sex were not available for viewing they would still exist and play themselves out in the mind? And that the actions in mind may find fruition in reality just as the average non-paraphilic purchaser of porn still has sex in his real life? Whould you suggest suppressing sexual fantasy? What is inherently wrong with sexual fantasy or its celluloid version if it is only consumed by those who enjoy it and not forced on those who dont? What is the fear? And there must be some fear or you would not feel so strongly against something you apparently avoid and remain unaffected by.
"Meaningful human behaviour" and "productiveness"? What is meaningful and productive about sex? What is meaningful and productive can only be relative unless we are speaking of its biological function which is the propogation of the species.

Actually I don't find porn that stimulating when it comes to disturbing scenerios or images. A well thought out erotic film like The Night Porter or Belle Du Jour is far more provocative and subversive precisely because they leave so much to the imagination. Pornography is dulling after one has ejaculated or come, it exposes so much that the imagery becomes prosaic and unstimulating. Modern porn has nothing on what the poet Alfred De Musset produced when he wrote Gamiani, the unsentimental tittilating porn for the mind is a depiction of George Sand (it will definitely change your mind on what some women enjoy swapping and with whom). Then of course there is Guillaume Apollinaire, Pierre Louys and Pauline Reage's Story of O (women can be so dirty!), what about Anne Rice's Sleeping Beauty trilogy? I mean pouring honey on a restrained man's erect penis so that it may be stimulated by flies is something I have yet to see attempted by Ron Jeremy. My only problem with modern porn is not its extremity but that it's so damn pedestrian, it cannot explore sex at all hence my boredom. H. Miller's Under The Roofs of Paris is far more extreme than the childish scenerios I see depicted in porn. In short modern ponography is as satiating as a snickers bar when one craves Neuhaus.

David:
An atheist cunt who loves cumshots....LOL.

Odinist.

Xev...enjoyment that is derived from degarding acts is not something I condone.

That's nice, I'm sure there's a legion of female masochists out there crying their eyes out:
"Noo! David Mayes (whoever the fuck he is) doesn't condone what we do in bed."
What you condone is a matter of your preference, not a universal standard. I'm not interested in what you like to do in bed.
I am interested in whether you can justify your arguments.

You presume that you have human nature all figured out, and your conclusion is that of Freuds, destructiveness/evilness.

1: I don't like Freud. His methodology was absurd and his conclusions laughable.

2: No, I have never claimed to have "human nature all figured out" and I didn't say anything about "evilness"

3: I made an observation. Unlike you, I prefer to observe the world and then comment, rather than cramming my under-developed brain with other people's ideas and then yammering like a fool.

Are you paying attention to what I write or just stroking your miniscule penis as you type?

I will NEVER agree to engage in such debauchery, I would never expect a women to mimic the behaviours of the porno/wackos that inspire her spiritually comatosed self.

Right, but it's perfectly acceptable to insult a woman by calling her a cunt.
You can't even live up to your own (stated) standards of behaviour. How pathetic.

A4Ever:
Means I don't even know whether I'm a nihilist. :)
I really don't even like the term "nihilism" - too muddy.

Lucysnow:
Interesting points, well enough. "Live and let live" is a good policy, and why (unless motivated by prurient interest) would one view or discuss porn when one considers it to be "degrading" or vile?
What, precisely, is unclean about a man's semen?
Nothing. Removed from the confines of the bazaar, sex is an expression of fertility and soul.
My ancestors, the Slavs, knew this well and often invoked the God of sexuality and youth Jarilo (whose symbol is the phallus) during spring planting. One of the common defenses against drought was to lead a naked young woman through the fields.
No modern prudery there.

Pornography is boring? Indeed. The sexual act is driven into the narrow confines of pleasure and sold as image. How could it be otherwise?

Live and let live

that , coming from your mouth , is somewhat .... funny ;)

Xev...I thought you might have found my characterization funny{all things considered}...you didn't and have become offended.

Considering you've called others cunt in the past, I thought you might have appreciated a return fire.

Oh well :o

Don't whimper and expose your belly so soon. I'm not offended, just toying with your self-rightousness.

sweet pentax:
Isn't it?

In order for you to know the look on their faces you would have had to sample quite a number of hired help so what is it you do not condone?

Degrading acts, acts which are either typically considered filthy or even unhealthy...such as eating excrement{yummmmmm}


they do not need you to condone their behaviour.

I detest all stupid and poorly thought out behaviour.


You have strong feelings against porn so I will assume you stay away from it, not purchasing magazines, avoiding it on the net and not paying for sex.

Wrong...I'm making a distinction between objectively degrading acts and explicit sex acts.
It's very easy to talk about this on net, but I'd be extremely surprised if you would ever attempt to justify your support of degrading acts in front of a group of educated adults.

You, like most others here assume that any criticism of porn is based on a dislike of porn, yet, I've consistenly pointed out that I'm against the degrading acts.
Anyone who gives moral support to people who want to eat biological waste or a biological product destined for the vagina is a bit loopy.

Since this thread is about porn and the mind isn't it safe to say that even if the images of debauched sex were not available for viewing they would still exist and play themselves out in the mind?

Well, no....I've never had any fantasies where I eat semen or shit, perhaps you do, that's your problem.


What is meaningful and productive about sex?

It feels good.

What's meaningful and productive about going for a swim on a hot day?

It feels good.

Don't whimper and expose your belly so soon. I'm not offended, just toying with your self-rightousness

Xev

So eating semen and shit is morally justifiable....LOL, thanks for exposing yourself as wholly brainwashed.
As soon as you scientism/empiricism freaks get a wiff of anything that has an attachment to religion, you shit your pants and go on the offensive.

David:
So eating semen and shit is morally justifiable....LOL, thanks for exposing yourself as wholly brainwashed.

No, 'tard - I don't subscribe to moralistic interpretations of the world.
I am a heathen.

As soon as you scientism/empiricism freaks get a wiff of anything that has an attachment to religion, you shit your pants and go on the offensive.

*Chortles*
Scientism? Me?
That's a good one. That's almost as funny as watching you attempt to look smart.

Do you honestly think you fool anyone? That "I date ladies, not whores" is something besides the most obvious cover for not being able to get any ass whatsoever? Or that your contempt for the female sex isn't obviously rooted in the above?
Do you have any idea how utterly funny you are?

Look out XEV, sooner or later you'll become my "psychological prisioner".

Evasion.
You can't even stick to an argument, you fallacious twit. You ascribe to me arguments I've never made, and ignore the gist of everything written to you.
You don't have a goddamned thing to say, and all those attempts to make that nothing sound good just look like glitter on shit.

Quote:I'm making a distinction between objectively degrading acts and explicit sex acts.It's very easy to talk about this on net, but I'd be extremely surprised if you would ever attempt to justify your support of degrading acts in front of a group of educated adults.

Since I am an adult I need not justify my actions but we are not speaking of any of my sexual proclivities.

Quote: Anyone who gives moral support to people who want to eat biological waste or a biological product destined for the vagina is a bit loopy

What moral support? They recquire no support and I do not find paraphilia a moral issue. What I find interesting is your outrage against something no one had mentioned not even in the opening thread. It is you who introduced and remained fixated on the 'bizarre'.
You say pleasure is the productive meaning behind sex well what is pleasing to you is obviously not pleasing to others.

Just out of curiosity Dave do you perform cunnilingus on your ladies? Do they ever go loopy on your rod? I mean someone who considers the biological excretions so unpleasent must really avoid 'tasting'. Do you condone kissing with all that spit swapping involved?

..."here we go loop de loop,
here we go loop de ly,
here we go loop de loop all on a Saturday night"

Xev bunny.

I'm someone who tells the truth, the FULL TRUTH, as such, this forces people to do a subconscious psychological profile on me, ie, they are forced to psychologically defend themselves against my truths at a subconscious level and retaliate with "rationalizations" against my FULL TRUTHS, truths which they've recognized as threatening{but only at a subconscious level}.

I don't coverse with people who become my psychological prisioners as the basis of their capture is fear of TRUTH, it would be a complete waste of time.

This is why I made the post on critical thinking and rational discourse...this post either attracts truthseekers or repells truthhaters.

Just out of curiosity Dave do you perform cunnilingus on your ladies? Do they ever go loopy on your rod? I mean someone who considers the biological excretions so unpleasent must really avoid 'tasting'. Do you condone kissing with all that spit swapping involved?

OPEN WIDE LUCY, I've got a full load of truth to splatter all over your face...LOL.

This truth David is your truth. As you have outlined there are those in the world who do not live by your truth. The idea of a "full truth" is a lot of bullshit unless you are prepared to enlighten the rest of us on what this 'ultimate' universal truth may be. Sex is too complex to try and force your idea of pleasure on others nevermind your truth. And since when has desire been rational? As Dante once asked "Who let desire pull reason from her throne?" Well passion and an unrelenting sex drive did.

Quote:OPEN WIDE LUCY, I've got a full load of truth to splatter all over your face...LOL.
Davey there are a lot of variables to be considered before I know if I would be open to that...but hey, you never know.

David:
I'm someone who tells the truth, the FULL TRUTH, as such, this forces people to do a subconscious psychological profile on me, ie, they are forced to psychologically defend themselves against my truths at a subconscious level and retaliate with "rationalizations" against my FULL TRUTHS, truths which they've recognized as threatening{but only at a subconscious level}.

That's nice. Perhaps this compensates for the lack of power and accomplishment in your life.
I rather don't hope so.

You're someone who can't argue. When asked a set of simple questions, you squeal like a little bitch and start ascribing to your questioner arguments that they've never made for practices they don't indulge in.

Although your prurient interest in such practices is telling.

Sex is too complex to try and force your idea pleasure on others nevermind your truth

You're right, this is why I accept categories of human behaviour, but not anything goes in these categories.

Cite a peer reviewed paper from an established medical journal which affirms the value of eating feces?

We can use science and reason to include or exclude certain behaviours and look for widespread support.

You're someone who can't argue.

No, I just won't argue with my psychological prisioners as I explained.

*Laughs*
No, you can only spew gibberish using faulty methods of reasoning.

Don't like the challenge to your ideas?
Unable to take the idea that reason might be just as arbitrary as emotion, or that morality is just as arbitrary?
Don't question, little sheep! Better yet to cover your ears and obfuscate.

You are what Varg Vikernes described as a "sheep in wolves clothing". You like to feign superiourity to the herd, but you're just as docile as they are.

But please, don't "refuse to argue". There's no need for a man covered in filth to take the high moral ground, and you're providing some excellent entertainment for me.

Don't like the challenge to your ideas?

Xev

What challenge...you're either neutral or pro-hardcore pornography and anyone who challenges YOU is written off as self-righteous, and this terminates rational debate.

Unable to take the idea that reason might be just as arbitrary as emotion, or that morality is just as arbitrary?

Thinking and feeling co-define each other, but there's nothing arbitary about knowing that feces is biological waste, and that the body expelled it as it was toxic, in fact, some cancer researchers believe in auto-intoxication via the toxic waste in the colon.

And you want to support or demand neutrality on eating feces and try and pass it off as a form of sex, LOL, it's by any definition a form of pathological behaviour.

Quote:We can use science and reason to include or exclude certain behaviours and look for widespread support.

I understand that there is behaviour you find abhorrent and would never indulge in but to look for 'widespread support'...well I just find that very evangical.

Quote: And you want to support or demand neutrality on eating feces and try and pass it off as a form of sex, LOL, it's by any definition a form of pathological behaviour.

No one is supporting ANYTHING. Some people include waste in their sex play and that is there perogative...if they drop dead from it that is their problem, their consequence. The practitioners of the behaviour you describe are probably better informed of the risk than we are so....
Hey did you know Chuck Berry indulges in the bizarre. Yes indeedy, he made quite a few home videos it seems and his very special treat were blond girls excreting in his mouth. Didn't kill him.

Pornography is great!

Now coprophilia is certainly not to my taste. Nor is analingus. But if others want to participate, that is their business. The risk benefit analysis is up to them.

I like kissing, but the human mouth can be pretty disgusting. I wouldn't want to kiss a girl with poor oral hygiene that bordered on gum disease.

If you don't like these acts, don't participate. Don't like to watch them, don't get that kind of porn. I'm partial to solo girl / girl on girl videos myself. No guy butt.

If you can't get something, you'd better find a way to live without it.

David Mayes:
What challenge...you're either neutral or pro-hardcore pornography and anyone who challenges YOU is written off as self-righteous, and this terminates rational debate.

No. I consider the relience on the more vivid and disgusting forms of pornography a sign of a decadent age that cannot feel. You consumerist whores have so divorced yourself from nature that you cannot even enjoy sexual depictions if they are natural and not perverse. Honest joy in the sexual act, reserved for a select few? You couldn't feel it, or honest anything for that matter. You chase swinish hedonism until your comfort is - uncomfortable.

I am not neutral or pro - but my "anti" is a matter of asthetics, not the sick need to moralize every judgement.

You, on the other hand, must moralize everything.

When faced with one who questions your methods and not your conclusions, you retreat and squeal. Why? Because your conclusions are arbitrary and your methods an accumulation of prejudices masquerading as rational principles.

Thinking and feeling co-define each other, but there's nothing arbitary about knowing that feces is biological waste,

I never argued otherwise. Pay attention.

and that the body expelled it as it was toxic, in fact, some cancer researchers believe in auto-intoxication via the toxic waste in the colon.

This is not the issue.

And you want to support or demand neutrality on eating feces and try and pass it off as a form of sex, LOL, it's by any definition a form of pathological behaviour.

*Laughs*
You pathetic fool, I never made such an argument. You cannot even justify your reasoning, so you lie about the arguments others used.

Quote:I consider the relience on the more vivid and disgusting forms of pornography a sign of a decadent age that cannot feel. You consumerist whores have so divorced yourself from nature that you cannot even enjoy sexual depictions if they are natural and not perverse.

Xev I couldn't agree with you more. Its almost as if people (some anyway) have become insensate through overstimulation or something (I am not quite sure what as yet) and need more and more exteme methods for achieving pleasure.

Lucysnow:
I am not sure if it is really over-stimulation. If anything, we lack stimulation - except mentally - and are sold fantasy, whether it be of sex or heroism or just plain personal worth in the machinery.

It's more that we're bombarded with stimuli - music, color, pattern, image - all used to sell something. We create a shell to withstand it, and it takes more and more to affect that shell.

XEV, you really have no method, except that which was fed to you via your philosophy hero's, you think that your "take no prisioners" debating tactics will impress people that you're some intellectual tough nut.

Being "anti", but not opposing is a vote for the current paradigm.

It is interesting to note that most threads have about 5 views for every post.
A thread titled 'pornography' has over 10 views per post.

Every thread on this page is near or greater than 10-1...it's attracting no more attention that other topics in terms of ratio's.

David:
Or perhaps I have too many methods, but who cares?
I have no heroes. I admire people like Sigrid Storrada, F.W Nietzsche and Giordano Bruno, but they simply remain dead people whom I like.
Nor do I have a "take no prisoners" approach, what a silly thing to say. Impress? From a man whose entire style is based on repeating other's words to them in an attempt to look smart? Ffft.

As for "anti" but not "opposing" - I think more in terms of structure and cause, not silly little campaigns like anti-pornography.
Anyone who thinks that the world can be improved by campaigning against blowjobs should be scalped.

Impress? From a man whose entire style is based on repeating other's words to them in an attempt to look smart? Ffft.

Oh I see, you want me to ignore the genius of Erich Fromm as it threatens
your psychological security?
I consider Fromm to have laid the framework for the objective determinations of categories of human nature and methods by which we can try and judge what is acceptable behaviour....or can't we criticize any actions in your mind?



As for "anti" but not "opposing" - I think more in terms of structure and cause, not silly little campaigns like anti-pornography.

I'm not anti porn dummy, I've said that 5 or more times.



Anyone who thinks that the world can be improved by campaigning against blowjobs should be scalped.

LOL, grow up bunny.

David:
Fromm? I haven't read anything by him, nor did I mention him.
Name-dropping only makes you look like a twit.

I'm not anti porn dummy, I've said that 5 or more times.

I don't recall having been called a "dummy" since grade school.
In any case, I didn't say you were.

LOL, grow up bunny

*Laughs*
First it's "cunt", now "bunny"
What a hypocrite you are. Here you are, the noble feminist warrior who hates to see women "degraded" - and you use language like that.

Good night, brave campaigner.

Fromm? I haven't read anything by him, nor did I mention him.
Name-dropping only makes you look like a twit.

Xev.

Well you should either get "Sane Society" or "Man for himself, an enquiry into the psychology of ethics"

Btw, unlike you, I don't pretend to not having been influenced by intertextuality.


I don't recall having been called a "dummy" since grade school.
In any case, I didn't say you were.

Make up your mind.....otherwise you'll be dumped into my prison.


What a hypocrite you are. Here you are, the noble feminist warrior who hates to see women "degraded" - and you use language like that.

Both sexes are being degraded, it's just that the focus is on the women.


Good night, brave campaigner.

Just expressing myself.

My god man you are trying to introduce Xev to Fromm? She'll vomit after three pages then use the rest as kitty litter. An example of Fromm's Humanist Credo:

"I believe that there are two ways of arriving at the choice of the good. The first is that of duty and obedience to moral commands. This way can be effective, yet we must consider that in thousands of years only a minority have fulfilled even the requirements of the Ten Commandments. Many more have committed crimes when they were presented to them as commands by those in authority. The other way is to develop a taste for and a sense of well-being in doing what is good or right."

Xev has already stated that she rarely makes moral judgements but aesthetic ones; Why do you think she would be wooed by the sentimentality and the set moral obligations Fromm proposes? Sane Society is where Fromm makes an argument for "communitarian socialism", that should go over well :D

Xev has already stated that she rarely makes moral judgements but aesthetic ones;

Lucy.

Everyone makes moral judgements, asserting an abstinence amounts to a vote for the existing moral order, that is Xev's passive moral judgement.


Why do you think she would be wooed by the sentimentality and the set moral obligations Fromm proposes?

Please show me the exact set of moral obligations Fromm ascribed to?
Don't assume that I agree with everything Fromm says, I'm sure you have disagreements with some of your favourite authors :p

To dearprudence
Your 'guilt trip' was very feminine of you and very passive aggressive.
Soft souls as yours, who can't take a punch or a wound, should keep out of the forest. Truth, and the search for it, can become unpleasent.
Maybe you should fight more often so that your skin can get thincker and maybe you should accept suffering more as a means to get stronger.
The world punishes the weak and the sheltered even though it often isn't trying to or is indifferent to their pain.
But then suffering and pain can lead to self-destruction and obliteration but that's a risk one must take or reamin forever a prisoner of his/her own fears and insecurities.
No pain no gain, daaaarrrrling.

To all the rest
I loooooove doggystyle [very primitive] and any act that makes a woman, I repeat a woman, squeel, strokes my male ego and I find much pleasure in it. Other than that Chuck Berry and anyone else can eat shit, drink piss or fuck corpses for all I care.
I already know the quality of man why would empirical evidence proving it bother me?
I already know most of mankind is sick why would proof bother me?
Pedophiles, necrophiles, homos and all sexual deviants don't shock or disturb me anymore just like mass murderers, cannibals and retards don't affect me.
I'm actually surprised there aren't more of them openly so or exposed as such more often.

I think many people would be shocked to find what many out there think and what they fantasize about or what they do in their privasy.
Seemingly respectable, average, "normal" human beings hide deep distrurbing deviations.
It is good that telepathy and mind-reading is not possible otherwise we wouldn't be able to tolerate each other.

See what happens when we allow all to procreate and we protect everyone, even the unworthy, based only on the fact that they are human or alive?
Six billion people living like ants one on top of the other is not healthy. We better get off planet soon.
Next ship for Mars please!!!!

homos and all sexual deviants

Wanderer.

Is homosexuality abnormal, IOW, is it a result of a perverted culture?

David Mayes:
Everyone makes moral judgements, asserting an abstinence amounts to a vote for the existing moral order, that is Xev's passive moral judgement.

Oh god you are brainwashed.
A thing can be opposed without resorting to "but it's a bad evil thing!"
Arminius destroyed the Roman attempts to colonize Germania, he did this by his military prowess and not by sitting around whining that the Roman attempt was bad and evil.
Arminius was an honest man.
This is how my ancestors lived.
Sigrid Storrada had no need to fulminate against "Christianity" when she was organizing the fight against the Christian Olaf Haraaldson. She knew simply that the tyrant was trying to displace her old Gods.

Modern society has transformed everything into morality and ideology - in a word, packaging. It's gotten so bad that you cannot even comprehend that a judgement can be made independant of morality - and insist that it's simply a "immoral" or "complacent" judgement.
Everything is submission for you inglorious men of today. Your honor - obedience to a higher good. Your philanthropy - obedience to concepts of how things "ought to be".

Well you should either get "Sane Society" or "Man for himself, an enquiry into the psychology of ethics"

I'll keep it in mind.

Both sexes are being degraded, it's just that the focus is on the women.

So?
Modern society is sick and it makes sick.
It would not function if humans were healthy, and when they are unhealthy billions of dollars are raked in by the medical establishment. Win-win for everyone.
When you create something geared for the average male or female, the instincts of the average male or female will dominate.

The average male wants to degrade his partner, the average female finds this display of force exciting. Thus do their instincts perpetuate themselves in popular culture.

Do you doubt this, believe in the innate goodness of man? Look at the depictions of sex that you critique. Lucysnow mentioned Pauline Reage. Don't know who that is, so I looked. -> http://feastofhateandfear.com/archives/storyofO.html

Case in point - you think the average human is any less slavish and pathetic?
Don't you think the world would be different if they were?

We support the sick. Is it any wonder they predominate?

Quote: It wouldn't function if healthy

Too true, there is definitely an invested interested in maintaining the decomposing mind but I don't think it much matters because it cannot sustain itself and most citizens cannot sustain themselves outside of this particular system. The momentum towards collapse is enormous, there is no way to counteract it or change its direction. Let them eat plastic or become distracted by Britney tid bits, everyone can wallow in what they like (and thats a good thing). David what would your solution be anyway? A show of disgust; no one would care. A systematic solution; Pol Pot tried and it led to death. A loving prodding towards enlightenment; Most would fight it.

For the Wanderer:

What does that mean to you?
You take her from the back
We're so respectable

But I'm entitled
Entitled

Why can you not relax
When I'm behind you?
I don't make passes from the back
Is it something usual?

To be so entitled
Entitled

Marc E. Smith/The Fall

Lucysnow:
True, but who really cares? Society is sick, yet one who penetrated through to the heart of it could use that to their advantage. The only thing that annoys me is that I must live with it. I have to pay taxes so that the ill-bred are maintained at state expense, I'm constantly having to face the relentless vulgarity of it all, etc. If someone breaks into my house and tries to rape me, am I allowed to dispach him to the filthy cold of Niflheim? No, I have to use "reasonable force" and "reasonably believe myself to be in danger of harm". Everything is geared to favour the weak.

The Spartans had a custom called the crypteria in which the ritually slaughtered the helots when the helots became too numerous. Bears potential.

Wanderer.

Is homosexuality abnormal, IOW, is it a result of a perverted culture?
More the result of rampant procreation with no controlling predator to keep the herd healthy and efficient.
Homosexuality, is to say the least, an inefficient expenditure of energy and time. There’s no result and pleasure, geared to promote reproduction, is castrated to an act of entertainment.
Another example is eye problems.
In nature those with deficient eyesight would most likely perish because of it, but due to ‘modern’ systems and mans domination of nature the poor sighted persist and so pass on the gene of myopia or whatever the cause may be.

It’s telling how the act of male on male penetration, more a sign of domination than love in the wild, has come to represent an alternative expression of intimacy.
But I guess if you like having a cock shoved up your ass and you call it love, you aren’t the brightest of minds.


Lucynow
What does that mean to you?
You take her from the back
We're so respectable

But I'm entitled
Entitled

Why can you not relax
When I'm behind you?
I don't make passes from the back
Is it something usual?

To be so entitled
Entitled

Marc E. Smith/The Fall
Are you purposefully trying to get me hard or what?

A suggestion
I suggest that the next step in human equality should be to allow all expressions of sexual lust equal status in our society.
I mean, why just stop at gay rights.
Let gays marry and adopt children and let them have equal rights under the law but let us not forget the pedophiles, the beast lovers, the carcass admirers, the masochists, the faeces tasters and the golden shower enjoyers.
How dare we discriminate in this manner?
After all isn’t it by how a culture treats its minorities that determines its openness and value?

What sort of extreme ageism makes us disrespect the will of the adolescent or infant.
If a child wants to have sex with a consenting adult then who are we to stand in the way of love?
If an adult chooses to not give his cadaver to science but to donate it to a loving companion as a love puppet then who are we to say what is weird or bizarre and what is normal?
If a pet lover wants to take his/her relationship with a favourite animal companion a step further into carnal lust, then who are we to judge?
So in the name of compassion and equal rights let us offer our understanding and support for those that choose to express their physical desire in alternate ways.
I beseech you my brothers and sisters let us not stop at homosexual emancipation.
We have started on the road of equality and justice so let us follow through until the end, fairness demands it.
Let our streets be filled with happy horny well-hung horses and un-thirsty piss-lovers; let our homes be the refuge of exhilarated child lovers and the reverberating echoes of whips and screams of pleasurable pain; let fudge-packers and dykes adopt and raise children and let death not be the end of a sexual relationship.
For God’s sake let us remember that we are all equal under the law and under God the almighty.
Thank you.
I’ll be signing pictures in the lobby afterwards.

Quote: True, but who really cares?

What are you referring to?

The only way to avoid the 'ill-bred' and 'relentless vulgrity' is through capitol. Wealth is the only way to insulate oneself, then one has the option of mobility and creating a world one wants within the world one wishes to avoid. Unfortunately the tax situation is almost (but not entirely) unavoidable and they have cracked down on off-shore banking. Helots? I guess the modern version of a helot is the average wage earning consumer. What was the purpose of slaughtering the helots? Didn't the Spartans need them for labor?

Glad to be of service Wanderer.

Wanderer why do we have to clog up the legal system with granting rights to those who are already consenting? The legal system should be reserved to the infringement of rights.

It's gotten so bad that you cannot even comprehend that a judgement can be made independant of morality - and insist that it's simply a "immoral" or "complacent" judgement.

Xev.

I don't buy it.
Your indifference or complacent judgements are not direct attacks against the established order, you mainly prefer to whinge about how tough or rough your life is rather than realize you're probably living a priviliged life and are a product of your circumstances in your youth, IOW, it was effectively luck.
Don't gimme some BS about intelligence, Ted Bundy was intelligent.



Do you doubt this, believe in the innate goodness of man? Look at the depictions of sex that you critique.

As a primary quality, this actualization requires the necessary favourable conditions for productive growth and the development of what I call the Positive Psychological milieu, the polar opposite is a negative milieu which is developed during a pathogenic upbringing.

So sick people are made by an inadequate society relying on a flawed and limited paradigm, that most people are fucked up is because our dominant models are fucked up, this leads to frequent examples of disturbing childhoods where the secondary potentiality is actualized, ie, destructiveness, or a polluted milieu.

More the result of rampant procreation with no controlling predator to keep the herd healthy and efficient.
Homosexuality, is to say the least, an inefficient expenditure of energy and time.

Wanderer.

huh?...what type of predator would feast on the homo's...LOL?


Another example is eye problems.

I think it's foolish for two people who are handicapped to create another handicapped person, as such i'm in favour of positive eugenics, but it's a choice to be made by the parents, although that choice will be influenced by societal pressures so the choice isn't entirely independent of societies wishes.

Quote:As a primary quality, this actualization requires the necessary favourable conditions for productive growth and the development of what I call the Positive Psychological milieu, the polar opposite is a negative milieu which is developed during a pathogenic upbringing.

So David how does one create a positive psychological milieu in a degraded society? There is no way to provoke growth in large numbers of people only in individuals and the individual coming from a bad childhood or what have you may or may not take on the difficult task of personal growth, health and well being. The sick have to know they are sick and desire something else. I don't think it necessary to worry about the ill or maladjusted only those who are struggling towards self-discovery and healing.

David:
Xev.
I don't buy it.
Your indifference or complacent judgements are not direct attacks against the established order, you mainly prefer to whinge about how tough or rough your life is rather than realize you're probably living a priviliged life and are a product of your circumstances in your youth, IOW, it was effectively luck.
Don't gimme some BS about intelligence, Ted Bundy was intelligent.

Why should I care to better the quality of life for the many?

So sick people are made by an inadequate society relying on a flawed and limited paradigm, that most people are fucked up is because our dominant models are fucked up, this leads to frequent examples of disturbing childhoods where the secondary potentiality is actualized, ie, destructiveness, or a polluted milieu.

Naw. Sexual inequality is an iron law of nature.
Look at history. Women have had inferior status in most cultures, the exceptions - the Norse, the Egyptians, the Sarmantians - simply proving the norm.
Being physically vulnerable leads to exploitation. The lion picks off the gazelle that can't run as fast as the other gazelles.
Women, already at a disadvantage for not being physically as stong (on average) are further weakened by the long pregnency and period of childhood dependancy that a species of our intelligence requires. Hence the gender is as a whole despised - weakness is naturally looked upon with disdain - from Chinese footbinding practices to genital mutilation in modern Africa and the Mid-East.
Why should contemporary culture be any different?

You create fancy scenerios. I look at the facts. You avoid the unpleasant; being unpleasent myself, I revel in it. Truth is harsh, I understand, but living a convoluted lie is a poor substitute.

Lucysnow:
What was the purpose of slaughtering the helots? Didn't the Spartans need them for labor?

The helots had a tendancy to over-breed.
Or perhaps the Spartans were just bored. I remember this from a history class, but I can't find any reference to it now.


huh?...what type of predator would feast on the homo's...LOL?

A homo-cidal one.

So David how does one create a positive psychological milieu in a degraded society?

As I believe it's heavily developed during the formative and uncritical yrs of birth to 3, a person cannot create it for themselves.
If they've been the beneficiary of it, they would be horrified at how the world behaves and would be forced into a variety of avenues to enable them to withstand the onslaught of worthless and stupid behaviours.

It's my view that many of the mentally ill are intuitively aware of the problem, yet their powers of reason aren't sufficiently developed to protect them, so they are effectively forced into mental collapse and avoidance of the disturbed reality...psychatrists demonize the mentally ill as trying to escape/avoid reality without considering whether the problem might actually be with people at large and the system{reality}, hence psychatrists will help you adjust, this adjustment is to a pathological system....this is why drugs are necessary.


I don't think it necessary to worry about the ill or maladjusted only those who are struggling towards self-discovery and healing.

Of course you don't, you're a social darwinist.

Homosexuality, is to say the least, an inefficient expenditure of energy and time. There’s no result and pleasure, geared to promote reproduction, is castrated to an act of entertainment.

What proportion of heterosexual sex acts lead to reproduction, do you think?

It’s telling how the act of male on male penetration, more a sign of domination than love in the wild, has come to represent an alternative expression of intimacy.
But I guess if you like having a cock shoved up your ass and you call it love, you aren’t the brightest of minds.

I guess that's just your prejudice speaking. You don't have anything to actually support that, do you?

What sort of extreme ageism makes us disrespect the will of the adolescent or infant.
If a child wants to have sex with a consenting adult then who are we to stand in the way of love?

Have you ever heard of the term "informed consent"?
Do you understand the concept behind it?
Can you see the difference between sex between two consenting adults and what you're talking about here?
If not, time to start thinking.

If an adult chooses to not give his cadaver to science but to donate it to a loving companion as a love puppet then who are we to say what is weird or bizarre and what is normal?

Very true.

If a pet lover wants to take his/her relationship with a favourite animal companion a step further into carnal lust, then who are we to judge?

Did the pet give informed consent? I don't think so. See the difference between this and your previous example?

So in the name of compassion and equal rights let us offer our understanding and support for those that choose to express their physical desire in alternate ways.

Yes, let's.

We have started on the road of equality and justice so let us follow through until the end, fairness demands it.

Right on!

Let our streets be filled with happy horny well-hung horses and un-thirsty piss-lovers; let our homes be the refuge of exhilarated child lovers and the reverberating echoes of whips and screams of pleasurable pain; let fudge-packers and dykes adopt and raise children and let death not be the end of a sexual relationship.

You're mixing up things which are morally repugnant with things which are harmless. Time you learned the difference, don't you think? I'm happy to answer questions.

What proportion of heterosexual sex acts lead to reproduction, do you think?
In todays fucked-up world? Very few.
Should modern practices be representative for natural drives?
Man today is so cut-off from nature, especially his inner one, and reality that it’s a wonder we aren’t all cannibals.

I guess that's just your prejudice speaking. You don't have anything to actually support that, do you?

Are you saying there are gay dogs and faggot ferrets or that there are lesbian lemurs and dyke ducks?
I know that in dogs the male on male or sometimes female on male/female humping motion or even when a dog humps a leg, is a sign of symbolic dominance.

Have you ever heard of the term "informed consent"?
Do you understand the concept behind it?
Can you see the difference between sex between two consenting adults and what you're talking about here?
If not, time to start thinking.
And its time for you to get a sense of humor.
Have you heard of the term: ‘sarcasm’?
Look it up, the Greeks perfected it.

Informed consent?! Are you still working that piece of candy around in your mouth James?
Define informed and how you know said animal or adolescent is not so.
Are you prejudice against ignorant people?
I then suggest that we not allow morons and imbeciles to have sex with each other either.
But that would include 90% of humanity and perhaps, I dare say, even you.

What about the inherit ageism in the notion of ‘adult’?
Are we discriminating against people based on what we believe their maturity is and what is maturity anyways?
Do you believe your “adults” are informed?
Wow, you are deluded!

So I guess you don’t have a problem with necrophilia if the cadaver was given with the consent of the owner or for equal rights for sadomasochists if they are adult and informed?

Did the pet give informed consent? I don't think so. See the difference between this and your previous example?
In a universe of different methods of communication why are we discriminating against forms of communication that is not verbal?
A dog wagging its tail can be a form of consent,
Are you a bigot James?!
Equal rights for all beings!!!!!
Why stop at gay marriages?
Let cats marry humans, and corpses enter into holy matrimony with living bodies.
Let us truly seek out equal rights for all!!!! Damn it!

You're mixing up things which are morally repugnant with things which are harmless. Time you learned the difference, don't you think? I'm happy to answer questions.
Morally repugnant! MORALLY REPUGNANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who decides what is moral, you James, the state or your local church?
Now who is being prejudiced?
You’ve divided the world into morally acceptable and morally unacceptable and you call me prejudiced?!!!
Who’s getting hurt in sex, in any form of it other than masochism?
If a child consents to enter into a sexual relationship with an adult then who gets hurt?
Vaginal penetration is pleasant James, you should try it. It doesn’t hurt.
If it bleeds it needs and if it can get it up it can get it on, baby!!!!

You are a prude James and a prude with no sense of humor is a sad, sad thing.

Quote: it’s a wonder we aren’t all cannibals.

Speak for yourself. Why do you think its fucked up that heterosexual activity doesnt lead to reproduction? The world is overpopulated as it is.

Quote:If a child consents to enter into a sexual relationship with an adult then who gets hurt?
Vaginal penetration is pleasant James, you should try it. It doesn’t hurt.
If it bleeds it needs and if it can get it up it can get it on, baby!!!!

How do you define child? A child is not in a position to consent to a sexual relationship with an adult. If it is indeed a child then yes penetration will hurt. Don't you think one should wait until said childs body is prepared for the activity?

Wanderer:

"What proportion of heterosexual sex acts lead to reproduction, do you think?"

[quote]In todays fucked-up world? Very few.
Should modern practices be representative for natural drives?
Man today is so cut-off from nature, especially his inner one, and reality that it’s a wonder we aren’t all cannibals.

Oh, are we talking about nature now? Most sex acts between animals don't result in procreation either. Let's face it: sex for fun is natural. Procreation is an occasional side-effect.

Are you saying there are gay dogs and faggot ferrets or that there are lesbian lemurs and dyke ducks?

Yes. Look it up. You may be surprised.

I know that in dogs the male on male or sometimes female on male/female humping motion or even when a dog humps a leg, is a sign of symbolic dominance.

How do you know that?

And its time for you to get a sense of humor.
Have you heard of the term: ‘sarcasm’?
Look it up, the Greeks perfected it.

I am very familiar with sarcasm, I assure you.

Informed consent?! Are you still working that piece of candy around in your mouth James?
Define informed and how you know said animal or adolescent is not so.

Informed consent = able to appreciate all the consequences and implications of the act, along with making an active choice to participate.

In law, this would be a standard "reasonable person" test.

Are you prejudice against ignorant people?
I then suggest that we not allow morons and imbeciles to have sex with each other either.
But that would include 90% of humanity and perhaps, I dare say, even you.

I don't know where you're getting that from. And your personal attack doesn't bother me. Those who have no arguments often resort to personal abuse.

What about the inherit ageism in the notion of ‘adult’?
Are we discriminating against people based on what we believe their maturity is and what is maturity anyways?
Do you believe your “adults” are informed?

There are lines to be drawn, certainly. But there is also widespread agreement on what constitutes an "adult", and how informed somebody or something must be to give effective consent to a sexual act.

Wow, you are deluded!

That's funny - I thought you were.

So I guess you don’t have a problem with necrophilia if the cadaver was given with the consent of the owner or for equal rights for sadomasochists if they are adult and informed?

No, I have no problem with that, with the proviso that the "owner" of a cadaver is the person who previously lived in that body.

In a universe of different methods of communication why are we discriminating against forms of communication that is not verbal?
A dog wagging its tail can be a form of consent,

No, I don't think your dog is saying "Ok, give it to me, big boy" when he wags his tail at you. Do you?

Are you a bigot James?!
Equal rights for all beings!!!!!

That would be something of a contradiction in terms, wouldn't it?

Why stop at gay marriages?
Let cats marry humans, and corpses enter into holy matrimony with living bodies.

I thought we were talking about sex, not marriage. Maybe you should start a new thread.

Let us truly seek out equal rights for all!!!! Damn it!

Yes, let's.

Morally repugnant! MORALLY REPUGNANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Who decides what is moral, you James, the state or your local church?

Me, in this case.

Now who is being prejudiced?

Please point out who or what you think I am prejudiced against.

You’ve divided the world into morally acceptable and morally unacceptable and you call me prejudiced?!!!

Everybody does it. In fact, my inital post to you was precisely because I am of the opinion that your moral division is unsustainable.

Who’s getting hurt in sex, in any form of it other than masochism?

Those who have not given or who cannot give informed consent.

If a child consents to enter into a sexual relationship with an adult then who gets hurt?

The child. The child cannot give informed consent.

Vaginal penetration is pleasant James, you should try it.

I don't see how my personal sex life is relevant here.

If it bleeds it needs and if it can get it up it can get it on, baby!!!!

You are a prude James and a prude with no sense of humor is a sad, sad thing.

<i>I'm</i> a prude? I thought it was you who was saying that certain perfectly reasonable sex acts are wrong, not me. You seem confused. I'm far more liberal than you. Haven't you worked that out yet?

James, I thought I explained the fallacy of the concept of "rights" and "equal rights" to you long ago (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=12658). Tsk tsk.

/Edit:
And may I ask my favorite question about liberals -
Why is it acceptable that homosexuals are "born gay" but horrid to assume that some people might be "born criminals"?

Remind me, Xev.

Of course it's an assertion. Rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are granted by mutual agreement. Those rights are only inalienable if people agree that they should be.

Not every society recognises these "rights". Not every society agrees with the premises on which they are supposedly based. They are, however, morally defensible on a number of grounds, and match up with many major moral philsophical systems.

Leaving aside your curious conclusion that one can decide whether a thing is inalienable or not, have you not already accepted that social force is the creator and dictator of "rights"?
How can you object to Wanderer's so-called prudishness on moral grounds?

Pardon, I do hate walking about having to explain the failings of moral judgement to all (see my Ragnar Redbeard thread) but in today's society it seems to be something I am condemned to.

And for that matter:

I thought it was you who was saying that certain perfectly reasonable sex acts are wrong, not me. You seem confused.

Could you explain what is "reasonable" about fucking another man (or woman, for that matter) up the ass? About necrophilia or urinating on one's partner?

Not that sex acts are or should be reasonable. Unless you are constantly propositioned by women: "Oh yes James R, fuck me according to A PRIORI! ANALYTICAL PRINCIPLES"


-
On the whole, it'd probably be more fun to be fucked synthetically.

/Edit:
thread is here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=12658

"Oh yes James R, fuck me according to A PRIORI! ANALYTICAL PRINCIPLES"

LOL X 100

Xev:

Leaving aside your curious conclusion that one can decide whether a thing is inalienable or not, have you not already accepted that social force is the creator and dictator of "rights"?

I don't see why my conclusion about inalienability is curious. But, yes, I accept that "rights" involve a social contract.

How can you object to Wanderer's so-called prudishness on moral grounds?

Can you point me to where you think I did that?

Pardon, I do hate walking about having to explain the failings of moral judgement to all (see my Ragnar Redbeard thread) but in today's society it seems to be something I am condemned to.

What's wrong with moral judgment? If you're saying it is useless because all morals are relative, then you are making a mistake. At a fundamental level, all major systems of morality share a common set of values.

Could you explain what is "reasonable" about fucking another man (or woman, for that matter) up the ass? About necrophilia or urinating on one's partner?

I admit that "reasonable" was not the best choice of word there, so I concede this point. I should have said "harmless".

David, Just grow up.

James R:
David, Just grow up.

Why should he grow up? Men are most charming when they refuse to grow up. It's when they try to act more "grown up", mature and intelligent than they really are that they get annoying.

Can you point me to where you think I did that?

No, I can't. My apologies, I misread.

What's wrong with moral judgment? If you're saying it is useless because all morals are relative, then you are making a mistake. At a fundamental level, all major systems of morality share a common set of values.

My objection to moral judgement is more one to the way of thinking - sterile and overly focused on systemitizing - than to moral judgement per se.
As far as I'm concered, moral judgement is hypocritical and useful. It does, however, inhibit one in pursuit of truth.

"David, Just grow up."

James you insignificant turd, I've already rejected you as an over-emotional fool....this is my last reply to you.

Btw, I've left this forum as far as serious ongoing commentary is concerned, but may spend 20 mins a day abusing the multitude of idiots that frequent this kindergarten.

Ban or get get ready for some trolling you bunch of turds....LOL.

Don't forget kids, I'm a real philosopher, someone who COMMANDS RESPECT and espouses FULL TRUTH....but virtually none of you have the brains to realize this.

David "FULL TRUTH" Mayes.

David,

The more you write, the more you confirm my initial assessment of you. I am glad we won't be seeing more of you, since you seem to have little of value to contribute.

Bye!

David Mayes makes me sad, cause he has proven beyond doubt that full of truth is just another expression for full of shit. :(

:D

Xev... moral judgements are great, when you choose them, and not let them be imposed. They should also be seen as personal values, and not be imposed on others, unless other people's values are about to do damage to you or your loved ones.

I believe that choices are necessary in these matters, cause otherwise it leaves you too broad and empty. A person can sculpture himself, and it is a pleasant occupation. The sculpturing includes choosing your values. (starting from a nihilistic perspective, which assures the most honesty in the development. No fear of God or Death should lead to belief in God.)

Greets,

A4Ever.

I would be very surprised to meet the person who could philosophize away the need for a good lay now and again. (or for that matter, a good wank)

Who are you talking to wanker? :o