Nine Songs!

Re: sex

Interesting and thought provoking post Marie which makes a change for the last few! However I have to take issue with this:

We need to be able to distinguish fine art and its motives and effects from commercial packages of titilation floated from the 'sub-culture' into the culture with the implicit sales-pitch that to object, reject, or censor is 'uncool' or 'unliberated'. This does not infantalise adults - men or women - or reduce their freedom but rather engages their maturity in the necessity of deciding and working for the kind of community and society in which the position of those more vulnerable - the young - is respected.

Even leaving porn specifically aside for a moment, how can anybody realistically arrive at an objective or authoritative assessment of the intrinsic artistic "value" or aesthetic "worth" of any work when such things are largely (or wholly?) subjective. To attempt to impose rules in this context is to risk arbitarily marginalising that which is considered beyond the pale at any point in time and to stultify creativity. Just think of all the artistic works which, in their time, were considered offensive but which are now hailed as works of genius.
 
Re: sex

Yes...very interesting and thought provoking post Marie.

While I agree with a lot of your points I'd be a little suspicious about two things - despite your expertise in the area of understanding human nature.

>As a woman I am very clear in my own mind that men or women (though it is usually men!) who need or choose recourse to fantasy activity with images or strangers (porn mags/films/prostitutes, fetishistic perversions) as a substitute for physical, sensual sexual relationship with a (consenting peer) human then there is a problem.

As a man, I am very certain that a great deal of men are sexually aroused by images of sex or eroticism. I don't have any online evidence for this assertion but I'm fairly sure that it's a proven fact. Occupation aside I fear you may be personalising the subject a little too much and also taking it to extremes which aren't always necessarily true. There are many ways to explore your own sexuality, not all of which involve monogamous relationships.

>As a psychotherapist my experience has been that individuals who make such choices need - as with any substitute or addiction - to indulge in more and more of whatever the activity is - and increasingly 'heavy' stimuli are resorted to to achieve sexual satisfaction ending with the 'hard porn' and 'child porn' end of the spectrum.

I would imagine that as a psychotherapist you see a lot of the extremes. Extrapolating from your experience that the above might always be true would seem to be a dangerous presumption. then. In saying that I suppose all of our opinions are based on personal experience.
 
sex

Gabriel - I acknowledge your view that mine is limited. Of course it is, as is yours, by your background and experience. Perhaps what is different is I indicate from which areas of my personal experience my views originate.

What I endeavoured to articulat was that from postings to this thread one of the issues being raised appears to be that of appropriate discrimination between art (to which in many cases sex is central right back to the Renaissance) and sub-culture-masquerading-as-culture - for shorthand 'the sex industry' - and which is seductive, mesmeric addictive and pseudo-artistic and causes problems of definition (which incidentally Asimov has been struggling to point out and has been drummed out on)!

The former ('art') can be discerned insofar as it open up intellect and feeling and connects the world in a meaningful manner (though the work required of reflecting on, discussing publicly and understanding the symbolism is far from straightforward).

'The sex industry' on the contrary operates by selling the fiction of sexual satisfaction without the drawback (?!) of having to think about the needs, preferences or desires of a partner. It is narcissistic, an empty promise that one can avoid dealing with relational issues or issues of one's own sexuality through complex identification with the fantasy of another transformed packaged as a commodity which is sold. A commodity is not a person and sexual arousal through substitutes for a sexual partner are not sex which is an engagement of two physical persons.

I posted to this thread not because I or anyone I know cares what some 'men' (?!) do 'in the privacy of their own homes' as far as intervening there is concerned or foisting a dialogue which given the solitary nature of the practices clearly would not be welcome. These are their own responsibility (as a number of men here have trenchantly expressed).

However the prediliction of some men and their engagement with porn does have implications for others in the social group in which the sex industry imbeds and flourishes (as a number of posters have already expressed). One of those implications is that with proliferation of use of porn other people are increasingly related to as objects not subjects and can be purchased for one's own sexual (narcissistic and solitary!) gratification. It also distorts reality insofar as real people are reduced in stature in comparison with the (artifically created) pornographic icons and there is a falsification of reality.

Sex in 'art' I suggested - from the Greek Chalcolithic figurines (3000BC) through to 'Last Tango in Paris' and 'Ai No Corrida' - opens dialogue through presenting symbolic complexity which must be worked at and unravelled and in the process private fantasy is modified in a benign way which connects the individual with partner/group - rather than the disconnection and isolation of the individual - which is one aspect of porn. The manufacturers of pornographic material do not have any moral compunction about what happens to the purchaser, the community or anybody else, as evidenced by their willingness to manufacture 'snuff' movies.

I did not infer solitary indulgence in pornographic material was not exciting. It is! That's why it's big business. Porn is what it is and it is a major error of judgement to believe it is what it is not.

The more reliance on external restraints, censorship and prohibition the less people exercise discrimination and judgement on their own behalf. If men desire porn their desire occurs in a social space occupied by others and they need to engage in open debate about its effects on the entire community and how that desire is stimulated by the workings of a sub-culture which sells not just sexual imagery but the idea that people are things there for one's use on demand in return for money.
 
Re: sex

Hi Marie,

No Grafton street tonight guys. Conserving cash I'm afraid. February is a tough month

>Perhaps what is different is I indicate from which areas of my personal experience my views originate.

I acknowledge that. Unfortunately, and I don't wish this to be offensive, I see far more of your personal feelings in your last post than your job.

This has become a difficult subject now and I don't pretend to be right in everything I say. Please bear that in mind.

>The sex industry' on the contrary operates by selling the fiction of sexual satisfaction without the drawback (?!) of having to think about the needs, preferences or desires of a partner. It is narcissistic, an empty promise that one can avoid dealing with relational issues or issues of one's own sexuality through complex identification with the fantasy of another transformed packaged as a commodity which is sold. A commodity is not a person and sexual arousal through substitutes for a sexual partner are not sex which is an engagement of two physical persons.


My problem with this comment is the presumption inferred that anything short of loving sex is wrong or that it has no place. Fantasy, by its very nature is an empty promise. Fantasy and reality rarely mix well.
Sex has been a commodity for a long time. Prostitution is the oldest profession after all.


>I posted to this thread not because I or anyone I know cares what some 'men' (?!) do 'in the privacy of their own homes'...

You'll have to forgive me if I sense a certain disdain for men who view porn in that statement. From a psychotherapists point of view I find that strange to be honest. It personalises your viewpoint somewhat, without dealing with the matter in an objective manner.

>One of those implications is that with proliferation of use of porn other people are increasingly related to as objects not subjects and can be purchased for one's own sexual (narcissistic and solitary!) gratification. It also distorts reality insofar as real people are reduced in stature in comparison with the (artificially created) pornographic icons and there is a falsification of reality.

I'm actually quite a fan of your postings here...but unfortunately you're beginning to sound a lot like the two feminist experts on the Last Word the other night. Forgive me if that sounds flippant.
Both male and female participants in porn are related as objects. That in itself is not a necessarily a 'bad' thing. Fantasy, after all, is something every human being thinks about. It objectifys sexual desires in our mind. Sexual fantasy for men rarely takes feelings into consideration. Pornography is, very often, merely the physical manifestation of that fantasy.

>If men desire porn their desire occurs in a social space occupied by others and they need to engage in open debate about its effects on the entire community and how that desire is stimulated by the workings of a sub-culture which sells not just sexual imagery but the idea that people are things there for one's use on demand in return for money.

I doubt we'll ever agree on this subject. I'm a deep thinker and I understand a lot of what you're saying, but I also see other sides to the point being made. We could get into deeply convoluted arguments about how people themselves sell their own sex for a price...but I'm not sure what it would prove. Excuse the example, but it's the first that comes to mind right now. The woman, seeking a virile man, who sells her love and sex for the man who can give her the most. A rich man perhaps with prospects. One who can provide the life she desires? Is that woman selling herself? Her body? Does this happen? What does it mean?
That last point might be a little abstract and I may have had too much red wine!!
My point is I fear we can psycho-analyse a subject too much to suit our own pre-conceptions. Your own personal view of pornography is obviously a lot different to mine. I see it (the selling of sex and sexual gratification) as being part of the basic makeup of a lot of human beings (mainly male but also female). In much the same way that war and killing predispose themselves to the human equation, so does the objectification of sexuality. In the correct context, it's my view that this is merely an exploration into ones own sexual psyche.
 
Re: sex

The former ('art') can be discerned insofar as it open up intellect and feeling and connects the world in a meaningful manner (though the work required of reflecting on, discussing publicly and understanding the symbolism is far from straightforward).

No offence Marie but if Duchamp can declare a defaced urinal art then I see no reason why, say, Ron Jeremy can't do likewise. I am not being obtuse/facetious either. Who is the arbiter of what is "pseudo artistic" for example?



However the prediliction of some men and their engagement with porn does have implications for others in the social group in which the sex industry imbeds and flourishes (as a number of posters have already expressed). One of those implications is that with proliferation of use of porn other people are increasingly related to as objects not subjects and can be purchased for one's own sexual (narcissistic and solitary!) gratification. It also distorts reality insofar as real people are reduced in stature in comparison with the (artifically created) pornographic icons and there is a falsification of reality.

Surely the same goes for lots of other individual and often solitary activities such as hero worship, cults of personalitity, religious practices etc. Porn is not the only means by which people are objectified and I don't see objectification as necessarily something nefarious as seems to be the implication.

I did not infer solitary indulgence in pornographic material was not exciting. It is! That's why it's big business. Porn is what it is and it is a major error of judgement to believe it is what it is not.

Er, maybe Tharggy was correct and I am after all a midget minded because I haven't a clue what that means!

If men desire porn their desire occurs in a social space occupied by others and they need to engage in open debate about its effects on the entire community and how that desire is stimulated by the workings of a sub-culture which sells not just sexual imagery but the idea that people are things there for one's use on demand in return for money.

I disagree that they "need" to do anything of the sort. THey can do so if they choose to.
 
fantasy

Gabriel and ClubMan - thank you for thought-provoking posts which unfortunately I'm not able to respond to till tonight. Quick point to ClubMan's - Duchamp was the less-able brother of two technically highly-talented siblings who were both painters, as was his father. Marcel's re-contextualisation of everyday objects from the profane space to the reified gallery was - it is believed in some circles - his way of dealing with that symbolically, though there is a great deal more to him (The Large Glass, for example, 'The bride stripped bare by her batchelors even.....') of great complexity and he pushed all the boundaries of sculptural and imagic form in a manner which has never been surpassed.

Quick point in response to Gabriel - far from wishing to curtail fantasy my position is (and it may well be that my expression of this in previous posts was clumsy!) that the problem with porn, to my mind, is that porn offers an ersatz substitute not alone for relationship but for fantasy (or phantasy) itself, whereas art stimulates fantasy (examples which come to mind are Marilyn Monroe as Sugar in 'Some Like It Hot'.........in fact all the relationships and symbolism of SLIH.....and Bernini's 'Ecstasy of St. Teresa'
www.com/artchive/B/Bernin...a.jpg.html
 
Re: fantasy

Marcel's re-contextualisation of everyday objects from the profane space to the reified gallery was - it is believed in some circles - his way of dealing with that symbolically, though there is a great deal more to him (The Large Glass, for example, 'The bride stripped bare by her batchelors even.....') of great complexity and he pushed all the boundaries of sculptural and imagic form in a manner which has never been surpassed.

So who's to say that somebody like Ron Jeremy is not doing the same sort of things either consciously or unconsciously? Why is some of Robert Mapp_lethorpe's (have to insert the underscore to stop ezBoard messing the name up) work considered "art" while Ron Jermey's is dismissed as "porn"?

Art reminds me of that old Flann O'Brien one about fields of human endeavour sufficiently free of objective rules, checks and balances that any oul' chancer could give them a lash. And so it should be! We are all artists if we just decide that we are. And something is art if we say it is. Of course whether or not anybody will appreciate us or such "works" and see (for themselves - and not by proxy or just because some arbiter says so) some intrinsic value in it is another matter altogether!
 
fantasy

Gabriel wrote:-

Hi Marie,

(snip) My problem with this comment is the presumption inferred that anything short of loving sex is wrong or that it has no place. Fantasy, by its very nature is an empty promise. Fantasy and reality rarely mix well.
Sex has been a commodity for a long time. Prostitution is the oldest profession after all...............

You'll have to forgive me if I sense a certain disdain for men who view porn in that statement. From a psychotherapists point of view I find that strange to be honest. It personalises your viewpoint somewhat, without dealing with the matter in an objective manner.....

Both male and female participants in porn are related as objects. That in itself is not a necessarily a 'bad' thing. Fantasy, after all, is something every human being thinks about. It objectifys sexual desires in our mind. Sexual fantasy for men rarely takes feelings into consideration. Pornography is, very often, merely the physical manifestation of that fantasy.........

I doubt we'll ever agree on this subject. I'm a deep thinker and I understand a lot of what you're saying, but I also see other sides to the point being made. We could get into deeply convoluted arguments about how people themselves sell their own sex for a price...but I'm not sure what it would prove. Excuse the example, but it's the first that comes to mind right now. The woman, seeking a virile man, who sells her love and sex for the man who can give her the most. A rich man perhaps with prospects. One who can provide the life she desires? Is that woman selling herself? Her body? Does this happen? What does it mean?........

My point is I fear we can psycho-analyse a subject too much to suit our own pre-conceptions. Your own personal view of pornography is obviously a lot different to mine. I see it (the selling of sex and sexual gratification) as being part of the basic makeup of a lot of human beings (mainly male but also female). In much the same way that war and killing predispose themselves to the human equation, so does the objectification of sexuality. In the correct context, it's my view that this is merely an exploration into ones own sexual psyche.........

Gabriel - I acknowledge that there are physical relationships which are not exclusive committed couple-arrangements and based on all kinds of attraction, desire need etc. Perhaps what changes when the film/book/play (the pornographic depiction and/or the cultural object) are created from these various aspects of human physical sexual relating is that random, changing process becomes 'a thing' or fetish and moves out of the relational into the 'commodity' category!

It is then re-purchased by the people from whom it has - in a sense - been stolen or removed.....and they then internalise it as if 'the porn' or 'the cultural object' is providing them with something they need.

This point in your post was very interesting to me because I hadn't thought about consumption of either 'culture' or 'pornogrphy' in this way before. They are both indeed 'consumed' and I think and feel (though I know you disagree here!) that pornography promises but does not deliver the goods or the anticipated level of pleasure (leaving the individual feeling they've been taken from perhaps?); the cultural object (art) does if it is indeed 'art' touch us profoundly and in a manner in which gives individuals more strength, feeling, sensitivity etc. A remarkable thing about 'great' art is each portrayal, piece, object, is never in danger of getting mixed up with another. The ennervating aspect of pornography is 'they all look the same' and there is a reduction here and a simplification. The con is that our desires are anything but simple - they are (as you indicate in this post) complex and changing and I don't think porn can actually meet that. The buyer always always goes in to start from the beginning again and the only way to keep interest going is to move increasingly 'hard-core'.

That's my perspective and I take your point we each have a limited perspective, and having of necessity to be of one gender or the other poses its own limits and perspective.

Your point about both male and female participants in pornography being 'objectified' by a viewer constituting a 'third position' is interesting and raises all kinds of issues about gender differences in the identifications here.

You write that male sexual fantasy doesn't include feelings and is the physical manifestation of that fantasy I can understand more why and how we must disagree as I cannot (be definition!) have the experience you are describing. Also we may be using the term fantasy differently, yours perhaps being closer to ideas of behaviour and 'doing' whilst mine is of the complex feelings and layers of symbolism which go on psychologically whilst physical behaviour and actions and relationships are happening in the outer world.

When you go on to talk about 'negotiated deals' which people sometimes involve themselves in which seem less than partnerships I feel we've moved a long way from the very definite commodity which pornography (and indeed 'art') represent. The difference between the cultural commodities we're discussing here and 'accommodations' between individuals is that the latter are part of process and do not involve cultural icons.

Moving to your last paragraph - I enjoy thinking about life and relationships through the filter of psychoanalytic ideas which have developed a great deal since Freud..........so for me you can never psycho-analyse too much To the suggestion that pornography is part and parcel of human nature I don't agree at all. My clumsy efforts have been to present the case that far from being a 'natural satisfaction of an urge/itch' pornography is a big business, the business of selling dreams. The sale of dreams couldn't be further from what men (and women!!) actually NEED to enhance their sexuality and their relationships - and I have suggested what we need is the space and opportunity - and internal freedom - for fantasy.

Gabriel thank you for such a fascinating discussion!
 
fantasy

ClubMan wrote:

(snip)
No offence Marie but if Duchamp can declare a defaced urinal art then I see no reason why, say, Ron Jeremy can't do likewise. I am not being obtuse/facetious either. Who is the arbiter of what is "pseudo artistic" for example?

[real people are reduced in stature in comparison with the (artifically created) pornographic icons and there is a falsification of reality].

Surely the same goes for lots of other individual and often solitary activities such as hero worship, cults of personalitity, religious practices etc. Porn is not the only means by which people are objectified and I don't see objectification as necessarily something nefarious as seems to be the implication.

[I did not infer solitary indulgence in pornographic material was not exciting. It is! That's why it's big business. Porn is what it is and it is a major error of judgement to believe it is what it is not].

Er, maybe Tharggy was correct and I am after all a midget minded because I haven't a clue what that means!

[If men desire porn their desire occurs in a social space occupied by others and they need to engage in open debate]

I disagree that they "need" to do anything of the sort. THey can do so if they choose to.

ClubMan questioned why some 'cultural artefacts' are accepted as art whilst others are not.

ClubMan - Regarding your first point I suggested there are commercial pressures which operate to sell commodified sex packaged as art and pondered aloud what the difference between these two commodities are since they frequently look remarkably alike on the surface (and you brought Robert Mappwhaziznamelethorpe in exemplifying how close one is to t'other).

Yes - heroes, and 'personalities' (but I doubt religions!) are marketed but they are hardly solitary but group based and appeal to very different human needs - for perfection, leadership, dependency etc. Does the existence of other commodifications of desire invalidate comments here about pornography and sexuality - or confirm it?

ClubMan - Fear not the midget-mind.....Tharggy was being wude wude wude and that's an end of it! I'm rather proud of "Porn is what it is and it is a major error of judgement to believe it is what it is not".......makes me sound like an intellectual!

:rollin

Nighty-night all AAM'ers wherever you are!
 
Re: fantasy

I'm rather proud of "Porn is what it is and it is a major error of judgement to believe it is what it is not".......makes me sound like an intellectual!

For some reason that line of yours sprung to mind this evening when I read this line in one newspaper's Hunter S. Thompson obituary:

"I hate to advocate weird chemicals, alcohol, violence or insanity to anyone ... but they've always worked for me."
Click to expand...

 
fantasy

What an epitaph!

No schleppin' down Xtravision or the porn-shop for a video in that 'time of promises, time of golden dreaming' when vision (and super-vision) were gleaned through very personal and random means and there was no shortage of fantasy. Hunter certainly lived (and died) his beliefs, and he is so so right!
 
Re: fantasy

Marie, you've been sidetracked by ClubMan and Gaybo into a debate on the value of porn as art (or whatever). Thats a red herring because no-one can define art (certainly not here, and not to my satisfaction).

I think the real debate is about Censorship, where both ClubMan and Gaybo have demonstrated double standards.

So, tell me Marie, what is your view on censorship...are you in favour of a free-for-all where each individual (adult) decides what is acceptable, or do you advocate some controls on access to pornography?
 
Re: fantasy

Marie, you've been sidetracked by ClubMan and Gaybo into a debate on the value of porn as art (or whatever).

Actually Marie "sidetracked" the discussion all by herself as you will see if you read carefully. I'll even give you a clue to help you out; I've even underlined the key words for you:
Thats a red herring because no-one can define art (certainly not here, and not to my satisfaction).

"not to my satisfation"!? :lol And this from the individual who accused me earlier of being like a "petulant child" but who subsequently removed this comment. Excellent!

I think the real debate is about Censorship, where both ClubMan and Gaybo have demonstrated double standards.

The original debate was indeed about censorship. To restate my opinion (yet again) for those who are a bit slow on the uptake: I personally object to state censorship controlling adult consumption of material that does not harm non consenting others. I don't disagree with individual communities (such as this) imposing their own rules of etiquette which obviously only have local currency and can be circumvented by opening other channels of communication by those who don't like them.
 
Re: fantasy

My post was directed to Marie. Why do you feel the need to constantly defend yourself? Methinks thou doth protest too much.
 
Re: fantasy

Your contribution was posted in the public domain and so open to response/rebuttal by any contributor - not least of all those towards whom you directed yet another kneejerk side swipe. Such is the nature of a bulletin board discussion forum. If you want to direct something to an individual contributor only then you should probably use the Private Messaging system. Hope this is "to your satisfaction" because I wouldn't want you to get upset or anything. :lol
 
Re: Censorship

Asimov,
Enough is enough. We are geting very tired of your insults etc. If you don't like the site or the way it is moderated you don't have to stay you know. There are other sites that might enjoy your rambling on and on and on, insulting moderartors and contributors alike, this site is not one of those.
Grow up or go away, the choice is yours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register