I LUV this thread. Its nice to be able to see people having a good intelligent...although kind of drawn out.(lol). conversation. Sorry, I havent been around in a while. But you guys all seem highly intellectual.
Lexi: I love you girl. And your soo right. Girls (not women) dont seem to grasp that. They want a man that can take care of them...a doctor or a lawyer...but they dont want to do anything other than act like young minded girls. Some men are the same way of course, but the statement was "Real Men Want Real Women" I like being single right now personally. I have the opportunity to concentrate on my job and the direction that my life is heading. No distractions. I dont want a man until I have my life together and can say that Im a real woman.
+1! I love knowing that many of the "supersluts" I enjoy stroking to are intelligent and "have their shit together" (credit to BobArctor within this thread). Sasha has captured my imagination along with my sex drive.
And reading Katja's, Leah's and Lexi's thoughts here as well is a privilege and a pleasure. Thanks, ladies, for sharing more of yourselves with us than merely your gaping assholes. This kind of thread is why I've come to love ADT so much.
I'm sure some porn viewers are uncomfortable seeing porn actors as real and intelligent. Maybe most viewers. The cookie cutter effect - blonde hair, silicon boobs, etc - suggests that viewers want clones as much as people. Why? I'd guess they're okay with a stereotyped fantasy, but not so much with porn stars who are real people living their beliefs and/or having fun making money. The clones can seem like they belong to another world, safely distant, but real people could be living around the corner...
Basically, public sexuality is repressed in order to encourage the consumption of sexual images (and purchase of sexually enhancing commodities) to fulfill/replace what's missing from actual life. Fat girls are too fat so they have to get skinny like the skinny girls they see in videos and pornos, so they can be sexually perfect, rather than being told they are sexually perfect already and have no need to change. Without the weird Puritan/capitalist mindfuck, which imposes taboo in order to exploit our desire for taboo, we probably wouldn't have porn. Or, rather, we would have a very different kind of porn. What does that porn look like? I'd like to see it.
Although I agree that sexuality (public and private) is repressed in this society, your explanation isn't credible to me. Sexual repression has existed in the West for untold centuries, long before the emergence of capitalism and the advent of mass communication. I don't believe that a new conspiracy has been jointly hatched by capitalists and puritans to further cash in on repression.
No, brains aren't a requirement for me. I get off on intelligent hotties. I get off on stupid hotties. I get off on hotties.
Well, there is the fact that intelligent women tend to be better performers.
Yeah, okay, I'll waffle - I do get off on intelligent women...just not existentialists, nihilits, etc.
Also, I agree that porn can be art - but no one's making it so. Probably if a porner could make art he'd get a gig in Hollywood, where they're much more about pretending to make art.
What does that mean, in English?Never quite understood atheism. Strikes me as as much faith-based as anything else. Though "God is dead" isn't really atheism, more like blasphemy (say that as an agnostic)...Seems like existentialism is a way to deny consensual reality. Can an existentialist confirm or deny?
In a nutshell, one "is" what one "does" OR "doing" creates "being".
There is no "underlying self" that operates independently as a constant underneath the multiplicity of one's actions. So you can't meaningfully say something like, "He may act like an asshole, but deep down he's a good guy."
We have no inherent human qualities that require us to make particular decisions and nothing we do is "necessary"; nor is there a God who creates a moral or ethical order. Hence we are "radically free" or, to paraphrase Sartre, "We are condemned to freedom."
The fabric of our lives, the human sphere, is created by us out of pure will through the sum of our ungoverned choices.
Note that I wasn't defining "Existentialism", merely giving my rough sense of what that one philosophical formulation means.
Lots of people labeled "Existentialists" thought a lot of different things. It isn't a philosophy, per se -- it's a rubric used to describe a group of philosophers and intellectuals, to refer to a general trend of thought.
Okay, let's stick with your rough sense then:That's all anti-science. Science shows that there are a great many inherent human qualities that require us to make particular decisions. Science shows that we are anything but radically free. The entire thrust of your sense is contra science's understanding of man as animal.
Which, if any, of my inherent qualities as a human being contrains me from killing someone else on a whim? How does science's understanding of man as an animal bear upon that question? Sartre would say that, because there's no God to tell me that I can't kill others, because there are no moral absolutes of conduct that dictate my actions, I have a radically free choice whether or not to do it -- and society, similarly, has a radically free choice as to how to respond.
Is that anti-science?
I would suggest, to the contrary, that the tendency of modern science is to point to that conclusion.
To give another example: Sartre would say that we are radically free to choose to starve ourselves. If we make that choice, in the ultimate sense we have no one to answer to but ourselves. He would not say that we are radically free not to experience hunger, nor that we are radically free not to die of starvation. The kind of "freedom" being referred to is very circumscribed.
One question he was responding to was, "If God is 'dead' (i.e., we've cast out religious superstitions and have accepted that we live in a Godless universe in which life has no inherent meaning), then how do we decide how to live our lives?"
I don't know, but not knowing doesn't preclude their existence (behavioral genetics, for example, is still young). I find the fact that we generally don't kill one another on a whim suggestive.In myriad ways. For example, men murder at a far higher rate than women do. There's more to that fact than free will.I wonder how Sartre's statement about "no moral absolutes" is relevant? I don't think anyone has ever stated that morals, absolute or no, are actually a physical restraint on behavior. Same goes for God, actually (and Sartre would have a hard time proving there is no God, btw).
"Radically free" is my sticking point here; we simply aren't radically free. "Radically free" implies self-authorship, and humans simply are not self-authors. There is a great deal about us that is inherent, and this impacts behavior greatly.
I think so, because of the self-authorship thing, because of the implicit denial of human nature.
For example, not many people conduct an honest, "radically free" choice over eating, breathing, sleeping, etc.
So, is that actually existentialism, or a simple observation of fact?That's an interesting question, but I don't see his answers as interesting. Of course to be fair I should check with the man himself rather than getting this second-hand.
A more interesting answer, imo, is to observe nature and get our clues from her.
I'm not an existentialist and all I was trying to do was to answer a question you asked. If you find Sartre's thoughts self-evident or stupid, that's no skin off my nose. I find his thoughts disturbing and challenging, but that's just me.
Back to Sasha --
Are you an existentialist? If so, what does your existentialism mean to you?
Right on! I love the idea of multi-dimensional women in porn! I don't think these things have to be mutually exclusive. There are real women who love sex just as much as any man. I'm sure quite a few women do. It's just not always seen as "proper" by certain individuals. That doesn't mean they don't have a brain or shouldn't have their own turn ons and offs.
IMO, it could only make porn better to have a little more of a psychological element in there. The quickest way to turn someone on is to get inside their head.
Sometimes, cold, mechanical, unthinking fucking is hot and sometimes, you really want to know there's something going on in the woman's head.
is this determined by viewers, or the producers? i would say the latter. they set the standard and they uphold it. when you're told for several decades "this is what you jack off to!" you get used to it.
I'm not really sure where it comes from. That said, I've certainly seen more than a few posts here in which people said they loved silicone boobs and the whole "cookie cutter" thing.
I figure they wouldn't do it if it didn't sell so it's got to be more than just the producers. I personally don't go for it. I purposely avoid movies that have the standard porn girl proudly displayed on the cover. If I see one set of silicone boobs, I don't bother with the movie unless all the other girls look interesting (rare).
Maybe some people are as impressionable as you suggest. Maybe a lot of people are. I don't know. However, I was repeatedly exposed to the "ideal" fantasy jack off girl for many years and was never into her.
Sometimes, I think people just buy it because it's hard to find anything else (that would seem to confirm your theory).
the pornographers that paved the way for marketing sex had the monopoly (hef, flynt, russ meyer, etc.) for creating a uniform image that people could jerk off to, ideals that would remain more or less constant throughout the decades. when the big guns are all pushing that image, which reaches the largest audience, the alternative is the minority.
if airhead blondes are the ideal, intelligent brunettes are underground. the feminist in me has a problem with this...
I see what you mean here. Existentialism seems to assume necessarily that there is some sort of experienced self which is greater than the scientific sum of its parts. (Not that different to a soul, some critics have suggested). But some savvy existentialists have pointed to the word 'experienced' in there - the self might be entirely reducible and predictable scientifically, but nevertheless not be experienced that way. As some clever writer said, "Of course I believe in free will; I have no choice".
So you can accept scientific objectivity even to the extent of saying that the self could be basically clockwork, and still claim that your subjective impression of free will means you experience the terror and ecstasy of radical freedom.
From what I recall, scientificness has been a bone of contention in existentialism. Some have said that existentialism is the epitome of a scientific philosophy of life, since it starts with rejecting the religious and supernatural, and ends up with you turning your life into a project of enquiry and experiment. Others have said that's bollocks, and it's just a convoluted way of saying you will do what you feel like and don't trust anyone else's ideas about the world. Others have said these are equivalent but that existentialism simply doesn't have a 'scientificness' factor; to evaluate it in this way would be like evaluating a goldfish's tableness.
I don't know whether it's supply or demand driven, but I assume it's both. The producers see some demand, try to meet it, then start advertising whatever they are producing and that shapes the market's preferences to some extent.
I read recently that the only stable attribute of the supposedly sexually attractive woman which crosses cultures and time periods is a narrow waist. Otherwise it's open - small boobs, big boobs, medium boobs, long necks, short necks, big buttocks, small buttocks etc. It's clear that tastes change radically across time and culture, but there's always a sort of meme of what is supposed to be attractive. These days it's the cookie-cutter blonde with silicone as the lowest common denominator. I'm sure it is partly because Hef, Flynt and Russ Meyer pushed a stereotype, but that stereotype still has to meet some amount of preference. Europorn doesn't focus so much on blondes as the US does, for instance.
I think the market would have a lowest common denominator dictated by the producer's expectation of who will probably like what, plus the reality of what those people want, plus the effect you cite of people liking what they're told to like. That mix has given the US the cookie-cutter look rather than a more open stereotype, or none. The feminist in me resents that
"Romance is dead is what they said while sittin' 'round cheatin' at pool. But at the very last frame of his 9-ball game, the cat who had the date at the top of the empire state, is the one who got hustled...like a fool."
I love the movie this came from. Love Jones. Has anyone else watched that movie all the way thru? It was a great one. Also Dream For An Insomniac was an amazing movie.
Not anything really to do with this topic. But this seems like a thread full of highly intelligent people, and these movies are really only good for those of us that are. So Im just throwing non porn movies out there. I really enjoyed them both...own them both and could watch each one every day. I also love the poem " A Blues For Nina " wow. It was fucking great...
"Say baby, can I be your slave? I got to admit girl, you're the shit girl, and Im diggin' you like a grave. Now do they call you 'daughter to the spinning pulsar'? Or maybe 'Queen of 2,000 moons'? Is your name Yimeyaa? Oh hell na. Its got to be O'Shoone. Im like a sight raped hunter, blindly persuing you as my prey..........."
You guys should really buy Love Jones and Dream for an Insomniac if you like poetic shit....lol...and intellectual conversation. Love Jones is an african-american movie, the other is not. But both very worthy of the purchase (appx. $10) My favorite is Love Jones. That is where both of my quotes came from. Got that shit memorized...lol.
Science would say that you, like all animals, have certain blocks against killing members of your own species; doves and hawks etc. It should also be noted that some people so not have these blocks. There was an interesting article about it in Military Review a few years ago, with something like "Natural Killers" in the title; you could probably find it on-line.
Well, intelligence and a dirty mind seem to go hand in hand. I guess that being smart makes it easier to make up dirty fantasies, and more likely to have them. If you think a lot, you also think a lot about sex. To be an existentialist at age 18, or even to believe it, you have to have done some serious thinking, so a conviction like that should go hand-in-hand with a dirty mind and a few perversions.
And, yes, multi-dimensional and intelligent women are more attractive than shallow and less bright ones. Not only are they kinkier and more perverted than their less bright sisters, they are also great fun to interact with in other ways.
I am also curious, from a more philosophical perspective, about what it is that you seek most from porn. The sexual experience itself or the reaction it provokes among fans and critics? Though from a certain male point of view it would be more interesting if you actually were trying to realise your feminine essence thorough kinky sex rather than just acting on the urges placed in your mind by evolution.
I have absolutely no idea what it means to be and existentialist....I do remember being 18 though, and when I was 18, if someone talked about shit with such illusive definitions, it meant they heard some adult rap, or hustle about it, and now are using it to make it seem like they have more life experience than is the case.
If we apply the same logic to human populations we should, if it was genetically possible, at least not be surprised to find similar constellations of 'doves' and 'hawks'.
My point is that if you want to claim that something is a result of the evolutionary process, you have to give a credible model through which whatever traits being discussed should arise, and game theory is one (the?) way in which to construct such models.
But it is important to realise that just because a model says that this could or, given certain circumstances, would happen it is not necessarily so. The traits proposed must also be biologically feasible and have had time to develop. So we can use game theory to predict behaviours and to explain those that we see.
If you view life in a 'scientific' manner you will find that the concept of evolution and game theory can explain a lot about human behaviour.
The only famous existentialist who labeled himself as such was Sartre. As for other so-called existentialists such Kierkegaard, Ortega, Jaspers, Heidegger, and Camus -- the term either post-dated them or they disliked it. [typo] Edited by - bob on 11/1/2007 11:33:17 PM
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Nov 2 2007 : 1:02AM
I'm assuming the first post is a bit of a joke. I also declared myself an existentialist when I was 17. The Rebel had a big impact on me then.
[Link]
Dither Persona non grata
I love America 650 Posts 8/05
Posted - Nov 2 2007 : 7:21AM
Yes. It wasn't necessarily existentialist writers I was thinking of though, more those defining themselves as existentialist beings in the metaphysical sense. This implies essence, as in "existence without essence" you can't really "be" anything. Sartre wrote that "life has no meaning a priori …it is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing but the meaning that you choose". What to me may seem like jumping to conclusions, is deriving the second part of that sentence from the first. I ponder; if "meaning" is solely what the subject chooses it to be, and projects onto the world so to speak, where did he find this "meaning" to begin with? What was its conception? Projection from others one would think, as existence implies co-existence. So can it then really be without any essence? I agree unconditionally with the first part of Sartre's statement; "life has no meaning a priori". I don't believe in a predefined meaning of life, nor do I believe in any God or deity. But where I fall off is when the second part of the sentence is stated as a logical extension of the first. I can't see the second part as a logical extension of the first, even if they're both right. I should include a disclaimer in that a) I'm not very well-read on the subject and b) it's not the intention in any way to disparage existentialism. These are open questions, spinning thoughts to which I have no good answers. If you do, I'd love to hear them.
