Silence8
Posts: 833
Joined: 11/2/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: leadership527
quote:
ORIGINAL: Silence8
I am talking more about the idea of a sex slave, not the domesticated quasi-forms that BDSM people instantiate. You don't have a real 'sex slave', nor I hope do any other posters, due if nothing else to legal reasons. Still, I think that ideas have a way of preceding reality, and have a reality of their own. *laughs* OK, you stepped in it with that one, but I won't nitpick with you. You're right, I do not own a non-consensual slave.
quote:
I'm struck with what amounts to a disconnect -- on one hand, no one is willing to admit to objectifying anyone else; on the other hand, objectification, to my understanding, is a major issue that progressives, feminists, and likewise rally against. Are you implying they are rallying against nothing at all, or are in some way misguided? Wait... you're asking me whether I think feminists (3rd wave feminists specifically) are misguided? The answer is yes.
quote:
Also, note that pornographic models are quite literally objectified, that is, made into pornographic videos, photos, and so forth. Any individual watching these types of media -- millions presumably -- are quite actively supporting this objectification. Hence we have arguments against pornography. These views are nothing new, you must know. Ahhh, I hadn't thought about pornography. I was thinking about the actual women in my life. So then how does this modify your theory (which I have to admit, even despite a lofty IQ I only barely understand) to say that in person my lovers are all humans but yes, I do look at pornography of various sorts and there the target is strictly a sex object. So how does that play into or modify your theory?
Of course, that statement makes me ask some questions as a photographer myself. When I take a photo of someone, it is intended to capture some specific aspect and portray it. A photo... one single frame... can never capture the essence of a human. That takes real interaction. So then isn't all photography objectification of some sort or another? When you reduced a vastly complicated, 4 dimensional subject down to exactly 2 dimensions, it seems to me a lot's going to get lost.
quote:
How, then, can we bridge this disconnect and get at the heart of the matter? Well, we could start by agreeing that this objectification thing you are so focused on is not, apparently, nearly as common or pervasive as you seem to think. As I think on this, it's beginning to seem like what you have done is over-generalized a vastly complex thing. You are trying to look at human sexuality through the lens of objectification (I think). But your theory didn't account for the cases where no such objectification was occurring which, according to the responses you got here was the vast majority of the cases. So I think you have two choices... either restrict the domain of your theory or broaden your conclusions to account for the missing areas.
The title of the thread is 'The Psychology of the Sadist', not 'The Pop Psychology of the Sadist'.
Psychology is under no obligation to be easy to understand.
There's something rather curious in completely denying the connection between historical and BDSM slavery. The big question, to any half-decent thinker, why the same word?
Part of the difficulty of psychology is that the evidence occurs in the strangest places, e.g., in the space between words, inexplicable pauses, 'Freudian slips' -- so, yeah, I know it's complicated. I like complication to an extent -- it's a challenge, and something worth wrestling.
I've made a lot of examples throughout this thread. In terms of BDSM, just, for instance, look at the list of interests that CM gives you -- more than half of those, if I recall, can be directly related back to objectification.
Objectification has its basis in material reality, so we return to the issue of mind versus body. Think, to give another example, of 'purely physical' relationships, a very mainstream notion.
Now, part of the difficulty I think you're having is that you're reading objectification and its connotations. This is an extremely ambiguous part of the theory, but it's also an extremely ambiguous part of reality. That's just part of the game.
I also don't think we're admitting how much of my ideas are not new -- I don't care, I'm not here to create kitschy commodities -- but are reflected in popular progressive literature from the 60s and, further back, existential philosophy. My point contrasts with Sartre's, as I understand it, notion of being-for-itself (people) striving to return to being-in-itself (material things). Maybe I've reversed it -- being-for-itself feels itself being dragged toward being-in-itself, and this sort of will to freedom swells up, and we reassert our being-for-itself.
Read! It's a lot more interesting than sports.
< Message edited by Silence8 -- 5/3/2010 9:53:46 PM >
|
RE: The Psychology of the Sadist - 
Profile
I've run into similar attitudes about submission, such as "kneeling/giving a blow job/crawling/etc. are always submissive," and humiliation, and they creep me out as well. I've experienced feeling objectified, feeling submissive, and feeling humiliated. I know what they are, and when I am experiencing them. You do not know me better than I do, and you do not have any right to tell me what I am feeling. Just because you would feel objectified or humiliated about or submissive in a particular circumstance does not put me under any obligation to feel likewise.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread