A Sexually Open Society; Repression; the Issue of Porn

[Pure]

doc,

doc, i have no agenda. I'm stating a case. Your degree of creativity certainly shows that 'depraved tastes' and their satisfacttion is not, in itself, depleting! as you say, it gets your juices flowing! Stella has said the same.

Doc said, in part: //You seriously believe that one is degraded by patronizing porn? How and in what way? How is masturbating to a picture morally inferior to masturbating in front of a live woman? And what does that say about all of us here at Literotica? That we're a a bunch of degenerates? You honestly believe this?//


Pure now: I believe there a case for the viewer of porn being degraded, just as i believe there's a case for the user of street prostitutes as being degraded. As to "morally inferior", that is your term; i did not moralize, and in my earlier post, the addendum i specifically say i make no recommendation *in particular, not to use porn.* the social critical perspective is based on seeing limits of human potential, NOT on moralizing, ie. scolding the participants. Porn users are a whole spectrum, from the sublime to the ridiculous; from the vastly creative, like yourself, to the utterly incapable. Yet all of us use porn, so that in itself is not the issue.

doc: I 'm rather shocked to hear you take such a morally opprobrious tone toward the end use of pornography. Only last year you were arguing for porn without limits, the more abject, the better.


pure: the degree of abjectness or degradation in a picture or story is NOT an issue; neither is 'extremity' of hardcore, so called. the issue was some persons' usage of mass porn, typcially NON extreme in extent, and typically rather boring and non extreme [in content], as several posters have stated.
----

Originally Posted by Pure
Of the males with creative powers, some may limit their recourse and use porn for occasional ‘de stressing’; but others follow Hemingway’s path or do worse, and spill their best chapters on their hands. It will depend on the individual, just as with alcohol or hookers: does the recourse de-stress? or is it, at least to an appreciable extent, depleting?

doc //This is just nineteenth century nonsense.
The idea that creativity is somehow tied up with one's precious sexual fluids belongs with the notion that masturbation makes hair grow on the palms of your hands. Hemingway is a fine example to quote, since he was a notorious prude who thought that each man was given only so many orgasms in his life and when he ran out, he was done for, which is probably why he blew his head off with a shotgun at the age of 60.

Sexual tension and the release thereof has nothing to do with creativity. If it did, Catholic priests would be our most brilliant artists, which is hardly the case. Sexual energy is not a finite store. It's constantly replenished. The idea that porn leads to an instant diminution of sexual energy is debatable. It's also been argued that porn incites the libido and riles up the blood, increasing the appetite for authentic sex.//


Pure now: The linkage of creative energy and sexual energy has often been remarked, e.g. by Freud, as well and Nietzsche and any number of artists. Clearly, however, masturbation, like sex, does NOT deplete creative powers.

One has to look at the balance in individual cases. And the range is vast: some artists can screw three hoes, then dash off a chapter, in full creative force. Baudelaire had his favorite ho, and she inspired his poetry and Gauguin's hoes inspired him. Courbet's object of love and lust is behind his fine painting 'the origin of the world'.
---


doc //Honestly, what in the world are you talking about here with repression by porn? Are our attitudes toward sex influenced by pornographic propaganda? Of course they are if you're naive enough to let them be. But if you're naive enough, your attitudes toward sex are influenced by everything, from fashion ads to TV shows to pop music to you name it. But does that constitute some new form of repression of individual freedom and liberty? Hardly.//


Pure now: Marcuse argued that the current 'free market', the vast commercialism, is repressive; human potential is lost. I'm trying to present the case. I am NOT a puritan asking for porn cleanup, I'm simply looking at the case for a down side to the massive near saturation with cheap 'mass' porn.

 

[Verdad]

Hey, Doc, don't be mad! I'm not on a "porn is evil" crusade, and I'd be mighty surprised if others were.

I, for one, just like to look at the subjects from more than one angle; that porn can be a harmless fun as well as a tool of self-exploration should be pretty well known in a place like this, but I think it's interesting to consider the opposite, too.

I mean, maybe it's all just banal in the end, like, yeah, yeah, we're all victims of a capitalist society, so deal, and maybe, everyone's thought of it already in their kindergarten, in which case we can peacefully let it drop. I'd be satisfied to know we're dropping it because it's too obvious to resonate, though, not because it was perceived as some sort of a crazy-assed exercise in moral superiority.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Some of my very best learning experiences have evolved from moments of cognitive dissonance when my ideas were challenged and I was forced to contemplate and perhaps even explain why I believe what I believe. I find it invigorating.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

The element of disconnect in porn translates to its audience. The subjects (objects?) in porn are disconnected from one another. Watching porn can often lead to very disconnected sex, whether it's with yourself or someone else. Not always... but it does lend itself to it, and over time, especially with continual use, yeah, it's like eating McDonald's every day. Yuk. You start craving vegetables and fruits again eventually. (And I'm just not taking that analogy any further... )

 

[Safe_Bet]

The element of disconnect in porn translates to its audience. The subjects (objects?) in porn are disconnected from one another. Watching porn can often lead to very disconnected sex, whether it's with yourself or someone else. Not always... but it does lend itself to it, and over time, especially with continual use, yeah, it's like eating McDonald's every day. Yuk. You start craving vegetables and fruits again eventually. (And I'm just not taking that analogy any further... )

Too late!

BTW, is eggplant a fruit or a vegetable?

 

[Pure]

re. sex and creativity

Mordechai Rotenberg, in Creativity and Sexuality

http://books.google.ca/books?id=RaOrKetBqR0C&dq

makes some good points against what he calls a 'Protestant' view, in which repression and limitation of sexual outlet is a precondition for productive work, not to say 'sublimation' and art. as Doc points out, Hemingway may well have been partly infected with this view, if he equated an orgasm with his lover, with a lost book chapter. there is, as Doc suggests, no inverse relationship of sexual release and creative work. he cites Catholic priests, and to make the same point, i cite the example of Pablo Picasso (high sex activity, high creativity).

that said, Doc's first sentence is far too coarse a take on the matter. //''Sexual tension and the release thereof has nothing to do with creativity."//

Rotenberg argues that a two dimensional view is necessary, with regard to the _yetzer_, the sexual impulse. It is indeed at the root of imagination. properly cultivated, he suggests, the sexual impulse can be transformed into imaginative force, the _yetzirah_, and even 'cosmic orgasm.' AND he does not deny that the artist benefits (as we all do), rather than suffers, from regular sexual release of the ordinary kind (as found in loving couples).

in my view, one's experiences with sexual imaginings can be, in a similar way, relevant. reality or imagining may be depleting, but they both might be used to foster the creative impulse, which is apparently what Baudelaire did, with his favorite prostitute/lover. such 'atypical' use may contrast with the 'routine' use i mentioned in the original posting and addendum. this might occur in a number of ways.

here is one, due to Sade. he recommends that in order to write something truly forceful, give oneself over to imagining for a couple weeks, driving oneself with the most depraved scenes possible. i believe the assumption was 'no release.'

similarly, the images of hardcore porn, can be used to *excite*; the peaks of excitement are reached, but there is no release, rather provocation is continued; sustained evocation of lust is sought. then one writes, draws, etc.

being with one's lover too, might serve the same function, if one does NOT come, for purposes of this exercise. let him or her drive you to the furthest pitch of excitement, without going over the edge. the harrowing experience, the unbearable craving can be immediately be harnessed in creative production.

the purpose of the above scenarios is to show possibilities; my earlier postings dealt with the routine use of mass porn for quick release; i argued that whatever the 'freeing' possibilities,--exultation in the body--the repressive impact is there; i said earlier, the person's desire is short-circuited. the sexual tension is released too soon after heightening to be available to boost one's creativity. i did not, of course, suggest, there was a problem with occasional stress release through jerking off, just as i love the occasional mcdonald's bacon-cheese burger.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

I believe it is common in the East to follow the discipline of preserving the Chi to create a more lasting and meaningful release when you allow yourself. It's a very nice device to allow yourself to go to the verge of orgasm and then stop and start again to build up to one gigantic orgasm.

With respect to creativity, I don't think it's puritanical or outlandish to believe that creativity and sexual expression go rather hand in hand and come from the same place.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Pure...

I think you need to get laid. Like, now.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I believe it is common in the East to follow the discipline of preserving the Chi to create a more lasting and meaningful release when you allow yourself. It's a very nice device to allow yourself to go to the verge of orgasm and then stop and start again to build up to one gigantic orgasm.

With respect to creativity, I don't think it's puritanical or outlandish to believe that creativity and sexual expression go rather hand in hand and come from the same place.

So, in imposing your judgments about this sex/creativity/life-force jizz, are you not simply sanctifying sex, with yourself as the Priestess of the Portal?

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

So, in imposing your judgments about this sex/creativity/life-force jizz, are you not simply sanctifying sex, with yourself as the Priestess of the Portal?

Always that word with you "judgement." I am not judging anything. I'm offering an opinion.

 

[Verdad]

Pure...

I think you need to get laid. Like, now.

!!

 

[Pure]

note to huck.

huck to lesbiaphrodite: So, in imposing your judgments about this sex/creativity/life-force jizz, are you not simply sanctifying sex, with yourself as the Priestess of the Portal?

and sanctifying sex-- at least some of it** --- is bad, in your opinion, because....

**allowing plenty of space for the routine friendly or loving sex that keeps couples together, and even space for wankers to 'mass porn.'

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

I'm all for orgasms. I say: Have as many as possible in this life and enjoy greater bliss. By suggesting that for me, preservation of my Chi is a key component to greater satisfaction, I am not prescribing that anyone else should follow my example. I don't give a fig how you get your rocks off. I'm just saying that orgasm and creativity are connected for me. And, I place a high value on both.

 

[Huckleman2000]

huck to lesbiaphrodite: So, in imposing your judgments about this sex/creativity/life-force jizz, are you not simply sanctifying sex, with yourself as the Priestess of the Portal?

and sanctifying sex-- at least some of it** --- is bad, in your opinion, because....

**allowing plenty of space for the routine friendly or loving sex that keeps couples together, and even space for wankers to 'mass porn.'

It's just imposing a different set of sexual politics, is all. It also strikes me as a particularly narcissistic way of using sex as power/control.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

It's just imposing a different set of sexual politics, is all. It also strikes me as a particularly narcissistic way of using sex as power/control.

And if the sole purpose of sex for someone is to have an orgasm, that's not narcissistic?

 

[Huckleman2000]

And if the sole purpose of sex for someone is to have an orgasm, that's not narcissistic?

No, it's masturbation.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

No, it's masturbation.

pathetic

 

[Huckleman2000]

pathetic

THERE's the judgement.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

And calling me a narcissist isn't a judgement?

Fuck you, guy. You really are a tool.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

With respect to creativity, I don't think it's puritanical or outlandish to believe that creativity and sexual expression go rather hand in hand and come from the same place.

Yes, but sexual expression is not the same as sexual tension. Rather the opposite, in fact. I'll be the first to admit that the creative urge is libido-driven, but I'll be damned if I believe it's enhanced by sexual tension, which is distracting, diffusing, and ultimately--in many cases--stifling.

The Yetzirah Rotenberg talks about is a Kabbalistic term, denoting the third of the four worlds of divine emanation, the world of creation, and there is a rough and mystical parallel between the sexual urge and the creative urge the Kabbalists were aware of. But again, we're talking about a generalized libidinous sexual energy here, the same kind of energy that gives rise to love and strong emotion, not the kind of raw and physical tension that's relieved through orgasm. That's a very simplistic reading of Kabbalah, analogous to the freudian view that sees the expulsion of feces as a creative act.

Let's not confuse the sort of libidic energy we all possess as human beings with the kind of sexual tension that's discharged through masturbation to porn. They're entirely different.

 

[Huckleman2000]

And calling me a narcissist isn't a judgement?

Fuck you, guy. You really are a tool.

I was characterizing the idea of elevating sex to something akin to a sacrament is narcissistic. And it is:

People with this trait believe themselves to be uniquely gifted and commonly engage in fantasies of fabulous success, power, or fame. Arrogant and egotistical, narcissistics are often snobs, defining themselves by their ability to associate with (or purchase the services of) the "best" people. They expect special treatment and concessions from others.

I think where YOU specifically exhibit narcissist behavior is in the remainder of the paragraph:

Paradoxically, these individuals are generally insecure and have low self-esteem. They require considerable admiration from others and find it difficult to cope with criticism. Adversity or criticism may cause the narcissistic person to either counterattack in anger or withdraw socially.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

I was characterizing the idea of elevating sex to something akin to a sacrament is narcissistic. And it is:


I think where YOU specifically exhibit narcissist behavior is in the remainder of the paragraph:

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You make me die laughing, kid. When you grow up a bit, give me a call. Until then, while I appreciate your earnest attempts to diagnose my problems (since I clearly have a problem with you, I must have something intrinsically wrong with me, right?), ahem, I will be happy just as I am. There reaches a point when one just has to smile because of the clear irony of what someone says.

Grow up.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Let's not confuse the sort of libidic energy we all possess as human beings with the kind of sexual tension that's discharged through masturbation to porn. They're entirely different.[/QUOTE]

Excellent point, Zoot. I agree with you and you're right to make that distinction. I also find what you said about the Kabbalah pretty fascinating. I'll have to read up on that.

 

[Verdad]

An old sci-fi story came to my mind, related marginally to this thread, but I can't remember for the life of me either the author or the title. Maybe someone else knows.

The entire story is told through a single scene of a makeover, the purpose of which is to set up the reader for the punch line. The protagonist, a young woman, uses a sort of a personal computer cum all-purpose miracle machine to give herself a new appearance, which in this world involves altering any bodily feature of choice, down to the eye color, with barely more effort than it takes us to style our hair.

As the process unfolds, we can hear her thoughts: It was so dull to be a tall, luscious blonde with straight long hair and big green eyes. It had made her look just like everybody else. This time, though, she's going to go for something different, something that's really going to set her apart. An understated look, short brown hair, warm brown eyes, a couple of finishing touches suggested by her computer, and her personality is really going to shine through. He will have to notice her this time, she knows, and as she checks herself out in the mirror, her optimism grows and grows.

Until, of course, she steps out in the street and realizes the street is swarming with understated young women with short brown hair, warm brown eyes, and a couple of the same finishing touches suggested by their computers.

To a contemporary reader, the punch line is probably visible from a mile's distance, but back when I read it in the 80's (and the story is possibly older than that), I thought it was way neat. If someone recognizes it, I'd be grateful to hear what it is.

As for what the hell is my point? No point, really; just a random association brought about by a couple of threads behind this thread. The article of Naomi Wolf on one side, the Freudo-Marxism of Herbert Marcuse on the other, and the issue of the expert advice and its tyranny somewhere in between.

 

[Pure]

tyrrany of experts

the tyranny of experts

this thread is about repression--controls and limitations on individuals and the development of their potential. the thesis is that apparent freedom and satisfaction often has a hidden down side of repression.

there are advances in freedom in the West--e.g. the lessening of pressure on 'unwed mothers', the lifting of sanctions on gay sex.

but sexual matters are under the tyranny of experts who prescribe what is 'healthy' to do. they are as oppressive as priests who used to say what was God-approved and what was sinful.

as i mentioned in the first post, everything about the act (acts) is subject to regulation; i mentioned the alleged "disorder": hypoactive sexual desire. one might translate it, wife doesn't seem interested in sex with her husband. but the experts tell her she should want to fuck more often.

foucault, himself gay, wrote about the rising discourse on 'homosexuality', a condition or "orientation" that only came to exist in the 19th century. earlier, Sade, for instance, mentions sex with his valet, and no label is applied. for Socrates, likewise; he was married, but had sex with adolescent males. foucault said the issue was POWER; the discourse is labelled 'knowledge' (sexology), but it embodies and facilitates the power of authorities, those said to have knowledge the layperson does not. the division is as harsh as the medieval gap between priest and parishioner.

these categories oppress. the world is not so simple as straight, bi, gay.

the explosion of sex advice columns, including for teens, has an up side, as far as information--e.g. about condoms-- goes. the down side is that people are, essentially, told what to do. ann landers, for example, famously told a number of wives whose husband had 'strayed' to forgive and continue.

while this may be good in some cases, the point is that the person is pressured in a particular direction. the teen who asks about oral sex on her boyfriend is told how to suck cock. the issue of her feelings about the act is not addressed. there is implicit pressure, despite the formulaic, 'at 14, maybe you're not ready.'

the brides' magazine discuss the 'first night,' and the mechanics of anal intercourse. again there is pressure. the range of "approved acts" is now great, whereas it used to be small, but the element of dictation is the same: this is what normal healthy people do.

thoughts, anyone? ever feel such pressure?