Top-opolis

[Netzach]

Can the goth girls be kissing cousins for me, please?

 

[rosco rathbone]

Can the goth girls be kissing cousins for me, please?

Netzach is in the stocks in town square for the crime of not responding to IMs. All are free to hurl vegetables at her.

 

[evesdream]

well netzach i've got a tomato for you right here *wink wink wink nudge nudge*

btw i thought rosco's thoughts above were striking. i've never heard anyone really describe sadism as having an element of self-destruction, only masochism. Do any lurking sadists have more to say about this?

What one really wants to see on the face of someone being raped or forced to perform acts of forcible oral servitude, ie for the leering masses, is horror and woe.

There's a strong split in me.While my cock and balls thrill to such ideas, I would be unbearably sad if I actually made someone feel like this.

It is not easy to require, as jacking fodder, images that betoken karmic suicide. In order to achieve satisfactory orgasms, I must disable my moral compass.

Perhaps something else is going on here...the subconcious reminding me that horror and woe are as important to the functioning of things as anything else.

 

[Pure]

Hi eve, (also note on Conan quote)
I join you in expressing my esteem for that latest rr posting, but I'm not quite sure where this statement comes from:

ED: i've never heard anyone really describe sadism as having an element of self-destruction, only masochism.

I did not see a reference to self destruction, but maybe the term 'karmic suicide' indicated that for you. To me it indicated that if you rape/kill/terrorize someone, your 'karma' is likely seriously fucked up, and you've brought it on yourself.

That said, I do see links of sadism and self destruction,

1)by way of destruction. to destroy loved ones is to destroy oneself.

2)sadism is linked to plain ordinary destruction in Freud and others, esp. where the anal element is emphasized.

3) sadistic sexuality is a form of sexuality, and the eros/thanatos link has been celebrated for centuries, as in Tristan and Iseult, 'liebestodd,' and even Romeo and Juliet.

4)if you read a bio of Sade, you can't escape noting his self destructive side, as pointed out by the biographers. Within days or weeks of being released from prison, he's got his wife and servants scouring the countryside for new teens to debauch, often several at a time, which hardly ensures a lid is kept on things.

5) In inflicting pain in a 'scene', Sade did not spare himself: he would ask that a flogger with nails in the lashes be taken to him.

6) Sade celebrated destruction as an essential part of nature, and though he didn't do it, so far as we know, he argued that, on philosophical grounds, the murderer is useful to society. (somewhat along the lines that we might argue that predatory birds are a vital part of the ecosystem.)

===

Conan quote source:

http://www.barbariankeep.com/ctbsecrets.html

[start quote]
One of the most famous quotes, perhaps the most famous quote, from Conan is: "Conan! What is best in life?" "To crush your enemies -- See them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women!"As brilliant as director/writer John Milius is, he did not invent this dialogue. Who did? Was it taken from the Conan script by Oliver Stone that was rewritten by Milius?

[Answer:] No, it came from a book. I know what you're thinking... a Robert E. Howard [Conan] book, right? Wrong! Milius actually lifted it from a book by Harlod Lamb titled, GENGHIS KAHN: THE EMPEROR OF ALL MEN, pages 106-107:

One day in the pavilion at Karakorum he [Genghis Kahn] asked an officer of the Mongol guard what, in all the world, could bring the greatest happiness.

"The open steppe, a clear day, and a swift horse under you," responded the officer after a little thought, "and a falcon on your wrist to start up hares."

"Nay," responded the Kahn, "to crush your enemies, to see them fall at your feet -- to take their horses and goods and hear the lamentation of their women. That is best." [end quote]

-----------

I (pure) don't think anyone was standing next to GK, taking notes, so I see at another site, this version of what was said, which I rather like--the wives and daughters part;


http://www.epinions.com/mvie-review-57CA-C317008-38E7CF10-prod2

[start]
Conan's line is taken from a real quote from Genghis Kahn that goes:

"The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies and chase them before you, rob them of their wealth and see those dear to them bathed in tears, to ride their horses and clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters." [end]

 

[evesdream]

Pure, i got it more from the sentence after "karmic suiceide". When some people talk about masochistic self-destruction, it isn't always talk of total anihilation. Sometimes it's just the exorcism of parts that may or may not be vital ones, or alteration of the body, or of things learned. It's interesting to see whether or not there are parallels on the sadist's side, how it's different, what's inside, and in his or her words. We have so much critique of sade and others, it's a shame that there isn't more autobiography.

 

[Pure]

Some details please,

I see "lack of porn with the right look. " bb
"horror and woe" rr

OTOH, stories of 'rape and forced oral servitude' (of one type) do not seem to be rare, except at literotica. Literotica wants, for the 'lust object', a joy ride: distress minimized and orgasms maximimized. I assume that's the opposite of what's being called for: the 'object' in a woeful state.

Yet I suspect the cold telling of straightforward violence and fear of most of the old 'extreme' stories, e.g., those of rape/murder, is not what's wanted, nor of such published works as American Psycho.

 

[rosco rathbone]

"Once sexual union becomes an urgent goal, the activity may be divided into three stages: foreplay, genital union, and the orgastic convulsion. There are no rigid laws in nature for the first two. Foreplay includes whatever may be mutually acceptable and pleasurable, with the exception of sadistic acts. Nothing pleasurable can be considered perverse as long as the goal remains genital union. Foreplay may be long or short; usually, the male rushes to genital union, while the female prefers more foreplay. Both should be sexually excited (streamings in the genital) before even foreplay is considered. In a healthy relationship, foreplay consists largely of body contact and gentle caresses of the loved one's body. Frantic, harsh, manual excitation plays no part in it."


--Sexual Theories of Wilhelm Reich - E. F. Baker, Jour. of Orgonomy Vol 20 no. 2

roscos commentary: Well, the old Reichster sure had ME pegged....90% of the time my goal is ORAL union. Which logically, according to the above, goes hand in hand with sadistic and thus unnatural acts. (And "frantic, harsh, manual" manhandling.)

 

[rosco rathbone]

"Sadistic, masochistic, homosexual, or otherwise perverse fantasies, either in masturbation or sexual intercourse, are indications of serious emotional problems......."

Frequently, restrictions are placed on the partner. The man may resent the woman's moving during the act and wish her to remain completely passive or he may prefer entry from behind. These are usually due to a running away from full contact except during the later months of pregnancy when entry from behind is preferable.

Hardness in the embrace may be present, especially squeezing, which the healthy individual will not tolerate."

emphasis roscos

So in Reichian terms I am unhealthy. Hm. THe problem is, that such unhealthy acts such as forcing the passive partner to remain still in uncomfortable (and often rear entry) postures is one of many things that leads to full mindgasm for me.

 

[Pure]

now there's an idea,

// forcing the passive partner to remain still in uncomfortable (and often rear entry) postures //

(Instead of the usual fakery, where the rape victim has to say what a great lay it is and buck like a bronco...)a pervy rapist saying 'drape yourself over this railing, or over the back of this park bench and go limp. you are not to move, talk, moan. make like you're unconscious. if you don't, i'll make it so.'

 

[Quint]

Damnfine line at the end of that, Pure.

 

[bridgeburner]

Wilhelm Reich sounds like a dull tool. Not only does his idea of sex not appeal to me, but the fact that he makes RULES about it suggests he's anal in the un-fun way.

 

[Pure]

While I like Reich's teaching about the body, it seems from rr's quote, that he simply followed Freud in talking of the perversions. and followed the freudian 'line' that the perverse stuff had better be subordinate to straight man/woman intercourse. i.e., a blow job is ok on the way to fucking, but don't dally too long.

There is also in Freud, and I think Reich, the idea of 'nature's way.' there is a way it should be done, penis into vagina. if the penis goes to mouth or jar of pickled eggs, something is wrong.
(Added: I see rr made this point in the para labelled 'commentary')


Of course some perversion is-- or sets out to be-- against nature, i.e., Sade's stuff. (Yet how can you go against nature? in fact you can't; non reproductive sex is in nature, after all.)

 

[Netzach]

*licking pureed rotten carrot off my face a la Iggy Pop*

Bet that got you hot, eh?

What does it say about the psychology of Reich?

That's my question.

I have no problem in saying yes, there's an overt agenda when I walk away from someone pleading for an orgasm and fucking a dildo like their life depends on it. Healthy or not, Freud is quite right. It's contempt in it's best form.

 

[bridgeburner]

I feel pity and contempt for the likes of Reich. Perhaps it's merely defensive on my part since he'd label me an unhealthy individual, but I'm not in the habit of lying to myself about such things. Essentially I just think he's wrong.

It's both too simplistic and too dismissive to say he's sexually repressed. It's hard for me to get inside the mind of someone like that --- not unlike getting inside the mind of an Evengelical Christian or someone who believes that certain races are inherently inferior to others. Both of those are disaparaging comparisons and also unfair. Maybe I should say that I can't get inside it in the same way that I can't get inside the idea of being horrified by homosexual acts --- or heterosexual acts if one is a homosexual.

I believe these people exist - gays and lesbians who are as sickend by the idea of engaging in heterosexual relations as the average person is on contemplating sex with a corpse. I don't think homophobia is the only answer for people who are extreme heterosexuals.

I believe them when they say it, but I have a hard time understanding it.

So I belive that Reich could truly own the idea that only penis-vagina sex is valid and healthy sex but I have a hard time getting inside that.

The pity comes from thinking about what he's missing. The contempt comes from his attempt to label everything outside his own belief "sick".

I don't think people are sick because they are purely heterosexual or homosexual or because they only believe in missionary position or procreative sex. I'm pretty much okay with whatever people want to do if it's consensual, but this constant name-calling and judementalism makes me angry.

So maybe I am contemptuous by way of defense.

Or maybe I'm just right and this guy is a tosser.


-B

 

[Pure]

It's known that, at a person level, Freud-- and likely Reich-- showed respect for homosexuals, and tolerance for 'deviants'; he didn't believe in persecuting or even stigmatizing them as 'sick.'
He was aware of brilliant artistic accomplishments among the likes of Mchelangelo, for example.

That said, the psychoanalytic jargon about 'deviation' and 'normal' path of development, not to say talk about 'arrest' (at the anal stage, e.g.,) lends itself to some nasty uses in the hands of the intolerant. Especially many of the medical profession, which Freud always feared would try to monopolize psychoanalysis.

For Freud, the terms are descriptive: It might help to consider natural science. How a botanist says, "The normal form for this clover is three leaves. Four is a variation/deviation." That's how Freud thought; there's no moral baggage attached.

 

[Pure]

N:*licking pureed rotten carrot off my face a la Iggy Pop*

Bet that got you hot, eh?

yep, and what have you done with the jar of pickled eggs???

What does it say about the psychology of Reich?

That's my question.

not entirely sure of your point, but yes his psychology is limited-- in not taking sufficient account of the mind and imagination-- their role in sex. hence rr's term 'mindgasm' is quite apt for the sort of mental peak and explosion from a nonapproved way of having sex. the whole story is not in the body as treated by the physiologists (or orgone therapists).

 

[bridgeburner]

indications of serious emotional problems

and

the healthy individual will not tolerate

Seem to be pretty judgemental. It is "bad" to have serious emotional problems and "bad" to be unhealthy.

It's not about moral judgement but about looking at an individual and saying "these things should be treated as an illness". While the doctor may be detached and not interested in promoting shame in the patient as a priest might, the essential point is that the pervert is not just abnormal but wrong enough that something ought to be done about him.


-B

 

[Pure]

BB: It's not about moral judgement but about looking at an individual and saying "these things should be treated as an illness". While the doctor may be detached and not interested in promoting shame in the patient as a priest might, the essential point is that the pervert is not just abnormal but wrong enough that something ought to be done about him.

You make some good points, clearly and dispassionately. I agree 'wrong enough....' is a common view. There's the normal, then there is deviation, synonymous with illness (lately the preferred shrink term is 'disorder').

Applied to Freud and gay persons 'something ought to be done' doesn't fit, because he acknowledged that the 'variation' in general could not be cured. Later shrinks have made claims of cure, but have generally been discredited.

In physiology texts I remember seeing some of the variations in the disposition of arteries and blood vessels leaving the heart. I think the point is to see about 'functioning', an elusive concept, often. If the blood is circulated effectively, I don't think drs. would want to say the variation warranted intervention (doing something). OTOH, if you're born with an 'imperforate' anus, something had better be done--i.e., create a hole.

"Healthy (adult) sexual functioning" is described by Freud and Reich in pretty simple straighforward terms. I think we'd all agree, for instance, that desire, capacity for arousal, and for orgasm are part of healthy functioning; *and perhaps* that those should sometimes be had in the company of another adult, and at least occasionally in conjuction with some emotional connections with this other.

Even going that far may be problematic. A certain proportion
(I believe maybe 1%) of people as adults report no sexual desires; they're celibate and not unhappy about that.

The tricky part is saying anything beyond the mimumum-- even the latter 'and perhaps' part (about involvement with another) could be argued about.

At the general level, healthy human living was said by Freud to involve 'love and work.' The DSM IV shrinks label certain sexual leanings as disorders only when there is interference with 'healthy functioning', e.g., as in not being able to hold a job because you whack off too frequently.

I remember the NY Times magazine reported a story of a man who required and sought (and got) intercourse something like 10 times a day. Should that be called 'abnormal' sexual desire? or just a wee bit more than Aunt Millie?

 

[bridgeburner]

Maybe I'd see less value judgement in a term like "extranormal" -- outside the normal range but not so much against normality.

There are plenty of things that can't be cured but are still considered undesirable. Not having read Freud I'll take your word for it that he didn't see anything wrong with homosexuality, but the Reich excerpts just rubbed me the wrong way.


-B

 

[Pure]

Stick around and I hope you get rubbed the right way.

J

 

[bridgeburner]

I'm sticking like white on rice, baby!


-B

 

[rosco rathbone]

What DIfferentiates Anal Rapists from Vaginal Rapists?

2

 

[rosco rathbone]

clean out your box, ms popularity.

 

[rosco rathbone]

I got hypersexual desire!


"Hypersexual desire as defined by Kafka (1997) means a total sexual outlet of equal to or more than 7 orgasms per week. As a minimum the duration of such a period must exceed 6 months after the age of 15. Knight (1999) described the sexual drive to be significantly associated with various kinds of sexual
offending. Arrigo and Purcell (2001) pointed out that compulsive masturbation works as reinforcement to the fantasy system, which could lead to sexual offences."


My fantasies all have a highly aggressive content as well....call the cops!

 

[bridgeburner]

Arrigo and Purcell (2001) pointed out that compulsive masturbation works as reinforcement to the fantasy system, which could lead to sexual offences

That doesn't sound like a vote of confidence.

And here all this time I thought that masturbation took the edge off so perverts could mingle with regular society without ending up in an assylum.


-B