[knox]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

well, good to know you think that. but don't assume i'm going to understand everything you say outright.



ok, so he was maybe clumsy or juvenile or had bad timing while trying to open up to you about what turns him on.

but where's the joke? maybe i'm not as smart as you think, or maybe i'm approaching this situation from a totally different place than you, but i feel a little sorry for the poor bastard.

well, now that i think about it.

1- I don't feel sorry for anyone. Certainly not that cunt particularly.

2- If you think about it a bit there's something slightly disturbing about wanking to a woman who's singing about female identification, opression or etc.? I don't think that's what she meant, really if that's all he could say that he was pretty much saying he was ignoring everything she had to say and disregarding the whole thing because women ONLY exist to be sexy?
I mean he said nothing else about the whole thing, as if that's really all there is to say about her, and worse, as if I'm supposed to take that as a compliment (sort of like: i really like women making music, i get boners).

Point is, why could he go on and on about other people's songs and the meaning behind the lyrics and all that crap and when it comes to her that is ALL he would say? I think that says something.

That's why I said "I should have known".
I meant "I should have known that liking SY does not mean at all that you are concerned about that aspect the songs".

[verme (prevaricator)]

metaphoric ironical speech, PERHAPS?

[knox]

Originally Posted by verme (prevaricator)

i see.

you know who must be a real bitch?

knox.

what do you mean MUST be:?

[knox]

didn't you know?

i'm the evil hag that wants to stop people from touching themselves.

but i'm misunderstood.

i just don't want hair growing on their palms.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by knox

well, now that i think about it.

1- I don't feel sorry for anyone. Certainly not that cunt particularly.

!

Originally Posted by knox

2- If you think about it a bit there's something slightly disturbing about wanking to a woman who's singing about female identification, opression or etc.?

as a non-native english speaker, it's hard for me to understand lyrics, i hear most english lyrics as "music" rather than words. that's why i inserted #3. i don't have an idea what the fuck anyone is singing about in english most of the time without looking at the printed lyrics.

i do find kim's voice sexy though. lyrics aside, i can totally understand the arousal.

and a question: you said before that attraction is not objectification, so i'll extrapolate that arousal is not a crime, yes?

Originally Posted by knox

I don't think that's what she meant, really if that's all he could say that he was pretty much saying he was ignoring everything she had to say and disregarding the whole thing because women ONLY exist to be sexy?

nowhere in your account did i read that he said she was only good for wanking, but i'm sure you know things about "that cunt" that we don't know-- however, from that account alone i'm not ready to lynch him.

Originally Posted by knox

I mean he said nothing else about the whole thing, as if that's really all there is to say about her, and worse, as if I'm supposed to take that as a compliment (sort of like: i really like women making music, i get boners).

i thought he had been talking about the politics of the lyrics etc...

Originally Posted by knox

Point is, why could he go on and on about other people's songs and the meaning behind the lyrics and all that crap and when it comes to her that is ALL he would say? I think that says something.

oooooooooh! ok..., that's clear now. but ONLY NOW. so you're saying he's all into the politics of the lyrics etc and then when it comes to kim it's only good for jerking off? well yeah, that's a bit... dumb.

so how come you got involved with such an asshole? just curious.

Originally Posted by knox

That's why I said "I should have known".
I meant "I should have known that liking SY does not mean at all that you are concerned about that aspect the songs".

well yeah, generalizations are always problematic.

full disclaimer: i do get boners sometimes from women making music. (i'm sure nik will be here soon to reprimand me). really, i do. i don't listen to them just to get boners, but i get them on occasion, with certain kinds of singing, mostly. i don't think there's anything wrong with that, but then again i don't think the only sole purpose of women in music is to give me boners. the purpose of women making music is, obviously, to make music.

from the little i know, i'll say this however: women get aroused from men and women making music too. i've seen enough panties thrown onstage and heard enough desperate "i loooove youuuuuuu"s to know. (i wasn't the one onstage, by the way, but i've seen plenty). there is plenty of music that turns women on, and i would presume that they use it to create a mood for their own pleasure.

anyway, back to the boyfriend, etc-- whether the guy was a douche or not, seems to me like you're presenting the issues in black and white-- it's either "all politics and enlightenment" or "all pig all the time". is there room in your conceptual arsenal for someone to get the politics and get horny? or do you think those two are mutually exclusive? and is masturbation (only) a tool of opression and objectification, or do you see it as having any kind of positive dimension?

[Rob Instigator]

I think that the emotional release gotten from music and singing is a separate thing from the intelelctual release given by lyrics.

it is pretty stupid of that guy to talk deep about lyrics and then have nothing to say about Kim's, (even though thurston writes most of her lyrics)

[pbradley]

Okay, I'll cum clean, the only Sonic Youth song that I've had playing while beating off was "In the Kingdom #19."

[knox]

I don't always know people are assholes right away, mr. symbol.
Sometimes it takes a while to find out.

And again, don't twist things. There is nothing wrong with finding people sexy, find them sexy. There is a problem if that is ALL you can say about them.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by knox

I don't always know people are assholes right away, mr. symbol.
Sometimes it takes a while to find out.

And again, don't twist things. There is nothing wrong with finding people sexy, find them sexy. There is a problem if that is ALL you can say about them.

im not twisting things. maybe im not understanding them completely (i warned you about this at the outset), but saying im twisting them implies intent and malice.

back to your argument: some people think about sex more than others, that doesn't automatically mean they think about sex all the time, or that they think of women solely as sex objects.

i'm not denying there are people like that (just look at the documentary i posted some pages back), but those monsters are created more from a violent and abusive social and family environment than from media messages.

i'm not saying that media messages are not important, by the way. i'm saying the real deadly stuff is not on tv.

[!@#$%!]

anyway, i gotta go, but i just wanted to say that sex is GOOD, puritanism is BAD, and so is the excessive fetishizing and prurient behavior bred by puritanism. i'd rather associate with people who are highly sexual and sensual and unencumbered by hangups than with those who see evil everywhere, like in that william blake poem:

I laid me down upon a bank,
Where Love lay sleeping;
I heard among the rushes dank
Weeping, weeping.

Then I went to the heath and the wild,
To the thistles and thorns of the waste;
And they told me how they were beguiled,
Driven out, and compelled to the chaste.

I went to the Garden of Love,
And saw what I never had seen;
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.

And the gates of this Chapel were shut
And "Thou shalt not," writ over the door;
So I turned to the Garden of Love
That so many sweet flowers bore.

And I saw it was filled with graves,
And tombstones where flowers should be;
And priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,
And binding with briars my joys and desires.

--

in other words, if i had to choose extremes (black/white dychotomies), i'd rather tolerate excessive bawdiness than puritanical repression. but that's just me. i'd rather err on the side of sinners-- im with the lesbians who run my local dildo shop and against the middle-class prudes who are trying to shut them down.

[knox]

the mistake that you're making is that you're confusing criticism against objetification and gender roles with puritanism. it's quite the opposite really. think about it.

besides, you're referring to sexuality without considering female sexuality. it is not that they SEE wrong in everything, it's that they're NOT FREE to express their sexuality a-as it really is b-without suffering consequences c-without having their sexuality pre-defined for them.

i think that's hard to understand without being a woman, but i will just say that if you're trying to imply that anyone on this forum is being a prude you're really far from the truth.

in fact, it gets a bit tiring that EVERYTIME a woman complains about feeling OBJECTIFIED in a NEGATIVE way, people will start using the word "prude". It's a bit like going on a date and not wanting to sleep with some guy and he starts calling you a prude to see if maybe you'll feel bad and put out.

[knox]

now, now, now, now. i'm too tired to even do this.
but what you said about media messages.
i don't think i ever simplified anything to the point that anyone could say i am merely blaming media messages for everything.

they will play with deep cultural messages, we'll respond to that.

is media taking it into a new level? perhaps.
but one thing you must remember when gender roles are portrayed out there in the so-called media: they existed first.

they began as a representation of what society truly believes and its current guidelines. very complex to be discussed now. im sure glice or someone can write something about it no one can decipher (this is an invitation, by the way).

[knox]

 

BTW
much sexier in the real photo. like the ginger.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by knox

the mistake that you're making is that you're confusing criticism against objetification and gender roles with puritanism. it's quite the opposite really. think about it.

im actually saying that puritanism engenders objectification-- when sex is "dirty" and woman is "polluted" (thanks pookie for the joke), and the body is "shameful", a lot of unhealthy interest develops in looking at "the truth" in whatever form it can be found, and this is what businesses exploit.

then we decry the objectifiers and the consumers of objects-- that's what capitalism does, commodify fucking everything. but there's a natural sex instinct looking for an outlet in the environment that capitalism provides. if you want to criticize objectification/commodification, the place to do it is not by criticizing the male sex drive, but the miserable structures that capitalism provides for its (in)satisfaction. when the criticism is aimed at the male sex drive, the pushback becomes only more intense.

the way to escape objectification, barring the dismantling of capitalism, is not mere critique-- it's actually more sex (real sex, with real people), sensuality instead of detached experiences, the cultivation of pleasure instead of the ever-unfulfilled pursuit of unattainable images of desire that keep the customer returning to the checkout line like a sucker.

[Rob Instigator]

mexican chicks kick it RAW!

[knox]

when did i criticize the male's sex drive?

besides, i don't think this started with capitalism. it really didn't.
women have always been 'objects', 'property'.
it is a fact that women now have more rights than ever.
however, it's still far from ideal.

and also, this whole idea of sex being 'dirty' and 'wrong' is reinforced by media and mainstream pornography in general.
which is, sadly, most people's main source of sex education.

I understand what you're saying in the last paragraph and agree but it sounds like you're saying no one should criticize anything? One of the main reasons why I am saying this is because I've heard/read people critize these things and it made me think. I also understand what you're saying about the relationship between sex/consumerism but I don't think this necessarily has to do with being against capitalism.

I think you're being very patronizing to be honest.

but you're not really reading it all are you? I mean you just took the first paragraph out of context to say whatever you wanted to say anyway.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by knox

when did i criticize the male's sex drive?

besides, i don't think this started with capitalism. it really didn't.
women have always being 'objects', 'property'.
it is a fact that women now have more rights than ever
however, it's still far from ideal.

and also, this whole idea of sex being 'dirty' and 'wrong' is reinforced by media, mainstream pornography and erotic material.
which is, sadly, most people's main source of sex education.

i have an appointment in 30 minutes so i have to flee, but i will think about this for later.

however, a preview answer (where i think i'll go with this) is that capitalism is what we're dealing with today, and it creates its own set of problems different from the historical ones (perhaps they are "genetic" mutations of the same old problems). so if we want to solve the problem today we have to deal with what's around us.

ok i'll think of this & answer in more detail later.

[pbradley]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

the miserable structures

Like SYG.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

the ever-unfulfilled pursuit of unattainable images of desire that keep the customer returning to the checkout line like a sucker.

But have you seen Lohan recently?

[knox]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i have an appointment in 30 minutes so i have to flee, but i will think about this for later.

however, a preview answer (where i think i'll go with this) is that capitalism is what we're dealing with today, and it creates its own set of problems different from the historical ones (perhaps they are "genetic" mutations of the same old problems). so if we want to solve the problem today we have to deal with what's around us.

ok i'll think of this & answer in more detail later.

I disagree. I disagree with this way of thinking: the problem is outside.
The problem is us. We are the corruption of capitalism, socialism, democracy. We are racism, sexism and homophobia. We allow wars to happen and people die from starvation. Analyzing history perhaps would be more helpful in order to understand what's going on around us today.

All these things you blame on 'capitalism' are human structures, cultures, guidelines and lines of thought that converged into this. In some ways, they are the mere repetition of old values we only pretend to have changed because it's now PC.

It doesn't matter what's around us, if we wanna change anything we gotta look inside and change ourselves.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by knox

It doesn't matter what's around us, if we wanna change anything we gotta look inside and change ourselves.

so it doesn't matter if people post nasty pictures or not, then? hey, just look inside!

we're not islands, we're social creatures-- we're shaped by our genes, our upbringing, our society-- it's a complex web of vectors that gives birth to individuals, but a lot of that happens in collective interactions that go beyond the individual. yes, look at the inside (i just got back from my shrink btw), but also look at the outside and what created the inside-- read family systems theory to see how alcoholism, abuse, violence and countless toxic behaviors are handed down from one generation to the next. then there's the social/political sphere where there's money for weapons but not for birth control, there's money for domestic espionage but not to prevent rape and domestic violence, there's tax levies to fund the construction of stadiums but not homeless shelters.

i just got back home and spotted this but i see you've covered a lot so i'll go back & read the rest & answer. as it happens, my wife is still out of town, my friends are unavailable, and i'm stuck at home with SYG. yay for me! i might switch to books though if this proves a fruitless endeavor. i say this because i spotted a couple of "you're not listening"s that are getting really tiresome. and we're all tired.