The Colbert Report's interview with the Harvard head of Philosophy actually struck a chord with me. I generally speaking dont like the interviews on the Report because they are just as satirical as the rest of the show, whereas on the Daily Show the comedy isn't in a lightheartedness that I feel robs the interviewee of the message they want to make.
The discussion was about his book, which examined the idea that people today find it harder to find things to find meaningful.
I havent read the book, but taking that idea and getting an idea of his position through the interview, it made me wonder. Generally speaking I think I agree...but not in that people find it harder to hold things as meaningful, but that nowadays it's a lot easier to phone it in. Facebook protest loops, for example. Facebook in general. You can format who you are, choose the way you come across to the world, decide what information you give and therefore affect the way people perceive your mood and life without having to do anything but tap your fingers. It is potentially words without actions.
I think I agree with him because I myself feel like I dont care about the things I should. At the same time, I feel like I am sometimes flummoxed at how little people around me seem to cherish the things I DO cherish. So in light of that I have to wonder if my perception is just based on not having the same values as those around me and feeling that disconnect. I wonder if that's what the people who wrote that book were experiencing.
I've always felt that if you go back in time, rather than be shocked by the difference a lot of people would be surprised at how similar people five hundred, or even a thousand, years ago are to people today. The illusion that we were different comes from being able to see the obvious difference in available and known information about the world, culture and custom. It's tempting to project a whole slew of different individual and existential differences as well based on that, but I dont think those individual differences really exist between your average man of 1405 and your average man of 2011. It's easy to forget that when we look back in history, the ways we analyze and create a picture of how things were are inanimate objects, and written history/evidence of outstanding events and people. We dont get an account of the general latency of the general population of a general city. We get explosions, lulls, outstanding figures who pushed things forward and made things interesting, artists whose work we can still appreciate. It's hard to remember that the time itself wasnt necessarily that interesting to someone not in that loop of inertia. It was just a few artists, political figures, wars, mathematicians and philosophers who managed to stand out, or even just write down what they knew.
I think that perhaps rather than not finding anything sacred, it's simply a definition of what sacred is. And it's certainly easy for people to become complacent nowadays perhaps moreso than 1000 years ago. And, going off on my own little tangent, it seems to be such a shame to waste the lavishness of our culture on complacency, but perhaps that's just how it goes.
So anyway. The idea that I'm weighing right now is: Is the issue really that people nowadays are finding it more difficult to find things meaningful, moreso than at other points in time? Or is it that we can see the ways in which our modern culture makes it easy for people to disregard the sacred, and we assume that it's unique to this culture to do so?
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Oh god oh godohgodohgod
Thanks to Arafelis: http://io9.com/#!5750370/make-it-so-sexy-exclusive-first-look-at-the-new-star-trek-the-next-generation-porn-movie
I think some friends and I have to arrange a movie night...
I think some friends and I have to arrange a movie night...
The divine desire of BDSM
I was confronted recently by a not terribly uncommon idea.
There's a film called Secretary which I think is one of the loveliest, sexiest and most comprehensive (though, as most romances are in film, overly romanticized) portrayals of BDSM/Dominant submissive relationships I have seen in 'mainstream' film.
I was perusing shelves for certain items at Passional (which I highly recommend to anyone looking for ANY kind of sexual equipment, toys, educational and enlightening books, workshops, pretties, etc), and the movie came up with a woman who works there. I mentioned that I was glad that a popular film gave allowance for such a dynamic to be 'normal', 'natural' and supportive of true romance, and created such a beautiful and comedic film. She immediately expressed distaste for the fact that they went into the female lead's past. Which I thought strange...most good characters have a past, it helps put you into the personal temperature of a character with whom you are meant to empathize, become intimately attached to.
Her interpretation was that they gave the female lead's history in order to give an 'excuse' for her deviant behavior, and that aside she didnt agree with the female lead's 'reasons' for being a masochistic submissive.
Regardless of whether or not I think it was politically prudent to offer an empathetic look into how this girl grew up, I'm not sure that, if this character was real, I'd have a problem with the life experiences that led her to experiencing emotional and personal catharsis when she put herself into the hands of someone she believed was capable who could lead her to those catharses. Her father was a perpetual fuckup and a nonviolent drunk. The movie never gets into specifics of her family life, I actually found myself confronted by a lot of curiosity about intricate details. But it is clear that her entire context for powerful men in her life is a man who has no handle on himself or his life whatsoever, who cant keep it together, and who always makes her feel alone and uncertain. I dont see what makes the dynamic less genuine to know that this girl finds solace in experiencing a man who can support himself as well as manage her anxieties that are probably rooted in that experience. On top of that, the female lead has a sister who is very white bread and as far as we know doesnt even know such dynamics exist sexually. The insinuation wasnt that anyone who experiences a disorganized family life will turn into a submissive masochist. It seemed to simply be that this girl was given anxieties that manifested in certain ways, and on top of enjoying her unorthodox relationship the relationship helped her deal with those anxieties she was given in her young life.
Leaving that be for now, I thought it was terribly unfair for someone to judge what is a "good" and "bad" reason to feel the way you feel sexually. Nowhere in the movie does it remotely insinuate her sexuality is self destructive...it makes it fairly clear it is the opposite case. But I think it's a typical case of attachment to "divine emotion"...that is to say "I feel this way because I have a soul, and the idea that my emotions are linked to chemicals in my brain devalues those emotions". The idea that this girl's past experience and family life shaped her unorthodox relationship yearnings, to this woman, devalued the fact that she was a 'genuine' and 'healthy' submissive.
Which is a foolish conclusion. All of us, deviant or no, have a method of choosing mates and have dynamics in which we are more comfortable based on our family life, our experiences when we're young, our general relationship experiences, and the conclusions we come to about ourselves and others through those experiences. Everyone. I dont think the movie made the love less than what it was meant to be by chronicling the girl's trials with her father, her stint in a mental ward, her disorganization in her life, and her decision to pull her life together and try to leave those influences behind her through personal growth. Those all seem like things that are fairly common, and are at least partly elements that plenty of people can empathize with and understand.
To be clear, I dont think that things like being gay or straight are things that life just hammers into you. I'm saying that the nuances of a sexuality that is already there are often cultivated through the path of one's life even if it could be summarized by a friend introducing you to the concept of BDSM and you having a natural curiosity. Sometimes the way our past interacts with our sexuality is unhealthy, sure, but the fact that it's there at all doesnt make it so.
Possibly making her family life chaotic would send the wrong message to someone who watched the film and got nothing out of it other than "deviant sexuality is always linked to abuse" (which is absolutely not true). The movie had so much else going for it though...so much else to put the viewer into the position of someone whose passion was expressed through these desires looking out into a world of people who dont understand said desires and has an expectation of "normal experience".
There's a film called Secretary which I think is one of the loveliest, sexiest and most comprehensive (though, as most romances are in film, overly romanticized) portrayals of BDSM/Dominant submissive relationships I have seen in 'mainstream' film.
I was perusing shelves for certain items at Passional (which I highly recommend to anyone looking for ANY kind of sexual equipment, toys, educational and enlightening books, workshops, pretties, etc), and the movie came up with a woman who works there. I mentioned that I was glad that a popular film gave allowance for such a dynamic to be 'normal', 'natural' and supportive of true romance, and created such a beautiful and comedic film. She immediately expressed distaste for the fact that they went into the female lead's past. Which I thought strange...most good characters have a past, it helps put you into the personal temperature of a character with whom you are meant to empathize, become intimately attached to.
Her interpretation was that they gave the female lead's history in order to give an 'excuse' for her deviant behavior, and that aside she didnt agree with the female lead's 'reasons' for being a masochistic submissive.
Regardless of whether or not I think it was politically prudent to offer an empathetic look into how this girl grew up, I'm not sure that, if this character was real, I'd have a problem with the life experiences that led her to experiencing emotional and personal catharsis when she put herself into the hands of someone she believed was capable who could lead her to those catharses. Her father was a perpetual fuckup and a nonviolent drunk. The movie never gets into specifics of her family life, I actually found myself confronted by a lot of curiosity about intricate details. But it is clear that her entire context for powerful men in her life is a man who has no handle on himself or his life whatsoever, who cant keep it together, and who always makes her feel alone and uncertain. I dont see what makes the dynamic less genuine to know that this girl finds solace in experiencing a man who can support himself as well as manage her anxieties that are probably rooted in that experience. On top of that, the female lead has a sister who is very white bread and as far as we know doesnt even know such dynamics exist sexually. The insinuation wasnt that anyone who experiences a disorganized family life will turn into a submissive masochist. It seemed to simply be that this girl was given anxieties that manifested in certain ways, and on top of enjoying her unorthodox relationship the relationship helped her deal with those anxieties she was given in her young life.
Leaving that be for now, I thought it was terribly unfair for someone to judge what is a "good" and "bad" reason to feel the way you feel sexually. Nowhere in the movie does it remotely insinuate her sexuality is self destructive...it makes it fairly clear it is the opposite case. But I think it's a typical case of attachment to "divine emotion"...that is to say "I feel this way because I have a soul, and the idea that my emotions are linked to chemicals in my brain devalues those emotions". The idea that this girl's past experience and family life shaped her unorthodox relationship yearnings, to this woman, devalued the fact that she was a 'genuine' and 'healthy' submissive.
Which is a foolish conclusion. All of us, deviant or no, have a method of choosing mates and have dynamics in which we are more comfortable based on our family life, our experiences when we're young, our general relationship experiences, and the conclusions we come to about ourselves and others through those experiences. Everyone. I dont think the movie made the love less than what it was meant to be by chronicling the girl's trials with her father, her stint in a mental ward, her disorganization in her life, and her decision to pull her life together and try to leave those influences behind her through personal growth. Those all seem like things that are fairly common, and are at least partly elements that plenty of people can empathize with and understand.
To be clear, I dont think that things like being gay or straight are things that life just hammers into you. I'm saying that the nuances of a sexuality that is already there are often cultivated through the path of one's life even if it could be summarized by a friend introducing you to the concept of BDSM and you having a natural curiosity. Sometimes the way our past interacts with our sexuality is unhealthy, sure, but the fact that it's there at all doesnt make it so.
Possibly making her family life chaotic would send the wrong message to someone who watched the film and got nothing out of it other than "deviant sexuality is always linked to abuse" (which is absolutely not true). The movie had so much else going for it though...so much else to put the viewer into the position of someone whose passion was expressed through these desires looking out into a world of people who dont understand said desires and has an expectation of "normal experience".
Undress my intellect
I've been thinking recently, or remembering, rather, that I used to have all kinds of youthful, empassioned, studious things to say about sex and sexuality. Sure, today I will be occasionally flustered by someone's attitude or lack of awareness of themselves in these areas, but they feel much more personalized to individuals than any sort of rampant social disease of the mind that threatened to potentially poison the way we relate to each other in all regards.
Obviously, this is partially because I am no longer a college student. Not literally, though yes also that. But I'm not bursting wide eyed into the world and shocked to my knees over things that other people do in it that I may or may not agree with. In fact, I've managed to hone an ability to stand back and admit that we're all special snowflakes, and I dont have to approve of everything that people do unless I can draw a firm intellectual line that answers the question "why not". And when I can do that, based on information I've gathered in my own little world, that's when really fun debates can take place.
Regardless. I think another part of the reason for my lack of empassioned shock at the world's attitude (or perhaps just my generation's, in my country) towards sex is because as I've grown older, I've begun folding myself into the social circles that I find most fulfilling, most inspiring, most interesting to ME. Which means, needless to say, that I dont often come across or talk in depth to people who just dont 'get' sex, either in themselves or others. I'm not confronted by it often, and when I am, it's when I'm advising someone over a personal hiccup.
But thirdly, I'm afraid that it might partially be because as well as not often being confronted by things that confound me in this area in real life, I am also just not discussing such things as much as I would if I were on a campus, taking classes in these subjects, or otherwise regularly discussing or debating these things. I dont even know if I remember some of the things that used to be so important to me to stand up for. I'm rusty.
I honestly think I'm hoping that somehow, as the 'Sex' part of this blog expands, I will hit on something that someone feels a desire to ask about, to express confusion on, or outright disagree with me about. And then we can all duel with those straight and narrow intellectual swords we have constructed that we each believe point to a big chunk of ethics or psychological health.
Any takers?
Obviously, this is partially because I am no longer a college student. Not literally, though yes also that. But I'm not bursting wide eyed into the world and shocked to my knees over things that other people do in it that I may or may not agree with. In fact, I've managed to hone an ability to stand back and admit that we're all special snowflakes, and I dont have to approve of everything that people do unless I can draw a firm intellectual line that answers the question "why not". And when I can do that, based on information I've gathered in my own little world, that's when really fun debates can take place.
Regardless. I think another part of the reason for my lack of empassioned shock at the world's attitude (or perhaps just my generation's, in my country) towards sex is because as I've grown older, I've begun folding myself into the social circles that I find most fulfilling, most inspiring, most interesting to ME. Which means, needless to say, that I dont often come across or talk in depth to people who just dont 'get' sex, either in themselves or others. I'm not confronted by it often, and when I am, it's when I'm advising someone over a personal hiccup.
But thirdly, I'm afraid that it might partially be because as well as not often being confronted by things that confound me in this area in real life, I am also just not discussing such things as much as I would if I were on a campus, taking classes in these subjects, or otherwise regularly discussing or debating these things. I dont even know if I remember some of the things that used to be so important to me to stand up for. I'm rusty.
I honestly think I'm hoping that somehow, as the 'Sex' part of this blog expands, I will hit on something that someone feels a desire to ask about, to express confusion on, or outright disagree with me about. And then we can all duel with those straight and narrow intellectual swords we have constructed that we each believe point to a big chunk of ethics or psychological health.
Any takers?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)