banned from /pol/
shunned by /his/
r8 my theory/lit/ ?
Eroticism and violence are objectively the same but subjectively different
Pure Violence: Exclusive
>Lion is hungry, lion is aware and intends to eat the gazelle which is unaware of the lions hunger or intention, lion kills gazelle.
>Anxiety caused by: aversion of own death
>Win condition: Relieve anxiety through death of other
Pure Eroticism: Inclusive
>Person A has desire to have sex with person B, Person B has desire to have sex with person A, Persons A and B have sex.
>Anxiety caused by: want for sex
>Win condition: Relieve anxiety through Orgasm
In both cases anxiety is caused by homeostasis (visceral needs) or perceived obstruction of freedom (conflicting interest).
Resolution of anxiety by attaining visceral needs
Homeostasis
>Killing secures means of survival (saftey, resources) therefore violence seeks to maintain homeostasis
>Sex is a visceral need (theoretically), therefore eroticism seeks to maintain homeostasis
However Eroticism and Violence do not manifest themselves in the absolutely pure form for the most part. Because of this there arises conflicting interest when relieving anxiety for one subject causes anxiety for another. This is the obstruction of freedom.
Mitigated Violence: responsive violence
>When the gazelle becomes aware of the lion's intentions it can either fight back or flee, seeking to relieve anxiety in the same way the lion seeks to relieve anxiety
Aggravated Eroticism: Single aggressor
>If person A wants to have sex with person B but person B does not, than person A has anxiety which they intend to relieve but person B does not have this anxiety (or has it to a lesser extent). This restricts Person A's ability to relieve anxiety, and any attempt person A makes to relieve this anxiety will cause anxiety to person B.
When Violence or Eroticism move beyond their functional forms they become 'emotional behaviours'. These behaviours seek to fulfill the subjective want opposed to the objective need.
Aggravated Violence: unnecessary violence
>No (less) visceral anxiety, goal is to kill (although other benefits may result).
Mitigated Eroticism: altruistic relationships
>No (less) visceral anxiety, goal is not sex (although sex may be present)
The difference between all these things are based in subjectivity
Things that are subjectively 'right' (far left/right of spectrum) relieve anxiety or satisfy needs. Things that are subjectively 'wrong' (center of the spectrum) increase anxiety and either fail to satisfy needs or create new needs.
Subjective appraisal of 'right' or 'wrong' will increase or decrease general anxiety
Far Left (dealing with 'I' vs 'Them')
>Say you are a hunter and a deer has been eating the flowers from your front lawn, if you were to kill this deer it would be 'aggravated violence'. I propose that one would be caused less anxiety by eating the meat of this troublesome deer than they would be caused by eating beef from a cow who's reason for dying was to satisfy hunger (pure violence). And you would feel the greatest anxiety from eating another human, if you were aware of the extent their aversion to death (mitigated violence).
- Note: the "humanness" of meat is not the defining factor. If you truly wanted to kill another person I propose you would not be caused great anxiety by additionally eating them, and you would feel great distress if you were to eat your family dog simply because you were hungry and had no other food available.
Far Right (dealing with 'I' and 'Them')
>Despite what Freud has to say about subconscious sexuality, many men and women find that (if they have a 'healthy' relationship) their relationship with their opposite sex parent is 'ideal' (an example of mitigated eroticism). The reason you love your mother or father is not because you want to have sex with them, but instead because the relationship relieves anxiety through communication, acceptance, and other social desires. A sexual partner like a spouse will also reduce anxiety (also mitigated eroticism), however a relationship that exists only for sex and lacks the wide array of social desires would do much less to reduce anxiety (Pure eroticism). These are followed by behaviours such as stalking or rape (aggravated eroticism), which cause great anxiety for the non-consenting party , while doing little to reduce the anxiety of the aggressor and quite possibly creating new sources of anxiety.
Note: I am using consent loosely to define shared interest
The Center (Heterostasis)
>The center point is the point of the greatest anxiety. This is caused by the switch between the exclusive and inclusive nature of goals on the opposing ends.
Exclusive goals are most attainable if free will is exercised only by the individual
>If we respect the desires of the cow, and promote or even aid the cow in exercising its free will the dairy and beef industries would fall apart.
Inclusive goals are most attainable if interest is shared by all stakeholders
>Everyone wants to have friends. If were to incarcerate your 'friends' they would be more readily available to you, but less inclined/likely to supply you with the social desires that lead to us wanting friends in the first place.
To reduce anxiety, one should deviate from the center as much as possible
>Rape is less pleasurable than platonic friendship
>Killing your enemies is more satisfying than fighting off an attacker
>>7886820
Freud and Bataille did it better.
>>7886820
>>7886822
>>7886825
>>7886829
Why is anxiety such a major thing here? It seems to me that anxiety should play no role in successful consenting sex. For example, two adults in a stable relationship who have had sex with each other hundreds of times, why would they be anxious at all?
Seperately using lions and gazelles as examples of anxiety?!
I would say that there is a link between sex and violence but it would be due to the richness and heightening of emotions both cause compared to normal emotional levels.
I didnt read your second or third paragraphs because they started talking about political BS which i dont care about and i already thought you were talking shit,
poster a few posts above is on to something: this really is gay. i've never before had the urge to be a bottom until I read 2-3 of your subjective drivel.
>>7886820
Pretty garbage from what you have posted so far, even the formatting sucks. Look write a paper and then post it here if you want to have a legitimate critique.
You don't define any of your variables you simply assume we know them in advance. Such as eroticism which means within the Freudian context(I'll (once again) assume that you are using Freudian definitions, seeing as you referenced him) means the social context of sexuality. So one of your thesis literally begs the question, it asserts of that erotism leads to erotism, thus resulting in utter hagwash. It is all subjective and board-line semantics, as you don't construct your point you simply give examples. All in all it seems like an undergraduates attempt at impressing an assent professor.
My advice: pick up some Freud, Weber, Foucault, and maybe some Bauman. After that read up on some more theory for several months and then realize that there is very little you could ever think of to revolutionize the field. But on the bright side I could easily see this as a tool to startup some internet cult like Stefan Molyneux.
>>7886892
I'm trying to get my head around "the state of being" vs "the state of being anxious".
Anxiety is my archetype for any discomfort or restraints to happiness
>the use of violence is to reduce anxiety
>lack of intimacy causes anxiety
When I was referring to left and right I mean of the proposed spectrum of behaviour opposed to political thinking. The idea of deviating from the center does have to do with liberalism/conservatism though and is why they don't get along.
>>7886909
Glad I could help friend
>>7886913
As an under achieving undergraduate I appreciate your perspective anon.
It's saddening but expected to hear that this is nothing new and not particularly coherent, but it's nice to know you can see where it's coming from.
In regards to eroticism, I'm not referring to it as an individual mechanism leading to sex, but just as a subjectively appraised difference in anxiety reducing behavior.
It probably sounds childish, but I'm trying to prove to myself that right and wrong exist to myself and I've reached a number of road blocks. (Isn't it all subjective)
>>7886972
pervasive subjectivity is the narcissist's tool for legitimizing his existence. sadly, everyone is a narcissist.
the anons calling you gay are right OP. Wilde quipped about this more succinctly
>Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.
You're just telling people you're a sissyboy and long winded.
>>7886972
It's fine to do this kind of philosophical thinking. That being said, your thinking has to be rigorous, you have to work within logical frames.
This piece of work you posted lacks almost any decent studious construction.
>>7887055
>I guess I'm gay then damn
>I think he/you are over reaching.
I'm sure he was just being polite, anon. Wilde was very polite.
>>7887061
Is gay even an accurate descriptive word if sex is about power?
Wouldn't the sexualities of top vs bottom be vastly different?
What differentiates between a buttfucker and a straight man?
Are a bottom and a woman of the same sexual orientation just of a different sex?
Sex as a general anxiety reducing practice regardless of position makes more sense to me.
>>7887088
You're thinking of cynical masturbation, not sex. You need to learn about ancient Greek sexuality and therefore your own gay self. Then you can realise the shame of what you're doing, Dorian.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4akBblB2K1Q
>>7887101
The problem here (for me) is that no matter what combination of genitals you have, sex is only sex if both parties 'will' it.
If I love my spouse I can have sex with her, but if one day she wakes up and hates me I can only rape her regardless of how much I love her.
Physiologically rape and 'cynical masturbation' are the same in the sense that the one willing party experiences something viscerally arousing and subjectively good.
Whereas sex implies mutual consent.
I think that we over think sex in a way similar to how we over think death
>>7887146
>If I love my spouse I can have sex with her, but if one day she wakes up and hates me I can only rape her regardless of how much I love her.
Kant thinks your wife is a defaulter.
Go watch the video, if you had, you would be past the point where they explain the combinations of will and power in sexual roles for the Romans. It's the easy version of the Greeks.
"cynical masturbation" is a reference to Diogenes, one of the founders of cynicism, and his views on masturbation. These views on sex were not the general view of sex at the time in Greece.
>>7887161
Well thanks anon, I've learned a bit more and will finish the video at a later time.
Unfortunately this has all left me with more questions.
What differentiates between the power and will applied for sex vs applied for satiating hunger or thirst?
Is the need of intimacy different or the same as the need for sleep?
Which is more exciting, sex or killing?
Is sex moral or just normal?
>>7886820
You might want to check out 'Jagten' by Thomas Vinterberg.
>>7887238
Madds mikkelsen is the bomb, apperciated.
Fits my aggravated eroticism too. That baby is oppressing Madds.
>>7886887
A+ banter
I'll give a lecture on you one day, anon.
>>7887370
I'll be here all of time
