itt a strange man asks if you saw the ass on that one

the whole situation made me sad tbh

oh man, I bet that would have been an amazing essay

she wrote the first few paragraphs. they detailed various attacks on humans by lions. :-/

I genuinely don't know what kind of racist language people use to be offensive

so I guess SOMEONE has learned something from this thread after all lolz

Yeah, I prefer being seduced and drugged by lions to being savagely mauled to death by them.

(I would be up for a series of Serious Threads called "itt [ilx poster] teaches you about [area of specialist knowledge]" - that is a good idea)

The first thing that occurred to me when I came upon this thread was the different standards, in different countries, for eye contact, openly checking people out, openly commenting on them, etc. It is forever a shock the first few days I'm in France or Italy, how openly not only men but women check other people out both in sexual and non-sexual ways all of which would be considered rude and even dangerous in SF most of the time. My gf and I always point out hot (but most especially well-dressed) people to each other. We both know we're glancing or looking so why not make a game out of it. What's interesting is to see how are tastes converge and diverge. She has her own unique taste in guys that I sometimes get and sometimes don't and vice-versa.

she wrote the first few paragraphs. they detailed various attacks on humans by lions. :-/

― figgy pudding (La Lechera), Wednesday, December 2, 2009 4:15 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

this is pretty airtight imo

The cultural differences of looking and privacy in public are talked about at length in The Hidden Language. I guess there must be a whole school of sociology based on proxemics by now? Wikipedia page does not suggest that it took off, but maybe someone can enlighten me.

fwiw goole's questioning of people's thoughts weren't completely wrong imo, i mean you shouldnt be having sexual thoughts about children, for example

absolutely and unreservedly disagree with this. cops policing child porn have to entertain sexual thoughts about children all the time. as a matter of fact, just by reading my words you are committing THOUGHTCRIME by goole's standards. fuck that shit. slippery slope from which there is no return.

http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/images/minority_report26.jpg

dont really think thats what goole is saying shakey

Following up on my other post, the issue with judging someone for their thoughts is that you don't actually know what they are until they do something (assume talking counts as "doing something") unless you guys can all read minds and I'm actually mentally disabled, so I'm backpedalling a lot on my "judging thoughts is okay" line.

To use an example: I know someone who was raised not to judge people, that everyone was worthy of respect and should be treated as such. Later on, this same person had a sibling come out and one of this person's parents was VEHEMENTLY negative and homophobic about it, entirely at odds with how they raised their children and the views the kids had. This all came as a shock to the person I know, who assumed that the parent was totally fine with gay people. In this case, had it not been for the gay child no one would have known this parent had these types of thoughts; it didn't show up in how the kids were raised and it never came up in political discussions, so how would anyone know this about the parent until the negative reaction to the gay sibling?

im also not sure its fair to say that cops policing child porn are "entertaining sexual thoughts about children all the time"

hey Erica i understand why you're concerned about critiquing people's thoughts but when it comes to this stuff, i think the account where people have sexual thoughts about each other because we're all animals is insufficient. in our culture women's bodies are sexualized more perniciously and more frequently, and just more everywhere you look than are men's and sexual violence occurs disproportionately<--i know you know this already; it is basically the most obvious sentence i have ever typed? it seems non-crazy to wonder how this might affect the way people think about each other sexually and to posit that there might be negative effects.

totally comfortable with granny dainger thinking i'm a "schoolmarm" as a result.

xxpost Have you ever said things while in your mind at the same time you're saying to yourself, I don't really feel so strongly about this as I sound?

lol xposts i don't think goole said anything about any of that, Shakey

haha yeah well "entertaining" perhaps not the best choice of words.

but I look forward to goole elaborating on WRONG thoughts and how some thoughts are not acceptable which, I'm sorry, is complete bullshit

x-posts

i think it's a mistake to conflate 'extremes' of sexual thought with sexual thought in general: ie, to consider thoughts of attack or rape, or thoughts involving children (which obviously involve a non-consensual dimension), when neither are part of the spectrum of sexual thought but something separate involving power, etc. you can defend sexual thought without having to defend anything that has a sexual aspect: they're distinct.

i think there's definitely something to be said for the fact that a lot of guys think they're being proper and respectful in their flirting and they're actually not (cf. the occasional o_O reply on a WDYLL thread)

You might want to worry if you enjoy sexual thoughts about children, though, Shakey, no? Or if they arouse you, right? I am an ardent supporter of freedom of speech and of conscience but surely getting off at the thought very non-consensual sex is a bit of a warning sign?

i don't think people are animals. biologically we are, obviously, but the whole reason we can judge people for their actions and opinions is that we can expect them not to be controlled by biological instincts. xposts

thread keeps giving

who ever said animals were proportionate? xpost to the shoe awhile back there

while we're not on the subject, i don't think there is such a thing as a slippery slope.

but I look forward to goole elaborating on WRONG thoughts and how some thoughts are not acceptable which, I'm sorry, is complete bullshit

he never said any of these things fwiw

i don't think anyone's suggesting some kind of THOUGHTCRIMES thing, more along the lines of "not everything you think about is a-okay and if you think certain not okay thoughts you might want to recognize that fact."

The moral of this thread is "have a superego."

yeah also it's not really about particular thoughts (everyone thinks weird stuff once i a while) but thought patterns/systems. maybe that's what schlump said.

I don't think being controlled by biological instinct is the definition of being an animal; if so, a lot of domestic pets aren't actually animals.

i can't tell if that is a real question or a joke, bnw! it's my fault because my post was badly worded; i can never figure out how to say this stuff.

no, it's not entirely.xpost

btw i wasn't really talking about judging other people for their thoughts. oh my gosh, that is not even possible!! ...but about judging yourself. hey, i'm not doing anything bad, i'm only thinking. really?

xps thanks to others for interlocuting.

thanks for being BIG BROTHER

You might want to worry if you enjoy sexual thoughts about children, though, Shakey, no? Or if they arouse you, right?

but now we're talking about desire, which is a precursor to action - where, again, the main reason its wrong is because of its potential to inflict harm on others. afwiw rousal is an automatic response that the human animal does not, by and large, have any control over.

x-posts

I thought that considering the most animal-like parts of our brains was at the heart of a lot of psychological theory, such as Jung saying it all goes as far back as to the carbon when he speaks of collective unconsciousness. I thought there was a whole tradition of describing our psychologies around an hierarchical framework based around our earliest and simplest functions.

On the other hand, you get into an existential quagmire thinking too much about us being animals.

wave to the camera max

afwiw rousal?

fwiw arousal

x-posts

all my 'not okay' thoughts are ironic like vice magazine

did you bring vodka and condoms?

The moral of this thread is "have a superego."

Sure, but not so strong of one that it totally negates your id.

am now having bad thoughts that i agree with shakey

this thread is pure ego

lego my ego

but now we're talking about desire, which is a precursor to action - where, again, the main reason its wrong is because of its potential to inflict harm on others.

i think this is a weird and silly way to categorize thoughts but even then i dont see how this is incompatible with the idea that "some thoughts are probably worth examining"

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_osrVjnPbdEM/SbvpdEnBAhI/AAAAAAAAF8s/KL5FwX6YRqY/s400/Lego_Bible_4.jpg

I understand the 'thoughtcrimes' worry - being brainwashed into thinking their sexual orientation is evil or their sexual appetite is sinful is one the important steps in establishing control over society through repression and self-loathing, and sure, one can't entirely control one's thoughts but to glorify in pedophile thoughts or even, no matter how deserving the object of your loathing is, in their violent death is surely unhealthy at some point.

yeah i think it's strictly up to the individual to recognize which--if any--of their own thoughts are troublesome, and i think most people who have troublesome thoughts on occasion (be they violent, sexual, etc) are able to rein them in. the others, well, hopefully most of them are seeking help for that. the rest are the ones to worry about, the ones who let those thoughts take over.

"some thoughts are probably worth examining"

most thoughts are worth examining. none are de facto good or bad.

xxpost Yeah, the brain will lay down patterns. I mean, even your habitual ilx clicking and internet reading will produce in you this tendency to scan space, like at the grocery store or on the road, as if you were reading a computer monitor.