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

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.

i am not afraid of thoughtcrimes or people somehow judging my thoughts because there is not some insurmountable wall between thought and behavior--if your thoughts are really *that* bad you're gonna act gross at some point and clue everyone in that they should avoid you

"Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so."

xpost It's interesting how speech is a bridge between thoughts and actions, but it doesn't have to line up straight with either.

Anyone read that William Gass story "The Master of Secret Revenges"?

i think there are split second thoughts that people might not be able to control, like seeing a 16 year old girl and thinking she's cute, but those thoughts are (normally) pushed aside in an instant when you realize how old she is, and you just move on and forget it. people who don't think normally wouldn't let a little thing like age stop them, or they'd keep thinking about this girl. eventually that might end up being an IRL problem.

with IRL consequences

Your thoughts are real life.

my name is IRL

ha this is my abandoned lutheranism coming out -- the thoughts you think are as much a sin as the acts you do, because thought is an act of the soul and it is your soul that bears god's judgment. if you think about fucking your neighbor's wife but never do it, you have still committed adultery. it's the protestant entry in the "theology that drives modernity crazy" contest, along with catholics' "unbaptized babies go to hell"

now, a pluralistic society has different imperatives: think whatever fool business you want, just leave people alone and be a good earner. this has had the benefit of keeping people alive, which is probably a bigger moral advance than doctrines of sins of intention -- but that's at the level of whole societies, not individuals.

saying "in this place, we will make no claims about what is good and bad to believe" is not the same thing as saying "whatever people think is ok, because all thought is ok".

xps

"Nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so."

― l'homme moderne: il forniquait et lisait des journaux (Michael White), Wednesday, December 2, 2009 4:44 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

interestingly enuf milton has satan quote hamlet, ie disprove him. it's not even clear that hamlet is right about that in his own context. but u don't rly want me to start talking about milton

xpost lol

I was merely observing a venerable citation on the subject, though you could make a Berkleyite idealist observation that an unobserved occurrence has little moral valence or even that without context it doesn't either. I.e., a man dies, good or bad?

look what happens when i leave a thread alone for a couple of hours

it starts to drop its guard

I know a guy who, in his mid-20s, had sex with a minor because they'd just met and she told him she was 19. Should he fry? Y/N

no

his penis should, though

how old did she end up being and how did he find out?

that's pretty fucked up on her part though kids, you know, they don't understand consequences sometimes...

while i'm bringing the brimstone, she should fry. IF and that is IF anything bad happened to the dude, she knew she was a minor and he didn't; acting untruthfully is worse than sex with... ok, how old was she really??

but our sex laws are goofy and neither of them should have anything bad happen to them.

lol xp

"She was 7."

</badstandup> sorry

19 is that magical number that if someone said they were that, i'd never ever believe them.

"yeah but 7 going on 39, man!"

But apparently a very mature 7

damn, omar!

I don't remember the whole story. I didn't hear it from him. I think maybe he found her driver's license or something? So she was at least 16.

there's a story here about a 12 year-old girl who had sex with a 16 year-old and an 18 year-old while pretending to be 17; both were initially done for statutory rape then later acquitted

this is a minefield tbh and I dunno what I'd do - well, i'd check for psychological damage, counsel 'em all, and let 'em go in all probability, but surely the lads should have realised she wasn't thinking like an adult...surely they ought to be reprimanded...just how?

OK there is so much to read and respond to. Ack.

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.

― horseshoe, Wednesday, December 2, 2009 5:24 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

Oh shit I didn't mean to press submit yet. lol. Hang on . . .

Of course I know that and I agree with what you said. I was reading this thread only when I got the chance while at work and since I no longer sit at a desk all day, I may have missed certain things/points. Maybe it was the language that I used when I said "not all that rational". I do get what you're saying and agree that because women are sexualized more frequently that viewing the world in that way isn't completely irrational but it still does seem sort of unhealthy especially for women who have never experienced sexual harassment, violence or assault. It just seems really negative and the way it was put made it seem like some ppl constantly feel threatened - on a very conscious level - purely because they're female. Thinking about it now I do understand why someone might feel this way but it seems unnecessary and very sad to me that this overwhelms and occupies some people's thoughts on a daily basis. I don't think I'm articulating this very well so I apologize if that's not clear.

no you did articulate it well! i guess i agree that it's unhealthy and sad but i don't think that women who feel threatened are responsible for that? or at least, not solely responsible.

i was also reading the thread less than thoroughly because this stuff depresses me, so i'm not sure my take on this stuff matches anyone else's really.