Banned from reading Haunted!

maybe the scale is something like art >>> bad art >>> porn

i'm half kidding, but not really.

and then wait, but what about the aforementioned royale films? they have a plot. porn or not porn? porn, because they're intended to arouse? but what if i find a regular movie arousing? then it's not porn and i just happen to find it sexy, or is it porn because it turns me on? oh confusing.

I think it's porn if the primary intent is to arouse the viewer.
So, yeah, it's all very subjective.

so then does bertolucci, maybe occasionally fellini, make porn?

this is some of the best cultin' i've done with y'all in a while. worth another yay.

Depends. Is the primary purpose of their films to sexually arouse the audience? If so, I'd say yes, they're making porn under the guise of art, and trying to see what they can get away with.

Not that my opinion on this is...worth anything. But that's just what I think about it.

right on. i'll buy that.

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]Depends. Is the primary purpose of their films to sexually arouse the audience? If so, I'd say yes, they're making porn under the guise of art, and trying to see what they can get away with.[/QUOTE]

I wonder, can a person create "art" that DOES have an expected result of sexual arousal, fully intended by the artist, while still being "art" and not "porn"? Or can one really write or film violence in a way that "expects" the reader to "enjoy" the violence--i.e. "AMERICAN PSYCHO", or THE GODFATHER or SCARFACE--while still retaining the all-important stamp of "art"?

This is, obviously, rhetorical.

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx]Or can one really write or film violence in a way that "expects" the reader to "enjoy" the violence--i.e. "AMERICAN PSYCHO", or THE GODFATHER or SCARFACE--while still retaining the all-important stamp of "art"?
[/QUOTE]

Rhetorical, but I have a comment.

I don't think it's possible to write anything that expects the viewer to "enjoy" violence for violence sake. Anyone who enjoys violence that has no context is a sociopath, or at least emotionally disturbed.

Take A Clockwork Orange, for example. One of the things I've always loved about it is that it presents this horrible person, who does dispicable things. Yet the way it's presented almost makes me feel *sorry* for him when his brain gets fucked with. It's that conflict I feel that makes the violence of the film interesting. It's context makes me think.

That's the difference between porn/sex and violence. Sex is a basic desire. You can guarantee that nearly everyone has that primal urge to enjoy sex. I'll have to fly off this rock if there's ever a time where we can assume the same about violence.

[QUOTE=akeelm]Good for you... BITCH! lol, there is no need to bite my fucking head off.

So what if it's my fifth post, maybe I don't have time to make 1,813 posts. Ever thought about that?[/QUOTE]
i'd learn fast that you ought not call people names like that around here. you were being presumptuous, and really didn't add anything to our otherwise stimulating discourse, and i pointed that out. we made it this far without childish namecalling, and we don't need your help, guy.

as for multiple posts, it's called "i'm sitting here at work doing this between tasks." you're here too, so you're shooting yourself in the foot on that one.

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx]I wonder, can a person create "art" that DOES have an expected result of sexual arousal, fully intended by the artist, while still being "art" and not "porn"? Or can one really write or film violence in a way that "expects" the reader to "enjoy" the violence--i.e. "AMERICAN PSYCHO", or THE GODFATHER or SCARFACE--while still retaining the all-important stamp of "art"?

This is, obviously, rhetorical.[/QUOTE]
hmm... but then if you can't, then does that mean that you can create art, but only about a select number of topics, i.e. nature art, food art, but no sex or violence art?

i'm thinking les demoiselles d'avignon and guernica - sex, violence, definitely art

[QUOTE=akeelm]I don't have time to visit internet sites at work, yes, I do sit behind a computer screen all day, but I'm far too busy.

Why shouldn't I use playful language? What's the worst that could happen?

I suggest maybe calm the fuck down, stop crying, stop calling people childish and smile.[/QUOTE]
what i really shouldn't be doing is entertaining this nonsense in the middle of what's actually a pretty cool discussion... but: let me get this straight - you come here, barely read the thread as your initial "boy i sure do hate feminists" post shows, call me a bitch - which is more than "playful" language, i think most people would agree - then make fun of us for posting and having multiple posts, even though you're here too? what's the worst that could happen? you fail to engage anyone in interesting, friendly conversation and you make an ass of yourself in this discussion. also, keep up the flaming and you can face board penalties and such, i understand.

i didn't call "people" childish. actually, i've been really happy with the challenging conversation the rest of us have been having.

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]Rhetorical, but I have a comment.
I don't think it's possible to write anything that expects the viewer to "enjoy" violence for violence sake. Anyone who enjoys violence that has no context is a sociopath, or at least emotionally disturbed.
Take A Clockwork Orange, for example. One of the things I've always loved about it is that it presents this horrible person, who does dispicable things. Yet the way it's presented almost makes me feel *sorry* for him when his brain gets fucked with. It's that conflict I feel that makes the violence of the film interesting. It's context makes me think.
That's the difference between porn/sex and violence. Sex is a basic desire. You can guarantee that nearly everyone has that primal urge to enjoy sex. I'll have to fly off this rock if there's ever a time where we can assume the same about violence.[/QUOTE]

I only disagree with one thing: I think people DO have a "primal urge" towards violence. And as sex is so mingled with violence in many forms of art--not to mention psychological textbooks and the supposed mentality of most "serial killers"--they are often one and the same. Jane's Addiction w/ "NOTHING'S SHOCKING", for instance, has this theme running through it, this question. And A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, I agree with you totally. You like Alex, as a reader, and do pity him, however violent (or sexually violent) he is. I did/do. And the novel ends with his own choice to not be this way anymore--Burgess said that was why the British edition had the 21st chapter intact, when the (original) American edition did not, as it was in this chapter that the whole point of free will and choice comes into final play--and Burgess said that made the book more 'British-minded', as in the "moral" of the story comes into play and everything is left on a positive note. The film of Kubrick's, though, deliberately chose to exclude this final chapter and sequence. Though I feel as if he WAS NOT trying to be 'non-British' with his choice of an ending, one wonders why he DID choose to leave THAT 'moral' out. Shit, when I re-read AMERICAN PSYCHO, I still feel something close to pity for Bateman, however despicable he is. Is this Ellis' style that causes me to sympathize, or am I deep down as corrupt as Bateman? Though the violence (sexual included) is hardcore, I still feel the book is trying to test the readers views of this issue, is trying to elicit a response, whatever the response may be.

Am I getting less coherent? Nevertheless, I am enjoying this thread...

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]Rhetorical, but I have a comment.

I don't think it's possible to write anything that expects the viewer to "enjoy" violence for violence sake. Anyone who enjoys violence that has no context is a sociopath, or at least emotionally disturbed.

Take A Clockwork Orange, for example. One of the things I've always loved about it is that it presents this horrible person, who does dispicable things. Yet the way it's presented almost makes me feel *sorry* for him when his brain gets fucked with. It's that conflict I feel that makes the violence of the film interesting. It's context makes me think.

That's the difference between porn/sex and violence. Sex is a basic desire. You can guarantee that nearly everyone has that primal urge to enjoy sex. I'll have to fly off this rock if there's ever a time where we can assume the same about violence.[/QUOTE]
maybe one answer is... it's art if it's anthropological in nature? as in, observational, not meant to involve...

(and, is this just the inverse of the prior definition?)

[QUOTE=vidalia]hmm... but then if you can't, then does that mean that you can create art, but only about a select number of topics, i.e. nature art, food art, but no sex or violence art?[/QUOTE]

Two things; (a) Good question; ( I wish I knew French...

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx]Two things; (a) Good question; ( I wish I knew French... :)[/QUOTE]
i don't speak it either - you mean the translation of the painting? i think it refers to "ladies" politely, but they're prostitutes that he painted.

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx]I only disagree with one thing: I think people DO have a "primal urge" towards violence. [/QUOTE]

Wow.

You think people have the same strong urge towards sex that they do towards violence?
I thought not having that urge towards violence was what makes us evolved and civilized, as opposed to barbarians.

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx]Shit, when I re-read AMERICAN PSYCHO, I still feel something close to pity for Bateman, however despicable he is. Is this Ellis' style that causes me to sympathize, or am I deep down as corrupt as Bateman? Though the violence (sexual included) is hardcore, I still feel the book is trying to test the readers views of this issue, is trying to elicit a response, whatever the response may be.

Am I getting less coherent? Nevertheless, I am enjoying this thread...[/QUOTE]

Actually, Ellis has said in an interview that American Psycho was perhaps his most autobiographical work, saying he was on a lot of drugs and depressed when writing American Psycho and thought it showed a lot through Bateman's character. The link to the interview is [URL=http://come.to/breteaston]here[/URL]. Sadly it's not a direct link, but when you go to the site, click on "interviews" and click the first interview link for the 1999 issue of Mississippi Review.

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]Wow.

You think people have the same strong urge towards sex that they do towards violence?
I thought not having that urge towards violence was what makes us evolved and civilized, as opposed to barbarians.[/QUOTE]

Sure we do, it's part of the id. What makes us civilized are our egos and superegos.

[QUOTE=Undertow]Sure we do, it's part of the id. What makes us civilized is our egos and superegos.[/QUOTE]

I don't agree with that at all.
I can see the ego and superego controlling the id when it comes to sex. Everyone (at least, men..) have knee jerk sexual thoughts when they see attractive women. I just don't think the same strong knee jerk thoughts of violence are as common.

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]I don't agree with that at all.
I can see the ego and superego controlling the id when it comes to sex. Everyone (at least, men..) have knee jerk sexual thoughts when the see attractive women. I just don't think the same strong knee jerk thoughts of violence are as common.[/QUOTE]

I'm not denying that at all. But do you think the ego and superego have more control over the id when it comes to violence than sex? I think it can. Think about laws and consequences towards violence compared to sex. Can anyone get the death penalty for a sex crime?

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]Wow.
You think people have the same strong urge towards sex that they do towards violence?
I thought not having that urge towards violence was what makes us evolved and civilized, as opposed to barbarians.[/QUOTE]

Yes. I do. As Undertow said, it is part of our collective unconscious (as I lean more towards Jung than Freud, but yeah, our id).

And Vidalia: I see. Google can clear up a lot. I'd never seen Picasso's "Les Demoiselles D'avignon And Guernica". Often, I am a dullard. And when I looked at it, I saw "anxiety".

[QUOTE=Undertow]I'm not denying that at all. But do you think the ego and superego have more control over the id when it comes to violence than sex? I think it can. Think about laws and consequences towards violence compared to sex. Can anyone get the death penalty for a sex crime?[/QUOTE]

Not sure I follow.
I just don't think that the ego and supergo have to exhibit more control over the id's violent compulsions, becuase I don't think they are as strong/frequent as the sexual ones.

From an evolutionary perspective, it simply doesn't make sense to have the urge to destroy everything you see. We survived because we lived together and formed groups.

It does make sense to want to mate with everything you see. It's reproduction. Perpetuation of the species.

oh, yeah, the first is prostitutes, and the last is a battle... you could also add that goya execution painting, same thing.

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx]And Vidalia: I see. Google can clear up a lot. I'd never seen Picasso's "Les Demoiselles D'avignon And Guernica". Often, I am a dullard. And when I looked at it, I saw "anxiety".[/QUOTE]

Guernica definitely has context though. It's a depiction of the Spanish Civil War from the mid-30s, if I remember correctly.

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]Not sure I follow.
I just don't think that the ego and supergo have to exhibit more control over the id's violent compulsions, becuase I don't think they are as strong/frequent as the sexual ones.

From an evolutionary perspective, it simply doesn't make sense to have the urge to destroy everything you see. We survived because we lived together and formed groups.

It does make sense to want to mate with everything you see. It's reproduction. Perpetuation of the species.[/QUOTE]

What I was getting at was, since the dawn of humans, laws and social stigmas have put a negative light on violence (by that I mean society deemed it wrong and make it punishable, and rightly so in my mind). When we grow up, some of us fight with our brothers or sisters by hitting them when we're mad. That's id. Our parents punish us and we learn not to do that again. That's ego and superego, in various amounts. Over time, we become used to not acting violent that it's not as big of a task for the ego and superego to deal with, at least compared to sex. With sex there's some function to it: to create family. Pleasure is obviously a key factor though.

I agree that violent urges aren't as strong or frequent as sexual ones. What I was trying to explain was violent urges are probably more prevalent in our youth when we don't know any better and it tapers off as we get older and know the consequences better.

I hope that made more sense. Let me know if it doesn't though.

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]Not sure I follow.
I just don't think that the ego and supergo have to exhibit more control over the id's violent compulsions, becuase I don't think they are as strong/frequent as the sexual ones.
From an evolutionary perspective, it simply doesn't make sense to have the urge to destroy everything you see. We survived because we lived together and formed groups.[/QUOTE]

They may not exhibit "more" influence, but they do exert a big influence. If one is honest with themselves. I'm not talking on a simple level of See A Pretty Girl=Thoughts Of Having Sex, See A Person Being Beaten=Thoughts Of Committing Violence. I am talking about the intertwining nature of these (and other) impulses, and how it is not abnormal to be drawn to violence (and commit it or not) nor abnormal to be drawn to sex (however against society's norm that "sex" is).

I'm still questioning my own coherrance here...

That makes sense, yes.

I need to read up on Freud more.

Undertow: Oh, and thanks for the Ellis link.

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]That makes sense, yes.

I need to read up on Freud more.[/QUOTE]

It's all good. I'm a bit more of a fan of Jung myself but in a discussion like this, it's easier to use Freud probably because of analyzing it in steps.

Ralph, you're welcome. By the way, I've seen the video of that Pennsylvania senator committing suicide. Creepy.

[QUOTE=Undertow]What I was getting at was, since the dawn of humans, laws and social stigmas have put a negative light on violence (by that I mean society deemed it wrong and make it punishable, and rightly so in my mind). When we grow up, some of us fight with our brothers or sisters by hitting them when we're mad. That's id. Our parents punish us and we learn not to do that again. That's ego and superego, in various amounts. Over time, we become used to not acting violent that it's not as big of a task for the ego and superego to deal with, at least compared to sex. With sex there's some function to it: to create family. Pleasure is obviously a key factor though.
I agree that violent urges aren't as strong or frequent as sexual ones. What I was trying to explain was violent urges are probably more prevalent in our youth when we don't know any better and it tapers off as we get older and know the consequences better.
I hope that made more sense. Let me know if it doesn't though.[/QUOTE]

No, it makes sense. THAT is the point of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE...

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx]and how it is not abnormal to be drawn to violence (and commit it or not) nor abnormal to be drawn to sex (however against society's norm that "sex" is).
[/QUOTE]

See, that's the part I fundamentally disagree with. I don't see that being drawn to violence is normal at all.

It comes down to this. Being drawn to sex is being drawn to something *positive* for yourself, whereas being drawn to violence is being drawn to something *negative* for someone else. I just see them as completely opposite. Even though, as we have said, society tends to link sex and violence, in that they're both "bad" and something we need to protect innocent people from. But that goes back to our Puritanical nature. I think most people will agree that normal, functional adults can and should enjoy a healthy sex life. I don't think the same argument can be made about violence.

Now I'm definitely rambling.

[QUOTE=Undertow]Ralph, you're welcome. By the way, I've seen the video of that Pennsylvania senator committing suicide. Creepy.[/QUOTE]

Yep. It is so casually shocking, I am drawn to things like that. Hmmm. What does this say? I know what it says (about me), thus my belief that interest--if nothing else--in violence is not abnormal. I wouldn't want to think of myself as "abnormal".

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx]Yep. It is so casually shocking, I am drawn to things like that. Hmmm. What does this say? I know what it says (about me), thus my belief that interest--if nothing else--in violence is not abnormal. I wouldn't want to think of myself as "abnormal". :D[/QUOTE]
But is that really an attraction to violence, or is that you being drawn to what society tells you you shouldn't be?

Anti-conformity?

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]See, that's the part I fundamentally disagree with. I don't see that being drawn to violence is normal at all.

It comes down to this. Being drawn to sex is being drawn to something *positive* for yourself, whereas being drawn to violence is being drawn to something *negative* for someone else. I just see them as completely opposite. Even though, as we have said, society tends to link sex and violence, in that they're both "bad" and something we need to protect innocent people from. But that goes back to our Puritanical nature. I think most people will agree that normal, functional adults can and should enjoy a healthy sex life. I don't think the same argument can be made about violence.

Now I'm definitely rambling.[/QUOTE]

No, dude, you aren't rambling. "Positive" and "negative" are subjective, no matter how much the collective wants to dictate their designation. You know as well as I do that there are many things "sexual" that aren't positive and have nothing to do with violence nor harming another.

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]Anti-conformity?[/QUOTE]

Anti-conformity, no. Positively not.

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]See, that's the part I fundamentally disagree with. I don't see that being drawn to violence is normal at all.

It comes down to this. Being drawn to sex is being drawn to something *positive* for yourself, whereas being drawn to violence is being drawn to something *negative* for someone else. I just see them as completely opposite. Even though, as we have said, society tends to link sex and violence, in that they're both "bad" and something we need to protect innocent people from. But that goes back to our Puritanical nature. I think most people will agree that normal, functional adults can and should enjoy a healthy sex life. I don't think the same argument can be made about violence.

Now I'm definitely rambling.[/QUOTE]

I'm just asking this to play devil's advocate, but do you think violence can draw something positive to yourself, regardless of someone else?

Anyways I have to bolt from work, I'll check on this either tonight or tomorrow.

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]But is that really an attraction to violence, or is that you being drawn to what society tells you you shouldn't be?

Anti-conformity?[/QUOTE]

Ok, last one for now:

In this case, I think it's the allure of taboo, which tends to be violence. So, I think the two are connected. That's a reason for my interest in the video.

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx]"Positive" and "negative" are subjective, no matter how much the collective wants to dictate their designation. You know as well as I do that there are many things "sexual" that aren't positive and have nothing to do with violence nor harming another.[/QUOTE]

Well, by positive (in the context of sex) I meant "I want to have sex so I feel good. I want an orgasm." Now, if you're in love, it isn't a completely selfish conotation. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about pure id. Pure "me me me".

And by "negative" I meant, the urge to perform a violent act usually means wanting to inflict pain or death on someone else.

This thread's subject has evolved more in a few hours than the earth's inhabitants have in centuries. I'll be back later to see if it's still going on, also. This has been very enlightening and fun. Other peoples' opinions are so valuable to me. I will be back...

[QUOTE=Undertow]I'm just asking this to play devil's advocate, but do you think violence can draw something positive to yourself, regardless of someone else?
[/QUOTE]

I suppose, yeah, there could be positive reinforcements (adrenaline rush, for example) for the person performing the violent act.

And now I'm off to go see Life Aquatic...I'll check back on this thread later.
Thanks for a great thread, by the way. This is one of the few times I've actually been involved and interested in a random thread since I've become the site Tech Monkey.

[QUOTE=Undertow]Ok, last one for now:
In this case, I think it's the allure of taboo, which tends to be violence. So, I think the two are connected. That's a reason for my interest in the video.[/QUOTE]

Last one from me also (for now):
My interest in the video is in the entire set-up, of why it happened, and what it says about the media. We wouldn't have seen the shit, muchless have the capability to still view it in the here-and-now some 18 years later, had it not been for the news programs that aired the public suicide/statement.

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx]Last one from me also (for now):
My interest in the video is in the entire set-up, of why it happened, and what it says about the media. We wouldn't have seen the shit, muchless have the capability to still view it in the here-and-now some 18 years later, had it not been for the news programs that aired the public suicide/statement.[/QUOTE]
My point exactly. It's not really the violent act. It's the story behind it that interests you (and me)

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]My point exactly. It's not really the violent act. It's the story behind it that interests you (and me)[/QUOTE]

Dammit! I can't escape! Kidding.

As far as this vid we speak of goes, I agree, that may be your point. I agree that it is the story behind this, not the violence, that is interesting. But isn't most violence (like sex), something we relate to ourselves and then subjectively describe why we either "agree" or "disagree" with it?

Because--morbid as it sounds--this vid is to me a confirmation of my existence. I watch it sometimes, and after, I feel better about my own life and situation. A vicarious catharsis, albeit a macabre one. Like THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE was for me, when I was a kid...

I'll be back.

Well contrast this:

1) A video of some random man (not the video you have) blowing his brains out. You have no back story. No context.

2) A video of 2 very attractive women having sex. Or an attractive man and an attractive woman having sex. You have no back story. No context.

I believe that those 2 situations will produce 2 very different responses. Which is why I say it's normal for someone to have these basic urges towards sex, and urges towards violence are distinctly different and abnormal.

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]Well contrast this:

1) A video of some random man (not the video you have) blowing his brains out. You have no back story. No context.

2) A video of 2 very attractive women having sex. Or an attractive man and an attractive woman having sex. You have no back story. No context.

I believe that those 2 situations will produce 2 very different responses. Which is why I say it's normal for someone to have these basic urges towards sex, and urges towards violence are distinctly different and abnormal.[/QUOTE]

Without context--of any kind--of course violent images elict a different response in people than sexual images. But that doesn't make either response "abnormal", unless you're talking about societal standards of normalcy. But a response does occur, and how a person is made-up psychologically by society and such dictates the response. If we are talking interest, that's one thing. If we're talking about 'causing' a real world reaction (masturbation, harming another), then it's all another ballpark.

[QUOTE=akeelm]Good for you... BITCH! lol, there is no need to bite my fucking head off.

So what if it's my fifth post, maybe I don't have time to make 1,813 posts. Ever thought about that?[/QUOTE]

oh, boy.

vidalia, i've totally been you. hang in there. akeelm, ha ha! calling someone a bitch is a great recourse when you have no more cogent argument to offer.

this is really creepy. this is me and disx all over again.

any of you kids know disx? makes me nostaligic for the old days.

[QUOTE=Undertow]Actually, Ellis has said in an interview that American Psycho was perhaps his most autobiographical work, saying he was on a lot of drugs and depressed when writing American Psycho and thought it showed a lot through Bateman's character. The link to the interview is [URL=http://come.to/breteaston]here[/URL]. Sadly it's not a direct link, but when you go to the site, click on "interviews" and click the first interview link for the 1999 issue of Mississippi Review.[/QUOTE]

Hey man. Just checked out the link, and, sure enough, I'd read it. Excellent interview for any Ellis fans (or not) out there. If you know of any other good interviews (or anything else interesting along these stated lines we discussed earlier, Ellis or not), let me know. Again, I appreciate it.

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx]Hey man. Just checked out the link, and, sure enough, I'd read it. Excellent interview for any Ellis fans (or not) out there. If you know of any other good interviews (or anything else interesting along these stated lines we discussed earlier, Ellis or not), let me know. Again, I appreciate it.[/QUOTE]

No prob. I like what you guys were saying earlier about the context behind something violent. I think that definitely speaks more than the actual act.

Hey is this a thread about some Mr Whippy who can't buy playboy cos his bird won't let 'im?

Mr Whippy.