Comments on: Sex vs Violence

By: michael

michael — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:12:12 +0000

but in the case of tibet the man WAS telling them not to have sex — very literally too! and of course in our culture we’re not told not to have sex — the message isn’t that extreme — but there’s still an undertone of the forbidden.

what do you mean by subversive cultures? some evidence people might be obsessed with a taboo is the fact that such a high percentage of internet searches are for sex-related topics or even the simple search query [sex]

obviously there’s a very strong biological drive but people’s behaviour is very different in a society where they are told not to have sex as opposed to one where they are (not that there are places that are at such extremes)

By: Simon

Simon — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:50:05 +0000

Jess – I think humans would want to have sex irrespective of what The Man told us. And I don’t think The Man tells us not to have sex. But even in societies and cultures where The Man tells people not to have sex, invariably they still will.

Reminds me of Michael’s earlier post about celibacy – “[Celibacy] doesn’t really exist. What do you think really happens when a large number of “celibates” of the same gender live in close communities? It’s been quite well documented in places like pre-Chinese-invasion Tibet: it was a very, very common occurrence for male monks to have sex with each other. Of course they tried to avoid breaking the vows too explicitly by engaging in “alternate” methods (like intercourse with another monk’s armpit).”

If humans were so obsessed with what we were told was bad or dirty or wrong, I think ‘subversive’ sexual subcultures would be much larger than they are. Also, I think garbage would be more highly sought after than it is!

By: michael

michael — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:34:15 +0000

alan — i was being facetious (is that how you spell it?) but i think there’s a point there. and so i might challenge you to describe exactly how it’s different.

By: Jess

Jess — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:13:20 +0000

“If we were conditioned so strongly to equate sex with badness or dirtiness, I don’t think we’d see as much sex in popular culture as we do. Might be that social norms condition us to see sex as something private, rather than something bad or dirty? ” – Simon

But Simon – aren’t humans just OBSESSED with whatever we are told is bad or dirty or wrong? If The Man wants to stop it so much, well by George, it must be AWESOME right?

By: Alan

Alan — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:19:20 +0000

Not the same at all!

By: michael

michael — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:46:43 +0000

btw alan, if i’m watching the dvd at work, you’re going back on your roadtrip into that motel and opening that link your friend sent you !

By: michael

michael — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 07:42:02 +0000

interesting list — but the loosest interpretation of “mainstream” i’ve ever seen!

By: Simon

Simon — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:35:24 +0000

Well, we don’t really see very much ‘actual’ violence either – it’s usually only implied. Would be great if actors embraced the use of real violence in the same way that some actors have embraced the use of real sex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mainstream_films_with_unsimulated_sex – and for an interesting experience, I have to recommend this one in particular – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortbus).

I suspect we’d see far fewer horror movies and cop shows!

By: michael

michael — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:20:04 +0000

alan — coming right up! i’ll make sure to remove headphones and turn the sound on full blast too so everyone hears the “real talk” of the baltimore folk

By: michael

michael — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:18:48 +0000

the above equation still holds even without the car crash (or even the waitress)!

will i seem like i’m trying to be outrageous if i say we DON’T see much sex in pop culture? we see lots of talk and tiptoeing but quite little actual sex (and by actual sex i obviously mean more than porn)

maybe you’re right — but then again jokes are quite different to a “serious” scene