Le vendredi 11 ao=C3=BBt 2006 =C3=A0 06:52:29 UTC, anthead a =C3=A9crit=C2= =A0:

cronenberg's 'history of violence' raises some interesting question
about violence and sexuality. usually, we tend to think of them as
unrelated or even opposite. 'make love, not war'. indeed, how often
have we heard the complaint that americans are generally more accepting
of movie violence than movie sex. people wonder how americans could be
soooo stupid. europeans especially love to laugh at us over this.
it's usually the liberals who condemn violence while promoting
sexuality--as long as it's not sexist(though this reminds me of woody
allen's remark that sex is dirty if you're doing it right) whereas conservatives seem easier with violence than sexuality. of course,
this is a wild generalization. there are plenty of liberals who love
violence as long as it's 'progressive', 'revolutionary', or pro-negro. rappers have full backing of liberals.
it's also true that liberals are upset with the commoditization of
sexuality even if they aren't against sexuality perse.
as for conservatives, many on the christian right are as appalled by
violence as by sex. they especially hate video games like grand theft
auto and such.
still, it's generally true that liberals prefer sex over violence in
arts and entertainment whereas conservatives prefer violence over sex. liberals point out that they are more liberated and less repressed;
they'd rather fuc* than fight. liberals see sexuality as liberating,
as tolerant, as embracing. liberals also think they are pro-gay cuz
gayness is about two guys 'loving' one another. what's wrong with that? liberals say conservatives are anti-gay cuz conservatives are all
repressed, insecure about sexuality, and can't stand the sight of other people enjoying love and affection.
with insecure sense of malehood, conservatives constantly need to find enemies, to act macho, and feel tougher and meaner than, say, those
fruitboy fags. there may some truth to this, at least among the nascar dunderhead crowd. it's also true among many negroes and macho
hispanics who always need to show off their manhood. though negroes
and hispanics are not conservative in the political sense, their view
of sexuality is very primal. it's not about lovey-dovey but 'i'm a
badass stud and the hell with all that gay shit'.
anyway, the truth is far more complex than either side makes it out.
after all, when it comes to violence, leftists have nothing against the leftist kind. leftists worshipped lenin, mao, ho chi minh, FLN, che
guevara, and castro. leftists supported peace only to weaken any
resistance to communist movements. when it came to smashing nazism,
liberals and leftists were total hawks. but, when US was confronted communism, ultra-liberals and leftists were doves. and, liberal
hollywood has made alot of violent films in the name of 'progressive'
values. and, bands like the clash and rage against the machine have
enjoyed widespread liberal support.
anyway, the central truth is that violence and sexuality, while not the
same, are linked. this is the interesting point made in 'history of
violence' by cronenberg. the instinct for sex is directly connected to
the instinct for violence. it's like horse and carriage or love and
marriage.
so, the argument that we would be better off if our movies fuc*ed more
and fought less is really to miss the point. the instinct behind
fuc*ing is also behind or linked to the instinct behind fighting.
now, you may say what about scandanavian nations? they have open
sexuality in movies and tv while violence is rated X. their societies
are indeed peaceful. but, they are peaceful cuz they are closely knit, social-democratic states made up of homogenous populations. swedes
don't need to fight or struggle with other people cuz they are the victor/masters in their own land. also, swedes, like most germanic
people, are always waging a war against lethargy, slovenliness,
messiness, and such. they are for order, efficiency, unity, and social discipline. there is a certain militancy woven through the fabric of socieity.
there is plenty of freedom but most people use that freedom
constructively. germanic nations are essentially fascist democracies.
swedes fuc* and not fight cuz they are the rulers of their domain.
things may be changing, however, with influx of hostile muslims. it
may come to a point where swedes might have to fight to maintain their freedom to fuc*.
even so, fuc*ing is related to violence or power-mongering cuz fuc*ing
is about competition and conflict. even during the summer of love in
the 60s, not everyone got to fuc* everyone. the pretty hippie girls
usually went with handsome hippie boys. and ugly hippie girls went
with ugly hippie boys, often feeling resentful. mamas and the papas's
main problem was that the two guys were both horny for michelle while
fat cass wanted the singer guy. for all their love and peace talk,
there was much emotional and even physical violence revolving around sexuality.
look at 'woodstock' where we see an ugly hippie couple; it's pathetic. sexuality is about preference. every guy wants the best looking girl.
the girl choose the best looking guy, toughest guy, or richest guy.
liberals can talk of free love for everyone, but this is bullshit cuz
love aint never free. if we really want free love, every girl should
put out to every boy and vice versa. but, this aint the case. the
pretty women go for the best men. even among hookers, the pretty ones
charge more than ugly ones and seek special clientele. sexuality is hierarchical and exclusive, not inclusive and democratic. looks vary
greatly among people, and everyone chooses mates based on looks and
other hierarchical factors. so, sexuality is the root of much--though
not all of--violence. consider the story of helen of troy. it's wrong
to blame the woman for this, but neither is the ho totally innocent.
women play men against men. men compete to make more money and buy
fancier cars and houses to get the better ho'. civilized people do it
with respect to shared rules, but it's still war for pussy. of course,
people also have fought for food, water, land, ideology, and etc. but, sexuality is one of the basis for conflict among men, and often linked
to other reasons for fighting; suppose you fight for food in order to
win the best ho with the prize food. in wars of the past, conquerors
often raped women or took them as booty. even among animals, the males
of the species get most violent during mating seasons. wolves fight
over pussy. even mostly peaceful sheep and deer become violent during
mating season. i've even seen rabbits fight over pussy.
so, the idea that sexuality is the opposite of violence is laughable.
sure, when two people fuc*, they feel much love and pleasure; they
think their love-making is the opposite of war-making. but, how did the
man get the ho' in the first place? do women go for namby pamby wimps?
while it's true that geeks and nerds often bag quality pussy, it's cuz they've won the competition of brains and have made more money over
dimwit studs. look at those nerdy hollywood jews; they get quality
pussy all the time. and, i'll bet silicon valley hindu geeks also get
some quality pussy.
besides that, love making has an element of violence. it's the male
organ pumping into the pussy. while there's pleasure involved, there's
also struggle and straining. the man likes to feel like a conqueror.
the woman wants to surrender to the pumping-dick-man. it's like dick
sword piercing a happy wound. while man and woman can 'cuddle' and do
that goo goo stuff, the core of fuc*ing is animalistic, even violent.
among animals, 'rape' is common. a male raccoon will chase and subdue
a female raccoon and hump it. women like to growl stuff like 'yeah,
fuc* me hard, deeper. ooh make me cum' while guys like to say stuff
like 'you like my big fat cock, don't you?' now, some feminist have
labeled all sex as 'rape'. think of andrea dworkin and catherine
mckinnon. in a way, they are right.
we say 'rape' is when woman is forced to have sex, and it is a
necessary moral/legal distinction. however, it could be argued that all
sex is rape in the sense that all eating is eating. even forced eating
is eating. suppose i force you to eat a big mac. is that not eating?
is it rapeating? so, instead of consensual sex vs rape, we can say
there's consensual rape and forced rape. the problem with this argument
is that rape simply replaces 'sex'. if one argues that rape is the
norm, it makes no sense to make a moral case against it as long as it's consensual. i mean both dworkin and mackinnon were created by rapes if
all sex is rape. i suppose one could argue that we are all necessarily created by a disgusting, brutal, and oppressive biological act, but we
should still look down upon sex as sick. after all, we all need to shi*
but think of it as an unpleasant necessity.
but, this is ultra-idealism, preferring artificial concepts over the
real world. it's like hardcore christianity which saw the necessity of
sex but saw all sex as sinful nonetheless. it's funny that feminists
would accuse christians of puritanism and anti-woman sexual repression
while cooking up similarly puritanical notions of the disgustingness of biological reality.
anyway, lovemaking is really euphemism of fuc*ing, right? now, i don't
like the word 'fuc*' either cuz of its negative connotations and
promiscuous associations with everything foul. so, we'll call it
'banging'. so, lovemaking is really banging. even the most refined, civilized, and cultivated person becomes an animal while banging. take
john simon. imagine him standing in the nude with a hard on. he jumps
into bed with a ho and he gets it going. he's not gonna care much
about proper diction and grammar while banging away. he'll be moaning
and muttering alot of horny gibberish. now, imagine his facial
expressions and his moaning as he cums. banging, while not physical
violence, does violence to our notions of civility and proper behavior. there's no way anyone can cum while maintaining a dignified pose and expression. he must make what eddie murphy referred as the 'fuc* face'
and let go like an animal.
so, given this reality we must ask what is the relationship between sex
and violence? can we have more sex in movies and less violence? is
the prevalence of violence in movies a product of the sexual repression
in our society? or, is the violence merely reflection of our open
sewage virility?
after all, heavy metal and rap are very sexual yet also very prone to
violent expression? how could this be if sexual openness supposedly
leads to emotional relief and peace among people?
i guess one could argue that the american sexuality is still rooted in puritanism. because american puritanism made us think of sex as dirty,
we can only express sex in a dirty way. as we express sexuality, our subconscious feels ashamed due to historical conditioning. so, when a
negro expresses sexuality, his subconscious triggers off shame which
can only be overcome with more aggressive expression of sexuality.
it could be argued that americans suffer from this process of double-layering. when they express something as natural as sexuality,
their subconscious kicks in and makes them feel shame. in order to
overcome this, americans must make an extra effort. instead of being naturally sexual, they become pornographically sexual.
and, the designation of woman as the 'ho' indicates that we still
consider sexually open women as sluts and skanks. in the past, loose
women were condemned and cast out from society. today, they are
accepted, even applauded but still as whores. whores are now good but
still whores which suggest lingering legacy of puritanism.
but, this argument seems trite and less convincing with each passing
year. if true, once the taboo of sexuality has been overcome the
appeal of extreme expression should fade away, but that hasn't been happening. also, europeans who claim to be more open and natural about sexuality are just as depraved, infantile, trashy in their expression
of sexuality. for every art film, there are alot of stupid sexual crap
in europe. also, if europeans are immune to overly charged sexual
infantilism of americans, how come rock and rap culture are so popular
among europeans? today, countless french youths enthusiastically ape
american negroes.
so, the argument pitting sexuality against violence is basically
wrongheaded. they must be regarded together as in examining the
problems of cultural expression. this isn't to say watching a couple
fuc* is the same as seeing a crazed killer hack people to death. but,
there is a point where sexuality and violence intersect. indeed, they
are fused in a rape. and, consider a film like 'in the realm of the
senses'. is it film sex or film violence?
anyway, not all violence is immoral and not all sex is moral.
but in some way, cultural conservatives are right to fear sexuality
more than violence. the difference is that sexuality is a private act
whereas violence can be a public act. though we speak of moral
sexuality, sex in and of itself is amoral. people mainly fuc* cuz they
just wanna. it's like eating and sleeping. we moralize sexuality to
the extent of forbidding rape and idealizing fidelity in marriage. but,
the sexual act is essentially an amoral biological act.
but, violence, at least among humans, is always a morally significant
act. though we all have a violent impulse, most acts of violence
happen for a conscious reason. a thief wants to steal something. a
police officer may pull out a gun to protect people from a psycho
killer. violence can be morally framed in ways that sexuality cannot.
so, when you have violence in movies, it can be a moral lesson about humanity. but, when you have sex in movies, we are just voyeuristic
tards peeking into the private affairs of individuals. because of the
lack of any compelling moral component and because of our
peeping-tomishness, there's something cheap and sleazy about most sex
in movies, even when handled with artistry and taste.
never mind movies and just consider real life. most of us would agree
that all sexual activity should be private, done behind doors. golden
rule is 'your fuc*ing is none of my business and my fuc*ing is none of
your business'.
violence, on the other hand, can be properly public and open. suppose
some killer is on the prowl. cops must pull out their guns in the
streets and shoot the nut. while violence is not a happy thing for
anyone, it's necessary when bad people do bad stuff. now, violence is
often immoral, but those who use counter-violence use it morally. so a
movie can present a moral context in which the violence takes place.
to be sure, the moral context is often just an excuse for hollywood to
give us alot of pointless blood and mayhem, but best action films--like
seven samurai, shane, high noon, 13th warrior, saving private ryan,
etc--put forth compelling moral argument along with the violence. so, violence is more useful for storytelling or drama. it is a conscious
moral act, good or bad. but, sex is amoral and mostly pointless except
as a biological act. there is emotions involved such as love, but
fuc*ing is not the stuff of drama, of developing characters.
for example, take shane. suppose shane felt horny one night and whacked
off to fantasies of joe's wife. okay, so he done it. it's his private
affair; why should WE have to see it, any more than we should see him
take a dump?
shane would have done it behind closed doors and we should respect that privacy--someting tardboy todd solondnz doesn't understand.
but, when shane goes to town and gets into a bar brawl or a shootout,
it's a public affair. bad guys wanna run the town, and shane has to
meet them face to face in the open. now, they could have agreed to
meet behind closed doors but that's neither here nor there. there is
nothing wrong with a good guy doing good stuff in the open.
undercover agents do it secretly but not because they are embarassed of
what they do but because it's the only way to catch the bad guys.
undercover police work is not the same thing as eating pussy of some
chick. the latter is embarassing if done in front of others.
so, in a way, sex in movies is a greater violation of humanity than
violence. sex can be artistically presented in movies, but we may
still ask why? why show something necessarily private for millions to
gawk at? what do we gain by watching a man hump a woman? for the
actors, it'd simply be exhibitionism, which is a kind of sexual
sickness. for us, it's be voyeurism, another sexual abnormality.
violence, on the other hand, can be dramatically powerful and morally compelling. take magnificent seven. we see noble farmers fight for
their land, and we see heroic americans put their lives on the line to
help the farmers. is watching their acts of moral violence worse than
if we'd given glimpses of mexican hubbies humping their wives or yul
brynner whacking off or holt bucholz fingering some senorita? this
isn't to say there's anything wrong with mexicans humping, brynner
whacking, or bucholz fingering(though he better hope the girl's father doesn't find out). but, what business is it of ours to see such stuff?
are we to feel love? are we to embrace humanity? are we to celebrate sexuality as the path to salvation? this is stupid.
the violence happens in magnificent seven despite the fact that
mexicans do alot of fuc*ing. and, the bandits themselves prolly fuc*
alot as well, either by raping or finding whores or even finding steady girlfriends. sex or no sex, what does it have to do with morality?
now, this isn't to say sexuality is totally amoral. indeed, it can lead
to moral health in society depending on how it's handled. it's
generally true that an overly puritanical society will suffer from repressiveness, pent-up frustrations, and ruthless intolerance. just
look at the taliban.
but, a society of raw sexuality will be even worse. indeed, a society
of raw sexuality will crumble and go down the drain.
by 'raw sexuality' i don't mean what you have in europe where people
have sexual freedom. consider the films of rohmer and bergman where men
and women form liasons and do some fuc*ing behind closed doors. still,
they are discreet, behave with dignity in public, and keep up
appearances of civility. they keep it intimate, keep it to themselves.
they don't let their sexuality flow out into the public. whatever they
do happens behind closed doors.
but, imagine raw sexuality where everyone's letting it all hang loose.
yes, i mean the negroes. look at africa. look at haiti. look at
detroit and other negro dominated cities. look at negroes of french
ghettos. and what do they all have in common? wild and raw sexual
behavior and expression in public. negro men act like they are in
porno movies. and negresses act like they want their booties banged
right there in public. turn on some music in a negro packed park and
the negroes will soon be bumping and grinding and making fuc* faces.
if sexuality is the opposite of violence, how come negroes, the most
sexual of all races, are the most violent? on a per capita basis,
africa is the most violent place on earth. there's killings, robbings, rapings everywhere despite the fact that black africans love to shake
their booties, beat on bongo drums, and do the fuc* dance. what this
proves is that sexuality is highly competitive. when it becomes raw and
open, the competitiveness becomes raw and savage.
when you have sexual freedom but uphold values of discretion, people
follow basic social guidelines in their search of mates. there is
respect even among people who don't normally settle down to marriage. consider alot of european art films where even sexually free people act
with a certain dignity, certain code of conduct, a kind of urban
chivalry. they follow certain rules of courtship and manners, even if
they are to go and fuc* that very night.
but, when this breaks down and sexuality becomes raw and open, the only
thing that prevails is badass conflict and macho thuggery.
when a negress shakes her booty in public to bongo beat, she is saying,
'i's got a nice juicy horny ass and i want it humped by the baddest
toughest mofo out there'. and guess what? negro boys take up the
offer and all start acting super macho and get into each other faces.
each negro be trying hard to be top stud to win and grab t'keymah's
booty. and, so you have negro urban reality in a nutshell. gone is the traditional family in the black community. instead, you have horny
ho's saying 'my pussy be wet and i want some stud to fuc* me right
now'. and, you have negro studs be acting like 'i is the baddest mofo
so the pussy is mine'. it's like animal behavior where males fight for
the quality ho'. in time, all women are seen as pussy meat and all
men judge their worth by power of dick meat.
negro music and culture is drenched in sex. negroes are the least
inhibited or repressed people on earth yet they be the most violent.
they be the most crazy. they be the most aggressive. so, there goes
the dichotomy between violence and sex. raw sexuality opens the door
to the worst kind of violence--the animal kind. this kind of reality
ends civilization as we know it. civilization is built on rules,
inhibitions, restraint, and mutual respect.
when sexuality becomes raw, it leads to open competiton for pussy meat.
when the ho' screams, 'i need it right now and i'll put out to the
baddest stud', males all go nuts and fight over pussy. this is why
it's understandable that woman was blamed for so much historical
tragedies. it's not fair to blame the woman, but considering male
sexual psychology, when women recklessly tempt malekind, it leads to
horny war amongst men and much danger for women. just look at the
opening of 'excalibur' where uther and duke of cornwall fight to the
death after igraine shook her ass for everyone to see. she got uther
so horny that he just had to wage further war.
scorsese understood better than anyone the link between sexuality and violence. it's no wonder that one of his favorite films is 'the
searchers' whose violence makes no sense divorced from sexuality.
ethan(john wayne)'s rage against the indians is a reaction against
their having raped/killed the woman he loved. marty, his sidekick,
gets into a nasty fight with another man over the affections of laurie.
'the searchers' also inspired lucas, paul schrader, john milius, and
many others.
in 'revenge of the sith', annakin joins the dark side just to save his
girl.
and take a film like 'taxi driver' where the energy fueling the
mounting tension and violence is sexual. or, raging bull. jake lamotta
is an aggressive bully but nothing makes him meaner than sexual
jealousy and envy. when his wife says tony janiro is a good looking
kid, he beats the crap out of him. he slaps his wife around cuz he
suspects she's cheating on him.
in goodfellas, henry's wife tolerates all the criminal stuff henry
does; it's just man bringing home the bacon. but, she nearly blows his
head off with a pistol when she finds out that he's been cheating on
her. it drives her to violence.
sexuality is the basis for conflict, competition, distrust, jealousy,
and such.
as a powerful instinct and emotion, sexuality--frustrated for most people--manifests itself in all forms of violent feelings and acts.
this is true in nature and in civilization. animals don't put off
fighting to make love; animals fight TO make love. winner gets best
pussy and loser animals get mighty pissed. same is true among people.
a pretty girl may choose a rich pretty guy, and it may seem so lovey
dovey and embracing. but, she has excluded others(she has only embraced
her favored stud), and the man has grabbed the choice pussy for himself
and from everyone else. it can only arouse jealousy and resentment.
why do the villagers kill the woman in 'zorba the greek'? over sexual
reasons though they disguise it under moralism.
now, civilized folks accept rules. they respect the choice of
individuals. civilized people know that freedom doesn't mean
everything is freely available or that one is free to indulge in any
action. civilized freedom is always restrained.
these rules may be hypocritical and bogus. indeed, 'rules of the game'
by renoir exposes hypocrisy after hypocrisy, deception after deception
in rules we live by. and the characters find myriad ways to undermine
rules for their own purposes, and even the rules themselves are rather
silly.
but, would it be better if there were no rules at all? it would lead
to men fighting in the open like animals and the winner running off
with the top ho like viking barbarians. that's no good. instead of one
dead male, it'd lead to several dead males and whole lotta raped
pussies.
indeed, nazism also cannot be understood apart from sexuality. it was
about racial purity and how do you maintain that? by having aryan fuc*
aryan. nazis didn't want beautiful aryan features polluted by subhuman ugliness.
communism was also sexual in the sense that it was violently
anti-sexual. its rejection of sexuality was an acknowledgement of the
power of sexuality.
like christianity, communism tried to repress the power of sexuality or
tried to resolve the contradiction of sexual dialectics--which is
impossible as hormones are constantly produced in the human body. so, communism made men and women dress alike and be almost asexual. instead
of 'sex', it preferred the concept of 'gender', a social than
biological definition that can be molded by the theoreticians.
same is true of islamic fundamentalists. like communists, they are anti-sexual sexualists. they see sex as the source of problem so they
try to repress sexual energies. to be sure, they identify women apart
from men, but they totally de-sexualize women, who are hidden behind
sacks and veils. and men are made to grow ugly beards and look
pious/old than studly/young.
whether sexuality is allowed or repressed, it is very much the
motivating force--though often indirect--of much of human violence.
indeed, much of racial aggression by blacks on whites is that black
males see themselves as alpha male badasses while white boys be a bunch
of slow flabby faggotyass punks. and, white male fear and anger toward
blacks are rooted in sexual fear among white males that they are the
pussyass inferiors of blacks. white liberal boys, castrated and
pussified, roll over at the feet of blacks. proud white men brace for
race war that is already on low burner.
liberals wanna pussify and wimpify all white males thru 'progressive' education, brainwashing, social engineering. white males are told that
any anti-black feeling is 'irrational', 'racist', 'hateful',
'virulent', 'rabid', etc. stupid white men fall for this liberal
policy of castration. but, proud white men prepare for a day when
liberal brainwashers--worse than vichy collaboraters--will get their comeuppance for this bullshit.
it would be nice if most people played by civility and rules. it's be
nice to have sexual freedom AND behavioral discretion and mutual
respect. and, there are alot of people are like that in much of the
advanced educated world. but, the two other extremes, sexual animalism
of negroes and sexual puritanism of muslims and their ilk, always make sexuality the source for social tension. negresses like to shake their
booty and cheer on negro boys to fight to grab and fuc* her skankass
pooter; this creates social anarchy. in contrast, muslims see
sexuality as essentially animalistic and fear its free expression under
any circumstances; this creates authoritarianism.
granted, muslim attitude can still lead to civilization, social
stability, and some degree of progress whereas the negro way only leads
to street violence, ugly machismo, mayhem, riotous fuc*ing, and social dissolution. no people fuc* as much as negroes. alot of negresses put
out to a whole bunch of negro men. if they make so much love, why do
make so much violence? they are linked. there are no rules of the game
among blacks. blacks are more honest with sexuality, but this honesty
only brings more destruction. the negress honestly shakes her booty and
says, 'i'm so horny and want your hard cock right now' and negro boys honestly say 'i's gonna whup everyone and have me some of that fine
pussy'. animals are honest too, but do they have civilization? rules
are never satisfactory and often hypocritical but they are necessary to
make sexuality something truly civilized and meaningful.
in 'taxi driver', we see both sides sexual danger. on the one hand, we
see sexuality as porn, prostitution, pimpery, animalistic lawlessness
where negroes rule. on the other hand, we see in bickle a puritanical
streak so extreme that he goes on a killing spree to restore the
girl's already soiled purity. he had tried to be a 'normal', urbane man
who plays by rules of sexual freedom. but, he was ignorant and took the
woman to a porn, thinking that's what 'normal' people do. when she
casts himself aside as a sleazebag like the rest of street trash, he
has to go the extra step to prove that he's pure souled crusader
against filth and sleaze. indeed, he gets so carried away that he even
sees cybil shepard as part of the overall sleaze. she's just a whore
to palantine. he sees both jodie foster and cybil shepard as a muslim
might see them. foster is a poor victim of capitalist filth, and cybil shepard is a snot-nosed highclassed hooker to mammon. in a way, shepard
is worse cuz her sleazy materialist whorishness is disguised by fine
dress, educated talk, and perfume. foster may be a victim of her pimp,
but shepard willingly chose to be concubine of money and power. now,
bickle would not have felt this way had he been a player: a yuppie with plenty of money and means to attract chicks. instead, he's just a
cabbie with hardly any social charm. never mind the rules of the game;
he's left out of the game altogether. so, he's relegated to co-exist
with all the scum out there who wallow in sexual animalism and filth.
sexual morality is important because it's the basis for civilization.
in a way, rich people, even well-off yuppies, are living in an
artificial bubble. they are so well-off and priveleged that they can
put the primacy on enjoying life than in leading a truly moral life.
to use an extreme example, if you're rich like paris hilton, you can
afford any indulgence. if you mess up, then always pay to clean up the
mess. if you have alot of money, you can get plenty of chicks. you
can pick and dump them day after day. you can be like larry king and
marry over and over and pay a shitload in alimony cuz you're rolling in dough. but, this is not core reality for most people throughout
history, even amongst most people in the richest countries. if most
people lived like this, they would mess up their lives and leave
nothing stable--properly raised children--to carry the torch of
civilization in the next generation.
most people cannot do as they please without paying a heavy price cuz
they don't have the money and clout to clean up the mess. so, rich people--hollywood, sports, pop music--are setting a bad example for
most of us.
but, even many educated and only well-off people think they are so enlightened that they are above square rules that 'conservative
dimwits' and bluecollar types live by. look at the people in 'decline
of the american empire' or alot of eurpoean films about bourgeois men
and women who sleep around. granted, educated people play by some
rules of the game. they do maintain some sense of decorum and
discreetness which are important. but, they still lack a core moral
fiber. they seem to think that if you can afford or risk it, hedonism
should be the prevailing mode for enlightened man. while temptations
always exist, this is no formula for any longlasting, healthy society.
i got nothing against people sowing some wild oates when they are
young. but, making bed hopping into some kind of lifelong activity,
even among civilized discreet folks, is cheap and shallow and
meaningless and eventually immoral.
bickle truly goes overboard with his moralism but there is a certain
heroism cuz he's trying to restore some kind of soulfulness in a
soulless world. on the one hand, you have the world of negro fuc*-suck savagery. on the other, you have rich smarmy snide educated people
thinking they are above core values, people who smugly think that
problems can all be fixed thru fancy political theories, progressive rhetoric, and social engineering. according to smug liberalism, the individual exists only to the extent that he or she's supposed to seek
as much self-fulfilment as possible. liberal morality is always
political, sociological, or economic. there is no sense of personal or
family morality.
there is also no morally meaningful concept of the individual amongst
the sexual savages who are essentially tribal, animal, and instinctive.
the only rule is 'i can whup your ass and fuc* her pussy'. this
mentality is shared by all animal savages. no matter how loud they
scream and holler and say 'me, me, me', the only sense of individuality
among rappers is that of a mindless animal beast obeying his hormones. anyway, the idea that sexuality is the opposite of violence in art is misleading. while they are not the same, they are linked. and,
sexuality, because of its implications, can be more dangerous than
violence. for one thing, when movies and music shower us with so much sexuality, we get a feeling that sex is easy to come by. that we
should all just let it hang loose and then the world will be a better
place. but, no ho goes with just any guy. and no guy just goes with any
ho. sexuality in reality is exclusive and hierarchical. even rich
handsome gay boys go with other rich handsome gayboys. no rich
handsome gayboy would wanna be in a room with a fat ugly poor gayboy.
so, when we democratize or demagog sexuality as something for everyone,
it sends a false message that only turn us into pathetic peeping toms.
the beatles sang 'all you need is love'. and hippies idealized rolling
in the grass and fuc*ing. but, suppose you were a fat ugly naked
hippie and went to a bunch of cute girls in haight asbury and said
'let's make love and peace'. the girls would have told you to get
lost. if you kept accosting them for love and fuc*ing, even anti-establishment hippie girls would have called the cops... or bigger hippies to kick your ugly hippie ass.
alot of kids are told by movies, music, and tv that fuc*ing is what
life is all about. most kids soon find out that they can't get the
popular girls but they still wanna be Da Man. so, what do they do?
they settle for any pussy at all and the whole school becomes a
fuc*fest of everyone groping for anyone who will fuc* him or her. when
this mentality totally takes over, boys and girls don't even go by the
rules of mutual respect--like not making a move on another guy's girl.
soon, it turns into sexual warfare and fights and such. it gets ugly.
history of violence, like straw dogs and clockwork orange, is one of
the movies that understand the link between sex and violence.
=20
P.S. it could be argued that sexuality in movies is form of violence
against or violation of human privacy. the very act of presenting raw
or intimate sexuality is violative--if not exactly violent--in nature
because it pries into areas that should be hidden from view.
in real life, what is a greater violation of privacy? eavesdropping on
a conversation, watching people play sport, watching people fight, or watching people have sex?
if you peek into a hole where people are having a private meeting, you
have committed a violation. but, if you peek into a sexual act, you
have committed a sexual trangression, a major crime, a felony.
spying on someone's professional duties isn't as grievous as spying on
his or her persona life, especially if it's sexual in nature. people necessarily hide sexual stuff from view. so, to peek into the sex life
of someone is to commit a serious trangression.
now, movie is make-believe. but, there is a sense of violation in
movies when the artist pries into intimate sexual matters that are fundamentally private.
for example, if you were to write a fictional novel about a president
or military general, you may pry into and imagine his personal thoughts
on all sorts of political or moral issues. they have legitimacy as
matters of public interest. but, it would be trangressive if you were
to imagine and present the sexual fantasies of, say, FDR or George
Patton.
unless you have a compelling reason to go into those areas, they should
be left alone. they are private. to pry into the private life or
fantasies of people is generally in bad taste and undignified and violational. you can also be sued if the person is still alive.
suppose someone made a movie about you. suppose the artist speculated
on all sorts of matters, even made stuff up. that probably wouldn't
bother you as much as if the artist presented your private sexual
activities like fingering suzie valentine, whacking off, eating pussy,
or cumming on titties. though not violent, such scenes would be a
violation of your dignity. as such, they would be worse than showing
you in fist fight which, though violent, is not necessarily private.
but, we may argue that most fiction is about fictional characters.
even so, we suspend our disbelief when we watch a movie. for the
duration of the screening, we believe in the reality of the character.
so, certain areas of his privacy does matter. prying into his most
intimate sexual life or fantasies is a violation of his dignity as a character. unless the theme of the movie is seriously tied to sexual
matters, it serves no purpose to go into this area.
take 'it's a wonderful life'. we know george and mary love one
another. we don't need to see mary give george a blow-job. for the
director to show such or for us to demand such is violative, if not
downright violent. we are asking too much of art. we are asking art to
serve as some kind of dirty, puerile voyeuristic device where we
violate other people's personal dignity.
now, there are always exceptions. the love scene in 'love story' is
handled well and with dignity.
and, in a movie like mulholland dr, lynch is very much aware of the
link between sexuality and violence. it is a powerfully perverse movie
about the dark twisted side of human nature. he was artistically
justified in showing graphic sexuality because the movie is about
violation and violence. indeed, diane selwyn's murderous deed--of
having her friend killed--largely flows from sexual jealousy--even more
so than professional jealousy.
in all of his movies, lynch has shown the link between the sexual and
the violent. but, at his best, he has used it powerfully to expose a
side of us we usually don't want to acknowledge. indeed, we are more comfortable with pornographic sexuality than with psychological
sexuality which links our sexual obsession with bloodlust. lynch at
his worst has rendered sexuality in a rather pornographic and sensationalistic way, as in blue velvet.
another reason sexuality is more disturbing than violence is that the
former is real whereas violence never is. no one is really shot or
stabbed in a mooie. it's all make believe, all fake blood.
but, when someone is naked in a movie, he or she must really be naked.
when someone sucks a woman's breasts on screen, he really sucked her
breasts. graphic sexual depiction REALLY violates the dignity of the
actor or actress.
if you tell an actor to act as though he's beat up, he's not really
beat up.
if you tell an actor to stand with his dick hanging out, he's really
standing there with his dick hanging out.
compare the porno with the war film. in a war film, no one really gets
shot. but, in a porno, people really do make an embarassing spectcle of themselves. they really pull out their dongs and stick them into poons. physical violation thru violence is fake. physical violation thru sex
is real. graphic sexual depiction really reduces man and woman to
animal level.
to further demonstrate the difference between violence and sex,
consider a violent game like football. it's violent but it's sports, naturally a public activity. athletes wanna play in public and we
wanna watch. violent it may be, but it's what sports and entertainment
are about. '
but, would it okay if we asked all the athletes to go to the center of
the field and undress and fuc* their wives for us to see? no matter
how we may argue that sex is better than violence, we have no right to
watch people do what is private. this is why janet jackson's dirty act
in the superbowl was really shameful. not that sex is bad but sex has
its time and place. when hung out like dirty laundry, it violates our
sense of public order. its' wrong for the public to demand that
individuals expose themselves in public, and it's equally wrong for individuals to expose themselves to the public. both are violational.
in other words, if we forced prisoners to play soccer at gunpoint, it
would be less of a violation of their dignity than if we forced them to
have sex or whack off in public.
sex may not be violent--at least not in all cases--but it is supposed
to be private and intimate. it's not supposed to be public. this is
why almost all biographies do not dwell on intricacies of their
subjects' lives. it's enough to know that john married yoko and paul
married linda. it's not for us to know what kind of sex they had. and,
it would be stupid if they told us to look at their sexual acts. that lennon/yoko fuc* film was downright stupid and embarassing. i mean,
okay, it's fun to fuc*. why should WE watch?
now, i'm not saying sex, even graphic sex, can't be the stuff of great
art. i'm just saying that it's as disturbing or even more disturbing
than violence. it has to be handled with great care and thought, like radioactive material. the artist is taking something that normally
should remain submerged in the pool of privacy out into the public
sphere. he should have a good reason and considerable talent to make it worthwhile. otherwise, it's just dirty, violating--doing moral
violence--to both the subject and us.
david lynch asked this question in regard to deformity in the elephant
man. john merrick was easy to exploit as a sensational freak show; as
such, he was violated and so was the dignity of everyone who gawked at
him in a puerile manner. how do you make his deformity both public yet
also dignified? there is no easy answer. the doctor played by anthony
hopkins really grapples with the issue, and lynch makes us face the
question ourselves. lynch forces us to see merrick the man than merrick
the object of some lowlife sensationalistic mooie.
of course, certain forms of violence are truly disturbing, pointless,
and hideous. i'm talking of gornographic horror film where violence has
no moral context or justification. i'm talking of mooies where we sadistically take pleasure in people being tortured and slaughtered
like sheep or where we get cheap thrills in a spook house ride fashion.
if you must see pointless slaughter of flesh to be entertained, i pray
for your sick soul. yes, gornographic violence is even worse than pornographic sex.
but, violence can be presented morally and dramatically. it's much
harder with sex cuz it's supposed to be private to have any dignity and
also cuz sex is a more of a biological act where the participants
simply give into lust whereas violence can be conscious moral choice of action.

About Angelina Jolie

Angelina Jolie has been identified by Canadians worker as..

https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-truth= -about-angelina-jolie.html

Comments on Google Groups

https://groups.google.com/g/uk.politics.misc/c/E6FNPWjNZTI/m/H30BSeCjAQAJ

--- MBSE BBS v1.0.8 (Linux-x86_64)
* Origin: ---:- FTN<->UseNet Gate -:--- (3:633/280.2@fidonet)