![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 25 to 49 of 49. Go back in thread:
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on December 3, 2004, at 22:30:42
In reply to Re: human nature, posted by vwoolf on December 3, 2004, at 13:13:08
I totally agree with you. I would also never act on any of my fantasies as they are somewhat violent and humiliating as well. Glad I am not the only one!
Posted by vwoolf on December 4, 2004, at 10:26:17
In reply to Re: human nature » vwoolf, posted by Miss Honeychurch on December 3, 2004, at 22:30:42
I'm glad we can share this. Have you ever spoken to your T about your fantasies? I did last week, and she gave me a very intellgent explanation for why I have these fantasies, but as usually happens when I am feeling threatened, I have managed to forget her argument. It was something about needing to compensate to myself for the humiliation I have been through. But that's not quite it.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2004, at 10:36:31
In reply to Re: human nature, posted by Gnepig on December 3, 2004, at 19:28:24
> Alex, I don't know who you are responding to, but I just want to clarify my perspective. Oogling was never mentioned as to a degree of enjoying nude photography.
Oh, sorry I certaintly did not mean to 'accuse' you of oggling. I never got that from your posts - that one wasn't directed to you. Actually it wasn't addressed to any poster here and I do apologise for the phrase.
>(not to be confused with pornography).
Yeah. I have no problem with nude works of art. I do think that there is a fuzzy line between art and porn, but I guess I would put the sort of 'explicit' stuff we have talked about, and sexual acts at the pornography end of the spectrum... Maybe the difference also is a function of what ones purpose is in looking at the 'art'. Appreciation of form may be different to using it as a munster aid (if you get me). Not that I think that there is anything wrong with this as a matter of principle, it is just that it is not to my taste. If my partner liked to do this then I suppose that I would just want them to be discrete about it - in just the way that it sounds like you are.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2004, at 10:51:03
In reply to Re: human nature » Gnepig, posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2004, at 10:36:31
Hmm. I haven't acted out all of my fantisies, but I have acted out a fair few of them...
I know what you mean when you talk about forgetting arguments for stuff that is hard. I do that too :-)
I feel quite disgusted when I think of some of the things that I have done. I had to learn that fansasies are different from realities in the sense that sometimes we do not actually want that reality even though we think we do... I had to learn this the hard way.
I struggle a lot between wanting sex to be an act of intimacy betwen two people who love each other... and acknowledgement of its primitive power and animalistic side... and treating people as objects... and I don't know what is 'right' and probably here there isn't a 'right' there is just a way I would like it to be (for me) and I don't know if that is unrealistic or what...
I don't mind that people fantasise...
But I worry about where the people are at where they exhibit themselves for the camera. I wonder what could lead them to do such a thing. What kind of lives they have led. What kind of abuses they have suffered. And I think that there is something a bit sick and voyeristic about it all (talking clear cases of porn here).At this point someone always brings up some case or other of the happy child with the lovely life and the liberal attitude and how that porn star considers herself to be a movie star...
But as in cases of people who turn to prostitution I think that such cases are more the exception than the general rule.
I disapprove of people using prostitutes on those same grounds. But I surely would rather people used them than raped if they must act out. I just think that the whole situation is sad. And I feel a bit sick when I think about it all. And I think that I would so very much like it to be something different, somehting better than that.
But then I suppose that my abuse history influences my attitudes on this quite significantly.
I guess it would just kind of go some of the way towards restoring my faith in males to hear that not all of them consider pornography (and prostitution) to be acceptable. And it would restore it even more if any could genuinely say that (in terms of the realities) they don't get off on seeing women as such objects.
But maybe it is just a natural response...
And a natural thing to like...
Posted by lostforwards on December 4, 2004, at 21:04:21
In reply to fantisies..., posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2004, at 10:51:03
Animalistic isn't a bad thing. I think the very nature of love, not just sex, is "primitive". Have you ever seen two mice groom each other? That's love. I know it's anthropomorphic for me to make that statement, but I'm not trying to be a scientist. Sex is a part of love, one can come before the other. I don't see anything ugly about animals acting on their instincts. To me love is intinctual. It's not something that grew out of the victorian era, or appeared after the agricultural revolution. Love was with us, innately since the begining of time.
I'm not sure what the prevalance of abuse is among animals. I know there's killing for food. I 'm not sure if anyone can provide me evidence of killing for sport.
Human beings have managed to divert their sexual energy and do all sorts of heinous things including abuse and in every way pathologize each other.
Personally, I get off on women who are smiling or at least enjoying themselves. Negative vibes give me a bad feeling. I couldn't watch porn where a woman was suffering or anybody was suffering against their will.
Abuse just isn't natural. Sex, love, and the human body minus all of our fabrications about what's right and wrong, is.
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on December 5, 2004, at 10:33:56
In reply to Re: human nature » Miss Honeychurch, posted by vwoolf on December 4, 2004, at 10:26:17
We have NEVER discussed sex. It never comes up. I would be more than happy to share these fantasies with him if he asked however.
Posted by vwoolf on December 5, 2004, at 13:35:13
In reply to Re: human nature » vwoolf, posted by Miss Honeychurch on December 5, 2004, at 10:33:56
Gosh, I talk about it all the time. I often wonder if I'm bothering my T with it, because it keeps coming up. She says it's because I was traumatically sexualized as a child that it has taken on such an important role in my life. I know that I think of everyone in sexual terms, but then I thought everyone did that. It seems I was wrong.
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on December 6, 2004, at 15:58:53
In reply to confused about porn?, posted by Bent on November 24, 2004, at 17:34:47
I wish we had more male input here. I appreciate Gnepig's honesty. Maybe men just don't come to the relationship board?
Posted by Gnepig on December 6, 2004, at 17:49:38
In reply to Re: confused about porn?, posted by Miss Honeychurch on December 6, 2004, at 15:58:53
Thanks for beleiving me. I'm sorry you can't be honest and open with your SO. I empathize with you because my wife thinks I'm sick and demented if I think of anything else besides her. I have my fantasises, but I keep them to myself.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 2:50:08
In reply to the moral animal., posted by lostforwards on December 4, 2004, at 21:04:21
> Sex is a part of love, one can come before the other.
But we have managed to divorce one from the other entirely when we are getting off on pictures of women who we don't know anything about.
Animals do this (divorce sex from love). People do too (prostitution, the oldest profession). I just think that we are able to transcend (or at least restrain) our 'animal urges' and I think that in this case it is to do with minimising harm to others.
>I don't see anything ugly about animals acting on their instincts.
I remember being quite horrified to watch some variety of monkey on the discovery channel a while back. There was one male and a whole bunch of females. Three other males came in, killed the male, killed the females children, and raped the females. Perhaps that is anthropomorphic but there was no mistaking the expression of grief.
But then that is what soldiers do when invading (sorry, 'assisting') foreign lands - no? So that is animalistic, but is that acceptable?
> Personally, I get off on women who are smiling or at least enjoying themselves. Negative vibes give me a bad feeling. I couldn't watch porn where a woman was suffering or anybody was suffering against their will.Have you ever smiled for the camera when you weren't happy? Would you do it for x amount of dollars? What if your kid was sick and you didn't have health insurance? What might you do then? My point isn't that ALL people who pose naked and / or engage in sex acts for the camera have this kind of situation going on. My point is how do you know that that isn't happening for the women you are looking at?
It divorces sex from love
It says that sex is mere recreation
It turns the actors into objects
Not people
Not with their own needs
Desires
Dislikes
Opinions
It is dehumanisingI think it displays the worst of us
The fact that it is an acceptable part of society (sorta)
The fact that prostitution is the oldest profession and that there is pretty much nothing that people can do to get rid of it properly
That the internet exists becasue of the money the porn companies make off of it (or maybe thats just a rumour?)Just MHO. I realise that most will disagree with me
Posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 2:53:15
In reply to Re: confused about porn? » Miss Honeychurch, posted by Gnepig on December 6, 2004, at 17:49:38
> Thanks for beleiving me. I'm sorry you can't be honest and open with your SO. I empathize with you because my wife thinks I'm sick and demented if I think of anything else besides her. I have my fantasises, but I keep them to myself.
I don't think that fantasies are bad.
In the way that we can do whatever we want in a lucid dream and not be held morally accountable we can fantasise about whatever and we are not morally accountable because we aren't hurting anyone.Of course if fantasising more results in increased urges there may be a problem...
Fantasies can hurt realities...
But I fantasise all the time and I reckon thats ok...But I would never discuss any of that with a clinician. Nope, nope, nope, thats way too personal :-)
Posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 10:14:27
In reply to Re: the moral animal., posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 2:50:08
I think if people were allowed to walk around naked porn wouldn't exist.
Posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 10:22:32
In reply to Re: the moral animal., posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 2:50:08
>Three other males came in, killed the male, killed the females children, and raped the females. Perhaps that is anthropomorphic but there was no mistaking the expression of grief
I wasn't aware of that fact. My argument crumbles here. good point. I wouldn't seperate humans from animals, whatever the case. I still stand by my point that love isn't something you learn.
When I look at porn, I'd rather think that ther person made the choice of working in that profession. At least, at the lowest level, if they were choosing between working as a janitor or working in porn, that they decided to work in porn.
If your kid is sick, you SHOULD have health insurance. The issue is unrelated. Health care should be free. It's horrible to have to be struggling to make money for things like that. Whether it be porn or working in McDonalds.
Bottom line IMHO: Making money by selling your sex isn't wrong.
Posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 10:41:16
In reply to Re: the moral animal., posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 10:14:27
Actually, in some places they're not strict about porn in public. When I was in Quebec, this was when I 16?, there were nude posters, at least as far as showing breasts, out in the open. I remember walking down a street and seeing one of these.
Right now in ontario, you can see live porn while taking a stroll. Women are allowed to walk around topless. I don't think if I saw a women topless that it would lead me to see her as any less of a person. Her body parts that she's supposed to keep hidden from view are just as much a part of her as her legs and her face and her arms.
If you see a man jogging down the streets topless, does that make you see him as less of a man? ( personally I used to feel uncomfortable with them around ). I mean, you don't know him, but seeing his body and not knowing him doesn't imply that you'll stop caring about who people are.
What if you saw lots of people half-naked or completely naked throughout the day? I don't think it would make you see people as less than what they are.
Posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 11:09:38
In reply to Re: the moral animal., posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 10:22:32
On second thought.. I just saw an ad online for one of those dating sites... I think doing it for money ( whatever that money might be for ), as with a lot of things, corrupts it.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 16:54:00
In reply to Re: dating ads, posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 11:09:38
>If your kid is sick, you SHOULD have health insurance.
Well sure, but should implies can and if you cannot afford it then it is hopeless to tell a person in that situation that they should have had the health insurance and so the situation (dilemma) is one of their own making.
>The issue is unrelated. Health care should be free.
Well, to be contrary I think that the issue is actually very pertinant. Health care should indeed be free, but the fact is that it is not in many parts of the world. So it is perfectly possible that there could be a single mother in the US who could not afford health insurance and whose kid needs an expensive operation. In that case it may be that she turns to porn or prostitution because of it.
>Bottom line IMHO: Making money by selling your sex isn't wrong.
Oh, I fully agree. I have no problem at all with people deciding to pose or work as prostitutes. It is the people who pay for it and support it that sickens me.
And the reason why? Some women seem to be okay with doing this and little harm is done to them. IMHO I wish I was like that - I would be far better off financially if I could bring myself to work as a prostitute. But I am not. I do imagine, however, that there could be things that could happen in the course of my life which might actually drive me to do this DESPITE that it would f me up big time.
Thats all that I am getting at really. How many prostitutes / porn workers need years of therapy to try to undo a lot of the harm that they felt in being treated as an object whose own desires and preferences were completely disregarded for x amount of dollars?
How many people working as porn stars / prostitutes do so to support their drug habits? How many were abused as children? How many have BPD? How many are damaged already and consider that while it is hurtful they do not deserve any better.
Once again: I am not saying all are like that. I will say some, but I think that most would be even more accurate.
I don't have a problem with nudity.
There are nudist colonies, I wonder whether they do view porn. I would guess that viewing naked pictures probably isn't so appealing anymore. But viewing explicit sex acts and prostitution would probably still continue IMO.I think appreciation of form (in viewing naked peoples) is different from using it as a munsteraid. Whether something counts as pornography or not (IMO) isn't so much a function of anything intrinsic to the work of art. Rather it is a function of what purpose its creation was intended to serve. And then what function people use that work for.
Posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 17:04:08
In reply to more ranting :-) » lostforwards, posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 16:54:00
...it's also been screwing the intrinsic motivation to create for years. I mean everything from cookies to cakes to computer software.
Posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 17:23:54
In reply to more ranting :-) » lostforwards, posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 16:54:00
Oh yeah, I think real flesh and blood beats static images or even sequences of images. I mean, I think it's pretty hard to objectify someone you meat at a brothel ( let's not complicate matters with talk of STDs ).
I think the extensive use of the internet is leading to objectification of people. I think those online dating sites promote a frivolous attitude towards relationships. In fact I think it's comodification of human beings.
Pay to get into the site, and then pick and choose. Just like you're in a grocery store. I think that this is very similar to what happens with porn.
If these mediums didn't exist you would have less pick-and-choose and you would have more real interaction with real human beings. The fact that it's so easy to skip from one person to another is just like how it's so easy to view one porn pic or another.
However, I do think there's a happy medium. Pardon the pun.
When I was growing up, when the hormones kicked in I started to wonder what the other part of my race looked like, if you know what I mean. Me and my friends discovered naked pictures of girls in the woods( I grew up in a small town in nf, it was very easy to find "the woods" ). It was the most amazing experience. We used to actually collect the stuff.
However, there's no way in hell pictures can replace the real thing. On the other hand I don't think the intictual tendancy to find another person attractive is a bad thing and I don't think it was a bad for us to view those pictures. I think it was perfectly natural. I believe the same applies to pictures of people doing sexual things.
It's only a problem if you stop realizing that real human beings exist around you and it becomes an addiction.
I agree with everything you said about some people getting used and in general very psychologically ill as a result of being forced into jobs in the "sex industry?".
=> What if the only porn available was homemade and it wasn't made for money, whether it be hard or soft?
Finally: I think it's possible to love someone without ever knowing them. I also think it's possible to love someone and find them attractive without ever knowing them.
Posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 17:39:19
In reply to more ranting :-) » lostforwards, posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 16:54:00
Do you think it's wrong to masturbate to porn? I did it when I was young. I still do it sometimes. Sometimes I'll look at it sometimes I won't. I think a lot of guys do, and they don't all go out abusing women and treating women like objects. I think the treatment of people like objects or abuse of people goes beyond porn.
I think the issue's here are:
Money, abuse, and the fact that we have a load of entertainment and communications mediums that ironically seperate real people from each other.Regarding prostitution: all of those horrible things probably wouldn't happen if it were legal and controlled. ( the money dillema aside - working for cash may make people who do sexwork feel used. )
It's almost like drug dealing ( even the not so bad drugs ). It's trouble not because of the drugs, but because of how underground everything is. Since it's illegal all sorts of bad things happen that wouldn't happen if it were controlled and legal.
Posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 17:42:31
In reply to Re: more ranting :-), posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 17:39:19
I don't mean to undermine the negative side-effects of certain drugs. I'm just saying that other issues crop up simply because it's an illegal activity.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 23:16:34
In reply to Re: one more word about drugs., posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 17:42:31
Posted by alexandra_k on December 8, 2004, at 1:39:09
In reply to Re: more ranting :-), posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 17:39:19
posted a follow up on social
Posted by Dinah on December 10, 2004, at 23:30:45
In reply to human nature, posted by Miss Honeychurch on December 3, 2004, at 12:39:16
You're not the only woman. My husband spoiled my enjoyment of it more than a bit by reminding me of some of the realities of the porn business. Realities that become a bit too real if you look at their eyes sometimes. (Another reason to keep your eyes elsewhere.)
I suspect my therapist disapproves of porn. Not that he ever said anything of course. But he clearly thought the role reversal was a bit funny. (Not that my husband doesn't like porn. He just feels guilty about liking it.)
But I am one who probably has absolutely no room talking about this at all. My solosexual tendencies tend to get in the way of a fulfilling mutual sexual relationship.
Posted by Dinah on December 10, 2004, at 23:39:47
In reply to Re: let's stick with relationships, thanks (nm), posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 23:16:34
How is the discussion not about relationships? Or were you just talking about the drug aspect of it. Because the rest of it seems intimately connected to relationships.
Being able to be truthful with your partner or feeling shamed by your partner, sharing porn with your partner to increase intimacy, using porn to separate yourself from your partner and decrease intimacy. What's not relationship?
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 11, 2004, at 3:52:00
In reply to What's not about relationships? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 10, 2004, at 23:39:47
> How is the discussion not about relationships? Or were you just talking about the drug aspect of it.
I was just talking about the drug aspect of it, sorry I wasn't more clear...
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Relationships | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.