I am the son
and the heir
Of a shyness that was criminally broken
I am the son and heir
Of nothing in particular
You shut your mouth
How can you say
I go about things the wrong way
I am Human and I need to be loved
Just like everybody else does
I am the son
And the heir
Of a shyness that was criminally broken
I am the son and heir
Of nothing in particular
You shut your mouth
How can you say
I go about things the wrong way
I am Human and I need to be loved
Just like everybody else does
There's a club, if you'd like to go
You could meet somebody who really loves you
So you go, and you stand on your own
And you leave on your own
And you go home
And you cry
And you want to die
When you say it's gonna happen now,
When exactly do you mean?
See I've already waited too long
And all my hope is gone
Pro-pornography and Anti-pornography Groups and Sexual Abuse
The Nature and Links between Coercion, Violence, Mental and Sexual Abuse and some Pornography, and the Nature and Links between Coercion, Violence, Mental and Sexual Abuse and some Anti-pornography
There is a lot of conflict, confusion, and disagreement, between pro-pornography and anti-pornography groups, about the nature and links between coercion, violence, and mental and sexual abuse within the pornography industry in modern western societies. There is indeed some coercion, violent, mental and sexual abuse within the pornography industry, although it is extremely rare, but I agree that it shouldn't happen at all, whilst I still don't believe that most erotica and pornography is the problem. What is the main problem, is non-consensual sadism and masochism or BDSM, and non-consensual sexual domination, and the ways that both some pro-pornography groups within the porn industry and some anti-pornography both engage in, practise, and are very collusive and instrumental to all of this both directly and reciprocally.
There are some women who are innocent victims, and who are coerced, violently threatened, and mentally and sexually abused within the pornography industry, and Linda Susan Boreman (better known by her stage name Linda Lovelace), was a typical innocent and victimised example of this, by her first husband who forced her at gun-point and by controlling and physically beating her, to perform non-consensual acts of forced sexual domination, degradation, and pain with men on film, and the gang-rape of her as a prostitute, and which was all a part of his relationship control and abuse over her. When some women are mentally and sexually abused in the pornography industry, it is usually controlled and instrumented by mentally and sexually abusive relationships.
Again, whilst it is extremely rare, there are some women, who are coerced and tortured by sadistic men, in some BDSM video-clips and photos in pornography on the Internet, and it is also true that there are just as many men and maybe much more, within the extreme female sadism and domination genre - of one organisation in another country which I won't name or mention - who are being forcibly drugged, tortured, and very savagely beaten and sexually abused by sadistic women in some video-clips and photos on the Internet, although this not classed as pornography nor a part of the actual pornography industry. The other thing, is that whilst some of these men and much more so women, are innocent victims of this extreme coercion and mental, physical, and sexual torture and abuse, most of them are female and male sex offenders - such as rapists and male and female pedophiles - and this is the way that some people, both men and women, see it right to punish, exploit, and use them for other people's pleasure, as "A punishment to fit the crime" as they see it.
However, some of these male victims of some extreme female domination and sadism, and some female victims of male sexual sadism and abuse, are simply sexually dominant and sexually sadistic women and men, who may or may not have engaged in consensual or non-consensual sadist and BDSM activities, but these are just two examples of how sadist men and women, sometimes turn-against and non-consensually torture and abuse each other, and because this is all reinforced by some anti-pornography groups and well as within some of the pornography industry.
This way that punishment is related to pleasure in the modern pornography industries and within some extreme female sadism and domination, doesn't stop there either. There are some anti-pornography groups and men and women, who will use this same non-consensual sadism, extreme coercion, violence, and mental and sexual abuse, for covert pornographic profit and pleasure, in order to exploit, abuse, and objectify some men and other women, for things like masturbation, different sexual orientations such as homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual and consensual sadism or masochism in other men or women, bisexuality, homosexuality, lesbianism, and transgenderism, because they see all of these things as sexual-problems, as abnormal or as mental health problems, and as pornographic, but they are making their own non-consensual, violent, and abusive pornography out of these things, because they see and think that their non-consensual, extremely coercive, and violent mental, physical, sexual, and erotic abuse as normal, sane, civilised, and altruistic.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
There is a lot of conflict, confusion, and disagreement, between pro-pornography and anti-pornography groups, about the nature and links between coercion, violence, and mental and sexual abuse within the pornography industry in modern western societies. There is indeed some coercion, violent, mental and sexual abuse within the pornography industry, although it is extremely rare, but I agree that it shouldn't happen at all, whilst I still don't believe that most erotica and pornography is the problem. What is the main problem, is non-consensual sadism and masochism or BDSM, and non-consensual sexual domination, and the ways that both some pro-pornography groups within the porn industry and some anti-pornography both engage in, practise, and are very collusive and instrumental to all of this both directly and reciprocally.
There are some women who are innocent victims, and who are coerced, violently threatened, and mentally and sexually abused within the pornography industry, and Linda Susan Boreman (better known by her stage name Linda Lovelace), was a typical innocent and victimised example of this, by her first husband who forced her at gun-point and by controlling and physically beating her, to perform non-consensual acts of forced sexual domination, degradation, and pain with men on film, and the gang-rape of her as a prostitute, and which was all a part of his relationship control and abuse over her. When some women are mentally and sexually abused in the pornography industry, it is usually controlled and instrumented by mentally and sexually abusive relationships.
Again, whilst it is extremely rare, there are some women, who are coerced and tortured by sadistic men, in some BDSM video-clips and photos in pornography on the Internet, and it is also true that there are just as many men and maybe much more, within the extreme female sadism and domination genre - of one organisation in another country which I won't name or mention - who are being forcibly drugged, tortured, and very savagely beaten and sexually abused by sadistic women in some video-clips and photos on the Internet, although this not classed as pornography nor a part of the actual pornography industry. The other thing, is that whilst some of these men and much more so women, are innocent victims of this extreme coercion and mental, physical, and sexual torture and abuse, most of them are female and male sex offenders - such as rapists and male and female pedophiles - and this is the way that some people, both men and women, see it right to punish, exploit, and use them for other people's pleasure, as "A punishment to fit the crime" as they see it.
However, some of these male victims of some extreme female domination and sadism, and some female victims of male sexual sadism and abuse, are simply sexually dominant and sexually sadistic women and men, who may or may not have engaged in consensual or non-consensual sadist and BDSM activities, but these are just two examples of how sadist men and women, sometimes turn-against and non-consensually torture and abuse each other, and because this is all reinforced by some anti-pornography groups and well as within some of the pornography industry.
This way that punishment is related to pleasure in the modern pornography industries and within some extreme female sadism and domination, doesn't stop there either. There are some anti-pornography groups and men and women, who will use this same non-consensual sadism, extreme coercion, violence, and mental and sexual abuse, for covert pornographic profit and pleasure, in order to exploit, abuse, and objectify some men and other women, for things like masturbation, different sexual orientations such as homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual and consensual sadism or masochism in other men or women, bisexuality, homosexuality, lesbianism, and transgenderism, because they see all of these things as sexual-problems, as abnormal or as mental health problems, and as pornographic, but they are making their own non-consensual, violent, and abusive pornography out of these things, because they see and think that their non-consensual, extremely coercive, and violent mental, physical, sexual, and erotic abuse as normal, sane, civilised, and altruistic.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
Anti-Porn Is The Theory, Repression is the Practise
THE ANTI-PORNOGRAPHY MOVEMENT NEGLECTS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF WOMEN'S OPPRESSION, ARGUES Nina Lopez-Jones FROM THE ENGLISH COLLECTIVE OF PROSTITUTES
With rare exceptions, feminists have concentrated on attacking attitudes, not power relations of which attitudes are a part. The view of 'Women Against Violence Against Women' (WAVAW), 'Porn is Violence Against Women' (PIVAW) and every other anti-porn group which was accepted as the voice of feminism during the Reagan/Thatcher decade, is that pornography is the "central and binding issue for feminism".
In 1980 the United Nations said that women do 2/3 of the world's work for 10% of the income - the International Labour Organisation says 5%-and 1% of the assets. This was the first international quantification of our exploitation, the basic violence against women from which flows all other violence against us by both institutions and individuals.
By studiously ignoring this violence, the anti-porn/pro-censorship lobby avoids a confrontation with the economic, political and physical violence against women perpetuated or endorsed by the State. Feminists who concentrate on condemning sexist images of women in the name of condemning women's exploitation, and the politicians who back them, turn their backs while the issue of our economic and social power is pushed down the political agenda. Not money, not housing, not even non-sexist, non-racist, non-violent policing, but an end to "dirty pictures" becomes the key to our welfare.
Not unconnected, divisions of race, class, nationality, income, age, disability and occupation have been purposefully censored by feminist advocates of censorship. Anti-porn feminists ask us to do what men have always asked us to do: set aside the divisions among us and submit to their priorities. "We must reunite throughout the nation [sic] on this one basic issue [pornography] . . . Disagreements on other issues can be dealt with when fewer of us are being murdered, beaten, tortured and raped." And therefore, the struggles and priorities of Black and other working class women who are at the bottom of the economic and social hierarchy get watered down or mislaid somewhere along the way to many feminist agendas. A rape survey conducted by two feminists in Leeds chose to investigate streets which "had a mixed population of white single and married people" because "..it was important to focus on the problem of the dominant cultural group in order to avoid our results being used in a racist way." To "avoid racism" by excluding Black women is a strategy that a politician like Enoch Powell might wholeheartedly support.
Like any other movement for change, the women's movement has to choose whether or not to focus on breaking down these divisions. In our experience, this cannot be done without challenging "all the economic power relations in the working class from the bottom up, beginning with those of us who have the lease power . . . Black women who are the poorest of the poor . . ." To ignore the priorities of women who are Black, immigrant, Third World, prostitute, single mothers, housewives, lesbian, who have disabilities, or who are any combination of these, is to choose to focus instead on the priorities of the most powerful sectors - careerists in metropolitan countries. The choice of images (naked or not) must also begin from the bottom up; otherwise the image of the "successful" (usually white) careerist passes as a picture of every woman's reality, or at least the reality to which we can all achieve. This image embodies the predominantly (mainly white) Establishment perspective of Feminism.
Many feminists have refused to deal with the fact that increasing the power of the State to decide what is "acceptable sex and sexuality" can only lead to greater power in the hands of the police and more State violence against women, starting with those of us who are labelled "ignorant" or "immoral" because we are poor and working class. One clear example of this refusal is the way in which the anti-porn lobby has consistently discussed and proposed legislation promoting censorship without discussing the ways such legislation is likely to be enforced. Those of us at the bottom who go on the game, shoplift, commit Social Security "fraud" or other crimes of poverty in order to support ourselves and our children, can't afford the luxury of treating legislation as an abstraction rather than a power shaping our lives. For us the political is personal. It is women at the bottom, and our sons, brothers, husbands and friends, who are at the receiving end of police brutality, illegality and racism. We don't have the right style, accent, background, colour, passport, connections and or careers to protect us from the law, the police and the courts.
Increasing the power of the State to control sexual expression is of a piece with more generalised economic and political oppression. By trying to control which relationships and forms of contact are to be promoted and which discouraged and even criminalized, the State tries to claw back our victories, particularly those won by the women's and gay movements and the movement for welfare, which have concentrated on establishing our right to do what we want with our own bodies, and our right to economic, legal and social independence from the family. The anti-porn lobby has consistently said that "pornography is the theory, rape is the practice." On the contrary: anti-porn is the theory; economic, political and sexual repression - and that can only mean universal rape - is the practice.
All images, no matter how partial or distorted, are reflections of the real power relations among us. We are dependent on images to find out about other people and the world we live in. Information we get in this way may help or hinder us in our pursuit of a better understanding of ourselves and our possibilities: what we can/want to do with our lives as opposed to what we are supposed to do: to mould ourselves on stereotypes. We therefore want images to inform us about what we need to know and to express clearly the reality we experience; as well as to be stimulating, exiting and beautiful; and we want to replace images which are not working for us in these ways. Images are often the lies through which people with more power impose on those who have less power their version of events, and indicate what we should desire and what they will approve. Anti-porn feminists only skim the surface. They attack the images instead of attacking the reality - the power relations - which the images reflect. Rather than acknowledging the images as an integral part of reality, images are blamed for the violence of reality; visual violence against women is disconnected from the violence of poverty and economic dependence which are mirrored in pornography, violent or not. Anti-pornographers may agree that women are exploited but they refuse to attack that exploitation.
Even their attack on the images is partial. What is most degrading about images of women is that our struggle to refuse all forms of violence and degradation is almost always absent: women are portrayed not only doing the jobs that we do, whether with our clothes on or off, but as consenting, even happy, slaves. If the models are dressed, anti-porn lobbyists seem oblivious of the ways in which this distorted image of us attacks us.
"Lukewarm" sex - lesbian women who are into S&M call it "vanilla sex" . . . whatever sex each of us may like, if it is consensual we have a right to it, and to see reflections of it in pornographic or other images. The stereotypical sex-images anti-porn feminists want to impose on others could not express the variety of the sexual reality and would instead deny the experiences of the millions of women and men who are not only, or at all, into "vanilla sex". So-called "perverted sex" is a form of escapism not that different from Gothic novels or horror films: fantasies in which the power relations are transformed and the subtleties of reality with its demands of decision temporarily forgotten (or are being worked out on another level). The effect of anti-porn is to push sexual choices back to a dark corner and isolate sexual feelings and activity from the rest of life. Any sex, from "vanilla" to S&M, can be a vehicle for violence when it is cut off from compassion (which itself is repressed and splintered into various segregated parts). Sex then becomes an area of darkness in which to give vent to our most secret fears and emotions. (A great attraction of David Lynch's films is that they are based on how people relate when all the characters, not only the hero/Heroine, emerge from that dark corner.)
Anti-pornographers seem to understand the attractions of S&M better than anyone. Some even seem to revel in gory descriptions and interpretations of porn. Why would anyone spend so much time watching and commenting on something they found so repulsive unless the rewards - financial, sexual or both - made it worth while? Opposing porn provides a socially acceptable and even profitable opportunity to indulge one's sexual pleasure while blaming others for one's own taste. (Not surprisingly, Andrea Dworkin's novels Ice and Fire and Mercy have been accused of being pornographic.)
But unlike sado-masochists who confine themselves to consenting sexual acts, anti-pornographers get their satisfaction from forcing themselves - and the State - on everyone - denying, banning, censoring, admonishing, punishing. Punishing - a strong urge which seems to provide sexual pleasure for many, from anti-pornographers to judges.
The anti-porn lobby fails to distinguish between the workers, the bosses and the products. The porn industry is exploitative like any other industry. Should commercial food, clothes, cars, TVs, etc., be banned because their respective industries exploit the workers who produce these goods, or should we support workers' demands for better working conditions? The coal industry is polluting, and working conditions are horrendous. Should we not have supported the 1984-5 strike of mining communities against the closure of pits on which their livelihood depended? In campaigning for prostitutes we underline the distinction between sex workers and the work they do. We know from experience that campaigning for the abolition of the prostitution laws which criminalize women for refusing poverty and financial dependence on men, is inseparable from campaigning for economic alternatives to prostitution: higher benefits, grants and wages so that no woman is forced by poverty into sex with anyone, for money or for "free". Campaigning for abolition is for us inseparable from campaigning to get all women's work - including sex work waged and unwaged, recognised and counted as work so that we can get back the wealth we have helped produce: the resources we need to refuse all exploitation, all prostitution... including what Virginia Woolf called "intellectual harlotry".
With rare exceptions, feminists have concentrated on attacking attitudes, not power relations of which attitudes are a part. The view of 'Women Against Violence Against Women' (WAVAW), 'Porn is Violence Against Women' (PIVAW) and every other anti-porn group which was accepted as the voice of feminism during the Reagan/Thatcher decade, is that pornography is the "central and binding issue for feminism".
In 1980 the United Nations said that women do 2/3 of the world's work for 10% of the income - the International Labour Organisation says 5%-and 1% of the assets. This was the first international quantification of our exploitation, the basic violence against women from which flows all other violence against us by both institutions and individuals.
By studiously ignoring this violence, the anti-porn/pro-censorship lobby avoids a confrontation with the economic, political and physical violence against women perpetuated or endorsed by the State. Feminists who concentrate on condemning sexist images of women in the name of condemning women's exploitation, and the politicians who back them, turn their backs while the issue of our economic and social power is pushed down the political agenda. Not money, not housing, not even non-sexist, non-racist, non-violent policing, but an end to "dirty pictures" becomes the key to our welfare.
Not unconnected, divisions of race, class, nationality, income, age, disability and occupation have been purposefully censored by feminist advocates of censorship. Anti-porn feminists ask us to do what men have always asked us to do: set aside the divisions among us and submit to their priorities. "We must reunite throughout the nation [sic] on this one basic issue [pornography] . . . Disagreements on other issues can be dealt with when fewer of us are being murdered, beaten, tortured and raped." And therefore, the struggles and priorities of Black and other working class women who are at the bottom of the economic and social hierarchy get watered down or mislaid somewhere along the way to many feminist agendas. A rape survey conducted by two feminists in Leeds chose to investigate streets which "had a mixed population of white single and married people" because "..it was important to focus on the problem of the dominant cultural group in order to avoid our results being used in a racist way." To "avoid racism" by excluding Black women is a strategy that a politician like Enoch Powell might wholeheartedly support.
Like any other movement for change, the women's movement has to choose whether or not to focus on breaking down these divisions. In our experience, this cannot be done without challenging "all the economic power relations in the working class from the bottom up, beginning with those of us who have the lease power . . . Black women who are the poorest of the poor . . ." To ignore the priorities of women who are Black, immigrant, Third World, prostitute, single mothers, housewives, lesbian, who have disabilities, or who are any combination of these, is to choose to focus instead on the priorities of the most powerful sectors - careerists in metropolitan countries. The choice of images (naked or not) must also begin from the bottom up; otherwise the image of the "successful" (usually white) careerist passes as a picture of every woman's reality, or at least the reality to which we can all achieve. This image embodies the predominantly (mainly white) Establishment perspective of Feminism.
Many feminists have refused to deal with the fact that increasing the power of the State to decide what is "acceptable sex and sexuality" can only lead to greater power in the hands of the police and more State violence against women, starting with those of us who are labelled "ignorant" or "immoral" because we are poor and working class. One clear example of this refusal is the way in which the anti-porn lobby has consistently discussed and proposed legislation promoting censorship without discussing the ways such legislation is likely to be enforced. Those of us at the bottom who go on the game, shoplift, commit Social Security "fraud" or other crimes of poverty in order to support ourselves and our children, can't afford the luxury of treating legislation as an abstraction rather than a power shaping our lives. For us the political is personal. It is women at the bottom, and our sons, brothers, husbands and friends, who are at the receiving end of police brutality, illegality and racism. We don't have the right style, accent, background, colour, passport, connections and or careers to protect us from the law, the police and the courts.
Increasing the power of the State to control sexual expression is of a piece with more generalised economic and political oppression. By trying to control which relationships and forms of contact are to be promoted and which discouraged and even criminalized, the State tries to claw back our victories, particularly those won by the women's and gay movements and the movement for welfare, which have concentrated on establishing our right to do what we want with our own bodies, and our right to economic, legal and social independence from the family. The anti-porn lobby has consistently said that "pornography is the theory, rape is the practice." On the contrary: anti-porn is the theory; economic, political and sexual repression - and that can only mean universal rape - is the practice.
All images, no matter how partial or distorted, are reflections of the real power relations among us. We are dependent on images to find out about other people and the world we live in. Information we get in this way may help or hinder us in our pursuit of a better understanding of ourselves and our possibilities: what we can/want to do with our lives as opposed to what we are supposed to do: to mould ourselves on stereotypes. We therefore want images to inform us about what we need to know and to express clearly the reality we experience; as well as to be stimulating, exiting and beautiful; and we want to replace images which are not working for us in these ways. Images are often the lies through which people with more power impose on those who have less power their version of events, and indicate what we should desire and what they will approve. Anti-porn feminists only skim the surface. They attack the images instead of attacking the reality - the power relations - which the images reflect. Rather than acknowledging the images as an integral part of reality, images are blamed for the violence of reality; visual violence against women is disconnected from the violence of poverty and economic dependence which are mirrored in pornography, violent or not. Anti-pornographers may agree that women are exploited but they refuse to attack that exploitation.
Even their attack on the images is partial. What is most degrading about images of women is that our struggle to refuse all forms of violence and degradation is almost always absent: women are portrayed not only doing the jobs that we do, whether with our clothes on or off, but as consenting, even happy, slaves. If the models are dressed, anti-porn lobbyists seem oblivious of the ways in which this distorted image of us attacks us.
"Lukewarm" sex - lesbian women who are into S&M call it "vanilla sex" . . . whatever sex each of us may like, if it is consensual we have a right to it, and to see reflections of it in pornographic or other images. The stereotypical sex-images anti-porn feminists want to impose on others could not express the variety of the sexual reality and would instead deny the experiences of the millions of women and men who are not only, or at all, into "vanilla sex". So-called "perverted sex" is a form of escapism not that different from Gothic novels or horror films: fantasies in which the power relations are transformed and the subtleties of reality with its demands of decision temporarily forgotten (or are being worked out on another level). The effect of anti-porn is to push sexual choices back to a dark corner and isolate sexual feelings and activity from the rest of life. Any sex, from "vanilla" to S&M, can be a vehicle for violence when it is cut off from compassion (which itself is repressed and splintered into various segregated parts). Sex then becomes an area of darkness in which to give vent to our most secret fears and emotions. (A great attraction of David Lynch's films is that they are based on how people relate when all the characters, not only the hero/Heroine, emerge from that dark corner.)
Anti-pornographers seem to understand the attractions of S&M better than anyone. Some even seem to revel in gory descriptions and interpretations of porn. Why would anyone spend so much time watching and commenting on something they found so repulsive unless the rewards - financial, sexual or both - made it worth while? Opposing porn provides a socially acceptable and even profitable opportunity to indulge one's sexual pleasure while blaming others for one's own taste. (Not surprisingly, Andrea Dworkin's novels Ice and Fire and Mercy have been accused of being pornographic.)
But unlike sado-masochists who confine themselves to consenting sexual acts, anti-pornographers get their satisfaction from forcing themselves - and the State - on everyone - denying, banning, censoring, admonishing, punishing. Punishing - a strong urge which seems to provide sexual pleasure for many, from anti-pornographers to judges.
The anti-porn lobby fails to distinguish between the workers, the bosses and the products. The porn industry is exploitative like any other industry. Should commercial food, clothes, cars, TVs, etc., be banned because their respective industries exploit the workers who produce these goods, or should we support workers' demands for better working conditions? The coal industry is polluting, and working conditions are horrendous. Should we not have supported the 1984-5 strike of mining communities against the closure of pits on which their livelihood depended? In campaigning for prostitutes we underline the distinction between sex workers and the work they do. We know from experience that campaigning for the abolition of the prostitution laws which criminalize women for refusing poverty and financial dependence on men, is inseparable from campaigning for economic alternatives to prostitution: higher benefits, grants and wages so that no woman is forced by poverty into sex with anyone, for money or for "free". Campaigning for abolition is for us inseparable from campaigning to get all women's work - including sex work waged and unwaged, recognised and counted as work so that we can get back the wealth we have helped produce: the resources we need to refuse all exploitation, all prostitution... including what Virginia Woolf called "intellectual harlotry".
Marriage and Contracts, Masochism, and Sadism
My aunt recently said to me, that the reason masochism and BDSM relationships are wrong and are not real free and equal relationships, is because masochists (and sadists as well in fact) use contracts, and that contracts are not real authentic and intimate nor real shared and free and equal agreements. In some ways, my aunt made a good point, but she doesn't know where this idea of contracts with masochists and sadists comes from, and I don't think she really understands much about it all in a wider social and interpersonal context, along with all the social and interpersonal causes, issues, and applications of it all about masochism and sadism and BDSM matters, and in other contexts and implications to other things.
To give an example about these matters, I recently watched an episode of the politicians and the public questions discussion and debate TV programme Question Time, and one question which was raised by a member of the public and the audience, was about the conservative government's policy of giving tax-breaks to married couples, in order to subtly coerce and persuade them to get married, because the conservative politicians and some others, say and believe that marriage is better for families and children, and what's more than married couples are much more happier.
To use my aunts example here, most people in marriages, do not either love nor desire each other, and they are not happy at all, and quite the opposite to all these matters and things. The reason for this, is because as my aunt said about masochism and BDSM relationships, because marriage is a contract without real authentic shared agreement and authenticity, and it is based upon coercion and social engineering and social control without genuinely free and equal shared agreements, with all the negative and destructive social and interpersonal rules and rigid and narrow roles, acting and inauthentic role-playing, and the love and emotional and sexual repression of both men and women (or with same-sex people in the case of gay or lesbian people who get married).
However, there are still quite a lot of people, who appear at least to be very happy within their married relationships, and who genuinely love and desire each other, but these couples who are married in these ways, only appear to others to be married in a microcosmic social, and economic sense, but they only get married to please society, and then to create new ideas of marriage, but in a more social and interpersonal sense and in terms of true love and desire, they are in fact not married at all. The reason their appear to be fully married, and they genuinely love and desire each other and are happy, is also because whilst they are married in a social and economic sense, they do not conform to the very narrow, rigid, and destructive rules and roles of love and desire which destroys true love and desires.
So the idea of contracts that masochist and sadist and other BDSM people use, isn't a deviation, and it doesn't grow on trees, as my aunt said and suggested, but it actually comes from vanilla and non-BDSM and non-masochist and non-sadist relationship and society, via things like marriage and other types of relationships abstractions and social control, and what's more, neither love and desire or relationship contracts, nor marriage is not really the problem, because all of these things are of value or not according to ways they are negatively conformed to, regressed or progressed, combined with other things and how these things are either ironically or too literally put into practise and applied.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
To give an example about these matters, I recently watched an episode of the politicians and the public questions discussion and debate TV programme Question Time, and one question which was raised by a member of the public and the audience, was about the conservative government's policy of giving tax-breaks to married couples, in order to subtly coerce and persuade them to get married, because the conservative politicians and some others, say and believe that marriage is better for families and children, and what's more than married couples are much more happier.
To use my aunts example here, most people in marriages, do not either love nor desire each other, and they are not happy at all, and quite the opposite to all these matters and things. The reason for this, is because as my aunt said about masochism and BDSM relationships, because marriage is a contract without real authentic shared agreement and authenticity, and it is based upon coercion and social engineering and social control without genuinely free and equal shared agreements, with all the negative and destructive social and interpersonal rules and rigid and narrow roles, acting and inauthentic role-playing, and the love and emotional and sexual repression of both men and women (or with same-sex people in the case of gay or lesbian people who get married).
However, there are still quite a lot of people, who appear at least to be very happy within their married relationships, and who genuinely love and desire each other, but these couples who are married in these ways, only appear to others to be married in a microcosmic social, and economic sense, but they only get married to please society, and then to create new ideas of marriage, but in a more social and interpersonal sense and in terms of true love and desire, they are in fact not married at all. The reason their appear to be fully married, and they genuinely love and desire each other and are happy, is also because whilst they are married in a social and economic sense, they do not conform to the very narrow, rigid, and destructive rules and roles of love and desire which destroys true love and desires.
So the idea of contracts that masochist and sadist and other BDSM people use, isn't a deviation, and it doesn't grow on trees, as my aunt said and suggested, but it actually comes from vanilla and non-BDSM and non-masochist and non-sadist relationship and society, via things like marriage and other types of relationships abstractions and social control, and what's more, neither love and desire or relationship contracts, nor marriage is not really the problem, because all of these things are of value or not according to ways they are negatively conformed to, regressed or progressed, combined with other things and how these things are either ironically or too literally put into practise and applied.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
The Very Major Differences and Distinctions and the very Slight and Very Partial Similarity Between Self-harm and Masochism
The biggest mistake and set of very inaccurate and very false misconceptions about masochism by and within both psychotherapy, psychiatry, and psychiatric mental health, is that the psychological and social causes of both these very separate things, are seen and misunderstood by psychotherapy, psychiatry, and psychiatric mental health as being exactly the same, although there is one very slight but very partial similarity between the two.
Whilst all forms of sexuality and sexual-orientations have elements of both attraction, attractiveness, repulsion and disgust, masochism can only really be understood by realising and understanding the ways that attraction and repulsion and disgust are linked and related within and by masochists, the ways that the two things alternate, differentiate, separate, change into each other and then re-differentiate - how this all operates and applies in very different ways both within and between masochists, switches (people who are both sexually dominant, submissive, sadistic, and masochistic) and sadists - and how all of these different factors and different sexual-orientations and people connect, interrelate, relate and interact, work together and find a consensus and a common ground, agree to differ, and then part ways.
However, to reveal and explain about all of this about masochists, switches, and sadists, is not the purpose of this article, as it is to explain the major differences, distinctions, and the slight and very partial similarity between self-harm and masochism, although again, even these slight similarities are very different in their details, very basic elements, and in their entireties.
Also, whilst masochism and self-harm are very, very different things, revealing, realising, and understanding about all of this in great details and entirety about masochism, switches, and sadism - by using and applying a most highly ingenious contrast and a pluralistic contextual and detailed association and set of both contrasted and related associations - all sheds light in a totally new and greater understanding of and about self-harm and self-harmers, but this is also not the purpose of this article, as I will only refer to and mention in this article the very limited, partial, pre-existing and very incomplete social and psychological explanations of self-harm and self-harmers.
Self-harm by self-harmers, is basically about emotional numbness, mental and emotional distress and pain, anxiety, and/or depression, and it is about how self-harmers harm themselves physically in order to override these things and their experiences of and with them, and because they either do this because they are dissociating from the mental and emotional distress and pain, anxiety, or depression, or because they are trying to diminish and counteract the dissociation and/or depersonalisation they feel by self-harming, in order to wake up and feel more real.
Many self-harmers also self-harm, because many of them have been abused and traumatised in their pasts, and they are wanting to make different associations with mental and emotional pain and distress, and sometimes they trick themselves into believing that the physical pain of their self-harm, is actually the emotional pain and distress, because their feelings of mental and emotional pain and distress have been suppressed and repressed by more unjust punishment and abuse in their pasts, and this is their way of feeling and believing that they now have some control over the mental and emotional pain and distress by hurting themselves physically by self-harming.
All of these social and psychological causes and factors of and about self-harm, have absolutely no connection or relation, to or with the very partial social and psychological causes of masochism, except the fact that both self-harmers and masochists both seek to make and do actually make some different associations between mental and emotional pain and distress, and physical pain, but the ways that each do this, are very, very different.
Another very major difference and distinction, is that the types of associations that masochists use and make, are very different from the types of associations that self-harmers use and make, and what's more these associations that masochists use and make, unlike self-harmers, have absolutely nothing to do with any kind of dissociation or depersonalisation in any ways whatsoever.
What's more, self-harmers do not get pleasure from either emotional and mental pain or distress, and neither do they get pleasure from physical pain, whilst many aspects of masochism have absolutely nothing to do with either emotional and mental or physical pain, as the humiliation by the opposite sex that masochists enjoy is neither emotional nor physical pain (although being humiliated can cause of lead to emotional pain) but being humiliated is actually psychological discomfort and both a reduction, a moderation, and an expansion of personal and social identity and self-esteme.
What's more, the sexual and affection submissiveness that masochists love and enjoy towards the opposite sex, is neither mental and emotional nor physical pain, nor is it any kind of psychological or identity changing or discomfort, as submissive love and desire is to do with feelings and desires of fondness, pleasantness, happiness, positive emotions and desires, and attraction.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
Whilst all forms of sexuality and sexual-orientations have elements of both attraction, attractiveness, repulsion and disgust, masochism can only really be understood by realising and understanding the ways that attraction and repulsion and disgust are linked and related within and by masochists, the ways that the two things alternate, differentiate, separate, change into each other and then re-differentiate - how this all operates and applies in very different ways both within and between masochists, switches (people who are both sexually dominant, submissive, sadistic, and masochistic) and sadists - and how all of these different factors and different sexual-orientations and people connect, interrelate, relate and interact, work together and find a consensus and a common ground, agree to differ, and then part ways.
However, to reveal and explain about all of this about masochists, switches, and sadists, is not the purpose of this article, as it is to explain the major differences, distinctions, and the slight and very partial similarity between self-harm and masochism, although again, even these slight similarities are very different in their details, very basic elements, and in their entireties.
Also, whilst masochism and self-harm are very, very different things, revealing, realising, and understanding about all of this in great details and entirety about masochism, switches, and sadism - by using and applying a most highly ingenious contrast and a pluralistic contextual and detailed association and set of both contrasted and related associations - all sheds light in a totally new and greater understanding of and about self-harm and self-harmers, but this is also not the purpose of this article, as I will only refer to and mention in this article the very limited, partial, pre-existing and very incomplete social and psychological explanations of self-harm and self-harmers.
Self-harm by self-harmers, is basically about emotional numbness, mental and emotional distress and pain, anxiety, and/or depression, and it is about how self-harmers harm themselves physically in order to override these things and their experiences of and with them, and because they either do this because they are dissociating from the mental and emotional distress and pain, anxiety, or depression, or because they are trying to diminish and counteract the dissociation and/or depersonalisation they feel by self-harming, in order to wake up and feel more real.
Many self-harmers also self-harm, because many of them have been abused and traumatised in their pasts, and they are wanting to make different associations with mental and emotional pain and distress, and sometimes they trick themselves into believing that the physical pain of their self-harm, is actually the emotional pain and distress, because their feelings of mental and emotional pain and distress have been suppressed and repressed by more unjust punishment and abuse in their pasts, and this is their way of feeling and believing that they now have some control over the mental and emotional pain and distress by hurting themselves physically by self-harming.
All of these social and psychological causes and factors of and about self-harm, have absolutely no connection or relation, to or with the very partial social and psychological causes of masochism, except the fact that both self-harmers and masochists both seek to make and do actually make some different associations between mental and emotional pain and distress, and physical pain, but the ways that each do this, are very, very different.
Another very major difference and distinction, is that the types of associations that masochists use and make, are very different from the types of associations that self-harmers use and make, and what's more these associations that masochists use and make, unlike self-harmers, have absolutely nothing to do with any kind of dissociation or depersonalisation in any ways whatsoever.
What's more, self-harmers do not get pleasure from either emotional and mental pain or distress, and neither do they get pleasure from physical pain, whilst many aspects of masochism have absolutely nothing to do with either emotional and mental or physical pain, as the humiliation by the opposite sex that masochists enjoy is neither emotional nor physical pain (although being humiliated can cause of lead to emotional pain) but being humiliated is actually psychological discomfort and both a reduction, a moderation, and an expansion of personal and social identity and self-esteme.
What's more, the sexual and affection submissiveness that masochists love and enjoy towards the opposite sex, is neither mental and emotional nor physical pain, nor is it any kind of psychological or identity changing or discomfort, as submissive love and desire is to do with feelings and desires of fondness, pleasantness, happiness, positive emotions and desires, and attraction.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
The Human Brain and the Intellect, the Imagination, and the Cognitive Rational Emotions as an Erotic and Sexual Aphrodisiac
The Human Brain and the Intellect, the Imagination, and the Cognitive Rational Emotions as an Erotic and Sexual Aphrodisiac
It's not a case of "All men think with their penises" (meaning that the sexual-physical-bodily biological and genital desires and lusts of all men, fuel, control, and completely influence and determine all of our thoughts and feelings), as my genitals and the whole of my orgasmic body and being, also desires and lusts reciprocally with and between my brain, and with, between, and from all my thoughts and feelings which come from my brain and from my actual intellectual, rational, and emotional cognition - both in terms of the fact that I have a very different brain and organic so-called nervous system, and the fact that this is also a different modality of feeling, thinking, and consciousness - of which I also freely choose, and which is also a different path I have chosen by my own choice and freewill.
At first, I didn't understand why I was like this, but now I have cracked it all and I now understand the structure, processes, functions, contents, and general order, patterns, and basic overall material and biological nature of all of this about me; but which have been totally misinterpreted by many people in the past as me "mind masturbating" or "thinking with my penis", but in actual fact it is all the other way around - that my brain, thoughts, and cognitive feelings - create, energise, and fuel my sexual and erotic desires and sexual-love feelings.
There are however, other things about women that turn me on, which sexually and erotically arouse, stimulate, and which sentiently and sensually create sensations, and which arouse and create soft and warm sexual-loving and emotional thoughts and feelings, but all of this reciprocal polarity between my bodily and genital sexual and erotic desires, and which overall primarily all comes from my cerebral/brain cognitive and emotional thoughts and feelings - as the engine-block and driving force or energy of all those things - is a big part of me and of who and what I actually am, in both physical, biological, material, and in social, interpersonal, and psychological terms.
It's not a case of "All men think with their penises" (meaning that the sexual-physical-bodily biological and genital desires and lusts of all men, fuel, control, and completely influence and determine all of our thoughts and feelings), as my genitals and the whole of my orgasmic body and being, also desires and lusts reciprocally with and between my brain, and with, between, and from all my thoughts and feelings which come from my brain and from my actual intellectual, rational, and emotional cognition - both in terms of the fact that I have a very different brain and organic so-called nervous system, and the fact that this is also a different modality of feeling, thinking, and consciousness - of which I also freely choose, and which is also a different path I have chosen by my own choice and freewill.
At first, I didn't understand why I was like this, but now I have cracked it all and I now understand the structure, processes, functions, contents, and general order, patterns, and basic overall material and biological nature of all of this about me; but which have been totally misinterpreted by many people in the past as me "mind masturbating" or "thinking with my penis", but in actual fact it is all the other way around - that my brain, thoughts, and cognitive feelings - create, energise, and fuel my sexual and erotic desires and sexual-love feelings.
There are however, other things about women that turn me on, which sexually and erotically arouse, stimulate, and which sentiently and sensually create sensations, and which arouse and create soft and warm sexual-loving and emotional thoughts and feelings, but all of this reciprocal polarity between my bodily and genital sexual and erotic desires, and which overall primarily all comes from my cerebral/brain cognitive and emotional thoughts and feelings - as the engine-block and driving force or energy of all those things - is a big part of me and of who and what I actually am, in both physical, biological, material, and in social, interpersonal, and psychological terms.
The Real Contexts and Meanings Of the Terms Messiah and Vessels in the Bible and Christianity
The Real Contexts and Meanings Of the Terms Messiah and Vessels in the Bible and Christianity
I am a big fan of the Goddess Community. However, many of them have both very unjustly, very ignorantly, and very unwisely rejected, and completely and utterly misrepresented, misinterpreted, and misunderstood what Jesus Christ meant when he said he was the messiah in the Bible.
Jesus Christ said that he was the messiah, not to any man, but to a woman at a well, and he was a heterosexual and love masochist towards and with women. Jesus Christ was also in reality and in fact, half-Jewish and half-Aramaic - and the Aramaic meaning and use of the term "messiah" means servant of the divine, it does not mean master nor mistress, and in this context when he told the woman at the well that he was the messiah, Jesus Christ meant that he was a servant of the Goddess and of her and other women.
Of course, the vast amount of Christians believe just in God and not in any Goddess, as in the gentile Christian culture and religion, they tend to find a spiritual truth or truths, and a spiritual reality, and then they look for no further spiritual truths or realities, and which is a very limited, very blinkered, and a most ignorant and prejudiced very conservative tendency, whilst in the Jewish and Irish cultures, everything and all spiritual and political matters are up for further debate, discussion, and investigation.
There may be a God as the gentile-Christians say, but that does not mean to say that God hasn't got a wife, but which is the Mother and the Goddess of all creation.
Jesus Christ also said in the Bible that you cannot serve two masters - meaning the master of the patriarchal misinterpreted, misrepresented, and very-exclusive divine being of a heavenly father God, and the other patriarchal God of the Devil - but Jesus Christ meant by all these statements, that you have to serve the Goddess and who is the Mother of the universe and of all human Creation, and that you have to serve sexually and love influential, sexually assertive and sexually dominant women, a dominatrix or dominatrices, and in fact all women.
Thus, this is again what Jesus meant when he told the woman at the well that he was her servant of both God and but especially of the Goddess and of all women.
Despite what somewhat misogynist and very patriarchal religions, theologies, and college and university academia and academics claim, the real truth and reality of all these matters, are that all the real genuine and substantial political and spiritual knowledge comes from women, as contrary to the way the Bible has deliberately lied, or very wildly and inaccurately been misinterpreted about these things by describing all women as weaker vessels - men are actually the these vessels (and servants of women in these ways), as all men are the vessels of the genuine and substantial political and spiritual knowledge of which they and we all receive and transform from women, in many different ways - including socially, interpersonally in some communication between us, erotically, sexually, through the semiotic and somewhat subconscious words, tonal nature, over-lapping contextual patterns, shapes, and configurations of the languages and words women use and express, from women's body-language, and through love and emotional transference between men and women, but which again, all of these things and matters primarily come from women.
Whether any of us, actually believe that a Goddess actually exists or not at all, either superstitiously, symbolically, or metaphorically, it is an undeniable fact that women are the real creators of all human-life through childbirth, and it is also a fact and a reality that all men are really the vessels of women, as I have revealed and explained in this article, but then all of these men then steal and claim all of this political and spiritual knowledge as their own wisdom, intelligent writings, findings, new knowledge, and theories and propagate and tell the absolute lies that this is all their own creations.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
I am a big fan of the Goddess Community. However, many of them have both very unjustly, very ignorantly, and very unwisely rejected, and completely and utterly misrepresented, misinterpreted, and misunderstood what Jesus Christ meant when he said he was the messiah in the Bible.
Jesus Christ said that he was the messiah, not to any man, but to a woman at a well, and he was a heterosexual and love masochist towards and with women. Jesus Christ was also in reality and in fact, half-Jewish and half-Aramaic - and the Aramaic meaning and use of the term "messiah" means servant of the divine, it does not mean master nor mistress, and in this context when he told the woman at the well that he was the messiah, Jesus Christ meant that he was a servant of the Goddess and of her and other women.
Of course, the vast amount of Christians believe just in God and not in any Goddess, as in the gentile Christian culture and religion, they tend to find a spiritual truth or truths, and a spiritual reality, and then they look for no further spiritual truths or realities, and which is a very limited, very blinkered, and a most ignorant and prejudiced very conservative tendency, whilst in the Jewish and Irish cultures, everything and all spiritual and political matters are up for further debate, discussion, and investigation.
There may be a God as the gentile-Christians say, but that does not mean to say that God hasn't got a wife, but which is the Mother and the Goddess of all creation.
Jesus Christ also said in the Bible that you cannot serve two masters - meaning the master of the patriarchal misinterpreted, misrepresented, and very-exclusive divine being of a heavenly father God, and the other patriarchal God of the Devil - but Jesus Christ meant by all these statements, that you have to serve the Goddess and who is the Mother of the universe and of all human Creation, and that you have to serve sexually and love influential, sexually assertive and sexually dominant women, a dominatrix or dominatrices, and in fact all women.
Thus, this is again what Jesus meant when he told the woman at the well that he was her servant of both God and but especially of the Goddess and of all women.
Despite what somewhat misogynist and very patriarchal religions, theologies, and college and university academia and academics claim, the real truth and reality of all these matters, are that all the real genuine and substantial political and spiritual knowledge comes from women, as contrary to the way the Bible has deliberately lied, or very wildly and inaccurately been misinterpreted about these things by describing all women as weaker vessels - men are actually the these vessels (and servants of women in these ways), as all men are the vessels of the genuine and substantial political and spiritual knowledge of which they and we all receive and transform from women, in many different ways - including socially, interpersonally in some communication between us, erotically, sexually, through the semiotic and somewhat subconscious words, tonal nature, over-lapping contextual patterns, shapes, and configurations of the languages and words women use and express, from women's body-language, and through love and emotional transference between men and women, but which again, all of these things and matters primarily come from women.
Whether any of us, actually believe that a Goddess actually exists or not at all, either superstitiously, symbolically, or metaphorically, it is an undeniable fact that women are the real creators of all human-life through childbirth, and it is also a fact and a reality that all men are really the vessels of women, as I have revealed and explained in this article, but then all of these men then steal and claim all of this political and spiritual knowledge as their own wisdom, intelligent writings, findings, new knowledge, and theories and propagate and tell the absolute lies that this is all their own creations.
Peter H. Donnelly
2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)