Uh Oh! Your Kindle Porn Machine Doesn't Work. Better Send It Back!

reply to post by Frater210


The reason we refer to them in the same breath is due to how Christianity has intertwined the two. Yes, men/women did form cohabitation unions. Just as Romans, Greeks and other civilizations did the same. I did not say orgies were everywhere. I did say they participated in them, and was a common occurrence. Marriage as we know it was defined by the church in the middle ages to combat the growing problem of fatherless children. It is the church that has perverted a lot of man's natural instincts.

I know sex is a touchy subject (no pun intended), but it amazes me how narrow minded the west can be when the subject does come up for discussion. Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating throwing out marriage or establishing orgies. But what I am saying is maybe our brains have been rewired to what it is now due to the taboo and evil connotations that religious society has forced on us over the last several hundred years. Our brains have been conditioned to believe sex is bad, and should only be used for child bearing. We are raised that way. Our natural instincts pull at us and cause conflicted emotions about it. Some of us get it, and others fight it. It is this internal struggle that keeps people in the shadows about it.

reply to post by haarvik

Some of us get it, and others fight it. It is this internal struggle that keeps people in the shadows about it.

Pure genius, haarvik. That is what was the impetus for me posting this thread in the first place. It was my own knee jerk reaction to the Yahoo article that you are seeing in the OP.

Boy am I glad that you stuck around. Friends and I have been trying to boil this all down and you have come to the same conclusions as the rest of us. Welcome.

I had this idea; that maybe if we had small groups in multiple countries, and organized it through ATS, we could some how do some 'Crowd Sourced' philosophy. We could choose a text and all do the analysis on it and then compare notes on what we think is in the text that is universally important to humankind. You seem to have shown that we might get some interesting results by doing this.

Thanks for sticking around. Back soon with more blathering.

reply to post by Frater210


You have also hit the nail on the head in your summation. Dialog, discussion. This is what leads to understanding and bringing out the real issue. Too often people stand firm on something without understanding why. Name calling and insults usually ensue, and that detracts from really making any progress.

I will digress that this was the position I took at first by misunderstanding the connotations of the post to begin with. Maybe if more people would truly discuss instead of defending, we could move forward on a multitude of topics.

reply to post by haarvik

The reason we refer to them in the same breath is due to how Christianity has intertwined the two. Yes, men/women did form cohabitation unions. Just as Romans, Greeks and other civilizations did the same.

So, are you saying that 'marriage' was more about, say, shared work load and keeping track of lineage versus what you seem to be inferring is the Christian conception that marriage must be monogamous?

That is rather black and white but I am more than willing to hear what you have to say about it.

I did not say orgies were everywhere.

Yeah, but the visual was funny so I went with it.

Marriage as we know it was defined by the church in the middle ages to combat the growing problem of fatherless children.

No, not marriage, just the legalese that surrounds it. Marriage has been a common facet of human society for as long as we have history. Check Native Americans and the Tlinglit if you are so inclined. In fact just stick with the Pac Northwest Indians. It may not look Catholic but it's marriage. It's the chemicals, Harrvik. What do you think?

It is the church that has perverted a lot of man's natural instincts.

Nay, brother, we do it all to ourselves. Right down to arming the cops with the pepper spray and tazers we complain about. I am leaning to 'we do it all to ourselves', for learning is the only logical reason I can come up with and it is not logic but a paradox. Which is good, in Occultism, when you see a paradox, it is like a sure indication that we are on the right track. What do you think?

I know sex is a touchy subject (no pun intended), but it amazes me how narrow minded the west can be when the subject does come up for discussion.

Except me right?

Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating throwing out marriage

I don't think any of us could. People want more marriage these days. Not less. They are clamoring for it. And I say give it to anyone that is in Love. In buckets.

or establishing orgies. But what I am saying is maybe our brains have been rewired to what it is now due to the taboo and evil connotations that religious society has forced on us over the last several hundred years.

Count on it dude. All that wiring is very soft and malleable, especially at certain ages (5-12 for instance).

reply to post by haarvik

Maybe if more people would truly discuss instead of defending, we could move forward on a multitude of topics.

I think it makes us close to being God Like. But don't tell him that.

I am very glad to make your acquaintance.

reply to post by Frater210


I think a lot of what we refer as marriage was a union of men and women for the purpose of carrying on our lineage. Like animals, we tend to mate with what we perceive as a strength to ensure our genes are passed along with the greatest chance of survival. I think at some point as we advanced, we realized the benefits of a monogamous union. However, there were some societies that did not. This is the paradox that IMO has contributed to our stigma about sex.

Yes, I was referring to the legalese that surrounds modern marriage.

Nay, brother, we do it all to ourselves. Right down to arming the cops with the pepper spray and tazers we complain about. I am leaning to 'we do it all to ourselves', for learning is the only logical reason I can come up with and it is not logic but a paradox. Which is good, in Occultism, when you see a paradox, it is like a sure indication that we are on the right track. What do you think?

Ahh but therein lies the crux of the matter. Yes we do, however it has been learned for the most part. Our entire societal foundation has Christianity as it's base and therefore it's teachings to mold the young minds.

nice to make your acquaintance

reply to post by haarvik

Our entire societal foundation has Christianity as it's base and therefore it's teachings to mold the young minds.

God, right, I know. I have also been thinking about that a lot too. How did we get from Love One Another to stamping out vicious little carbon-copied, pseudo-Spartan-like terrors? I is one (in recovery) so I know of what I describe.

It's a mess. But I bet we get somewhere with it.

Would you like to take a look at this thread? We are kinda swimming in the same pool...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Frater210


Very deep thread, but not one I am a stranger to.
Stories, and in our early days of existence, oral traditions defined us as a people. Our traditions, our way of life was dictated by these stories. If an orator got something wrong, it could have serious repercussions for the generations that followed.

This also follows along the lines of subliminal tampering. I know when I was in high school, my step brother was taking Spanish. He was behind, so they gave him 45 rpm records to bring home to help him. He would put it on the record player when we went to bed and that thing would play all night. To this day I can recite that entire record flawlessly.

Now imagine TPTB transmitting something hidden in your media. How long before your sub-conscience mind accepted what it was being told and changed your opinion or demeanor about something. Maybe causing you to vote for someone you would have otherwise not voted for? Or to purchase something, maybe turn on a friend. The boundaries are limitless. I think this is one reason that if you poll ATS members, you will find a great majority do not spend a large amount of time "tuned in" to media. I think this is probably the reason we can have these discussions. They haven't gotten to us yet.

Conspiracy enough for ya?

Cool. Frater I have been arguing these points with people for years and being beaten about my morality being horrible.

I'm so religiously motivated, one of my boyfriends lived in a Dom House where you would wake up to whipping and screams from the top floor and his bed had a variety of interesting hardware additions as being an "extra" in the house. I've been offered three times to be "trained" to be Dom, or a Madam. Several of my room-mates over time have worked in the sex industry. I've been to the swinger's club, the De Sade club, the sex-freak shows, as an observer. My ex wanted a poly relationship, and I said okay. I still don't care that he screwed others, and found out only that it turns out that I'm so loyal that when I'm in love with two people I can't screw either. I've known prostitutes, and strippers, porn actors, etc.

I'm not exactly the height of the prude.

I don't turn off my ability to see the consequences of behaviours.

Most of those people chose different routes through life than I have. Broken marriages, health issues, premature aging, sexual partner numbers that are staggering, almost none of them have children. Which considering their lifestyle is probably a good thing.

But as an indicator of completely subverted natural process of evolution encouraging people to drop out of the gene pool, in some form of gene suicide, this group shows a success rate that is probably over 90% of them. It isn't a small group. Mixed gender too.

As an judgement call on my part: If one is getting into the triple or quadruple digit partners, and no one is staying for more....you're probably doing it wrong.

The difference between the people from the same group who reject the poison, and the people who drink it daily is starting to become terribly apparent.

How can I judge? Res Ipsa Loquitur - the thing speaks for itself.

These things do seem to act like a weapon of mass depopulation.

When people start talking about our animal instincts, they ignore all the newest wiring in the brain. The animal instincts are important. What makes us HUMAN is the new stuff. The stuff that makes choices for reasons that are capable of seeing past-present-futures, and creating societies and civilizations. Those imperatives are newer, but truly are the thing that defines the difference between us and the damn monkey looking at monkey butts.

I feel uniquely qualified to moralize. I've wandered the entire length of the gutter. A gutter with more stuff in it, but its still a gutter.

Originally posted by Aeons
When people start talking about our animal instincts, they ignore all the newest wiring in the brain. The animal instincts are important. What makes us HUMAN is the new stuff. The stuff that makes choices for reasons that are capable of seeing past-present-futures, and creating societies and civilizations. Those imperatives are newer, but truly are the thing that defines the difference between us and the damn monkey looking at monkey butts.

True love is a drive that has more neuromolecular clout than sex.

Another earlier study conducted by Dr. Helen Fisher, Biological Anthropologist, evaluated the same theory. Fischer, who is also a Research Professor at Rutgers University, put 32 people who were madly in love, into a functional MRI brain scanner: 17 who were madly in love and their love was accepted, and 15 who were madly in love but recently heartbroken.

Fischer describes, in a 2008 TED talk, that while scanning the brains of these 32 test subjects she discovered that the same brain region that becomes active when you feel the rush of coc aine mirrored that of a brain looking at a photo of a romantic love. Fischer began to realize that romantic love is not an emotion but a drive.

She states, “It comes from the motor of the mind, the ‘wanting’ part of the mind, the ‘craving’ part of the mind. The part of the mind, when you’re reaching for that piece of chocolate, when you want to win that promotion at work: the motor of the brain. It’s a drive. And, in fact, I think it’s more powerful than the sex drive.”

She also believes that our sex drive evolved to get us out there to get looking for anything at all, that romantic love developed to focus our mating energy on just one individual and attachment works to tolerate this individual long enough to raise children as a team.

Nuclear porn targets the fundamental organizational unit of our species: the family. Huh. You would have thought it would be more expedient to just put something in the water supply.

Oh, wait...

Can we not just look at the facts and come to an agreement on whether or not this kind of weponized porn is Good or Bad.

I think you are right. I think if we have any hope of snipping the wires on this (or any other weapon), we are going to have to have a show of hands on what separates the Good from the Bad. And we're going to have to stay well away from Moses and his tablets, I guess.

This comes to us from Gurdjieff:

Good is that which promotes Life and Liveliness.

Can we get behind that?

I think I can get behind Life and Liveliness.

The good thing about Moses Tablets, or their analogues, is that they are capable of being universally understood.

Doesn't matter how smart or how dumb, how morally or ethically challenged you are, one does understand the contents. One may choose to eschew them, but it isn't because they don't get it.

Compared to most of the other religions-social phenomena about human interactions, they actually don't require a deep life time of knowledge. You don't need to be immersed from the time you're at the breast of your mother to get it. You can come from many differing places, and the language is not obscure, nor is the meaning customized due to a culture of origin and they translate across languages without cultural reframing.

Don't Murder is still Don't Murder no matter how many languages it moves into. No need for scholars, or gurus, or priests, or .... biologists

en.wikipedia.org...
www.stephen-knapp.com...

Just pointing out why its a good meme.

www.slate.com...

Is it porn? Well—would you tell your mother you were reading it? Here's another test: There are tens of thousands of sex scenes in novels which you could imagine being photographed or filmed in ways that would not necessarily be pornographic. But any faithful filming of, say, the Marquis de Sade's The 120 Days of Sodom—and, I would argue, Office Slave—is going to include moments of pure porn. And if that doesn't meet your definition, there are Kindle books for five bucks or less dealing with incest, bondage, rape, and bestiality. Sooner or later, everyone is going to hit a Potter Stewart threshold.

Ah. The age of Enlightenment has past. We are officially in the hidden Age of Ophiuchus, taming the serpent while running from the bull, and trying not to be poisoned by the scorpion.

Someone inform me what is so awesome about this?

reply to post by Aeons


Hey, is this a thing? Eroticized rage with a distinct corporate flavor? Well, yeah, clearly it is; but is it a big thing? Do we have millions of enervated little Patrick Batemans out there in the white-collar hives? I don't like what the sales figures for this book have to say here.

Toro!

Take, for example, a novel called Office Slave, in which an attractive female CFO is found to be embezzling from her manufacturing company. Rather than go to prison, she agrees to her boss's demand to become the company's sex slave. She is forced to wear slutty (or no) clothing at work; he films her in intimate acts; he instructs male coworkers to beat her physically for perceived transgressions; and she has sex with everyone imaginable, including factory workers (to reward productivity gains), prospective customers (to secure new contracts), a coworker (as a retirement gift), teenage boys (who deliver lunch to the office), etc. And—whaddya know?—no matter how physically abused and mentally degraded she is, she finds she actually enjoys it.

That glass ceiling, ladies? Is actually an ergonomic sex chair.

Originally posted by Frater210

And furthermore; why are you looking at porn on your tablet? What’s wrong with you. We have been bequeathed with the mightiest tool ever to ride on our tool belts (Unix,computers and digital telephony) and guys just wanna look at porn with it.
Excuse me while I eat a shotgun.

What are your thoughts on this ATS?

because my wife is opposed to being tied down, while being penetraded on all holes, while being whipped and spanked by a midget wearing a clown suit.


thats why...

Originally posted by k1k1to

Originally posted by Frater210

And furthermore; why are you looking at porn on your tablet? What’s wrong with you. We have been bequeathed with the mightiest tool ever to ride on our tool belts (Unix,computers and digital telephony) and guys just wanna look at porn with it.
Excuse me while I eat a shotgun.

What are your thoughts on this ATS?

because my wife is opposed to being tied down, while being penetraded on all holes, while being whipped and spanked by a midget wearing a clown suit.


thats why...

Sure, she wouldn't be down for that. It takes a certain rare temperament. However, I imagine you'd have your own objections to your wife in a 4-on-1 bozo dwarf free-for-all, right?

I guess that's the point here. Eroticized aggression is a-ok until it's the woman you love in the donkey show. Or whatever.