It takes all the extreme arguments to make the world go around, including Andrea Dworkins.

 Be careful of the animal channel it bites with mediation too. 

Richard Haden

---

From: FM <freemodulation-AT-gmail.com">freemodulation-AT-gmail.com>
To: Discussions of situationist theory <situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org">situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org>
Sent: Wed, August 25, 2010 6:38:39 PM
Subject: Re: sex, domination, survival, freedom (Richard)

You can be sure that my wondering did not aim at making a critique nor a lecture through supposed leaks in the behavior of some members of the list. I just thought that you could understand when it is time to lay down your arms of mistrust and adversity. 

As for my having had "direct" experience with animal wildlife, you're right, it is actually null or nugatory. But I read and mainly watch a lot of documentary films, a kind of production that reached unbelievable scientific levels of accuracy, eventually enabling anybody to "get a real sense of the way animals behave socially" or anyway in their habitat.

I feel let down for the fact that anybody thinks of anti-social behavior, rape or murder, when invited to speak about the double bind between sexual intercourses and dominance, vehemence or just violence. Not only because there's a lot of sociological studies which read a decrease in these kind of violence within those societies where pornography and prostitution are accepted and legally regulated - showing that the feminist rant is mere obsolete moralism. But also for the matter being approachable within authentically scientific paradigm. 

Just like the hint of ethology suggested by the observations that Laurie, me and you proposed.

—

FM

Il giorno 25/ago/2010, alle ore 23.43, richard haden ha scritto:

FM,

I don't need a lecture or critique on how or when I intervene or when I decide to jump into a conversation. You see FM I have a life that makes keeping track of blog conversations less important. 

As for your experience with animals or there natural instincts I can only imagine that your experience with the animal world has to do with overly inbred household pets. These animals behaviors are so far removed from the natural evolutionary track that they originated from, that all is left are traces of instincts that have nothing to do with the animals original social consciousness. Domesticated dogs and cats mostly suffer from neurosis's from being to inbred. You can not get a real sense of the way animals behave socially from Household pets.

All dog breeds come from wolves. The farther removed from the Wolf the more the animal is removed from its nature. As you know dogs are bred for work as well as for store windows. Working dogs are closer to the wild, for instance my two Australian Shepherds, are descended from herding dogs and that is their behavior still. Wolves have a herding instinct too…that is how they hunt, they herd their prey into exhaustion. 

Cats are worthless yet they are nice pets. well…they are good at catching mice in the house too. 

As for pornography, I don't really think it is a problem when it is made in safe non-coercive environments and not just another form of exploitation of workers. As for consuming pornography? Well, it is obviously a big problem for anyone if that becomes a replacement for being socially active or becomes the model for social behavior. When pornography replaces relationships or is let to cause alienation or is let be the standard for how people behave then it is a problem. When people already know the difference between porn and the real world then I don't see a problem. When people are good at being with people first, then porn just ends up being recreational fetish. As well in the US the porn industry has historically help build the case for free speech and added attention to the rights of privacy. Gay porn, has as well contributed to the expanded imagery of sexuality that conserves need to be aware of. 

Gay porn or hetero porn is part of western culture—it can cause anti-social behavior or it can definitely cause the viewing subject to objectify another body, but it doesn't always do that. 

I had a couple of friends once when I lived in San Francisco who were professional dominatrices but that is not my lifestyle. 

Richard Haden

---

From: FM <freemodulation-AT-gmail.com">freemodulation-AT-gmail.com>
To: Discussions of situationist theory <situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org">situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org>
Sent: Wed, August 25, 2010 4:58:14 PM
Subject: sex, domination, survival, freedom (RH)

Indeed

Interesting

Approximately it is what Laurie meant. And me too: you call it control, I wrote "kind of dominance" following Laurie's choice. But I am not sure that it would be right to think it has nothing to do with copulation. We witness a sexual intercourse mimicry which is not intended for reproduction but aims at conveying the idea of control, lead, power. I see that this simple fact eventually demonstrates that copulation is indissolubly associate with power and domination. If not with evident abuse. It's the life-and-death struggle that actually pushes all beings to act that way: reproduction of the species is something we cannot postpone, put at risk, jeopardize. And as you said those dogs mime the sodomy in order to make sure that they get fed first or find the scraps left on a carcass.

Of course, besides natural laws that oblige mankind to act within the laws of survival, we human beings have man-made laws that are called values and among those  values there is one which determines the raison d'etre of all other values: freedom.

Therefore we can understand that sexual pleasure and desire can be detached from the "must and need" of reproduction and so we do, we set them free and independent from the life-and-death struggle laws. But the gene still exerts its influence often inviting us to adopt an aggressive or vehement attitude in order to be more appealing to the senses - circumstance in which I barely found myself (for the record).

The second paragraph of my post was more explicitly dealing with sex instead.

Since I remember that you Richard had defined yourself "dominatrix" (and I am sure you were not kidding) I now realize that within this thread and the previous re pornography you didn't express your viewpoint yet about domination in sexual intercourse etc. (or I might be wrong…)

You decide to intervene now, after that the subject shifted towards the more generic animal kingdom. I wonder whether you're trying to skip the human side of the matter or not, whether you feel no bounds among us and them or not. Or maybe you simply speak now for having a dog in your house. I also would like to know what people think about the border between what must be considered natural and all the rest, that is those so-called acts against (supposed) natural laws. I also am curious to read people's viewpoints on the desire of vehemence: that sort of attraction that (at least a representation of) violence exerts on people's sensibility during sexual intercourse. Desire and attraction which commonly are found in female feelings and emotions (but men as well). As many women (and men too) usually honestly admit.

—

FM

Il giorno 25/ago/2010, alle ore 21.49, richard haden ha scritto:

When there is a pack of dogs or wolves there always arises a dominant male or female ie alpha male or alpha female…it is called the pecking order. The Pecking order is settled by fights between dogs or wolves who feel up to the challenge. It has nothing to do with sex it has to do with control.

In the dog world, dogs come in heat every 6 months; for wolfs it is once a year. The time between breeding cycles has nothing to do with sex it has to do with behaving in the pack. In the wild it has to do with who gets fed first or not at all or who gets the scraps left on a carcass. 

I used to raise Huskies.

Richard Haden

---

From: FM <freemodulation-AT-gmail.com">freemodulation-AT-gmail.com>
To: Discussions of situationist theory <situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org">situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org>
Sent: Wed, August 25, 2010 2:07:12 PM
Subject: Re: sex/violence (Laurie Colson)

Definitely

My friends have 4 dogs, 3 females (grandma, mother, daughter) and a male (grandpa) living all together. The females regularly hump one each other in order to set a kind of dominance.

This make think of another aspect that we can observe among animals, something that is related to the association violence/copulation: did you ever witness a sexual intercourse between cats? I am sure you did. Isn't that vehemence scary somehow? Yes it is. But can we consider it a perversion? Where is the bound «entre nature et contre nature»?

—

FM

Il giorno 25/ago/2010, alle ore 19.29, Laurie Colson ha scritto:

I'm pretty sure that when my dog humps my leg, it is to establish dominance, not because she thinks I'm hot. (I've *almost* established dominance with her!) 

---

From: FM <freemodulation-AT-gmail.com">freemodulation-AT-gmail.com>
To: Discussions of situationist theory <situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org">situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org>
Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 7:44:57 AM
Subject: Re: pornography (Drake)

Drake it is so clear that she is not here for communication…

Btw yes we live in an era where we have evolved that far to take it up as a subject outside of unrequited acceptance.

I do suspect that somewhere, in women and men (might it be within some plies of the dna?), there's an encrypted code which unfortunately associates violence with sexual intercourse since ever. Due to physical predominance, men have exerted their abuse on women for thousands years, and this Hýbris gradually turned into social rules and regulations. On the other hand, many ethnologists had discovered that there are several societies in which women seem to be socially dominant and the community bears no sign of that male embezzlement. We have evolved so far but many people still cannot dissociate copulation from vehemence. Women included.

—

FM

Il giorno 24/ago/2010, alle ore 13.14, R Drake Ewbank ha scritto:

On 8/23/2010 5:41 PM, Vikki Riley wrote:

Drake,

You too seem to have not read Dworkin's work.

Sad.

Vikki

Vikki,

If you didn't understand what I said, then I am glad that at least you apparently understand what she said.

If the premise that the very physical nature of sex and how it is accomplished cannot help except end up engendering exploitation or violence in a way that is unavoidably physiologically determined, then I believe that my last paragraph in my post is actually consistent with some of the published work of Dworkin.

It is actually a large problem as we less and less accept the biological or social role and reason it out, and is only made discussable because we live in an era where we have evolved that far to take it up as a subject outside of unrequited acceptance, thus my allegory of wading into a pond of ice at the beginning of my first post on this.

Also the discarding the notion of ownership, duality, and possession as the basis for the western tradition in relationships and social morality. Stoltenberg, without elaborating, deals with this in his comment about his marriage to her.  It is a progressive view and I thought it an interesting, telling, and even sentimental comment, which is why I quoted it.

Much as James Joyce's wife, Nora, when asked why she did not have a Catholic funeral for him, said, 'I could not do that to him…'

Vikki, though I realise that it may be a departure in style on the list, it would be honestly appreciated to receive something that is not wed to some ad hominem component, or, I guess, disregard this request if it is in your nature to think that is in the nature of this.

drake

_______________________________________________
Situationist mailing list
Situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org">Situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org
http://mail.nothingness.org/mailman/listinfo/situationist

_______________________________________________
Situationist mailing list
Situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org">Situationist-AT-lists.nothingness.org
http://mail.nothingness.org/mailman/listinfo/situationist