Masturbating to Einstein

[Bonobo]

Does this picture reduce Einstein to the level of "boy toy"? Does it take away from his genius? Does it target all scientists as nothing but masturbation fodder or somehow lower the status of men in general?

If a woman masturbates to it, does it do some kind of society-level damage?

For the sake of a good argument, I'd like to hear some convincing reasons for why it DOES have some kind of negative impact.

[Warren DeMontague]

1. "E=MC...LOVIN!"

[galileoreloaded]

2. masturbation "fodder" for women has nothing to do with looks

but attitude and core strength.

i find every day that men with overbuilt bodies and/or excessive tattoos want to LOOK bad ass because they AREN'T badass.

women sniff that shit out in a heartbeat.

men conflate male attraction triggers (appearance) with females (masculinity, ability to provide long term).

if you want to have a real argument of what is/isn't attractive to women, i'll find some real pics and we can discuss the how/why.

[Major Nikon]

3. It depends on the age of the woman

Same as men. There is some difference between the sexes in that regard, but not as much as people think. Ability to provide has more to do with looking for a mate.

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. Ability to provide is an intellectual exercise. Little to do with attraction. n/t

[Major Nikon]

14. Physical attraction, yes

However the same would be true for "attitude and core strength". So my assumption was we had moved past physical attraction alone.

[Bonobo]

4. Two things:

1. This is not really about what women find attractive. That is not the point of the thread. The point is that masturbation fodder is for the purpose of physical self-gratification and does not alter objective reality. Einstein remains Einstein whether or not someone masturbates to him or not.

2. I don't think you can speak to what ALL women masturbate about. Doubtless some masturbate to the idea of a loving man with smoldering eyes who cuddles while others masturbate about being dominated while still others masturbate about phenomenal abs and sexy buttocks.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. Okay, serious answer? Some people are resolutely convinced that physical attraction is inherently

diminishing or degrading.

That men, in particular, are incapable of lusting after a woman and simultaneously comprehending that she is an intelligent human with a brain. That those two ideas can't coexist in our pointy, tiny little heads.

I don't know where this fucking gibberish comes from. I suppose if one is marinating in gobbledygook about how sex itself is inherently oppressive or degrading and "PIV" is an unnatural act imposed on humanity as part of Teh Grrreat Space Patriarchy Conspiracy, it might make sense. Don't even get me started on the "ironclad proven scientific concept of objectification" and the "well understood cognitive process" it supposedly describes....




But the fact is, we are multi-layered creatures and we are more than capable of being attracted to people on totally superficial, physical bases even, without that physical superficial attraction inherently degrading or diminishing the human we are attracted to. It's funny that people who go on about the "madonna/whore complex" seem to be the very ones who seem totally unable to reconcile physical sexuality with other human characteristics.

I've said before that I think a lot of this is papered over, sublimated, or repurposed old-fashioned religious fundamentalism and guilt around sex. I stand by that.

[Major Nikon]

15. It comes from the noble idea that people should only be valued for their mind

And not their bodies, or that someone can arbitrarily decide which of the two deserve how much weight in social situations. Reality dictates that people get to decide which they value to what degree as well as how they wish to be valued to a large degree. This "someone" usually takes the form of those who self declare the moral high ground and then proceed to tell others how they should behave.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. I just don't buy the idea that there's anything "base" or "lower" or somehow degrading about desire.

Or physical attraction. For lack of a better word, Lust.

Certainly- and I've said this before- much of what is labeled as instances of "objectification" (and, as is clearly laid out in the other thread, when you try to drill down to the essence of what, specifically, that word actually means, there is no there there) could be much better described simply as physical attraction with a concurrent lack or failure of empathy.

Which, personally, I think leads to bad sex. Purely superficial sex is one kind of sex, I don't think it is "wrong" sex but it's not what I would personally consider the best sex.

And I find brains and heart irresistably sexy. They work in conjuction with physical attraction, but they're by no means incompatible or somehow at cross purposes.

But again, this idea that physical desire, "lust" is in itself bad or degrading or dirty or nasty or somehow inferior or shameful-- where the fuck does that come from, if NOT religion?

I mean, shit, do the math.

[nomorenomore08]

27. Yeah, religion is it. The idea that "lust" is sinful, along with the mind/body dualism

(which of course is a false dichotomy). Old ideas resurfacing in new, more "respectable" (to some) guises.

[Behind the Aegis]

6. I am not sure I follow.

Personally, it wouldn't go into my, er, um, collection, yeah...that's it...collection of pictures, except maybe my "funny" file. But, I am not really understanding what the crux of the questions are.

[Bonobo]

7. Let me try to explain.

The basic points I am making are, I think, two:

1. It is possible to respect someone for who they are and what they have achieved AND to simultaneously have sexual thoughts about them. As such, the idea of "reducing someone to masturbation fodder" -which implies that you're making someone into something LESS than they truly are - is hogwash, and

2. Masturbating to someone's image does not make them less than what they are. They remain what they are despite what you do in the privacy of your bedroom. Einstein remains Einstein even if someone is excited enough by them to masturbate to their image.

[Behind the Aegis]

8. OK. I understand now. I agree.

The first time I have ever heard something like that was from a preacher who claimed masturbating to a person's image, even if in thought, diminished the person's soul, even if they had no idea it was happening.

[Warren DeMontague]

9. Well, that's a new one.

According to the church of DeMontaguinology, however, it means that person is bathed in healing positive blue quantum orgone energy and slightly more likely, by a minuscule but not statistically insignificant amount, to win the powerball.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. Good to know. Knowing the *real* powerball odds, I can save that $1 a week.

Knowledge is power, dude.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. Einstein is an object.

He's about 36" tall in a poster above my computer desk. To almost anyone alive today, he's an abstraction.

Objectification is inherent in all abstract thought.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. Ghosts are not objects. Dreams are not Objects. Interest rates are not objects.

However, pretty much anything that exists physically, in the space-time continuum (thanks, Einstein!) is an object.

This gobbledygook about "objectification", however, is just complete nonsense. People are physically attracted to 3 dimensional humans in space-time? Who occupy bodies of nasty, sinful flesh, even? Horrors! They should be focused on the platonic idealized soul and NOTHING ELSE!

[ElboRuum]

17. OK, I've got a question, then.

What if I don't like someone's soul? What if I find the person repugnant on the inside, though, physically attractive? What if I have a lack of respect for their personhood because they're really just marginal material or less from a philosophical standpoint, but a healthy appreciation for their physical self?

Where does that fit in the objectification continuum here?

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Like I said, I think a lot of what gets filed under 'objectification' can be more accurately

described as 'sexual attraction with a concomitant lack of empathy'.

Although, surely there are many different forms of sexual attraction and circumstances under which someone might be attracted to another. The objectification thread was educational, because after repeated attempts to nail down a definition of what, precisely, constituted the difference between "good" "non-objectifying" sexual attraction and the "bad" "objectifying" kind, it became glaringly obvious that the proponents of so-called "objectification theory" couldn't come up with any such thing.

Can people be attracted to other people on a purely physical basis, while simultaneously not liking the other person all that much? Sure. We are complex creatures, and so is our sexuality. But to call that "objectification" is nonsense. It doesn't mean you're turning the other person into an object, it means that you want to have sex with them despite not liking them very much. A person you don't like doesn't magically become a chair or a hammer inside your head just because you don't like them.

[ElboRuum]

19. I guess the point I'm making...

Is that it is taken as read that there is a higher, more spiritual, attraction we should be aspiring to that avoids this 'objectification' bugaboo.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that this objectification thingy is real and is damaging and is all of the horrible things that some people seem to think it is. This implies many things. But what it most implies is the idea that all possible such noble attractions exist equally. It says nothing very about the real possibility that this higher, more noble, attraction is often not possible because the spirit you're supposed to be attracted to isn't all that attractive.

I've known people of marginal moral character, dubious personality, and inerrantly selfish motive in about equal parts across gender. Are these spiritual nothings fodder for attraction? The implication in objectification theory, by virtue of its avoidance of the idea that people can seriously suck down to their rotten cores, is that we are "all beautiful" and that sexual objectification stands in the way of all of us "beautiful souls" achieving happiness, damaging us irreparably all the while, and that our society's predilection for the physically beautiful (read male gaze, patriarchy, what-have-you) should be abandoned so that all of our "beautiful souls" can achieve full flower, etc., etc.

The problem with this whole 'objectification' thing is that it denies that this so called noble attraction which is transcendent is, in and of itself 'objectification' by its own definition. What is the difference between finding someone physically vs. spiritually attractive? They both submit to individual criteria of acceptability and, as such, are subject to approval or rejection.

Now, the theory is nonsense. I know this. So to attempt to draw any conclusions from it or deconstruct it to try to eke some wisdom out of it must therefore, by corollary, be nonsense, more or less just an exercise to once again point out what has already been pointed out, that it IS in fact nonsense.

Its just fear and anger at sex and sexuality in general, and I tend to agree that it's a religious dogma of sorts akin to the anti-prurience you would see in the religious right. Lacking a god for fiat, or perhaps not wanting to be seen as relying upon a god for fiat, its adherents turned to pseudoscience for leverage.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Yeah, I think you and I are basically saying the same thing.

Last edited Sat May 25, 2013, 07:09 PM - Edit history (1)

As I said in a different post, it's possible to waste all sorts of time deconstructing how much of our behavior is supposed to be clockwork, and how much orange, that sort of thing. Or whether there is a kernel of selfishness in all altruism, etc.

I'm more of the strain of thought of, people like what they like, if they're all consenting adults and not hurting each other, who am I to judge? My personal, totally subjective take on the matter is that sex (for instance) is better with someone with whom there is an emotional connection, good communication, all that. And as someone who had their share of one night stands back in the day, I can say that it often takes time to suss out what another person likes & dislikes. I've been married, and faithful to, the same person for over a decade-- I don't say this because I think "everyone ought to do this and it's better for everyone", but for me it certainly is.

And it doesn't preclude me -or my wife- from finding other people physically attractive, either. We're grown ups, we can deal with that, and merely finding someone else "hot" is not the same thing (sorry, Jesus) as running out and having sex with them.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. I never thought I'd say this, but I want Einstein's Abs.

E=P90X, or what?

[Bonobo]

22. Here you go!

[Warren DeMontague]

23. I prefer to actually strap an actual washboard to my belly.

Do they even make washboards, anymore?

[opiate69]

24. They sure do!

Ya caint have a bluegrass band without one, by Gawd!
http://www.columbuswashboard.com/

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Believe it or not, my mother's name is McCree.

[opiate69]

26. Must resist.....

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
ah fuck...

Nice jugs!

[nomorenomore08]

28. Hard to believe the guy was ever that young, skinny, and/or clean-shaven...