Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

This picture is depressing.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I agree that one should not debase himself sexually in public, but does this picture constitute that?

Before we can proceed to an evaluation of the people involved, we first have to settle the issue of what the moral status is of thinking that being an intoxicated idiot who debases him/herself sexually in public to a cheering crowd qualifies as "fun."

I see no "cheering crowd" in this picture. I see no sexual activity, although they are mimicking a sexual act (as happens in all other dancing). I see no skin to skin contact or fluid exchange.. and from their attitude towards women as reflected in the quote eudaemonist just provided I doubt those guys have ever gotten laid.

This is an aside, but it is medically supported for some.

.. if you have an alchohol alergy?

Does social acceptability change the moral status of an act? Does the fact that someone "hasn't put a lot of thought into it" excuse anything?

No.

My wife just recently treated a man for a follow up from the ER. He had a concussion, bruises over all of his body, several stitches, two black eyes, and a rather nasty welt on the back of his head. What did he do to deserve this? He saw a drunk man who was smashing his own car to pieces with a crow bar because he had locked his keys inside and was too sloshed to call a locksmith (or a cab, because where was he going to drive in that state?). This patient simply walked up to Mr. Sloshed and was going to try and talk some sense into him. The drunk thought that the patient was trying to attack him (or something) and sucker punched him with the crow bar. The patient doesn't remember anything after that, but witnesses say the drunk had to be pried off of him; he was rhythmically and continually beating him. If other people hadn't intervened, the drunk would have surely beat him to death.

This is a scary story, but the morality of drinking is a seperate issue from the moral status of the individuals in that photo. Unless you want to argue that they are immoral simply for drinking, which I think I could show pretty easily to be puritanical nonsense.

Edited by badkarma556
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, okay, so they were guilty of dancing in a derogatory manner while drunk. I don't see why making a fool of yourself is immoral per se, but even if it is, as far as moral depravity goes it probably ranks somewhere between jaywalking and really loud music.

My wife just recently treated a man for a follow up from the ER. He had a concussion, bruises over all of his body, several stitches, two black eyes, and a rather nasty welt on the back of his head. What did he do to deserve this? He saw a drunk man who was smashing his own car to pieces with a crow bar because he had locked his keys inside and was too sloshed to call a locksmith (or a cab, because where was he going to drive in that state?). This patient simply walked up to Mr. Sloshed and was going to try and talk some sense into him. The drunk thought that the patient was trying to attack him (or something) and sucker punched him with the crow bar. The patient doesn't remember anything after that, but witnesses say the drunk had to be pried off of him; he was rhythmically and continually beating him. If other people hadn't intervened, the drunk would have surely beat him to death.She came home and told me that story just before I posted the blog entry I referenced earlier. I had planned to tone it down a tad, but after that I decided to leave it as is.
I re-read your post like twice. I still don't understand what the point of this story is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I re-read your post like twice. I still don't understand what the point of this story is.

"Drink most to blame for violent offences"

Alcohol, not drugs, linked to incidents, says survey

Friday July 20, 2007

The Guardian

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs...2130770,00.html

"Violent crime is overwhelmingly fuelled by drink rather than drugs, with nearly half of all incidents linked to alcohol, according to the British Crime Survey published yesterday."

Edited by eudaemonist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Drink most to blame for violent offences"

Alcohol, not drugs, linked to incidents, says survey

Friday July 20, 2007

The Guardian

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs...2130770,00.html

"Violent crime is overwhelmingly fuelled by drink rather than drugs, with nearly half of all incidents linked to alcohol, according to the British Crime Survey published yesterday."

1. We're not talking about violent crimes here. Unless you for some reason consider idiotic dancing violent.

2. Have you ever considered the fact that more violent crimes involve alcohol than other drugs is because alcohol is legal and by far the most widely used (and abused) in terms of number compared to other drugs? I mean, what if people that used alcohol right now used PCP instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. We're not talking about violent crimes here. Unless you for some reason consider idiotic dancing violent.

The "point of the story" you cited was that this guy almost lost his life due to a violent crime resulting from alcohol...I merely linked to a story citing statistics about it.

It would be interesting to do a comparative study of "instances of violent crime per 100,000 substance users". Nevertheless, the fact that 50% of all violent crimes in the UK involve alcohol is troubling to say the least. Real violence is happening today, regardless of how much worse it would be if all alcohol users were on PCP instead.

Edited by eudaemonist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I re-read your post like twice. I still don't understand what the point of this story is.

Look at what it was responding to:

These are probably not people I would hang out with, but I don't see them as a threat to me.

He brought the idea into it that drunks are not threatening. Now nobody in this thread had claimed they are. But the fact is that, since he mentioned it, they are in fact often rather violent.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no sexual activity, although they are mimicking a sexual act (as happens in all other dancing).

I'm not sure how much you know about dancing, but there is a considerable amount of it that does NOT involve "mimicking a sexual act".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that one should not debase himself sexually in public, but does this picture constitute that?

What else is it? What exactly is it that you think they are doing?

I see no "cheering crowd" in this picture. I see no sexual activity, although they are mimicking a sexual act (as happens in all other dancing). I see no skin to skin contact or fluid exchange.. and from their attitude towards women as reflected in the quote eudaemonist just provided I doubt those guys have ever gotten laid.

What does that last bit have to do with it? There is a crowd, although you are right that they aren't visibly cheering (though there are plenty of pictures like this where they are); isn't that enough? Next, do you have to see actual genitalia before you acknowledge what something is?

What does the mens' attitude toward women have to be to do something like that? What does the woman's attitude toward herself have to be? What debasing, depraved views of sex and each other do these people necessarily have to hold in order to do a thing like that, much less be proud of it and post it up on the internet. What wider implications does this have? Think about it for a minute.

.. if you have an alchohol alergy?

Technically it's not an allergy, but yes that is what I meant. I said it was an aside.

Unless you want to argue that they are immoral simply for drinking, which I think I could show pretty easily to be puritanical nonsense.

No I don't. Don't you know the difference between having a drink and being a drunk (and proud of it)?

That's the third time you've tried to put words in my mouth, making me out to be some kind of puritan loon. Stop that, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What else is it? What exactly is it that you think they are doing?

They are dancing. Granted, taken into the larger context of the quotes that were provided along with their clothing and overall appearence I'll concede that they are "degenerate buffoons." I'll accept that conclusion because of their poor grammer, appearence, and attitude towards women. However, there are many situations where dancing in the current fashion of "grinding" is perfectly acceptable. (if not, the only place young people can easily dance is Country and Western bars) Also, drinking in itself is not an issue.

What does that last bit have to do with it? There is a crowd, although you are right that they aren't visibly cheering (though there are plenty of pictures like this where they are); isn't that enough?

There is not a crowd. There are a few people standing in the background talking to each other, plus whoever took the picture.

Next, do you have to see actual genitalia before you acknowledge what something is?

They are not having sex on the dance floor. They are not even "simulating" having sex on the dance floor-- at least not any more than the Tango or the Salsa is simulating sex. To reclassify that as sex would be a conceptual disaster.

What does the mens' attitude toward women have to be to do something like that? What does the woman's attitude toward herself have to be? What debasing, depraved views of sex and each other do these people necessarily have to hold in order to do a thing like that, much less be proud of it and post it up on the internet. What wider implications does this have? Think about it for a minute.

You tell me, since I'm not quite sure. I'm not certain that any particularily depraved viewpoint is neccessary in order to "grind" on a girl. Certainly a lack of shame over one's sexuality, which strikes me as a good thing.

Don't you know the difference between having a drink and being a drunk (and proud of it)?

Well having a drink is certainly not an issue (unless, as I said before, you determine that alcohol is physically harmful to you). Being drunk doesn't even strike me as bad unless the purpose is to escape from reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

m not certain that any particularily depraved viewpoint is neccessary in order to "grind" on a girl. Certainly a lack of shame over one's sexuality, which strikes me as a good thing.

Shame has nothing to do with it--rubbing your dick on random people like a bonobo is hardly the expression of your higher values.

RAND: "I would say that a selective and discriminate sex life is not an indulgence. The term indulgence implies that it is an action taken lightly and casually. I say that sex is one of the most important aspects of man's life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important."

Being drunk doesn't even strike me as bad unless the purpose is to escape from reality.

What other purpose is there? I prefer being able to think and accomplish things, YMMV.

Edited by eudaemonist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shame has nothing to do with it--rubbing your dick on random people like a bonobo is hardly the expression of your higher values.

RAND: "I would say that a selective and discriminate sex life is not an indulgence. The term indulgence implies that it is an action taken lightly and casually. I say that sex is one of the most important aspects of man's life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important."

What other purpose is there? I prefer being able to think and accomplish things, YMMV.

I said "I'm not certain that any particularily depraved viewpoint is neccessary in order to "grind" on a girl" not "grind on a random girl." You're inferring that context. What if, for example, a married couple is out at a club and they decide to dance in that fashion?

Also, the Rand quote, although very good, refers to sex. Dancing with someone doesn't mean you're going to have sex with her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are dancing. Granted, taken into the larger context of the quotes that were provided along with their clothing and overall appearence I'll concede that they are "degenerate buffoons." I'll accept that conclusion because of their poor grammer, appearence, and attitude towards women. However, there are many situations where dancing in the current fashion of "grinding" is perfectly acceptable. (if not, the only place young people can easily dance is Country and Western bars) Also, drinking in itself is not an issue.

Different forms of dancing not withstanding, keep in mind that being "perfectly acceptable" has nothing to do with whether people are being "degenerate buffoons". Many people find it perfectly acceptable to get totally intoxicated then go out and driver their car home. Many people find it perfectly acceptable to steal music off the internet. Many people find it perfectly acceptable to steal towels from hotel/motels they stay in. The list goes on, so I personally have little concern with what's acceptable. Rather, I prefer things evaluated in terms of whether or not they are moral.

Drinking is one thing, but you said "being drunk". "Being drunk" by it's very nature is in essence "evading reality", at least with respect to significantly impairing one's judgment. I don't know how much time you have spent trying to reason with drunks, but I've spent the better part of 22 years doing it on almost a daily basis. Most often, it can't be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted, taken into the larger context of the quotes that were provided along with their clothing and overall appearence I'll concede that they are "degenerate buffoons." I'll accept that conclusion because of their poor grammer, appearence, and attitude towards women.

Good, because that was my point.

There is not a crowd. There are a few people standing in the background talking to each other, plus whoever took the picture.

Yes, exactly. There are lots of people around. They are in public. I.E. a crowd. The distinction you're making is inessential to my point.

They are not having sex on the dance floor. They are not even "simulating" having sex on the dance floor-- at least not any more than the Tango or the Salsa is simulating sex. To reclassify that as sex would be a conceptual disaster.

Nobody was looking to reclassify it as sex, although now that you mention it, sex is any pleasure from contact with the genitals. That wouldn't require any re-classification at all. Hmm, now that you mention it...

You know, that's twice you attacked a position I hadn't made (i.e. straw man), but in doing so gave me an idea. I suggest that your technique is backfiring.

Anyhow, to my original point: Examine the Tango and the Salsa for a minute. What kind of sexual passion do they exemplify? Can there be any doubt that it is the passion of romantic love? Now look at this barnyard-style "grind" dancing. Is that a dance of romantic love? Is that even a dance at all? It looks like a simple mimicking of mindless, animal copulation.

(if not, the only place young people can easily dance is Country and Western bars)

First, that's not true at all. Even if other people are grinding does not mean you have to. Second, even if it did, there is still ballroom dancing, swing dancing, 50's diners with twist dancing, break dancing... whatever it is you call the back-and-forth white-people-thing that people do to rock music (<--I resemble this remark), that dance from the "thriller" video, and all the other kinds of dancing in the world.

I'm not certain that any particularily depraved viewpoint is neccessary in order to "grind" on a girl. Certainly a lack of shame over one's sexuality, which strikes me as a good thing.

No, it isn't. A public shamelessness about indiscriminate sexuality is a hippie attitude. I mean that: it was the hippies who first introduced this to America. Its purpose was not, despite their assurances to the contrary, the removal of Puritan Repression, but rather the Nihilism of all sexual values. A failure to understand the difference is dangerous and this is precisely the difference that I believe you are blind to.

There are some kinds of sexuality that one ought to be ashamed of (i.e. depraved, debasing, self-hating, nihilistic kinds). It is an error to think that one ought to have a total lack of shame for anything and everything sexual; in fact this is the equal and opposite error of the Puritan one that says one ought to have shame about anything and everything sexual.

Reason and truth are not to be found in "the opposite of what the churchies say." For instance, the answer to a call to sacrifice self to others is not to sacrifice others to self, but rather a totally non-sacrificial way of life. A third way, rejecting both errors. It is the same with sexuality.

After all, does it strike you as a "good thing" to be unashamed of running naked into times square and masturbating to pictures of sheep? Because that would be an example of someone who is utterly unashamed of his sexuality. So is the hippie troop that is going at it indiscriminately in the middle of the park.

To the contrary, eudaemonist's quote is quite appropriate; whether the dancing is sex or not, you said that "a lack of shame over one's sexuality... strikes me as a good thing," and thus also was a public and indiscriminate display of one's sexuality. Ayn Rand was making the point that there are very important reasons why sex ought to be discriminate and private and that the claim that this is purely a factor of religious shame is viciously false. In fact, religion itself is the primary source of this claim: they say in not just for sexuality, but for all morality: "if you don't have religion, then all you are left with is nihilism: anything goes!" to which the hippies reply: "damn straight! Weeeeee!"

They are both wrong because the premise itself is wrong: rejection of religion does not mean that "anything goes;" not in sexuality and not in all of ethics.

Being drunk doesn't even strike me as bad unless the purpose is to escape from reality.

What other purpose is there? Being drunk (as opposed to just having a drink) is purposefully making an idiot out of yourself and destroying one's ability to perceive, and function in, reality.

It strikes me that you have a lot of resistance to questioning anything that young people do.

At this point, I have to ask what Objectivism you have read on this subject. Because this is all standard Objectivism on this topic and I wonder if you should be making arguments on an Objectivist forum if you don't even know it. I mean, it's all well and good that you're asking for what's wrong with this picture (there's nothing wrong with wanting to know something), but I can't exactly give you Objectivism 101 on an internet forum. I know that must sound condescending, and I don't mean for it to be, but how else can I say it?

I think most people should withhold their arguments on this forum until they at least have an understanding of Objectivism on a subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different forms of dancing not withstanding, keep in mind that being "perfectly acceptable" has nothing to do with whether people are being "degenerate buffoons". Many people find it perfectly acceptable to ...

To clarify, when I say "I think it is perfectably acceptable" I mean "when I evaluate it, I find it morally OK" not "society accepts it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector,

First, thanks for the lengthy reply. I am not aware of any "standard Objectivism" on dancing or drinking. I read a brief letter by Piekoff on drinking but beyond that wasn't aware of anything Ayn Rand wrote about it. I'm always happy to look up references. Also, since you asked, my self-interest in the topic comes from being around the same age or younger than the people in the photo.

I did not construct a straw man by disagreeing with the claim that "grinding" is "simulated sex." It was clearly refferred to "simulated sex" by Qwertz in post 50. Anyone who starts by reclassifing their dancing as sex begs the question so that the conclusion of their immoral status automatically follows. The other time you accussed me of straw man was when I said I didn't see them as a threat to my life, and I don't see how this consisted of me attacking a position you didn't hold.

I think that covers the personal attacks on me (namely the accusation of not being enough of an Objectivist and of trying to use sophitry to defend the drunk jackasses). Unfortunately, I'll have to discuss the ideas later since I have to go meet up with some friends right now for some wild board game playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not aware of any "standard Objectivism" on dancing or drinking.

There are threads on drinking/drugs and on public displays of sub-animal sex already up on the board (why you would think publicly miming sub-animal sex would be so different as to render Objectivism's position on sex irrelevant is beyond me) which provide the relevant quotes. I would re-quote them but don't have access to my material at the moment. I invite anyone to go ahead and post up the quotes; I know the sex one is from Thought Control Part III. The one about obliterating one's mind with drink/drugs escapes me at the moment (I believe the thread was entitled "The Morality of Alcohol"). Beyond those even is pretty much the whole book The Anti-Industrial Revolution, the essay Apollo and Dionysus and plenty more.

But these are far from the only passages that address this issue; Miss Rand frequently denounced this kind of hippie nihilism. I was more referring to an inductive understanding of Objectivism: it's nigh impossible to read through any significant portion of Objectivism and miss the point that hippie nihilism and its Dionysian drunken-frat-boy leitmotif is immoral and disgusting filth. So you'll excuse me if I assume that you haven't read much Objectivism - it was either that or conclude that you haven't comprehended it very well. Either way, this is not meant as an attack, but rather as constructive criticism. Given that Ayn Rand is a much better teacher than me, I am simply suggesting that you'd be better served learning it from her than here on a forum.

Also, since you asked, my self-interest in the topic comes from being around the same age or younger than the people in the photo.

Indeed, it is very much in your self interest to reject the culture of nihilism that is ubiquitous among young people today. Objectivism, as a philosophy of reason, calls for you to question and reject the irrational edicts of religion and also of hippie hedonism/modernism/nihilism. Now you seem to have the former down pat, but from what I have seen in this thread are dangerously failing to pass judgment on young people and what they do. I suggest you apply the same rigorous logic to the latter that you have to the former.

I did not construct a straw man by disagreeing with the claim that "grinding" is "simulated sex." It was clearly refferred to "simulated sex" by Qwertz in post 50.

I stand corrected. However, as I said the point is in fact valid, as well as my point that it doesn't have to be actual sex to be nihilistic.

The other time you accussed me of straw man was when I said I didn't see them as a threat to my life, and I don't see how this consisted of me attacking a position you didn't hold.

Well it was certainly attacking a position that nobody here had (at that point) stated. Granted, I actually took hold of that position afterward, but at the time that you stated it, it was a straw man. That along with the three other times you straw manned me here does mean that you aren't being careful enough in replying to the people here instead of your own imagination. (and I'm not trying to belittle you with that, but mean it literally)

I think that covers the personal attacks on me (namely the accusation of not being enough of an Objectivist and of trying to use sophitry to defend the drunk jackasses).

I don't see how either of those are personal attacks - the former because my questioning of your knowledge is an aside to this discussion; not a means of attacking you, and the latter because as far as I can tell that's exactly what you're doing. If not these jackasses, who you did concede were jackasses, then this kind of behavior in general. If you're saying that it's a personal attack to say that you are defending these people rather than drunkenness, simulated-sex "dancing," and the whole idea of this kind of jackassery as being "fun" in general, then that doesn't make any sense. It would be inaccurate given what you have said (i.e. that you did denounce these individuals but do defend their behaviors when taken separately), but it wouldn't be a personal attack.

Unfortunately, I'll have to discuss the ideas later since I have to go meet up with some friends right now for some wild board game playing.

By all means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector,

Please consider this my attempt at discussion, not argument.

When I say "sex" I mean, specifically, coitus: "Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina." (American Heritage Dictionary). So if we are in agreement on what sex means then I see no way that "grinding" can be considered sex.

Grinding is "a type of close partner dance where two or more dancers rub their bodies against each other in a manner perceived as sexually suggestive." (Wikipedia) Now, I'm not much of a dancer but I have certainly seen Salsa danced in ways that are less romantic and more sexual. I also think that I've seen grinding passionate enough for me to consider it romantic. So you say that Tango and Salsa are romantic wheras Grinding is not.. what makes one romantic and the other not romantic?

On to my Country Western remark. In the United States at least, I don't see many other types of dances going on. Unless you live somewhere with a lot of night life you are not going to find a Swing club or even someplace with a Latin night. You could go to a rock concert like you said and sway rhythmically like a zombie if you call that dancing. You could go to a Country Western bar and line dance, which is probably the least romantic dancing around (walking around in a circle dressed like a moron.. fun!). So although I know you don't intend it, my first response to your hatred of grinding and drinking was to see an assault on celebrating in general.

No, it isn't. A public shamelessness about indiscriminate sexuality is a hippie attitude. I mean that: it was the hippies who first introduced this to America. Its purpose was not, despite their assurances to the contrary, the removal of Puritan Repression, but rather the Nihilism of all sexual values. A failure to understand the difference is dangerous and this is precisely the difference that I believe you are blind to.

So, in your view as far as not dancing the mystics really got it right in this case? I simply do not see the connection you make between indiscriminite sexuality and suggestive dancing. Close dancing does not neccessarily imply sexuality. For example, in South Korea many Korean men dance close together in clubs but they are not gay (even though US soldiers accuse them of it all the time). Even here, girls grind on each other in clubs, but there is nothing sexual about it.

People here walk around with a lot of exposed skin and sexually suggestive clothing. Is this indiscriminte sexuality? It's certainly some type of sexuality. Should we all wear Burkas? Probably not.

So what makes "grinding" indisciminite sexuality? What makes it "depraved, debasing, self-hating, and nihilistic"?

After all, does it strike you as a "good thing" to be unashamed of running naked into times square and masturbating to pictures of sheep? Because that would be an example of someone who is utterly unashamed of his sexuality. So is the hippie troop that is going at it indiscriminately in the middle of the park.

Clearly this is bad. Were you using this to illustrate the point about leftist promiscuity, or trying to draw a parallel to grinding? I fail to see how this is similiar.

whether the dancing is sex or not, you said that "a lack of shame over one's sexuality... strikes me as a good thing," and thus also was a public and indiscriminate display of one's sexuality.

I said nothing about being indiscriminite. Grinding with a fat communist would be indiscriminite, grinding with a hot objectivist doesn't seem like a bad thing. So since you misunderstood my position: In certain contexts, I think pride in one's sexuality is a good thing.

Ayn Rand was making the point that there are very important reasons why sex ought to be discriminate and private and that the claim that this is purely a factor of religious shame is viciously false.

Ayn Rand was saying that sex needs to be discriminite. She also said it should not be approached in a casual fashion. She doesn't say that it needs to be "private" or hidden, although I don't think anyone will contest having sex in public is a bad thing. Sexuality on the other hand isn't addressed by that quote, I would guess pretending to be asexual would be a form of dishonesty. Let's clarify this, because I have shirts that show off my muscles a little too much which I might need to get rid of.

What other purpose is there? Being drunk (as opposed to just having a drink) is purposefully making an idiot out of yourself and destroying one's ability to perceive, and function in, reality.

There is a difference between setting out to get drunk and continuing to drink with friends. Most people I know can function quite well in reality with 5 or so drinks, but if they go to far and get drunk it's usually a mistake of knowledge (not knowing thier limits). So, like I said, drinking in itself is not automatically bad and even being drunk on occasion is not an indication of bad character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please consider this my attempt at discussion, not argument.

Okay, but the distinction I was making was between asking questions and arguing.

When I say "sex" I mean, specifically, coitus: "Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina." (American Heritage Dictionary). So if we are in agreement on what sex means then I see no way that "grinding" can be considered sex.

I use Dr. Peikoff's definition from his lecture, Love, Sex, and Romance:

"Q: Is masturbation sex…?

A: Yes it is Sex; sex is any contact with and pleasure from the genitals. It does not say what form of contact – despite our president [Clinton] – and it does not say who or whether it’s you yourself. If you get pleasure from scratching your back, that is not sex… but if it’s the right area, it is!”

But as I said it doesn't really matter to the discussion. My argument does not rest on the idea that it is sex, but rather on what it says about one's view of sex.

Grinding is "a type of close partner dance where two or more dancers rub their bodies against each other in a manner perceived as sexually suggestive." (Wikipedia) Now, I'm not much of a dancer but I have certainly seen Salsa danced in ways that are less romantic and more sexual. I also think that I've seen grinding passionate enough for me to consider it romantic. So you say that Tango and Salsa are romantic wheras Grinding is not.. what makes one romantic and the other not romantic?

I can't believe that you mean the above honestly (i.e. literally, as opposed to an exaggeration for the sake of argument). Are you trying to tell me that you literally don't know the difference between the Tango and just rubbing your crotch against a girl on the dance floor? "Grinding" is not a form of dance at all. It is not a sexually suggestive stylization. It is not some kind of sexy dance that went a little too far. It is just the rubbing of private parts against each other. Period. It is categorically different from the Tango, Salsa, and any other form of dance.

Furthermore, what I mean by "romantic" is as in "including romance" as opposed to mindless, loveless, animal wriggling. Sexual, sure, but in the service of passion; of love. As opposed to sex as the animal act of rubbing this against that.

On to my Country Western remark. In the United States at least, I don't see many other types of dances going on.

What has that got to do with anything? Whether they are "going on" or not does not change the fact that you and any other young people who aren't depraved are free to dance differently. To say that you ought not to "grind 'dance'" is not condemning you to a danceless hell.

So although I know you don't intend it, my first response to your hatred of grinding and drinking was to see an assault on celebrating in general.

Thank you for the honesty. Since we are obviously talking past each other here, it helps to know what you are thinking on this.

Now, you are utterly wrong. As I said, I am not against "drinking" but against being a drunk; of over-drinking and the frat-boy attitude which celebrates becoming, as someone earlier said, "shit faced." There is a particular kind of depraved mentality that sees that as being synonymous with "celebration" and "fun" and my point is that this attitude is pathologically wrong. If you think that a condemnation of this sickness makes me against "fun" then you are in need of a serious redefinition of what you consider "fun." (or perhaps more accurately, not what you consider fun, but what you are willing to allow into your definition as far as others are concerned)

So, in your view as far as not [grind-]dancing the mystics really got it right in this case?

No, because they probably think it makes baby Jesus cry or some such nonsense. Just because they condemn the right thing, doesn't mean they condemned it for the right reason, so strictly speaking they did not "get it right." I'm not going to give those bastards any false credit.

I simply do not see the connection you make between indiscriminite sexuality and suggestive dancing.

That's because you're still mis-categorizing it as "dancing" when it is nothing of the sort. Come on, man; it's just dry humping! Surely you see this?

I believe my definition of "publicly miming sub-animal sex" is fairly good.

People here walk around with a lot of exposed skin and sexually suggestive clothing. Is this indiscriminte sexuality?

I've seen some people that qualify. I've seen others that are pushing it. And plenty who are fine. Now I know that this is simply what "everyone" is doing and most clueless young people don't have any idea of how slutty they're being. But does that change the fact that they're being slutty? And can they escape the consequences? Every listen to the lyrics of The Eagles' Those Shoes?

Should we all wear Burkas? Probably not.

Are you suggesting that either morality has nothing to say about peoples' clothing or we should all wear Burkas? That's a repeated theme of yours, and an error: it is NOT "either religion or 'anything goes.'" The standard is reason and self-respect.

Clearly this is bad. Were you using this to illustrate the point about leftist promiscuity, or trying to draw a parallel to grinding? I fail to see how this is similiar.

I was using it to illustrate the falsehood of your statement that a lack of any sexual inhibitions was a "good thing."

She doesn't say that it needs to be "private" or hidden, although I don't think anyone will contest having sex in public is a bad thing.

Actually, she did say that, but I'm glad you're not contesting it.

Let's clarify this, because I have shirts that show off my muscles a little too much which I might need to get rid of.

As I said, you are in error to think it's either religious (or religious-style) repression versus "anything at all is moral." Using the standard of reason, it is possible to find a third option. Are you honestly trying to tell me that without religious mores, you are completely rudderless to judge things such as sexual mores and intoxicants? I don't doubt it because I've lately seen plenty like that, but I'm afraid that it's an alien viewpoint to me. I never took religion seriously in my life (lip service aside) and I was always able to condemn most modern nihilism (i.e. the majority of what "young people" do) simply by examining it with reason and seeing it was self-destructive, self-deprecating, and (as I would have called it at the time) stupid. Objectivism simply taught me the source and total meaning of the matter.

There is a difference between setting out to get drunk and continuing to drink with friends... So, like I said, drinking in itself is not automatically bad and even being drunk on occasion is not an indication of bad character.

Oh, absolutely "there is a difference between setting out to get drunk and [accidentally over-drinking]." The "setting out to get drunk" is, if you will re-read what I have been saying, entirely the issue. Becoming drunk by accident doesn't say anything about one's character other than that one is careless. Of course, if one "accidentally" becomes drunk on a regular basis, then I'd say that does in fact say something about one's character.

The condemnation is for those who purposefully get drunk and who think that it qualifies as "fun." I suggest that anyone who needs to do that to have "fun" is a terminal bore because there really isn't anything fun about it. I mean, people can have fun laughing at you because you're being a moron but those people really aren't your friends. (friends would be genuinely concerned and uncomfortable)

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, in your view as far as not dancing the mystics really got it right in this case?

Not once in this entire thread has Inspector condemned dancing. In this thread he has been addressing a particular picture displaying what may be a particular form of dancing. It really does not advance your position to keep questioning his view on dancing as a whole by attempting to align his view with that of "the mystics".

Inspector:

I can't believe that you mean the above honestly...

If you have a question with BadKarma's honesty, report it to the moderators. And frankly, based on what I've read in this thread so far, you don't have enough evidence to support any argument that he is being intellectually dishonest. Argue your position, don't attack your opponent.

I've had to say this so many times over the past few days that I'm getting bloody sick of it. SOOOOOOO......

Standard Sex Thread Warning:

Too many threads relating to sex on this forum degenerate into personal attacks. Let's avoid that folks lest this thread be close like so many others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector:

If you have a question with BadKarma's honesty, report it to the moderators.

I'm sorry, RB, and BadKarma. I put in parentheses what I meant by that but it really does come across as a personal attack. I think the better word to use, rather than "honestly" would be "literally."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector,

What are objective criteria for dancing?

A dance historian at Goucher College in Towson, Md., Ms. Bond ticks off a long list of social dances that over the years have offended the over-30 set. The waltz caused a scandal in the early 19th century with its intimate, closed position; the Charleston was an in-your-face statement of female rebellion in the 1920s; swing caused a stir in the 1930s when men threw women over their backs and between their legs; rock 'n' roll introduced a shocking new array of thrusting pelvises and twisting torsos.

Girls will tell you that "some guys can [grind-]dance and some can't" so there is slightly more to it than just sticking your crotch on a girls ass and rubbing away. Apparently, there are even Instructional Videos to learn to grind.

I can't believe that you mean the above honestly (i.e. literally, as opposed to an exaggeration for the sake of argument). Are you trying to tell me that you literally don't know the difference between the Tango and just rubbing your crotch against a girl on the dance floor? "Grinding" is not a form of dance at all. It is not a sexually suggestive stylization. It is not some kind of sexy dance that went a little too far. It is just the rubbing of private parts against each other. Period. It is categorically different from the Tango, Salsa, and any other form of dance.

Clearly there is a difference and I wasn't denying that there was. I meant my question literally/honestly: I want a clear answer as to why is it different. "Just look at it!" doesn't work for me.

I've seen some people that qualify. I've seen others that are pushing it. And plenty who are fine. Now I know that this is simply what "everyone" is doing and most clueless young people don't have any idea of how slutty they're being. But does that change the fact that they're being slutty? And can they escape the consequences? Every listen to the lyrics of The Eagles' Those Shoes?

Are you suggesting that either morality has nothing to say about peoples' clothing or we should all wear Burkas? That's a repeated theme of yours, and an error: it is NOT "either religion or 'anything goes.'" The standard is reason and self-respect.

My burka comment was my reducto ad absurdum not an accusation that you are a puritan mystic. If public display of sexuality is categorically wrong, then isn't a burka the only option for wear (really more than a burka since soldiers coming back from Iraq claim to get turned on by ankles after being deployed for long enough)? For example, how does wearing a bikini at the pool show a lack of reason or self-respect? A fear of doing so strikes me as a lack of reason and self-esteem.

As I said, you are in error to think it's either religious (or religious-style) repression versus "anything at all is moral." Using the standard of reason, it is possible to find a third option. Are you honestly trying to tell me that without religious mores, you are completely rudderless to judge things such as sexual mores and intoxicants?

No, I didn't say that. I am aware of how to judge actions without using religion and I've seen enough of your posts to know you are not religiously influenced.

Sayyid Qutb, the “father of modern Sunni radicalism” visited America in the 40s and declared that the way Americans danced was “immoral,” which apparently justifies killing us. If you show me that your right, I'll accept it, but I sure hope that bastard wasn't right about anything.

Oh, absolutely "there is a difference between setting out to get drunk and [accidentally over-drinking]." The "setting out to get drunk" is, if you will re-read what I have been saying, entirely the issue. Becoming drunk by accident doesn't say anything about one's character other than that one is careless. Of course, if one "accidentally" becomes drunk on a regular basis, then I'd say that does in fact say something about one's character.

The condemnation is for those who purposefully get drunk and who think that it qualifies as "fun." I suggest that anyone who needs to do that to have "fun" is a terminal bore because there really isn't anything fun about it. I mean, people can have fun laughing at you because you're being a moron but those people really aren't your friends. (friends would be genuinely concerned and uncomfortable)

I think that on drinking, at least, we are in agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say "sex" I mean, specifically, coitus: "Sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina." (American Heritage Dictionary). So if we are in agreement on what sex means then I see no way that "grinding" can be considered sex.

We're not. Sex is more than coitus and you know it. Either that, or you need to expand your horizons a little:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-penetrative_sex#Frottage

You'd be surprised at the kinds of things scumbags try to pull on women: I've had loser perverts try to rub their hard-ons against me on the subway, on the bus, in a crowd, at a high school pep rally, at work, while swing dancing, at the hairdresser, etc. Putting a hip hop beat to it doesn't make it any more okay. Or less likely to make me knee them in the groin and/or punch them in the face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People here walk around with a lot of exposed skin and sexually suggestive clothing. Is this indiscriminte sexuality?

Practically speaking, anytime I wear anything the least bit revealing, men interpret it as an open invitation to proposition and harass me. I literally can't walk one block wearing shorts (or even a knee-length skirt) without getting whistled at, leered at, and frantically hit on. I cover up, not because I'm ashamed, but because I want to discourage men from treating me like a piece of ass. It doesn't work and I get hit on anyway, but it helps.

Dress "hot" and you get treated with zero respect from anyone, not even your fellow women. You aren't expecting anyone to respect you at all...that's the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly there is a difference and I wasn't denying that there was. I meant my question literally/honestly: I want a clear answer as to why is it different. "Just look at it!" doesn't work for me.

You are contradicting yourself. You write: "Clearly there is a difference." If it is clear to you, then why don't you tell me?

My burka comment was my reducto ad absurdum not an accusation that you are a puritan mystic. If public display of sexuality is categorically wrong

(When did I say "categorically wrong?")

Okay, that's your reducto ad absurdum. Why did you feel the need to do so? Do you think that in order to declare that there is something wrong with copulating in the middle of times square, that we must all be reduced to burkas? Is that what you think?

Sayyid Qutb, the “father of modern Sunni radicalism” visited America in the 40s and declared that the way Americans danced was “immoral,” which apparently justifies killing us. If you show me that your right, I'll accept it, but I sure hope that bastard wasn't right about anything.

Does the fact that the religious are so freaked out by dancing freak you out so much that you're afraid to pass moral judgment on anything dance-related? Passing moral judgment on public dry-humping does not and will not "mean the terrorists win." You have to ask yourself why he considered it "immoral." The answer is because sexuality, as such is repressed by his ideas. He considers sex to be evil. (Again, even if he condemned something worth condemning, he wouldn't be doing it for the right reasons. He would still be wrong, no matter what. So you really don't have to fear that he is right.)

Now ask yourself why I consider public dry-humping (it is not dancing) immoral. I gave you the answer:

Furthermore, what I mean by "romantic" is as in "including romance" as opposed to mindless, loveless, animal wriggling. Sexual, sure, but in the service of passion; of love. As opposed to sex as the animal act of rubbing this against that.

...The standard is reason and self-respect.

I have a problem with it not because I consider sex to be evil (as Qutb does), but because I consider sex to be good. And I don't appreciate its debasement from a profound spiritual experience to a sub-animal wriggling of meat. This is what I mean by self-respect; nobody who has respect for himself and for the woman would reduce his sexuality to the indiscriminate, animal level.

It's the same with dressing slutty: what kind of man is attracted to a sluttily dressed girl? (again, go for the Eagles lyrics) Is that the best that she thinks she can do? Is it not implicit that one does not have anything else of value to offer? Clearly, a slutty dresser does not seek to be loved for her mind. Implicit in this is that there is nothing lovable about her mind. That is why it is self-deprecating.

I'm glad we agree about drinking. However, you should be wary of the fact that it took so long for you to see that. Why is it so inconceivable to you that someone would have reason to pass moral judgment on the nihilistic hippie culture of the young? Have you not examined it closely, yourself? Do you fear to do so, thinking that reason will insist that fun is immoral? It will not. You have nothing to fear. It is not fun that is immoral - it is the nihilistic modern value-destruction that is immoral. And deep down I think you know that value-destruction isn't fun; that the moderns have hijacked the concept and package-dealed their nonsense to it.

The idea that you have to reject fun in order to reject their nihilism is a trap that they have set for us. Both sides want you to think that. The nihilists want you to accept their nihilism by pretending that it's fun (or rather, that fun is it). The religious want you to reject fun (i.e. this earth) by pointing at the nihilists and agreeing with their premise.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector,

Thanks again for the well thought out reply.

You are contradicting yourself. You write: "Clearly there is a difference." If it is clear to you, then why don't you tell me?

I don't see how I am contradicting myself. Salsa and Tango are not the same as Grinding: granted. If Grinding is dancing, than I agree that Grinding is worse qua dancing than Salsa and Tango. However, you say it is not dancing at all. I asked what objective criteria can be used to define what is a dance and what is not. How is this a contradiction? I am saying: yes "clearly there is a difference" but what makes it not a dance?

Although you insisted earlier that claiming grinding as sex is not part of your explanation, havn't you (and others) used solely that statement to prove your point? Taking the form of:

1) [implied dilemma] Grinding is either sex or it is dancing

2) Grinding is not dancing

3) Therefore, grinding is sex

or directly, by claiming it is frottage ("dry-humping"). So although I know there is more to sex than just vaginal, it seems like a conceptual disaster to define every time my clothed crotch comes in contact with something as "sex." If this is the case then I have had sex with motorcycles, jetskis, bicycles, M16 rifles, horses, etc.

Okay, that's your reducto ad absurdum. Why did you feel the need to do so? Do you think that in order to declare that there is something wrong with copulating in the middle of times square, that we must all be reduced to burkas? Is that what you think?

That's not what I said. If sexuality is wrong, in itself, then we must all be reduced to burkas. If sexuality is good, in itself, then we should all be copulating in a big pile in the middle of times square. There are contexts where sexualty is good and contexts where it is bad.

Does the fact that the religious are so freaked out by dancing freak you out so much that you're afraid to pass moral judgment on anything dance-related?

I was just letting you know, as an aside, that my default position is generally the opposite of the people who try to kill me. I have no issue passing moral judgement: I am willing to pass moral judgement on my own mother if it comes down to it.

Now ask yourself why I consider public dry-humping (it is not dancing) immoral. I gave you the answer:

I have a problem with it not because I consider sex to be evil (as Qutb does), but because I consider sex to be good. And I don't appreciate its debasement from a profound spiritual experience to a sub-animal wriggling of meat. This is what I mean by self-respect; nobody who has respect for himself and for the woman would reduce his sexuality to the indiscriminate, animal level.

This follows if grind-dancing is not dancing, but is actually sex. I'm not convinced that it is.

It's the same with dressing slutty: what kind of man is attracted to a sluttily dressed girl? (again, go for the Eagles lyrics) Is that the best that she thinks she can do? Is it not implicit that one does not have anything else of value to offer? Clearly, a slutty dresser does not seek to be loved for her mind. Implicit in this is that there is nothing lovable about her mind. That is why it is self-deprecating.

Girls can dress sexy without looking like sluts. Cute girls have to work hard to have a nice body (I'm guessing 1+ hours a day at the gym). This shows hard work, self-discipline, and an honest assesment of reality since you can't just wish to look good. If she wears clothes that fit and don't hide her curves, what's wrong with that? If I see a well-dressed, nice looking girl that is in shape, then I have at least some indication that she might be worth talking to.

Now a guy that has only one criteria, girls dressed like whores, has basically no standards whatsoever. Those men and the women that try to attract them are self-deprecating nihilists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...