EWS = Surrealism
D. Mcdevitt
Audiences hit a snag with this film. Internal connections are immaterial,
mysteries are necessarily open ended. Explanations are easy and always
wrong, or half truths at best. One american translation of the Book's
title is Dream Story. What is the big fucking deal with people that they
cant see an exploration of surrealism when it hits them in the face (for 2
and one half solid hours!).
As put forth by Andre breton in the 1920s and 30's surrealism is the
perfect marraige of the real and the dream state. Where in EWS is Cruises
character awake and where is he dreaming? OR, why even be so literal?
Why not combine the two and make the distinction immaterial and
insignificant. This is not our world, nor our New York. Is it any
surpise that every principle character in this film is an object of lust
or desire, or that the character at least controlls access to such
things? Each encounter bill has is an exaggeration, parody, sterotype,
expectation of a certain misunderstood sexual insitution. The
Heterosexuals, the homosexuals, the pedophiles, the necros, the
fetishists, the swingers... all part of Bill's secret desire to be a part
of something bigger and more deviant than he has ever been. He has not
ever fully understood the tick of his wifes sexual identity and now, with
a vengance, tries to prove he's got something bigger in his jocky's.
One principle question: At what point does infidelity begin? With a wish
or with physical contact? The people behind me in EWS would like such
black and white distictions drawn, every time they said..."this movie is
so stupid" Perhaps they wanted Pretty Woman where, so long as Julia
roberts doesn't kiss someone on the lips while she's Hooking, she's just
fine. Oh how clever and cute. Well bollocks.
If you hated Lost Highway you will probably hate this film. So ENOUGH of
these questions about "how did mandy recognise Bill?" for in dreams and
fantasy such things are irrelevant. They are curtains obscuring more
pressing questions
Oh man, My first Kubrick movie in the theater and half the audience was
hoping for "Days of Thunder Two" Well I thumb my nose at them.
LOOK out she's holding a barbie doll! Surely that wasn't an accident.
DM (as stream of concious as I could, in keeping with the surrealist
ideal. If it reads strange, then it reads strange)
Richard Dub
news:Pine.A41.4.10.990719...@homer28.u.washington.edu...
> Audiences hit a snag with this film. Internal connections are immaterial,
> mysteries are necessarily open ended. Explanations are easy and always
> wrong, or half truths at best.
Yes, good. But that doesn't mean that EVERYTHING is open ended. Personally,
I don't think we can answer who put the mask on the pillow, who the people at
the sex cult are, and whether the sacrifice was staged or not. And like you
say, I don't think it makes a difference. But to suggest that we can't ask
ANY questions about the plot is absurd. For instance, you ask:
> Where in EWS is Cruises
> character awake and where is he dreaming? OR, why even be so literal?
I'm literal because there ARE parts in the movie that are realist, and where
it makes sense to be literal.
I'll give you that a lot of the movie is surreal, yes. But not ALL of it is
surreal. The toy store scene is HIGHLY realist --- that's the point of the
word "fuck," it's the most real thing thing Alice and Bill could do. Saying
the movie delves into the surreal DOESN'T give you the ability to disregard
the plot and focus on airy symbols and metaphors. For god's sake, what an
insult to Kubrick's work that would be! Fellini movies were sometimes totally
absurdist, but Eyes Wide Shut isn't.
> Each encounter bill has is an exaggeration, parody, sterotype,
> expectation of a certain misunderstood sexual insitution. The
> Heterosexuals, the homosexuals, the pedophiles, the necros, the
> fetishists, the swingers... all part of Bill's secret desire to be a part
> of something bigger and more deviant than he has ever been. He has not
> ever fully understood the tick of his wifes sexual identity and now, with
> a vengance, tries to prove he's got something bigger in his jocky's.
Oh, that's beautiful. So we reduce all characters to abstract figures and
deny them their humanity. Congratulations. You've just eradicated all
relationships from the movie and turned it into a bunch of unconnected images
full of philosophical metaphor.
Rule of criticism #1: Never reduce art to symbols, or it ceases to be art.
> One principle question: At what point does infidelity begin? With a wish
> or with physical contact? The people behind me in EWS would like such
> black and white distictions drawn, every time they said...
I agree with you here, and think that's a very insightful question to ask.
However, I don't think that worrying about some of the intricacies of the plot
precludes asking this question.
> So ENOUGH of
> these questions about "how did mandy recognise Bill?" for in dreams and
> fantasy such things are irrelevant. They are curtains obscuring more
> pressing questions
Yeah, so who are YOU to tell me what the pressing questions are? I think it's
VERY important to know how Mandy recognised Bill, and I think that knowing the
answer might lead to the answer of one of those "pressing questions." If you
want to say that in dreams and fantasy such things are irrelevant, then you'd
better tell me why it's important to ask why the password FIDELIO is an
important symbol and the Barbie doll isn't. Why do YOU know what the pressing
questions are?
I disagree with a lot of people in this group... I don't think Alice stole
away to the sex cult in the night because I think that's creating a plot
behind the scenes. But I'm going to let people post their interps up and I'll
argue with them and maybe they'll say something really illuminating and I'll
change my idea of the movie because of it, and maybe I'll change their minds
about something. And in the end, we'll all have this big shining idea of what
the movie is "about," even if we don't necessarily agree on everything.
What I do object to is you coming in and telling us that the movie is entirely
surrealist, so fuck discussing what I don't think is important, HERE'S some
abstract idea that the movie was a metaphor for and now that we know what the
idea is, we can discuss it without discussing the movie.
> DM (as stream of concious as I could, in keeping with the surrealist
> ideal. If it reads strange, then it reads strange)
-Richard
(as realist as I could, so I won't make any excuses for poor explanation)
Lost&pure Modal Coddle
I don't think that just because Bill has these sort of undercurrent
desires to do things away from is wife....really...make him unhuman.
He feels...since maybe his wife...is (thinking about) cheating on
him...then why would the pureness of marriage count for anything. He
plays with this idea.
Out of this great performance by Cruise.....I remember the fake smile he
gives Alice as she's helping her daughter with the Homework.
Pure genius....I laughed...becuase it's real.
~Timothy
mi...@dancris.com
"Rule of criticism #1: Never reduce art to symbols, or it ceases to be
art."- ?????????????
bullshit it is the nature of symbols to be symbolic- jacques vache
Richard Dub
<mi...@dancris.com> wrote in message news:3793aae9...@news.dancris.com...
> obviously richard doesn't know his surrealism-
No, I do know my surrealism, thank you. My point is that even the surreal has
to be grounded in the real - and EWS is much more realist than surreal
anyways.
If Tom Cruise suddenly sprouted feathery wings started flying around
throughout the toy store in that final scene, we'd all be pissed off at the
ludicrousness of it all no matter what it might symbolize because EWS isn't
that kind of movie. He's a human, NOT an abstract symbol.
> it is the nature of symbols to be symbolic- jacques vache
Fine, and it is the nature of the mask to symbolize hidden desires, facades,
the anima, whatever... but it is ALSO still an actual, concrete mask.
-Richard
Richard Dub
news:27413-37...@newsd-112.bryant.webtv.net...
> I don't think that just because Bill has these sort of undercurrent
> desires to do things away from is wife....really...make him unhuman.
I think they make him more human...
> Out of this great performance by Cruise.....I remember the fake smile he
> gives Alice as she's helping her daughter with the Homework.
That was one of my favorite moments too!
-Richard
rick nelson
>
> Audiences hit a snag with this film. Internal connections are immaterial,
> mysteries are necessarily open ended. Explanations are easy and always
> title is Dream Story. What is the big fucking deal with people that they
> cant see an exploration of surrealism when it hits them in the face (for 2
> and one half solid hours!).
Great points.
<snipped some more good points>
> If you hated Lost Highway you will probably hate this film. So ENOUGH of
> these questions about "how did mandy recognise Bill?" for in dreams and
> fantasy such things are irrelevant. They are curtains obscuring more
> pressing questions
>
> Oh man, My first Kubrick movie in the theater and half the audience was
> hoping for "Days of Thunder Two" Well I thumb my nose at them.
>
> LOOK out she's holding a barbie doll! Surely that wasn't an accident.
>
> DM (as stream of concious as I could, in keeping with the surrealist
> ideal. If it reads strange, then it reads strange)
I don't believe SK made this movie to make lot's of money or to garner
legions of new fans. I think he made it because he *wanted* to make it.
We were given the opportunity to observe the results of what he loved
doing. If he thought it was worth making, I think it's worth working at
to enjoy.
I didn't have to work that hard. I expect this to become one of my
favorite movies.
George Harrison wrote in 1969:
If you're listening to this song,
and it seems the words are going wrong,
but they're not,
we just wrote it like that.
Northern Song
rick
D. Mcdevitt
->> ideal. If it reads strange, then it reads strange)
->
->-Richard
->(as realist as I could, so I won't make any excuses for poor explanation)
Jesus Rich, I didn't attempt an explanation. I offered an approach. Of
course there are realist elements in the film too... but I wanted to press
my point about surrealism because nobody else was bringing it up (I mean
the actual movement in the early part of this century). You sound as if
you've done some reading in this area so you'll know that much of their
inpiration came from Freud, and that Freud also heavily influenced
schnitzler.
Also having just finished Dream story, I'm sorry but the only character
with depth is Bill Harford (called Fridolen in "Dream Story") the rest are
passing fancies and desires. Even Nicole's character is underused and to
Kubrick's credit, he expanded the role in the film. I DO have a long
winded examination of the film but I wont get in to it because a) you
probably don't want to hear it anyway, and B) you're just trying to picka
fight where no conflict need exist.
Lastly, I think this film is as close to a Kafka story as he ever, or
anyone ever got. A little more optimistic than Kafka but a perfect record
of what Franz called his "dreamlike inner state."
And I was not reducing anyone's role to symbols... but when critiquing
something I like to start generally, then work towards specifics.
DM
marsy...@my-deja.com
>
> D. Mcdevitt <mcde...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.A41.4.10.990719...@homer28.u.washington.edu...
>
> > mysteries are necessarily open ended. Explanations are easy and always
> > wrong, or half truths at best.
>
> I don't think we can answer who put the mask on the pillow, who the people at
> the sex cult are, and whether the sacrifice was staged or not.
I think we can. Just because the answers aren't spelled out on the
screen doesn't mean we can't make reasonable assumptions. It's possible
that someone besides Alice put the mask on the pillow; that Alice, Carl,
Marion, Domino, the bellhop, Nuala, and/or Bill's seven year old
daughter were at the masked ball; that the sacrifice was genuine; and
that there is an invisible gnome sitting on Victor's pool table. All
these are possible within the confines of what we see on the screen, but
none are reasonable.
D. Mcdevitt
Yeah I was nice to him in a former reply and gave him the benefit of the
doubt on whether or not he knew anything about it. Maybe I should have
recommended Andre Breton's "A Soluble Fish." Or go watch "L'age D'or".
Sigh. So the film wasn't pure surrealism; it certainly had an
overwhelming connection to it though.
DM
->obviously richard doesn't know his surrealism-
->
->"Rule of criticism #1: Never reduce art to symbols, or it ceases to be
->art."- ?????????????
->
-> bullshit it is the nature of symbols to be symbolic- jacques vache
->
->On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 08:33:56 -0600, "Richard Dub"
-><bud_d...@v-wave.com> wrote:
->
->>D. Mcdevitt <mcde...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
->>news:Pine.A41.4.10.990719...@homer28.u.washington.edu...
->>
David Fresko
> I think we can. Just because the answers aren't spelled out on the
> screen doesn't mean we can't make reasonable assumptions. It's possible
> that someone besides Alice put the mask on the pillow; that Alice, Carl,
> Marion, Domino, the bellhop, Nuala, and/or Bill's seven year old
> daughter were at the masked ball; that the sacrifice was genuine; and
> that there is an invisible gnome sitting on Victor's pool table. All
> these are possible within the confines of what we see on the screen, but
> none are reasonable.
To me, it seems that you have to explain one implausibility with
another. It's implausible that the cult would be able to put the mask on
the bed, so, judging by the dream like state of the film, it's entirely
possible.
-Dave
Richard Dub
> B) you're just trying to picka
> fight where no conflict need exist.
No, I'm not. I realize that I was probably a little overly confrontative in
my post, but I before I wrote it had just finished another post in which I
said I hope that people don't try to eke out of the hard work of logical
explantaion of the film by just dismissing it as a dream. Up to that point, I
hadn't. Then I read this:
> What is the big fucking deal with people that they
> cant see an exploration of surrealism when it hits them in the face
It made me mad.
I realize now that you're a nice guy, but this line (and others) read as if
some troll came in just to play pseudo-intellectual and start making fun of
everyone else's interps.
Friends?
> I DO have a long
> winded examination of the film but I wont get in to it because a) you
> probably don't want to hear it anyway,
Actually, I do! I ALWAYS want to hear interps. Here's mine in very condensed
form:
> Also having just finished Dream story, I'm sorry but the only character
> with depth is Bill Harford (called Fridolen in "Dream Story") the rest are
> passing fancies and desires. Even Nicole's character is underused and to
> Kubrick's credit, he expanded the role in the film.
Personally, I think that Nicole's character is as integral to the stroy and as
developed as Tom's. Bill (Tom's character) just seems like he's the more
important of the two because the camera follows him for so long. We see
Bill's tales of deviancy on screen because they really happen. Alice narrates
her tales of deviancy because she dreams them, and her narration is the only
way we have access to them.
Which is worse? Bill's dreamlike wanderings in which he never gets laid? Or
Alice's seemingly real dreams in which she actually does have sex?
-Richard
Who should finally conglomerate all his postings into a unified interpretation
Richard Dub
> Sigh. So the film wasn't pure surrealism; it certainly had an
> overwhelming connection to it though.
I have no problems with that statement. Saying that is a far cry from
> So ENOUGH of
> these questions about "how did mandy recognise Bill?" for in dreams and
> fantasy such things are irrelevant.
If the movie is pure surrealism, then fine, screw explanation. But by your
concession, it isn't, and so it's very possibly important to figure out why
Mandy recognized Bill (I think it is).
You can continue to give me the benefit of the doubt. I haven't seen L'age
D'or, but it's now on my list!
-Richard
sli...@tugger.net
Kind of sounds like Yoda
Lydia Nickerson
>I think we can. Just because the answers aren't spelled out on the
>screen doesn't mean we can't make reasonable assumptions. It's possible
>that someone besides Alice put the mask on the pillow;
What evidence is there that Alice put the mask on the pillow? I see none
in the film. Nor do I see that she has a chance to see it before she is
dealing with an hysterical husband. Even if she does notice it, why would
she assume that it was there before he woke her. The more reasonable
assumption on her part is that he brought it in with him. And is it
possible that the real point with the talk with Victor is to get Bill out
of the house so that the Society can place the pillow. If so, that's a
nice double whammy. A terrifying warning on one side, and a safe
explanation on the other.
--
----
Lydia Nickerson ly...@ddb.com
Lydia Nickerson
>marsy...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> I think we can. Just because the answers aren't spelled out on the
>> screen doesn't mean we can't make reasonable assumptions. It's possible
>> that someone besides Alice put the mask on the pillow; that Alice, Carl,
>> Marion, Domino, the bellhop, Nuala, and/or Bill's seven year old
>> daughter were at the masked ball; that the sacrifice was genuine; and
>> that there is an invisible gnome sitting on Victor's pool table. All
>> these are possible within the confines of what we see on the screen, but
>> none are reasonable.
>To me, it seems that you have to explain one implausibility with
>another. It's implausible that the cult would be able to put the mask on
>the bed, so, judging by the dream like state of the film, it's entirely
>possible.
I don't understand why you say that it's impossible for the cult to put
the mask on the bed. It requires two breaking and entering scenarios, but
given how well connected these people are supposed to be, I don't find
that incredible. Expensive, probably, but not impossible.
sli...@tugger.net
>> screen doesn't mean we can't make reasonable assumptions. It's
>> possible that someone besides Alice put the mask on the pillow;
> What evidence is there that Alice put the mask on the pillow?
I don't know. Maybe because she puts it on the pillow in the book that
the film was based on?
Lydia Nickerson
>Personally, I think that Nicole's character is as integral to the stroy and as
>developed as Tom's. Bill (Tom's character) just seems like he's the more
>important of the two because the camera follows him for so long. We see
>Bill's tales of deviancy on screen because they really happen. Alice narrates
>her tales of deviancy because she dreams them, and her narration is the only
>way we have access to them.
>Which is worse? Bill's dreamlike wanderings in which he never gets laid? Or
>Alice's seemingly real dreams in which she actually does have sex?
I'm not able to relate to this low level behavior being referred to as
deviance. I mean, I assume you don't think that oral sex is deviant, nor
female superior. Nor same sex relationships. Alice's confession seems to
me to be on exactly that same level; it's one of those things that people
do. Bill never does act in any fashion that's even questionable, much
less deviant. He does try to fuck a hooker, but that's not deviant, just
dishonest. The participants at the masked ball are, perhaps, slightly
deviant in that they enjoy vouyerism in a rather extreme fashion, but
nothing else going on there is all that out of the norm. It's terrifying,
but not because of "deviant sex."
I may be floundering about in part because I'm still trying to think of a
sex act that I do consider deviant that doesn't involve lack of consent.
Rape, torture/murder, that sort of thing, ok, that's deviant. Other than
that? I'm thinking, I'm thinking.
Lydia Nickerson
Well, that's a point. <wry grin> I haven't read the book. In the book,
where did she get the mask? And how close is the rest of the film to the
book? Is any portion of the story a dream, and if so, which portion(s)?
marsy...@my-deja.com
>
> David Fresko <D.Fr...@postoffice.worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >marsy...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> screen doesn't mean we can't make reasonable assumptions. It's possible
> >> Marion, Domino, the bellhop, Nuala, and/or Bill's seven year old
> >> daughter were at the masked ball; that the sacrifice was genuine; and
> >> that there is an invisible gnome sitting on Victor's pool table. All
> >> these are possible within the confines of what we see on the screen, but
> >> none are reasonable.
>
> >To me, it seems that you have to explain one implausibility with
> >the bed, so, judging by the dream like state of the film, it's entirely
> >possible.
>
> I don't understand why you say that it's impossible for the cult to put
> the mask on the bed. It requires two breaking and entering scenarios, but
> given how well connected these people are supposed to be, I don't find
> that incredible. Expensive, probably, but not impossible.
Alice has a very good reason to put the mask there; the cult does not.
Even if they could break in, they would have to do so without waking up
Alice or her daughter. If their purpose is to avoid exposure, why would
they do something so risky? Why would they want to provoke the
Harfords, and risk the involvement of the authorities? That would bring
them exactly the kind of attention they are trying to avoid. They try
to intimidate Bill in a number of ways, but otherwise none of them are
illegal. Besides, I'm told that in the original novella, it was made
clear that his wife found the mask.
Richard Dub
news:lydy.93...@gw.ddb.com...
> "Richard Dub" <bud_d...@v-wave.com> writes:
> I'm not able to relate to this low level behavior being referred to as
> deviance.
I used the word poorly; I meant it in the context of Bill and Alice deviating
from their marriage. Instead of deviancy I should have said infidelity or
betrayal.
> He does try to fuck a hooker, but that's not deviant, just
> dishonest
Lots of people would disagree.
> I may be floundering about in part because I'm still trying to think of a
> sex act that I do consider deviant that doesn't involve lack of consent.
> Rape, torture/murder, that sort of thing, ok, that's deviant. Other than
> that? I'm thinking, I'm thinking.
I don't think there is a big objective definition of sexual deviancy. It's
all in the mind of the person who's defining the word. If you're cool with
all consentual sex, then that's great, run with it!
-Richard
D. Mcdevitt
->
->>I don't know. Maybe because she puts it on the pillow in the book that
->>the film was based on?
->
->Well, that's a point. <wry grin> I haven't read the book. In the book,
->where did she get the mask? And how close is the rest of the film to the
->book? Is any portion of the story a dream, and if so, which portion(s)?
I've read the book. And the token in question is not even a mask. I'm
wondering if the previous poster has read the book... It's a pilgrim's
hat. And I can't remember if it was clearly definded whether or not she
put the mask there... I seem to believe it was abiguous.
DM
Jose Figueroa
possible that someone secretly entered their bedroom and left the mask on the
pillow next to her.
--
José Figueroa
Ray
>"Richard Dub" <bud_d...@v-wave.com> writes:
>
>>Personally, I think that Nicole's character is as integral to the stroy and as
>>developed as Tom's. Bill (Tom's character) just seems like he's the more
>>important of the two because the camera follows him for so long. We see
>>Bill's tales of deviancy on screen because they really happen. Alice narrates
>>her tales of deviancy because she dreams them, and her narration is the only
>>way we have access to them.
>
>>Which is worse? Bill's dreamlike wanderings in which he never gets laid? Or
>>Alice's seemingly real dreams in which she actually does have sex?
>
>I'm not able to relate to this low level behavior being referred to as
>deviance. I mean, I assume you don't think that oral sex is deviant, nor
>female superior. Nor same sex relationships. Alice's confession seems to
>me to be on exactly that same level; it's one of those things that people
>do. Bill never does act in any fashion that's even questionable, much
>less deviant. He does try to fuck a hooker, but that's not deviant, just
>dishonest. The participants at the masked ball are, perhaps, slightly
>deviant in that they enjoy vouyerism in a rather extreme fashion, but
>nothing else going on there is all that out of the norm. It's terrifying,
>but not because of "deviant sex."
>
>I may be floundering about in part because I'm still trying to think of a
>sex act that I do consider deviant that doesn't involve lack of consent.
>Rape, torture/murder, that sort of thing, ok, that's deviant. Other than
>that? I'm thinking, I'm thinking.
How 'bout this: Anything that deviates from whatever an individual was
conditioned in his/her formative years to think of as "normal." And
just about all of us were indeed programmed with some concept of
normal. So it could range from the standard, missionary-position fuck
being deviated all the way to "just so long as it doesn't cause a
murder."
Lydia Nickerson
>Lydia Nickerson <ly...@gw.ddb.com> wrote in message
>news:lydy.93...@gw.ddb.com...
>> "Richard Dub" <bud_d...@v-wave.com> writes:
>> I'm not able to relate to this low level behavior being referred to as
>> deviance.
>I used the word poorly; I meant it in the context of Bill and Alice deviating
>from their marriage. Instead of deviancy I should have said infidelity or
>betrayal.
>> He does try to fuck a hooker, but that's not deviant, just
>> dishonest
>Lots of people would disagree.
>> I may be floundering about in part because I'm still trying to think of a
>> sex act that I do consider deviant that doesn't involve lack of consent.
>> Rape, torture/murder, that sort of thing, ok, that's deviant. Other than
>> that? I'm thinking, I'm thinking.
>I don't think there is a big objective definition of sexual deviancy. It's
>all in the mind of the person who's defining the word. If you're cool with
>all consentual sex, then that's great, run with it!
Thank you. I do. :-)
One of the reasons I brought all this up is because I think that the film
does indeed question our ideas about what is safe and not safe within the
realm of sexuality. What is and isn't ok, right, wrong, disgusting,
wonderful.
I have to ask, though, why is it that some people think that a het
encounter with a whore is deviant. What part of that constitutes
deviance, rather than moral laxitude. (Not that I believe in moral
laxity, but lots of people do and they're the ones most likely to define
sex with a hooker as deviant.)
marsy...@my-deja.com
An early draft of the screenplay confirms that Alice put the mask there,
or at least that Bill THINKS she put the mask there.
Lydia Nickerson
>How 'bout this: Anything that deviates from whatever an individual was
>conditioned in his/her formative years to think of as "normal." And
>just about all of us were indeed programmed with some concept of
>normal. So it could range from the standard, missionary-position fuck
>being deviated all the way to "just so long as it doesn't cause a
>murder."
Well, that standard makes me a deviant. I grew up in a ridiculously rigid
fundamentalist church. However, the term "deviant sex" has the
implication of sex which does damage to the person, not merely sex which
isn't within a norm. Besides, the more we find out about what people
actually do in their bedrooms, fewer and fewer activities are considered
rare or unusual. I think that deviant has a huge, judgmental connotation
that shouldn't be ignored.
--
----
Lydia Nickerson ly...@demesne.com ly...@dd-b.net
Ray
>her...@nocannedmeatproductska.net (Ray) writes:
>
>>How 'bout this: Anything that deviates from whatever an individual was
>>conditioned in his/her formative years to think of as "normal." And
>>just about all of us were indeed programmed with some concept of
>>normal. So it could range from the standard, missionary-position fuck
>>being deviated all the way to "just so long as it doesn't cause a
>>murder."
>
>Well, that standard makes me a deviant. I grew up in a ridiculously rigid
>fundamentalist church.
But let it be said also that that standard doesn't imply that being a
deviant is necessarily bad or unhealthy. In fact, in repressive
cultures, deviation could be a very good thing.
>However, the term "deviant sex" has the
>implication of sex which does damage to the person, not merely sex which
>isn't within a norm. Besides, the more we find out about what people
>actually do in their bedrooms, fewer and fewer activities are considered
>rare or unusual.
I don't think "deviant sex" always has the implication of sex that
damages someone. I know people who consider oral sex perverted.
For my part, I merely offered up an idea of what I would consider
deviated, which is more-or-less just a literal application of the
definiation of "deviate." I don't think it makes sense to define it in
any other way. Unless there's some actual danger involved to a
non-willing participant (which I think is covered by my standard,
since just about everyone is taught not to hurt people), there's
nothing in any way threatening about unusual sexual practices.
>I think that deviant has a huge, judgmental connotation
>that shouldn't be ignored.
In common usage, yes, and that's unfortunate.
Lydia Nickerson
>On 11 Aug 99 21:10:14 GMT, ly...@gw.dd-b.net (Lydia Nickerson) wrote:
>>her...@nocannedmeatproductska.net (Ray) writes:
>>
>>>How 'bout this: Anything that deviates from whatever an individual was
>>>conditioned in his/her formative years to think of as "normal." And
>>>just about all of us were indeed programmed with some concept of
>>>normal. So it could range from the standard, missionary-position fuck
>>>being deviated all the way to "just so long as it doesn't cause a
>>>murder."
>>
>>Well, that standard makes me a deviant. I grew up in a ridiculously rigid
>>fundamentalist church.
>But let it be said also that that standard doesn't imply that being a
>deviant is necessarily bad or unhealthy. In fact, in repressive
>cultures, deviation could be a very good thing.
I disagree. "Deviant" is not a modern term. The term deviant comes from
older, even antiquated psychological theory, and did most definitely imply
that it was a dangerous and unhealthy practice, either causing or caused
by dangerous mental illness. Deviant has always been and retains its
connotations as a derogatory term.
>For my part, I merely offered up an idea of what I would consider
>deviated, which is more-or-less just a literal application of the
>definiation of "deviate." I don't think it makes sense to define it in
>any other way. Unless there's some actual danger involved to a
>non-willing participant (which I think is covered by my standard,
>since just about everyone is taught not to hurt people), there's
>nothing in any way threatening about unusual sexual practices.
Well, that was my point. But the term deviant includes the idea of
damage, to oneself and others. Try calling a gay person "deviant" and see
exactly what kind of response you get. It is part of the history of
attempting to medicalize sexual behavior, in order to control it.
People fuck around, in all sorts of ways with all sorts of people. No
attept so far to define what is "normal" has been successful. Attempts
to distinguish between common and uncommon practices have so far always
foundered on better research. Making judgments about other people's sex
lives based on the postures they prefer, the toys the play with, and the
gender, marital status, or number of their partners tend to be frowned
upon. I've been on the wrong side of this more than once, and I'm real
impatient on the topic.
Ray
>her...@nocannedmeatproductska.net (Ray) writes:
>
>>On 11 Aug 99 21:10:14 GMT, ly...@gw.dd-b.net (Lydia Nickerson) wrote:
>
>>>her...@nocannedmeatproductska.net (Ray) writes:
>>>
>>>>How 'bout this: Anything that deviates from whatever an individual was
>>>>conditioned in his/her formative years to think of as "normal." And
>>>>just about all of us were indeed programmed with some concept of
>>>>normal. So it could range from the standard, missionary-position fuck
>>>>being deviated all the way to "just so long as it doesn't cause a
>>>>murder."
>>>
>>>Well, that standard makes me a deviant. I grew up in a ridiculously rigid
>>>fundamentalist church.
>
>>But let it be said also that that standard doesn't imply that being a
>>deviant is necessarily bad or unhealthy. In fact, in repressive
>>cultures, deviation could be a very good thing.
>
>I disagree. "Deviant" is not a modern term. The term deviant comes from
>older, even antiquated psychological theory, and did most definitely imply
>that it was a dangerous and unhealthy practice, either causing or caused
>by dangerous mental illness. Deviant has always been and retains its
>connotations as a derogatory term.
I wasn't thinking about psychological theory at all. You were talking
about what you personally considered deviant and non-deviant, which
didn't seem to be something that would agree with any textbooks. I
merely followed with my own suggestion.
Looking at the word's common usage, you're right about the its
connotations. Realistically, it's probably tainted beyond any hope
that it could be rehabilitated into a "value-neutral" term. And that's
unfortunate because I think there's a useful distinction to be made
between harmless deviants and dangerous ones. (Hey, maybe there's a
way the psychological world makes that distinction that I don't know
about...)
If you have a neighbor who brings home a watermelon every Saturday
night, cuts a slit in it, and gets his rocks off, he's probably a
deviant by any commonly accepted definition of the word, including
mine. But so what? I'm guessing you'd agree with me that no one needs
to give a rat's ass what he's doing.
[...snippage...]
>Making judgments about other people's sex
>lives based on the postures they prefer, the toys the play with, and the
>gender, marital status, or number of their partners tend to be frowned
>upon. I've been on the wrong side of this more than once, and I'm real
>impatient on the topic.
Well, there you go. There's nothing harmful about preferring certain
postures, toys, or a gender. For that matter, there's nothing harmful
about costumes or props or scripts or custom-built furniture or
competently modified Black and Decker power tools. There's a certain
amount of risk that goes along with fooling around with married
people, but even that depends on the people involved.
People often feel treatened when confronted with any sexual practices
they don't understand, or that don't appeal to them. But that's a
problem that rightfully belongs to the person who observes the
deviation. If they cut loose with some kind of judgmental stuff, you
can't stop them. But you're not out of line to say, "bite me."
As far as applying all this to Dr. Bill... No, I wouldn't say he does
anything that suggests mental illness.