I was a little surprised to hear talk of “weird” sexual fantasies.
We are observing year 2015 of the 21st century.
The Western world reveres homosexuals and bisexuals; Eastern Asia has few inhibitions. Few cultures remain that prize celibacy. There is a huge amount of information available about sex. There is so much cheap talk about sex that any sexual fantasy can be discussed on the Internet. So it is fair to say that no sexual fantasy is unfamiliar to the general public, but “weirdness” is an observer-dependent judgement. But as for fantasies, Rule 34 of the Internet is: “If it exists, there is porn of it.” And furthermore, there is quite a bit of porn depicting things that do not exist.
The words that Emma the Emo wrote are highlighted with bold text below:
I think Rand believes people’s morals and thoughts cause people’s tastes. A person who thinks and acts with integrity will not have “depraved” tastes. Such a person will like only the best art and only have sex with a few chosen people. Likewise, a person who thinks or acts without integrity will enjoy modern art and be indiscriminate and promiscuous.
It’s worthwhile to note that Rand was a massively adulterous slut in real life, and Rand also believed her taste in art to be perfect. Rand liked to imply that the celebrity sluts of her era were somehow inferior to her, and many of her readers misunderstood this to mean that Rand was not herself a slut. But in fact her excesses are well-documented and I will not bother to belabor the point here – but interested readers should peruse Michael Prescott’s essays.
Rand depicted her heroines as in love with the “principle” behind all great men. Thus Dagny could profess attraction to Francisco, Hank, and John, and in the fictional story, Dagny was not having sex with all three of them at the same time. But in practice, Ayn Rand made a mockery of her marriage with various men, not limited to Nathan Blumenthal. Rand was apparently disgusted by male-on-male homosexuality, but she apparently regarded her own sexual excesses as the pinnacle of human behavior.
even if someone has more unusual sexual preferences, it doesn’t necessarily say anything about their character. … There are tons of people who are aroused by causing pain to consenting partners, yet they are not evil.
…sometimes someone’s sexuality is strikingly in sync with their other values. Many serial killers are aroused by other people’s pain. But it’s kind of like pointing out that some school shooters played violent video games or watched horror movies – dangerous psychos often love dark stuff, but so do huge numbers of normal, peaceful people.
I don’t know whether causing pain in consenting partners is or is not evil. I’m more worried about police brutality than sexual sadism. If it could be shown that there was a positive link between sexual sadism and actual abuse of power – e.g. if it could be shown that sexually sadistic police officers tend to be more likely to abuse their power than non-sadists – that would be interesting. Likewise, a negative link – i.e. that sexually sadistic police officers tend to be LESS likely to abuse than non-sadists – would be interesting – IF it could be proved.
“And because of that, I’m all for dark, ugly art. I’m all for weird sexual fantasies. …”
I don’t mind ugly art if it is meaningful.
Dürer’s art is often very dark, but I consider it to be beautiful, even when it depicts corpses.
Picasso’s art is ugly, but it expressed a few simple ideas. Dali’s art was slightly less ugly, and expressed several interesting ideas. Rothko and Warhol were paid to produce art, but in fact they produced meaningless trivialities that don’t deserve to be called “art.”
An interview with Picasso has been reprinted on the web at the URL below:
In his book LIBRO NERO, the Italian author Giovanni Papini gives this report of an interview he had with the top god of modern art, Pablo Picasso. Here is what Picasso reportedly thinks of himself:
“From the moment that art ceases to be food that feeds the best minds, the artist can use his talents to perform all the tricks of the intellectual charlatan. Most people can today no longer expect to receive consolation and exaltation from art.
“The ‘refined,’ the rich, the professional ‘do-nothings’, the distillers of quintessence desire only the peculiar, the sensational, the eccentric, the scandalous in today’s art. I myself, since the advent of Cubism, have fed these fellows what they wanted and satisfied these critics with all the ridiculous ideas that have passed through my mind.
“The less they understood them, the more they admired me. Through amusing myself with all these absurd farces, I became celebrated, and very rapidly. For a painter, celebrity means sales and consequent affluence. Today, as you know, I am celebrated, I am rich.
“But when I am alone, I do not have the effrontery to consider myself an artist at all, not in the grand old meaning of the word: Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt, Goya were great painters. I am only a public clown–a mountebank.
“I have understood my time and have exploited the imbecility, the vanity, the greed of my contemporaries. It is a bitter confession, this confession of mine, more painful than it may seem. But at least and at last it does have the merit of being honest.”
Recall the origin of the horrific ugliness known as “modern art”:
The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art – including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko – as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner of a Renaissance prince – except that it acted secretly – the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years.
The connection is improbable. This was a period, in the 1950s and 1960s, when the great majority of Americans disliked or even despised modern art – President Truman summed up the popular view when he said: “If that’s art, then I’m a Hottentot.” As for the artists themselves, many were ex- communists barely acceptable in the America of the McCarthyite era, and certainly not the sort of people normally likely to receive US government backing.
Why did the CIA support them? Because in the propaganda war with the Soviet Union, this new artistic movement could be held up as proof of the creativity, the intellectual freedom, and the cultural power of the US. Russian art, strapped into the communist ideological straitjacket, could not compete.
The existence of this policy, rumoured and disputed for many years, has now been confirmed for the first time by former CIA officials. Unknown to the artists, the new American art was secretly promoted under a policy known as the “long leash” – arrangements similar in some ways to the indirect CIA backing of the journal Encounter, edited by Stephen Spender.
The decision to include culture and art in the US Cold War arsenal was taken as soon as the CIA was founded in 1947. Dismayed at the appeal communism still had for many intellectuals and artists in the West, the new agency set up a division, the Propaganda Assets Inventory, which at its peak could influence more than 800 newspapers, magazines and public information organisations. They joked that it was like a Wurlitzer jukebox: when the CIA pushed a button it could hear whatever tune it wanted playing across the world.
As for weird sexual fantasies – I don’t think sexual fantasies are weird if you have a scientific view of sex, and if you have given up a cultural view of sex. The picture at the top of this post is a famous Japanese illustration – “The Dream of the Fisherman’s Wife.” The sex that it depicts is probably not possible in physical reality. However, it has become a cliché, and so it can no longer be called “weird” by anyone with basic knowledge of Japanese art history.
If you are thinking in terms of a culture – e.g. monogamous Christian farmer culture – then there is a right way and a wrong way to do sex. The right way leads to a good civilization and the wrong way leads to the destruction of civilization. According to such farmers, fantasies of the wrong kind of sexual behavior are “weird.” Such farmers may be aware that they are narrow-minded – but if so, they will probably be proud of their narrow-mindedness.
It’s not just the breeders who think this way. Many homosexual ideologues worship sodomy just as dogmatically as Christians worship Christ. Many homosexuals sneer at young women who marry and start having kids right away, because to those homosexuals, anything but libertine hedonistic sex is weird and wrong. Such homosexuals are not aware of their narrow-mindedness.
It is possible to take a truly broad-minded view. From the truly abstract standpoint, sex is never weird; there is no way that sex is supposed to be. Whether the human race breeds itself to starvation, or fails to breed and thus goes extinct, human sex is not seen as weird. This perspective has some intellectual interest, but if you live according to this viewpoint, you will probably stop having sex altogether, and you will probably fail to interact successfully with human individuals and human cultures.
If, on the other hand, you hope to live as a human individual in some human culture, you can begin by asking yourself:
1 – Does this survival and well-being of this culture depend on the continued survival of the human species?
2 – What sort of human sexual behavior is conducive to the continued survival of the human species?
3 – Do you want to accomplish more with your behavior than to “exploit the imbecility, the vanity, the greed of your contemporaries”?