PDA

View Full Version : Addiction



Pages : [1] 2

baboon2004
21-04-2009, 12:39 PM
I've become increasingly interested of late in the concept of addiction, construed widely,where addiction is (roughly speaking) repeatedly acting in a way that only fulfils one's first-order desires rather than second- or third-order, and so results in repeatedly doing things that one doesn't really want to do (although, in one sense, one does 'want' to, of course).

So, aside from the extremely obvious (heroin, cigarettes, extreme alcohol intake), I woudl suggest that modern life bombards us with possible addictions, to the point that it confuses and disorients so many people from what they really want that it leads to mass low-level unhappiness/search for 'meaning'.

So these addictions would be connected to...the internet, 'casual' sex, facebook/email/twitter, TV, 'fun' as a catch-all, uninterrogable excuse-word for flight from life, TV, dieting, low-level 'going down the pub most nights' alcoholism, holidaying to 'escape' or 'chill out'....and, more controversially perhaps, romantic love as a panacea.

Also, who has written well on this kind of thing?

viktorvaughn
21-04-2009, 12:51 PM
My mate worked on a Teens Hooked on Porn show for bbc - with internet it must be easy for people with no physical outlet for their desires (socially awkward teenagers) to come to relay on consuming images instead?

baboon2004
21-04-2009, 12:58 PM
Naomi Wolf wrote an article for the Guardian about this recently, as I recall. It had flaws, I thought, but was spot on on many issues about how constant porn (and general sexual/'perfect body' imagery) has transformed the nature of desire.

Sick Boy
21-04-2009, 01:48 PM
Also, who has written well on this kind of thing?

William Burroughs made an entire career writing about just this. More on the angle of the addiction/need pyramid being analogous to virtually all systems of control. Perhaps not specifically relevant to the particular issues you are bringing up, but on a basic level of the generative and intrinsic nature of addiction, certainly.

Sick Boy
21-04-2009, 01:53 PM
From Burroughs' Deposition: Testimony Concerning A Sickness:

I have seen the exact manner in which the junk virus operates through fifteen years of addiction. The pyramid of junk, one level eating the level below (it is no accident that junk higher-ups are always fat and the addict in the street is always thin) right up to the top or tops since there are many junk pyramids feeding on peoples of the world and all built on basic principles of monopoly:


1--Never give anything away for nothing.
2--Never give more than you have to give (always catch
the buyer hungry and always make him wait).
3--Always take everything back if you possibly can.


The Pusher always gets it all back. The addict needs more and more junk to maintain a human form . . . buy off the Monkey.


Junk is the mold of monopoly and possession. The addict stands by while his junk legs carry him straight in on the junk beam to relapse. Junk is quantitative and accurately measurable. The more junk you use the less you have and the more you have the more you use. All the hallucinogen drugs are considered sacred by those who use them -- there are Peyote Cults and Bannisteria Cults, Hashish Cults and Mushroom Cults --"the Sacred Mushrooms of Mexico enable a man to see God" -- but no one ever suggested that junk is sacred. There are no opium cults. Opium is profane and quantitative like money. I have heard that there was one a beneficent non-habit-forming junk in India. It was called soma and is pictured as a beautiful blue tide. If soma ever existed the Pusher was there to bottle it and monopolize it and sell it and it turned into plain old time JUNK.


Junk is the ideal product . . . the ultimate merchandise. No sales talk necessary. The client will crawl through a sewer and beg to buy. . . . The junk merchant does not sell his product to the consumer, he sells the consumer to his product. He does not improve and simplify his merchandise. He degrades and simplifies the client. He pays his staff in junk.


Junk yields a basic formula of "evil" virus: The Algebra of Need. The face of "evil" is always the face of total need. A dope fiend is a man in total need of dope. Beyond a certain frequency need knows absolutely no limit or control. In the words of total need: "Wouldn't you?" Yes you would. You would lie, cheat, inform on your friends, steal, do anything to satisfy total need. Because you would be in a state of total sickness, total possession, and not in a position to act in any other way. Dope fiends are sick people who cannot act other than they do. A rabid dog cannot choose but bite. Assuming a self-righteous position is nothing to the purpose unless your purpose be to keep the junk virus in operation. And junk is a big industry. I recall talking to an American who worked for the Aftosa Commission in Mexico. Six hundred a month plus expense account:


"How long will the epidemic last?" I inquired.


"As long as we can keep it going. . . . And yes . . . maybe the aftosa will break out in South America," he said dreamily.


If you wish to alter or annihilate a pyramid of numbers in a serial relation, you alter or remove the bottom number. If we wish to annihilate the junk pyramid, we must start with the bottom of the pyramid: the Addict in the Street, and stop tilting quixotically for the "higher ups" so called, all of whom are immediately replaceable. The addict in the street who must have junk to live is the one irreplaceable factor in the junk equation. When there are no more addicts to buy junk there will be no junk traffic. As long as junk need exists, someone will service it.

baboon2004
21-04-2009, 02:07 PM
Thanks, that's interesting.

"2--Never give more than you have to give (always catch
the buyer hungry and always make him wait)."

Interestingly, some/many modern forms of addiction/addiction-engendering situations overload the 'buyer' with product, and feed the addiction with infinite choice (eg music, supermarket products, internet porn, casual sex), thereby disabling his/her ability to make a choice or stick with any one thing.* I suppose these feed ruthlessly on the human weakness of indecision/infidelity, while facebook and email and texting etc feed ruthlessly on another human weakness, that of insecurity.

Edit: Of course, infidelity and insecurity are intimately linked...

* and dating websites etc are extending this behaviour even into areas that many consider inviolable/semi-sacred.

Sick Boy
21-04-2009, 02:15 PM
A lot of consumer culture is the illusion of choice though I find. The supermarket is a good example because while the supermarket may be the size of an airport hanger with every conceivable imagining and re-imagining of brand name food products it won't change the fact you are still in a supermarket, and still paying roughly the same amount you'd pay in any supermarket across the world.

UFO over easy
21-04-2009, 02:22 PM
So these addictions would be connected to...the internet, 'casual' sex, facebook/email/twitter, TV, 'fun' as a catch-all, uninterrogable excuse-word for flight from life, TV, dieting, low-level 'going down the pub most nights' alcoholism, holidaying to 'escape' or 'chill out'....and, more controversially perhaps, romantic love as a panacea.

it would be really easy surely to include things which are widely regarded as positive as well though, depending on your outlook.. music, culture, the arts blah blah..

i suppose the extent to which you can justify their exclusion from lists like those is dependent on how able you feel you are to identify first/second/third order desires, or what it is that you really want to be doing, if such a thing is possible.

baboon2004
21-04-2009, 02:40 PM
A lot of consumer culture is the illusion of choice though I find. The supermarket is a good example because while the supermarket may be the size of an airport hanger with every conceivable imagining and re-imagining of brand name food products it won't change the fact you are still in a supermarket, and still paying roughly the same amount you'd pay in any supermarket across the world.

i always bear in mind the thoughts of a Hungarian ex-boyfriend of my ex(!), who'd grown up in east Hungary, and was flabbergasted by the increasing choice in Budapest (presumably even more now, 10 years on). The gist was "Why the fuck would anyone need 20 brands of toothpaste?"

baboon2004
21-04-2009, 02:44 PM
it would be really easy surely to include things which are widely regarded as positive as well though, depending on your outlook.. music, culture, the arts blah blah..

i suppose the extent to which you can justify their exclusion from lists like those is dependent on how able you feel you are to identify first/second/third order desires, or what it is that you really want to be doing, if such a thing is possible.

I was more meaning the excess/misuse of such things (eg downloading music than one never gets round to listening to, watching TV shows that you know are shit and feeling unhappy with yourself afterwards, watching porn and realising you weren't really feeling that sexual anyways).

I am also particularly interested in the continual need to escape geographically from oneself/one's 'problems' (which may in fact be a euphemism for 'oneself'), as has been capitalised on hugely by the holiday/travel industry, and is so painfully obvious in the incessant 'why not?' nihilism of (my own) British culture.

craner
21-04-2009, 03:29 PM
I thought the Naomi Wolf article was fantastic when I read it, and her point, or at least her intervention, has massive implications. Pornography is a disaster. I don't mean this in the way Andrea Dworkin means it, exactly --- in fact, I'm not even sure what I mean. I have a libertarian bent on this, or used to anyway, but I can't help but sense that something is a bit wrong here. The ease of access, the glut, the encroachment into almost all aspects of society, the subjugation of physical intimacy to explicit imagery. And the sheer volume of stuff out there! (Which, of course, spirals down to actual crime networks.) It's distorting the collective libido! You know, try being chaste these days. Or a virgin. It's practically criminalised.

droid
21-04-2009, 03:46 PM
And of course the normalisation of brutality, humiliation and physical violence against women... things may have been bad in Dworkin's time, but she'd shit a brick if she saw some of the stuff that goes on in 'mainstream' porn these days.

Dunninger
21-04-2009, 03:54 PM
"Why the fuck would anyone need 20 brands of toothpaste?"

The excess of choice creates the need. I read somewhere (forgot where) that people addicted to internet porn often don't really masturbate more than casual users but spend hours and hours in search for the perfect video, downloading huge amounts but are never satisfied. So the overload is turned into a perceived scarcity.

baboon2004
21-04-2009, 04:05 PM
And of course the normalisation of brutality, humiliation and physical violence against women... things may have been bad in Dworkin's time, but she'd shit a brick if she saw some of the stuff that goes on in 'mainstream' porn these days.

did you see 'hole in my heart' by lukas moodysson? unwatchable in some ways (lack of narrative made it a trying watch), but the central idea (porn as legitimised emotional rape, to cackhandedly express it) fits in here.

baboon2004
21-04-2009, 04:07 PM
The excess of choice creates the need. I read somewhere (forgot where) that people addicted to internet porn often don't really masturbate more than casual users but spend hours and hours in search for the perfect video, downloading huge amounts but are never satisfied. So the overload is turned into a perceived scarcity.

really well expressed. always the sense that there is something better out there. it's the same for music downloading, i think.

Sick Boy
21-04-2009, 04:29 PM
And of course the normalisation of brutality, humiliation and physical violence against women... things may have been bad in Dworkin's time, but she'd shit a brick if she saw some of the stuff that goes on in 'mainstream' porn these days.

You clearly haven't seen the type of porn where the woman dons high heels and crushes her male counterpart's ballbags underfoot.

BareBones
21-04-2009, 04:41 PM
You clearly haven't seen the type of porn where the woman dons high heels and crushes her male counterpart's ballbags underfoot.

is there a kind of implication in this sort of thing though, that the reason it's (apparently) so dirty and arousing is because the idea of a woman being in control of a man is perverse in itself?

i dunno, i've never seen it. I tend to stick to the 'japanese schoolgirl getting gangraped on the subway' kinda porn.

Sick Boy
21-04-2009, 04:49 PM
is there a kind of implication in this sort of thing though, that the reason it's (apparently) so dirty and arousing is because the idea of a woman being in control of a man is perverse in itself?


That is a bit of a circular argument. I would go as far to say that it is likely the ball-crushing that out-perverts the woman in control bit. It is very possible the idea of porn involving a woman in control is erotic to men who like a woman in control because they find being in a submissive position erotic, not so different from women who like being in the same position (though obv. minus ballmashing). Not because the idea is just so ridi-cu-larse!

Though I find discussion of gender and race almost always devolves into oppression being an absolute and constant thing, whether latent or conscious, which I don't think is the case at all. See thread about pick-up artists for an example.

droid
21-04-2009, 04:56 PM
You clearly haven't seen the type of porn where the woman dons high heels and crushes her male counterpart's ballbags underfoot.

How do you know! ;)

Theres always been subcultures - though again, this is a woman fulfilling a male fantasy of self-abuse - see also scrotum and penile expanding injections...

What I'm talking about is gang rape masquerading as group sex, 'choking', violent anal sex... all things that have become standard fare in the world of porn.

UFO over easy
21-04-2009, 05:25 PM
I was more meaning the excess/misuse of such things (eg downloading music than one never gets round to listening to, watching TV shows that you know are shit and feeling unhappy with yourself afterwards, watching porn and realising you weren't really feeling that sexual anyways).

I am also particularly interested in the continual need to escape geographically from oneself/one's 'problems' (which may in fact be a euphemism for 'oneself'), as has been capitalised on hugely by the holiday/travel industry, and is so painfully obvious in the incessant 'why not?' nihilism of (my own) British culture.

I think though that if you're interested in escape, you can't just look at those things which are widely considered to be harmful when abused. So much of what we're sold is based in part on the idea of 'getting away from it all', whether it's cheap flights, sex or gallery membership. Advertising for all of those things plays on insecurity and feelings of inadequacy, and they could all be seen as a distraction from first order desire, even if they're not physically or emotionally harmful in the short term.

There's also more to be said on orders of desire... I would have thought that any definition of addiction which bases itself on that would have to go some way to explaining how those orders can be distinguished.

craner
21-04-2009, 05:26 PM
And I was talking about the ubiquity of porn.

craner
21-04-2009, 05:29 PM
Pornography has killed sex.

Tentative Andy
21-04-2009, 05:42 PM
Interesting topic. But:


the incessant 'why not?' nihilism of (my own) British culture.

I feel that this is already somewhat outdated.

Sick Boy
21-04-2009, 05:48 PM
Pornography has killed sex.

I don't believe this.

Tentative Andy
21-04-2009, 05:53 PM
[.... never mind.....]

swears
21-04-2009, 07:25 PM
....and, more controversially perhaps, romantic love as a panacea.



I am fiending for a snuggle right now.

baboon2004
21-04-2009, 11:52 PM
Interesting topic. But:



I feel that this is already somewhat outdated.

Quite the contrary, I think. I was having this exact conversation with some German people on saturday (who expressed horror/amsuement at what passes for an ordinary Saturday night's consumption here), and my housemate (who doesn't know the city) independently commented on how less 'up for it' Paris was when he visited a tthe weekend (and he went to the good places).

baboon2004
21-04-2009, 11:53 PM
I am fiending for a snuggle right now.

but you're just buying into the latter-day Western fiction of romantic love!

Nah, me too.

Tentative Andy
22-04-2009, 12:31 AM
Quite the contrary, I think. I was having this exact conversation with some German people on saturday (who expressed horror/amsuement at what passes for an ordinary Saturday night's consumption here), and my housemate (who doesn't know the city) independently commented on how less 'up for it' Paris was when he visited a tthe weekend (and he went to the good places).

Well if you're talking just about booze-fuelled madness then you might be right, that's been engrained in our culture for a very long time and isn't something that people are going to be able to let go of easily. Even with that though, and just based on what I've noticed of the behaviour of myself and my group of friends, I reckon people are starting to move into this pattern where, consciously or not, they save up for quite a while for a big night and then go on a total blow-out. That's in itself different from the routinised sort of thing where people were getting fucked up every weekend or even every of couple of nights, as you were talking about in the initial posts. Not sure if it's better or worse, but it is different.

In general though, I don't think you can overlook the fact that people just don't have much money right now. For levels of consumption to reach the kind of addictive, life-consuming levels that we are considering, the majority of the population must have either (a) large ammounts of disposable income or (b) ready access to credit which can stand in for actual wealth. Neither of these are widely available at the moment, so people are being forced to adopt a more basic, survivalist approach to their day to day lives. Around my neighbourhood, it seems that every business that is offering inessential and/or over-provided services is closing down - cafes, pubs, expensive shops etc. And this is far from a poor area by any means, I'm sure it's worse elsewhere.
Sorry if this is derailing the topic slightly, but I felt it was worth saying.

zhao
22-04-2009, 09:21 AM
I've become increasingly interested of late in the concept of addiction, construed widely,where addiction is (roughly speaking) repeatedly acting in a way that only fulfils one's first-order desires rather than second- or third-order, and so results in repeatedly doing things that one doesn't really want to do (although, in one sense, one does 'want' to, of course).

So, aside from the extremely obvious (heroin, cigarettes, extreme alcohol intake), I woudl suggest that modern life bombards us with possible addictions, to the point that it confuses and disorients so many people from what they really want that it leads to mass low-level unhappiness/search for 'meaning'.

So these addictions would be connected to...the internet, 'casual' sex, facebook/email/twitter, TV, 'fun' as a catch-all, uninterrogable excuse-word for flight from life, TV, dieting, low-level 'going down the pub most nights' alcoholism, holidaying to 'escape' or 'chill out'....and, more controversially perhaps, romantic love as a panacea.

Also, who has written well on this kind of thing?

feeling this entire angle. in fact i've been meaning to make the EXACT SAME post for months now. i really think it would have come out almost identical.

the commodification of the most basic human/animal needs is only possible by taking away that which truly satisfies them, and replace with substitutes which only feel good for a short period, before more is needed.

and some of these "things which truly satisfy basic human needs" which are taken away from us are:

real intimacy
connectedness
extended family
community (knowing your neighbors for one thing)
sense of belonging
sense of connected to one's "work"
sense of genuine "play"

etc. etc.

i really think the nuclear family is at the bottom of this loss/lack, and is simply not a good unit/principle of social organization. children should not be brought up by only 2 adults, but by many of different ages. in our times children grow up with loneliness and lack of connection, and we think it's "natural"...

damn i can go on and on.


There's also more to be said on orders of desire... I would have thought that any definition of addiction which bases itself on that would have to go some way to explaining how those orders can be distinguished.

i second this. someone link to or articulate what these orders constitute?

_________________________________

also, i have emailed our long time friend, you know the one i was fighting with, and asked her to come back. sure would make this already interesting topic even more interesting... lets hope she does.

zhao
22-04-2009, 09:42 AM
I woudl suggest that modern life bombards us with possible addictions, to the point that it confuses and disorients so many people from what they really want that it leads to mass low-level unhappiness/search for 'meaning'.

i suppose i am, with the post above, moving the "unhappiness" before the addiction in the chain of causality.

baboon2004
22-04-2009, 09:58 AM
@ T Andy: Take your point, definitely, but I just see no evidence of that here in London (and I'm not hanging out in the posh parts generally). It seems that lots of other inessentials go before booze does. Maybe people are just drinking at home a bit/lot more, because there's no appreciable difference on nights out here. i think we just live in quite a nihilistic culture, and that's what I've always thought; and, like any good nihilist, a British person is adept at finding cheaper ways to get fucked when the going gets tough.

baboon2004
22-04-2009, 10:05 AM
i suppose i am, with the post above, moving the "unhappiness" before the addiction in the chain of causality.

Very true, good point. On your opther post, I couldn't agree more about (in particular) play and extended family. I would rather have had more adults in my life than just two (and obviously many people have one or none), and fully intend, if I have kids, to bring them up with other adults they know well. Problem is being in close proximity to close friends, for that to be possible (or finding new close friends where you 'settle').

zhao
22-04-2009, 10:27 AM
complete parallel with the books thread: reading "Drama of Gifted Child" right now and author is talking about the essential need for all children to be, gross simplification here, emotionally validated, and to be made to feel safe with the expression of their feelings.

if i may get a little therapy session on us:

i myself was always treated like a "project", which the initiators/owners want to become a success, but with zero regard to how this "project" might have felt, as a human child.

i believe this is the root of all my addictions/problems; but also it has become a strange drive: to become the best at whatever it is i do, and to win back the love and approval that i never had from a cheering crowd or happy clients or magazine articles...

or even approval of people on the internet.

edit: but of course the "drive" i speak of is just another addiction: success. which is, not coincidentally, but very much ironically, the only thing my parents cared about.

luka
22-04-2009, 10:53 AM
im horrified at the amount of time i spend on dissensus. its actually quite distressing. its the only thing i worry about. i dont watch tv or eat junk food or need sugar. i can smoke cigs every day for months and then stop without getting the slightest craving. drinks never been an issue. i smoked an 8th os skunk yesterday but i'll have a week or two off now. i hate not having control. not being able to decide.
burruoghs is definitely the one here, he breaks it all down so precisely its utterly awe inspiring. the same ruse. over and over. press the pleasure button! again! again!

UFO over easy
22-04-2009, 10:59 AM
i second this. someone link to or articulate what these orders constitute?


think its an idea of harry frankfurts so fairly recent. i did my dissertation on this kind of thing, its bringing back memories

some stuff here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/#2

baboon2004
22-04-2009, 11:30 AM
I remember studying someone (possibly frankfurt)who talked about orders of desire in undergrad philosophy ages ago, and it made a lot of sense to me.

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit. I may well have to read this.

@Luka - in terms of pure addiction, the internet is the only one I worry about. As with you, drink/cigarettes/drugs i can rationalise away and keep at manageable levels. And which Burroughs book do you recommend in this context?

@zhao - in terms of the success drive, have you spoken much (you may well have done) to people who have reached a certain pinnacle of their profession/interest area? From my experience, I suspect that such people are not that much happier than the rest of us - perfectionism is an awful cross to bear. (In fact, cult-ish UK critic Charlie Brooker wrote brilliantly on it once - how all the people he thought had achieved what he always wanted to, were in fact themselves plagued by the things they had not achieved, even in areas in which they had no expertise/training).

zhao
22-04-2009, 11:41 AM
@zhao - in terms of the success drive, have you spoken much (you may well have done) to people who have reached a certain pinnacle of their profession/interest area? From my experience, I suspect that such people are not that much happier than the rest of us - perfectionism is an awful cross to bear. (In fact, cult-ish UK critic Charlie Brooker wrote brilliantly on it once - how all the people he thought had achieved what he always wanted to, were in fact themselves plagued by the things they had not achieved, even in areas in which they had no expertise/training).

"Drama of Gifted Child" talks about this: that as soon as effects of the drug of fame or money wears off, and like all drugs they always do, the addict becomes depressed and suffers from a loss of purpose and profound feeling of emptiness... not that i'm all that successful (yet!) but i experience a bit of this regularly...

baboon2004
22-04-2009, 12:15 PM
"Drama of Gifted Child" talks about this: that as soon as effects of the drug of fame or money wears off, and like all drugs they always do, the addict becomes depressed and suffers from a loss of purpose and profound feeling of emptiness... not that i'm all that successful (yet!) but i experience a bit of this regularly...


which I suppose is why lots of artists repeat the mantra that (can't think of a less corny way to put it right now) it's all about the journey and not the result. There's no reason why fame would provide any more sustenance than the megabucks a, say, banker earns - ultimately most acclaim is transitory anyways.

and a lot of famous artists/stars do, in their less guarded moments, talk about trying to use fame to make up for some perceived/actual emotional deficit in earlier years. The 'centre of attention' thing is a less extreme version of the same drive.

woops
22-04-2009, 12:26 PM
depressing thread.
i'll mention david foster wallace's Infinite Jest though.
a book about addiction to drugs, sex, entertainment and all that fun stuff...

baboon2004
22-04-2009, 12:29 PM
depressing thread.
i'll mention david foster wallace's Infinite Jest though.
a book about addiction to drugs, sex, entertainment and all that fun stuff...

don't think it's depressing at all! addiction itself is, but finding ways to cope with it certainly isn't...i look forward to a future addiction-free life courtesy of dissesnus wisdom.

will check out the wallace book.

BareBones
22-04-2009, 12:46 PM
heh, i was going to mention Infinite Jest too as i'm reading it at the moment, but i've already prattled on too much about it on the literature board and didn't want people to think i was obsessed... or addicted...

josef k.
22-04-2009, 12:46 PM
I am interested in a) the addiction to knowledge, and (closely related) b) the addiction to information. Maybe c) addiction to identity. Or d) addiction to power.

This text is good:

http://www.corpse.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=1

Also this:

http://www.kritike.org/journal/issue_2/moeller_december2007.pdf

baboon2004
22-04-2009, 12:52 PM
I am interested in a) the addiction to knowledge

I have this, but it's the one addiction (I think) that makes me happy.

Edit: except that time I read all of the Guardian's 'The Knowledge' football questions back issues. That was largely pointless.

woops
22-04-2009, 01:40 PM
heh, i was going to mention Infinite Jest too as i'm reading it at the moment, but i've already prattled on too much about it on the literature board and didn't want people to think i was obsessed... or addicted...

didnt stop me

woops
22-04-2009, 01:48 PM
also, i have emailed our long time friend, you know the one i was fighting with, and asked her to come back. sure would make this already interesting topic even more interesting... lets hope she does.

damn, talk about the drama of the gifted child

Sick Boy
22-04-2009, 01:53 PM
@Luka - in terms of pure addiction, the internet is the only one I worry about. As with you, drink/cigarettes/drugs i can rationalise away and keep at manageable levels. And which Burroughs book do you recommend in this context?


Don't know about Luka, but I'd recommend Naked Lunch and Soft Machine. These were both written in one of his more intense periods of junk addiction following the death of his wife and self-imposed exile to Tangier, and so focus on the subject of addiction very heavily (virtually entirely).

The new additions are best they include a lot of good appendixes with additional material.

This version of Naked Lunch includes the Testimony Concerning A Sickness I quoted at the beginning of this thread.



i myself was always treated like a "project", which the initiators/owners want to become a success, but with zero regard to how this "project" might have felt, as a human child.

i believe this is the root of all my addictions/problems; but also it has become a strange drive: to become the best at whatever it is i do, and to win back the love and approval that i never had from...



...our long time friend, you know the one i was fighting with, and asked her to come back. sure would make this already interesting topic even more interesting... lets hope she does.

Just saying. This is a bad idea. You of all people.

Sick Boy
22-04-2009, 02:00 PM
im horrified at the amount of time i spend on dissensus. its actually quite distressing. its the only thing i worry about. i dont watch tv or eat junk food or need sugar. i can smoke cigs every day for months and then stop without getting the slightest craving. drinks never been an issue. i smoked an 8th os skunk yesterday but i'll have a week or two off now. i hate not having control. not being able to decide.

I know what you're saying. I have 1,383 posts now. Roughly an average of maybe 100 words a post. That's 138,300 words. That's basically a novel. I find consolation in reminding myself that I only ever post while I'm at work though. Still, that's sort of like saying I only smoke when I drink.

Tentative Andy
22-04-2009, 03:31 PM
@ T Andy: Take your point, definitely, but I just see no evidence of that here in London (and I'm not hanging out in the posh parts generally). It seems that lots of other inessentials go before booze does. Maybe people are just drinking at home a bit/lot more, because there's no appreciable difference on nights out here. i think we just live in quite a nihilistic culture, and that's what I've always thought; and, like any good nihilist, a British person is adept at finding cheaper ways to get fucked when the going gets tough.

Yeah, when you put it like that, I couldn't really argue. It's certainly our national weakness.
There is a part of me that would like to say that not all instances of the pursuit of intoxication equate strictly to nihilism and getting fucked. With alchohol though, it's very hard to make that case, bearing in mind its depressive qualities, its potential for addiction, and the fact that in our culture it is definately used as an excuse for displaying aggression, even if the causal links in terms of actual chemistry may be weak.
Personally I make a huge effort these days not to drink to get drunk, and feel that my life is much better for it. I do often wish that some of my friends would get drunk less often and less severely than they do, but I find it hard to argue this with them. Partly just because such discussions are always difficult, but also because I am aware, melodramatic though it may seem, that it is often the only form of release, the only feeling of something like freedom that is readily available to them.
I think that's the closest you can come to putting a positive spin on our current drinking culture, as I perceive it: it's a sort of a sporadic release of frustration, of pent-up energy and unfulfilled desires, which then perhaps allows people to return to dealing with their practical problems for a period of time afterwards. Almost a return to the medieval culture of feast-days and carnivals, if that doesn't sound far too far-fetched!
I think that it's a marginally preferrable development to the blase, last-man kind of nihilism where people just abuse drink or other drugs routinely, in order to pass the time, in order to fulfill the compulsion to comsume. I do wish that people could throw out their frustrations onto a 'happier', more positive drug than booze though.

PS - I am in full-blown denial when it comes to how much I currently post here. I don't have a problem! :eek:

josef k.
22-04-2009, 04:00 PM
Burroughs says that addiction to junk is ultimately addiction to image...

Image is Junk.

Image-addiction, the consumption of images, remains the main addiction in the West.

Sick Boy
22-04-2009, 04:13 PM
Burroughs says that addiction to junk is ultimately addiction to image...


I'm not sure if I see how the addiction to junk itself (Burroughs basecamp for understanding the nature of all real addiction) is an addiction to image. The image of what? Or an addiction to control or power? I can see being pushed the illusion of power, it's pushed to us every day, but surely the real goal of actual power is to wield it, not to be perceived as having it?

Please explain because I don't think I've read Burroughs mention this (or read into it that way).

zhao
22-04-2009, 04:17 PM
Just saying. This is a bad idea. You of all people.


damn, talk about the drama of the gifted child

hahaha :D no i don't think it's a bad idea. no one is perfect and sure we've had some intense fights but we've also had some really good conversations and fun times. i've decided that at the end of the day she's mostly a pretty awesome person. (and thanks to you know who you are for suggesting the idea last night)

about our beloved Uncle Bill: i wouldn't recommend Naked Lunch to the newcomer, but rather the more readable earlier shorts like Junky or Queer. and i've always meant to read the Western Lands Trilogy, which is supposed to be his masterpiece...

josef k.
22-04-2009, 04:21 PM
Burroughs says on a few different occasions that "Image is Junk" and draws the links between image and junk elsewhere in his work. The third term is word, the word virus, language, from outer space. The logic of the cut-up trilogy is that image addiction (Towers Open Fire: Word Failing, Image Failing) can be severed through disjunction, juxtaposition, etc. He talks about how Billy Holiday knew she was off junk when she stopped watching TV, and the relationship of addiction to routine in particular.

It isn't the image of anything in particular - it is image as such. Control is itself addictive (control is never a means to anything but more control... but control needs time, for what it kills to grow in). The Burroughs fantasy in Queer is of "communication on a non-verbal level, a silent exchange of thought and feeling." In the silence you don't know...

Real power is at your fingertips.

zhao
22-04-2009, 04:22 PM
Burroughs says that addiction to junk is ultimately addiction to image...

Image is Junk.

Image-addiction, the consumption of images, remains the main addiction in the West.

not sure if i understand the first part either but the second surely resonates... representation and the phalocentric gaze, it's a fear of connection, hiding behind the safe distance of the voyeur...

josef k.
22-04-2009, 04:25 PM
not sure if i understand the first part either but the second surely resonates... representation and the phalocentric gaze, it's a fear of connection, hiding behind the safe distance of the voyeur...

Yes, and this is also the Situationist critique.... the passive reception of situation, rather than active engagement in their construction.

josef k.
22-04-2009, 04:34 PM
Many speak about politics. Few perform politics. Politics is a sick Jewish girl, who steals away to Saint Nicholas Station at night, hoping that someone will come and carry her off.

Sick Boy
22-04-2009, 04:34 PM
Burroughs says on a few different occasions that "Image is Junk" and draws the links between image and junk elsewhere in his work.

We are talking about image as any distortion of the true nature of things then? If so, junk as an image addiction makes more sense: the conversion of a regular metabolism to junk metabolism is analogous to the conversion of freedom to any system of control. The creation of a need, then supplying and with-holding the satisfaction of that need accordingly as a means to power over others.

Considering this:


the passive reception of situation, rather than active engagement in their construction.

makes a lot of sense to me in understanding why he made that connection.

baboon2004
22-04-2009, 04:35 PM
Yes, and this is also the Situationist critique.... the passive reception of situation, rather than active engagement in their construction.

i always have difficulty with these generalist abstract constructions....so we're talking about people not shaping their environment by getting eg politically involved, creating their own structures etc, but rather just accepting what already exists?

josef k.
22-04-2009, 04:35 PM
The "political" critique of the hipster, for instance, is a form of consumerist politics... politics as the consumption of a negative image.

josef k.
22-04-2009, 04:36 PM
That is now my understanding, with the provisio that "political" involvement can also be a form of consumption if not pursued creatively, honestly...

If you live outside the law you must be honest.

Sick Boy
22-04-2009, 04:38 PM
I am reading it as involvement by involving yourself into politics, as opposed to involvement by becoming involved within it.

josef k.
22-04-2009, 04:38 PM
This thread has gone crazy...

I don't know if Burroughs would accept the idea of a "true" nature of things... at least, there could be no image of what this true nature might be. "Image" is a way of consuming reality, but "Image" is also part of reality... this is a war universe, Burroughs says somewhere, war and games, that is its nature. The games and the war do not disappear with the critique of the image, but become somehow more malleable. It is about cutting-up the images, rather than consuming them... the question is really one of the relation to image, with addiction offering one relation.

baboon2004
22-04-2009, 04:38 PM
That is now my understanding, with the provisio that "political" involvement can also be a form of consumption if not pursued creatively, honestly...


how do you mean - in terms of self-aggrandisment, fame/praise-seeking?

Sick Boy
22-04-2009, 04:39 PM
In other news, why are my posts appearing behind posts that were submitted before mine?

josef k.
22-04-2009, 04:39 PM
I am reading it as involvement by involving yourself into politics, as opposed to involvement by becoming involved within it.

Yes, absolutely - yourself in all its flawed eccentricity. And also politics in some sense against yourself, beyond yourself... politics in speaking in your own name.

josef k.
22-04-2009, 04:51 PM
This is why I have so much admiration for these guys:

http://publicmovementenglish.blogspot.com/

Sick Boy
22-04-2009, 04:53 PM
This thread has gone crazy...

I don't know if Burroughs would accept the idea of a "true" nature of things... at least, there could be no image of what this true nature might be. "Image" is a way of consuming reality, but "Image" is also part of reality...

He certainly did believe that there was a reality to things though that is obscured by regular conventions of thought (obviously, language, most especially). If this "Image" is junk, but is also a way of consuming "reality" (which I am to assume is in the problematic way), but it is also a part of this same reality, then Naked Lunch - the book where we are meant to all see what is on the end of our forks - becomes very complicated indeed.

Though I'm far from a Burroughs scholar, having not read any of his later work, and I'm sure he's addressed this somewhere down the line.

Sick Boy
22-04-2009, 04:56 PM
This is why I have so much admiration for these guys:

http://publicmovementenglish.blogspot.com/

This is fantastic, and very useful to current research, thanks.

josef k.
22-04-2009, 05:05 PM
"Naked Lunch - the book where we are meant to all see what is on the end of our forks - becomes very complicated indeed."

Good point. What did Burroughs mean by this? It is a strange image for truth... it is an image of what we are all consuming.

Public Movement are fantastic, yes. I just spent five days with them in Warsaw. One of the best five days of my life.

craner
22-04-2009, 06:22 PM
The family thing. (Welcome back, zhao!)

I was an only child raised by an exceptional woman who instilled strong principles in me, and was therefore voraciously hostile to the nuclear family concept and all State attempts to penalise single parent families financially and ideologically, and yet, and yet...

You know, at the age of 31 I'm starting to realise that the family structure is not a fiction or pernicious imposition, it makes some sense. Most of my personal flaws I can now belatedly trace back to my disfuctional family background. I don't blame my parents, they had to get divorced for real and serious reasons, and probably spared me a miserable childhood by doing so.

By I missed a father figure, a totem of authority, and it's starting to show.

I don't think it's wise to junk the nuclear family structure. I used to think it was irrelevant, but it's not. It makes sense, it works. Forget Engels.

josef k.
22-04-2009, 06:31 PM
Most of my personal flaws I can now belatedly trace back to my dysfuctional family background....

But perhaps also, some of your strengths?

IdleRich
22-04-2009, 06:36 PM
"I have a libertarian bent on this, or used to anyway, but I can't help but sense that something is a bit wrong here. The ease of access, the glut, the encroachment into almost all aspects of society, the subjugation of physical intimacy to explicit imagery. And the sheer volume of stuff out there! (Which, of course, spirals down to actual crime networks.) It's distorting the collective libido!"
This is pretty much how I feel I think. It seems to me that if people want to watch porn and other people want to make it and be in it and so on then there should be no problem - but I'm pretty sure that there is a problem although it's hard to say what it is. Maybe it's just another example of the way that everything seems to get more extreme, I don't know. Maybe it's an effect of something else and the problem lies deeper - actually, I'm sure that's the case but that doesn't mean that porn in and of itself can't be a problem too.

Tentative Andy
22-04-2009, 06:50 PM
The family thing. (Welcome back, zhao!)

I was an only child raised by an exceptional woman who instilled strong principles in me, and was therefore voraciously hostile to the nuclear family concept and all State attempts to penalise single parent families financially and ideologically, and yet, and yet...

You know, at the age of 31 I'm starting to realise that the family structure is not a fiction or pernicious imposition, it makes some sense. Most of my personal flaws I can now belatedly trace back to my disfuctional family background. I don't blame my parents, they had to get divorced for real and serious reasons, and probably spared me a miserable childhood by doing so.

By I missed a father figure, a totem of authority, and it's starting to show.

I don't think it's wise to junk the nuclear family structure. I used to think it was irrelevant, but it's not. It makes sense, it works. Forget Engels.

I'm not sure it's about claiming that the nuclear family doesn't work, or can't work. Like everything it has its advantages and its problems, but clearly it can provide a positive environment when certain factors connect up.
It's more about insisting that other family models can work as well. If that makes me sound like a flabby liberal relativist then so be it (though I think it can be put in a more robust way, might try that later when I have more time to think on it). Also, I reckon that seeing it in terms of nuclear family versus single parenting is far too limiting a binary for considering families in general.
Safe for discussing your own background though - don't mean that to be patronising, I am very much in favour of openness of this kind.

craner
22-04-2009, 07:02 PM
Fine, it's a case-by-case issue, and I used to buy that. But is it true? Think about it. Yes people are fucked up, individually, but, then again we give birth to children, and have to raise them.The best way, ideally, is with a strong mix of masculine and feminine influence, and a stable background. It's ideal, and hard to instill and maintain, but I think it's been generally proved to work. All children from broken homes miss it. I mean, weirdly, I don't wish my parents had remained married, but I also miss the family, who barely exist in my case. Really, I just wanted an older sister, a key to my psychology.

Sick Boy
22-04-2009, 07:46 PM
You should see what happens though to children of the "perfect" model of the nuclear family, the middle-upper class families in the suburbs. Especially Boomer parents. They have this naive, enlightened way of raising children to believe they are special, that everything is achievable, and the entire world is essentially their oyster. This is not a good form of parenting: it fills the child's head with acceptable conceit but takes away from their motivation to achieve, since achievement is seen as a given, a birthright.

I was raised in this economic bracket, although my parents were certainly not on this tip, as they weren't born into their wealth and had to work for it. The only thing I've inherited is being terrible with money (not really knowing a true value of it - I don't have much personally, but at all times I am basically protected from destitution should something go wrong), and occasionally finding it hard to relate to real suffering. This is more to do with the environment of the suburbs than my parents.

The effects of coddled parenting in the burbs was all around me though growing up. I know a great deal of people whose parents have rendered them pathologically self-obsessed, emotionally confused underachievers pawing blindly through a cold, dark world in search of the promises they were told it held as infants.

Basically it produces people like Asher Roth (http://socialsciencelite.blogspot.com/2009/04/asher-roth-is-anti-white-guilt.html).

Tentative Andy
22-04-2009, 08:15 PM
Fine, it's a case-by-case issue, and I used to buy that. But is it true? Think about it. Yes people are fucked up, individually, but, then again we give birth to children, and have to raise them.The best way, ideally, is with a strong mix of masculine and feminine influence, and a stable background. It's ideal, and hard to instill and maintain, but I think it's been generally proved to work. All children from broken homes miss it. I mean, weirdly, I don't wish my parents had remained married, but I also miss the family, who barely exist in my case. Really, I just wanted an older sister, a key to my psychology.

Craner, there are a whole load of thing I want to say in response to that, but sadly I don't have the time to concentrate on it right this minute. I will, however, have a response up to it by the end of the night.
(I know I've said things like this on the board before, and then have managed to forget/avoid actually doing them, but this time I will. Promise! :eek: :D ).

zhao
22-04-2009, 09:01 PM
The family thing. (Welcome back, zhao!)

I was an only child raised by an exceptional woman who instilled strong principles in me, and was therefore voraciously hostile to the nuclear family concept and all State attempts to penalise single parent families financially and ideologically, and yet, and yet...

You know, at the age of 31 I'm starting to realise that the family structure is not a fiction or pernicious imposition, it makes some sense. Most of my personal flaws I can now belatedly trace back to my disfuctional family background. I don't blame my parents, they had to get divorced for real and serious reasons, and probably spared me a miserable childhood by doing so.

By I missed a father figure, a totem of authority, and it's starting to show.

I don't think it's wise to junk the nuclear family structure. I used to think it was irrelevant, but it's not. It makes sense, it works. Forget Engels.

well i wasn't comparing single parent to nuclear... i was saying that an extended, bigger family is likely the most healthy environment to bring up children, where they are intimate with and learn from an entire group of adults and have many other children in the group who live and grow up with them, instead of seeing other kids at school and then come home to 2 adults... monkeys live like this.

and... i didn't go anywhere? have been consistently around for quite a while... thanks to boring design jobs

vimothy
22-04-2009, 11:58 PM
I think that the "they fuck you up" theory of parenting is a major stress for most people. But is it true? Maybe I'm not so sure what it means...

Mr. Tea
23-04-2009, 12:25 AM
i myself was always treated like a "project", which the initiators/owners want to become a success, but with zero regard to how this "project" might have felt, as a human child.


Tell me about it...not me personally, thankfully, but some of the kids I've tutored over the past couple of years. Some of whom were kids of seriously go-getting, arse-kicking, high-flying moneymoney career people (you get the idea). Like this one girl of 10 or so whose mum obviously just wanted the best for her, you could tell she really did, but so many times I had to bite my lip and say "You know, you're really not going about this the right way, if I may say so...". So much expectation, it can just end up having the opposite effect by making the kid feel like nothing they ever do is going to be good enough.

What really brought it home was the times the girl and I would be doing a long maths lesson and the mum would bring in some snacks for us - meticulously nutritionally correct snacks - which is great, of course, in and of itself - fruit, dry-cured ham, I mean I was happy as Larry, bring it on - but for her, there was also a little pile of pills. Not drugs or anything sinister like that, but vitamin and mineral supplements, no doubt to encourage not just growth but also learning. And I wanted to say "For heaven's sake lady, this is your daughter here, not a pedigree racehorse". It's like this woman was obsessed with getting the maximum possible performance out of her daughter (who was her only child, it goes without saying).

I dunno - it's probably not so terrible when you compare it to parents who simply couldn't give a shit about their kids; whatever iniquities this girl suffered, at least she wasn't Shannon Matthews. But you can definitely take things too far the other way...

zhao
23-04-2009, 06:43 AM
Craner, wanted to ask you, if it's not too personal (if it is just ignore): what do you gather are the discernable qualities and character traits you have as an adult which come from your single parent, father and father-figure less childhood?

from things i've read i have a general idea that boys without fathers can go in the direction of wild lawlessness and adopt aggressive behavior patterns... don't know how true that is?

and i bet a different dynamic happens with girls brought up by single moms. an ex of mine was like this, and she told me she HATED all the men her mom dated SO FUCKING MUCH as a kid...



I dunno - it's probably not so terrible when you compare it to parents who simply couldn't give a shit about their kids; whatever iniquities this girl suffered, at least she wasn't Shannon Matthews. But you can definitely take things too far the other way...

your comparison is from a typical materialist point of view, which is of course also the POV of this woman.

to neglect a child's feelings in trying to shape him is just another way of "simply couldn't give a shit", the effects of which can be just as disastrous as other kinds of neglect and abuse.

see this is the thing: both my parents were physicists, and were through and through materialist, heartless robots. emotions are unimportant, annoying things to be CONTROLLED (and if sometimes they can not be? well we won't speak about those times and pretend they never happened). and "soul" or the "spiritual dimension"? well that's just a bunch of superstitious bullshit.

and after a life of suffering from inner, unresolved conflicts, and externalizing those conflicts on the world, making those around them suffer tremendously (specifically my father), he/they still do not recognize that the inner world shapes the outer world, and that it is consciousness which precedes materiality.

Carl Jung:


...when an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside, as fate. That is to say, when the individual remains divided and does not become conscious of his inner contradictions, the world must perforce act out the conflict and be torn into opposite halves


nobel prize winning physicist Wolfgang Pauli:


From an inner center the psyche seems to move out-ward, in the sense of an extraversion, into the physical world...

my uncle, the brilliant astronomer who discovered a star, author of many important books, died at the age of 42, from a kidney stone -- in a nut shell, killed by unresolved inner conflicts. i remember the shouting matches that would sometimes turn to blows between him and my father... i remember him going fucking BERSERK like some viking on speed, face turning purple from pure rage... and i remember being beaten by my father until there were no more tears, until my voice was completely gone, and being mute for days after.

(this is ultimate materialism: humans are simply bodies to be shaped through reward and punishment - and it's always the punishment part which gets more play: misery loves company, and loves to breed misery. and of course the next logical step: if no purposes are being served anymore, and these bodies are no longer wanted, we have a very efficient final solution... )

the scariest thing is that this monster is also in me (the rage, passed down). i know not only from deductive reasoning but because it has come out before. but simply being conscious of it and reading these books and trying to work through these emotions instead of denial... even though some real therapy would be good, i don't think i'm going to do TOO much harm to myself or any to people around me. still scared shitless of having my own child though...


I think that the "they fuck you up" theory of parenting is a major stress for most people. But is it true? Maybe I'm not so sure what it means...

haha maybe you have a slightly better idea now? :)

mistadubalina
23-04-2009, 09:02 AM
Having kids is what it's all about. Cant remember specifically, maybe it was the celestine prophecy which said 'the ulitmate aim of the individual(child) is to resolve the conflicting philosophies of their parents so as not to repeat the cycle' or something to that effect, so i did. And now, having kids for me is about simple economics. If i could afford to have lots more i would.

luka
23-04-2009, 09:16 AM
re burroughs i spose id reccomend the collected interviews.

zhao
23-04-2009, 10:45 AM
re burroughs i spose id reccomend the collected interviews.

why read burroughs when you can read luka! :cool: (or soon? or should i have said "listen" instead of read...)

luka
23-04-2009, 10:53 AM
yeah obviously im better. but burroughs definitely knows more about addiction.

Mr. Tea
23-04-2009, 01:07 PM
your comparison is from a typical materialist point of view, which is of course also the POV of this woman.

to neglect a child's feelings in trying to shape him is just another way of "simply couldn't give a shit", the effects of which can be just as disastrous as other kinds of neglect and abuse.

No, I disagree: the woman I was talking about clearly just wanted the best for her daughter, wanted her to be successful (by the parents' standards) when she grew up. Because in the mother's own mind, being successful equates to being happy - and who doesn't want their kids to be happy? And when all's said and done, I'd rather be a highly-paid exec than an unemployed bum (which is, er, actually quite a good approximation of my current situation, but never mind that).

I don't think this woman "didn't care about her daughter's feelings" per se, I just think she was maybe pushing too hard in one direction and not paying enough attention to aspects.

Edit: and I'm sorry to hear about your experiences but that sounds like something way, way beyond what I could see in my student's life. Although of course people can be fucked up in myriad different ways...

zhao
23-04-2009, 01:36 PM
well this woman certainly doesn't sound all that bad, like you say, just overboard.

but if you don't think emotional neglect, under what ever banner or agenda, can have disastrous results... well you need only look at those child prodigies / beauty pageant kids who turn to drug abuse later in life.

Mr. Tea
23-04-2009, 02:01 PM
well this woman certainly doesn't sound all that bad, like you say, just overboard.

but if you don't think emotional neglect, under what ever banner or agenda, can have disastrous results... well you need only look at those child prodigies / beauty pageant kids who turn to drug abuse later in life.

http://www.forartist.com/forensic/modification/mj/mjscan.jpg

zhao
23-04-2009, 02:23 PM
exactly. but his childhood problems were probably even more complex...

Mr. Tea
23-04-2009, 06:22 PM
And, correspondingly, his adult problems. If only Jacko 'merely' had a drug problem to deal with, poor fucker.

swears
23-04-2009, 08:14 PM
Tell me about it...not me personally, thankfully, but some of the kids I've tutored over the past couple of years. Some of whom were kids of seriously go-getting, arse-kicking, high-flying moneymoney career people (you get the idea). Like this one girl of 10 or so whose mum obviously just wanted the best for her, you could tell she really did, but so many times I had to bite my lip and say "You know, you're really not going about this the right way, if I may say so...". So much expectation, it can just end up having the opposite effect by making the kid feel like nothing they ever do is going to be good enough.



I had the opposite problem, though. My parents were (and are) very liberal and easy-going. "As long as you're happy..." types. Looking at my employment and prospects now, I wish I had been pressured a bit more to get better grades at A-level, or whatever... My sister didn't even bother doing most of her GCSEs, she just wrote her name on the exam papers. My 17 year old brother gets more shit from me just for thinking about dropping out of sixth form than they'd ever give him. I don't think my dad learned to read and write until he was about 16 and only ever reads car magazines, but now manages to run a successful small business. He thinks education is a racket even though I'd say he's actually pretty bright.

I suppose there's a balance to be had between the two attitudes.

Mr. Tea
23-04-2009, 08:45 PM
That's funny, my dad is also the clever-but-uneducated sort, also ran business(es) (retired a few years ago at the age of 50-odd...jammy bugger...) but was always keen to see me and my brother do well at school, to take advantage of the education he never benefited from. I guess he did do an awful lot of quite shitty jobs before he happened upon something that turned out to be a good earner, I suppose. And my brother was never very academically inclined and is now earning more as an IT consultant type than I probably ever will, doing anything...me with my two Master's degrees. So it goes...

luka
24-04-2009, 11:12 AM
i think you lot are just whinging cunts. i could blame all my problems on my parents, my education which stops at 5 gcses, my employment history, drug issues, etc etc etc etc but my little sister is a super high achiever and everything always goes right for her. so they can't of been that bad.
its all your fault.
thats my analysis, unless you got raped and beaten and that. then i will cut you slack.

mms
24-04-2009, 12:27 PM
i think you lot are just whinging cunts. i could blame all my problems on my parents, my education which stops at 5 gcses, my employment history, drug issues, etc etc etc etc but my little sister is a super high achiever and everything always goes right for her. so they can't of been that bad.
its all your fault.
thats my analysis, unless you got raped and beaten and that. then i will cut you slack.

It's true, you've got to be responsible for your own life.
There are also so many miriad types of intelligence and achievements.

swears
24-04-2009, 01:58 PM
i think you lot are just whinging cunts. i could blame all my problems on my parents, my education which stops at 5 gcses, my employment history, drug issues, etc etc etc etc but my little sister is a super high achiever and everything always goes right for her. so they can't of been that bad.
its all your fault.
thats my analysis, unless you got raped and beaten and that. then i will cut you slack.

Yeah, I think past a certain point you are alone and have to take responsibility for your situation. I was just saying that I don't think "pushy" parents would have done me that much harm. I probably will end up going to uni at 26 under my own steam if my job vanishes.

zhao
24-04-2009, 09:39 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/04/23/ep.facebook.addict/index.html?imw=Y&iref=mpstoryemail


You know you're a Facebook addict when ...

1. You lose sleep over Facebook

"If you're staying up late at night because you're on Facebook, and you're tired the next day, Facebook may be a compulsion for you," Lipari said. "You shouldn't be neglecting yourself because of Facebook."

2. You spend more than an hour a day on Facebook

Pile says it's hard to pinpoint exactly how much is too much time to be spending on social networking.

"I can't imagine that anyone would need more than an hour a day on Facebook, and probably no one needs more than 30 minutes," she said.

3. You become obsessed with old loves

Reconnecting with old friends is one of the great attractions of Facebook, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with "friending" an old boyfriend or girlfriend. But Pile warns that it can get out of hand very quickly.

"One of my clients met up with an old boyfriend on Facebook. They started spending hours and hours into the night talking to each other on Facebook. She made some really inappropriate comments about how unhappy she was in her marriage," Pile said. "Her cousin saw the comments and told her parents, and the parents told the husband, and now they're in the process of getting divorced."

Health Library
MayoClinic.com: Addiction
4. You ignore work in favor of Facebook

"If you're not doing your job in order to sneak time on Facebook, you could have a real problem," Lipari said.

5. The thought of getting off Facebook leaves you in a cold sweat

nomadthethird
27-04-2009, 07:31 AM
im horrified at the amount of time i spend on dissensus. its actually quite distressing. its the only thing i worry about. i dont watch tv or eat junk food or need sugar. i can smoke cigs every day for months and then stop without getting the slightest craving. drinks never been an issue. i smoked an 8th os skunk yesterday but i'll have a week or two off now. i hate not having control. not being able to decide.
burruoghs is definitely the one here, he breaks it all down so precisely its utterly awe inspiring. the same ruse. over and over. press the pleasure button! again! again!

If you're still getting pleasure from dissensus, you're not an addict yet. Thank yr lucky stars!

Addicts don't feel pleasure, they can't, that's the problem. Their stimulus of choice is not a button pressed to get pleasure, but to stave off hideous physical and psychological agony. Until you've crossed that line, until your brain becomes dependent on the substance, you still feel pleasure from it, so you think--ha! I can beat this, I'm not an addict like all those losers. But once you've crossed that line, you're there, there's nothing you can do to go back. It's too late. You're just like all the other losers and there's nowhere to go but back to the same empty room over and over and over...

There's this weird misperception, I think it's in large part spread by the media, that addicts are just hedonists who are too selfish to stop using because it feels too good.

Wrong!

There is a huge element of self-centeredness to addiction, but it's mostly a symptom and not a direct cause. Addicts do not necessarily want to do drugs (drink, eat, fuck, whatever), they have to stay under the influence or they will get ill. Drug addicts rarely have sex, despite the media's obsession with linking the two, since they can't enjoy it anyway. Most addicts are anorgasmic. By the time you've become an addict, you are clinically considered quite literally incapable of experiencing pleasure. You have to relearn how to enjoy food, how to care about books, music, how to take care of yourself, how to focus on an entire movie, how to feel things against your skin without wincing, how to smell things without getting nauseous--everything. (When your pleasure comes back, it's applified by like a million, though. It almost feels like another kind of high to be clean. Strange.)

Addiction is being a prisoner in your own body; it's the ultimate submissive relationship.

I've heard of gambling addicts having serious "DT" like withdrawal syndrome--complete with vomiting and cold sweating, insomnia, panic attacks and tachycardia. This is because just like drug addicts they've been flooding their brains with dopamine and serotonin for long enough at high enough levels to become dependent on these high levels just to function. Take away the slot machine or whatever and they get sick just like a crack or heroin addict, until their brain rebalances itself chemically--which can take weeks to months to years.

End rant.

nomadthethird
27-04-2009, 07:33 AM
Just saying. This is a bad idea. You of all people.

Don't worry, it was just a guest appearance. You bore me to tears.

nomadthethird
27-04-2009, 07:45 AM
Fine, it's a case-by-case issue, and I used to buy that. But is it true? Think about it. Yes people are fucked up, individually, but, then again we give birth to children, and have to raise them.The best way, ideally, is with a strong mix of masculine and feminine influence, and a stable background. It's ideal, and hard to instill and maintain, but I think it's been generally proved to work. All children from broken homes miss it. I mean, weirdly, I don't wish my parents had remained married, but I also miss the family, who barely exist in my case. Really, I just wanted an older sister, a key to my psychology.

I understand the idea that people need a strong support network, especially early in life, but why would this necessarily have to come from a mix of one "masculine" and one "feminine" influence?

That's the oldest lie in the book.

I had two parents (a straight couple), and it didn't give me any appreciable advantage over my peers that I can detect. Like Zhao, I was basically a trained monkey that got attention and affirmation for as long as I made my parents look good to their friends. They came from hardworking immigrant families who took it as a huge point of pride that their own children do better in life than they did. I resent the fuck out of that and always have.

mistadubalina
27-04-2009, 08:50 AM
I'm addicted to chocolate milk.

STN
27-04-2009, 10:38 AM
I've heard of gambling addicts having serious "DT" like withdrawal syndrome--complete with vomiting and cold sweating, insomnia, panic attacks and tachycardia. This is because just like drug addicts they've been flooding their brains with dopamine and serotonin for long enough at high enough levels to become dependent on these high levels just to function. Take away the slot machine or whatever and they get sick just like a crack or heroin addict, until their brain rebalances itself chemically--which can take weeks to months to years.

End rant.

really? That's interesting and believable; is there any documentation of this? I'd like to read about it, and I'm trying to tempt you out of retirement.

I do recall hearing someone on the radio saying that the physical effects of heoin withdrawal are in fact quite trivial, and that most of the horrendous trappings are psychological.

Sick Boy
27-04-2009, 02:26 PM
I do recall hearing someone on the radio saying that the physical effects of heoin withdrawal are in fact quite trivial, and that most of the horrendous trappings are psychological.

I thought that heroin addiction actually makes changes to your metabolism, that you undergo a physical change when you become addicted. I have no medical background in the slightest though and everything I know about heroin comes from artists' or creative writers' portayals of it.

Burroughs used to talk about how each junkie has their own individual symptom when they go through withdrawal that is specific to them. I think he called his the "cold burns" or something. Is this the psychological aspect? A psychosomatic response?

zhao
27-04-2009, 04:39 PM
I do recall hearing someone on the radio saying that the physical effects of heoin withdrawal are in fact quite trivial, and that most of the horrendous trappings are psychological.

take home reading assignment: a chapter in first half of Infinite Jest called "Poor Tony Had a Breakdown" (or something like that)

anyone know what I'm on about?!?!?!

(incidentally jonesin for some ganj right now... )

zhao
27-04-2009, 05:01 PM
someone on the radio saying that the physical effects of heoin withdrawal are in fact quite trivial, and that most of the horrendous trappings are psychological.

i dont really know if this is true or not but ultimately, i believe that physical and psychological realms are indistinguishable and one and the same.

physical ailments come from psychological disturbance, and vice versa, probably in ways medical science has yet to describe.

people always privilege the visible, physical, concrete, over the emotional, psychic, spiritual. this i think is very wrong.

emotional neglect/abuse is no less disastrous for a child than physical neglect/abuse; and of course they are often intertwined. sure food is directly needed for survival, but the damage done by emotional neglect is just as drastic -- but more difficult to measure, and the effects often take longer to become apparent.

josef k.
27-04-2009, 05:15 PM
Burroughs in Queer: “In my first novel the protagonist Lee comes across as integrated and self-contained, sure of himself and where he is going. In Queer he is disintegrated, desperately in need of contact, completely unsure of himself and of his purpose. The difference of course is simple: Lee on junk is covered, protected, and also severely limited... When the cover is removed, everything that has been held in check by junk spills out.”

Thomas Nagel in "Concealment and Exposure": "The point of polite formulae and broad abstentions from expression is to leave a great range of potentially disruptive material unacknowledged and therefore out of play. It is material that everyone who has been around knows is there -- feelings of hostility, contempt, derision, envy, vanity, boredom, fear, sexual desire or aversion, plus a great deal of simple self-absorption.

Edit: Ultimately, heroin is a painkiller.

zhao
27-04-2009, 06:01 PM
Their stimulus of choice is not a button pressed to get pleasure, but to stave off hideous physical and psychological agony. Until you've crossed that line, until your brain becomes dependent on the substance, you still feel pleasure from it, so you think--ha! I can beat this, I'm not an addict like all those losers. But once you've crossed that line, you're there, there's nothing you can do to go back.


Ultimately, heroin is a painkiller.

but that line is not so clear cut is it? i mean isn't one of the definitions of pleasure "absence of pain"? (not sure how much i agree with it tho).

but it does makes sense to think of the pleasure that the addict is not experiencing in terms of the pleasures that non-addicts experience -- in such a comparison addiction is like you said, just striving for that default "neutral" state that non-addicts take for granted.

dave hickey: heroin satisfies all your desires, while cocaine just make you very acutely aware of them.

viktorvaughn
27-04-2009, 07:05 PM
i dont really know if this is true or not but ultimately, i believe that physical and psychological realms are indistinguishable and one and the same.

physical ailments come from psychological disturbance, and vice versa, probably in ways medical science has yet to describe.

people always privilege the visible, physical, concrete, over the emotional, psychic, spiritual. this i think is very wrong.

emotional neglect/abuse is no less disastrous for a child than physical neglect/abuse; and of course they are often intertwined. sure food is directly needed for survival, but the damage done by emotional neglect is just as drastic -- but more difficult to measure, and the effects often take longer to become apparent.

I don't think this is quite true - i work with child psychiatrists and people working on parenting interventions and courses and there is a massive emphasis on building a secure attachment between parents and child, affection, love etc. That doesn't mean that this view is reflected in the general public but i think people are aware of it by and large. In all these abuse memoirs I get the impression a lot of them detail with mental abuse (eg the one called Ugly) and highlight it as just as damaging as beatings etc.

I agree that the physical and mental are very closely linked and probably in ways we don't yet know about. But baldy stating 'physical ailments come from psychological disturbance' is plainly wrong. Did all these people contracting Swine Flu get it because they holidayed in Mexico at the wrong time or because of un-addressed neuroses and issues troubling their psyches?

zhao
27-04-2009, 07:12 PM
well yeah... there are limits and exceptions of course... i mean if you break your leg playing ball...

viktorvaughn
27-04-2009, 07:19 PM
well yeah... there are limits and exceptions of course... i mean if you break your leg playing ball...

I would content that it is the majority of physical problems which have demonstrable physical and medical cause, and the exceptions which are somehow linked to the mental.

nomadthethird
27-04-2009, 07:58 PM
really? That's interesting and believable; is there any documentation of this? I'd like to read about it, and I'm trying to tempt you out of retirement.

I do recall hearing someone on the radio saying that the physical effects of heoin withdrawal are in fact quite trivial, and that most of the horrendous trappings are psychological.

I can look for some, but I bet if you check on youtube you'll find some good documentaries. There was an HBO doc on addiction that I think had some gamblers in it. I believe there are some good ones on Discovery Health, too.

Withdrawal for some substances is physically worse than others. Cocaine withdrawal is psychologically very bad but physically almost non-existent. For opiates, it's horrible physically ANd psychologically. Think of the worst tropical flu you can imagine, plus the worst stomach flu, plus imagine feeling so weak you can't walk or really even move, sweating and shaking, oscillating between feeling really really hot then so cold that your extremities turn purple, vomiting until it's green bile and then brown salts to the point of organ damage, and on top of that having cascading panic attacks that shoot through your system constantly and cause numbness and tingling everywhere and insomnia so bad you don't sleep at all for days and days. When you do finally sleep for 20 minutes or so at a time, your nightmares are so bad they're like Saw IV times a hundred.

When I transitioned onto maintenance opiates last summer, even though I was on the highest possible dose, it wasn't enough to stop the puking--which I was too weak to do standing up, so I mostly just lied on the floor puking onto a towel or bag. (It did help with most other symptoms, thankfully.) Eventually, I had to be hospitalized. They gave me some kind of anti-vomiting suppository made for people who are dying of cancer, and IV fluids, because I couldn't even keep down water. I lost around 20 lbs in a couple of weeks, and I didn't weigh much to begin with so I got down to less than 90 lbs. I had to be given a steady stream of blood pressure lowering medication too, because my BP was 210/100.

And that's just the "acute withdrawal" phase! This lasts about two weeks, then you have at least six months of "post-acute withdrawal" to look forward to. (No, this wasn't the first time I'd gone through all this...) Luckily, mine wasn't so bad this time. They tell me I shouldn't even be alive based on the shit I've done, and that it's a miracle from my "higher power" who wants me to live so I can do good things for others.

nomadthethird
27-04-2009, 08:05 PM
I thought that heroin addiction actually makes changes to your metabolism, that you undergo a physical change when you become addicted. I have no medical background in the slightest though and everything I know about heroin comes from artists' or creative writers' portayals of it.

Burroughs used to talk about how each junkie has their own individual symptom when they go through withdrawal that is specific to them. I think he called his the "cold burns" or something. Is this the psychological aspect? A psychosomatic response?

One crucial difference is that when Burroughs was using, street heroin was only floating at about 15% purity (I think it even says so in Junky), whereas now it's up to 80-90% pure and much much cheaper than it was then.

Usually when the heroin is expensive and low-grade, people go to pills, and that's exactly what you see in Burroughs--heroin was considered not quite as good as morphine back then (even though heroin is twice as potent as morphine and crosses the BBB much faster) or the other pressed-pill opioids. They usually did only heroin if they couldn't get the pills. That's what it's like in rural areas, too--everybody prefers oxycontin because the farther you are from a big city the weaker the dope gets because it's been stepped on so many times.

Ok no more drug talk for me today.

padraig (u.s.)
27-04-2009, 08:46 PM
people always privilege the visible, physical, concrete, over the emotional, psychic, spiritual. this i think is very wrong.

This is how I've always looked at it - Western medicine is great at crisis intervention, like if you break your leg & go to an ER. It's also much better at dealing with stuff that can be observed/defined/quantified - hence, at least to a degree I think, the emphasis on the "visible, physical, concrete". On the other hand it's not so great at encouraging general health in the first place (beyond some vague eat right/exercise line), or at dealing with more amorphous problems or at dealing with the psyche.

Other forms of medicine/healing - Chinese, Ayurvedic, Naturopathic, etc etc have their own strengths & weaknesses. one big advantage seems to be that most of them encourage a more overall approach to health which makes a lot of sense to me. On the other hand a lot of traditional/alternative medicine quite a mixed bag. Also cos unlike "regular" medicine it's not so closely regulated & thus there are unfortunately a lot of rip-off artists mixed in with the legitimate practicioners. And either way if you got shot you'd still want a Western-style doctor to patch you up.

There's obviously loads more that could be said on this topic, but generally I think it could boils tdown to what you're aiming to have healed. Also obv there's some crossover between Western & more holistic styles of medicine - i.e. my aunt who has termincal colon cancer has been for some time now doing chemo alongside various alternative approaches.

Anyway I think that's a valid point you raised - I just think it's more of a case by case thing than a sweeping statement that can be generally applied.

craner
27-04-2009, 08:57 PM
I must say, I'm extremely pleased - I mean, experiencing much pleasure - to see you back Nomad, but I must ask, why


They came from hardworking immigrant families who took it as a huge point of pride that their own children do better in life than they did. I resent the fuck out of that and always have

why why why and how can this be a bad thing or a thing to be resented? That's the most important point of parenting. That's why parenting breaks down in the upper classes! Or why, for example, Bill Gates is saying openly that his children will not inheret his wealth, because they have to make their own way in the world to make them functioning and successful individuals.

In a way, like teaching, the ideal is to teach a generation so well that they will be able to pass skills and knowledge and principles to their own kids.

There is some point to this, a social function.

padraig (u.s.)
27-04-2009, 08:58 PM
I do recall hearing someone on the radio saying that the physical effects of heoin withdrawal are in fact quite trivial, and that most of the horrendous trappings are psychological.

well nomad already eviscerated that myth (and welcome back nomad! even if it's just a cameo?) but to add my two cents - that is bollocks, I can't imagine who would've said such a thing.

not speaking from firsthand experience - but - I saw an ex-girlfriend's brother go through withdrawal & the horrendous trappings were most certainly very physical. I wasn't there 24/7 or anything - she & her folks were looking after him & I was just popping in & out for moral support & to run errands for them & stuff - but I thought there was a real chance the withdrawal would kill him. he actually pulled through, tho unfortunately he wound up relapsing about a year later & I'm not sure what's happened since. also known several accquaintances - unfortunately heroin is the scourge of a certain part of the traveling punk scene - actually scared me straight back when I was 17-18, seeing all these haggard 23 yr old junkies with gray skin & missing half their teeth & scars from abcesses and so on.

craner
27-04-2009, 09:02 PM
I would like to know your opinions on porn, Nomad. Mainly because mine have been changing radicallyin recent years, and I'm still interested and open to all the arguments.

As disclosure, I got paid three times for writing stories for Mayfair magazine in my pseudo-journalistic "career" in 1999, and I'm not very proud of it now.

Mr. Tea
27-04-2009, 09:20 PM
not speaking from firsthand experience - but - I saw an ex-girlfriend's brother go through withdrawal & the horrendous trappings were most certainly very physical. I wasn't there 24/7 or anything - she & her folks were looking after him & I was just popping in & out for moral support & to run errands for them & stuff - but I thought there was a real chance the withdrawal would kill him.

I think smack withdrawal is hardly ever fatal, unless maybe you're badly ill with something else as well. The only commonly used drug (since barbiturates were phased out) that generally has fatal withdrawals for the very badly hooked is actually booze. Edit: maybe benzos as well.

Sick Boy
27-04-2009, 09:27 PM
I think smack withdrawal is hardly ever fatal, unless maybe you're badly ill with something else as well. The only commonly used drug (since barbiturates were phased out) that generally has fatal withdrawals for the very badly hooked is actually booze.

This doesn't sound right to me. Surely if you're constantly vomiting, not sleeping or eating, and going through mass physical shock, death is not a far off possibility?

Mr. Tea
27-04-2009, 09:43 PM
This doesn't sound right to me. Surely if you're constantly vomiting, not sleeping or eating, and going through mass physical shock, death is not a far off possibility?

I guess it's probably going to depend to some extent on whether you've got dependable people around to look after you. I've just heard that there are drugs with potentially much more severe (i.e. fatal) withdrawals.

padraig (u.s.)
27-04-2009, 09:50 PM
I think smack withdrawal is hardly ever fatal, unless maybe you're badly ill with something else as well. The only commonly used drug (since barbiturates were phased out) that generally has fatal withdrawals for the very badly hooked is actually booze.

This is true AFAIK. My impression was, I'm sure, greatly magnified by how physically grotesque & severe heroin withdrawal is - I mean, if you've no prior experience with it (which I didn't) it looks like the person is on the verge of death.

Tentative Andy
27-04-2009, 11:40 PM
Craner, there are a whole load of thing I want to say in response to that, but sadly I don't have the time to concentrate on it right this minute. I will, however, have a response up to it by the end of the night.
(I know I've said things like this on the board before, and then have managed to forget/avoid actually doing them, but this time I will. Promise! :eek: :D ).

Hardly turned out to be 'by the end of the night', but I did promise so here goes:

You said -
"Fine, it's a case-by-case issue, and I used to buy that. But is it true? Think about it. Yes people are fucked up, individually, but, then again we give birth to children, and have to raise them.The best way, ideally, is with a strong mix of masculine and feminine influence, and a stable background. It's ideal, and hard to instill and maintain, but I think it's been generally proved to work. All children from broken homes miss it. I mean, weirdly, I don't wish my parents had remained married, but I also miss the family, who barely exist in my case. Really, I just wanted an older sister, a key to my psychology. "


Well, I don’t think I’d actually say that it’s a case-by-case issue. There are general trends that can be observed, and at a general level I would say that a typical nuclear family set-up – married hetero parents – is slightly more conducive to a positive upbringing than a single parent situation. However, I would always the following caveats: that these are generalisations so there are many exceptions on both sides, that the difference between the two is far from dramatic, that these conclusions are based on my own fairly haphazard observations and so not scientific, and finally that neither models are either anything like perfect or anything like awful, and indeed neither would represent my ideal or ‘favourite’ family model; for that I would agree with Zhao that extended families are to be preferred. I mean, if we’re going by what’s traditionally accepted as working, then after all these have been the norm for most of human history, and indeed continue to be so for a huge proportion of the world’s population.
Also, what I find a bit questionable is your automatic equation of ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ with strictly men and women respectively. I think the difference between sex and gender is real and important. There are feminine men, and masculine women. So, if we do believe that a balance of masculine and feminine is crucial to an ideal upbringing, then there’s no reason to think that a 1 man-1 woman couple will be the only structure that can provide this, or indeed that it will provide it in every example. Presumably this is at least part of the reason why gay male-male and female-female couples seem to provide perfectly acceptable upbringing environments, because within the couples there would still be contrasts in personality, different power dynamics and social roles within the relationship, so the child would still receive the variety and balance of input that seems to be important.
There were other things I considered saying, but they sounded too much like attempting to sound clever for the sake of it, which I’ve not very good at anyway. But my main point is that I don’t so much disagree with you as think that you’re drastically oversimplifying things.

Mr. Tea
28-04-2009, 12:02 AM
Boys need a father figure when growing up. Doesn't have to be the biological father of course (though there's no reason why it shouldn't be, unless he's useless or an ogre), could be an adoptive father, stepfather, uncle, grandfather or even a (significantly) older brother. But boys who grow up without one at all are badly disadvantaged in all sorts of ways...school (under)achievement, mental health, getting in trouble with the law, and (to bring the thread back) substance problems.

Whether girls are inherently more emotionally hardy when growing up in circumstances like this, or it's to do with the fact that if kids grow up with one parent it's usually the mother, I don't know.

Good points from Andy, by the way.

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 12:20 AM
I'm pretty sure it's difficult to die from heroin withdrawal (T is right about booze and benzos, though), because dehydration is relatively easy to treat...so it's not unheard of, but rare. Most of the people who do die in h withdrawal have HIV or something else. You wish you'd die though.

Craner:

You're right, it's not in and of itself a bad thing, in a lot of ways it was the best thing they could've done for me--I have a decent career edge in part thanks to being pushed pretty hard. I should've filled that out more, I suppose. The bad part was that from a very young age, my parents started trying to live vicariously through me in almost every way. Because I was labeled "gifted", my parents put me in all kinds of competitions, probably thinking this would challenge me and I'd learn from it.

I couldn't do anything without it being made into a competition--from piano and violin playing (which I loved, but eventually hated, because I was forced into playing competitively), to sports, to quiz bowl (my team was on TV once, PBS), to science fairs and OM and all of that. If I won, or beat everyone else, I was the best kid ever. If I lost, I was a huge disappointment and they let me know it. (They also constantly compared my brother to me and made him feel like he couldn't measure up, and to this day he's very insecure in some ways because of it.) Still to this day, anything positive I've achieved they want to take complete credit for, anything bad I've done--well, that's only my fault. There were several levels of dysfunction operating above and below this one, but it's the one that sticks with me the most.

Porn: I haaaate porn. I think it's the least sexy thing imaginable, and I think voyeurs are terrible in bed. Watching porn enough can turn even a decent person into another imagistically-oriented drone who can't get off without looking at strangers "performing" (usually rather unrealistically) sex. This makes sex about getting off on "kicks", so porn watchers often have to keep finding more over-the-top images because the tamest ones stop working over time. They end up being totally visual and not tactile (a woman's nightmare!)

I think the worst thing to do to a teenage male is expose him to all kinds of cheap sexual imagery and pornography, because it plays to all of his worst, most adolescent (read: narcissistic, masturbatory) impulses and fantasies. We have a society full of adolescent men who never grow up sexually because they don't have to--sex remains forever something dirty that they think they need to "trick" women into doing with them, feel embarassed by, and then run from. They lose out just as much as women do, in the long run, because they don't learn how to form lasting bonds and attachments, the stuff that makes intercourse actually satisfying.

That said, I don't think censoring porn is a good idea. First of all, that becomes one of those "slippery slopes" where definitions can't be agreed upon. Second, it's ridiculously difficult to enforce. But ultimately, perhaps the worst effect is that most efforts to stamp out pornography only tend to reinforce negative cultural tendencies like "slut-shaming" and devaluing women based on perceived sexual experience. The better thing to do would seem to be start kids early on respecting others and try to make them see sex as an expression of positive rather than negative attachments or feelings. I think many people (males especially) have no idea how to vent their rage, anger, or other negative emotions through anything but intercourse/sex, and their partners end up bearing the brunt of this. They use sex only to make themselves feel powerful and not to express positive feelings like care, trust, admiration, infatuation, etc.

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 12:34 AM
Also, by the same token, I think female adolescents should be encouraged to get in touch with their own sexuality outside of a relationship. We have a society full of girls who never develop their own identity, who don't spend any time getting to know themselves before they rush into commited relationships that are beyond their ken psychologically and maturity-wise. They end up sacrificing their own sexual identity in the relentless pursuit of pleasing an infantile male who doesn't know what he really wants either. I think if teenage girls were more aware of their own bodies, and didn't think that the only way to discover their own sexuality was through intercourse (these days it's all about oral sex, apparently, for teens), then they would save themselves a lot of grief. Males are allowed that psychological independence, that outlet, but females still aren't... fluff-feminist shows like Sex and the City notwithstanding.

We need psychologically stronger and more independent girls and more empathic, socially adept boys.

I think in the U.S. we have or own sort of hikikomori, except here they're downloading porn instead of playing video games.

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 03:32 AM
dave hickey: heroin satisfies all your desires, while cocaine just make you very acutely aware of them.

So true.

Ironic but unsurprising that the same thing (poppy plant) that is the key to heaven on earth is also the key to hell on earth.

STN
28-04-2009, 08:20 AM
My cousin is a pharmacologist, or something, and he says that one of the dangers of coming off heroin, and doing it 'one last time' is that, as it's a fairly heavily ritualized drug, done in similar places, with the same people, the body learns to expect it and starts preparing to deal with it. As such, once your body's forgotten this, when you take a dose that you're nominally used to, you can be in real trouble. He's fairly well-respected in his profession, so I imagine this is true, what I want to know is, how much of the notion of 'building up a tolerance' is down to this, and how much is physiological?


I suppose I could ask my cousin this, but where's the fun in that?

mistadubalina
28-04-2009, 09:20 AM
I'm pickin a lot of y'all don't have kids.

baboon2004
28-04-2009, 10:09 AM
Porn: I haaaate porn. I think it's the least sexy thing imaginable, and I think voyeurs are terrible in bed. Watching porn enough can turn even a decent person into another imagistically-oriented drone who can't get off without looking at strangers "performing" (usually rather unrealistically) sex. This makes sex about getting off on "kicks", so porn watchers often have to keep finding more over-the-top images because the tamest ones stop working over time. They end up being totally visual and not tactile (a woman's nightmare!)

I think the worst thing to do to a teenage male is expose him to all kinds of cheap sexual imagery and pornography, because it plays to all of his worst, most adolescent (read: narcissistic, masturbatory) impulses and fantasies. We have a society full of adolescent men who never grow up sexually because they don't have to--sex remains forever something dirty that they think they need to "trick" women into doing with them, feel embarassed by, and then run from. They lose out just as much as women do, in the long run, because they don't learn how to form lasting bonds and attachments, the stuff that makes intercourse actually satisfying.

I agree with what you're saying in the second paragraph, absolutely. Yet in the UK (dont' know what the US is like), women collude in making this possible, by generally choosing arrogant men when they want to just have sex for sex's sake. For the rest of us, that's galling.

I disagree with what you say in the first paragraph, and can say from personal experience that it's utter rubbish. I am a voyeur in that I consume porn, and yet am incredibly tactile, which is (one of the reasons) why real sex is better than porn. Please don't reduce men to two-dimensional caricatures - it's extraordinarily dull to hear.

baboon2004
28-04-2009, 10:32 AM
I think many people (males especially) have no idea how to vent their rage, anger, or other negative emotions through anything but intercourse/sex, and their partners end up bearing the brunt of this. They use sex only to make themselves feel powerful and not to express positive feelings like care, trust, admiration, infatuation, etc.

This is interesting, and very true in my experience. But in a world in which sex is commodified, and (men at least, but I think women too) are endlessly told that you have little/no value if you're not having sex all the time, then this is a somewhat inevitable result. But it's kinda relationship sex vs casual sex, innit? Or (heaven knows), mayb erelationship sex is about power to some people...OK, that's fucked.

scottdisco
28-04-2009, 10:34 AM
i met the cinematographer Christopher Doyle once (quite a treat as i am a fan of the look of such films as Rabbit-Proof Fence or In the Mood for Love).

he was pissed and spoke of his fondness for the website Asian Muffin.

zhao
28-04-2009, 10:53 AM
I'm pickin a lot of y'all don't have kids.

living with one does that count?

baboon2004
28-04-2009, 11:13 AM
i met the cinematographer Christopher Doyle once (quite a treat as i am a fan of the look of such films as Rabbit-Proof Fence or In the Mood for Love).

he was pissed and spoke of his fondness for the website Asian Muffin.

porn and race is a whole other conversation... having grown up in an almost 100 per cent white environment (really until after university, which, when I was there in a provincial British town in the '90s, was tremendously white), the fetishistic aspects of my own sexual perceptions of non-white girls still troubles me more than most things about myself. I have enough fetishisations of various kinds (I'm working on it...) that this doesn't stand out, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend to be immune from it. Thankfully I'm far too fickle ever to fixate on one 'type', however that 'type' might be defined...

mistadubalina
28-04-2009, 11:19 AM
heh...not really zhao.

I reckon it's gotta be your own kid otherwise its objective not subjective analysis. Like writing a book about grief and the death of a parent or a child. While you may empathise and sympathise, you dont really know what it feels like til it happens

Parentings like one of those zen/tao things where those that know dont tell and those that tell dont know. Maybe because if you know and tell and your kid turns out to be a cunt of an adult then i guess it turned out you didnt know shit but if you dont say then your arse is covered:p

baboon2004
28-04-2009, 11:34 AM
But if you do a broadly decent 'job' then, y'know, any kid can go off the rails. Worst thing seems to be if they can't talk to you about absolutely anything ie (from talking to people who do have kids; I don't, so what do I know yadda yadda).

Anyways, addictions (reckon there's clamouring for a parenting thread, for whoever wants to start it!) - just struck me that I hadn't mentioned Requiem for a Dream yet (film - still not read the Selby Jr book, shamefully). That draws interesting parallels between 'classic' addiciton (hard drugs) and 'acceptable' addiction (prescribed drugs, media). PLus it's a gorgeous film...

mistadubalina
28-04-2009, 11:59 AM
haha...then its not enough to do a broadly decent job. You have to do an exceptional job. Comes a time when a kid isn't anymore and has to take responsibility for their own actions despite any abuse and shit they took. Some of 'em dont stand a chance though if their parents cant take responsibility for their own actions.

I got 2 hard and fast rules for parenting.

1) never let your kid cry themselves to sleep

2) do as i do not as i say

baboon2004
28-04-2009, 12:08 PM
haha...then its not enough to do a broadly decent job. You have to do an exceptional job. Comes a time when a kid isn't anymore and has to take responsibility for their own actions despite any abuse and shit they took. Some of 'em dont stand a chance though if their parents cant take responsibility for their own actions.

I got 2 hard and fast rules for parenting.

1) never let your kid cry themselves to sleep

2) do as i do not as i say

to add to that, as a result of er, zero experience:

3) teach them to stand up for themselves. it'll save a lot of shit later on.

4) accept that they will do drugs and have sex.

swears
28-04-2009, 03:14 PM
Martin Amis' Money is my fave addiction book. The protagonist's vices are all legal, but completely fuck him up: stuff like booze, fags, junk food, porn (and money obviously)... Written in 1984, but increasingly relevant since, you can read it as the liberalism and permissiveness of the 60s and 70s curdling into the consumerist self-obsession and voracious appetite of the 80s (and 90s, and 00s...)
I love the way John Self is constantly puzzled as to why he puts himself through all this torment, as he doesn't even enjoy his vices anymore. He's constantly ripped off and offended: one trip to a pro ends in him coming and being slung out before he's even had time to get hard.

Tentative Andy
28-04-2009, 03:29 PM
Martin Amis' Money is my fave addiction book. The protagonist's vices are all legal, but completely fuck him up: stuff like booze, fags, junk food, porn (and money obviously)... Written in 1984, but increasingly relevant since, you can read it as the liberalism and permissiveness of the 60s and 70s curdling into the consumerist self-obsession and voracious appetite of the 80s (and 90s, and 00s...)
I love the way John Self is constantly puzzled as to why he puts himself through all this torment, as he doesn't even enjoy his vices anymore. He's constantly ripped off and offended: one trip to a pro ends in him coming and being slung out before he's even had time to get hard.

Great book, but again I would say that it's much less relevant now than it was when it was published. I appreciate your analysis of it though. :)

swears
28-04-2009, 03:39 PM
How is it less relevant? There's more porn now, more cheap booze, more consumerism, more weird/bad money floating around, etc. I don't want to give the ending away but the movie deal, for instance, is all a bit... sub-prime.

It's like Amis could see the wind changing in the early 80s, and I don't think it's changed again just yet.

Tentative Andy
28-04-2009, 03:45 PM
People are much more aware of the dangers of booze, porn, bad food and other legal vices these days. It's actually getting harder and harder to get cheap drink because of goverment intervention, not to even mention the cost of fags. Consumerism is in decline because people ain't go no money. The weird/bad money thing I might give you, but I reckon that's more of a structural thing, less to do with the addictions or other behaviour of particular people. It had more opportunity to feed into addictive habits in the 90s and turn of the 00s when ordinary people had access to substantial credit. Now it effects people in a much more anonymous way.

Please don't take this as a 'things are so much better these days' post. It's more just 'things are different these days'.

swears
28-04-2009, 03:54 PM
I see your point, but I don't think the recession is going to change people's habits that much, Money was written during the downturn of the early 80s anyway, there's stuff about unemployment and the oil hike in there. People often turn to their vices to get through bad times, and sales of cheap convenience and junk foods are up.

BareBones
28-04-2009, 04:00 PM
all true points, but just because people have less disposable income at the moment doesn't mean they necessarily have less desire to get fucked up... haven't pizza hut reported a boost in sales since the credit crunch, as all the wearied and anxious bankers just want to slump into a resigned junk food stupor and forget about only buying healthy waitrose organic vegetables or whatever

still well easy to get cheap booze, too... in london anyway

anyway once you start talking about it more generally like this and factoring in stuff like the global economic situation, the whole thing starts getting way more complex and kinda beyond my mental capacities

also, glad nomad's back, love reading her posts

EDIT: swears beat me to it
EDITEDIT: beat me to my original point, i mean, not the welcome back nomad

Tentative Andy
28-04-2009, 04:10 PM
You're both partially right, of course. Have a look at my responses to Baboon upthread where I cover this sort of thing. I feel this recourse to destructive habits as an ease to stress and frustration at upheavals in your life is a rather different thing to the 90s/early 00s mode of consumption where a certain kind of day to day nihlism was accepted as just what one did, indeed was often compatible with being succesful.

baboon2004
28-04-2009, 04:26 PM
still well easy to get cheap booze, too... in london anyway




Indeed, and the recession is being used as another marketing tool ('credit crunch busters!' etc etc). Go to any London bar on a friday night and there's no way you could tell there's a recession on...way different in smaller towns though.

Mr. Tea
28-04-2009, 04:32 PM
People are much more aware of the dangers of booze, porn, bad food and other legal vices these days.

But people still consume all those things...they just do so with the pleasure thereby derived tempered by guilt and self-disapprobation. "Yes, I know my cigarette is killing me, can you please just leave me alone to smoke it now?"

swears
28-04-2009, 04:38 PM
But people still consume all those things...they just do so with the pleasure thereby derived tempered by guilt and self-disapprobation. "Yes, I know my cigarette is killing me, can you please just leave me alone to smoke it now?"

The pleasure enhanced, even. People are always saying how they're going to be a "bit naughty" and have that biscuit, shot of vodka, ciggie, whatever.

Tentative Andy
28-04-2009, 04:38 PM
But people still consume all those things...they just do so with the pleasure thereby derived tempered by guilt and self-disapprobation. "Yes, I know my cigarette is killing me, can you please just leave me alone to smoke it now?"

So, would you argue that the percentage of people smoking hasn't actually declined significantly over the last 20 years?
That sort of half-guilty/half-defiant enjoyment of things that are known to be bad for you is certainly an interesting social fact, but I would say it depends in some way on the people doing it being in the minority, or at least being aware of theselves as standing against the tide of historical change.

I seem to be getting quite aggressive about all of this... my basic point is just that the world is changing, and that therefore sociological description must change with it. I find it hard to see why this is taken as controversial.

swears
28-04-2009, 04:48 PM
I seem to be getting quite aggressive about all of this... my basic point is just that the world is changing, and that therefore sociological description must change with it. I find it hard to see why this is taken as controversial.

No, you are right in that we're more conscious of the downsides of all this stuff now. But in a lot of ways that's because there's more of it. It's complicated, you've had a boom in junk food and a boom in weight loss products, a boom in booze consumption and a boom in detox-related services/products, etc...

Mr. Tea
28-04-2009, 04:59 PM
So, would you argue that the percentage of people smoking hasn't actually declined significantly over the last 20 years?
That sort of half-guilty/half-defiant enjoyment of things that are known to be bad for you is certainly an interesting social fact, but I would say it depends in some way on the people doing it being in the minority, or at least being aware of theselves as standing against the tide of historical change.


No, you're right - people seem to be drinking as much as ever (well, possibly not as much as they were in 1750 - but in recent history, anyway) but smoking is definitely decreasing. Interesting point too about those who indulge in a certain 'vice' being in the minority - bearing in mind that a couple of generations ago it was non-smokers that were the minority.

Tentative Andy
28-04-2009, 04:59 PM
No, you are right in that we're more conscious of the downsides of all this stuff now. But in a lot of ways that's because there's more of it. It's complicated, you've had a boom in junk food and a boom in weight loss products, a boom in booze consumption and a boom in detox-related services/products, etc...

Yes, absolutely, not to mention the numerous waves of concern about both obesity and anorexia, often seemingly at the same time. It's a strange world out there.
But my hunch is that slowly but surely, people are learning to look after themselves and reign in their bad habits, not so much because of some innate good sense but more because of basic economic necessity. I'm open to being proved wrong about this, though, we'll see.

Tentative Andy
28-04-2009, 05:07 PM
No, you're right - people seem to be drinking as much as ever (well, possibly not as much as they were in 1750 - but in recent history, anyway) but smoking is definitely decreasing. Interesting point too about those who indulge in a certain 'vice' being in the minority - bearing in mind that a couple of generations ago it was non-smokers that were the minority.

It's a weird one, to say the least. Part of me increasingly has a grudging respect for those who still insist on smoking, in the face of the heavily documented serious health risks, the massive financial cost, and now increasing social approbation towards it. But I'm also aware that this is something of a dangerous and patronising attitude coming from a non-smoker, given that their usually stated reasons - 'it's my choice what to do with my body' and so forth - whilst true in principle, are often in practice being employed as rationalisations for a serious physcial and psycological addiction.
Personally I reckon I'll take up smoking when I get to about 65, if it's still legal then and if I'm still alive and functioning myself. :slanted:

BareBones
28-04-2009, 05:35 PM
those who've never been a smoker will never know the exquisite pleasure of, say, a fag after a big meal... and the smoking ban has in a way made me enjoy smoking more, because you get the camaraderie of sticking it to the man with all the other smokers outside the club, not to mention the fun of antagonising really puritan non-smokers... yeah, i'm addicted

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 06:34 PM
My cousin is a pharmacologist, or something, and he says that one of the dangers of coming off heroin, and doing it 'one last time' is that, as it's a fairly heavily ritualized drug, done in similar places, with the same people, the body learns to expect it and starts preparing to deal with it. As such, once your body's forgotten this, when you take a dose that you're nominally used to, you can be in real trouble. He's fairly well-respected in his profession, so I imagine this is true, what I want to know is, how much of the notion of 'building up a tolerance' is down to this, and how much is physiological?


I suppose I could ask my cousin this, but where's the fun in that?

If you haven't done it in a long time and you try doing your old "standard" dose, you can easily OD. Most people shouldn't even shoot it if they go back they should snort it first I would think. One of my friends died the day he got out of rehab because he shot his old dose.

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 06:36 PM
I disagree with what you say in the first paragraph, and can say from personal experience that it's utter rubbish. I am a voyeur in that I consume porn, and yet am incredibly tactile, which is (one of the reasons) why real sex is better than porn. Please don't reduce men to two-dimensional caricatures - it's extraordinarily dull to hear.

I don't know you, and I don't particularly care to. But how good you are in bed is not something I'm going to ask YOU and take it for granted that you're right.

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 06:37 PM
This is interesting, and very true in my experience. But in a world in which sex is commodified, and (men at least, but I think women too) are endlessly told that you have little/no value if you're not having sex all the time, then this is a somewhat inevitable result. But it's kinda relationship sex vs casual sex, innit? Or (heaven knows), mayb erelationship sex is about power to some people...OK, that's fucked.

See, I have no problem with outside-of-relationship sex, if that's what you really want to do. It can be nice. But problems arise when someone *can't* form any sort of lasting relationships because they're too used to getting casual sex or porn.

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 06:38 PM
Martin Amis' Money is my fave addiction book. The protagonist's vices are all legal, but completely fuck him up: stuff like booze, fags, junk food, porn (and money obviously)... Written in 1984, but increasingly relevant since, you can read it as the liberalism and permissiveness of the 60s and 70s curdling into the consumerist self-obsession and voracious appetite of the 80s (and 90s, and 00s...)
I love the way John Self is constantly puzzled as to why he puts himself through all this torment, as he doesn't even enjoy his vices anymore. He's constantly ripped off and offended: one trip to a pro ends in him coming and being slung out before he's even had time to get hard.

Sounds good...

baboon2004
28-04-2009, 11:04 PM
I don't know you, and I don't particularly care to. But how good you are in bed is not something I'm going to ask YOU and take it for granted that you're right.

Don't be so patronising, duckling. And why should I take it for granted from you that you know anything at all about men, as you clearly have a teenager's* view of the opposite sex (I'm assuming you're not a teenager here, though that might explain a few things...especially the endless sequence of very suspicious** look-at-me stories...)?

* No offence meant to teenagers here...

** i.e. containing a healthy quotient of bullshit...

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 11:17 PM
Don't be so patronising, duckling. And why should I take it for granted from you that you know anything at all about men, as you clearly have a teenager's* view of the opposite sex (I'm assuming you're not a teenager here, though that might explain a few things...especially the endless sequence of very suspicious look-at-me stories...)?

* No offence meant to teenagers here...

Did you even read what I originally said before you replied? I said that watching an *excessive* amount of porn from a young age can lead to people being unable to form social bonds that are fulfilling.

I didn't say that watching porn at all is bad. I don't believe sex is bad, nor do I think enjoying watching sex is bad.

But if you don't understand the entire culture of porn that the internet has created, and what it's done to American youth, then I'm guessing you're fucking old and out of touch.

Ask any first year psychology student. It's fucking 101 shit.

What do you know about my "view" of the "opposite sex"?? Nothing.

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 11:22 PM
I love how fucking devastating it is to a male's ego when a female suggests that he may not be as amazing in bed as he believes he is.

Chuckle.

baboon2004
28-04-2009, 11:23 PM
Did you even read what I originally said before you replied? I said that watching an *excessive* amount of porn from a young age can lead to people being unable to form social bonds that are fulfilling.

Ask any first year psychology student. It's fucking 101 shit.

What do you know about my "view" of the "opposite sex"?? Nothing.

Sorry, did I upset you? Auch.

You're referring to a different point, love. You're the one who fails to read what other people say.

Obviously enough, what I know of your view is limited to what I've read you say... To repeat, I belong to the opposite sex, and I was saying that your view of men is hampered by your reducing them to beings that cannot have multiple characteristics that seem contradictory to you. What you said in that paragraph was rubbish.

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 11:25 PM
Sorry, did I upset you? Auch.

You're referring to a different point, love. You're the one who fails to read what other people say.

Obviously enough, what I know of your view is limited to what I've read you say... To repeat, I belong to the opposite sex, and I was saying that your view of men is hampered by your reducing them to beings that cannot have multiple characteristics that seem contradictory to you. What you said in that paragraph was rubbish.

No, you didn't upset me.

Where did I reduce anyone to anything? I simply said that there are MOUNTAINS of evidence that today's youth are increasingly more socially alienated and unable to form lasting bonds. Not as defined by me, but as defined by the psychiatric-medical establishment. Many professionals in part implicate porn in this social problem.

Want some articles? Links to studies?

baboon2004
28-04-2009, 11:25 PM
I love how fucking devastating it is to a male's ego when a female suggests that he may not be as amazing in bed as he believes he is.

Chuckle.

What a predictable response. I was irritated by your patronising tone, not your viewpoint. Which is of little consequence seeing as I don't know you and most of what you write sounds very much like self-aggrandising lies to me.

Darling, I have a healthy degree of humility. You have to learn it, sadly.

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 11:27 PM
What a predictable response. I was irritated by your patronising tone, not your viewpoint. Which is of little consequence seeing as I don't know you and most of what you write sounds very much like self-aggrandising lies to me.

Darling, I have a healthy degree of humility. You have to learn it, sadly.

What are you talking about here?

I've done nothing in my life but lived through my own mistakes. I have no problem admitting I'm very much a fallible human, and that my life has been difficult. I don't really care what you think of me. Life is too short. And it's the internet--I'm not here to make friends. I'm here to discuss topics of importance and interest to me.

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 11:32 PM
self-aggrandising

Yes, how self-aggrandizing--my life is a mess, I wouldn't wish the last two years of my life on Saddam Hussein or Hitler, many of my friends are dead or as good as dead, half of my relatives are dying slow, painful deaths, I have two neurological disorders that make my life a living hell, I don't really see my life getting much better.

What a self-aggrandizing braggart!

If that's your idea of self-aggrandizement, you are sick in the head.

baboon2004
28-04-2009, 11:33 PM
What are you talking about here?

I've done nothing in my life but lived through my own mistakes. I have no problem admitting I'm very much a fallible human, and that my life has been difficult. I don't really care what you think of me. Life is too short. And it's the internet--I'm not here to make friends. I'm here to discuss topics of importance and interest to me.

I'm talking about the fact that I've met many people like you before, who have to make their life sound like the most difficult, their triumphs like the most triumphant etc etc. They rarely are.

Life is indeed too short, but you do care what I think about you (and vice versa, I'm sad to admit), because you're answering what I say in a way that obviously shows that you do (and vice versa). That's another fallacy you're perpetuating (that people don't care about what's said about them on the internet - truth is, human ego is generally too strong).

The quote of yours I was referring to.....:

"porn watchers often have to keep finding more over-the-top images because the tamest ones stop working over time. They end up being totally visual and not tactile (a woman's nightmare!)"

This is a (untrue) cliche that is often trotted out. That was my point.

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 11:36 PM
Oh, give me strength.

If it's true, I'm very sorry to hear all that. But I've read a lot of the things you say in my time on Dissensus, and I'm afraid a lot fo what you say doens't ring true to me at all.

"Sick in the head" - yes, I do in fact have a genetic neurological disorder. That makes us both sick in the head. Touche.

You realize that there are a couple of people who post here who know me well, right? Who've been to my apartment? Who've hung out with me? Ask them if I'm lying about my life. Go ahead.

Just leave this crap out of threads, it's petty and stupid. This was an interesting discussion until you dragged it back to your fucking sexual prowess (again!) like you do most discussions of sexual politics.

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 11:36 PM
I'm talking about the fact that I've met many people like you before, who have to make their life sound like the most difficult, their triumphs like the most triumphant etc etc. They rarely are.

Life is indeed too short, but you do care what I think about you (and vice versa, I'm sad to admit), because you're answering what I say in a way that obviously shows that you do (and vice versa). That's another fallacy you're perpetuating (that people don't care about what's said about them on the internet - truth is, human ego is generally too strong).

The quote of yours I was referring to.....:

"porn watchers often have to keep finding more over-the-top images because the tamest ones stop working over time. They end up being totally visual and not tactile (a woman's nightmare!)"

This is a (untrue) cliche that is often trotted out. That was my point.

I'm simply responding to your lame attempts to belittle and condescend to me. You've done it for years on here. I expect no different from you. For some reason, you see me as some kind of threat to your "manhood", because you've only ever responded to my posts about sexual identity politics, and always with a "you evil feminist shrew!" type of response. Frankly, I think you're sort of dim.

Sorry to break this to you, but the idea that mainstream porn has become increasingly more over-the-top, and created porn addicts have begun chasing ever more over-the-top stimuli, is not my idea. It's a medical fact, and it's a testable hypothesis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18241634

baboon2004
28-04-2009, 11:37 PM
Yes, how self-aggrandizing--my life is a mess, I wouldn't wish the last two years of my life on Saddam Hussein or Hitler, many of my friends are dead or as good as dead, half of my relatives are dying slow, painful deaths, I have two neurological disorders that make my life a living hell, I don't really see my life getting much better.

What a self-aggrandizing braggart!

If that's your idea of self-aggrandizement, you are sick in the head.

Oh, give me strength.

If it's true, I'm very sorry to hear all that. But I've read a lot of the things you say in my time on Dissensus, and I'm afraid a lot fo what you say doens't ring true to me at all.

"Sick in the head" - yes, I do in fact have a genetic neurological disorder. That makes us both sick in the head. Touche.

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 11:38 PM
I don't think my life is particularly triumphant, or particularly difficult. I know lots of people who have it considerably worse, and considerably better than me.

I'm just interested in honesty, and people who aren't afraid to admit that they've had struggles. I respect those kinds of people. I think they are much stronger than people who hide.

baboon2004
28-04-2009, 11:38 PM
I'm simply responding to your lame attempts to belittle and condescend to me. You've done it for years on here. I expect no different from you. For some reason, you see me as some kind of threat to your "manhood", because you've only ever responded to my posts about sexual identity politics, and always with a "you evil feminist shrew!" type of response. Frankly, I think you're sort of dim.

Sorry to break this to you, but the idea that mainstream porn has become increasingly more over-the-top, and created porn addicts have begun chasing ever more over-the-top stimuli, is not my idea. It's a medical fact, and it's a testable hypothesis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18241634

Oh, that made me laugh.

I've never had a conversation with you before.

Who's the dim one now?

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 11:39 PM
Oh, that made me laugh.

I've never had a conversation with you before.

Who's the dim one now?

Uhhh, yes you have.

Check out the thread called "Is there any such thing as straight women?"...also, I recall vividly being told by you that I was "sick" for rejecting a potential sex partner under the influence of ecstasy. That was a really long time ago, probably 2-3 years ago. Search and you'll see.

baboon2004
28-04-2009, 11:39 PM
You realize that there are a couple of people who post here who know me well, right? Who've been to my apartment? Who've hung out with me? Ask them if I'm lying about my life. Go ahead.

Just leave this crap out of threads, it's petty and stupid. This was an interesting discussion until you dragged it back to your fucking sexual prowess (again!) like you do most discussions of sexual politics.

I don't care, to be honest. As you said, it's the internet and you don't care what I think.

I know. I started the thread.

I repeat my answer above. Jeez, what ARE you talking about? You don't know who you're responding to at all, do you? As with all self-obsessed people. :rolleyes:

Goodnight.

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 11:43 PM
I don't care, to be honest. As you said, it's the internet and you don't care what I think.

I know. I started the thread.

I repeat my answer above. Jeez, what ARE you talking about? You don't know who you're responding to at all, do you? As with all self-obsessed people. :rolleyes:

Goodnight.

Zhao, do you see why I hate it here?

Any attempt at a serious discussion of difficult or interesting topics always comes back to this kind of shit.

I can't stand fucking uptight British people, who act like anybody with life experience outside of their fucking little home-module, or outside of society's little norms, must be "making things up" to brag. It's stupid. It's irrelevant. And it's a waste of my time.

baboon2004
28-04-2009, 11:51 PM
Uhhh, yes you have.

Check out the thread called "Is there any such thing as straight women?"...also, I recall vividly being told by you that I was "sick" for rejecting a potential sex partner under the influence of ecstasy. That was a really long time ago, probably 2-3 years ago. Search and you'll see.

To give you a fair chance, I did check it out. That thread was two or three months ago, in fact (Jan 09).

I made one comment, to which you replied. I didn't reply again. In fact, i kinda agreed with what you said in that post.

As for the ecstasy/sick thing...er...dunno where you got that from.

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 11:54 PM
For as long as I've been on here, I remember you being here. Those are far from the only two times you've responded to something I've said, but nearly every reply to anything I've ever posted on here from you has been about how I'm such a meany feminist.

I'm not talking about YOU or your porn habits, I don't know you. I'm talking about social issues that are well-established to be problematic by professionals and researchers, not Joe Blow on the internet. I very clearly stated that the problem is not porn itself, but the saturation of society by images and its effects on adolescents.

Why you would implicate yourself in that statement is beyond me, but I certainly did not implicate you.

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 11:54 PM
What does this have to do with being British? Again, another generalisation. Yawn. I deal with people every day who operate further outside the norms of society than you ever will, so don't give me that shit.

Do you wonder why you continually put people's backs up? Maybe it's something to do with you being a prima donna...? Nah, couldn't possibly be you, must be other people...

Anyway, really, goodnight.

Did I say all British people are uptight? No. I simply said I can't stand the British people who are uptight.

Goodnight.

baboon2004
28-04-2009, 11:55 PM
Zhao, do you see why I hate it here?

Any attempt at a serious discussion of difficult or interesting topics always comes back to this kind of shit.

I can't stand fucking uptight British people, who act like anybody with life experience outside of their fucking little home-module, or outside of society's little norms, must be "making things up" to brag. It's stupid. It's irrelevant. And it's a waste of my time.

What does this have to do with being British? Again, another generalisation. Yawn. I deal with people every day who operate further outside the norms of society than you ever will, so don't give me that shit.

Do you wonder why you continually put people's backs up? Maybe it's something to do with you being a prima donna...? Nah, couldn't possibly be you, must be other people...

Anyway, really, goodnight.

baboon2004
28-04-2009, 11:56 PM
For as long as I've been on here, I remember you being here. Those are far from the only two times you've responded to something I've said, but nearly every reply to anything I've ever posted on here from you has been about how I'm such a meany feminist.

I'm not talking about YOU or your porn habits, I don't know you. I'm talking about social issues that are well-established to be problematic by professionals and researchers, not Joe Blow on the internet. I very clearly stated that the problem is not porn itself, but the saturation of society by images and its effects on adolescents.

Why you would implicate yourself in that statement is beyond me, but I certainly did not implicate you.

:rolleyes: Wtf?? Please - you're thinking of someone else. Try to understand this.

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 11:57 PM
Yawn. I deal with people every day who operate further outside the norms of society than you ever will, so don't give me that shit.


Sure you do. This sounds like a lie to me. Self-aggrandizer.

nomadthethird
28-04-2009, 11:58 PM
:rolleyes: Wtf?? Please - you're thinking of someone else. Try to understand this.

If that makes you feel better, believe it.

nomadthethird
29-04-2009, 12:07 AM
Zhao, STN:

I'm all for vigorous debates of serious issues, but I don't think this forum can sustain them. In the future, I'd be happy to talk to you or anybody else who has serious questions about addiction from a first-person perspective, or from a scientific one, but I don't know if it's worth talking about in public for me. (I need to avoid things that jeopardize my recovery.)

Apparently, the knowledge that some people use drugs and have struggled with them is too much for some people to handle. I suppose I shouldn't expect anything less from the internet. So thanks for the interesting discussion, but I'm outtie again.

[Zhao, if anyone asks, just give them my email address at your own discretion. I trust you.]

josef k.
29-04-2009, 01:11 AM
This man was in prison for 27 years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/29/sean-hodgson-release-prison

Sick Boy
29-04-2009, 04:23 AM
Back to business as usual then.

mistadubalina
29-04-2009, 06:25 AM
Zhao, STN:

I'm all for vigorous debates of serious issues, but I don't think this forum can sustain them. In the future, I'd be happy to talk to you or anybody else who has serious questions about addiction from a first-person perspective, or from a scientific one, but I don't know if it's worth talking about in public for me. (I need to avoid things that jeopardize my recovery.)


When did you know you were addicted ? Like was there a recognizable cross over point from casual user to junkie ? Is it delusional or denial to keep thinking you got a handle on it ? and was it a staircasing thing from mild drugs to harder stuff to keep gettin the highest high ?

I have this love hate thing with cigarettes, but i can get it under control anytime. Thing is i like smoking yet can also go weeks without them. Depends on the company i keep. If i'm around smokers i smoke , if i'm not i dont.

zhao
29-04-2009, 08:23 AM
ok that was pretty ridiculous and unnecessary. actually "completely" is more like it.

i understood what Nomad meant with the "men who consume too much porn become unable to relate", but can also understand how someone else might see that as a polarizing compartmentalization of all men into 2 rigid categories.

nomad said that to make a point about the dynamic of over dependence on representation; i don't think she really thinks that all men belong in 2 categories. but i can see how someone can read it as such.

how it escalated from there i have no fucking idea. but insinuating that Baboon might not be honest about his ability to relate to women in bed was unnecessary, and similarly calling Nomad a liar about her own life was out of line. there are no examples of either of you being knowingly untruthful.

maybe just you both are a bit sensitive right now? but really there was no need for any of that. why don't you say something nice to each other and we'll go on as it is an interesting conversation, and it was really a small bump which turned into a hill...

baboon2004
29-04-2009, 12:16 PM
how it escalated from there i have no fucking idea. but insinuating that Baboon might not be honest about his ability to relate to women in bed was unnecessary, and similarly calling Nomad a liar about her own life was out of line. there are no examples of either of you being knowingly untruthful.

maybe just you both are a bit sensitive right now? but really there was no need for any of that. why don't you say something nice to each other and we'll go on as it is an interesting conversation, and it was really a small bump which turned into a hill...

The voice of reason, and fair enough too. Internet arguments are horrible things.

I apologise for insinuating (or indeed saying) that Nomad might not be truthful about her own life. That was indeed unnecessary.

But I stand by everything else I said, and she is confused about who she is talking to (any evidence to the contrary is gladly received, and i will be quite willing to admit it if I have forgotten a conversation she is referring to - the reference to some ecstasy quote I didn't make is still baffling me).

baboon2004
29-04-2009, 12:17 PM
If that makes you feel better, believe it.

Aaaaaaaarrrggggghhhh! What's the point?

As for your other comment - who questioned that you were a recovering addict? I certainly never did or would do that.

As for working with people who operate further outside the norms of society than you have done, I work within the prison system. 'Nuff said.

Edit: This comment was posted prior to the one 'before' - dunno what happened there...

baboon2004
29-04-2009, 12:24 PM
Anyways, my point was simply that being very visual sexually-speaking doesn't preclude also being very tactile. I didn't even mention sexual prowess! I just, er, like touching things.

Moving away from porn, has anyone experience (themselves or people they know) of what they might term sexual addiction, in the sense of obsessively pursuing short, destructive sexual relationships? From what I have seen, the problem reaches crazy proportions amongst gay men, presumably due to the easier availability of casual sex - a boyfriend of a close friend of mine had apparently slept with over 1000 people, which blew my head off (no double meaning at all intended) when my friend told me. Now THAT'S self-destructive behaviour...

Mr. Tea
29-04-2009, 12:27 PM
Anyways, my point was simply that being very visual sexually-speaking doesn't preclude also being very tactile.

Agreed entirely.



I just, er, like touching things.

Ditto. Being touched is good too.

Edit: for the record I'd like to point out that baboon is excellent in bed.

Edit edit: I just glanced at this post and read 'touched' as 'douched'. :eek:

zhao
29-04-2009, 12:28 PM
I work within the prison system

wow i didn't know that. when i met you i seem to remember you saying something vague about being in an office all day (but i was also drunk) what exactly do you do? if you don't mind talking about it.

i was in the LA county prison for 3 days once... seemed like 3 months. a nightmare you wake up TO. and in those 3 days i saw and experienced so much: grown ass muscle bound badman crying like a little girl... solitary confinement (for a night)... worse than any depiction in films.

baboon2004
29-04-2009, 12:34 PM
wow i didn't know that. when i met you i seem to remember you saying something vague about being in an office all day (but i was also drunk) what exactly do you do? if you don't mind talking about it.

i was in the LA county prison for 3 days once... seemed like 3 months. a nightmare you wake up TO. and in those 3 days i saw and experienced so much: grown ass muscle bound badman crying like a little girl... solitary confinement (for a night)... worse than any depiction in films.

Oh, I work for a small advisory service - I'm not an adviser myself, but this morning for example I was answering calls cos none of my colleagues were around. But the stories I've heard and the letters I've read blow my mind.

My colleague worked in the States, and from what he says the system is much tougher there - but maybe he's referring to the penitentiaries? Though I'm sure LA county jail is horrible...

Yeah, segregation units/solitary confinement must be a mindfuck. Especially if (as often) unmerited.

What strikes me is how nice most of the prisoners I've been in contact with are, and how damaged so many of them are (meant in a factual rather than pejorative sense).

baboon2004
29-04-2009, 12:43 PM
Edit: for the record I'd like to point out that baboon is excellent in bed.

Oh, that beautiful drunken, passionate night...

nomadthethird
29-04-2009, 07:10 PM
T, all guys are visual, from what I can tell and what science says, and I'm not trying to take that away from them. But sometimes--and I've seen it in my personal life, but read a lot about this too--guys who spend all their time looking at porn, to the point of addiction, can't really get into real life sex. They're sort of distractible or far away or something ime.

I know most guys use some kind of porn when they're not getting much action, and I don't blame them really. Since I'm not visual, I don't need that kind of thing so I guess it's easier for me.

I actually like the aesthetic of Japanese bondage porn, though, if I may say so. There are some good artists/photogs who work with bondage over there. It's less cheesy than American porn.

But anyway, Baboon--I'm sorry, but you have to understand that it's not even easy for me to remember last summer, let alone talk about it. I really probably shouldn't have, and that's my own fault. But Zhao is right, I am having a pretty shitty week, so let's not get in pointless arguments about stuff, I'm just not in the mood. If I make a big deal out of something in my life, it's because I don't have many good things going for me and that's all I have.

Also, I was thinking about it and I vaguely remember there was another guy with your same avatar pic that I might be confusing you with? Not sure, but it's possible.

nomadthethird
29-04-2009, 07:22 PM
wow i didn't know that. when i met you i seem to remember you saying something vague about being in an office all day (but i was also drunk) what exactly do you do? if you don't mind talking about it.

i was in the LA county prison for 3 days once... seemed like 3 months. a nightmare you wake up TO. and in those 3 days i saw and experienced so much: grown ass muscle bound badman crying like a little girl... solitary confinement (for a night)... worse than any depiction in films.

I escaped being arrested by a narrow margin a couple of times--thank god, because I can't even imagine what holding is like in Brooklyn let alone LA.

I used to know these kids who would get arrested by filing assault charges on each other, because in holding you can sell drugs for about 10 times what you get on the street for them. So they'd go, sell a bunch of drugs, then drop the charges on each other and leave. (they were teenagers, neighbors not really friends, mind you)

mistadubalina
29-04-2009, 08:14 PM
I'd be happy to talk to you or anybody else who has serious questions about addiction from a first-person perspective, or from a scientific one, but I don't know if it's worth talking about in public for me. (I need to avoid things that jeopardize my recovery.)


Not happy, changed your mind or was that a lie and dont tell me youve gone back to deleting posts to make others look foolish...

...its not a good look eh

zhao
29-04-2009, 08:57 PM
Not happy, changed your mind or was that a lie and dont tell me youve gone back to deleting posts to make others look foolish...

...its not a good look eh

hey, back off.

zhao
29-04-2009, 09:02 PM
I escaped being arrested by a narrow margin a couple of times--thank god, because I can't even imagine what holding is like in Brooklyn let alone LA.

I used to know these kids who would get arrested by filing assault charges on each other, because in holding you can sell drugs for about 10 times what you get on the street for them. So they'd go, sell a bunch of drugs, then drop the charges on each other and leave. (they were teenagers, neighbors not really friends, mind you)

it's something that i had NO IDEA about until it actually happened to me. all the movies and stories ain't shit compared to the real experience... amazing. amazingly brutal and dehumanizing. from the strip naked and get hosed down with high pressure water to the 5+ hours of waiting for your number to get called, to the refrigerator isolation room where i did push-ups and jogged in place all night to keep from freezing... my god i can not even imagine 3 months... or 3 years! or 30!! it's pure torture.

swears
29-04-2009, 09:33 PM
I have an oral fixation that drives people crazy. I spend all day sucking or chewing half the contents of our stationary cupboard at work, sometimes actually ordering stuff that looks good to mangle in my mouth. I went through one of those plastic casio digital watches every month as a teenager by taking it off and chewing the strap until it was a lumpy mess. I go through three packets of "Airwaves" gum every day. It always feels like there's something else I need to cram into my mouth, it's so satisfying.

nomadthethird
30-04-2009, 07:13 AM
Not happy, changed your mind or was that a lie and dont tell me youve gone back to deleting posts to make others look foolish...

...its not a good look eh

Mista, I would no longer like to talk about my person struggle with addiction in public. If you'd like to discuss it with me via email, PM me and I'll be glad to talk with you.

Otherwise, fuck off.

nomadthethird
30-04-2009, 07:14 AM
And no, I haven't deleted any posts. I don't know what you're talking about.

nomadthethird
30-04-2009, 07:15 AM
it's something that i had NO IDEA about until it actually happened to me. all the movies and stories ain't shit compared to the real experience... amazing. amazingly brutal and dehumanizing. from the strip naked and get hosed down with high pressure water to the 5+ hours of waiting for your number to get called, to the refrigerator isolation room where i did push-ups and jogged in place all night to keep from freezing... my god i can not even imagine 3 months... or 3 years! or 30!! it's pure torture.

Yeah, but at least they changed the Rockefeller laws finally!!! Did you read about that? Apparently it's caused quite a lot of people to lose their jobs. Prison is a huge industry, especially in rural areas.

nomadthethird
30-04-2009, 07:25 AM
My colleague worked in the States, and from what he says the system is much tougher there - but maybe he's referring to the penitentiaries? Though I'm sure LA county jail is horrible...


In the U.S. there are state and federal pens. Most petty drug offenses will get you time in the state pen, which can be bad (Attica, e.g., I think is a state pen), but are nowhere near as bad as federal prison. If you bring drugs across state lines, that counts as "trafficing", which gets you a federal sentence usually.

On top of that, they use "intent to distribute" scales to decide what amount of drugs constitutes more than a "personal use" amount...so if you happen to be carrying more than a certain amount of cocaine (I think you usuallyget "intent" with an ounce), for example, you will be prosecuted as if you are a drug dealer, even if you are just an addict who buys in bulk. This has created a huge problem. Especially because in the 80s, during the crack epidemic, they set the "intent" scale really low for crack--so you could have just a few rocks on you, enough for a few hits, and be prosecuted for intent and sent to jail. This was considered a really racist law (called the Rockefeller laws), because it sent so many inner-city black men to prison, some of the even got LIFE for possessing a few ounces of crack.

Edit: the Rockefeller laws are blamed for flooded the prison system and burdening tax payers heavily

mistadubalina
30-04-2009, 07:28 AM
hey, back off.

whys that ? she invited serious questions and seemed happy to talk. Then says goodbye, deletes her account, comes back in a flash and ignores my serious questions. I'm not looking for beef eh...just wondering what gives ?

nomadthethird
30-04-2009, 07:41 AM
I didn't delete my account--I tried to change my email address on the old one and then it froze up.

I didn't mean to ignore you, was just trying to avoid being accused of lying anymore. But to answer your question, since you seem sincere (and really this is as far as I want to go): I didn't admit to myself that I was addicted until I'd been using for about 8 months to a year. But I started noticing mild withdrawal coming on after about 3 months...I could still go a couple of days in between uses until I hit 6 months.

See, I had used morphine tabs and the dissolves-in-water methadone off and on all through undergrad, but only rarely because it was hard to find. I was also a regular user (4 days a week, easily) of cocaine and amphetamines (and everythiing else you can think of) but had always been able to keep my life in order while using them.

Then I moved to the innercity and heroin was everywhere. Because I'd never developed an addiction from the pills in college, I figured "as long as I don't do this too many days in a row, I'll be fine"...

The first few times were pretty bad, it was too strong. I just threw up and felt sick. But then suddenly it started working, and working really well. Full body-mind euphoria. So I'd do it a few nights every week, or try to limit it to weekends. But soon, without even noticing, I was doing it everyday. And if I stopped for a day, I'd go into withdrawal. I was in denial about all of it until I had to go home for Christmas and didn't bring enough and had to go the ER to get methadone.

For the first couple of years, a few bags a day--using only at night after work--was enough to keep me from getting sick. But the dose kept escalating as I built a tolerance. By my fourth year--after trying to get clean unsuccessfully several times--I needed to shoot three bags just to get out of bed. I did at least a bundle a day, everyday.

So this is a good illustration of how addiction works-- I didn't want to continue talking about it, but I can't resist. Right now I'm gritting my teeth and trying to do deep breathing because I'm craving a nice warm itch REALLY BAD. A drug craving is stronger than wanting food or sex or anything else. And I'm already on maintenance opiates that are supposed to block my cravings, but they don't! Addiction is a very, very, extremely powerful thing. Just say no!

nomadthethird
30-04-2009, 07:54 AM
To your other question--I do think there's a curve, if not "gateway drugs"...

Some drugs, like marijuana and other hallucinogens, have very little addictive potential. Which doesn't mean that it's impossible to get addicted (you can potentially get addicted to any mind-altering substance), but the chemical structure of these drugs doesn't tend to cause addiction in most people.

Hard drugs, however, are a totally different story. There is really no way to responsibly use stimulants or opiates without a prescription. In fact, I've learned through my outpatient treatment that I was a cocaine addict for 6 years before I even tried heroin. I had no idea! I would've denied that to the hilt back then.

When I got clean and started to look at my life objectively, I could see a pattern of escalating use starting at age 16. After 6 years of burning out on uppers, I think heroin was so appealing because it chilled me out, and helped me to sleep (I've been an insomniac my entire life). Too bad it destroyed my life in every other conceivable way.

That said, I'm really grateful for the fact that I still have a chance at a life, and for all of the things I do have. Some aren't so lucky. I'm going back to school in the fall and things are slowly getting easier.

mistadubalina
30-04-2009, 08:19 AM
i do sincerely wish you all the best nomad and appreciate your frank replies. I'm someone who smokes weed and drinks occassionally and to be honest i cant even handle that. I've passed out in so many places from that, that the thought of doing anything harder scares the shit out of me. I tried acid once, it made me aggro, i tried meth once, it put me to sleep and then i woke up jittery. i tried rohypnol and woke up naked next to a friend of my cousins... it wasnt pretty and i cant remember anything about it. Havent had an ecstasy buzz yet, I dont think i could bring myself to inject and as for cocaine, i dont even know if you can get it in NZ.

i used to stay at my cousins who dealt in hard drugs and couldnt believe some of the people who used to wander thru or what they used to do to get it. Hopefully i've scared my kids by saying we, as polynesians, are metabolically destined to not be able to handle drugs :D

baboon2004
30-04-2009, 08:36 AM
as for cocaine, i dont even know if you can get it in NZ.


i think I remember meeting a nz-er and them telling me coke was around UK£100 a gram (already pricey at 40 a gram, or around that, in London). Maybe precisely cos it's scarce? :eek:

nomadthethird
30-04-2009, 08:37 AM
i do sincerely wish you all the best nomad and appreciate your frank replies. I'm someone who smokes weed and drinks occassionally and to be honest i cant even handle that. I've passed out in so many places from that, that the thought of doing anything harder scares the shit out of me. I tried acid once, it made me aggro, i tried meth once, it put me to sleep and then i woke up jittery. i tried rohypnol and woke up naked next to a friend of my cousins... it wasnt pretty and i cant remember anything about it. Havent had an ecstasy buzz yet, I dont think i could bring myself to inject and as for cocaine, i dont even know if you can get it in NZ.

i used to stay at my cousins who dealt in hard drugs and couldnt believe some of the people who used to wander thru or what they used to do to get it. Hopefully i've scared my kids by saying we, as polynesians, are metabolically destined to not be able to handle drugs :D

Thanks, Mista! So you're from NZ, that's cool, I've always wanted to visit...

It sounds like you're already good at drawing clear boundaries between what's good for you and what isn't...I think you're doing well with drugs! Don't lose that fear of hard stuff.

The best thing to do for kids, I think, (though I don't have em) is to make sure they develop lots of good habits and hobbies from a young age, so they aren't as tempted to sit around getting high. The rest is up to them!

baboon2004
30-04-2009, 08:40 AM
To your other question--I do think there's a curve, if not "gateway drugs"...

Some drugs, like marijuana and other hallucinogens, have very little addictive potential. Which doesn't mean that it's impossible to get addicted (you can potentially get addicted to any mind-altering substance), but the chemical structure of these drugs doesn't tend to cause addiction in most people.

Hard drugs, however, are a totally different story. There is really no way to responsibly use stimulants or opiates without a prescription. In fact, I've learned through my outpatient treatment that I was a cocaine addict for 6 years before I even tried heroin. I had no idea! I would've denied that to the hilt back then.

When I got clean and started to look at my life objectively, I could see a pattern of escalating use starting at age 16. After 6 years of burning out on uppers, I think heroin was so appealing because it chilled me out, and helped me to sleep (I've been an insomniac my entire life). Too bad it destroyed my life in every other conceivable way.

That said, I'm really grateful for the fact that I still have a chance at a life, and for all of the things I do have. Some aren't so lucky. I'm going back to school in the fall and things are slowly getting easier.

Best of luck with that.

I guess the fact that you didn't realise for those years you were a cocaine addict is simply because you could carry on with normal life in some shape or form?

As to weed - as I understand it, no physical addiction, but it and acid have exacerbated schizophrenic (using the word non-medically) tendencies in more people than I care to think about. :(

nomadthethird
30-04-2009, 08:44 AM
I have an oral fixation that drives people crazy. I spend all day sucking or chewing half the contents of our stationary cupboard at work, sometimes actually ordering stuff that looks good to mangle in my mouth. I went through one of those plastic casio digital watches every month as a teenager by taking it off and chewing the strap until it was a lumpy mess. I go through three packets of "Airwaves" gum every day. It always feels like there's something else I need to cram into my mouth, it's so satisfying.

My parents are like this with gum and candies. I always thought it was because they'd quit smoking and so they needed to always have something in their mouths...

Actually, at work I used to absent-mindedly chew pens and pen caps, which is pretty gross if you think about work pens...

nomadthethird
30-04-2009, 08:49 AM
Best of luck with that.

I guess the fact that you didn't realise for those years you were a cocaine addict is simply because you could carry on with normal life in some shape or form?

As to weed - as I understand it, no physical addiction, but it and acid have exacerbated schizophrenic (using the word non-medically) tendencies in more people than I care to think about. :(

Thanks. :) I'm not trying to be dramatic or anything about it, honestly, but if people can learn from my mistakes then I think it's worth sharing. I think a real, not-media hysterical view of how addiction works is desperately needed.

And yeah, my parents have tons of stories about their friends who went off the deep end with hallucinogens. For coke and heroin being so easy to get in the U.S., LSD is actually relatively hard to come by and expensive. Slightly less so on the west coast, I've heard...

mistadubalina
30-04-2009, 09:46 AM
Thanks, Mista! So you're from NZ, that's cool, I've always wanted to visit...

It sounds like you're already good at drawing clear boundaries between what's good for you and what isn't...I think you're doing well with drugs! Don't lose that fear of hard stuff.

The best thing to do for kids, I think, (though I don't have em) is to make sure they develop lots of good habits and hobbies from a young age, so they aren't as tempted to sit around getting high. The rest is up to them!

if you ever visited you probably wouldnt want to leave. we're so naively infectious eh

and i dont know about drawing boundaries between whats good for me or not. Its like "I" dont have control and run on instinct but its when i override them i get into trouble.

as for the kids. we have family porn nights :eek:

luka
30-04-2009, 09:51 AM
new zealand is the best country out.

mistadubalina
30-04-2009, 10:08 AM
^^^yeah once we fully assimilate the colonials we'll be runnin tings proper...:p

luka
30-04-2009, 10:18 AM
haha, best of luck with that

mistadubalina
30-04-2009, 11:20 AM
heh...2 more generations i reckon and they'll be fully polynized

BareBones
30-04-2009, 12:30 PM
i have a friend from Wellington (lower hutt or upper hutt or something?) though i think she lives in auckland now, she complained to me a few times about how crazily expensive pills/mdma is out there (especially when comparing it to the sort of '3 pills for a tenner' deals you get in the UK). I can't exactly remember what she said the price was out there, i think it was like $25-30 for one pill or something. so I imagine it's pretty tough to develop an ecstacy problem in NZ unless you're pretty flush (not that it's addictive like heroin or something anyway)... always wanted to go to NZ though, seems like such a wicked and beautiful place.

anyway all the best nomad, i hope things work out for you. can't remember if i asked already but have you read Infinite Jest by david foster wallace? it's really great, and it explores loads of the things you've talked about here re: addiction...

luka
30-04-2009, 12:41 PM
yeah but you can get blue meanies live from the soil so who needs the pills. the scarcity of pils and heroin and coke are one of the best things about the place. shame about the meth but theres always something.

luka
30-04-2009, 12:43 PM
dubalina, you used to post here under a different name i swear

BareBones
30-04-2009, 01:01 PM
the scarcity of pils and heroin and coke are one of the best things about the place.

yeah i don't doubt that, i'm not a regular taker of class a's anyway and neither is my nz friend, i'm kind of in the same boat as dubalina, like a bit of weed and booze and that'll do me.

Mr. Tea
30-04-2009, 01:56 PM
i have a friend from Wellington (lower hutt or upper hutt or something?) though i think she lives in auckland now, she complained to me a few times about how crazily expensive pills/mdma is out there (especially when comparing it to the sort of '3 pills for a tenner' deals you get in the UK). I can't exactly remember what she said the price was out there, i think it was like $25-30 for one pill or something. so I imagine it's pretty tough to develop an ecstacy problem in NZ unless you're pretty flush (not that it's addictive like heroin or something anyway)... always wanted to go to NZ though, seems like such a wicked and beautiful place.

anyway all the best nomad, i hope things work out for you. can't remember if i asked already but have you read Infinite Jest by david foster wallace? it's really great, and it explores loads of the things you've talked about here re: addiction...

And it was NZ that popularized BZP as a replacement for (rip-off) pills and (addictive) meth. But fucking hell, is that stuff ever harsh on the old bod...got banned here a year or two ago, may have been banned in NZ as well I think.

mistersloane
30-04-2009, 02:10 PM
a boyfriend of a close friend of mine had apparently slept with over 1000 people, which blew my head off (no double meaning at all intended) when my friend told me. Now THAT'S self-destructive behaviour...

but it's not really that many people though, is it? It's only kinda one every day for three years.

My favourite story was an old mate who was asked at a new GU how many people he'd slept with and he pointed at the phone book and went 'start at A'.

Pestario
30-04-2009, 02:17 PM
From what I have seen, the problem reaches crazy proportions amongst gay men, presumably due to the easier availability of casual sex - a boyfriend of a close friend of mine had apparently slept with over 1000 people, which blew my head off (no double meaning at all intended) when my friend told me. Now THAT'S self-destructive behaviour...

1000! A guy at work has confided that he's had over 600 sexual partners in the space of about 6 years. Although he's now happily and monogamously civil partnered for over 8 years (EDIT: obv CPed when it became legal). I guess those sexual encounters were 'healthy' in the way that they didn't affect his ability to love one person.


with the net it's extremely easy to get nookie. Just put in your postcode and you're off...

baboon2004
30-04-2009, 02:24 PM
I'm obviously not trying hard enough!

but, like, a thousand....anyways, I was shocked. More to the point - were so many of them that rubbish that they weren't worth seeing again, or is that not the point,a nd it's just variety after variety after variety until there's no variety at all, just a different face/arse/cunt/cock/whatever (ear, if you're really kinky)?

baboon2004
30-04-2009, 02:29 PM
but it's not really that many people though, is it? It's only kinda one every day for three years.

My favourite story was an old mate who was asked at a new GU how many people he'd slept with and he pointed at the phone book and went 'start at A'.

I'm rubbish with acronyms...

It's definitely a succinct, show-stopping answer! :)

Mr. Tea
30-04-2009, 02:33 PM
I'm rubbish with acronyms...

It's definitely a succinct, show-stopping answer! :)

Genito-Urinary, I think. Clap clinic to you and me.

viktorvaughn
30-04-2009, 02:45 PM
1000 seems like a huge number to me. 100 seems like a lot too. each to their own and all that.

BareBones
30-04-2009, 03:09 PM
quality not quantity, is what i say

baboon2004
30-04-2009, 03:24 PM
quality not quantity, is what i say

both together is even better ;)

mistersloane
30-04-2009, 03:43 PM
I'm obviously not trying hard enough!

but, like, a thousand....anyways, I was shocked. More to the point - were so many of them that rubbish that they weren't worth seeing again, or is that not the point,a nd it's just variety after variety after variety until there's no variety at all, just a different face/arse/cunt/cock/whatever (ear, if you're really kinky)?

I think it's sex as function rather than form. I mean, I think it can - and maybe should - get pathologised quite easily, that form of promiscuity, but another way of looking at it is just having a different fantasy every (day? other day? week?) ...and then acting on that. Plus it's free.

I'm not necessarily advocating, just trying to look at other ways of looking at it rather than the good/bad/fucked up paradigms that seem to occur round the subject. For some people, sex is just their thing, y'know? Hobby almost I guess. I'd think that the burnout rate would be quite high though, people appearing as objects rather than humans, from people I've met that seems to be the case, which ties in with the porn use discussion as well.

baboon2004
30-04-2009, 04:11 PM
I think it's sex as function rather than form. I mean, I think it can - and maybe should - get pathologised quite easily, that form of promiscuity, but another way of looking at it is just having a different fantasy every (day? other day? week?) ...and then acting on that. Plus it's free.

I'm not necessarily advocating, just trying to look at other ways of looking at it rather than the good/bad/fucked up paradigms that seem to occur round the subject. For some people, sex is just their thing, y'know? Hobby almost I guess. I'd think that the burnout rate would be quite high though, people appearing as objects rather than humans, from people I've met that seems to be the case, which ties in with the porn use discussion as well.

Yeah, I'd be interested in reading any studies that have come out on this level of promiscuity, where a large number of people have ben interviewed.

The routine thing is interesting - eg instead of watching an hour of TV in the evenings, I'll go and have sex with someone.

Without wishing to lapse into the typical paradigms you rightly want to avoid, I do think that it would be difficult to see sex as a hobby in this way without some sticky (ahem) consequences. Is it that easy to choose one night/one week NOT to do your hobby in this case? And is it fun any more?

Yeah, definitely ties in with the porn thing, where (virtual) variety can be the attraction too.

mistersloane
30-04-2009, 04:32 PM
Yeah, I'd be interested in reading any studies that have come out on this level of promiscuity, where a large number of people have ben interviewed.

The routine thing is interesting - eg instead of watching an hour of TV in the evenings, I'll go and have sex with someone.

Without wishing to lapse into the typical paradigms you rightly want to avoid, I do think that it would be difficult to see sex as a hobby in this way without some sticky (ahem) consequences. Is it that easy to choose one night/one week NOT to do your hobby in this case? And is it fun any more?

Yeah, definitely ties in with the porn thing, where (virtual) variety can be the attraction too.

Project Sigma used to be really good on this - I was an interviewee for a while! a long time ago. I should probably get back in touch with them actually

http://www.sigmadiaries.com/

That's for gay men, though not exclusively. Their interviews used to be really interesting.

I think it'd be like any non-physiological (weirdly, lol) addiction, in that, y'know, if you don't have a reliance on weed then you will smoke if it's there, won't if not, but I guess like any habit, it would get harder to break the more you do it. And I guess yeah the fun would still happen, it's just that some orgasms are better than others.

I disagree with people here on the weed thing btw, I know it's not listed as being physiologically addictive but I've seen plenty of people clucking really badly when they don't have it. I think it's just as pernicious as any other drug, personally. And I like drugs, but I think weed is taken too lightly alot of the time, without wanting to get all sunday supplementy.

baboon2004
30-04-2009, 05:20 PM
Project Sigma used to be really good on this - I was an interviewee for a while! a long time ago. I should probably get back in touch with them actually

http://www.sigmadiaries.com/

That's for gay men, though not exclusively. Their interviews used to be really interesting.

I think it'd be like any non-physiological (weirdly, lol) addiction, in that, y'know, if you don't have a reliance on weed then you will smoke if it's there, won't if not, but I guess like any habit, it would get harder to break the more you do it. And I guess yeah the fun would still happen, it's just that some orgasms are better than others.

I disagree with people here on the weed thing btw, I know it's not listed as being physiologically addictive but I've seen plenty of people clucking really badly when they don't have it. I think it's just as pernicious as any other drug, personally. And I like drugs, but I think weed is taken too lightly alot of the time, without wanting to get all sunday supplementy.

The Sigma stuff is very interesting, thanks.

I guess the problem is that i can't relate due to lack of promiscuous experience(!), so everything I'm thinking on this is wild conjecture. But I do know that I do feel morose when I have orgasms on a daily/v regular basis when it's not with a cherished partner (so either sinful masturbation or casual encounters).

Agree about weed, definitely. I'd rather my child took pills or speed every (maybe not every) weekend than smoked skunk. I think I mean that.

Mr. Tea
30-04-2009, 05:35 PM
Weed can be insidious because some people kid themselves that it's not a 'proper' drug, or not a 'bad' drug like booze, coke, speed, whatever. Or when they decide it can't be harmful because it's, ahaha, 'natural'. It's when something is assumed to be harmless that it actually becomes dangerous. Of course, this applies to all sorts of things.

BareBones
30-04-2009, 05:35 PM
I disagree with people here on the weed thing btw, I know it's not listed as being physiologically addictive but I've seen plenty of people clucking really badly when they don't have it. I think it's just as pernicious as any other drug, personally. And I like drugs, but I think weed is taken too lightly alot of the time, without wanting to get all sunday supplementy.

i wasn't trying to suggest that weed is totally unaddictive or unharmful anything, i've got plenty of friends who are heavy weed smokers and they're always jonesing real bad when they can't get hold of any (though of course it's nothing compared to like heroin withdrawal or whatever), and my girlfriend is a psychiatric nurse so she's full of first-hand knowledge of guys who've turned totally psychotic and paranoiac from years of smoking... i've smoked weed for like maybe 8, 9 years, though never really heavily, but I have my occasional moments of paranoia, crushing apathy, memory loss, an almost explictly-noticeable sort of mental slowing-down, all that stuff.... i still like smoking though. :eek:

BareBones
30-04-2009, 05:39 PM
Or when they decide it can't be harmful because it's, ahaha, 'natural'.

yeah, the most ridiculous student argument of all

Mr. Tea
30-04-2009, 05:45 PM
yeah, the most ridiculous student argument of all

Anyone making that argument about a drug should be force-fed datura. :D

BareBones
30-04-2009, 05:47 PM
i had to look datura up... blimey.

Sick Boy
30-04-2009, 06:06 PM
Agree about weed, definitely. I'd rather my child took pills or speed every (maybe not every) weekend than smoked skunk. I think I mean that.

That's outrageous.

josef k.
30-04-2009, 06:21 PM
Sex is communication.

Not the manipulation of objects.

josef k.
30-04-2009, 06:23 PM
Yeah, but at least they changed the Rockefeller laws finally!!! Did you read about that? Apparently it's caused quite a lot of people to lose their jobs. Prison is a huge industry, especially in rural areas.

This is key.

droid
30-04-2009, 07:04 PM
That's outrageous.

Yeah. Weed for all the negatives has one important aspect compared to other drugs - it simply can't kill you.

mistersloane
30-04-2009, 07:04 PM
Sex is communication.

Not the manipulation of objects.


Is it still communication if the dialogue is the manipulation of objectification?

josef k.
30-04-2009, 07:09 PM
Absolutely yes.

nomadthethird
30-04-2009, 07:41 PM
Genito-Urinary, I think. Clap clinic to you and me.

You guys think I am mean, but you should meet my brother.

Once he was at my apt and he answered his cell and I heard him say really seriously:

"Oh god, that's terrible, I'm sorry...no I won't tell anyone."

Then he got of the phone and snickered quietly while txting something.

So a couple of seconds later my phone explodes and it's a txt that says "Aaron has the clap!!!" which he sent to everyone on his phone.

nomadthethird
30-04-2009, 07:43 PM
Weed can be insidious because some people kid themselves that it's not a 'proper' drug, or not a 'bad' drug like booze, coke, speed, whatever. Or when they decide it can't be harmful because it's, ahaha, 'natural'. It's when something is assumed to be harmless that it actually becomes dangerous. Of course, this applies to all sorts of things.

Smoking weed can cause cancer like smoking anything can...I always prefer eating it, myself...it's strong enough to feel that way if you eat enough

nomadthethird
30-04-2009, 07:44 PM
I think it's sex as function rather than form. I mean, I think it can - and maybe should - get pathologised quite easily, that form of promiscuity, but another way of looking at it is just having a different fantasy every (day? other day? week?) ...and then acting on that. Plus it's free.

I'm not necessarily advocating, just trying to look at other ways of looking at it rather than the good/bad/fucked up paradigms that seem to occur round the subject. For some people, sex is just their thing, y'know? Hobby almost I guess. I'd think that the burnout rate would be quite high though, people appearing as objects rather than humans, from people I've met that seems to be the case, which ties in with the porn use discussion as well.

I don't like it when people get all black and white about sex, especially those people who imagine themselves warriors against the evils of stripping and prostitution. It always ends up being just another excuse to put people down who don't subscribe to society's sex norms...

mistersloane
30-04-2009, 09:40 PM
Absolutely yes.

Is the manipulation of objects communication if both the objects are human?

mistersloane
30-04-2009, 09:50 PM
I don't like it when people get all black and white about sex, especially those people who imagine themselves warriors against the evils of stripping and prostitution. It always ends up being just another excuse to put people down who don't subscribe to society's sex norms...

Nice to have you back :)

nomadthethird
30-04-2009, 10:28 PM
I don't know how long it's gonna last, because I should be busy, but thanks :) Always nice to see Mistersloane!

baboon2004
01-05-2009, 02:02 AM
That's outrageous.

Pills have caused me far less harm than skunk has. In fact, I've never felt bad off pills - I don't get comedowns for whatever reason, so I'm sure that colours my opinion on this.

The difference is due to the frequency of usage, I'll give you that, but the fact is it's far more acceptable/normal/likely to sit down on the sofa and have a strong spliff on a nightly basis than it is to do pills. It's part of a certain social structure.

I'd really rather they did neither.

mistersloane
01-05-2009, 09:54 AM
i wasn't trying to suggest that weed is totally unaddictive or unharmful anything

Yeah sorry if it appeared I was having a go at you or anything, wasn't just wanted to put my tuppence in about weed. I've just known so many people who are utterly, utterly dependent on it and whose lives are completely shaped by it, and it's understandable but I just find it frustrating that it's classed outside of other drugs, because it just isn't any different. It shapes an entire worldview. It's deemed lesser because it's not classed as being physically addictive, but it comes with its own baggage. The psychosis and cancer annoy me less than the dependency it engenders, people form themselves around it.

Baboon's right, it's the frequency of use. Sitting down on the sofa with a good strong pill on a nightly basis, that's the way to go ;)