opalescent
Active member
Well this got weird.
love, sex & dissociation
- Thread starter River
- Start date
River
Well-known member
Really, I thought it was Uri Geller in both roles. But what do I know?
Ravenscroft
Banned
You are, of course, correct -- interesting things are attached to other interesting things & unpacking one gets the whole tangle &, next thing I know, I'm driving across Nebraska.
My point being that we are in many ways susceptible to manipulation, in which I include the "cult of Romance" (not, btw, my term).
As a former journalism student, before I jumped to sociology, I spent some time studying techniques of marketing, mesmerism, NLP, speechwriting, propaganda, & psychological warfare -- you'd be shocked at how much these overlap. (Like, the Army taught my wife NLP when she was being trained in psyops to take over Central American radio stations during an invasion. Your tax dollars at work.)
In order to break the manipulation, a subject must first be aware that such techniques are being used. For instance, in the Pegg stunt, did you notice the tape reels spinning behind Brown, right in Pegg's line of sight? Did you catch Brown using keywords like "cycle"? or tapping Pegg's hand to create a musculoskeletal association? (An NLP technique, & used on at least one episode of The Mentalist.)
In order to consciously look for these tricks, you must first know that they exist & are indeed used.
Romance might be the single most common experience of mind control in our culture. Many of us actually seem to believe the equations, such as "diamonds = commitment" or "flowers = love," or that we MUST somehow sustain NRE levels of hotness for half a century or more (yet only marry innocent virgins).
My point being that we are in many ways susceptible to manipulation, in which I include the "cult of Romance" (not, btw, my term).
As a former journalism student, before I jumped to sociology, I spent some time studying techniques of marketing, mesmerism, NLP, speechwriting, propaganda, & psychological warfare -- you'd be shocked at how much these overlap. (Like, the Army taught my wife NLP when she was being trained in psyops to take over Central American radio stations during an invasion. Your tax dollars at work.
)In order to break the manipulation, a subject must first be aware that such techniques are being used. For instance, in the Pegg stunt, did you notice the tape reels spinning behind Brown, right in Pegg's line of sight? Did you catch Brown using keywords like "cycle"? or tapping Pegg's hand to create a musculoskeletal association? (An NLP technique, & used on at least one episode of The Mentalist.)
In order to consciously look for these tricks, you must first know that they exist & are indeed used.
Romance might be the single most common experience of mind control in our culture. Many of us actually seem to believe the equations, such as "diamonds = commitment" or "flowers = love," or that we MUST somehow sustain NRE levels of hotness for half a century or more (yet only marry innocent virgins).
Ravenscroft
Banned
Like Penn & Teller, Brown does share some of his techniques.
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Conjuror-Derren-Brown/dp/1905026595/ref=pd_sim_14_1?ie=UTF8
http://www.amazon.com/Tricks-Mind-Paperback-DERREN-BROWN/dp/1905026358#nav-top
You won't learn how to do stuff yourself, of course -- those details are worth a LOT of cash among performers! -- but he does show how much setup & practice goes into a brief, simple-appearing stunt.
http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Conjuror-Derren-Brown/dp/1905026595/ref=pd_sim_14_1?ie=UTF8
http://www.amazon.com/Tricks-Mind-Paperback-DERREN-BROWN/dp/1905026358#nav-top
You won't learn how to do stuff yourself, of course -- those details are worth a LOT of cash among performers! -- but he does show how much setup & practice goes into a brief, simple-appearing stunt.
River
Well-known member
I didn't know who Simon Pegg was when I wrote "Must have paid off the two bit actor." That is, I did not know he was actually an actor and not just some guy off the street (ostensibly).
I guess I've revealed that I'm not a great movie buff. I do enjoy movies sometimes, but unlike some of my friends I don't remember the names or even all of the faces of the actors.
When I called the guy a "two bit actor" I was suggesting that the guy was not honest about believing he had written "BMX bike" on the card in his wallet, and was paid off.
However, since I wrote that I've reviewed the "cues" in the video, and I can now certainly see how the various items round the room were designed to suggest a bicycle. But it is quite a leap from suggesting a bicycle and convincing a grown man that he had earlier written BMX bike where in fact he had written "leather jacket".
You should know that the fist video I watched with this Brown fella was the one with the kitten which was rigged up for shocking with a big red button. I figured the young woman in that video was just some girl off the street (is she also an actor?). I thought she got paid off... as a two bit actor. Why else would she kill a kitten? It made no sense, unless she's extraordinarily easy to manipulate. (I'm certain I would have laughed at the whole set up and never pushed the red button myself.)
WhatHappened
Active member
In short, without having read other replies, I agree with you, River. I think it was a problem between me and XBF. He had taught himself to totally dissociate sexual intimacy from feelings.
In one moment of rage (on his part), I had pointed out that for most people, wining and dining, romance, physical intimacy, emotional intimacy, cuddling, close conversations, doing things together, time together all adds up to falling in love, and when he does all these things with me for two years running, it's quite normal to fall in love.
He raged at me that I don't get to define normal and did I just call him abnormal?
[A particularly bizarre exchange given that every behavior on his part indicated he was quite deeply in love with me, too--but then, I think that was part of the problem, that he'd taught himself not to FEEL love, and therefore was acting on emotions he could no longer name or recognize, necessarily, after years of dissociating these behaviors from love, and treating them all as a game.]
In one moment of rage (on his part), I had pointed out that for most people, wining and dining, romance, physical intimacy, emotional intimacy, cuddling, close conversations, doing things together, time together all adds up to falling in love, and when he does all these things with me for two years running, it's quite normal to fall in love.
He raged at me that I don't get to define normal and did I just call him abnormal?
[A particularly bizarre exchange given that every behavior on his part indicated he was quite deeply in love with me, too--but then, I think that was part of the problem, that he'd taught himself not to FEEL love, and therefore was acting on emotions he could no longer name or recognize, necessarily, after years of dissociating these behaviors from love, and treating them all as a game.]
River
Well-known member
River
Well-known member
Taking up an old post here....
This statement is packed with so much truth! But that truth can be -- and often is -- quite exaggerated.
I don't expect to see the ground littered with twenty dollar American gold pieces from the middle of the nineteenth century when I hike in the mountains near my home. But if I did expect to see them I'd be either astonished not to find them or very disappointed that they are not there.
Habits of perception certainly have a tremendous power over us, in terms of what we do and do not perceive. That's for sure! And, of course, we are blind to our own blind spots! (I often go searching for mine, but still they can be difficult to discover.)
We do not merely see what we expect to see, in any simple sense. But we often don't see what is there which we do not expect to see.
But a thing must be there to be seen, rather than merely imagined, fantasized or hallucinated. The tree out my window really is there. It's been there for about 60-80 years, I imagine, though it's much bigger today than it was fifty years ago.
Many people these days seem to believe that our thoughts actually decide what is there to be seen. Sometimes I wish it were so, because many times I have truly believed that certain wonderful things were simply bound to happen, and they did not. My believing in them, even expecting them, certainly did not make them happen. I was simply wrong in my belief. I was overly optimistic.
One example is I did not believe it were possible for America to elect Donald Trump as president. He said and did so many things during the campaign which should, by all reason, have ruined his candidacy utterly and completely, rendering his election a preposterous notion.
Alas, I was wrong.
Another example: I was entirely sure the second year's "startup" operational funding would arrive for the little nonprofit I work for.
It did not.
I was wrong.
I wish believing made it so, sometimes.
It does not.
So much for talk of "manifesting" with our minds and "the law of attraction".
This statement is packed with so much truth! But that truth can be -- and often is -- quite exaggerated.
I don't expect to see the ground littered with twenty dollar American gold pieces from the middle of the nineteenth century when I hike in the mountains near my home. But if I did expect to see them I'd be either astonished not to find them or very disappointed that they are not there.
Habits of perception certainly have a tremendous power over us, in terms of what we do and do not perceive. That's for sure! And, of course, we are blind to our own blind spots! (I often go searching for mine, but still they can be difficult to discover.)
We do not merely see what we expect to see, in any simple sense. But we often don't see what is there which we do not expect to see.
But a thing must be there to be seen, rather than merely imagined, fantasized or hallucinated. The tree out my window really is there. It's been there for about 60-80 years, I imagine, though it's much bigger today than it was fifty years ago.
Many people these days seem to believe that our thoughts actually decide what is there to be seen. Sometimes I wish it were so, because many times I have truly believed that certain wonderful things were simply bound to happen, and they did not. My believing in them, even expecting them, certainly did not make them happen. I was simply wrong in my belief. I was overly optimistic.
One example is I did not believe it were possible for America to elect Donald Trump as president. He said and did so many things during the campaign which should, by all reason, have ruined his candidacy utterly and completely, rendering his election a preposterous notion.
Alas, I was wrong.
Another example: I was entirely sure the second year's "startup" operational funding would arrive for the little nonprofit I work for.
It did not.
I was wrong.
I wish believing made it so, sometimes.
It does not.
So much for talk of "manifesting" with our minds and "the law of attraction".
I'm not able to go through the whole thread, but after reading the initial post, I must largely agree. I do believe disociation from feelings (to me, meaning supressing, invalidating, projecting or otherwise ignoring your own emotions to the degree where you are not even aware of having them) is an extremelly common, pronounced and in a sense supported phenomenon in the western culture.
And sex, sex carries a bundle of emotions which are very easy to disociate from. Not only intimacy, or perhaps past and cultural trauma connected to the sexual experience - even the simple physical sensation of sex, when it gets intense, is pushed out of awareness if we haven't made a sustained effort to learn otherwise and stay conscious. Only a fraction remains - sadly.
I have got only my own experience and a limited experience with others to support my claims, but it's something I'm pretty deeply convinced of.
And sex, sex carries a bundle of emotions which are very easy to disociate from. Not only intimacy, or perhaps past and cultural trauma connected to the sexual experience - even the simple physical sensation of sex, when it gets intense, is pushed out of awareness if we haven't made a sustained effort to learn otherwise and stay conscious. Only a fraction remains - sadly.
I have got only my own experience and a limited experience with others to support my claims, but it's something I'm pretty deeply convinced of.
Shaya
New member
I also didn't read the whole thread, just the first few and the last few. I wonder, River, if it's worth reposting and summarising, and carrying on the discussion with a new thread?
The concept of disassociation between physical and emotional intimacy is a really interesting concept you've stumbled upon, River. I'm still trying to wrap my head around it. Do you feel that repression of sex by society and religion has led to the underground flourishment of physical intimacy in pornography? The opposite, emotional intimacy, flourishes widely "aboveground" in other forms of media ranging from Disney, PG-rated movies, novel classics and social chit chat.
Society does seem to have compartmentalised physical and emotional intimacy, with the only overlap being the job description for your monogamous life partner. And it's not just monogamy - even within the ethical framework of consensual nonmonogamy, our closest philosophical allies, The Swingers, are distinguished from polyamorists in that they try not to cross this big red line.
What a fascinating concept, River. I'm hooked intellectually on this. Do you have any resources that led you down this path of thinking?
-Shaya
P.S Your avatar with a half tiger half human, both deliberately showing the same-side eye. Is that you disassociating too?
River
Well-known member
I think it's okay for folks to engage with this thread at any level they want to, but reading the first five or six posts is recommended to get a handle on the topics under discussion.
It's ultimately a rather vast and complex topic. Hard to get a handle on, I think, as we see in reading some early responses here in the thread. The challenge lay mostly in the provision of meaning or significance to different approaches to sexuality. Those who enjoy frequent casual sex with many people whom they don't really get to know well will not quite resonate with the various thoughts and feelings of those who aren't into that sort of thing, and will probably leap to the conclusion that an essentially aesthetic preference is some kind of moral judgement instead. Etc. So it can be a lot of work to communicate clearly and accurately in such a context.
While I'm seeking to be open minded and exploratory here, rather than to begin by presuming to have a handle on this, my tendency is to think that the phenomenon of "dissociated sex" I've been exploring here (which generally involves objectification) is likely one among many symptoms of a culture somewhat literally "out of touch" with feeling (which is a broader category than emotions, I think). Feeling, emotion and sensation are all very basic attributes of our embodied being. So when we're out of touch with feeling we're really quite out of touch with life and ourselves. Literally. And when this is a mass social-historical phenomenon, as it may well be, it may be that only a minority of people will speak the language of feeling we're exploring here. In other words, we're dealing with a knotted mess if we're going to try and put a common handle on this thing.
Hmm. I think it was a leopard and a human. Two images presented side-by-side, not one. My point in the juxtaposition of these two images was to point out how similar we various mammals really are -- and that we, too, are animals. (People often speak of humans as if we were not animals! It's weird.)
I came to this thread because I thought it was about psychological dissociation and sex, not an open call for philosophical musings about whether folks in the US need to get their hearts and crotches aligned better.
I agree that those of us raised in this culture are bombarded with stories and images that teach us some screwy things about sexual intimacy, emotional intimacy, and consent. I'm also keenly interested in how to un-learn a lot of the lessons I learned about all this, and polyamory is an interesting area to explore this.
As an assault survivor, though, I want to be really clear that "dissociation and sex" is a real symptom and a real problem. When you have sex that you aren't fully present for, it's impossible to know what you really want, so it's impossible to give full, enthusiastic consent. You leave each encounter feeling terrible on some level, though you might push it away. Learning how to be fully present for sex you DO want, and how to say no to what you don't want, is the biggest gift you can give yourself and your lovers.
But recovery can take a long time and be really scary. It can take a lot of trial and error, and I recommend having a therapist or support group or both.
For me, that's all that's needed to unite heart and crotch—loving yourself enough to only have sex that you are actually present for, and caring for your partner/s enough to notice when they are or aren't present (if they're checked out at all, that's when you STOP!). This doesn't mean we need to be in love with everyone we sleep with, or that we need to stop sleeping around. Learning how it feels to be present in yourself is part of what recovery means. On an individual level, this is important for everyone who's suffered abuse or assault. I think cultures change when the individuals in them change, and push for different ways of being.
I agree that those of us raised in this culture are bombarded with stories and images that teach us some screwy things about sexual intimacy, emotional intimacy, and consent. I'm also keenly interested in how to un-learn a lot of the lessons I learned about all this, and polyamory is an interesting area to explore this.
As an assault survivor, though, I want to be really clear that "dissociation and sex" is a real symptom and a real problem. When you have sex that you aren't fully present for, it's impossible to know what you really want, so it's impossible to give full, enthusiastic consent. You leave each encounter feeling terrible on some level, though you might push it away. Learning how to be fully present for sex you DO want, and how to say no to what you don't want, is the biggest gift you can give yourself and your lovers.
But recovery can take a long time and be really scary. It can take a lot of trial and error, and I recommend having a therapist or support group or both.
For me, that's all that's needed to unite heart and crotch—loving yourself enough to only have sex that you are actually present for, and caring for your partner/s enough to notice when they are or aren't present (if they're checked out at all, that's when you STOP!). This doesn't mean we need to be in love with everyone we sleep with, or that we need to stop sleeping around. Learning how it feels to be present in yourself is part of what recovery means. On an individual level, this is important for everyone who's suffered abuse or assault. I think cultures change when the individuals in them change, and push for different ways of being.
River
Well-known member
Hi Rochelle. As one who has studied a fair amount of both psychology and philosophy, I find it impossible to think about or understand one without the other. I know not everyone approaches these things as I do, but that's how I am. Philosophy -- as I understand it -- is largely a practice of asking very fundamental questions about things, including psychology. And our individual and collective psychology (or psyche) will inevitably color our beliefs about psychology itself.
The phenomenon of psychological dissociation, as understood by most psychologists today, is of course related to trauma. Trauma frequently (not always) results in dissociation as a symptom. But it seems to me from my studies of current trauma theory that there remains much for us to learn about precisely how trauma and dissociation manifest in the "soma" or bodymind. Mainstream psychology is slowly catching up to the realization that all psychological phenomena is ultimately best understood somatically. There's a whole field within psychology called "somatic psychology," and somatic psychotherapists are very much interested (at least some of them!) in how regions of the body are involved and implicated in how we think, feel and behave -- and why this is so. Such inquiry is simultaneously philosophical and psychological.
It could even be said that some people are "dissociated" from feeling/sensation in some parts of their body (soma) while open to feeling/sensation in others. You've probably heard folks talk about how some folks (at least for a time) are "in their heads" while others are more "heart-centered" ... with still others are more "gut oriented" ("gut feelings").... Many psychologists and philosophers, in various times and cultures, have identified these three somatic "centers" as important. The Chinese Taoists speak of the "three dantians," while Indian (Asia) traditional cultures speak of "chakras".... And current neurobiology actually seems to support the existence of "three brains" (of a sort) in nerve plexi in the same areas of the body as the "three dantians" (head, heart, gut).
Yes. I think those "stories" are not just thoughts in our heads, but also manifest in our very flesh -- and that changing our "head" about them may not be sufficient to change our perceptions, attitudes, tendencies and capacities. I also think it will likely help for us to consult not just our heads but also check in with our gut and heart as we inquire about such things. I think that the ideal situation for us humans is for our head, heart and gut to be "talking among one another" in some sort of mutually respectful "dialogue" involving both thinking, sensing and feeling.
I consider it quite possible (a gut hunch, if you will) that anything other than a whole-bodied approach to eros / sexuality may have some degree and/or kind of "dissociation" in it -- and that head, heart and groin (and gut) are happily involved when there is a complete absence of dissociation.
However, I'm not using "dissociation" in a highly restricted, clinical sense here. I'm using the term "dissociation" to mean "checked out" (not fully present). Think of the English word "wholehearted," (fully or completely sincere, enthusiastic, energetic, etc.; hearty; earnest). One can be "checked out" only partly -- for example, in the heart. Or the head, or gut.... Or so I suspect.
This is inevitably a philosophical as well as a psychological question, I think (and feel). For it involves very fundamental questions about what constitutes healthy sexuality or erotic expression. Not everyone will agree what that is! And that's okay. Questions are good for us, much of the time, even when we cannot find ready answers to them. As the poet, Rilke put it:
Good advice. I agree. And I'd recommend a therapist who knows how to work directly with the body, as in somatic psychotherapy (or healing arts). Working directly with the body does not necessarily mean via touch -- but touch can probably be a helpful part of such therapy, applied wisely and appropriately, and with the right timing.
I'm in basic agreement. But I would say that while I agree that we need not be "in love" with our partners in order to explore sex with them, I would recommend at least having a genuinely loving intention toward self and other when engaging in sexual intimacy. That is, I think we should acknowledge that hearts are always present, and so should be honored during sexual intimacy.
Then again, this is my hope and ideal in all human relating. I think our culture tends far too often to discourage wholeheartedness -- or the presence of "heart" in our relating.
I believe (and it's just my personal belief) whenever we touch or are touched we are making direct contact with a WHOLE being, which is a being with heart (among other factors).
I also believe "heart" is fundamentally mysterious and can never be fully comprehended by "the head" alone.
Because "heart" is fundamentally mysterious, it often gets neglected, avoided, bypassed (so to speak). And I think the meaning of all of this must be bodily felt to be truly "understood" or "known". The head does not comprehend the heart. The head only pretends to be the only "knower," but it is quite mistaken.
As an amateur philosopher and psychologist (I'm no pro!), I reject much of modern psychology's "head centeredness," and would claim that there is necessarily a "sacred" dimension to psychological healing and development. By "sacred" I do not mean "religious". I mean "worthy of reverence". A thing is worthy of reverence when it is powerful. And eros is a most powerful thing!
Last edited: