Criminals have a function in society. The criminal is created by the law, and the legal system is created by the criminal. There is a thief, because there is private property. And then there are locks and locksmiths and police and judges and prison officers and so on. If there were no criminals all that facet of society would be useless and fall away, so the thief is a necessary and integral part of the whole system. If the system is so effective that theft is eliminated, the system becomes redundant and is cut back until theft becomes a viable option again. Thus the thief functions to support the police and justice system and the security industry in a symbiotic relationship.

This just how things work, a kind of game theory, not a moral theory.

In the same way, one can look at the effect the rapist has as their function, and that is to instil fear in women, that 'encourages' them towards monogamy and domesticity. And the effect on men? "Nothing to do with me mate. They ought to be locked up, end of."
In other words, the rapist functions to support and maintain patriarchy. I don't think I can make it much clearer without becoming boringly repetitive. And it's bed time for old men.

However, I still don't see the correlation with rape. — Spencer Thurgood

It is not the case that rape is condoned, any more than it is the case that robbery is condoned by purveyors of security alarm systems. Nevertheless rape functions, just as robbery functions to instil fear and thereby sell alarms. No conspiracy or even approval is required.

I fail to see how a system influenced at least in part by a need to prove father ship in a society without the benefit of genetics, leads to "rape culture".

Could you elaborate on what connect the two ideas together? — Spencer Thurgood

Sure.

How does patriarchal society control the sexual behaviour of women? It takes some fairly strong measures, because sexual activity is a natural and enjoyable pastime. Since we live in a patriarchal society, one has only to look at what those features are that restrict women in the relevant ways.

Religion is a big factor, obviously, and property laws and employment restrictions used to maintain the dependence of women on men. These have all receded in recent times because of some movement towards equality. There was a further liberation of women with the invention of the contraceptive pill, and if one were to add economic independence and generous child support and childcare facilities, and of course available abortion, we could have come close to equality an equality of the sexes. But fear of rape has increased.


Rape is a serious crime, but it is not seriously dealt with by enforcement agencies or the justice system. On the contrary, reporting a rape is discouraged by making the investigation process as unpleasant and humiliating as possible, and the very rare prosecution even more so. The blaming of the victim that occurs in rape cases is unparalleled in any other criminal case. The woman that drinks, or flirts, or dresses appropriately for a night out, or has a history of having sex, or flirting or dressing appropriately, or wears too much make up or, stays out after the coach has turned back into a pumpkin, — is asking for it. Not merely consenting, asking for it.

When we talk about ‘rape culture’, we’re talking about a society where sexual violence and abuse is normalised, played down and laughed off. And where women and girls are seen as ‘less than’ men and boys.

https://rapecrisis.org.uk/get-informed/about-sexual-violence/what-is-rape-culture/

Plenty of detail and statistics there too, and the connection to patriarchy is also made. All I have done is make the connection explicit. The tendency is to identify social structure with explicit rules, but unwritten practices are what reveal the actual state of society, not the pious wishes of politicians and the like.

Having said that, there are big, beautiful bright red glistening strawberries that sell well, and then there are the pale, smallish sometimes mis-shaped ones I grow that actually taste like strawberries. This is the result of commercial breeding to produce stuff that sells on appearance and shelf life, so perhaps conservatives are on to something, and market researchers are uncovering paradoxes of their own creation.

If it doesn't enhance my status, who gives a toss? It'a all about me or else it's no concern of mine.

If we look at the sense of touch, instead of the sense of sight, the possible negative effects of clothing on arousal are very evident. Consider Hanover\s example of squeezing into the shower, skin on skin, as compared to squeezing into an elevator, cloths on cloths. It's very evident that cloths can have a very negative effect on the sensual stimulus which provides the potential for arousal. — Metaphysician Undercover

That is true also, but irrelevant to the effect of the taboo. On the contrary, the effect of a norm of nakedness would be to make overcrowding unacceptable for just those reasons you suggest, unless close contact was also desexualised as occurs to a great extent in 'touchy-feely' communities.

And that would be a miracle!

what would it be like to be a bee? — Wayfarer

Life would be sweet.

The grounding point is that sensing another body provides the potential for sexual arousal. We can do things to that body, like put clothes on it, to either raise or lower the level of potential, but we cannot remove that potential in any absolute way. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thus far I agree, but in general, the way we 'put clothes on' the body or rather socialise a dress code with legal sanctions, does as a matter of fact serve to raise the level of potential arousal. 'In olden days a glimpse of stocking...'

To give a very simple, direct example, it used to be, and to an extent still is, a 'normal' behaviour in the workplace for men to give the arse of a good looking woman a friendly slap, as a signal of sexual desire and appreciation, (and also dominance). The clothes make such uninvited intimacy possible. Such behaviour in a nudist camp, or to a nude model in art class, would be unthinkable.

Clothes make the porn industry possible, and allow in men in particular to form a fantasy of the female body which women are then pressured to try to conform with. Example, again is the fashion for shaving pubic hair which has arisen and been popularised by the need of the porn film make to give an ever more clear and intimate view of actual penetration - not something I would spend much time trying to get a view of myself while actually having sex. But folks conform to the fantasy created by the (strictly virtual) breaking of the taboo against nudity.

Familiarity with the reality of the varied manifestation of the human figure, would reduce the power of fantasy, to intrude into normal interactions.

I will simply note that taboo is essentially a religious form of socialisation that works to intensify feeling towards its object and imbue it with "spiritual"power. That is how it invariably works, and this society worships sex.

That's rather interesting. But any slugs found eating my bean plants are still going in the salt bucket. Don't say I didn't warn you!

t it was quite unclear if it was stoppable before they marched into central Moscow, — Count Timothy von Icarus

Well it looked unstoppable from my armchair. But then it stopped. I think I'll shut up now for a bit and see what happens next.

as a matter of principle, I feel it's wise to assume people's who's job is to deceive you ... may actually succeed in doing so from time to time. — boethius

Yeah, and people whose job is to inform you honestly, too, I fear.

"Look, we made this model of a horse extra big, so you can't drag it into your city, so don't even try, even though we put wheels on it to make you try. And we've given up and gone home anyway, honest."

Team reality did predict it: — boethius

Well kudos for that! It did all look theatrical at times for sure, but shooting your own helicopters down is a bit extravagant unless Prigozhin suddenly turns up in the West telling stories to intelligence agencies or some such. Or am I missing something?

Have you guys considered providing your leaders with a secretary or some such, to keep their papers in good order for them?

I don't think so, — Metaphysician Undercover

Well change your mind, because you are wrong.

Foremost in interest to psychologists is the basis of the body taboo. Is it a fundamental human trait, as many have maintained—inherited, or at least an inevitable consequence of man's social life? There is, for example, the curious relation of the nausea response to nystagmus and vertigo—an apparently native or early acquired association between remotely connected phenomena. Is the shame response to one's own nudity, or the shock response to the sight of nudity, a primitive response-pattern of this sort?

No one who has been through an experience of social nudity in favorable and proper circumstances will hesitate to answer this in the negative. In some cases the taboo and its customary responses slough off at once. On questioning the men stopping at Klingberg I found that for some the maladjustment lasted only a few minutes, for others it persisted during the first day—after that social nudity seemed perfectly natural and the power of the taboo was entirely broken.

https://www.all-about-psychology.com/social-nudism.html (1933 article)

There remains to consider the effect of social nudity on intersex attitudes and relations. The American writers already cited are agreed that nakedness, properly pursued, is no stimulant to eroticism and has no deleterious effects on sex morality. Miss Gay mentions the case of a young man and woman, obviously in love, who kept constant company during the daytime in the park without flirting and without his ever so much as touching her body—while in the evening, when they were clothed, he would often fondle her (2, p. 56). The Merrills' description of the behavior of young men and women in the Koch School gymnasium at Hamburg points to the same conclusion (3, pp. 135—143). (The subject is treated more fully in a recent work, L. C. Royer, Let's go naked (Trans, fr. French), New York, Brentano's, 1932, pp. 192. This volume, which appeared since the present article was sent to press, describes the author's experiences in several nudist resorts in Germany).

ibid.

I take American right wing militia types seriously. — BC

Fair enough, you're a lot closer to them than I.

Our Russia predictions differ, but we agree that one or the other will have to go and fairly quick-smart.

Yeah, just a guess, but the tripartite negotiation would have been easier ...its a detail.

the Wagner Group had a lot more hardware than the Proud Boys could dream of, but in both cases, an attack on the center of power occurred. — BC

I'd say you're comparing kids playing cowboys and Indians with a proper re-enactment of the October revolution.
———————————————————————————————
My guess is that Putin fled to Belarus, and that made the storming of Moscow unproductive of a quick regime change. But it looks like Prigozhin comes out more popular and stronger, and there will be a slower change. Putin may not come back to Moscow. Once you've been chased out of the Kremlin, there's no way to look like the strong man that Russia admires.

The reason i find it bizarre is because it is quite clear to me that nakedness becomes sexualised by being made taboo, not the other way round. As any naturist can attest. Your complacent ignorance is a bit shocking to me frankly, considering the amount of philosophical exposition undertaken in the matter.

A personal account: https://kriswilliams.medium.com/de-sexualizing-nudity-2e5673d7ae25

The coup was stoppable…but likely would have ruined Rostov and weakened Russia internally even more. — ssu

I don't see what troops would have attacked Rostov, and I even less see how such an attack would have stopped the tanks rolling into red square and offing Putin.

Military coups do not usually end in a negotiated settlement before any blood is spilt. I can only guess that they are keeping Putin on as a puppet leader for a while, but he is no longer in charge. It certainly looked as though he was caught with his trousers round his ankles and no one to wipe his arse for him.

I believe morality reveals itself in the act alone, whether it is impelled by thought or instinct or self-concern. — NOS4A2

I think you are wrong. Take the act of firing a gun. Right or wrong?

Obviously you need some circumstances, ok: the act of pointing a gun at a person and firing. Right or wrong?

I'd say you need more. I'd like to know the reason for pointing a gun at someone and firing. But this is a matter of the mind;

reason (a) a reasonable belief that the person was about to slaughter some kids with a machete.
reason (b) a reasonable belief that the person's tie colour clashed with their socks.

Both, or either of the beliefs could be true, but I think we can pick out which one justifies (attempted) homicide with some confidence. Of course if no machete was found at the scene, and/or no children, and/or tie and socks were a matching shade of grey, then the claimed beliefs would not seem reasonable. Call CSI.

Edit: I forgot to tell you the consequences; they seem to have a lesser importance, perhaps the general generic consequence of firing a gun at someone being liable to cause harm is sufficient in most cases, though there was that thing with someone getting shot on a film set a while back.

Happy to adopt that as the theme tune of the thread. Says it all without the confusion of so much words.

Overhead the albatross
Hangs motionless upon the air
And deep beneath the rolling waves
In labyrinths of coral caves
The echo of a distant time
Comes willowing across the sand
And everything is green and submarine
And no one showed us to the land
And no one knows the where's or why's
But something stirs and something tries
And starts to climb toward the light
Strangers passing in the street
By chance, two separate glances meet
And I am you and what I see is me
And do I take you by the hand
And lead you through the land
And help me understand the best I can?
And no one calls us to move on
And no one forces down our eyes
No one speaks and no one tries
No one flies around the sun
Cloudless everyday
You fall upon my waking eyes
Inviting and inciting me to rise
And through the window in the wall
Come streaming in on sunlight wings
A million bright ambassadors of morning
And no one sings me lullabies
And no one makes me close my eyes
So I throw the windows wide
And call to you across the sky

And no one sings me lullabies, and no one makes me close my eyes.
So I throw the windows wide and call to you across the sky. Happy to echo that.

What kind of narrative are we talking about here? Whose narrative are we talking about? (You said mine, but I can adopt someone else's and I will probably have more than one narrative about myself.)

Narratives are often disrupted. Sometimes someone else's narrative collides with mine. Sometimes I disrupt my own narrative, whether deliberately or accidentally. Sometimes "events" disrupt my narrative. We can modify our narrative or throw the old one out and make a new one. Whatever we say or do, there is always something "outside" our narrative and narratives are never permanent, even when we are dead. What are we to make of this?

I distinguish between a narrative and a log book. A log book is a series of dots. A narrative connects those dots. Is a log book a safe and satisfactory option? — Ludwig V

That is your narrative, and this is mine, and they both derive from a shared language and culture and are personalised, edited, and brought into contrast and comparison here. or perhaps it is a log book, I don't know the difference. One always stands outside the narrative to describe it, but it is always oneself one is describing so it is always a narrative self (or a log-book self) and one is never outside it

I underline the contradiction here to make clear that there is something wrong with the narrative of "I", whoever is the centre of attention.

I confess to being totally baffled. An unstoppable coup that suddenly stops, a civil war averted without hardly a shot fired - it looks like an elaborate theatre, but for what audience? and with what intention?

What next, pundits?

I'm tempted to suggest a Zen cure. Go for a walk, have a cup to tea and a good night's sleep. — Ludwig V

You misunderstand. I say "I" and you offer me respite, but it is mere distraction. I have spent many days crafting this thread and the previous one that laid the groundwork for it, and the zen is built into the laying out of the problem. And here it is again: —

If your map has no territory it is not a map. Or if it is a map, it is a fictional map and consequently not your narrative. — Ludwig V

Take this as a universal truth. Now, who are you? If you do not answer, you go straight to hell, but if you answer you continue the fictional map.

Now I don't expect any sartori to result for anyone, but I am interested in the philosophy and psychology of identification, and I think this process of identification is what humans do that creates the self as an artefact or 'sprite' of the psyche, with all the suffering and trouble that results. I think it is unnecessary. So I will at least lay out and face the problem as best I can, and when a cup of tea is appropriate, I can make a cup of tea as well.

Whether the self is always the same is a good question. Your account of the train of thought suggests not, doesn't it? — Ludwig V

I'm not certain; I am inconsistent and my account of myself changes.
But that is the account of myself, which is entirely self-consistent. At this point I am in a postmodern nightmare where the narrative is all there is and that is all the truth there is because that is the narrative and that's all there is. As if the map is all there is of the territory - which makes the self a fiction from start to finish, and yet a persistent one if not always consistent..

Russian security forces were seen taking positions in southern Moscow, according to photos published by Russian business newspaper Vedomosti.

The images published by the paper showed Russian security forces in body armor and equipped with automatic weapons taking up a position near a highway linking Moscow with southern Russia.

https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-06-24-23/index.html

What security forces are these, I wonder, are they a match for experienced front line troops with a grudge?

Wagner troops arrive at Lipetsk, major airbase and about 4 hours by road from Moscow

https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1672583840337100800?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet


At the moment the other side is making strong denunciations, but they'll need something a bit more persuasive to stop Wagner group marching straight into Moscow and mopping up the very small looking defending force.

Still, it seems to me that when you speak of a narrative, you don't mean a log of my experiences, but something more structured with successes and failures and diversions and so on. Is there a reason why we can't find more than a single narrative in our lives? — Ludwig V

If there is more than one narrative, one has intrusive thoughts and maybe starts hearing voices. "There's someone in my head, but it's not me."

It happens...

In a sense this whole thread, my contributions at any rate, are my ongoing narrative self exposed for the world's entertainment. The train of thought runs on and eventually runs into the sand, and another train of thought sets off and then another train reflects on these trains and integrates them into a new train. Any train can reconnected to any other train with the word 'and'. Think child typical narratives — I got up and I had breakfast and mummy took me to school and teacher was boring and we had fish-fingers I hit Jimmy because he said I smelled and...

I wrote all that and then... self fades in and fades out, but is always the same, except on the Dark side of the Moon.

It seems to me that there is always a mental aspect, a behavioural aspect, and a consequential aspect to moral judgements.

“it’s the thought that counts” — NOS4A2

But "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Every platitude has a contradictory platitude, so that together they say nothing, and are thus never untrue.

If one unintentionally kills another, it is manslaughter not murder, so intentions count in law, but actions and consequences also count. If one intends to kill but fails, that is attempted murder.

The thought police are very tolerant of mere ideation that has no discernible behavioural expression, for the simple reason that they find it impossible to detect. But as soon as one shares those thoughts, it is liable to become conspiracy. Until then one's thoughts are subject only to one's own moral judgement.

Masculinity is entitlement - ask any incel. Men define, and women opine. Blah blah Blah. A man is the one on on top, the missionary in the missionary position, the speaker not the listener, the author of authority, God Himfuckingself. The possessor of all property, of women, children, slaves, language itself, and all virtue.

Masculinity is the philosopher king, knowing best and condescending to do it to the lucky, lucky, world.

I don't know if I'd find it arousing to shower next to an attractive woman who I was not otherwise involved with. It would be very uncomfortable though. Like very. Especially if it was like a neighbor or something, or like the neighbor's 19 year old daughter. In fact, I feel like I need to go wash my hands after typing this. — Hanover

Sounds terrifying.

You're saying that the reason we have separate changing rooms is because men are frightened they might get aroused? Really? Bizarre.

Perhaps a third person's narrative about me is not what you have in mind. — Ludwig V

It isn't. WhatI have in mind is this sort of thing:

I'm not sure that anything much unifies my actual life apart from the continuity of my consciousness (I'm being generous there, since sleep and unconsciousness are interruptions in some way.) — Ludwig V

Paradoxically, your narrative gives continuity even as it suggests discontinuity, of the approximate form - I am awake, then I sleep and then I am awake and then ... and that is my actual life.

Sorry to be personal, but in this topic personal is clarity, I hope and think.

Isn't the basis for having separate gym lockers right now in part hetero-erotic fear? — Hanover

You'd have to spell that out before i could assent to it. I don't know what you mean by hetero-erotic fear.

I am familiar with people being called faggot and beaten up as if gays are a huge threat. Does this happen to straights where you live? I haven't seen any signs of fear of being or being thought to heterosexual.

that fear isn't based in facts.
— Moliere

My contention is: it isn't a fear at all; it's a pretense and part of the mask behind which systemic misogyny lurks. — Vera Mont

My feeling is that it is a species of homo-erotic fear. If a man dresses as a woman, a 'hetero' man might 'accidentally' be attracted to him. Best beat them up to make them ugly, and disprove any slur of homosexual feelings.

And misogyny.

Ask a woman. Ask Science Fiction. Don't ask the dicks round here, they'll start talking about their genitals and how they can lay bricks with them.

A "female man" is a woman with a man's mind, her body and soul still female.[2] Joanna's metaphorical transformation refers to her decision to seek equality by rejecting women's dependence on men and mirrors the journeys made by the other three protagonists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Female_Man

Or if you prefer your critique less angry, The Left Hand of Darkness.

On Gethen, the permanently male Genly Ai is an oddity, and is seen as a "pervert" by the natives; according to reviewers, this is Le Guin's way of gently critiquing masculinity. — wiki

I've seen a spirit before, so I think my experience contradicts what is being posited here. — Changeling

Right, I see. I think I could accommodate the story continuing after death, it is a commonplace of some Eastern traditions that the soul evolves over many lives, for example. But I wouldn't say that the story finishes on death, but rather stops - mid-sentence as it were in most cases. If there is a chance after death to continue to a proper completion -"and they all lived happily ever after", that would be wonderful, but I have no experience or expertise in any other realm but this world so far as i can remember, so my story has to stop at death for now. If I discover that death is not the end, I'll endeavour to appear as a spirit and let you know.

I think if we could agree that there has to be a continuation of consciousness in some form for the narrative self to continue, and that consciousness can continue without the narrative when the tale is 'completed', and that this completion and continuation is very rare in this world, then that is all I would seek to defend as my belief here.

You know this story, right?

All of the organs are deciding who should be in charge:

"I should be in charge," said the brain , "I run all the body's systems, without me nothing would happen."

"I should be in charge," said the heart , "I circulate oxygen and nutrients all over."

"No! I should be in charge," said the stomach, "I process the food that gives us energy."

"I should be in charge," said the legs, "without me the body couldn't go anywhere."

"I should be in charge," said the eyes, "I allow the body to see where it goes." "I should be in charge," said the anus, "I am responsible for waste removal."

All of the other body parts laughed at the anus and insulted him. So he shut down. Within a few days, the brain had a terrible headache, the stomach was bloated, the legs got wobbly, the eyes got watery, and the heart pumped toxic blood. They all decided that the anus should be the boss.

What is the moral of the story? Even though everybody else does all of the work the asshole is usually in charge./quote]

Huh? What's that got to do with the price of fish?

Right now? Well, ok then, pass the Zoom link. :fire: — Baden

"Dispense with", I said, not "transgress".

Everyone would be able to participate in a league of their peers, and nobody would be paid astronomical sums to play games in deadly, life-threatening earnest. — Vera Mont

Play games just for fun? It'll never catch on.

You are left without a team, which is where women will be left if forced to compete with men. — Hanover

God forbid that any woman should suffer my miserable fate!

On locker rooms, I don't know. Hadn't honestly thought about it until it came up in this thread. It is tough because any basic rule you apply seems like it could put someone in a position of being in the wrong exposed genitalia environment. Therefore, as Banno suggested, maybe more partitions or something. In sports, hormone testing is the way to go, I guess. As for medical treatment of kids, there has to be major safeguards in place. There's a high suicide risk for trans kids so it's about trying to mitigate potential mental health problems in the least invasive way possible. I'm no expert on that. Maybe e. g. @frank knows more (at least I think he's in the health industry). — Baden

Try not to panic chaps, pregnancy rarely results from eye contact with genitalia. Being as how we are all so enlightened and scientific these days, why not let's dispense with the taboo on nudity altogether? The fig-leaf thing was a mistake anyway, and it was a long time ago, now. As to sports, I find I am discriminated against because I am a wimpy spastic weakling. Why isn't there a category for me?