bangin dem hoes: sexuality and nature/technology

[Guest dese manz hatin]

I just read this little passage in herbert marcuse's "one dimensional man" which somehow drives me mad thinking. maybe someone cares.

To make it short, he distinguishes between two types of libido-usage: erotic and purely sexual. And he gives contrasted examples of practising love (in the broadest sense, not banging; getting a bit lost in translation here) - on a field/in a car, walking throught nature/through inner city streets. However, he somehow states that, while in a natural surrounding overflowing libido gets "placed" onto the environment and thus eroticises the whole expereience (some sort of sublimation), a mechanicised environment is not capable of being treated in a similar way, which means that the excessive libido has to be placed on the other person, making the experience (almost) purely sexual.

 

i cant wrap my head around it...why wouldnt the mechanical environment treated by libido? It does seem that this is done quite a lot doesnt it...maybe a cause for some of that machine fetish etc. Sadly his further argument seems to build on this premise to some extent, so its actually relevant

 

Whats your opinion on this watmm....do you feel the same way as this bloodclart battyman?....or anyone actually able to make some sense out of this?

 

edit:

 

 

hi m8.

 

[lumpenprol]

there's a unique vibe to fucking in nature but as you say it's easy to think erotically about pretty much anything, provided you have the imagination. Look at guys who get off on women's shoes...and what about machines that echo and amplify naturally sexy things, like the curves of high performance sports cars?　I only red a dab of Marcuse but he seemed a bit fake-o, like Terence McKenna

[luke viia]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZJDuMQdY_E

[sup]

i dunno what thises about DMH (i even twice read it) but did you consider that this dude could be just wrong???

 

terence mckenna rules btw

[Guest dese manz hatin]

and of course i am considering him being wrong on this hence this post. and its not a rare thing that marcuse states highly doubtful things regarding psychanalysis...the problem is that a whole lot of arguments are based on this, and he doesnt explain this first one very much (just states it)....there could be something more behind it?

 

my general thought was...the more technological the environment becomes the more it replaces "classical" nature, thus can be the object of libido placement.

[QBLA]

I sport wood in thunder storms!

[SR4]

shit dammit, if i wasn't so fucking burnt out id grab my copy and look through it for the part you are mentioning...one of my favorites in the continental...I can't say i particularly remember that passage...unless he was using the term "erotic" in a very very different sense.

 

I planned on re-reading it over the winter break and discussing it with some friends, so keep bumping this until I can try to talk about it with you....it really is a great book whether or not you agree with its premise..its the closest i think of to fictionalizing a lot of deconstructive criticism...which isn't easy to do without making some sci-fi dystopian plot...

 

I like One-Dimensional Man because Marceuse writes as if you are the man he is speaking of, hopelessly wandering around this strange world, confused and befuddled by what we in reality often assume are easily understandable and relatable concepts.

[J3FF3R00]

Gay ducks... Ftw.

[Guest dese manz hatin]

shit dammit, if i wasn't so fucking burnt out id grab my copy and look through it for the part you are mentioning...one of my favorites in the continental...I can't say i particularly remember that passage...unless he was using the term "erotic" in a very very different sense.

 

I planned on re-reading it over the winter break and discussing it with some friends, so keep bumping this until I can try to talk about it with you....it really is a great book whether or not you agree with its premise..its the closest i think of to fictionalizing a lot of deconstructive criticism...which isn't easy to do without making some sci-fi dystopian plot...

 

I like One-Dimensional Man because Marceuse writes as if you are the man he is speaking of, hopelessly wandering around this strange world, confused and befuddled by what we in reality often assume are easily understandable and relatable concepts.

yeah one dimensional man is a great book, and mostly its convincing.

the part i was speaking of is in the third chapter of the book, roughly translated "victory over the unhappy conscious: repressive desublimation". i just hope his point didnt get bastardized too much in the OP, like i said it was really hard to translate...