 |
 |
Relax! It's JUST sex. mikal x (obviously) --- Dr Jason Jacobs <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Thanks Ben, I love to goad! And for what it's worth I > think you're right. > Sex between people is wonderfully (and no doubt > not-so-wonderfully > sometimes) risky behaviour in the sense that we share > pretty intimate > aspects of ourselves, even lose ourselves - or want to > - ... As such it is a > compelling cinematic topic, but also a tricky one > since the nature of > interiority and intimacy requires delicacy as much as > boldness in its > depiction. And if it can capture the risk, the costs > as much as the joy then > I'll stick around. That is why I think Rules of the > Game, while obviously > not sexually explicit, is one of the best movies that > carries that air of > 'just done it' or 'want to do it with you' or 'don't > do it with my wife'!!! > Rules reveals that despite being an intimate event sex > is also ineluctably > bound up with the social and the civil. That is why > one of the saddest film > images (among many I should say) for me is that of > Fassbinder on his own in > his apartment, talking on the phone and half-heartedly > jerking-off (this is > his part of Germany in Autumn if I remember > correctly). > > > Dr Jason Jacobs > Senior Lecturer > School of Arts, Media and Culture > Griffith University > Nathan Campus > Queensland 4111 > Australia > Phone: (07) 3875 5164 > Fax: (07) 3875 7730 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Film-Philosophy Salon > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Friday, 18 November 2005 10:37 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Casual sex? > > Well, with Jason's goading... > > I think to equate sex with other urges/drives is a > kind of > naturalistic fallacy (in its non-Moore sense) -- or at > least a false > equation/analogy. I know a whole lot of people who are > quite caught up > in food and its pleasures, but I would never suggest > that their desire > for food possesses the same complexity and depth of > emotion involved > in their sex lives. > > As perhaps the most intimate point of contact > (physically, of course, > but also metaphorically) between two humans, sex seems > as if it can > never be "casual" in that term's connotative sense, > that is as being > inconsequential, brief and not fully engaged. I don't > deny that there > are some gradings within sexual encounters between > people (e.g. one > may be, in a sense, alienated from sex because one's > heart remains/is > with another partner), but I don't think it can ever > be "casual" in > that term's pejorative sense. > > To say that it can be seems wishful thinking on one > hand (as seen in > the philanderer's glib excuse) and dangerously close > to the worst kind > of Social Darwinism on the other. > > Ben, Second-Rate Philosopher > > On 11/18/05, Dr Jason Jacobs > <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Why don't you make a comment since you obviously > disagree? Or do you? Wha= > t > > do *you* think? > > > > Dr Jason Jacobs > > Senior Lecturer > > School of Arts, Media and Culture > > Griffith University > > Nathan Campus > > Queensland 4111 > > Australia > > Phone: (07) 3875 5164 > > Fax: (07) 3875 7730 > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Film-Philosophy Salon > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: Friday, 18 November 2005 6:24 PM > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Re: Casual sex? > > > > Comments? The way Carlo used 'gay culture' not once > but twice to describe > > deviation and difference but not similarity or > sameness. > > > > On 18/11/05 6:11 am, "Carlo C. Adorno" > <[log in to unmask]> wrot= > e: > > > > > have, like food or sleep (this is seem > particularly in gay culture whic= > h, > > in > > > part, views sex as .... > > > > > sexual encounters. In gay culture, she thought a > lot of it way about > > > performance, which actually.... > > > > > Does anyone > > > know any films that directly address this debate? > Or if you just have > > comments > > > on the argument, please feel free... > > > > * > > * > > Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. > > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text > of the message you ar= > e > > replying to. > > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy > to: > > [log in to unmask] > > For help email: > [log in to unmask], not the salon. > > ** > > > > * > > * > > Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. > > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text > of the message you ar= > e replying to. > > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy > to: [log in to unmask] > c.uk. > > For help email: > [log in to unmask], not the salon. > > ** > > > > * > * > Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of > the message you are > replying to. > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: > [log in to unmask] > For help email: > [log in to unmask], not the salon. > ** > > * > * > Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of > the message you are replying to. > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: > [log in to unmask] > For help email: > [log in to unmask], not the salon. > ** > http://particlezen.proboards7.com/index.cgi the edge of everything. no, really. http://www.deadjournal.com/users/cataleptik/ catal3ptik is a rav3r __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. **