More importantly, "pictures", camera & the lens, is more "real" than vision. Being told "youre beautiful" is 1/10th of being photographed. Physicality validates. knowing that "he really sees me", much more efficient if tactile.
-
-
-
Is it, though? Isn’t it that the attractiveness is implied by the selection for a photo. Women don’t generally like being told directly that they’re beautiful. The photograph implies this without making it overt. I don’t understand the tactile bit. Could you explain?
-
Not actually tactile, but a sensation that is indistinguishable from a tactile experience. "So real I could almost reach out and touch it", in that sense. I think the camera works psychologically as the Big Other, the great eye, Sauron, the ultimate existential validation.
-
I dont think it's indirect at all. We measure self-awareness in animals by their ability too detect reflections. Being in front of a camera forces immediate self-identification with the body because the lens, and the photographers eyes works as a series of reflecting mirrors
-
I think flirtation is almost always indirect. You have to imply that someone is attractive or that you want to have sex with them. The camera allows you to do this. Being objectified by the camera is sexually exciting, probably. Is that what you’re getting at?
-
I'm (at least trying to) get at the mechanics of how it is sexually exciting. I think there is a great deal more to it
-
Yes, it’s difficult. I suspect that decisions about sex are made quickly before speech, but our conciousness and language create post-hoc explanations and this is what flirting is. This is why I “know” I’m going to sleep w/ someone long before it happens, before speaking.
-
This is why I prefer traditional courtship. It's a formality either way, so being formal seems appropriate
- 22 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.