I wrote a post in which I was skeptical about the idea that by increasing sex education teenagers would avoid (or not need) pornography. Same thing when it is said that with a correct sexuality education young people could better understand or contextualize porn.
The reason I said this is that if it is true that porn educates teenagers, the question it answers is not "what is sex", but "what is pleasure".
All school sex education programs (almost all public schools do them here in Germany) talk about everything, but they do it in biological and medical language. Pleasure is described when they explain masturbation, but it is done in terms of stimulation or rubbing of nerves. All this makes students of sex aware, but almost completely ignores the topic of pleasure.
Summarized the previous episodes, we must ask ourselves why pleasure is a taboo topic for all political sides, cultural areas, none excluded. If sex is no longer a taboo, pleasure has remained. Only small fringes of the population speak of it. Otherwise he was purged.
For example, if someone wondered the difference between modern and "classic" art, wondering what was lost, the answer would be obvious: pleasure. Modern art is almost libido-free. (with which exception, for example in Italy Saturno Butto '). And when the pleasure is refined, it is abstracted and intellectualized to the point of making it uncoded: a pleasure without enjoyment, that is, an empty whole .
The question is "why is this happening"?
The first thing to understand is the difference between reward and pleasure. The reward mechanism is triggered by stimulating a specific area of the brain, which is the reward system. When you eat something that is salty, it contains carbodrates or fats, for example, the reward system is stimulated and you are rewarded by a positive feeling. But beware, this mechanism does not reach consciousness, and is hard-coded. You can eat the worst food in the world or the best delicacy, if you are hungry you will experience a sense of reward.
It works broadly in two ways: anticipation and reward. Dopamine and serotonin. When you are hungry and about to sit down, you are in the anticipation phase. When you see the food in front of you, even more dopamine comes. When you eat it, serotonin arrives, among other things. And so on, until the feeling of satiety, which is the reward.
But it is not a pleasure: the pig does the same when he eats from the trough.
Pleasure is a different thing, and it resides in the higher areas, let's say at the level of the cerebral cortex. To be an experience it requires education and intelligence.
The pig can 'feel a sense of reward identical to yours if you fill the trough and gorge, but it does not change much if you add two sage leaves and a good wine. It's the same for him. Moreover, there would be no evolutionary advantage in making a pig (or a man) appreciate two sage leaves above 2500 KCal of food.
To appreciate the sage on food you need to bring another player into play, which is the brain bark. Who can understand the context, appreciate the nuances, understand the meaning of a meal divided into three courses, which in nature is completely useless. To do this, intelligence is needed to expand and manage more information, understand and identify it. For an uneducated person, one wine is worth the other, a professional sommelier talks about other things, that is, he feels more pleasure .
So reward must be distinguished from pleasure.
Returning to porn: everyone has more or less sexual instincts. It means that, as I said before, there is anticipation. "to want". This is an obvious anticipation or desire mechanism that the species uses to bring its members to mate.
But this is still not a pleasure: it is a simple reward. Evolutionary logic cares nothing that the female is consenting, that she is dressed in this or that way, that she is perfumed like a flower, that says certain words or other words. Sperm must reach the egg, period.
Then there is the pleasure, which is made up of increasingly "high" layers of the cerebral cortex, associated with fantasies, that is, capable of producing fantasies. Sexual references, and higher the positions of mating, and beyond the context, that is the situation in which sex takes place (with all the implications, such as the exchange of power, self-esteem, and everything).
So, now let's get to the point. Why is pleasure a taboo? We have said that pleasure, unlike reward, requires education and intelligence. And we know how they are distributed.
What does it mean? It means that at least half of the population has neither the intelligence nor the education to enjoy . All they will do is experience the reward produced by the reward system , but they will not be able to experience any pleasure. Experience is barred from them.
Many males will find a difference between one naked woman and another, as long as they respond to the aesthetic standards to which they are trained , but it is all we can expect. Anticipation will produce their erection, and in females it will lubricate the vagina, there will be a sense of appetite, and when they have fucked they will experience a sense of reward.
But pleasure is a different thing.
Being linked to a cognitive function, it begins to appear around IQ 110, in traces, and then continues towards the most intelligent and cultured people, who are able, for example, to also experience pleasures completely DISCONNECTED by the reward system, such as the pleasure of read a good book, or the pleasure of a work of art.
In some functions (food, mating) pleasure overlaps the reward, and therefore we must understand, if we go back to porn, how the percentages of reward and those of pleasure are divided in a fuck.
There is an essential difference that can help us:
- The reward system regulates addictions, as for drugs. It means that there is the phenomenon of habituation. People who experience unbalanced experiences towards pure biological reward need to change their partner continuously, or to have more and more. Otherwise they will get bored and they will do it as addicts do: to fill the pain of not doing it. They have the problem of boredom.
- people who are educated in pleasure and use the superior functions of the cortex do not show signs of habituation, but move the activity towards creativity and details as the percentage of pleasure increases in experience and the percentage decreases of biological reward on the total. These people do not have the problem of boredom, but from the partner they must receive feedback .
This makes pleasure an aristocratic experience, reserved for a few. For a simple matter of distributions: education and intelligence, which make fantasies possible.
And now let's rephrase the question:
"Are the higher intellectual classes the ones that break the taboo of pleasure, or is it the pleasure reserved for the upper classes?".
The sociological view says that pleasure would be forbidden to the poorer classes, which are usually less educated and less intelligent, while the more educated classes having culture break the taboo that is otherwise imposed by society.
A more logical view says very different things. There is no social norm that forbids pleasure: what exists is a biological rule that reserves it to the most cultured intellectual classes, and inevitably turns into a social rule.
It is as if passing under a tree we see a succulent fruit, but very high. So you need to be at least one meter and ninety tall to pick the fruit.
The sociological view will say that the aristocracy of the high has written a rule that puts the fruits too high, and the political vision will say that the low must make the revolution to stop this privilege, and break the taboo against the succulent fruits.
But the truth is that most of the population does not get there, and this reality has become a socially accepted rule. In the period of egalitarianism it was believed that everyone could potentially enjoy the same experiences in the same way. So the simple biological reality that prevents the lows from picking the high fruits has been depicted as a machination of the highs, against the lows, or a religious imposition.
What was done was to invert the relationship between cause and effect: it was not the tall ones who created the taboo of the fruits that stand on the tall branches. It was the excessive height of the fruit that generated the social norm. The cause is the material fact, the effect is the social norm. The fruit is forbidden because it doesn't get there. It is a fact.
Religion does not prohibit sexual pleasure by letting few people access it. It is the fact that few people can access it to have produced the religious rule .
Pleasure is not a taboo because someone wants few people to access it. It is the fact that few can access having produced a taboo.
Remaining from the male side, that I know more, the guy who seeks the reward "every left is lost" and "just breathe" can not 'feel pleasure but only reward . He doesn't care about the aesthetics of the thing, the positions interest him up to a certain point, and the situation doesn't matter to them.
By what mechanism does this produce a taboo?
The guy who can't take pleasure sees people other than him who do strange things and enjoy them. So he senses that there is something that he does not understand but must be really delicious. The trouble is that he doesn't have the intellectual resources to understand what it is. The fruit is too high for him. So he decides that that fruit is forbidden .
The second step is where you notice that someone gets to the fruit. Since they are few, and therefore not "normal", then the consumption of the forbidden fruit is abnormal.
Since the person knows that pleasure exists, but is unable to procure it, he or she decides that perversion is triggered beyond a certain line. A pleasure that cannot be achieved is prohibited for a simple practical reason. If everyone eats fruits up to six feet, the fruit at six feet is sophistication. It is an aristocratic thing. It's a vice. An excess.
The taboo to pleasure is automatic because the masses don't feel it. As such, they are limited to the reward provided by the reward system, which becomes "normal", and then all other experiences are considered "excessive", "abnormal", "deviant".
But the transformation of the biological limit into taboo does not fall from above. Salt from below. It is the masses of people who do not reach the fruit that transform their limit into taboo.
Some time ago on fetlife I attended a discussion concerning fifty shades of gray. And digging progressively I understood why in the BDSM world it is seen as smoke in the eyes: the protagonist is obviously too stupid and superficial to get the experience. It is as if the book tells of a dwarf one meter tall who picks a fruit that hangs at two meters and twenty in height. Does not work. It is not credible. Least of all, the male protagonist can be a master: he is too stupid and superficial to appreciate the transfer of power. So much so that in the book he does it badly, neither SSC nor RACK.
Histoire d'O is different, for example, because the girl is obviously cultured, and her partners are also cultured. In fact, it is one of the cult books of the environment. It is credible. (I'm not talking about sequels that are American , like returning to Roissy and H2)
So, pleasure as such is reserved to 10.15% of the population. A percentage of about 30% manages to have it in small quantities: the pig gorges itself in the trough but notes that some mashes are better than others, despite having the same calories. He doesn't know why, or he has a blurred understanding of it.
Everyone else will never try it, and just won't understand why a girl wants this:
(I refer to the first part, that is, to the first girl who undergoes tranining, from the second – which is the same in both videos – it is a filler)
And since they cannot understand the fantasy , which they do not have, they find what they see perverse or vicious.
The centerpiece of everything is the relationship between creativity, that is, fantasy, and pleasure. The reason why people love this lies in their fantasies , but this implies creativity, and creativity is the preserve of a few.
When I say that few can appreciate pleasure, I mean just that.
The biological mechanism of reward is based on anticipation, or desire, followed by a reward, a discharge of biological satisfaction.
When we move in the field of pleasure, anticipation is replaced by fantasies, and satisfaction is replaced by pleasure.
But to do this you need to live in an intellectual dimension of creativity, of fantasy. But creativity is the mark of the intellectual aristocracy. Without creativity, that is, fantasy, there is no pleasure, and there cannot be.
Schools cannot teach kids pleasure, for the simple reason that there would not be enough teachers of the right level. The masses do not know pleasure, and since teachers are no longer intellectually sophisticated, they would not be able to explain the link between creativity (ie fantasy) and pleasure.
For the masses, pleasure is not forbidden by a taboo imposed by aristocracies.
The masses call taboo their inability to get pleasure, and accuse the aristicracy (which comes to us) of having imposed the taboo itself.
The taboo is nothing but a scapegoat, to hide from oneself / and not being able to experience the pleasure, and having to be satisfied with the feeling of reward for having quenched an appetite.
For the masses, pleasure is not forbidden. It is unattainable. And the taboo is the excuse that is found to justify not being able to reap the fruit. But the fruit is not too high. Those who can't catch it are too low.
If you think you haven't enjoyed enough because of the taboos, you just have to stand in front of a mirror and look the taboos in the face. Your face.