We try again: the pleasure, the toy and the game

The commodification of everything has produced such profound effects in general culture that, judging by the comments, my previous post has been read in a truly extravagant way.

So, I clarify what I take for granted and that evidently has been lost, causing disasters in the perception of the relationship between individual and fantasy.

Let's take a toy: legos.

Legos usually have a remarkable construction to put on the box (a crane, a Star Wars spaceship, etc.), which is usually built in the early days, and then dismantled. From that moment on, the child builds things with which he plays .

If we read and reread the lego instruction booklet, we will immediately discover that none of the things the child will do, nor the games, stories and fantasies that the child will produce, were foreseen by the toy manufacturers.

So, first let's distinguish the two things: the toy is produced by Lego, the game is produced by the child.

The same applies to barbie, which I observed firsthand. In itself it is a toy. But in the hands of a little girl she becomes a person, or rather a character. You can disassemble a barbie, you can pass it to X-rays, you can vaporize it and pass it in a mass spectrometer, but you will not be able to find any trace of the game . All you will find is the toy.

The game is played by the child. All. If you then put TWO children together, you will discover an interesting thing: that each of them contributes to the game. Maybe everyone uses their OWN toy, with which they have an emotional relationship (and therefore the sharing of toys is an act of extreme trust) but none of this is contained in the toy: it is all contained in children.

Obviously, the toy seller doesn't want to tell you this: he has to sell you the toy, so his game is to make you believe that the game is inside the toy .

This is the phenomenon of commodification: we try to make you believe that the experience is inside the product.

Just as the toy seller wants you to believe that the game is in the toy, the product seller wants you to believe that the experience is in the product. So fun is in the holiday, dinner is in food, beauty is in clothes, sensuality is in lingerie, sex is in the body of the partner, etc.

This process is called commodification, but I don't want to go into this: I mention it to explain the thing about taboos and pleasure.

So, we said that play and toy are different things: the toy allows the game, but the game is produced by the child. Lego allows the child to build the game. Lego is the toy, the child is the game, or rather the game is inside the child.

The toy is a tool with which you make a game that you have in mind .

Likewise, pleasure is the enjoyment you receive when you make a fantasy come true. The partner, the lingerie, the sexual practices, are the toy , but not the game . Sex is the toy with which to make fantasies. But play and toy are two different things.

Now let's go to the production of the taboo.

Let's take a child without fantasy, or a tired child, or a child who has no fantasies achievable with a certain game.

You give him a toy – the classic wrong gift. The boy will be fed up with it immediately: the toy will not allow him to make his own games. So, if you give an 8+ toy to a 2 year old boy, very often he doesn't know what to do with it because he is unable to make games that require that toy to be made .

What does the baby do? He builds a taboo: I don't like that toy. It's ugly. Mum throw it away (appeal to the authority-censor). I do not want it. He does not put it together with the toys he cares about. He doesn't want to see it.

The opposite also happens, that is that at a certain point in the child's mind the story appears, the fantasy, that is, the appropriate game, the game that requires that toy to be made. In that case the child has enriched himself with a new game, his creativity has produced a new game.

In that case the taboo falls, and it happens because the child's mind has evolved, or has been enriched with a new game , which requires that toy. And this increases the effectiveness of the game when there are many children: if a child does not have in mind games that require that toy to be made, another child has it. He shares them, and when everyone has learned the game then everyone plays.

But I repeat: who sells the toy as a product has guaranteed you that the children have a lot of fun. The trader's game is to overestimate his products. So the dealer will tell you that the toy stimulates the baby. In reality, the toy enables the child to make his own games. But the game is just the name we give to his creativity, or his imagination.

The video game, then, is particularly insidious because it is built very well to make people believe that the game is in the product. But that's another matter. Let's go to pleasure.

For sexual pleasure exactly the same principle applies, by analogy.

For those who sell you sexual pleasure (managers of clubs, pornographers, sex shops, writers, prostitutes) the game consists in making you believe that pleasure is in their product. The prostitute wants you to believe that pleasure is in her body, the club manager wants you to believe that fun is in the building, the pornographer wants you to believe that excitement is in the video, the sex shop that pleasure is in the objects .

They certainly cannot tell you: look, all this allows you to realize YOUR fantasies, if you have no fantasies you will not experience any pleasure besides the biological one . It would mean devaluing the product .

When you buy something for pleasure you ALWAYS have to ask yourself what the toy is and what the game is , who the child is and who the toy is , and if you have IN MIND a game that is made with that product.

Now let's take a person without fantasies. You give him the toy, that is, the product. From porn to the prostitute to anything. Use them. He doesn't like it. Or he doesn't even have the fantasies that require them.

What do they do? They create a taboo. Just like the child does with a "wrong gift" toy: He builds a taboo: I don't like that toy. It's ugly. Mum State throw it away (appeal to the authority-censor). I do not want it. He does not put it together with the toys he cares about. He doesn't want to see it. The taboo has just been born.

In the case of sex, as in the game, there are both solitary games and group games, couples or not. Again, it happens that the two children lovers share the toy (the body) AND THE GAMES, that is, the fantasies. If any of the players has less fantasies can benefit from those of the other.

But what if neither of them has fantasies?

Exactly what happens to two listless children who meet: they are bored. But they will accuse each other of boredom.

And then they will build a social taboo: I don't want to play with that child, Mom I don't want to take him home again, I don't want to see him again, I get bored with him, etc.

And the same happens to adults without fantasy who start having sex without fantasy. Eventually they will build a taboo. And they'll accuse each other of their inability .

The taboo always comes from the masses. It is the act with which the person without fantasy tries to accuse others, the environment, sexual practice, of the fact that he has no fantasy of realizing with that partner, with that erotic practice, in that environment, etc. .

If you bring someone to have sex outdoors WITHOUT having fantasies about sex outdoors, there are two cases: either he discovers your fantasy and adopts it, or he is bored. BUT when he gets bored he will never say "I fail to produce fantasies of this type or to adopt yours". He will say that it is the fault of being outdoors or of the boring partner, or of the partner who likes these strange things rather than being in bed like normal people.

Anyone who does not have sexual fantasies achievable through porn (or the practices described in porn) will fail to experience pleasure if he is placed in the middle of an orgy. Much less will he be able to make a contribution with his fantasies. And that's what turned swingers clubs into the boring and obsessive places they are today.

The advantage of BDSM is that if you don't have those fantasies you will suffer a lot, so it is not possible to go to a BDSM club out of a sense of duty , out of habit , or out of compulsion . (except the numerous damsels, they say "mistresses / dominatrixes", who believe it is enough to whip someone to dominate them. But the problem of the fake dominatrixes "I have heels and a whip" is another matter).

But in any case, there is no toy that suits you unless you have a game in mind that uses it. Without creativity there is no pleasure, if not the reward that the body gives you for stimulating some nerves. So there is a lot of sex in swinger clubs today, but almost no pleasure . Because everyone has a lot of toys, from the environment to the atmosphere to the bodies to the lingerie, but nobody (or almost) has the fantasies to realize .

They have toys, but they don't have games in mind.

Under these conditions, unimaginative masses fill the houses with toys and saturate the internet by dint of porn, they have a partner who sleeps in the same bed, but they don't like it. And what do they do?

They make a taboo, to hide from themselves the fact that they have no fantasies.

The masses have no fantasy. And for this they produce taboos.

But the problem of pleasure and where to find it is always in the same question: which fantasy do you want to achieve?

Do you have one?

If you don't have one, your partner's body, lingerie, private club, the most extreme sexual practices, sex toys, are exactly what a wrong gift is for a child.

The toy for which he has no games in mind.

And only a SMALL aristocracy of people has fantasies. Therefore, pleasure is reserved ONLY for the intellectual aristocracy that has creativity and imagination.

For everyone else there is boredom.

And the boredom of the masses produces the taboo. The child who cannot play with others will always say that the game is stupid, that the other children are stupid, that their toys are ugly.

Likewise, the adult who is bored with sex will always say that those practices are wrong, that others are perverse, that the environment is shabby.

The taboo was born out of boredom, which stems from a lack of imagination. But creativity has only a small aristocracy. You can liberalize sex as much as you want, make it a mass product, but pleasure will be only for those with imagination, and there are few.