haul out the dagger and let's have a stab...
What would a sexual revolution look like?
It was easy to see the sexual revolution which took place in the west during the sixties and seventies (with the mainstream catching up to it in the eighties). There are a few different reasons for this which I won't get into, because I think that speculations about the causes of cultural trends are pretty subjective and hard to back up with evidence if one did not experience them. Nevertheless, when the mainstream caught up to this trend we established a set of normative values in which the hegemony is to be a little bit "weird" or "crazy" or in some way off-code. The most dangerous sphere in which this occurs is the sexual sphere because, to an extent, it annuls the power of devience. Mainstream devience undermines any kind of sexually revolutionary mass movement by turning the symbols which would otherwise stimulate the ineffable desires into cliches. Vital communities fade away as the members of these communities become portrayals of media images associated with their lifestyle. The Image is mistaken for the God, because the "Image" is a full-length mirror that reflects the psychology of the ruling class. The Image is the method by which this class rules. Crowley wrote about the slave-religions of Judaism and Christianity with great derision, but he encouraged the study of them, because by reversing the doctrine one can effectively synthesize a master religion (score one for Satanism). This same principle can be applied to media in all it's forms. A legitimate sexual revolution would be a revolution against the Image. We don't need new forms of kink. We are past that.
I suspect that a legitimate sexual revolution would also be a small movement, not a mass movement. Masses of people can only be united behind any movement through the Image. A legitimate sexual revolution would ideally be an elite group who seized control of the Image and in so doing created a new context for human sexuality which modelled itself on that image.
As an interesting counterpoint to mass media in general, we have the internet. The content of the information that you see on the internet is decided by other informing agents, but the context and presentation of that information, as well as the speed at which it is absorbed, depends on the user. In terms of pornography, I think anyone who "uses" porn to any extent can testify to the fact that it can easily inform sexual desires and sustain fetishes which would otherwise drift away. There is also a master behind the Image in this case. Usually it is given it's character by the neurosis of the user. Reversing the doctrines which are revealed by an analysis of the context and presentation (the things that the user "does themself") of information online (especially pornography) has to be the first step toward any bid for control of the Image. If this step is not taken the Image will always be in control.
It was easy to see the sexual revolution which took place in the west during the sixties and seventies (with the mainstream catching up to it in the eighties). There are a few different reasons for this which I won't get into, because I think that speculations about the causes of cultural trends are pretty subjective and hard to back up with evidence if one did not experience them. Nevertheless, when the mainstream caught up to this trend we established a set of normative values in which the hegemony is to be a little bit "weird" or "crazy" or in some way off-code. The most dangerous sphere in which this occurs is the sexual sphere because, to an extent, it annuls the power of devience. Mainstream devience undermines any kind of sexually revolutionary mass movement by turning the symbols which would otherwise stimulate the ineffable desires into cliches. Vital communities fade away as the members of these communities become portrayals of media images associated with their lifestyle. The Image is mistaken for the God, because the "Image" is a full-length mirror that reflects the psychology of the ruling class. The Image is the method by which this class rules. Crowley wrote about the slave-religions of Judaism and Christianity with great derision, but he encouraged the study of them, because by reversing the doctrine one can effectively synthesize a master religion (score one for Satanism). This same principle can be applied to media in all it's forms. A legitimate sexual revolution would be a revolution against the Image. We don't need new forms of kink. We are past that.
I suspect that a legitimate sexual revolution would also be a small movement, not a mass movement. Masses of people can only be united behind any movement through the Image. A legitimate sexual revolution would ideally be an elite group who seized control of the Image and in so doing created a new context for human sexuality which modelled itself on that image.
As an interesting counterpoint to mass media in general, we have the internet. The content of the information that you see on the internet is decided by other informing agents, but the context and presentation of that information, as well as the speed at which it is absorbed, depends on the user. In terms of pornography, I think anyone who "uses" porn to any extent can testify to the fact that it can easily inform sexual desires and sustain fetishes which would otherwise drift away. There is also a master behind the Image in this case. Usually it is given it's character by the neurosis of the user. Reversing the doctrines which are revealed by an analysis of the context and presentation (the things that the user "does themself") of information online (especially pornography) has to be the first step toward any bid for control of the Image. If this step is not taken the Image will always be in control.