Isn't having a fetish anti-intellectual? You think "you

>>1431174
fucking saved

everything that isn't a prepubescent female is disgusting

Sexual fetishes are basically like bad wiring and I don't think you understand what you're talking about.

File: 1452465693639.jpg (54KB, 376x476px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 376x476px

>>1431174
It's not anti-intellectual to prefer some things over others. There methods to reach such preferences through logic, but it is also perfectly sound to be content with the ones one already has, as they do not necessarily inhibit one's ability to think.

And I tend to see it the other way around. There are so many things out there that to pique my interest at all I'd rather have some set of filters, so that my time invested is spent most efficiently on the sort of things I know I am more likely to prefer. It's not "you aren't good without x" but rather "the presence of x drives me to discover what is good about you." Of course, this would be a problem for folks who are interested in expanding their horizons in terms of fetishes, but if that were the goal then they would have to invest time in that specifically to gain any real value out of the endeavor.

Most importantly though, I see no reason to want to like everything, nor why having preferences would be anti-intellectual. Would you care to explain the rationale behind this assumption?

>>1432820
Typing this won mobile so my reply/ replies may take longer than they otherwise would.

The phrasing "the presence of x drives me to discover what is good about you" sounds inherently of conceiving inferiority to reach superiority. The conception of "inferiority" seems misguided to me. As well, I feel there is a disfonnect in understanding between my stancs in the first place.

First of all, I believe my stance is more fundamental than assumed thus far. "Everything that isn't a prepubescent female is disgusting", ", I see no reason to want to like everything" (as well as most of your rationalizing the morality of my stance)- it is not that I believe distinction for good is bad, for actually I believe distinction is inherent to mental conception. It is that I believe conception of a sexual context can be independent of logic, as anti-intellectual as that may literally sound.

I feel logic is of the negative space contrary to good, while "good" is intrinsically such independent of anything else. As light has its extent defined by shadow, and "up" cannot be conceived without "down" to contrast it. I feel "good" should be such without logic. So logic defines "good", but they are mutually exclusive with each other.

I don't think a girl would for example require a garter and kneesocks to be good. I believe such lingerie may have been extrapolated from the girl to determine it respects her, so it is of a logical breadth. But to call the clothing a "fetish" is, to me, to overlap "good" and "logic". I believe one shouldn't derive any pleasure from- for example- clothing, but it should be treated as stimuli one adds to contrast the "good" of someone, to respect their breadth. So a girl is "good", but the garter and stockings she wears is the logic extrapolated from her to demonstrate that she is good and logic is to use her as a foundation to determine what respects her.

I feel, say lingerie shouldn't be a modifier of pleasure, but instead of that contrary to it.

File: 1423182754225.jpg (63KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1024x576px

>>1432863
It seems rather pessimistic to me to see "looking for what is good" as an acknowledgement of inferiority at all, particularly when the motivator of that action is itself the noticing of a preferable trait. You're right about one thing though: that there may appear to be a difference between "everything that isn't x is disgusting" and "I see no reason to want to like everything," but on a fundamental level they essentially say the same thing: that I like x and prefer it over things that lack x. This is not to say that things without x are necessarily subjectively inferior, but rather that things with x are more likely to be subjectively superior, and because there is such a wealth of things, generalizations can be reasonably made.

The trouble is that fetishes, and non-vital preferences and habits in general, do not come from a place of logic, but are in fact inherently illogical. As I said, it is possible to logically reach a preference, but in essence the preference is still emotional, and the appeal that claims to be one to the individual's logic is in fact an emotional appeal to the privileged place of logic in that person's psyche. That is, all logical appeals are in fact emotional appeals to the part of the mind which values reason, and so are still ultimately beholden to illogical rationalization. I like pantyhose, and I like them better than thigh-highs, which I also like. I can rationalize this preference all I want, but ultimately it is derived from my experiences and variance in my psyche more than anything else.

I believe we are using the word "good" differently. I do not see any inherent goodness or badness in anything, including ideas such as fetishes. By "good" I meant "things I find attractive" that are not explicit fetishes. There is no morality in sexuality, and inferiority and superiority are measured only by each individual's highly variable, involuntary preferences.

File: 1423710298035.png (420KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 640x480px

>>1432863
>>1432940
To repurpose your example, there are innumerable girls out there, and only a few will wear garter and kneesocks. I might find any number of them attractive, but it is that, which I unreasonably prefer, which draws my attention initially, to then consider what else I might prefer.

It is not that the fetish is itself good, or that the girl is good either (as of course the presence of hosiery does not imply any other preferable traits, barring perhaps an affinity for wearing hosiery) but that I associate good things with hosiery. I want good things, and there are innumerable things for me to consider, so I search in the places where the traits that I find most likely to be associated with good things, that is, my fetishes, for things that I might consider good. To see someone in a sexual manner is to objectify them, and to reduce them to attractive and unnattractive traits, each of which is good or bad (preferred or disfavored) is the goal of sexualization. A sexual object is not to be considered for its breadth until its subjective sexual value is established. It seems you are the one who is trying to moralize here, and are dubiously relating your personal moral compass with intellectualism of a particular set of thought processes and largely involuntary variations in psyche.

Lingerie isn't a modifier of pleasure, but rather, to the man who likes lingerie, the indicator that pleasure might be had, and so the object with which the lingerie is associate might perhaps be invested in.

So I must again ask, where does your association between goodness and sexual preference come from? In casual conversation it is generally understood as subtext that "good" means "preferrable" rather than "good implying inherent value." Before I even begin to ask myself whether my particular strain of sexual objectification is moral or ethical, why would I want to ask myself such a question in the first place, when it is already clear that I am willingly objectifying?

>>1432940
Ok, I got a bit sad at your last paragraph, especially your last sentence. I think there is still a fundamental disconnect between us insofar as my proposal is concerned, so I will try to propose it from the beginning.

I believe in inherent good, for I believe such a concept is necessary to conceive a basis for morality, even though you profess and respect a distinction between subjective taste, and morality. I feel- nothing else considered- there cannot be an inherent morality to anything, for I believe contast is necessary to quantify breadth. So without "evil", there can be no "good", according to this belief. As such the notion of "inherent good" is intrinsically false according to itself, since the distinction of being "inherent" cannot be without distinction, thus rendering the absence of distinction mutually exclusive with the moral belief of "inherent good" and contrasting "inherent evil". Since it requires distinction to employ its dichotomy of "good" and "evil", they aren't fundamentally "inherent"; they are ascribed. So nothing can have "inherent" morality- such a notion only serves as an arbitrary method to sort data.

That said however, I still find "inherent" good or evil to be the most fundamental distinction conceivable to humans, so I use it. I mean to say, while everything conceivable- even conception itself- must be either "inherent good" or "inherent evil" otherwise its moral status isn't inherent at all (at least according to this belief system), if you keep a specific singular concept in regard as being "inherent good" you can consider everything else "inherent evil", thus providing a basis for rational thought. And personally I consider being without compromise to be good, which is to say I consider living creatures intrinsically good, and all contrary to living creatures to be inherent evil.

>>1432940
>>1433044
That is my basis for rational thought. I find "logic" to be of the negative space contrary to living creatures without compromise, only being exemplary when it respects or possibly affirms the extent of a living creature.

When you say:

"
You're right about one thing though: that there may appear to be a difference between "everything that isn't x is disgusting" and "I see no reason to want to like everything,"
"

It wasn"t that I meant to compare your excerpt and the one belonging to another person here, it is that I considered you both not understanding my position, that being that I wasn't trying to criticize distinction for "good"- provided you consider a girl you like to be "good"- but that I considered fetishes to be of considering "good" to overlap with that contrary to it to be anti-intellectual. I find it literally of incorporating something you out of context don't find sexy, with something you find intrinsically sexy, then deriving a greater pleasure from the two together than you would with the intrinsically sexy person alone. It's literally adding an object you don't believe is in itself "good" where in simple terms "good" in this context is sexy, and from that- according to you- creating a greater product than the original. On paper it is the equation 1+0=1n, where "n" does not equal 0. It's false. You are adding your understanding of intellectual nothing and being irrational about both its intrinsic and coincidental contribution to the "intrinsically sexy" person of your fancy in this scenario.

And on the topic of "irrationality" I find it abusive of you to merely drop the word "illogical" and oherwise claim logical breadh without proposing proof as to the morality. You cite the appeal to emotion being a fallacy since (paraphrasing) you find emotion to be the common denominator for determining what an individual values, which renders it "still ultimately beholden to illogical rationalization". You didnt propose proof of this.

>>1432940
>>1433046
You didn't propose proof of your anything- all you did was sprinkle the word "logic" and its family of modifiers across your proposals to say you find X logical and Y otherwise. And I actually disagree with your assertion that "fetishes... are in fact inherently illogical."I do not know if you only mean it in the fundamental sense as per your proposal that you find a person's logic to be determined by emotion therefore inherently irrational, but in my belief of my aforementioned understanding of "inherent good" I believe fetishes are always "logical" where " logic" is defined as a sequence of conclusions rather than an objectively intellectually sound sequence of conclusions.

I find "pessimism" to be poor thinking. I find distinguishing "pessimism" to be poor thinking. I find exploring my personal out of conext understanding of "negative space" to be necessarily emotionally removed in order to be rational. Remarking on perceived "pessimism" as if such a thing can modify moraliy seems misguided to me since it is in my opinion of exploring that contrary to that which is intrinsically moral, the likes of which I find to be a living creature without compromise. It is null, I find. Your pessimism remark seems irrelevant to me, and as I claimed earlier you never attempted to prove this distinction to be moral, and had you tried at best you would add the modifier word "illogical" or "logical" to it without proposing why you find it must be such.

I stated trying to read to respond to your second post as well, but I find you exhibit the same not proving morality thing I claimed you did earlier. "To see someone in a sexual manner is to objectify them, and to reduce them to attractive and unnattractive traits... is the goal of sexualization. A sexual object is not to be considered for its breadth until its subjective sexual value is established." And then you just drop the modifier word "dubiously" when referring to of what I speak.

>>1432943
>>1433047
The extent of what you offer intellectually are assertions, independent of the proposal of any logic to prove them to be sound. It seems exclusively abusing to me: a mere rolling of the dice hoping I consider your assertions to be correct, despite your doubtlessly thinking assertions are not inherently correct, were for I to respond to you merely asserting the opposite of you I doubt you would find my proposal to be a valid argument.

I was merely trying to- without at all criticizing any distinction for "good", no matter if you only like loli, or don't derive sexual gratification from everyone ever- propose that I believe the bresdth of "good" should be considered itself, and that the breadth of that contrary to "good" should be considered such where "good" in this context is defined as "sexy" (to use simple terms, without attempting to quantify what "good" must truly be to a human). A "fetish" is the inherent overlap of intrinsically "good" and that contrary to it in regards to emotion. I find that to be false thinking, and, again, as the equation "1+0=1n" where "n" is different to "0". It seems irrational to me to have a fetish.

spook city

File: 1452310282187.jpg (2MB, 1408x3741px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1408x3741px

>>1433044
See, I don't respect morality, nor do I disrespect it, since I entirely reject it as an authoritarian concept derived from value sets, that while useful as a contextual starting point, are too deeply associated with ideology and dogmatism to allow an objective development of ethical methods while shackled to them. Yes, I'm afraid I'm an egoist, and a moral nihilist.

>>1433046
That said, I can still respond to the main points.
>On paper it is the equation 1+0=1n, where "n" does not equal 0. It's false. You are adding your understanding of intellectual nothing and being irrational about both its intrinsic and coincidental contribution to the "intrinsically sexy" person of your fancy in this scenario.
I claim the opposite in fact. I would use instead the function "value=xy+x, while x>0." With y being the various "goods" that are "unlocked" by the presence of the fetish(es) x, making the value potentially infinite, not modified by the presence of fetishes, but by the depth of the object aside from the fetishes, in conjunction with the fetishes. I rejected completely the notion of intrinsic attractiveness, as no matter how attractive someone is, if there is no mode of activation of the observer's almonds, he will remain blind to them. This is not to say that the object is intrinsically unattractive either, only that, as in the function, its attraction is undefined without the positive presence of a fetish. I believe this is a natural reaction to being flooded with objects to ogle as we are today, to filter out those most likely to be attractive, though perhaps some highly attractive objects might be lost in the process. I don't believe it to be unintellectual to continue like this, as it is the natural state, though it might be to not acknowledge the phenomenon while taking advantage of it, as the greatest disingeuity one can commit against themselves is to realize a particular action but then to willingly refuse to acknowledge its effects on thought patterns.

File: 1381167257463.gif (1015KB, 500x470px) Image search: [Google]

1015KB, 500x470px

>>1433096
Of course, I am in no position to declare the intellectuality of things, as intellectualism itself is an illusory, fleeting notion that comes and goes as it pleases.

>>1433046
>>1433047
Nor did I ever claim logical breadth. Rather, I surrendered myself completely to the illogical, though perhaps sometimes rational, nature of sexual preference, and made the assertion that even if a fetish is deemed to be internally logical, it is still beholden to involuntary influences and so cannot be externally, or truly logical. I find sexuality to be wholly illogical, and my assertion is simply that that is fine, and that I see no reason to believe it clouds one's intellect to be complacent in carnal desire, assuming of course it is not ignored when it happens to be a component of a larger system that is to be objectively analyzed.

>>1433047
>>1433048
Unfortunately being a egoist internet badass tends to offend the sensibilities of moralists, and healthy normal people in general, so please forgive any seeming attacks against your values. It was simply an attack against the notions derived from them. I tend to define a fetish in the traditional manner, as an unpredictable preference caused by factors not wholly under the control of the fetishist, and so cannot find it in myself to accuse such unwilling victims of desire of engaging in anti-intellectual activities, unless they are explicitly and blatantly doing so.

The thing that I found dubious was the assumed relationship between intellectualism and goodness, as if intellect has any intrinsic value in itself, rather than being only a means to an end. I make assertions, but do not purport that they are true, only that they appear true from where I sit. It is irrational to have a fetish, but it at the same time poses no threat to rationality itself.

>>1433051
ur mom's a spook

>>1433104
Pretty much. I didn't even read past the first wall because it's obvious they're a shitposter/troll/mentally challenged.

File: 1448733137375.jpg (40KB, 599x663px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 599x663px

>>1433104
post cute fedoras only kudasai
this is a 2D-only zone

>>1433096
>>1433098
I'm tired, so I'll respond to you after I sleep probably.

>>1433104
>>1433108
Are you really telling me you're so triggered by people not already agreeing with you that you dug up a four year old dead meme to be cookie cutter passive aggressive to them? Well done but maybe try to articulate you feel next time, friends, then maybe try to prove your feelings to be moral when it's not beyond you.

File: what the fuck is this shit.png (125KB, 343x479px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 343x479px

It's threads like this that really make me wish I knew how to read

File: image.jpg (95KB, 582x535px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 582x535px

>>1431174
Assuming that there is a reason behind the "good" judgment, these are the logic process you presented here:

Fetishists: without modifier -> not good, which is equivalent to good -> must with at least one modifier.
Non-fetishists: a non-modifier reason (e.g. intrinsic properties) -> good, which is equivalent to not good -> without that non-modifier reason.

Depending on the desired conclusion (someone is good or non-good), backward-thinking applies to both sides (set a conclusion and find the reason afterwards accordingly). Although one may propose that usually someone is meant to be judged "good" rather than "non-good", there is no fundamental difference between them.

However, for non-fetishists they have reason to be more anti-intellectual than fetishists. Their logic are usually broken down to "someone is good because that person's existence" (since they can be claimed as modifiers by fetishists otherwise), which must be an axiom to be sound. Since a logic system is better if it has less assumptions, fetishists' logic is more reasonable compared to non-fetishists (I "just" like someone).

In conclusion, there is no reason to believe fetishists are more anti-intellectual then non-fetishists.

>>1433112

OHOHOHO ZUKA-CHAN-SENPAI PLEASES PRODUCTION COMITTEES FOR ROLES

>>1431174
Do you not understand what a fetish is? It's a sexual preference for porn and other sexual things, it's not usually a standard for liking someone.

File: [Cthuko] Shirobako - 17 [720p H264 AAC][A19E7A8E].mkv00:14:35.416.jpg (136KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1280x720px

>>1433540
Yeah, she pleases them with her CUTE VOICE!

All I got of substance out of this was
>fetishes aren't the object of pleasure in themselves
That's where you're wrong kiddo, I have a fetish for clothes themselves, a female being absent is no barrier to my sexual pleasure.

>>1433544
I'm the same as this but only for specific articles of clothing and only if they've been worn by a - preferably sweaty - girl.

>>1433545
I love sweaty clothes too, but I can get off to simply the smell of clean, new clothes. Yeah, usually specific articles. I especially like the store-bought smell of leggings.

>>1433096
>>1433098
Ok well what is the fucking point in even respondin to me when all you're gonna do is claim your contrary opinions without even attempting to propose any logic to prove them to be correct, after I called you out on your absence of proposing logic, and after I proposed logic in attempted defense of my points. Literally I proposed equation, and you just proposed your own. This isn't a contest with you, it's you stating your opinions while I try to prove my own. Why even reply, in practice you haven't evej attempted to rebut anything I said. I feel I shouldn't even bump this thread with this.

>>1433293
I didn't really want to reference the subject matter of the guy above me's post, but I feel you exhibit the same thing he does in a specific regard. That being, you sort of think emotion ascribed is emotion inherent.

It's not that I think, for example, a girl you like is literally inherent good; it's that I think in the conext of a belief system they're inherent good. so without human morality, the moral properties of the girl you like would not be conceivable, therefore they're not inherent to her, therefore she is not literally inherent good.

However, in the context of a belief system she could be considered inherent good. So provided that context, what you are considerig inherent good is your understanding of inherent good, and the girl you like merely represents it. In other words the context of a belief system is more fundamental than the literal girl you like, so it is inherently "logical" where "logic" is defined as a sequence of conclusions. Therefore I believe I can say that something you don't find intrinsically sexually arousing is fallacious to consider a modifier of sexual arousal, provided that you consider intrinsically sexually arousing is intact without compromise.

So haven't I defined my set of beliefs with this? I don't find literal girls to be the literal breadth of my emotion, only representative of it, so not inherent.

And by the way, not to be rude but I've rapidly lost interest in this discourse. Thanks for engaging me in a not passive aggressive manner, but I'm probably bouncing right after I selfishly bumped the thread again.

OP is bad at writing. He should focus on writing a few sentences that get his key point across effectively instead of writing lots of bad sentences.

>>1431174
Fetishes are not bad.

fetish =/= kink