Illusion is the Rotten-Thighed Whore

Psychological well-being is known to be intimately connected with the maintenance of certain illusions, or positively skewed distortions of reality. These illusions that help promote psychological health are routinely applied by the average person in the service of coloring perceptions of the self, others, and the larger group with which one identifies (e.g. culture). Social psychologists have accumulated a vast amount of evidence supporting the role of three specific illusions on increasing psychological well-being: unrealistically positive self-evaluations, exaggerated perceptions of control, and unrealistic optimism (Taylor & Brown, 1988). The literature also suggests that people with lower self-esteem and overall higher levels of depressive symptoms are typically less prone to using such illusions. This evidence begs for a careful analysis of the broader implications of apparently healthy self-deceit and its implications with regard to the basic goals of psychotherapy.

Although positive illusions have been shown to promote psychological well-being, there is also evidence that a loss of imagined hope for the future is associated with suicide risk (Beck & Weishaar, 1990; Conner, Duberstein, Conwell, Seidlitz, & Caine, 2001). In this respect, an illusory view of one’s future can be detrimental to psychological health when the illusion is no longer maintained. Should the goal of psychotherapy then be to cultivate positively skewed illusions in patients or to help them view their lives more realistically? Perhaps a more important question to ask is to what end do such positive illusions serve on a global scale in terms of human behavior. It could be for example, as Terror Management Theory (TMT; Greenberg, Pyszczynski & Solomon, 1986) research supports that the positive psychological effects of illusions on the individual also work to promote more violence towards others in the service of maintaining said illusions. One thing is for certain however; illusion is of paramount importance to the human animal. Indeed, in his book The Denial of Death (1973), Ernest Becker elaborates on the existential meaning of illusions in human life by stating the following:

‘Illusion’ means creative play at its highest level. Cultural illusion is a necessary ideology of self-justification, a heroic dimension that is life itself to the symbolic animal. To lose the security of heroic cultural illusion is to die (p. 189).

More...
The principle benefit of employing positive illusions in everyday life is witnessed in the self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, holding an exaggerated view of one’s ability in some domain can simultaneously decrease anxiety and increase self-confidence, which in turn boosts performance and thereby ensures the increased probability of confirming one’s positive bias with a successful outcome (e.g. better performance at a job interview). A similar type of self-fulfilling prophecy may also be employed in the service of maintaining a cultural illusion, in that a positive bias towards one’s cultural worldview can be reinforced when the culture defeats or gets one over on a rival (e.g. through war). To this end, Taylor and Brown (1988) argue that “faith in the inherent goodness of one’s beliefs and actions may lead a person to trample on the rights and values of others” (p. 204). Such a possibility seems to support the potentially less destructive effects of the depressive position with regard to the world at large. If positive illusions were much less commonplace, a good many people would then likely suffer from a lowered sense of psychological well-being, but alternatively would be less prone to inflicting harm on others.

An analysis of the research on illusion and mental health therefore leads to the conclusion of its likely being a double edged sword. Psychotherapy is but one area that should take heed of this. It would seem that the therapist’s job is in part to help the patient strike a balance of illusions. Clearly, self deception is necessary for effective psychological functioning, but too much reliance on self-deceit may have negative outcomes on the individual through the risks associated with the loss of illusion, and on the societal level through one’s relationships with different others. Positive illusions should thus be employed with the utmost caution.

References

Beck, A.T. & Weishaar, M.E. (1990). Suicide risk assessment and prediction. Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention, 11, 22-30.

Becker, E. (1973). The denial of death. New York: Free Press. Connor, K.R., Duberstein, P.R.,

Conwell, Y., Seidlitz, L. & Caine, E.D. (2001). Psychological vulnerability to completed suicide: A review of empirical studies. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 31, 367-385.

Greenberg, J., Pyszczynski, T. & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences of a need for self-esteem: A terror management theory. In R.F. Baumeister (E.D.), Public Self and Private Self (pp. 189-212). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Taylor, S.E. & Brown, J.S. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.

Scat Play: Is It Only A Japansese Thing?

There is perhaps no area of human life that lends itself to such a plethora of neuroses and depravities than the realm of sexual behavior. All kinds of bizarre and seemingly offensive (to most) sexual acts have been performed by our species ever since our consciousness evolved to the point that made us an intelligent, yet simultaneously insane species. It is common knowledge that certain sexual acts which are deviant and thus considered perverse within a given culture are referred to as fetishes. In psychological jargon, the most extreme or obsessive versions of fetishes are referred to as paraphilias. Psychologists will typically diagnose deviant sexual practices as paraphilias when engaging in the act(s) causes significant impairment in the life of the individual (e.g., law trouble, social functioning, financial problems, health problems, etc). Most of us have at least heard of, if not personally known individuals who exhibit at least one of the more common fetishes (e.g., the foot fetishist, golden shower enthusiast, rim job extraordinaire, etc). Although I personally consider myself fairly open-minded in matters of sexuality, I share a general disgust and bewilderment when it comes to what may be perhaps the most taboo act of perversion known to civilized man. The fetish I speak of is technically referred to as coprophilia, but most may be more familiar with the colloquial term, scat lovers. People with coprophilia derive sexual pleasure from being in some form of physical contact with human fecal matter. Such acts that fall under the umbrella of coprophilia include: the “dirty sanchez,” (the act of smearing feces under the nose of a sexual partner in such a way that it resembles a shit mustache), the “small town traffic,” (when two sexual partners simultaneously shit into each other’s anal cavities), and the most extreme form of the fetish, which involves the actual ingestion of one’s own or another’s feces (technically called coprophagia).

Thanks to the internet, scat play has become popularized over the past decade or so through a wide circulation of pornographic films. I feel that this dramatic increase in public exposure to scat fetishes should lend itself to careful study into the dynamics and possible cultural influences behind this fascinating behavior. The practice of deriving sexual pleasure from being shit on, shitting on someone else, or really, through just dealing with shit in any manner constitutes a fascinating research subject, one which should at least be tackled by the psychological sciences. Unfortunately, after a cursory literature review of the subject, I was dismayed by the pathetic dearth of any substantive information available on coprophilia. My subsequent scouring of the web proved similarly disappointing in the lack of information I could obtain. The impetus that first drove me to research this wonderful world of scat fetishes was the question of whether or not this aberrant practice was significantly more prevalent within specific cultures, or if the behavior was more or less universal cross-culturally.

Anecdotal evidence (word of mouth) seems to suggest that the practice of scat play is the most prevalent within the Japanese culture, although some also suggest that the Germans may not be far behind in this area. This theory is largely based on the fact that the majority of scat films have been produced in these two countries. Of course, the production of these films alone cannot be taken as evidence that the practice of scat play is more prevalent in these societies. I encountered a few individuals, however, who speculated that scat fetishes are indeed more prevalent in these two cultures. Their theory draws a link between the similar histories shared by Japanese and German cultures of being ruled politically by repressive brands of fascism, which quickly ended after their respective losses in World War II. Although this parallel provides for an interesting research question, it lacks any real theory for how these dramatic societal influences could have increased the need for citizens of former Axis powers to find fecal matter particularly arousing. In order to speculate how societal influences may have affected scat fetishes, we should first be able to cite some solid evidence that this phenomenon is indeed more prevalent in the aforementioned cultures. Assuming that the Japs and Huns really are the fecal kings, however, I will soon be offering some theories of my own to explain this phenomenon in a future post.

In the Japanese culture specifically, the prevalence of scat porn, alongside many other highly deviant porn genres at least seems to make clear the connection between coprophilia and BDSM (bondage and sado-masochism). The key component behind the pleasure derived from the act of shitting, or being shit on, is humiliation. Thus, if one enjoys being shit on (the shittee), they are masochistically getting off on the humiliation inherent to that act. Conversely, if one enjoys shitting on another (the shitter), they are sadistically getting off on humiliating that person. The Japanese culture certainly does have a history with its own unique brand of objectifying women, and the acts depicted in their most vile pornographic films seems to exemplify the height this objectification. Further evidence of this dynamic can be witnessed in the popular genre known as bukakke porn, which originated in Japan. For those not familiar with the term, bukkake refers to a sexual act in which one person (almost always a female in the Japanese videos) is forced to absorb (usually in the face) the ejaculate from a multitude of men. In some videos, literally 100’s of men line up to take turns spewing their sticky discharge of oppression upon the woman’s face. I tried to dig up the current world record for the bukakke, but was sadly unsuccessful. If anyone can find that out please contact me immediately.

Coprophilia, like most other deviant sexual fetishes is found in the minority of the population (roughly 1% or below of the world population is likely on the mark). Still though, the realization that 1% of your fellow homo-sapiens either fantasizes about, or engages directly with this behavior is sure to prove shocking to most. Although my limited psychological knowledge of this subject leads me to suspect that this practice does not vary dramatically across cultures, the possibility that fecal sex play is more prevalent in the Japanese and/or German cultures still intrigues me greatly. It is a legitimate question that begs to be studied by professional social scientists. Inebriated Discourse plans to get this ball rolling and will be accepting donations to help us launch the first in-depth study of coprophilia. In the meantime, we encourage everyone to raise scat awareness so that, hopefully some day soon, coprophiliacs can be more accepted in society. Brown ribbons should be adorned to show your support for this cause.

~Wolf

Back From the Dead

WE'RE BACK!

The boys from Inebriated Discourse are finally coming back from a long hiatus. We never put much effort into pitching or marketing this site in the past, so we never had any illusions about how small the number of regular readers and fans were. Even attracting a few dozen pleased us just fine though. 

Life has simply gotten in the way. For instance, Max now makes his living writing and editing content on a reputable news site, whereas Wolfgang is trying to finish a long drawn-out dissertation, among other things. This information is for the 2-3 people that might exist who would appreciate such an update. In any case, expect some interesting pieces of journalism and/or insanity soon. We will not let two more years go by again. Cheers!

S.E. Cupp: As stupid as she is attractive

It may be safely assumed that if S.E. Cupp looked like CNN’s Candy Crowley, no one would know who she is. But just like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, because Cupp is attractive, her stupidity matters far less to those who find favor with her.

I do not make the “stupid” charge cavalierly. Anyone who is familiar with Cupp’s downright nonsensical position that although she doesn’t believe a god exists, she nonetheless wants the president of the world’s most powerful country to believe otherwise. Put another way, she wishes for a president who answers to what she basically says is a figment of his imagination. Kind of like a schizophrenic.

Her latest column for the New York Daily News is an attack on Ron Paul in what amounts to a fourth-grade foray into international affairs—a complete mindfuck of gibberish, non sequiturs, and just plain ignorance of US foreign policy:

The problem is that Ron Paul’s America would be a scary place to live in. So would the rest of the world.

That’s not because he would, as he has so often promised, end the Federal Reserve or the Department of Education, but because he would end our history of fighting brutal regimes and human rights abuses around the world.

And what about our history of favoring and supporting brutal regimes and human rights abuses around the world? Cupp does not address this aspect or even acknowledge its existence.

She then proceeds with a familiar line of attack, made popular by Bush, Rudy Giuliani, and other neocon nincompoops who refuse to understand what the 9/11 attacks were about:

It goes beyond getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. On 9/11, his position is that we started it. “Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have been explicit,” he said in Monday’s debate in Tampa, “and they wrote and said that we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians fair treatment, and you have been bombing . . .” His argument was cut off by a chorus of boos.

He concluded that “we had been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years,” which is untrue, then asked, “Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed, then there's some problem.”

Ron Paul’s explanation for the 9/11 attacks is shared the CIA, the 9/11 Commission, and anyone who’s ever studied US foreign policy for more than 15 minutes, using sources other than Sean Hannity. The 9/11 attacks were of course examples of “blowback”—the unintended negative consequences of US foreign policy. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you meddle in the domestic affairs of other countries—overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran in 1954, installing the Shah in its place, supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, imposing a devastating sanctions regime on Iraq in the 1990s that wiped out hundreds of thousands of people, bombing a critically important pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998, supporting dictatorial regimes as in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt and elsewhere, among other crimes—it’s going to cause widespread resentment among the civilian populations in those places.

But instead of comprehending this fundamental axiom of not just international relations, but basic human interaction, Cupp takes an all too familiar swipe at Paul:

The idea that Bin Laden was justified in his violence is dangerous and patently anti-American.

Ah yes, the old, “Giving an explanation for 9/11 that goes beyond the they-hate-us-for-our-freedoms mantra means you are justifying their crimes and hate America” shtick. If this is true, then surely the American CIA hates America, because it’s concluded the same thing. Maybe in her next column, Cupp will write about how Langley needs to be purged of all its anti-Americans.

Continuing on,

This is what the founders advised,” Paul says. “We were not meant to be the policemen of the world.” One is left wondering, then, what President Paul would have done about Hitler or Pol Pot. What would he have done about Rwanda or Bosnia? What would he do now about North Korea?

Cupp isn’t helping her own case here by citing these examples, which show what a putz she is. With the exception of one these, the answer to her question is, the same thing all those other presidents did in those situations.

What would Ron Paul have done about Hitler? Probably the same thing Franklin Roosevelt did after Germany’s Japanese allies bombed Pearl Harbor: asked for a declaration of war on the Axis powers.

About Pol Pot, he would’ve done nothing, just like Carter did. In fact, Carter provided military support to the Khmer Rouge after Vietnam invaded in 1979. And that was our “human rights president.” For his part, when he took office Reagan continued to recognize the overthrown Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government.

Rwanda? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the US did nothing, again, with the Clinton administration taking its sweet time before it could bring itself to calling the slaughter of 20% of the Rwandan population a genocide.

Bosnia? Does she really mean Bosnia, as in the small peacekeeping mission the US had there for about a decade? Or does she mean to say Kosovo, for which we bombed Serbian civilians and after which the ethnic cleansing actually increased? Who knows? Who cares?

And regarding North Korea, Obama and his predecessor have largely ignored them, save for the imposition of trade sanctions. Truth be told, if Ron Paul were president, I doubt we’d see a big shift in US policy vis-à-vis North Korea.

What’s the matter, S.E.? Didn’t want to mention Darfur where the US did nothing also? I’m sure she would’ve mentioned the ghastly civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that killed over 5 million people, but she’d first have to know that that country exists. The US didn’t intervene there either.

The US of course didn’t really intervene in any of these places for the plain fact that there was nothing to be gained geopolitically from doing so. Or at least, the costs were perceived to outweigh the potential benefits. On the other hand, Iraq, which the US invaded, sits on an ocean of oil. Saudi Arabia, despite its tyranny, is a US ally because it too has a shitload of petroleum. Ditto for the monarchy in Bahrain, which hosts the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet. Cupp makes it sounds like a Ron Paul presidency would allow dictators free reign. But at least then we wouldn’t be supporting them.

- Max

I don't care if Obama loses in 2012

America's most powerful conservative

Against my better judgment, I’ve been commenting on stories on Huffington Post lately. Usually my comments are about how Barack Obama has failed both as a president and a liberal. There is little that distinguishes him from George W. Bush, save for some progressive rhetoric that is ultimately unaccompanied by action. Any honest and politically literate progressive knows this. The only supposed liberals who seem to really believe in Obama can be found on MSNBC or on the Washington Post editorial page—centrists posing as liberals, because they have allowed themselves to be dragged rightward by the craven corporate whores in the modern Democratic Party.

Even the liberal commenters on Huffington Post and Daily Kos have given up defending Obama with any degree of fervency. Most of them, anyway. A few die-hards remain, but their minds are impervious to reality, a la that infamous 30% of the population that was still approving of George W. Bush’s performance at the tail end of his second term.

Despite this widespread disappointment, I am frequently criticized for my Election Day 2012 plans, which do not include a trip to the polls, except perhaps to cast a Green for president and maybe a vote for my congressman. I voted for Barack Obama in 2008. I will not vote for him again. That much is certain. Even if I lived in a swing state like Ohio or Pennsylvania, I still would not vote for Obama. And it is here, for many liberals, where my need for “ideological purity” comes under fire. Whether it’s on the threads of HuffPost or when I’m having drinks with liberal friends, the specter of a Rick Perry/Michele Bachmann/Mitt Romney is always raised, as if failing to vote for Obama next year—despite my disappointment with him on almost every major issue—will haunt me until my dying breath.

Liberals insist that liberals must vote for Barack Obama because if we don’t, who knows what whackadoodle could be our next president, as if that outcome would be anyone’s fault but Barack Obama’s.

I for one am not going to allow myself to be scared into the voting booth at the mere mention of Rick Perry, Mitt Romney or anyone else. No doubt, however, that millions of other liberals certainly will. And that’s a problem. It sends a message to the Establishment-oriented Obama, and all other Democrats present and future, that to secure the “base” of the party, one need only frighten those in it with the prospect of a theocratic supply-side dystopia if Republican candidate X wins the election.

And maybe that’s true. Maybe that’s what we need in this country. Apparently, Bush didn’t make things bad enough in order for endless war, permanent tax cuts, and the trampling of the Bill of Rights to be deemed bad ideas by either party. After all, these buffooneries have continued apace into this so-called liberal administration, which has doled out trillions to the financial sector while destroying the savings of the general population, which eagerly awaits a jobs plan that they will no doubt be terribly disappointed by.

If Obama manages to win reelection, it would be a disaster for liberalism rather than a boost. Since Obama is not an actual liberal, his reelection would demonstrate that, electorally, core New Deal Democratic values don’t really matter on a substantive level, only at a very superficial rhetorical one. It would vindicate former press secretary Robert Gibbs’ dismissive assertion that only the “professional left” is disaffected with the president, meaning anyone who gives a shit about protecting America’s working class from corporate marauders, several of which populate the administration itself.

If Obama is defeated in 2012, the pundit class will proffer every explanation possible for the outcome, except for the correct one—that Obama is a centrist whose shamelessly pro-corporate policies failed to effect positive change in the lives of ordinary Americans during the worst financial crisis in 80 years.

- Max

Herman Cain perfectly summarizes Tea Party social values

Herman “The First Amendment Doesn’t Apply To Muslims” Cain

One of the great misconceptions about the Tea Party is that it’s driven mainly by concerns about the economy and the national debt. And for some members, that is certainly the case. However, as the current race for the GOP nomination shows, even those candidates who have labored to co-opt Tea Partyism simply can’t help themselves when it comes to engaging in Lee Atwater-esque social wedge issue campaigning. Witness the candidates tripping over themselves in attempting to secure the fetus vote, the obligatory tough talk on illegal immigration, and references to god, religion, and other bunkum.

Before today I thought the candidacy of former Godfather Pizza CEO Herman Cain served only one function: To demonstrate the non-racism of the Tea Party crowd by giving them an opportunity to say nice things about an African-American. But now I realize he serves another function: To make Michele Bachmann look like Madame Curie.

Explaining why he opposes the building of the now-forgotten proposed mosque in Murfeesboro, Tennessee, Cain told the AP this about the allegedly devious machinations of that project:

“It is an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion,”[…]“And I don't agree with what's happening, because this isn’t an innocent mosque.”

So Herman Cain opposes the building of a mosque because “it is an infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion.”

Read that again. Then again. And then again. Because no matter how many times you read it, it makes no fucking sense at all, unless you share Cain’s bizarro interpretation of freedom of religion, which to him apparently means he has the freedom to choose which religions others are not free to practice. Calling the building of a mosque “an abuse of our freedom of religion,” sends a clear signal to some of the more deranged Tea Partiers that he shares their vision of an America without Muslims.

Of course, I too wish for an America without Muslims, but also one without Christians, and Hindus, and every other practitioner of a faith premised on a belief in the supernatural. Nevertheless, we must never endeavor to hinder what is otherwise private religious practice by legislative fiat or other government mandate. For Cain to say that the mosque ought not to be built, is a direct attack on the First Amendment of the Constitution and the rights of private property. Apparently these don’t hold as much weight in Tea Party circles as some would have us believe.

- Max

Gnarly Tour de France crash

Breaking sports news video. MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL highlights and more.

I don’t care how random this post is. It’s not every day a Tour de France cyclist gets knocked into another rider by a media car, sending that guy into a barbed-wire fence. And yet, both of them finished the race.

Bruins fuck yeah!