This is fake right?tofulove said:this topic reminds me of this video http://www.theonion.com/video/study-children-exposed-to-pornography-may-expect-s,14326/
in early high school it was great, now days i rarely watch it, and generally only watch it with my friends
No.Midnight Llamaman said:^Bam.
@KafkaOffTheBeach: It's used (wrongly) to describe just spyin' on peoples lives these days, but that doesn't make the word mean what you think it is. It just means you are using the word incorrectly.
I'm sorry, while that's a very interesting view, it is still incorrect.KafkaOffTheBeach said:Voyeurism is a sexual activity - yes.Stasisesque said:You honestly believe voyeurism means to gain a new perspective on someone's live from watching their lives unfold?
Voyeurism is a sexual activity. It is finding sexual pleasure in watching others engage in sexual or intimate acts. It is not just watching someone. Not as a technical term, certainly not in the context I presented it.
Is it restricted to being only a sexual activity by some strange language quirk?
No.
What is Voyeurism at its core, as a sexual activity?
It is the act of living out your fantasies through other people, through watching other people without the risk of the activity, but with the risk of being caught observing. From this vicarious pleasure one derives pleasure from being the unseen, from being the omnipresent and the omniscient.
Now - I know that this definition is slightly askew due to the fact that I haven't really taken into account the sheer scope of the internet and its ability to publicise the lives of others, but bear with me here.
The core of voyeurism lies in the idea of vicarious living, because voyeurism the sexual act is deriving sexual pleasure vicariously. When we watch TV, or movies, or, god forbid, read books, we inhabit those characters whether we like it or not. We experience emotion through them - we escape from our reality through them and we live out their lives through the craft of the author. We as readers, as viewers, are closer to these characters than anyone else in their 'reality', because we know more about them, because we have experienced what they have experienced from their perspective.
This is voyeurism.
When you open the book you are spying on lives that are a world away from your own, doing things that you wish you could do with people you wish you could be, and, because of your perspective as the omnipresent reader, the camera onto this world, you get to experience emotion through them, and in doing that, and in deriving pleasure from said activities, the reader, the audience, becomes the voyeur - the sad shadow in the curtains deriving pleasure from the most intimate perspective of the most intimate moments of these people and their lives.
Sorry about the slightly off sentence structure and relatively limited vocabulary.
I'm tired.
And very, very cold.
No... no. Where are you getting this idea from? It was never originally used (correctly) to describe spying on lives. The definition never changed. The word was invented to describe the act.KafkaOffTheBeach said:No.Midnight Llamaman said:^Bam.
@KafkaOffTheBeach: It's used (wrongly) to describe just spyin' on peoples lives these days, but that doesn't make the word mean what you think it is. It just means you are using the word incorrectly.
It was originally used (correctly) to describe spying on lives.
The definition then changed to something sexual due to all the psychological undertones connected with the spying.
Now there is another dimension to said definition - once again due to psychological undertones and various Freudian bullshit.
Sooooo......emotion, I take it, isn't considered a private activity?Stasisesque said:I'm sorry, while that's a very interesting view, it is still incorrect.
It is a technical and medical term, it isn't up for interpretation.
Actually, you are just wrong. The French Root is roughly 'to see' - yes, but the English term Voyeur means "a person who obtains sexual pleasure or excitement from the observation of someone undressing, having intercourse, etc" or, basically someone who engages in Voyeurism. Which means, guess what? Yes! Voyeurism means "the practice of obtaining sexual gratification by looking at sexual objects or acts, especially secretively.".KafkaOffTheBeach said:Sooooo......emotion, I take it, isn't considered a private activity?Stasisesque said:I'm sorry, while that's a very interesting view, it is still incorrect.
It is a technical and medical term, it isn't up for interpretation.
A thought that only the reader can hear isn't considered spying on an intimate moment?
Watching multiple lives intersect from the comfort of a living room isn't considered 'spying on people engaged in intimate behaviour'?
And also - just to point this out - it is fucking up for interpretation.
Saying that it isn't doesn't make it so, and insults the intelligence of everyone reading.
It isn't an 'interesting view', nor is it 'incorrect' - but it isn't necessarily 'correct' either.
What it is is a completely valid view of reality much favoured by psychologists where everything takes on sexual meaning - whether you want it to or not.
Whether you wish it or not, hell, whether you know it or not, you are deriving pleasure and sexual release from watching - hence turning you into a voyeur.
Because, in the end, it all boils down to sex when dealing with the psyche.
It was - because it was originally French.Stasisesque said:No... no. Where are you getting this idea from? It was never originally used (correctly) to describe spying on lives. The definition never changed. The word was invented to describe the act.
The closest possible origin of the term is Scopophilia. You can look that one up yourself.
I believe you are confusing Voyeurism with the French word "voyeur". Yes, the term borrowed the word, but that you can thank the awful translators Freud hired for that.KafkaOffTheBeach said:It was - because it was originally French.Stasisesque said:No... no. Where are you getting this idea from? It was never originally used (correctly) to describe spying on lives. The definition never changed. The word was invented to describe the act.
The closest possible origin of the term is Scopophilia. You can look that one up yourself.
It was derogatory, but not completely sexual, nor technical, nor medical.
That, much like the voyeur himself, came some time afterwards.
You changed the meaning of the term. That is what is not up for interpretation.KafkaOffTheBeach said:Sooooo......emotion, I take it, isn't considered a private activity?Stasisesque said:I'm sorry, while that's a very interesting view, it is still incorrect.
It is a technical and medical term, it isn't up for interpretation.
A thought that only the reader can hear isn't considered spying on an intimate moment?
Watching multiple lives intersect from the comfort of a living room isn't considered 'spying on people engaged in intimate behaviour'?
And also - just to point this out - it is fucking up for interpretation.
Saying that it isn't doesn't make it so, and insults the intelligence of everyone reading.
It isn't an 'interesting view', nor is it 'incorrect' - but it isn't necessarily 'correct' either.
What it is is a completely valid view of reality much favoured by psychologists where everything takes on sexual meaning - whether you want it to or not.
Whether you wish it or not, hell, whether you know it or not, you are deriving pleasure and sexual release from watching - hence turning you into a voyeur.
Because, in the end, it all boils down to sex when dealing with the psyche.