Eroditus posted: " In a previous post, The Physics of Pleasure, I conceived of a science on the order of Physics or Chemistry that could accurately define, measure, predict, and allow command of the laws and a harnessing of the forces that are involved in pleasure, desire," School Of Desire
In a previous post, The Physics of Pleasure, I conceived of a science on the order of Physics or Chemistry that could accurately define, measure, predict, and allow command of the laws and a harnessing of the forces that are involved in pleasure, desire, and sex. As the sciences known as the "physical sciences" or the "material sciences" give us the knowledge of the laws and equations, and the ways and means to do things with matter, chemicals and physical energy, so would this science, which I dubbed "Erotics" (pleasure science), consist of laws, equations and such, and provide ways and means to do things with the forces of desire, arousal, pleasure, and even perhaps love.
This is by no means a new concept. The idea of a science of pleasure/love is as old, if not older, than the Kama Sutra itself, which could be loosely translated to mean "science of love" and/or "art of love". Personally, I do not see the words science and art as interchangeable, however what it boils down to is a body of knowledge and related skills pertaining to the sphere and practices of love and lovemaking.
The relatively new "science" (if you can call it that) of Sexology, is a hodgepodge of segregated studies, research, and independent clinical findings that are all swept under this "Sexology" banner. However, it hardly forms a complete, cohesive, or neatly codified subject. It's also alloyed with a bunch of pseudo-science that gets thrown in the mix.
Coming up with another word to designate a science of sex and pleasure may not be necessary, but if the word "Erotics" were adopted, its actual meaning and intent would be to set itself apart as a technical subject, which contained actual applicable laws and equations, that could be used to define, measure, predict and give the means to command and harness the forces of desire, pleasure and so on.
In this day and age, there is a flaw, which I glibly ascribe to Capitalism, that seems to undermine science, especially when it comes to Sexology. That flaw is that whenever a researcher, clinician or other individual makes a finding or stumbles across a piece of knowledge or something useful, it is the usual course of action that they then somehow "cash in" on it. This is not a criticism of these researchers, it is more of a lament of being caught up in the same system that compels anyone who makes a scientific advance to also need to "make a buck" too.
What this amounts to, is that sound, useful and scientific information, is often proprietary and contained or secured in some way that is profitable to someone, so it ends up being segregated from other knowledge. This may just be in a book with a mere purchase fee, but it may also be a business venture that capitalises on the controlled release of the information to consumers who would pay for it.
Not to mention, it also allows the charlatan to capitalise on misinformation and pseudo-science.
I may be being a tad cynical. The majority of sex researchers do seem to want to contribute to the common good, over and above any motives for personal gain. Living in a capitalist world, they have to contend with financial pressures and make their own living too. You can't really blame them.
I don't know of any other system that would be better either. At least the information is still made available to the general public. It's just not always free. If it were Communism, I daresay the information would be kept restricted and secret from the public and only accessible to the ruling political party and tyrants at the time.
All this talk of science and political economic systems has gotten a bit off the subject of pleasure. So, I will get back to it. I'm not about to put forth all the laws and equations of Erotics, because unfortunately I don't know them. The information may be out there, but if it is then it is segregated and scattered all over the place, in this book or that book, or at one website or another, or under this or that business's course or product, at a price. It's a task in itself to sift through all of these sources in the hopes to find something effective and useful, let alone fork out the cash for it. Neither is it possible to collect and collate all the information into a semblance of a comprehensive science on the subject without violating some copyright or trademark somewhere.
So, pleasure, science of… What would it consist of? Here's something I have contemplated, to get the ball rolling.
Categorisation is not always scientific, but it can be helpful to compartmentalise things to better understand how they work or relate or compare to each other.
Pleasure, or the factors of pleasure, might be broken down into two categories: things which give pleasure and things which don't give pleasure. Actually, there would be two groups of elements that pertain to pleasure: passive elements and active elements. Passive elements, would be things which make pleasure possible, that are conducive to pleasure, but don't necessarily directly cause pleasure. Active elements would be things which do generate pleasure. Such things would be thought as being capable of inducing pleasure, or agentive to pleasure.
Likewise, on the "negative" side, there would be elements (things or conditions or circumstances) which are not conducive to pleasure or in fact are inhibitive or restrictive of pleasure. That is to say, things which prevent the possibility of pleasure. In the active sense, there are things which would reduce or cause a decline of pleasure.
So, this makes four categories.
Factors of Pleasure
In Emily Nagasaki's book "Come as You Are", she talks about accelerators and brakes and also the importance of context, in regards to arousal. Accelerators are analogous to the active elements which induce pleasure that I've mentioned, and brakes would be elements which directly effect a reduction of pleasure.
Context would be the passive elements, whether they are conducive of pleasure (pleasure positive context) or in some way prevent pleasure (negative context) from occurring.
This could be analogized, carrying on with the car driving theme, as the road on which the car is travelling. A smooth surface that allows ease of acceleration would be conducive of pleasure, whereas a rough or slippery road or off-road that didn't allow ease of forward motion would not be conducive but would restrict or inhibit pleasure.
These factors and others would be part of the study of Erotics, the technical science of sex...
No comments:
Post a Comment