The Beatles

[worm]

Sorry to be crude here but explain Stevie Wonder's 7 kids then bighead.

Explain to me why ants f**k. Ain't no intellectual motive, that's for sure.

[ampersand]

Sorry to be crude here but explain Stevie Wonder's 7 kids then bighead.

explain these two

too soon?

[Wooderson]

Explain to me why ants f**k. Ain't no intellectual motive, that's for sure.

The human animal is more complex than that. Well... some of us are anyway.

[worm]

The human animal is more complex than that. Well... some of us are anyway.

They're more complex than Stevie Wonder too. Well, some of us are.

[Wooderson]

They're more complex than Stevie Wonder too. Well, some of us are.

Your simplistic concept of attraction/stimulation is a real pity. Tony has the right idea here chief. A woman's mind can be a million miles more attractive and beguiling that her physical attributes. I would hope that the same could be said for men. If we were all reduced to unthinking 2 dimensional homonids the way you have explained human sexuality the world would be a far less interesting place. Some people's phone bills would be reduced dramatically for example!

Funny how this occurs on a Beatles thread! Haha

[worm]

Your simplistic concept of attraction/stimulation is a real pity.

Your simplistic understanding of what I've said is a real pity too.

Stimulation = ''Finding intellectual qualities a metaphor for sex is another matter''

Attraction = ''but that doesn't occur without physical attraction. You can't tell your labido that you want to fancy someone because you think that they're a really nice person.''

You want to f**k what you desire. You love whatever it is that you love. You'll find that lennon was saying as much i.e. love isn't driven by the labido, it is driven by love. You may love your labido, but that's not loving the subject of the labido.

Tony has the right idea here chief. A woman's mind can be a million miles more attractive and beguiling that her physical attributes.

Yeah, that would be what you love, not what you f**k.

Look at my sig. It says as much. ''The enigma of female suvjectivity is the gap between cause and effect'' i.e. you love their subjectivity; their story; who they are, not their body. You f**k their body. f**king is not loving, though you can love f**king.

Edited September 17, 2009 by worm

[worm]

Funny how this occurs on a Beatles thread! Haha

It was the poor interpretation of Lennon by you so called fans that started it my good man.

[Wooderson]

Your simplistic understanding of what I've said is a real pity too.

Stimulation = ''Finding intellectual qualities a metaphor for sex is another matter''

Attraction = ''but that doesn't occur without physical attraction. You can't tell your labido that you want to fancy someone because you think that they're a really nice person.''

You want to f**k what you desire. You love whatever it is that you love. You'll find that lennon was saying as much i.e. love is different to sex.

Yeah, that would be what you love, not what you f**k.

Look at my sig. It says as much. ''The enigma of female suvjectivity is the gap between cause and effect'' i.e. you love their subjectivity; their story, not their body. You f**k their body.

"The enigma of female suvjectivity is the gap between cause and effect"

Suvjectivity? Sounds like a Pet Shop Boys record.

Its horses for courses Worm. Your definitions above may work for you but not for everyone. For me there is an intrinsic, uncontrollable and undeniable link between love and desire. If not for you fine.

You can come up with many quotes and lyrics to prove a point with JWL by the way. He was a flakey and ambiguous lyricist.

E.g.

"Love is All

Love is Everyone

And it is knowing

It is Knowing"

Anyway. Ive work to do. Suffice to say I totally side with Tony on this arguement. If it's arrogance to claim the human being is unable to link up emotion and understanding with animalistic attraction then so be it.

[worm]

Its horses for courses Worm. Your definitions above may work for you but not for everyone. For me there is an intrinsic, uncontrollable and undeniable link between love and desire. If not for you fine.

You misunderstand me again. I'm saying that there is a link between the two - clearly. That's what Lennon is critiquing. I'm saying that those that love on the basis of desire do not love the person but desire itself. Exactly the same as Lennon is saying.

The point stands that you cannot f**k intellect. It may arouse sexual desire, but you can't want to f**k someone's intellect. It's a non sense. So, this stimulant can only be a metaphor for desire. And if you love someone because you want to f**k them, then you are indeed a very shallow and needy person who is in love with f**king and not the person.

I, like Lennon, reckon that you love someone because you love them (selfless if you like) whereas you want to f**k someone because you desire them (possession if you like). When you both love someone and desire them sexually you have something potentially very special, but dangerous if you do not make a distinction between the two. For instance, it could easily result in desiring love itself, which you will find in sex - a vulnerable situation some people often abuse.

Edited September 17, 2009 by worm

[Langdale Wolf]

Beatles please. Not this hypothetical bollocks.

I have a good discussion point - best solo album by a Beatle?

For me it's between Imagine, Plastic Ono Band or All Things Must Pass.

Paul might possibly be my favourite Beatle, but certainly didn't do as well as the others with his solo stuff. Some of his are good (McCartney, Ram, Flaming Pie and the amazing Unplugged are all top) but not as good as the 3 I mentioned above. IMHO.

[ampersand]

i only own one solo album (guess who by ). so its got to be 'memory almost full'. even though most of it will be about that geordie twat.

[Radar]

The point stands that you cannot f**k intellect. It may arouse sexual desire, but you can't want to f**k someone's intellect. It's a non sense.

What if you want to f**k someone in the brain?

[Langdale Wolf]

i only own one solo album (guess who by ). so its got to be 'memory almost full'. even though most of it will be about that geordie twat.

I admit to owning Give My Regards to Broad Street. I want the DVD. It's a horrendous film.

The album has some good bits but is mainly shocking. Ballroom Dancing is a tune though.

[worm]

Beatles please. Not this hypothetical bollocks.

It is the Beatles. We were disscussing Lennon's lyrics. I just had to further explain the point, twas all, because I love you people and you know that. I think desire might be stretching it though.

Edited September 17, 2009 by worm

[worm]

i only own one solo album (guess who by ). so its got to be 'memory almost full'. even though most of it will be about that geordie twat.

Oy c**t lugs. Less of the 'geordie twat' if you don't mind. I've got in bother twice now for sticking up for you.

[ampersand]

Oy c**t lugs. Less of the 'geordie twat' if you don't mind. I've got in bother twice now for sticking up for you.

what? she's a geordie and she's a twat. i'm correct.

i've already explained how i love a geordie accent and wish to go to newcastle one day. ya c**t!

[worm]

what? she's a geordie and she's a twat. i'm correct.

Righteous f**ker!

[worm]

I am much more turned on by someone who has something worthwhile to say.

So the words are a metphor for sexual desire. You don't want to f**k the words do you. No, they switch sexual desire on, which is a desire for another body (unless you want to go on about fetishism or something a bit more mental).

[worm]

I am much more turned on by someone who has something worthwhile to say. Some people find Cat Deely (for example) attractive, but the lack of much going on upstairs is a turn off for me. I'm not just saying it to prove something, to me she is as unnatractive as anyone, because of her vacuousness (I don't know her, and she might be lovely, and great in bed...).

Right. So you're idealising your sexual partner. We all do it. It's still the body that you have sex with; it's the body that you desire.

[Radar]

Right. So you're idealising your sexual partner. We all do it. It's still the body that you have sex with; it's the body that you desire.

Arguably it is the intimacy, not the body itself.

I think that may be a more feminine perspective mind you...

*backs out of pub*

[worm]

Arguably it is the intimacy, not the body itself.

Yeah, that'll be love rather than sex.

[worm]

nope, it's the whole package for me. The attractiveness (?) of the body is relatively low down the list

Then as ampersand implied, like Lennon, you fancy boilers.

I'm not so naive as to believe that my ideals determine my desire. Sexual desire is first. Social status (preference of trait, experience of past types etc) come later otherwise we'd always desire the same thing forever more. That is to say, that if you want to have sex with someone it's because you have a longing to have sex (a labido). Restricting that to certain types does not diminish this - we are social as well as sexual, but society stems from sexual desire rather than vice versa.

Edited September 17, 2009 by worm

[Langdale Wolf]

Does anyone want to talk about the Beatles?

Anyone?

No?

[worm]

and the 2 together is the best of both worlds

Oh totally. I'm not disputing this at all. Potentially dangerous though.

[worm]

nothing naive about it... I could just as easily suggest it's because of your naivety that you like it your way.

Social Status has zilch to do with it too

Like it my way? I'm exactly the same as you - I have my preferences and desire what appears to me to be for people with certain preferential traits. I'm just aware that it is through desire that these traits actually become important to me. Without desire, I wouldn't give a f**k - literally!

... not necessarily with any given person?

Well yeah. Why would you want to have sex with them if you didn't have any sexual desire? You couldn't. It's non sense. You could still love them though.

Edited September 17, 2009 by worm