SoundsXP Message Boards - Indie, Indiepop, Nu-Folk and Alt-Country Forums

me and a girlfriend were chatting the other day about the fact that if we discovered our fella owned (and used!) a fake vagina to get off, we'd be so horrified we'd consider dumping them!

now, both of us have erm, enjoyed the pleasures of the vibrator (not the same one i hasten to add), so surely this makes us hypocrites?

we discussed this for a while, and still, we couldn't get beyond the fact that discovering your bloke had been rodgering a fake fanny would seriously creep us out!

so, is there a difference between men using fake fannies and women using vibrators, or do you think it's pretty much the same thang?

i've got my own ideas on it, but i'm interested to hear yours first!

Aaah straight to the crutch of the matter, as ever Ms Noodles...

Well... personally I think you're being a tad hypocritical about what's good for the goose not being good for the gander... Having said that for some reason there's something almost acceptable about women using sex toys that isn't for men. Strangely the reverse is probably true of porn.

I've never used a fake fanny myself but I can't imagine it'd be remotely pleasurable. Besides Vinyl Vera will probably get jealous...

I don't think it's a problem at all - unless they're pretending that it's a child - and don't start bringing the thought police in to it again. The best sex i've ever had has always been with my vibrator and I'd hate to think that men were depriving themselves of a similiar pleasure.

_________________
Jarvis Cocker or David Bowie or AVB or Johnny Borrell, she isn't picky

Cavey Cocker, Cup Cake Queen, Saint Thomas.

_________________
Tall, moustachioed alcoholic - plays firewood with a bow.

_________________
Life is what happens when you are busy making plans - John Winston Lennon

I may have alzheimers but atleast I don't have alzheimers - ?

_________________
Tall, moustachioed alcoholic - plays firewood with a bow.

_________________
Life's But A Walking Shadow

_________________
Jarvis Cocker or David Bowie or AVB or Johnny Borrell, she isn't picky

Cavey Cocker, Cup Cake Queen, Saint Thomas.

_________________
Jarvis Cocker or David Bowie or AVB or Johnny Borrell, she isn't picky

Cavey Cocker, Cup Cake Queen, Saint Thomas.

The idea that a person's essence is his/her mind (or soul) and that the body is something contingent or transitory has a very long and respectable history in both philosophy and religion. And there are several persuasive arguments to back it up.

But it is wrong, I believe.

Howdy - are there any beginners guide to Wittgensteinians on the net? I fancy a read up.

_________________
If Ian Curtis had lived, and enjoyed the ale…

- -

Hmmm. Don't know of much on the net - though I dare say the Wikipedia entry might be worth a try.

Outside of that, there's a whole industry pumping out books on the man. Most of them are dull or misleading.

Ray Monk's biography "Wittgenstein, The Duty of Genius" is pretty good on the philosophy and gives a fascinating account of his very strange life.

A quick word of warning: Wittgenstein's philosophy is notoriously difficult for numerous reasons. For example, his writing style was cryptic to say the least (in The Philosophical Investigations he keeps asking questions and then not answering them; after a while you sort of wish you'd bought the teachers' edition with the answers in the back).

But the real problem is: if you're not troubled by philosophical problems then you'll most likely wonder what all the fuss is about. It's a bit like taking an asprin when you don't have a headache.

And if you are bothered by philosophical problems it's very hard to appreciate what he's saying because he attacks things at such a fundamental level.

Having said all that, there's nothing quite like reading the man himself. The Philosophical Investigations is (imho) one of the most startling, perplexing and beautifully written works of philosophy. Here's one of my fave passages:

In what sense are my sensations private? - Well, only I can know whether I am really in pain; another person can only surmise it. - In one way this is wrong, and in another nonsense. If we are using the word "to know" as it is normally used (and how else are we to use it?), then other people very often know when I am in pain. - Yes, but all the same not with the certainty with which I know it myself! - It can't be said of me at all (except perhaps as a joke) that I know I am in pain. What is it supposed to mean - except perhaps that I am in pain?

What I know about philosophy could be written on the back of a postage stamp... but I'd be intrigued to hear what people made of I Heart Huckabees which I saw at last on Friday night. It's entertaining, in parts, but obviously any deep messages (if they existed) it might have had about existentialism will be lost on a dunderhead like me.

Cheers. Just wanted an intro into all the stuff you have been writing about so i can get some idea behind it all. And I am too a dunderhead

_________________
If Ian Curtis had lived, and enjoyed the ale…

- -

Bola, dunno if you wanna splash out but I found this to be a rather interesting and accessible intro to the chap http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASI ... 77-5585243.

Howdy, have you seen Derek Jarman's Wittgenstein biopic? I've heard mixed things about it...

_________________
Looks like Elijah Wood. Supports Liverpool. Likes Coldplay.