Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
QuestionMark

Sluttification?

Something odd I noticed.
First, an anecdotal story that might illustrate the point:
A while back, I was obsessed with Homestuck, and in particular, Jade Harley. I tracked down quite a bit of art (porn) of her. After a while, something happened; my impression of her changed. She had gone from being an interesting character to a one-dimensional piece of flesh.
From what I hear, this is similar to what happened to Lara Croft; She was designed as a strong, independent female, but the sexual way she was presented and marketed outside of the canon mediums has had an effect on how she is perceived.

This is interesting because it happens in furry art too. While I do like the porn, does furry really need to make everything about sex? My reason for bringing this up is that the exhibitionism of a lot of furry art creates impressions, not just to the outside world (which is not what this is about), but to people in general trying to glean the character of your character.
How can anyone take your character seriously, as anything more than a slut, otherwise?
I guess it might be different if there was an engaging narrative behind it, but usually if there is one, it's the plot of a cheap porno.

Again, I'm not saying we need to completely abolish pornsonas; just that for a serious character, what you put out into the Internet with him/her has an influence in how the character is received. This isn't a problem for characters that really are one-dimensional meat, but more involved stories require careful cultivation to create the intended persona. And for porn artists, anyone who has read a visual novel knows how much more deep and meaningful the erotic parts can be when the character has been fleshed out (pun) over the previous parts of the story.
After all, the arts are fundamentally a means of communication. What message are you communicating?
Viewed: 20 times
Added: 5 years, 1 month ago
 
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
Deep, internally complex characters are difficult to write, and people have limited skills.
That is one thing, and then there are other things.

If my porn characters would engage in deep introspective debates about politics, group dynamics, and art, people would be bored and annoyed by them, because most people find such things tedious and tiresome.
There is also an abundance of such debates everywhere around us, everywhere on the internet, everyone wants to push their point of view onto others. People go for porn to escape such stuff, which they have plenty of elsewhere.

Probably, but writing on such topics will always end up flat when I only spend a paragraph of text on it. There is only a limited amount of points one can describe in such a limited message. Rather, every such discussion could be extended to many hours of debating and brainstorming of different points, meta-analysis and research.

Yes, I'm aware that I'm responding to journals which have been made years ago. They seemed interesting enough to respond to.
QuestionMark
2 years, 2 months ago
Sadly, the one I was when I wrote this cannot respond. Only the person I am now can.
I think this was as I was early in my contemplation of memetics; it's a fascinating field of study.

Were you aware that every person you interact with leaves an indelible footprint on your personality?
You can choose your tribe, but you cannot choose to not become your tribe.
It is a pull that becomes an inevitability given enough time.

But anyway, fictional characters. Characters are memes, things that solely exist among our collective minds. If enough minds have an idea of a character that is contrary to what was intended, this distorted version becomes the one people know. Much like how a rumor mutates to aid it's rapid propagation; the successful strains are the ones who spread faster than others.
The word meme is based on the word gene, because of how memetic ideas behave and adapt like viruses or simple organisms.
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
I'm not too convinced by others leaving some invisible footprint on just by existing.
On the other hand, I can easily tell you that others influence me in ways that are entirely visible to me. By interacting with others, thinking about them and their views, my views change. By watching behaviors of other people, I sometimes also change mine, when the way others behave seems better to me, or when I notice in myself behaviors similar to behaviors which I dislike in others, and I adjust my behaviors the other way round. So, in that sense, I would definitely agree that we are strongly influenced by who we interact with.

As for characters, or art, is that I'm not creating characters in a way so that people have to see them exactly as I saw them when I made them. Rather, I want people to percieve my characters through the prism of themselves, and see them in their own ways, which will always be at least slightly different than how I see my characters.
Good art is supposed to act as a mirror. But that also means, that, real depth and quality of art can only appear when it is being perceived by a reader/consumer who has a high quality mind. And, of course, in that sense, a reader who has a mind of higher depth than my own, will perceive my art at depths at which I never would be able to myself, and will see in my arts such secrets of the universe which i would never have conceived myself.

If that makes sense to you.
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
that was supposed to be a response to your response, but it seems i forgot to click the reply button
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
I suppose it would be a question of:
If a child grows in poverty, will the mindset of that child be influenced by that poverty in ways unseen and unnoticed, or rather in ways very obvious and clear, even to that child itself. That child will see others buy things, get toys, have better food, go on better vacations. That child will also see how it's own parents behave, and that will influence that child in very direct ways, I think.
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
But then again, to debate against my own point of view.
There is a theory that people only notice things after they are made aware of them. So is that child aware of how poverty influences it's mindset?  Maybe in some way it is, and in some way it isn't.
Furthermore, even if it is aware of how it is being influenced, it can't stop itself from being influenced. Especially in the case of a child, it can't go and leave and associate with a different set of parents.

But on the other hand, in case of adults, it is often entirely within our capacity to change who we talk to or listen to, and who we don't. Of course, who we interacted with as children, will influence who we want to interact with as adults, in one way or another. That's the deterministic side of the equation.
QuestionMark
2 years, 2 months ago
Here we might have to differentiate between conscious and unconscious awareness. There is a lot that we know unconsciously that eludes our conscious minds, often manifesting as a hunch or gut feeling. One source estimated the unconscious as having a ridiculous multiple of the conscious mind's processing power (not quoting actual number bc I cant remember it accurately), balanced by the conscious mind's laser-like focus on a limited scope, which the unconscious can't do.

But even if you don't like the people, their memetic influence is as inevitable as fate. This is why "toxic" people really are a toxin; staying around crazy people will make you crazy. A child is especially vulnerable, and it is a particular issue of mine, the degree of which children are mistreated because they are the weakest members of society.
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
" staying around crazy people will make you crazy

This, i don't entirely agree with.
Because, while I think people can and do influence other people. The type of influence is not always the same.
Depending on how a person's character is, one person will spend a year with crazy people and become more crazy,
but a different person can spend a year with craze people, and become less crazy, because he finds their behavior wrong and it only makes him want to behave like that less.

Similarly, one person can be abused in childhood and this can influence that person to become a child abuser later in life (i read that happens in a number of cases)
Another person can be abused in childhood and due to this develop an intense hate for child abusers in all forms, and become very kind towards all children.

So it's like, people influence other people, but that influence can go in very opposite ways depending on the person being influenced and the other circumstances.
QuestionMark
2 years, 2 months ago
well yeah, people do refract in different ways, but the accumulated stress piles up into pathology, even if it's not the variety the crazy person in question has. It can be a slow process too; like waves reducing boulders into sand.

I think the comment tree will soon get out of control. Do you have skype (and of course, would you like to add me? :3)
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
I would say, that on average, people probably conform a lot more rather than go against the status quo, so they'd probably be more likely to emulate bad behaviors rather than to behave in an opposite way, but that's a very wild guess and I'm not really sure about it.

I don't have skype, facebook, twitter, or any other of the major networks.
I have a couple of different communicator accounts, that is, aim, yahoo, jabber/xmpp
I'm also idling on the f-list chat.
QuestionMark
2 years, 2 months ago
Likewise, as far as things like facebook and twitter.
Skype, I consider a somewhat necessary evil, for keeping in touch with friends.

...despite the fact that skype admins are probly reading my RPs...
QuestionMark
2 years, 2 months ago
Still, would be interested in keeping in touch somehow.
Preferably a manner that doesn't multiply branches like comments do XD.
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
Aim, yahoo messenger, jabber/xmpp
f-list
or some other messenger protocol, if it has a pidgin plugin
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
And about your first paragraph. I think there's a big difference between people who engage in a sort of deep introspection and meta-analysis, on regular basis, and think about things which influence them.
And the people who don't do that (most of the society).
In that case, I can see how people who don't analyze or aren't even aware of things like propaganda techniques, would be influenced in a completely different way than people who constantly self-analyze and are aware of propaganda techniques and other techniques meant to influence how they think or are, which exist everywhere around them.

Or to put it otherwise, people who aren't very deeply aware of how others can and do manipulate their thoughts, feelings or even the data which they are given to base their views on, are, I'm sure, manipulated a lot more easily, and at a much deeper level, and much more subconsciously, without being aware of a large chunk of it.
QuestionMark
2 years, 2 months ago
That is one way to do art, if the intention is projection.
Who am I to tell you how to achieve an intention known only to you? XD
I would say though that not all art is about projection; sometimes the intention is specific. Creators of propaganda art, for example, I'm sure do not appreciate people misinterpreting the meaning XD.


I'm surprised to say, I am enjoying this chat.
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
yes, I'm also enjoying this discussion with you. It seems we have a good synnergy as discussion partners.

I suppose we could ask a question of, is propaganda art, or is it craft.
Where art is meant to express feelings, propaganda is the craft of convincing others to certain views and/or actions. In that sense, art would be by nature internal, and propaganda external.

Depending on the type of word meaning, we can also say the art of propaganda, meaning, essentially, the skill of propaganda.

But, there are definitely some similarities between art and propaganda. Perhaps art can be used as propaganda, but if art is defined by the intention to make art, then the intention to make propaganda is different.

For one, art is generally the truth about something, expressing the truth of how we feel about something, while propaganda is generally deceiving, the act of convincing people of things which you know are either not true, or not quite as true, as you describe them.

But if I go into this kind of subtle differences between words, then on this level I also differentiate porn and art as two different things, which can overlap, but don't have to.

In this case porn is the craft of stimulating people's sexuality.
While art is the process of deliberate expressing oneself and one's feelings and views to others.
QuestionMark
2 years, 2 months ago
Truthfully, the one who coined the word "propaganda" did not intend on it gaining the negative connotation is has now. It merely means "to propagate". Usually the propagation of an idea. So I guess, in other words, an intentional memetic vector.
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
I guess the problem is that when the intention is to propagate something, then that does not equal the intention of being truthful or helpful to others.

I have a pretty negative view of the whole propaganda business, and whole marketing and advertising industry, which to me is like the pinnacle of the science of propaganda. But I can tell you that when people go to school to study marketing I'm pretty sure there are no classes there about how the whole advertising industry is evil and bad for the society as a whole ;p In fact, they would be the first to tell you about how it's the best thing ever, and absolutely necessary for the prosperity of the human species :)

I think the whole advertising industry creates a global net loss for the human prosperity, and damages us as a species in the long run, although it's not something that i could prove or disprove.

On the other hand, how do you convince anybody of anything in a society which is already entirely dominated by propaganda?
With more propaganda of course. Except it creates a whole industry which adds no value towards human prosperity, but which by it's own existence forces everyone to engage in it in a constant conflict against each other...
QuestionMark
2 years, 2 months ago
I dunno; dangerous memes and schemes (bundled memes that all serve to benefit each other) have always dominated human thought.

As far as trust, society has already crumbled to the point where there are few institutions that can still be considered trustworthy.
I'd be interested to hear your case on why advertising is as serious a problem as you claim; I feel like I do not fully understand your position.
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
In my experience, advertising:
- takes a massive amounts of resources which could instead by used to create actual value, while the advertising itself adds no value
- spreads massive amounts of misinformation and false data around, frequently lying and playing on human ignorance, and that is by nature bad for the society, in my opinion. Depending on the specific lie, it can be less bad or more bad.
- actively works to destroy, remove or make harder to find, products which are superior, cheaper, and/or free
- related to the above, pollutes the internet with useless things, misinformation, corrupts search results, etc (for example, some years ago you could write "free app" to find some program which is actually free, malicious SEO noticed people were doing that, so they pouted the results, now when you search for something like a "free app" 99.9% of your results are paid apps.
- it generates unhealthy desires in people who had no such desires, in which sense it is similar to a a malicious drug seller who sells hard drugs to school kids, or to a gambling site which entices people into an addiction-like state and ruins their lives
- some would also say it propagates bad stereotypes, it may even be one of the main reasons why certain social issues exist, due to the stereotypes it propagated over the years.
- it is a craft based on a deliberate science of how to deceive people, i studied some marketing, I know how it goes. it's the science of deceiving people for the sake of profit. While not every advert must be deceiving, the art of how to deceive people is a very core feature of the whole marketing science and industry.
- i also put a lot of blame on the advertising industry and concepts for polluting and essentially destroying, or helping to wikipedia (I think wikipedia has been ruined over the years, i can no longer trust any of the articles, so much propaganda is happening inside them, and a large part of why this happened was due to corporate pr shills working to damage wikipedia's principles, rules, and community, or at least that's my theory)

those would be some of my issues with it
QuestionMark
2 years, 2 months ago
I unno about it not generating value; it's probably generating value for the company, or at least slightly prolongs the employment of the specific person creating it.
The mere fact that companies are willing to shell out money to do this implies that they at least think it will generate value for them.
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
By generating value, I mean, physical value, tangible value, adding value to the product. The thing being sold doesn't become better by the fact that 300 mil usd was put to advertise it, it's inner value, the usefulness, is the same, but the money on the advertising has to come from somewhere, and by somewhere I mean the price, so if you buy a product where half of the budget went to advertise it, it means you are paying 2x more for the same value. The people who could be making some other useful product, or who could be making this product better, instead spend their time creating a "fake" value, a purely imaginary one, the value of the advertising itself.

Some debate could be had on if the fact that the product is marketed in a more mass scale makes it more efficient, but i think the net outcome is generally negative either way.
The advertising once it becomes a system, everyone engages in it, so in a way the value of it neutralizes itself, and we are only left with the negatives of wasting money and polluting the market with worse products.
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
If i would go and spend half of my time advertising my art instead of making art, i would perhaps get more money, but I would make 2x less art, or art of 2x lesser quality. As a result, the system would have less art or it would have art of a lesser quality. So the system has less net value. The money inside the whole system doesn't change, so overall the system has less value, unless we view the advertisements themselves as a type of artistic cultural value.
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
In case of some high quality advertisements we could ponder the possibility of the advert itself being an artistic piece which adds value to our cultural inheritance. But even then  only the creation of the advert itself would have value, while most of the money and resources is spent on propagating the advertisements, not on creating them.
QuestionMark
2 years, 2 months ago
Art is particular; the art piece could also be the advertisement.
When you post a picture of it with the title "for sale", you are advertising.

If it's something to let people know you're taking commissions, a single "advertisement" can represent possibly dozens of commission requests brought to you.
QuestionMark
2 years, 2 months ago
If there is one thing that free market dynamics are good at, it's efficiency. If they could distribute their goods through a cheaper means than advertisements, I'm quite sure they would (or at least, the first to find out how would have a temporary competitive edge). They want to make money, after all.

Kinda reminds me of coca-cola; their advertising campaigns are so thorough, even barefoot tribes in Africa know what coca-cola is.
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
In a wold without adverts, which already has the internet, spreading knowledge about a product would be really easy and instant.
If the only purpose of the advertising industry would be to spread awareness of a product, it would not be as bad as it is.

The problem is, the function of the advertising industry is not to spread awareness of a product, but rather, to convince people that a certain product is better than all other products, in which it is irrelevant to the one who is advertising, weather the product actually is better.

Or to put it more simply, if advertisements were all honest, they would not be such a big problem, the problem is that the vast majority of them are dishonest, and sometimes (often) straight out lies, with the purpose of misleading people into buying specific things, and stopping them from buying other things which may or may not be better for the society, more healthy, or cheaper, etc.
Essentially, almost all adverts are malicious.

And, because it's essentially a large scale, global war of advertising lies, it also wastes massive amounts of resources while at it.
QuestionMark
2 years, 2 months ago
Liars are a constant in society.

This actually reminds me of something they used to do to keep casinos honest. They'd keep track of what percentage of incoming money was given back in winnings, and casinos that went below a certain percentage would be considered...maybe it was "blacklisted" or "blackroof"....the important thing was, wise people would not visit casinos that were known for being unfairly reluctant to allow winnings.
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
If we take a casino, it doesn't have to be malicious, as long as it doesn't go around advertising that you should spend all your life savings in there and you will win millions.

To a certain degree, a casino is a type of game, in which people go to play, knowing that they have a larger chance of loosing than winning, and for the enjoyment of the game itself. I'm sure there are some casinos which are more acceptable, and open about what they are, and those which are more malicious.

Casinos are also a type of entertainment for rich people, one which I cannot really understand, given that I'm not, and never have been, rich. I'm sure the rich people who visit casinos don't go there under the pretense of winning money, more likely they go there knowing that they will loose money.

The dark side of gambling is when the gambler encourages and misleads uninformed and/or mentally weak people to loose their money on it, knowing that they will be damaged in the process.
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
very enjoyable discussion btw, but it's true that we run out of space.
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
The second problem is, that a lot of people who sell things have entirely selfish intentions, to the degree that they disregard any damage, be it physical or psychological, which they may cause to those who buy their products.
And to help themselves at this malicious practice, they use money and engage a malicious advertising industry, with a whole range of damaging and malicious advertising practices.

Not all advertising practices have to be malicious or damaging, for example, if the owner of a pub puts a plate by the road next to the pub saying "Pub, we serve this and that and that", there's nothing malicious about it. In that case it is purely informative, and doesn't pollute.
QuestionMark
2 years, 2 months ago
I spose I should bring up the caveat that currently, there is a lot of interference preventing the kind of market forces that would normally punish dishonest dealers, but normally, people who deal dishonestly end up becoming known for their lies.

(for context of mindset, I do see this problem from an anarcho-capitalist perspective; I see the existence of the current system as an impediment to a great many things that facilitate natural market forces)
supremekitten
2 years, 2 months ago
yes, I recall there's a position that views the advertising industry as working inherently against free market and corrupting free market.

because, i think, free market assumes that the transactions are honest and not based on misinformation and lies?

while as it is right now, one could say it's all about scamming people out of their money, while still balancing within the realm of the law.
(and that's not even including malicious practices to damage and destroy concurrent businesses)
QuestionMark
2 years, 2 months ago
Not necessarily. Like I said, liars are a constant; we've always had them, and will probably still have them for a long long time to come.
What is interesting is that in a world where "law" cannot enforce deals, people take a much stronger interest in the trustworthiness of the people they deal with.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.