Post-New Year HangOver Induced Pseudo-Meta Rambling

Ok, so thing is that even though I may look like I totally don't listen to other people's POV's unless they are somewhat similar to my own, I do listen. Sometimes I'm dismissive because I've either predicted the counterargument or I've encountered the argument many times before, or because I've seen some partiality on the part of the debater that makes me --I dunno-- think that the person throwin' the spiel is kind of, a tiny bit, semi-full of shit. Believe me, I don't take it personally or think badly of you because I think badly of you, because nobody's perfect and everyone interprets things how they want to interpret them. I dunno how to explain it, but it's like I feel that just because somebody's pulling something out of their ass to make the world a little prettier and people a little better doesn't mean that I think they are bad people, 'cause they aren't. Where was I going with this? Right, arguments. Well, a lot of people here, most readers here don't agree with my interpretations of TAS, 'cause they do see love and romance there. The Cock is not enough, so they go for the heart. In many cases they argue (since the beginning) that either I have a too narrow definition of love, that I'm too trusting of Psychology and that I may have (along with D to the M to the W) a too idealistic definition of love. I said, ironically, that I and DMW were very romantic and idealistic, and apparently it was taken seriously, so I guess my rep around here is softacuddlefuck. The truth is that I think that the whole series pretty much tricks most readers, that they fall for the sociopathic seduction (yeah, alliteration ;D) and that they tint his actions and his words with their meanings. How to fall in love with a sociopath in 7 days, specially if you concentrate on the Old Man Carnac, villain of la Comedia, and his plans to thwart the two star-crossed lovahs.

I think that some shrink out there should take the book and give a class about how to not let yourself be taken in by a sociopath and then give the series out as an example of how to watch out for that sort of thing. Like say, somebody says they pity him because of his "sad" life. The professor could point out that pity is exactly the sort of thing sociopaths like to exploit, specially the parasitic sort {That shit always reminds me of Buffalo Bill's 'broken arm.' "I'm helpless, won't you please help out?"} Somebody else points out how we all possess sociopathic traits, to an extent, and then the professor can point out the differences between daydreams and hallucinations, or some shit like that. Somebody else could talk about how plenty of "normal" people torture and the Professor could talk about the M. Experiment.

Rose's argument about the torturers she knows personally, stayed with me, and I remembered this.

I dunno if you guys know about that? It was an experiment they made, I read about it a long time ago 'cause I've always been interested in weird shit, where they put two people, a Learner and a Teacher, and the Learner had to learn pairs of words together. Like shit and piss. lol No, not that, but like cow and cake. Something like that. The Learner would get strapped to a chair and the Teacher would say one word, and the Learner --from memory-- had to recite its mate or get electrical shocks by the Teacher. So it started in, I dunno, 15 volts? and when all the way to like 400 volts or something, where it said DANGER bitches fry. So at 70 something (can't remember it exactly) the Learner guy starts screaming and begging to be let off. You'd think most people would stop, right? Well, no they didn't, see 'cause the Prof was right there telling them in a cool cucumber sandwiches voice: "Please, continue." "Continue, if you please." That sort of thing. Shrinks discovered that perfectly normal, decent human beings, while feeling pretty damned shitty and distressed about torturing another harmless, innocent human being, could put their consciences to sleep if they saw that a legitimate authority figure, who inspired respect, told them to obey. The responsibility was no longer theirs, but the Authority Figure's, they were carrying out their duty against their better judgment. One dude, who refused, was a guy who was confident enough, and had enough academic titles under his belt to feel like "Fuck it, the dude in the lab coat is my equal." Our conscience doesn't take a hike with our equals, but with our "betters."

Now, what's the difference between a "normal" person who follows orders and a sociopath, and why do we even have a word like sociopath to label 4% of the population? Well, in the long run torture is torture. Some people might even consider the sociopath less culpable than the normal guy who just lets his conscience take a big Z during certain situations, 'cause while the sociopath doesn't have the internal break to say fuck it, stop, the normal dude does. The thing with sociopaths is that they do know about "good" and "evil," but they don't give a shit because it doesn't concern them. To sociopaths the moral break is a hindrance, a fool's obstacle, that bars you from getting your shitz nitz when you want it. Torture is torture, yes, and many of us, most of us, could be active participants in torture, but because we DO give a shit, because we DO have a conscience, there will always be someone who will react with outrage. Who will say, I don't give a fuck if you're wearing a lab coat or a g-string you smarmy, evil fuck, I will not torture because I DO give a shit. A conscience is a really important thing to have :P and to listen to and we shouldn't be so dismissive about its absence. Right, Jiminy?

I was watching Dangerous Liasons recently, again, the old one with the poof skirts, tits on the chins (boobs on pedestals) and Malcovich, who I kinda wanna bonk even though he's ugly as sin and almost as tempting, and I was struck with the Glen Close character Marquise or Countess Le SomethingorOther (that bitch makes women SCARY) because I recognized her as a sociopath. It really came home how the absence of conscience paired with balls and a brains, not only makes everything possible but everything meaningless as well. They were bored as bad-fuck, specially her, and the way they'd pass time was by making everyone their pawn. Games of dominance, however, eventually become shit-boring, because they fall into a pattern. We read TAS because of Warrick, because of that variable that makes it all explosive, because, like Black has frequently said, if it was just Toreth fucking and metaphorically fucking everyone in sight, eventually we'd yawn and dismiss it. The interesting and the unpredictable is the unknown, and people with mental illnesses that are as severe as these are WAY predictable, one you've got your eye on 'em. It's us somewhat sane bitches you've gotta watch out for.

Sometimes when people act like Toreth is nothing but pitiful and cute, apart from recognizing them as Helen, I wonder if they have any concept of what not having a conscience means or if they see it as something so out of their experience that they have the luxury of finding it charming, like people who hear that kids get their hands cut off 'cause of diamonds and then inquire if it's "just one hand or both." It's not that they don't give a shit, but that sociopaths and dismemberment are not real to them. Hey, I gotta hard-on for Toreth, who doesn't? I just think, wow, what a huge blind spot. Then again, maybe I'm just impregnating the whole thing with my experiences and I'm too hypersensitive toward it. Was I rude? I never know. If I was rude or insulting, I apologize. It's a language and personality thing, lol, nothing personal.