Lust for risk
I'm in a Francis Bacon (the painter) phase. I was reading that his painting style was partly a result of a need for risk-taking that showed up in other areas of his life.
I know about people who have that kind of personality, but it's alien to me. I take risks when there is no other alternative: when my life depends on it. I suppose I'm reaching for what might be at the core of risk-lust. Biological? Psychological?
I know about people who have that kind of personality, but it's alien to me. I take risks when there is no other alternative: when my life depends on it. I suppose I'm reaching for what might be at the core of risk-lust. Biological? Psychological?
Comments (57)
Childhood rearing practices could certainly influence risk-acceptance/aversion. If children are encouraged to take risks in play (like climbing trees) or discouraged (don't go near the water) that could have some influence.
Maneuvering high up in trees has always been something I have not liked since my earliest memories. I did climb trees quite often, but found it nerve racking. Other things, like exploring new cities, unfamiliar parts of town, tasting plants in the woods, or sex have been territories where I readily accepted risk (or was too stupid to fear).
Some people are generally risk averse, or risk accepting. Their lives take different but not better, not worse courses. Systematic aversion or acceptance of risk alone doesn't result in good long-term decision making. The risk averse, for instance, won't invest well, since investing entails risk. The risk tolerant are more likely to invest in dubious projects.
In a simpler environment (like the stone ages) the benefits of risk aversion were clearer. But then, hunters had to take some risks or vegetarianism would be the diet by default.
Yes. I am quite happy to take financial risks, but a lot less likely to take other situational risks (for example, I don't like driving, and if I can avoid it, I will). I am also fine with the risk-taking that comes from public speaking, social situations and so on so forth. But not fine with the risks that come out of going in a dangerous part of the neighbourhood, etc. So in some ways, I am very risk averse - and in others, I am very risk tolerant.
I like business for example, so I'm more than likely to take risks in business and to tolerate the risks that are necessary in business. It's my desire that pushes me to accept those risks.
Here is what Bacon had to say:
In my experience, it is definitely a matter of temperament. Risk-taking adults are risk-taking children and risk-taking babies. There are babies who climb out of their cribs at 6 months and those who never do. Never even think of it. The ones who do at 6 months go on to be mountain bike riders with broken bones and abrasions all over their shins and elbows. I guess I'm somewhere in middle of the pack.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2SfmcNg8js
I'm not sure is any kind of painting is really risky since there are not really any adverse consequences to painting a bad picture. Someone will always like it.
Of what you might call his risky paintings, they seem to be rather inward and contemplative.
Like if you paint a penis on Kim Jung Un's face, that would be risky. I'm sure there are other examples, but that one came to mind.
Why is that risky? If you live in N. Korea I'd not recommend it - but what adverse consequences are there?
That is always a risk, but I fail to see the relevance!
After watching that video I started wondering if addiction to risk was really what was going on with Bacon. Since he was masochistic, it may be that taking risks was just one avenue to some kind of punishment?
:) I have taken a risk or two, but as I said, it was because the alternative was death. I could definitely stand to take a few more strategic risks.
Quoting charleton
Really? The risks people say he took in painting weren't so much related to his topics (which tended to be dark and violent). It was in specific brush strokes that could destroy the whole painting.
Can you show an example so we are talking about the same thing?
IN any event - there are not really any negative consequences except a repaint - not exactly end of life stuff.
As a artist, when you get the art buying world behind you, you can pretty much make what shit you like and get sold, not that he needed the money.
Where is the risk ?
Francis Bacon home page
As are most people. The person who seeks out and takes all available risks will probably be dead before too long, and the person who avoids all available risks might as well be.
Quoting Agustino
True -- there has to be some motivation in the first place. Sex is a strong motivator, but still some people are very cautious in the their sexual behavior (risk averse) and others very risk tolerant. Engage in unprotected oral sex? Moderate to very risk tolerant people will do that. Engage in unprotected anal sex with another gay man? Very risk tolerant people will do that -- especially if the incentive is high (i.e., very attractive guy). Very risk averse people basically don't have sex because there is no way one can guarantee zero risk. Couples regularly take risks with pregnancies they don't want, and when the means to manage fertility are available.
Also, people are not good at measuring risk. Compare the risk of serious, disabling or fatal auto accident and a possible shooting: A big game will be played and 60,000 people will be in the stadium One person will be shot at random by a marksman and will die from the wound. Which risk will change your behavior? People routinely accept the risk of driving, and (when asked) say they would not attend the game under any circumstances. But the risk of death might be about the same, or perhaps higher for driving.
The risk of being infected with HIV from unprotected oral sex isn't actually known, but it seems to be quite low, and the figure of 1 infection per 10,000 blow jobs is often cited. (1 person is unlikely to perform that many blowjobs, however, no matter how enthusiastic they are. At 5 b.j.s every day, it would still take almost 5 and 1/2 years to get to 10,000.)
I regularly ride my bicycle and take various risks. I ride perhaps 20 miles from home without a tire-patching kit or a spare, and (previously) no cell phone. The risk of a flat tire is high, and the walk to a bus-stop could be quite long, but the risk has seemed acceptable. (I am getting less risk tolerant in this respect. I now have a tire patching kit and cell phone. Now for the pump...
It is said that his best works occurred during his most punishing relationships. Gambling is a way to question/doubt fate, to wrestle with it, to search for certitude in the midst of chance, while hoping for a run of luck. Bacon liked roulette the best because it has the longest odds and biggest rewards ( orgasmic). Its wheel reminds me of a mandala, a universe of chance, where time seldom rewards but often punishes its players, players who become entranced in their pursuit of winning, almost like artists.
I think he was able to take the punishment he suffered at the hands of his lovers, and use its erotic force as the inspirational engine driving his works. The greater the pain, the easier it was for him to transfer his experience into his works.
He enjoyed gambling and drinking with Lucian Freud, famous friends, very different kinds of artists. Freud is my favorite of this period.
Unless you are saying that EVERY Bacon shows this riskiness, please indicate which ones you are talking about.
Yeah, just like the other natural impulses though I will say this. In such situations where there is some risk, people often resort to mitigating behaviours. For example, they will just do mutual masturbation instead of full on vaginal / anal intercourse. Or only oral sex, etc.
Also, how strong of a motivator sex is depends a lot on circumstances. Most often, I would say that sex is only motivating in the sense of releasing a tension. It takes love and other feelings for sex to be more motivating than that, at least from my experience.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yes, I fully agree. It's also a matter of education. I know that driving is perhaps the most dangerous activity that I can be engaged in - statistically it certainly kills or maims the most. So I try to avoid it as much as possible.
On the other hand, with regards to HIV for example, I know that even if the other person is infected, the risk of transmission is very small, even for vaginal intercourse (0.40% or so - but for some reason people seem to assume much bigger risks when it comes to HIV). So I never found it to be a big worry, especially since I never had sex outside of committed relationships. I am much more paranoid when it comes to blood tests and similar activities, where risk is higher.
With regards to sex I find the possibility of having a child a bigger risk than STDs for the most part.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Mmmm... is this what training for a shagathon consists in? :rofl:
I think this also has to do with the culture of the place. In third-world countries, there is a lot more "fear" around sex than in the Western countries and a lot of misinformation that passes for fact. Of course, it depends, because this ignorance also makes some people blind to risks. But it certainly makes some quite a lot more sensitive and overprotective.
ONLY???
Some ONLY screw!!
Hmm the video didn't work too well...
Suffice to say that I have no clue what you're on about.
I am suggesting that oral sex is seen as a step up from just screwing. It is more intimate and interesting than all that excessive humping.
have you ever had sex?
:smirk: Mmmm, I am enchanted that you have such interest in my sexual history. But what does your question have to do with what we were discussing?
I'll take that as a big NO. Please refrain from talking on subjects you know nothing about.
The wheel of fortune. Boethius. Wrestling with God. Being sexually attracted to God's authority?
I'm going to be thinking about this for a while.
Quoting Cavacava
I like Freud too.
It depends... IF you have many sex partners in a population with a low rate of HIV, the chance of transmission is low. If you have sex with only one person -- who is HIV+ -- over time the risk of infection becomes much, much higher. OR if you have many sex partners in a population with a high rate of HIV (like North American gay men, or among South African blacks, for instance) the risk is much higher.
All this assumes one is never using condoms and/or not taking a prophylactic medication like Truvada (emtricitabine and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate). Being HIV- and taking the daily Truvada capsule greatly reduces risk of infection, even if condoms are not used. Truvada blocks reverse transcriptase so that HIV can't become established.
reminds me of the travesty of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq
His others, his triptychs are intense!
Do you have reading comprehension problems? A refusal to answer does not signify either yes or no. Either big or small for that matter. That should be obvious, but some people are quite dull-headed.
Quoting charleton
By the way, just for your knowledge, I've answered the question before on the forum, however, I refuse to answer it in this case since you harbour some prejudices which ought to be investigated. And so it is good to provoke you. I know precisely why you were asking that question. You want to imply that if someone did not have sex, then they do not have knowledge about sex, and therefore cannot speak with any authority or relevance about it. You further imply that the more sex someone has, the more they know about it. That is all as a means to justify your own insecurity and lack of knowledge.
First of all, even if one never had sex (for the time being I'll qualify that as vaginal or anal intercourse) it does not follow that one knows nothing about sex. This is to misunderstand the multitude of ways to learn about something. And in fact, it is a popular prejudice amongst the less cultured and the poorly educated, so it ought to be better addressed.
With regards to the above, sex is one of the few activities where, in popular culture, someone is taken not to know what they're talking about if they haven't done it themselves. To see just how ridiculous this is, let me just give you one example. Back when I was in University, we had a professor of engineering (structures). He never practised as an engineer, he was always an academic. So there was this relatively large and special structure that was going to be built. And guess who the company who had contracted it went to - to him, an academic. They did not go to the engineer with 30+ years of practice. Why? Because the academic understands the phenomenon much better than the engineer, who has really learned useful rules of thumb, and understands how to quickly navigate the rules & regulations governing engineering and the implementation of projects while minimizing costs. The practical engineer does not understand the phenomenon better than the academic who never worked as an engineer in his life, but has spent all his time studying different phenomena and publishing research.
So in literarily all other fields of life, when we're looking for the expert, we go to the theoretician, who has a grasp of the underlying phenomenon much better than the person who is always busy with encountering it in practice (that person may be, for most projects, quicker in implementation, etc., but he will not be more knowledgeable).
So, when it comes to sex, why do you think we ought to do differently? Why should we go for advice to the person who has had the most sex? Is personal experience the best way to learn about sex? Or should we rather go the expert, who understands human life, who has spent time to think about his own life, and has read about the lives and experiences of hundreds or thousands of other human beings with regards to sex and has all those experiences at his disposal to judge?
Here are ways to know about sex without doing it yourself:
• Read about it, both technically and stories of people who have done different kinds of sex.
• Watch people having sex.
• Have a very developed sensitivity & imagination.
• Talk with others about sex and listen to their experiences.
• Understand your own body sexually.
• Understand the mental side of intimacy (including sex).
• Be intimate (without having sex) with another person.
• Read sex manuals (Kamasutra, etc.)
These are all valid ways of knowing about sex. I know you have adopted the attitude of uncultured philistines of thinking that only personal experience gives you knowledge (no doubt, someone who is so poor as to only have his personal experience wants to privilige his experience above everything). And remember, it is you who were looking for a battle here, so I will give you one. Trust me on this, I will not let you go easily now. We're going to see just how well you understand (or don't understand) sex, and it will be really a big shame if after all the sex you claim you've had, you understand it worse than a man who only had sex with one woman in his life and is half your age :lol:
What makes for a positive sexual experience? I think that a brutal man, a violent man, a dogmatic man, who is always in a hurry, cannot have a positive sexual experience. He can encounter merely the release of sexual tension, but nothing more. It takes tremendous intelligence (and I don't mean academic intelligence) and sensitivity to truly relate with another person. And this is something that cannot be achieved through the understanding of the mechanics of sex. The mechanics cannot tell you what to do. No amount of sex will teach you, by itself, such intelligence and sensitivity.
Most people have a lot of hangups about sex. Do you think sex can be positive for such people, regardless of how often they do it? Or is rather the person who never had sex in his life, but is entirely open to the experience and to the other person, with his whole being, with no false prejudices, no desire to impress anyone, no fear - do you reckon this person is infinitely superior to the one who has had mechanical sex thousands of times before?
What about if someone is athletic, and really understands their body, and has developed physical strength. Do you reckon they will be superior in sex, that they will be a more enjoyable partner - for example by being able to adapt to any tempo, to any duration, etc.?
Or what about the man who has so sharpened his emotional intelligence that he perceives every movement of his partner's soul and understands their desires like no other. Tell me, you reckon they will be a better sexual partner?
Or what about the man who has developed the skill to get their partner to open up, not to be afraid, to be entirely present in the experience, without judging. Do you reckon he will be superior?
Given your superficiality on the forum, I wouldn't be surprised if you don't understand half of the things written above.
A famous Chinese advisor had a saying: "I only drew my sword out once, but I have sharpened it my whole life" - once, timed rightly, was enough to become Emperor.
Now anyway, I've said all this to clarify on a popular misunderstanding that I see with regards to sex. You are merely the opportune moment, because you represent this popular tendency well. Now, to address you more particularly, I really suggest you practice your reading comprehension.
Quoting Agustino
I've not seen people in the club toilet having intercourse (for example), but I've seen and heard about people giving oral sex there very often, and they were strangers. But this is besides the point, but just goes to show how utterly superficial and lacking in intelligence you are. Similar to your dogmatic attitude with regards to religion. If you are as dogmatic about sex as you are about religion, oh man... It's really embarrassing.
:strong: :kiss: :fire: :monkey: :lol:
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Religion is by definition dogmatic.
Where do you take this statement from? Certainly not from the likes of Meister Ekchardt, Valentin Tomberg, etc.
...and don’t worry about the funny taste.
I think this might be going in the wrong direction in regards to Bacon. The horrific image from Abu Ghraib reminded me of his painting, but this prison photo is a sadistic posturing and I don't get that feeling in looking that Bacon's spindly crucifixion. He was a functional masochist, and in so far as two adults can behave in a mutually acceptable manner, his masochism was not deviant, which is what I sense in the Abu Ghaib photo.
I think pain is how we learn to transcend the empirical. We seek to escape pain and our self awareness of it by trying to obtain a viewpoint outside or beyond it. Our feeling of pain, which I think is physically very similar in each each of us, is not the same as how we each react to pain. Some have a very high tolerance for pain and some do not. Some people like Bacon are somehow able to transmute their feelings of pain into a sense of strong erotic pleasure. His paintings recall his experiences of this pleasure in images, images which we might find disturbing, insightful and pleasurable all at the same time.
I learned a lot. You should write a book. :up:
True, but cosmic sized archetypes are always on standby with sex. I was pursuing the idea of fate (determinism) and a struggle against it. But point taken, even if I knew Bacon personally, I probably wouldn't be able to explain him.
What should the title be? :lol:
Oh dear... what did you do now?
The Hamster's Guide to Good Sex.
Mmm, that's actually good, I bet I could get that to sell like crazy in eBook form :lol:
Yeah, it's ambiguous enough to target a wide audience. :grin:
Let’s just say the party is going to start sooner that you thought.
You should know that hamster stomachs can digest almost anything :naughty:
I think this is the first time I've wholeheartedly agreed with you on something. Commenting so that we both have it on the record.
I tried having sex with a man once. I say having sex with a man, it was definitely more 'try'. The thing I found most surprising about it all was that I could enjoy giving pleasure but not receiving it in that circumstance. I tried to go in without prejudices, and had fantasized about similar things before, my partner was skilled but accepting and tolerant of mistakes. I was still bored. Not disgusted, bored. To paraphrase the fanfic Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality's Voldemort - indifference is a deeper antipathy than disgust.
Regardless of agreeing with you completely, there's still an element of surprise and self discovery in sex; I think it's a pretty large element of it - of shaping and understanding the desires of everyone involved. The conceptual apparatus surrounding it is of being surprised by discovered desires and methods of expressing them - expression understood in a (in general polyadic hur hur) relational sense of involved agents. Desire understood in its more general sense than mere 'sexual whim' (as if that's the only reason you can want to have sex with your partner).
In this sense, I think the relation of sexual novelty and desire is a conceptual opposite of novelty and desire in advertising, but also opposite of stoic contempt for the 'things indifferent and transient'. 'Humbling' yourself in terms of reaction/enaction towards your partner(s) and your own emergent desires is a manner of being shaped by the actions and delighting in the transience of it all. This then shapes how you have sex in the future and think about sex (and sex's role in relationships) in general. A model of learning in which nature puts reason to the work of desire. Poor wretch, willingly slave for a moment to a paltry girl, I find myself more free than I started.
Yeah, just like asking about the similarities between Moses and Jesus says something about you :rofl:
It's okay if you are celibate, or gay or whatever. This is the 21st C. You ought to be less sensitive and more honest - it might do you some good.
I said that you're not serious, and you're merely proving my point, running away from real engagement and discussion. Come on - what are you afraid of? Until now you were very loud-mouthed and belligerent, why the changed attitude? :brow: