dance dimension x

“Dick Schwartz [founder of IFS] started calling them ‘critters’ a long time ago,” Falconer tells me. “They had a staff meeting at one point, and changed the name to Unattached Burdens, because it makes it sound a little more academically acceptable. This idea is like the third rail, and Dick’s terrified it’s going to destroy the reputation of IFS. But I thought it was so important that I wouldn’t shut up about it. It led to me being exiled from the IFS community for a while. Finally [Schwartz] came around and wrote the foreword to my book, and now they’re talking about it in Level 1 training.” [...] A core IFS dogma is “there are no bad parts.” But it turns out this is not entirely true. There are some parts that are not part of your Self. On the positive side, there are the “guides,” or angelic beings. And there are Unattached Burdens, UBs, or what are traditionally known as “djinns” or “demons.” As Falconer said, UBs have been a bit of an IFS secret, only taught in Level 3 training until recently. But a year ago, he published his book about UBs, with a foreword by Dick Schwartz and praise from other leading IFS therapists. This book has been pretty influential in IFS, underground psychedelic culture (where Falconer is active), and the wider New Age / spiritual culture. (He was interviewed on the Emerge podcast and the Stoa has launched a talk series dedicated to the topic.) Demonic entities are having a moment. 

article

reportedly, many IFS therapists are now routinely informing patients that they are possessed by demons lol

Here’s another client who emailed me: “I’ve been seeing my psychologist who specializes in trauma therapy for about 10 months now. I made it clear that I was not interested in anything spiritual because I had a lot of that pressed on me, and I wanted to set my boundaries…After our meeting on Tuesday, when I discussed a very frightening embodiment of what I would call the abyss, or death, which I felt had its sights set on me….she told me she thought I had an unattached burden. At first, I was interested, thinking it was some kind of trauma thing, and then my heart sank. And then I got really pissed off. I have suffered from delusions in the past, she knows that. I have experienced psychosis in the past. I have been expressing very suicidal thoughts, and I’m in one of the most vulnerable times of my life, certainly of my adult life. I feel disrespected, but more than anything, I feel, honestly, it’s kind of disgusted with the fact that she could say something so irresponsible to somebody in my situation.” IFS therapists can dismiss all these examples as “bad IFS,” but it seems there is clearly a risk of IFS therapists and coaches suggesting or imposing the idea of a UB, and clients finding it harmful — even more so if they’re working with clients taking psychedelics, which amplify suggestibility. In his book, one observer even tells Falconer it looks like he’s making hypnotic suggestions: “Participant 1: [Falconer], it seems like you implanted a lot of little suggestions, almost like a hypnotist. Falconer: Well, there is a general principle here. These things are often full of pride, and you can use their pride to manipulate them. “ In other words, Falconer thinks he is hypnotically manipulating the UB rather than the client… I emailed the IFS Institute to ask if they wanted to comment on these issues, but didn’t hear back.

I had already put IFS on my mental list of "therapies I do not recommend people look into anymore" (I'm an editor specializing in psychology and mental health books, and I have worked in mental health in the past), specifically because I think the idea that you should view the different "parts" of yourself as a "family system" that helps you live in the world and navigate it effectively and as a person is.............

A blatantly terrible idea for a modality of trauma therapy, mostly.

Such a huge portion of people with trauma - especially severe, complex, and/or developmental trauma - have family as a major source of trauma. So the idea of "ah our revolutionary trauma modality helps people by making them compare all the different parts of themselves as family members!" sounds massively, massively counterproductive and retraumatizing for a lot of people.

But this is unethical and counterproductive and harmful on a whole new entire order of magnitude.

This is especially alarming in the context of how IFS says people's brains work:

From the description of IFS founder Dick Schwartz's book No Bad Parts:

Is there just one “you”? We’ve been taught to believe we have a single identity, and to feel fear or shame when we can’t control the inner voices that don’t match the ideal of who we think we should be. Yet Dr. Richard Schwartz’s research now challenges this “mono-mind” theory. “All of us are born with many sub-minds―or parts,” says Dr. Schwartz. “These parts are not imaginary or symbolic. They are individuals who exist as an internal family within us...”

Sooo that sure sounds like an efficient way to make your trauma clients dissociate from themselves MORE and view themselves as a functional and independent person LESS, imho. And I really, really don't like how it looks in combination with the articles and info in prev.

Aslso, peaking of "this is basically Scientology," gotta say, the part where historically they didn't mention an Entire Category of their system (UBs), which actually breaks their beginner definition of IFS by its actual text, sure sounds like "Insider vs. Outsider Doctrine" aka an informational practice literally considered a cult tactic.

Most recently, a friend came over my house and saw my computer background and went, "Wow, um, I didn't know you were into that." To which I look at the picture of the well drawn muscular female minotaur in historically accurate Greek clothing and I start geeking out about how I love the detail the artist did with the clothing and I point out the period appropriate folds and pins, how the artist even inserted the native plant that was used to dye the clothing this particular shade in the background, and even how the belt has technology AND historically accurate weaving patterns on it.

Then I start explaining how I love the muscular choices of the minotaur, that I was so impressed with the artist's anatomically correct depiction of the muscles converging into the neck. That many people get an upright cow's neck wrong because cow's don't have collarbones, so it can be very difficult to merge the upper arms and a chest of a human with a cow's body. I draw her attention to the beautiful way they've merged the pectoralis major so smoothly while also staying true to how muscular they've depicted the rest of the body.

I finish up with my thoughts on the artist's bold choice to depict the minotaur as a female, and despite the underlying themes of a minotaur being violence, child murder, strength, and muscles. I segue into how unlike bulls, cow are perceived as mothers. That they are the major source of milk in human culture, and that idyllic depictions of them in a field usually depict calves frolicking nearby, yet the minotaur kills and eats children.

I finish and there is a long pause.

Some of the boldest political and emotional messages I've ever seen came from straight up no nonsense porn. It's a setting that allows people to approach a major facet of the human experience without shame or obfuscation.

Keep in mind this is coming from an asexual person-- I don't think physical desire is some foundational keystone of life without which one isn't fully human. I think it's as morally neutral as hunger and thirst, and almost as impactful on all of human culture.

So why does the fetish cancel out the art?

Our tendency to dismiss anything associated with sex or the expression of sexual desire as frivelous and meaningless leads a lot of people to forget that pornographic art is still art.

The artist didn't just jerk off on the canvas and a beautiful minotaur appeared. They didn't spend hours researching greek dyemaking and bovine anatomy just because they were horny for muscular women. And their admiration for muscular women doesn't cease to be inherently transgressive of traditional and mainstream views of femininity just because they expressed that admiration in a sexual way.

Francisco Goya's The Nude Maja is a classical masterpiece that took three years to paint and is considered one of the greatest works of art ever made. [^] It's also porn. It was commissioned by a man-- the Prime Minister in fact-- to hang in a private room specifically for his nudes where he "often retired after dinner." It's believed the model depicted may have been his mistress.

In the political climate in which it was made, depicting a fully nude woman was extremely controversial (in fact it's considered one of the earliest western works to depict a woman's pubic hair without obvious negative connotations) especially because Goya painted her looking directly at the viewer, making her an active participant in an exchange of desire, rather than a passive object.

Eight years after it was finished, the Spanish Inquisition raided the Prime Minister's home, stole The Nude Maja and all his other paintings, and put Goya on trial for "moral depravity."

Goya, who had by then been rendered deaf by an unknown illness that may have been cumulative lead poisoning and was already sinking into the deep depression that marked his later years, escaped prosecution only by arguing that The Nude Maja followed in the "respectable" tradition of the classical nude [^^] , despite the fact that the full frontal nudity, pubic hair, direct stare, and the details that established the subject as a modern, living, literal woman, not a mythological figure or allegory-- the very features for which it was considered problematic-- were substantial departures from that tradition.

He could draw enough connections between it and a "respectable" painting in that genre by another lauded Spanish artist, appeasing nationalist egos and satisfying people that he was suitably reverent of the idealized past. Therefore, it wasn't porn. It was valuable, it was a classical nude.

To a modern viewer, it is in fact, more or less indistinguishable from any classical nude, despite the fact that when it was painted, anyone who saw it could have told you it was porn.

Today, The Clothed Maja, an almost identical but less risque painting which he created directly after The Nude Maja [^^^] is one of the paintings included in Animal Crossing: New Leaf.

Another painting included in New Leaf is Beauty Looking Back by Hishikawa Moronobu. It's an arch-typical example of the ukiyo-e genre. While far from all ukiyo-e art was erotic, it's not an exaggeration to say the overwhelming majority of it was, at the very least, intended to titillate.

The very name ukiyo-e associates the genre with hedonism, courtesans, brothels and pleasure districts. Beautiful courtesans were the most common subject. Nearly every ukiyo-e master produced explicitly pornographic work at some point in their careers. [^^^^] Beauty Looking Back is a pin up. It would have been recognized in the time it was created as something inherently sensual and referential towards sex, despite not being explicit.

And yet, it's "artistic value" (I do not like this term. The value of art is not and should not be quantifiable) is so unquestionable that Nintendo included it in arguably one of the most family friendly games in their notoriously, stringently family friendly catalog.

What is a fetish, if not a non-sexual element that inspires sexual desire?

What is fetish art, if not a depiction of these non-sexual elements intended, whether explicit or not, to arouse that same desire in the viewer?

What defines something as being outside the boundaries of "normal" sexual desire? Breasts aren't a reproductive organ, they're not inherently sexual. Neither is the ass. But they do inspire sexual desire, at least in those whose cultural back ground has taught them to associate those body parts with sex.

If feeling sexual desire because of anything that isn't genitalia is a fetish, then all erotic art-- from the most explicit adult films to those Levi's billboard ads where the models are doing their best not to wear the jeans they are advertising-- is fetish art.

So when did The Nude Maja and Beauty Looking Back stop being fetish art, and become art?

When does it stop being shameful to admire the beauty and technical skill of a creative work just because it's sexual in nature?

Is it just time? Or have we let ourselves be led into imagining the past was a land of chastity and virtue, its art inherently more valuable and firmly divorced from physical desire-- where men could paint tits all day and other men pay small fortunes to commission and purchase those tit paintings all without a single impure thought-- compared to which our modern age is debauched, immoral, deviant, degenerate?

If that Minotaur was hanging in a museum with a placard that said it was painted in the 1700's, would you, or your friend, still assume it was fetish art?

If you'd come across it in a context where you knew it was sexual, would you still have stopped to notice and appreciate the skill and the research put into the details?

This was a hell of a tangent, and if OP is the kind of person who notices period accurate historical details at a glance and the particulars of bovine anatomy to the degree of being able to make an educated statement about how well someone has accounted for the musculature whilst attaching a cow head to a human body-- probably none of this art history trivia is news to you.

The point is just this. Maybe you weren't "tricked" into seeing the art before the porn.

Maybe your friend was tricked by our deeply sex negative culture into only seeing the porn and missing the art entirely.

[^]: Though he's better known on tumblr for Saturn Devouring His Son, which I'm always delighted to remind people is not a name he gave it. It wasn't discovered until after his death, so we can't know for certain what he intended to depict. The greek myth of Zeus's father eating his children was a best guess and, imo, a way of sanitizing the disturbing nature of the image by framing it as part of the classical tradition of mythological art, rendering it allegorical and academic instead of horrifying and unexplained. It was not the first time Goya's work would rendered more palatable to conservative audiences by claiming it was part of classical tradition, which brings me back to Maja.

[^^]: Physically fighting the urge to add a rant here about fascism and "degenerate" art. Just go watch Jacob Gellar's "Who's Afraid Of Modern Art." He does a better job of it than I would anyway.

[^^^]: presumably also at the Prime Minister's request, with the intention they be displayed together and not, as urban legend likes to say, because the Inquisition forced him to. The concept of creating a clothed and a naked version of the subject so that the viewer can imagine undressing them is a tradition well preserved in commissioned pornographic art today.

I just don't know how to explain it properly in a way that doesn't make me sound insane.

I don't like it when some story or artwork was made to be palatable to the public in order to be sold and make money.

I like stories and artwork that were made and released publicly because the creator is fucking PASSIONATE about some insane niche fetish. I want to read stories written by someone with a fully deranged autistic fascination with basset hounds or children's feet or farting zombies or getting stung on the dick by wasps or whatever.