Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   For those concerned with Free Speech (or Porn), it is time to get active.
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 196 of 304 (220601)
06-29-2005 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by CK
06-28-2005 5:35 PM


The point
Charles, when I saw that, I said to myself, this woman is being forced to do this.
That's the point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by CK, posted 06-28-2005 5:35 PM CK has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 197 of 304 (220603)
06-29-2005 12:28 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Silent H
06-28-2005 12:06 PM


Re: Now there's a contradiction.
If you want me to elaborate my own view of it, porn is an abuse, an exploitation. It's an abuse of sexuality as such. It is, basically, infidelity. Even if you don't (yet) have a spouse it is an abuse of the one you may yet have, and it certainly is infidelity to your present spouse.
There is absolutely nothing factually wrong with your feeling that this is true. This is a personal impression and totally valid. Living your life by this and suggesting to others that they might want to view it this way is valid.
I do not agree with this and have my own view. The question I have is if you will grant me that I could also not be wrong and that living my life as I see it will not bring around the end of the world?
I have no problems with private experience legally speaking, only I have to say that it WILL bring about God's judgment on you eventually and it will contribute to God's judgment of the nation, certainly, but your defense of it will contribute more than your participation in it, I suspect, as your defense of it influences others. You may treat this as merely my "belief" of course since I can't *prove* it but I certainly can't grant that you might be right since I believe the word of God trumps your opinion. I'm not saying this in a bitchy way, it's simply my view of the situation. I know you want me to agree to YOUR view of *tolerance* and allow that I might be wrong and you right, but as you must know, I don't regard this as *my* view, it is God's view, and He can't be wrong. I'm not requiring YOU to agree with MY view OR God's view, you see, merely informing you of it. Fair enough? {EDIT:: BY THE WAY, I rather doubt you are willing to agree that *I* might be right about this, correct?}
Men often try to get their partners involved in porn with them, but most women just feel alienated by it, may go along with it to please the man but would rather not.
=====
How would you know this is true? I could say the same thing about kids and church, and I'm pretty sure that would be more true.
Oh and many other things we try to influence each other to, as well. We drag each other to favorite restaurants, and to movies and other entertainments that are less enjoyed by the partner too. I'm sure you can recognize the emptiness of your own argument here. The question has to do with the nature of porn itself. If it is neutral or good, then we may class it with church and movies. If it is bad, we have another situation, and I'm of course on the side that it is bad. The only point about how it is bad that I'm making at the moment is that I believe it is a form of infidelity or cheating on one's spouse -- which is usually the woman. How would I know this is true? I used to work in a field where I interviewed and counseled people in such situations. Of course times may have changed appreciably and women are even MORE determined to accept the male standard than they were then, and have their own porn and all that. It's a way of getting even I suppose since what women want out of sex is usually not quite what men want them to want. What are the statistics? You probably know.
Porn trains a person in preferences that may be imposed on the spouse against (her) wishes, or lead a person to look outside the marriage to fulfill them. It TEACHES sexual inclinations, as much as it expresses what is already there. It is an interference with a loving sexual relationship.
This is where you are wrong. 100% wrong. Porn (and by the way the topic here not just porn as it includes any graphic sexual content) is FANTASY, it is not REALITY or a TRAINING MANUAL. I suppose you can get some ideas of positions or fantasies you might want to try, but if they are not in you to begin with they are not going to be appealing and you are not going to "learn" them.
They may be there in some sense but they take on a particular direction and power under the influence of porn. That is my impression.
To believe the above is true is to also believe that adventure films are training people to abandon their families and jobs in order to make love to strange women while saving the world from evil. Is this true? Do you learn anything from adventure films, or do you like adventure films that appeal to your personal fantasies?
The situation is quite different. Porn causes a direct bodily reaction, which is its purpose. It is not an intellectual or imaginative experience the way adventure stories are, though I would have to say that fiction may also influence people for better or for worse, especially children, and there is some fiction that is somewhat porn-like in that its only purpose seems to be to provoke and satisfy some fantasy scenario, most of it innocuous enough however.
Images of sexual organs by themselves or in action, do not suddenly change the medium they are in or what it can and cannot do. Fantasy is fantasy, training films are training films.
Porn does evoke sexual excitement, but then what is the qualitative difference between that and other kinds of excitement?
I think it mostly has to do with its tending to turn the spouse/partner into a sex object and make demands on that partner, conscious or unconscious, that may not be welcome. I think Schrafinator's remarks about the body image of the sex partner are very relevant -- that's like a form of infidelity right there, that a different kind of body or personality may be part of the pornographic effect. Yes, porn may merely exploit what is already there, but it may also give strength to the impulse by creating images where the person wouldn't come up with them himself.
I'd REALLY appreciate a little politeness. "Shut up" is not polite.
=====
Does that work?
It should work, but no, it obviously doesn't.
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-29-2005 12:32 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-29-2005 12:34 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-29-2005 12:51 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Silent H, posted 06-28-2005 12:06 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by CK, posted 06-29-2005 4:03 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 201 by Silent H, posted 06-29-2005 6:29 AM Faith has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 198 of 304 (220607)
06-29-2005 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by nator
06-28-2005 6:22 PM


Spare tires
You don't really see cellulite, spare tires or many wrinkles on women in most porn, do you?
No, but I don't see them laughing at and judging people with the spare tires very often in porn either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by nator, posted 06-28-2005 6:22 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by nator, posted 06-29-2005 8:29 AM Modulous has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 199 of 304 (220620)
06-29-2005 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
06-29-2005 12:28 AM


Re: Now there's a contradiction.
quote:
it's a way of getting even I suppose since what women want out of sex is usually not quite what men want them to want.
So what is it that women want out of sex? in my experience it has varied greatly from sexual partner to partner. The problem stems from a lack of communication, how is either partner suppose to know if you are unable to discuss it.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 29-Jun-2005 04:06 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 06-29-2005 12:28 AM Faith has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 200 of 304 (220624)
06-29-2005 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by nator
06-28-2005 9:30 PM


Re: Ted Bundy
Most people look better with carefully chosen clothing, most definitely me.
Everyone can look "better" with carefully chosen clothing. Its body art. This is usually designed, when not purely functional against weather or immodesty, to draw attention away from parts which are not as aesthetically pleasing to those which are. There is nothing wrong with that.
If you are wearing clothes and someone says you are hot, you are hot.
Unless you have unusual birth defects, or painful scars/damage, or are grossly obese, the fact that you take off your clothes should not make a real difference. Some may find nonaesthetically pleasing aspects, but that is not the whole of you.
I have looked around the internet, seen stuff that was supposed to appeal to straight men, to lesbians, to straight women, to gay men.
I simply have no clue how you can have looked around and not found someone that looks like you... someone average (if indeed you insist you are average). The growing market is in average people just shooting themselves, sometimes in really wild adventures. I suppose it could be that you do not choose the right search terms, or that corporate porn gets the first few pages of hits to go to?
They were nearly all either shapely and thin or really obese. I even saw a site which was supposed to appear as a diary or scorecard of a man who was having sex with "plain, ugly women" because they were so unattractive as to be desperate, and none of them had the body fat that I do. And I don't have a huge amount.
There are markets in extremes and so you will find that. But most porn simply does not focus on the potentially aesthetically displeasing aspects of a girl. So maybe that's why you are not seeing what you are looking for?
If you had a camera and your intention was to turn people on, wouldn't you be focusing your camera on your highlights (just as you use your clothes) rather than spending 1 millisecond of time on anything that might be displeasing?
Photography of any kind is extremely selective. People first select a small amount of the person to focus on, and then before handing out the material deselect anything they don't want to see. Doesn't this simply make sense?
I agree that I have seen girls called "ugly" or "plain" and they simply weren't. This is done so often in modern media that it drives me up a wall. Movies like Dogfight, and Cats&Dogs had super hot girls supposedly being the "ugly" ones... yeah, right!
I would like to know the name of the site you looked at. Don't type its name such as to create a link from here to there, but give me enough to go on.
In return I am going to suggest you visit Abbywinters (it is a dotcom). Now I suppose from the opening "trial" pix I do not see some of the more "average" models that er inside, but believe me this site is about the beauty of a range of body types. It is run by a woman for men and women that really like women.
Her entire focus is on regular women without any makeup and wearing their own clothes, shot primarily in their own homes. Okay, I guess she does stick with young models, but that is her particular taste.
Another site is nakkidnerds (another dot com). While the girls may be a bit punkish, and young if they are not "average" in body type I'll eat... well let's just say they are proud of the fact that they are nerdish looking. The webmaster's mission statement is...
I, as a cyber punk/geeky girl, am sick and tired of searching through the net looking at page after page of tall blonde cookie cutter girls that you KNOW are NOT true amateurs. These days searching for "adult material" is just site after site of the same girls with a few rare exceptions, and quite frankly it is giving us wild web chicks a bad name. And that's just not fair now is it. So I decided to do something about it.
I wanted to capture the girl you see in the back of the class sitting there reading her book not paying attention to anybody. The girl you see on the street walking to work, or the girl who sits in the cube next to you day in/day out coding her little heart out. Girls who have much more than a pretty smile to offer, but also an amazing mind. So I invite you to look into the life of your average nerds next door - with a little kink thrown in for fun.
These girls are *NOT* professional models who go from site to site, they are not even real "amateurs" just friends, and friend's of friend's who I have with my sly smile convinced to model for the site, who believe in the site, and who are just in it for the fun and maybe a little ego boost *who does not need one of those these days!!
If you have problems finding anything there or from the links off of these sites, then go to Janesguide (dot com again), and search for sites by couples or nonpro single women.
You know who gives me that kind of flirtatious attention at work and in life? The 65 year old men and the middle-aged self-important ex-hippies who did too much acid in the late 60's who corner me to recite to me their manifesto. Oh, and the lesbians.
You know what? Try being a man that girls do not find sexy. Just be "average" and find out how many women will come beating down your door. Indeed look to any media and find how many "average guys" are portrayed as someone women SHOULD be attracted to. Generally if an average guy is with a woman in media it is usually stamped as obviously he just got her with his money, and he is almost always abusive.
Mainstream corporate porn like Playboy is much harder on MEN than women, though women seem to gloss over that fact. It is all about self improvement because women want a guy who is in fantastic shape and a lot of money.
If you find average looking and ugly guys in porn that are not there as simply a freak show, it is because they have one significant trait... well two actually. They have a very unaverage member, and they can get it up on cue. Yeah, that really helps the average guy who has neither of those assets.
As a guy that was found generally unattractive through high school and into college let me tell you who gave me flirtatious attention: 50-60 year old guys, or rabidly horny young gay men. I did not have the fortune of meeting any lesbians, and the gay men were not "sweet".
This cuts everyone every way. You are hot now, forget the past and embrace yourself. It is apparent you already have at least two guys under 60 who say you are attractive. And my guess is your husband is not over 60.
AbE: I forgot to mention that some of the "hunks" of mainstream media are not really that great looking. That reinforces my point that any sort of photography is selective in nature. What they look like on a screen or page is NOT what they look like in reality. There are whole makeup crews and lots of LIGHTS to change a person's aspect.
I may have recounted this anecdote before but it fits. I was working nextdoor to where a major movie was being shot, and on a break ran into a huge crowd of mainly women. All ages and really giddy. I asked what was being shot and they said it was a Mel Gibson movie and he was right there. So I stuck around to watch too.
Mel appeared and the women all sucked in their breath and then went... "oh". As more people approached the crowd as I had done and asked what was going on they were told the same thing: it's a Mel Gibson movie. The approaching women would invariably ask "Have you seen him, what does he look like?" All just as giddy as the expectant women had been before.
Every time and in unison, those that had seen him turned to the newcomer and said in utter disappointment and warning, "ugh, he's short."
Poor poor Mel. That's about the saddest reaction I had seen, barring a singular negative crowd reaction to a hairy ass shot by him in Bird on a Wire. There you have it, even a megastar "hunk" can have too hairy of an ass and be too short for women.
I wonder if he heard it? He'd almost have to since we were standing so close. In this shot he had to look defeated as he crumpled up a package of cigs and throw it away. It was almost poetic to watch. New girl comes up, a crowd of women say "ugh, he's short", then Mel looks sad and throws a package of empty cigs away, retake again and again and again.
This message has been edited by holmes, 06-29-2005 06:03 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by nator, posted 06-28-2005 9:30 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by nator, posted 06-29-2005 9:31 AM Silent H has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 201 of 304 (220625)
06-29-2005 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by Faith
06-29-2005 12:28 AM


Re: Now there's a contradiction.
I have no problems with private experience legally speaking, only I have to say that it WILL bring about God's judgment on you eventually and it will contribute to God's judgment of the nation, certainly, but your defense of it will contribute more than your participation in it, I suspect, as your defense of it influences others. You may treat this as merely my "belief" of course since I can't *prove* it but I certainly can't grant that you might be right since I believe the word of God trumps your opinion.
That's perfectly fine. I did not ask you to say that I was right.
I do not think you are right, indeed I believe that you are completely wrong and that your view is entirely unhealthy for human beings.
What I am trying to get out of you is that while you believe I am wrong, grant me that there is always the possibility I am not (or at least that there is nothing factually wrong with my "feeling" it is true), as you request I do the same thing for you, so that we can form a nation together.
Oh and many other things we try to influence each other to, as well. We drag each other to favorite restaurants, and to movies and other entertainments that are less enjoyed by the partner too. I'm sure you can recognize the emptiness of your own argument here.
Emptiness? You just made my point stronger.
The question has to do with the nature of porn itself. If it is neutral or good, then we may class it with church and movies. If it is bad, we have another situation, and I'm of course on the side that it is bad.
But it isn't objectively bad, it is objectively neutral. Only we ourselves make it one way or the other. I mean the fact that you set "church" as good is ridiculous to me, about as ridiculous as porn being good may seem to you, or someone saying restuarants are bad to both of us.
You may feel from your subjective point of view that there are objective negative qualities about it, that is that there is a god that would dislike it (though in fact there is nothing against sexual imagery in the Bible, and in fact plenty of sexual imagery in the Bible), but that is based on subjective FAITH.
Of course times may have changed appreciably and women are even MORE determined to accept the male standard than they were then, and have their own porn and all that.
Heheheh... have you ever heard of Sappho? How about Cleopatra? While I think men and women have different internal approaches to sex, they both like it and pursue entertainment that is sexual.
What are the statistics? You probably know.
I have no idea. I don't even know if there are such stats determining what women and men really want. In any case it would simply be an interesting snapshot of temporary demographics.
They may be there in some sense but they take on a particular direction and power under the influence of porn. That is my impression.
It is my impression that most religious people, especially those belonging to organized religious groups, have been duped into their belief and are only being pushed this way or that under the influence of charismatic people.
Does that make it so?
Porn causes a direct bodily reaction, which is its purpose. It is not an intellectual or imaginative experience the way adventure stories are
Hahahahaha. Do you really believe adventure films are somehow intrinsically more intellectual and imaginative and less connected to provoking bodily reactions?
The whole point is to create a "rollercoaster" effect to get your body pumping adrenaline. That is it. Sure they may put in some intellectual or imaginative pieces on which to hang the action, but without the action you will likely not be watching it.
Porn can certainly be both imaginative and intellectual. Much may not be, but I would argue neither is most action/adventure films. That is an artistic criticism, not a topical criticism.
it may also give strength to the impulse by creating images where the person wouldn't come up with them himself.
But that criticism is true for anything one does which is new. Travelling or watching movies about different cultures may make one realize they have interests in things they had not realized before. That can lead to an abandonment of current paradigms and eventually family, job, religion.
The question is then raised, is something that changes you because it makes you realize you have more interests than you previously knew a bad thing?
Some could call it bad because it creates dissatisfaction. Others would argue it is simply allowing a person to grow and broaden their understanding of themself.
To consistently argue that it is bad as it leads to discontent, is an argument that the women of fundametalist Islam should NOT take off the Bhurka or be introduced to further education, or alternate religions. It is a firm rejection of evangelism itself.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Faith, posted 06-29-2005 12:28 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Faith, posted 06-29-2005 12:55 PM Silent H has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 202 of 304 (220631)
06-29-2005 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Modulous
06-29-2005 1:45 AM


Re: Spare tires
You don't really see cellulite, spare tires or many wrinkles on women in most porn, do you?
quote:
No, but I don't see them laughing at and judging people with the spare tires very often in porn either.
Well, let's see. Porn is supposed to be about (mostly male) sexual fantasy, so men are going to want to see beautiful, young, tight female bodies for the most part, right? Women in straight modeling and film are over the hill when they're 30 (although that's better these days, it's still very difficult for a "mature" actress to get parts as a romantic lead because they just don't exist). In my perusal of online porn, it's "teen" or "barely legal" that is by far the most plentiful genre, followed by women in their early twenties.
So, porn may not laught at people with spare tires and cellulite, but it is clear that such qualities are not considered beautiful or desireable by their absence.
Probably the reason you don't see the rejection is that the girls who get rejected never make it into the porn because they got a little too fat or old or started to get some orange peel here and there.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-29-2005 08:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Modulous, posted 06-29-2005 1:45 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by CK, posted 06-29-2005 8:37 AM nator has not replied
 Message 205 by Modulous, posted 06-29-2005 9:58 AM nator has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 203 of 304 (220632)
06-29-2005 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by nator
06-29-2005 8:29 AM


Re: Spare tires
This goes back to what I said earlier - you seem to discussing mainstream coporate porn. The answer is not to say "porn is bad" but support the more diverse material that is out there.
If you don't like Walmart and the effect that it has on the shopping experience (and what it does to it's workforce) - don't shop at walmark! Don't suggest that shopping is bad instead!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by nator, posted 06-29-2005 8:29 AM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 204 of 304 (220642)
06-29-2005 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by Silent H
06-29-2005 5:44 AM


Re: Ted Bundy
quote:
I simply have no clue how you can have looked around and not found someone that looks like you... someone average (if indeed you insist you are average). The growing market is in average people just shooting themselves, sometimes in really wild adventures. I suppose it could be that you do not choose the right search terms, or that corporate porn gets the first few pages of hits to go to?
Well, I think I've done a pretty extensive search with words like "average", "normal", and "natural" as terms and most women depicted have lower appearence of body fat.
Just the fact that I have had to look really hard to find someone that looks like me tends to support my contention that porn in general is not exactly uplifting and reassuring to average women because it's rare that we see us there.
quote:
Photography of any kind is extremely selective. People first select a small amount of the person to focus on, and then before handing out the material deselect anything they don't want to see. Doesn't this simply make sense?
Point taken. Still, I'm not sure how a photographer could hide a spare tire.
quote:
I agree that I have seen girls called "ugly" or "plain" and they simply weren't. This is done so often in modern media that it drives me up a wall. Movies like Dogfight, and Cats&Dogs had super hot girls supposedly being the "ugly" ones... yeah, right!
That makes me roll my eyes, too. They pretty much put glasses on a girl who in real life was probably the homecoming queen and call her the "plain nerdy one". Never are they fat, or have acne, or really bad hair.
That's why I liked "Welcome to the Dollhouse" so much. They actually cast a not-stunning, actually average looking girl.
I could SO relate.
quote:
I would like to know the name of the site you looked at. Don't type its name such as to create a link from here to there, but give me enough to go on.
Sorry, I can't find the link right now, but I'll try to locate it later.
I went to the two sites you suggested and while they do show a small range of body types and the women pictured were certainly not "model types", and a few of them come a bit closer to what I look like, none of them really look like me.
I'd have to lose about 10 or 15 pounds to look like most of them, unless it's all camera angles and Photoshop.
I do have to say that some of the photography and artwork on Janesguide is beautiful, though.
quote:
You know what? Try being a man that girls do not find sexy. Just be "average" and find out how many women will come beating down your door. Indeed look to any media and find how many "average guys" are portrayed as someone women SHOULD be attracted to.
I'm sorry, but the male leads in almost every sitcom on TV are less atrractive than the women who play their wives and girlfriends.
"Funny men get the pretty girl" seems to be the message I get.
quote:
Generally if an average guy is with a woman in media it is usually stamped as obviously he just got her with his money, and he is almost always abusive.
I don't know. Hasn't it been a traditional notion (although changing in recent years) that women don't care as much about looks as men?
quote:
Mainstream corporate porn like Playboy is much harder on MEN than women, though women seem to gloss over that fact. It is all about self improvement because women want a guy who is in fantastic shape and a lot of money.
I would say that the "fantastic shape" thing is probably pretty recent. The money thing isn't, that's true.
But Playboy also teaches men what they should find attractive, which is the tall, long-haired, blonde, young, large-breasted, caucasian, thin, pliant woman.
quote:
If you find average looking and ugly guys in porn that are not there as simply a freak show, it is because they have one significant trait... well two actually. They have a very unaverage member, and they can get it up on cue. Yeah, that really helps the average guy who has neither of those assets.
Well, if men are getting lots of self-esteem problems from porn I am surprised they spend so much money on it.
Somehow I think that men focus on the women in porn, because the woman is the focus.
quote:
As a guy that was found generally unattractive through high school and into college let me tell you who gave me flirtatious attention: 50-60 year old guys, or rabidly horny young gay men. I did not have the fortune of meeting any lesbians, and the gay men were not "sweet".
Well, then, you and I have something in common.
quote:
This cuts everyone every way. You are hot now, forget the past and embrace yourself. It is apparent you already have at least two guys under 60 who say you are attractive. And my guess is your husband is not over 60.
Sigh.
I wish it were that easy. Believe me, I have been working on it every day since I was 19.
Thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Silent H, posted 06-29-2005 5:44 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Silent H, posted 06-29-2005 12:39 PM nator has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 205 of 304 (220645)
06-29-2005 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by nator
06-29-2005 8:29 AM


Re: Spare tires
Indeed - I'm not saying porn has 0 potential to cause this kind of rejection, but its secondary and implied. It is not direct and in your face. Thus, gossip mags do more to damage women's body image than porn (especially since gossip mags are aimed at women, so women are doubly exposed to it).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by nator, posted 06-29-2005 8:29 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by nator, posted 06-29-2005 6:55 PM Modulous has not replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 206 of 304 (220665)
06-29-2005 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
06-28-2005 11:39 AM


Faith? A response if you will.
Faith, way back in message 124 of this thread, you asserted that Schrafinator had claimed that that India was in some was superior (I presume from context you meant superior to the U.S.) because of sexual religious imagery.
A quick survey made it seem to me that she had had done nothing of the kind, and I asked you to support your statement or withdraw it (see message #136 of this thread).
You have not addressed you error at all. Look, it's not that hard. Just openly admit you were wrong and withdraw the statement. Is there some reason you find that difficult to do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 06-28-2005 11:39 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 06-29-2005 11:49 AM mikehager has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 207 of 304 (220670)
06-29-2005 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by mikehager
06-29-2005 11:36 AM


Re: Faith? A response if you will.
quote:
Faith, way back in message 124 of this thread, you asserted that Schrafinator had claimed that that India was in some was superior (I presume from context you meant superior to the U.S.) because of sexual religious imagery.
I infer her opinion from her positive terms for describing the religious imagery as "legitimate" and "important" and her apparent desire to denigrate "[my] religion" as somehow inferior because *theirs* is supposedly older, and its sexual images "legitimate" and "important."
Do you mean like it was treated as legitimate and important religious iconography thousands of years before your religion was invented?
It may be a bit of a stretch, but I'm not ready to say I'm wrong. It still seems the most likely interpretation to me. Perhaps you should ask her. She hasn't objected to my way of putting it. If she didn't mean that implication, then I will retract my interpretation.
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-29-2005 11:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by mikehager, posted 06-29-2005 11:36 AM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by mikehager, posted 06-29-2005 12:36 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 233 by nator, posted 06-29-2005 6:58 PM Faith has replied

mikehager
Member (Idle past 6467 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 208 of 304 (220681)
06-29-2005 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Faith
06-29-2005 11:49 AM


Re: Faith? A response if you will.
So, the source you incorrectly cited took issue with your interpertation of her points and several other people pointed it out, yet still you believe you are right.
Unsurprising. Disappointing but unsurprising. What exactly would it take to get you to admit that you are wrong? Make no mistake, you are in this case. Everyone can see that but you. Why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Faith, posted 06-29-2005 11:49 AM Faith has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 209 of 304 (220682)
06-29-2005 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by nator
06-29-2005 9:31 AM


Re: Ted Bundy
I've done a pretty extensive search with words like "average", "normal", and "natural" as terms and most women depicted have lower appearence of body fat.
I've been trying to do an extensive search and not finding any real adult sites at Yahoo at all. The fact is most indies sites, indeed most porn sites, do not come up in searches like that. You best bet is to comb through yahoo groups or find link sites (such as Janes) and search from there.
Yahoo and Google will generally give you corporate links first and may never even hand you the large number of indie sites.
You might also try actually going to porn stores. The fact is couple and self made porn is big, and they are by average couples and individuals. Yes they even have spare tires.
That's why I liked "Welcome to the Dollhouse" so much. They actually cast a not-stunning, actually average looking girl.
That is true... I really like that director's movies.
I went to the two sites you suggested and while they do show a small range of body types and the women pictured were certainly not "model types", and a few of them come a bit closer to what I look like, none of them really look like me.
Let me tell you, the pix on the outside are also "selective". Inside the sites they have even more "average" looking girls... though I'd term that natural looking. You should have found links off of both those sites that had more natural girls. Some definitely have a little extra weight and cellulite.
Another thought is to go to ishotmyself which is specifically regular people that just shoot themselves.
I'm sorry, but the male leads in almost every sitcom on TV are less atrractive than the women who play their wives and girlfriends. "Funny men get the pretty girl" seems to be the message I get.
Uhhhhh, could that simply be a matter of opinion? I have not seen that as a trend at all. Although I must admit I have not been watching TV sitcoms regularly for a number of years now (I think the last series was Seinfeld).
Again, even if I would grant that for sake of argument (which I wouldn't), the subject is porn. Unless it is specialty stuff, if a guy is average everywhere else he is certainly not in one specific location.
And to be clear, early porn (from the 70s) was filled with women who were relatively average looking. They certainly did have cellulite and untamed hair. I've seen complaints along these lines from way back then.
But Playboy also teaches men what they should find attractive, which is the tall, long-haired, blonde, young, large-breasted, caucasian, thin, pliant woman.
That is ridiculous and only indicative that you have never actually read Playboy. I will give you that it trends to youngish (though they sometimes feature older women), and perhaps can be said to feature more caucasions. Outside of that you are dead wrong. They have lots of brunettes and red heads, and girls with both large and small breasts.
If you want to leave out saggy breasts, and obviously overweight then that would be true. They also manipulate the photos to remove cellulite.
So youngish (I'd say youthful even if older), toned, and firm breasts (of whichever size).
Well, if men are getting lots of self-esteem problems from porn I am surprised they spend so much money on it. Somehow I think that men focus on the women in porn, because the woman is the focus.
Some porn is focused on women, some is one men, some don't really differentiate. Most guys simply ignore what other men look like... probably a defense mechanism. Perhaps the problem is that "modern" women are basically catty and so instead of looking at the sexual things that are going on and getting turned on, they are busy watching the girls for comparison.
If most guys did that they would definitely not come off feeling better about themselves.
Oh by the way here's a another interesting, and kind of big, trend in porn: Clothed Female, Naked Male. It is all about average women (and we are talking all kinds) objectifying men for their own amusement. The men are the ones who have to take it off and always be buff in some way. They are generally shoots of women at strip clubs, objectifying men in groups. You can try cfnm and loverboys (both dotcom).
Honestly, there is simply no way that you can tell me there are no average looking girls there.
I wish it were that easy. Believe me, I have been working on it every day since I was 19.
Part of the therapy is ditching the traditional feminist dogma. It is baggage which reinforces evaluating yourself against others.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by nator, posted 06-29-2005 9:31 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by coffee_addict, posted 06-29-2005 2:42 PM Silent H has replied
 Message 252 by nator, posted 06-30-2005 7:24 AM Silent H has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 210 of 304 (220687)
06-29-2005 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Silent H
06-29-2005 6:29 AM


Porn good bad or neutral
I certainly can't grant that you might be right since I believe the word of God trumps your opinion.
That's perfectly fine. I did not ask you to say that I was right.
That's not what I said. I said I can't grant that you MIGHT be right.
I do not think you are right, indeed I believe that you are completely wrong and that your view is entirely unhealthy for human beings.
That people reserve sex for marriage, that they don't indulge in any artificial stimulation or other extramarital sexual interests but reserve themselves wholeheartedly for their mate, who is treated with love and respect as The One and Only, is unhealthy for human beings? I admit it's just about unheard-of any more but unhealthy?
I might also point out that you are speaking from the male point of view, about what's "healthy" for MEN, while a woman really might have a lot healthier sense of security and healthier self-esteem if she could count on a man's finding all his sexual pleasure with HER just as she is without the threat of his thinking of someone else or wishing she looked or acted different.
What I am trying to get out of you is that while you believe I am wrong, grant me that there is always the possibility I am not (or at least that there is nothing factually wrong with my "feeling" it is true), as you request I do the same thing for you, so that we can form a nation together.
But that is exactly what I said above that I can't do, I can't grant you the possibility that you MIGHT be right.
And but didn't I also say that I'm quite willing for you NOT to grant the possibility I am not wrong or might not be wrong or might be right? I ask merely that you grant me the right to HAVE my view and to express it. Occupying a nation together does not require granting the possibility that anyone is right about anything, much less that they ARE right, it only requires that we *tolerate* with some degree of civility each other's views that we nevertheless regard as absolutely totally completely incontrovertibly unmitigatedly and even pigheadedly wrong as judged by our own (though for the sake of pleasantness we should probably avoid saying "pigheadedly" out loud).
Oh and many other things we try to influence each other to, as well. We drag each other to favorite restaurants, and to movies and other entertainments that are less enjoyed by the partner too. I'm sure you can recognize the emptiness of your own argument here.
Emptiness? You just made my point stronger.
The question has to do with the nature of porn itself. If it is neutral or good, then we may class it with church and movies. If it is bad, we have another situation, and I'm of course on the side that it is bad.
But it isn't objectively bad, it is objectively neutral. Only we ourselves make it one way or the other. I mean the fact that you set "church" as good is ridiculous to me, about as ridiculous as porn being good may seem to you, or someone saying restuarants are bad to both of us.
You may feel from your subjective point of view that there are objective negative qualities about it, that is that there is a god that would dislike it (though in fact there is nothing against sexual imagery in the Bible, and in fact plenty of sexual imagery in the Bible), but that is based on subjective FAITH.
First off, it is my view that it IS bad and you can't just come back and Pronounce from On High, as it were, that it is objectively neutral. That is not known. Neutral from what point of view? If in fact it contributes to increased murder and rape of women in the culture (I think that is a distinct possibility) or puts pressures on marriages of the sort I have been focusing on, or feeds some men's dehumanizing images of women, as bodies and not persons, what's neutral about it? And if I'm right about these things, there is nothing subjective about my view, it's quite objective.
There isn't the slightest pornographic image in the Bible. It describes many sexual situations but there is nothing pornographic -- erotically stimulating -- about any of them.
And I'm not able to make sense out of what you were trying to say about churches and restaurants.
Of course times may have changed appreciably and women are even MORE determined to accept the male standard than they were then, and have their own porn and all that.
========
Heheheh... have you ever heard of Sappho? How about Cleopatra? While I think men and women have different internal approaches to sex, they both like it and pursue entertainment that is sexual.
Women certainly have their own sexual fantasies, and a woman who has the power, like Cleopatra, might be able to order all kinds of things to suit herself, and there are certainly women who seduce men, including in the Bible (the men are warned that it will contribute to their death), and it's possible there's more female oriented porn now than there used to be, BUT overall porn is massively male-dominated and male-oriented and the women play roles suited to the male fantasies.
it may also give strength to the impulse by creating images where the person wouldn't come up with them himself.
======
But that criticism is true for anything one does which is new. Travelling or watching movies about different cultures may make one realize they have interests in things they had not realized before. That can lead to an abandonment of current paradigms and eventually family, job, religion.
And again that takes us back to whether they are good or bad or neutral.
The question is then raised, is something that changes you because it makes you realize you have more interests than you previously knew a bad thing?
It depends on whether it is good or bad or neutral. I have been arguing all along here that it is bad for relationships, bad for women, bad for marriages etc.
Some could call it bad because it creates dissatisfaction. Others would argue it is simply allowing a person to grow and broaden their understanding of themself.
Understanding??? Understanding??? Grow???
I would just like to keep the point simple and focused: Male oriented porn often promotes a dehumanizing and demeaning image of women which may have many degrees of exploitative and violent expressions, and is a form of infidelity as experienced by many women.
This message has been edited by Faith, 06-29-2005 01:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Silent H, posted 06-29-2005 6:29 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by CK, posted 06-29-2005 1:08 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 212 by docpotato, posted 06-29-2005 2:14 PM Faith has replied
 Message 213 by deerbreh, posted 06-29-2005 2:25 PM Faith has replied
 Message 218 by Silent H, posted 06-29-2005 2:42 PM Faith has replied
 Message 234 by nator, posted 06-29-2005 7:07 PM Faith has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024