<p>Uh - you're confusing an inferior experience to with an inferior person. You should judge yourself however you like, but it wouldn't have occurred to me to judge myself poorly for experencing something subpar. Like, sometimes I eat mealy apples, I say, 'ew I hate this apple, I will throw it away' it wouldn't have occurred to me to say, 'i am less of a person for having experienced that subpar apple.' </p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On May 6, 2013 1:19 AM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <<a href="mailto:g2g-public01@att.net">g2g-public01@att.net</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Sonja & Yo's-<br>
<br>
Not absurd, it's in the language you used: "thoroughly inferior" and
"classed with it." Those are strong words, and unequivocal words. <br>
<br>
Translate to housing and it sounds like the way home-owners often
put down apartment-renters. Speaking of which: <br>
<br>
"There are lots of reasons people in single-family homes don't have
gardens or don't have them much, and ways that apartment-renters can
have gardens, although having a garden is easier if you have a
house...."<br>
<br>
In context, that sounds like an attempt to back out of a dead-end in
an arguement, but as long as the "thoroughly inferior" statement is
not repudiated, the subsequent statement also comes across as
condescending. <br>
<br>
The problem here is with "superior/inferior" and "class." You can
call this a class-struggle.<br>
<br>
One thing we ought to do here is break out the subject matter: porn
and masturbation and relationship status ("status" in both senses of
the word, heh) are not the same things. It's good that porn is
starting to evolve in a direction that's more appealing to women,
and less engaged with sexual power-dynamics. It would also be a
good thing if there was a reasonable balance between genders and
sexualities in terms of percentage of people who play with
themselves (I don't have the numbers offhand). And it will be a
great day when "relationship status" isn't equivalent to "status."
<br>
<br>
But the fact is that we live in a culture of sexual phocomelia. For
those who don't know the word, it refers to the (otherwise-rare)
congenital disability that was famously caused in large numbers by
thalidomide, whereby people were born with no arms or legs, their
hands and feet attached directly to their trunks. Someone with
phocomelia has a uniquely difficult time eating, because they can't
reach to pick up their own food and put it in their own mouth. One
way to solve this is with a partner, where each person picks up the
food for the other, and puts it in the other's mouth. <br>
<br>
Our sexual culture is like that: it starts from the assumption that
you require another person to meet a basic physical need. From that
assumption, applied to sexuality, comes all of the weird
power-dynamics around sex. And while it may be true for
reproduction (plus or minus cloning), it's not true for love (which
has avenues of expression other than sex), and for the neurochemical
benefits (read: pleasures) and other health benefits (such as
reduction of risk for prostate cancer in men) of sexual stimulation
and orgasm. <br>
<br>
The Abrahamic religious traditions, originating in cultures that
were harshly oppressed at the hands of the powers-that-be of their
times, had to conflate reproduction, love, and pleasure, and seek to
control the latter to ensure the former, else they would not have
survived. That conflation persists in the mainstream culture to
this day, where it's the equivalent of a state of civil emergency
after the hurricane has long since passed. <br>
<br>
-G.<br>
<br>
<br>
=====<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 13-05-05-Sun 11:43 PM, Sonja Trauss
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>No that's absurd. There are lots of reasons ppl in
relationships don't have sex or don't have it much and ways
single people can, although it is easier if you have a partner.<br>
Also, comparing options means you must have them - if you don't
have access to sex then you don't have access to it. Comparing
it to masturbation, or comparing it to camping, or to pie, or to
music, it's moot. <br>
The whole conversation hinges on the notion that you have access
to both, which I think more people do than realize it.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On May 5, 2013 10:00 PM, "GtwoG
PublicOhOne" <<a href="mailto:g2g-public01@att.net" target="_blank">g2g-public01@att.net</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
Sonja, Andrew, Et. Al.-<br>
<br>
So now the implicit assumption goes explicit:<br>
<br>
"Masturbation is a thing too thoroughly inferior to sex to
be classed with it."<br>
<br>
The necessary and inevitable corollary to that is, "Single
people are thoroughly inferior to coupled people." Care to
argue that point?<br>
<br>
It wasn't long ago that us queerz were also subjected to
"Homosexual sex is a thing thoroughly inferior to
heterosexual sex." <br>
<br>
Inferior by way of "immoral," and for the longest time (and
still, in many places), illegal. In a wide swath of the
world, I can go to prison for who I love, and in a slightly
less wide swath of the world, I can get beheaded in the
public square or hanged by the neck at the end of a crane
borrowed from the Public Works Department (as is the custom
in Iran, 16-year-old queer guys included, go search BBC.com
for that story).<br>
<br>
Comparisons based on assertions of one's own superiority and
others' inferiority, are the last refuge of the
will-to-power mentality that is exploitative, oppressive,
and ultimately insecure of its own niche in the human social
ecosystem. <br>
<br>
In any ontological sense, arguements about the superiority
and inferiority of personal matters of taste among
consenting adults, are groundless, pointless, and ultimately
meaningless. <br>
<br>
Would anyone care to argue whether rock is better than rap
or vice-versa, or whether jazz is better than country &
western or vice-versa, or whether playing a piano,
harmonica, guitar, saxophone, or banjo is better? Any such
assertion of "better" (and its necessary corollary,
"worse"), is nothing more than a linguistic confound of the
phrase "I prefer." <br>
<br>
I prefer music X, sexuality Y, and pizza with Z on it. <br>
<br>
I have no need to prove to anyone, that any of those things
are "better than" music Q, sexuality R, and pizza with S on
it. And I will fight for the right to full equality among
people who prefer music X or Q, sexuality Y or R, and pizza
with Z or S on it. <br>
<br>
It will be a great day when people stop seeking to dominate
each other over matters of personal choice and personal
taste. It will be an even better day when people stop
seeking to dominate each other altogether, aside from
consenting adult dom/sub play;-)<br>
<br>
-G. <br>
<br>
<br>
=====<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 13-05-05-Sun 12:29 PM, Sonja Trauss wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>mmm according to conservative readings of the
bible, all non-reproductive sex is sinful.
masturbating and pulling out are both sins, and in
that way equivalent. So if you want to throw around
the 'puritanical' label, it would have to stick to
the idea that masturbation and sex are
interchangeable, and not the idea they they are two
pretty different types of activities. <br>
<br>
</div>
Other women should pipe up here, but the only people
who have ever tried to tell me that "masturbation is a
type of sex" have been men. No, masturbation is not
sex. In the same way that vitamin pills are not food.
Masturbation is a thing too thoroughly inferior to sex
to be classed with it. I guess, from a male pleasure
point of view, they are equivalent, if you cum from
sex or you cum from jerking off, you cum, who cares,
but they are not equivalent from your gf's pov. I
would 1000% prefer my partner to cum from fucking me
than from jerking off. I get nothing out of him
jerking off, if he fucks me I will almost surely cum.
<br>
<br>
</div>
The idea that we should make more porn (for women!) has
always struck me as an example of men thinking women
should be more like men. Maybe women aren't that into
porn, not because there's not that much porn that women
like, but because porn is lame and boring. Maybe instead
of women going against their natures and learning to
enjoy passively watching other people have sex, men
should go against their natures and learn to enjoy
closing the laptop, picking up the phone, waiting 15
minutes for your girl to come over, and then fucking
her. <br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 1:58 AM,
GtwoG PublicOhOne <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:g2g-public01@att.net" target="_blank">g2g-public01@att.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
Sonja, Andrew, and Yo's-<br>
<br>
Whoa there! All this about "masturbation
replacing sex" reinforces an artificial duality
that's ultimately founded in puritanism, in which
masturbation may not be "sinful" but it's "not
real sex."<br>
<br>
To paraphrase an old Campbell's Soup ad, "It's Sex
for One and that one is you!"<br>
<br>
What I personally find bizarre as hell, is the
degree to which our culture is so
couple-normative, and the degree to which sexual
coupling is normalized and expected as the primary
axis on which lifetime relationships are based.
This when there's a near-infinite range of
potential upon which humans could base their
relationships.<br>
<br>
Have you ever seen a couple that appeared to you
to be either overtly dysfunctional or just plain
weird in the manner of "what the hell could s/he
possibly see in him/her?!" The answer usually
turns out to be "in bed," as in: they may be
totally incompatible in all other ways, but they
have some unique kink in common, or just screw
like mad weasels, and apparently that's enough to
keep them together. <br>
<br>
Under all of this is the genetic competition
algorithm, that dates back to bacteria but seems
remarkably incapable of producing humans with the
intelligence needed to overcome war, climate
change, and all the other forces of our own making
that threaten our near-extinction. In an era
where "the cybernetically-enhanced human" is a
common cultural meme, surely we can do better! <br>
<br>
Anyone who thinks that their precious genes are
something special (or that there is any such thing
as a superior race), is in for a rude awakening:
we share well over 99% of our genome with
chimpanzees and bonobos. Selfish genes helped us
get from our birth as a species to the point where
our survival was assured. Since that time we have
overpopulated and overconsumed the planet,
threatening our own continued existence within our
lifetimes. <br>
<br>
It's time to move beyond obedience to algorithms
that no longer serve us. <br>
<br>
-G.<br>
<br>
<br>
======
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 13-05-05-Sun 1:22 AM, Sonja Trauss
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>That study says nothing about whether
masturbation does or doesn't replace sex.
It says that teens who masturbate more
have more sex, which makes perfect sense.
These are things that you expect to see
together, like umbrellas and rubber boots,
but you would never say that the umbrella
caused the boots, or vice versa. And this
study says nothing about whether sex
causes masturbation or the other way
around.<br>
It also doesn't say anything about
masturbation with or without porn
(although I wish it did). <br>
Masturbation is all well and good, of
course, but that's not sufficient to
explain why porn is well and good. <br>
I'm super curious. I can't experimentally
not watch porn and see what happens
because I already don't, but if any of you
do, then you will be able to tell me what
you would be missing. </p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On May 5, 2013
12:43 AM, "Andrew" <<a href="mailto:andrew@roshambomedia.com" target="_blank">andrew@roshambomedia.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>Sonja,<br>
<br>
</div>
I disagree with your views on
masturbation. For one, I don't think
that masturbation causes people to
have less sex. Here's a study a
found by googling I'm sure there is
more data to back up the fact that
masturbation does not reduce the
amount of sex someone is having.<br>
<br>
<a href="http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/womens-health/articles/2011/08/01/study-tracks-masturbation-trends-among-us-teens" target="_blank">http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/womens-health/articles/2011/08/01/study-tracks-masturbation-trends-among-us-teens</a><br>
<br>
It is also just, in general a
healthy practice.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>second, I can masturbate without
porn, and with porn (as can most
people).<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>I really believe that part of
being sex positive is also being
accepting of masturbation as natural
and healthy.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>--Andrew<br>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, May
5, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Sonja Trauss <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sonja.trauss@gmail.com" target="_blank">sonja.trauss@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p>Yeah .... so what if you didn't
have anything, and you couldn't
concentrate. Would you give up?
Maybe the first day. Maybe even
the 2nd day, but eventually you
would be able to masterbate on
your own I bet.</p>
<p>I'm a girl and never
encountered very much porn I
liked at all. I *guess* a
solution could be to make porn a
girl would like, but my solution
was to have sex instead, which
has been overall great. It's
forced me to get in contact, and
stay in contact, with people I
otherwise wouldn't have. Making
porn that girls like, so they
can join men in having an
activity that allows them to
have less sex, seems antisocial
and a step backwards. <br>
Yeah the more I think about this
the more absurd it seems that a
crowd that is interested in
expanding the audience for porn
would overlap with a 'do-acracy'
hackerspace crowd. Watching porn
is watching, not doing.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>On May 4, 2013 7:53 PM,
"Andrew" <<a href="mailto:andrew@roshambomedia.com" target="_blank">andrew@roshambomedia.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
</div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p>People want porn for
somthing easy to focus
on while masturbating.
Masturbating being a
natural part of life. I
also dont think that all
people who can have sex
with others, but don't ,
are doing so because
they don't have the
"skills"</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On
May 4, 2013 7:20 PM,
"Sonja Trauss" <<a href="mailto:sonja.trauss@gmail.com" target="_blank">sonja.trauss@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p>Or less
representation of
sex altogether. What
does anyone need
porn for?</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On
May 4, 2013 7:10 PM,
"Andrew" <<a href="mailto:andrew@vagabondballroom.com" target="_blank">andrew@vagabondballroom.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p>When i ran an
erotic event in
oakland our crew
made it a point
to balence
genders as much
as possible. We
had male and
female co-hosts
and male and
female
strippers.</p>
<p>Also. Somthing
to keep in mind
is that there
are more than
two genders. In
my mind
objectification
is not the
issue.
Representation
is. Porn is
mostly filmed
from a
hetero-cis-male
perspective and
because of that,
taken as a
whole, is
exploitive.
There is porn
that fights this
perspective and
representation
of sex and there
needs to be
more.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On
May 4, 2013 6:55
PM, "Sonja
Trauss" <<a href="mailto:sonja.trauss@gmail.com" target="_blank">sonja.trauss@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p>Can I get a
link for this
gonorreah
story?</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On
May 4, 2013
6:42 PM,
"GtwoG
PublicOhOne"
<<a href="mailto:g2g-public01@att.net" target="_blank">g2g-public01@att.net</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Romy &
Yo's-<br>
<br>
Re. "womens'
bodies with
their faces
cut off."<br>
<br>
Wow. Thanks
for pointing
that out. I
never noticed
that before
(OTOH<br>
attempts to do
"sexy" in
advertising
generally
don't get my
attention),<br>
but I vaguely
recall seeing
ads like that
somewhere.<br>
<br>
I agree, a
torso minus a
face is
depersonalizing
and
objectifying
as<br>
hell, unless
there's a very
good reason
for taking a
photo that way<br>
(e.g. medical
contexts).
Being looked
at "that way"
produces the
creepy<br>
feeling that
the looker's
intentions are
non-consensual.<br>
<br>
The only
borderline-legit
reason I could
see for doing
it in clothing<br>
ads is, "we
want you to
imagine
yourself
wearing this,
and we don't
want<br>
to risk
putting you
off by showing
a face that's
substantially
different<br>
to yours, so
imagine your
face on this
person's
body." But it
would be<br>
foolish to
think that's
what's
intended every
time that
photographic<br>
method is
used.<br>
<br>
This brings up
the question
of what people
find sexy in
photography.<br>
For me (gay
male), a photo
minus a face
is a
non-starter:
there's no cue<br>
for
communication
with the
person. Nudes
in general
don't do it
either:<br>
all the usual
contextual
cues as to
someone's
personality
are missing,<br>
so why would I
even begin to
imagine being
in an intimate
context with<br>
someone I
don't really
know? I've
always felt
that way but
now we have<br>
the HIV
pandemic to
reinforce it:
in general
it's not a
good idea to
get<br>
intimate with
someone you
don't know
very well,
because the
outcome<br>
could be a
life-threatening
illness.<br>
<br>
For that
matter, now
that
massively-drug-resistant
gonorrhea is
loose in<br>
the USA, which
is hella'
easier to
catch than HIV
and can kill
you in a<br>
matter of days
through a
raging
bacterial
infection,
it's probably
a<br>
darn good idea
for everyone
to "get smart
& play
safe" ALL the
time,<br>
zero
exceptions,
even more so
than with HIV.
In which case
photography<br>
that portrays
an objectified
sexuality
without
communications
isn't just<br>
gross and
exploitative,
it's a public
health hazard
that
reinforces<br>
attitudes that
put people at
risk for their
lives.<br>
<br>
-G.<br>
<br>
<br>
=====<br>
<br>
<br>
On
13-05-04-Sat
10:34 AM, Romy
Snowyla wrote:<br>
> It's
interesting to
me how porn a<br>
> Nd
erotica always
advertise with
women's bodies
with their
faces cut off<br>
> American
apparel digs
this etc<br>
> Lots of
art theory
discusses this<br>
><br>
> I would
love for any
Sudo room
event to break
the mold and
show men's
bodies in any
erotic theme
as well ...
Also would
love to see
the male body
as the focus
of any erotic
film or dance
to balance out
the Imbalance
and unnatural
obsession with
t and a we see
on the porn
industry<br>
><br>
> Sent from
my iPad<br>
>
_______________________________________________<br>
>
sudo-discuss
mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
sudo-discuss
mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
sudo-discuss
mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <br>
-------
<div>Andrew Lowe</div>
<div>Cell: <a href="tel:831-332-2507" value="+18313322507" target="_blank">831-332-2507</a></div>
<div><a href="http://roshambomedia.com" target="_blank">http://roshambomedia.com</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote></div>