5 May
2013
5 May
'13
1:58 a.m.
Sonja, Andrew, and Yo's-
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."
To paraphrase an old Campbell's Soup ad, "It's Sex for One and that one
is you!"
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.
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.
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!
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.
It's time to move beyond obedience to algorithms that no longer serve us.
-G.
======
On 13-05-05-Sun 1:22 AM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
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.
It also doesn't say anything about masturbation with or without porn
(although I wish it did).
Masturbation is all well and good, of course, but that's not
sufficient to explain why porn is well and good.
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.
On May 5, 2013 12:43 AM, "Andrew" <andrew(a)roshambomedia.com
<mailto:andrew@roshambomedia.com>> wrote:
Sonja,
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.
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/womens-health/articles/2…
It is also just, in general a healthy practice.
second, I can masturbate without porn, and with porn (as can most
people).
I really believe that part of being sex positive is also being
accepting of masturbation as natural and healthy.
--Andrew
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Sonja Trauss
<sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com <mailto:sonja.trauss@gmail.com>> wrote:
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.
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.
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.
On May 4, 2013 7:53 PM, "Andrew" <andrew(a)roshambomedia.com
<mailto:andrew@roshambomedia.com>> wrote:
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"
On May 4, 2013 7:20 PM, "Sonja Trauss"
<sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com <mailto:sonja.trauss@gmail.com>>
wrote:
Or less representation of sex altogether. What does
anyone need porn for?
On May 4, 2013 7:10 PM, "Andrew"
<andrew(a)vagabondballroom.com
<mailto:andrew@vagabondballroom.com>> wrote:
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.
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.
On May 4, 2013 6:55 PM, "Sonja Trauss"
<sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com
<mailto:sonja.trauss@gmail.com>> wrote:
Can I get a link for this gonorreah story?
On May 4, 2013 6:42 PM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne"
<g2g-public01(a)att.net
<mailto:g2g-public01@att.net>> wrote:
Romy & Yo's-
Re. "womens' bodies with their faces cut off."
Wow. Thanks for pointing that out. I
never noticed that before (OTOH
attempts to do "sexy" in advertising
generally don't get my attention),
but I vaguely recall seeing ads like that
somewhere.
I agree, a torso minus a face is
depersonalizing and objectifying as
hell, unless there's a very good reason
for taking a photo that way
(e.g. medical contexts). Being looked at
"that way" produces the creepy
feeling that the looker's intentions are
non-consensual.
The only borderline-legit reason I could
see for doing it in clothing
ads is, "we want you to imagine yourself
wearing this, and we don't want
to risk putting you off by showing a face
that's substantially different
to yours, so imagine your face on this
person's body." But it would be
foolish to think that's what's intended
every time that photographic
method is used.
This brings up the question of what people
find sexy in photography.
For me (gay male), a photo minus a face is
a non-starter: there's no cue
for communication with the person. Nudes
in general don't do it either:
all the usual contextual cues as to
someone's personality are missing,
so why would I even begin to imagine being
in an intimate context with
someone I don't really know? I've always
felt that way but now we have
the HIV pandemic to reinforce it: in
general it's not a good idea to get
intimate with someone you don't know very
well, because the outcome
could be a life-threatening illness.
For that matter, now that
massively-drug-resistant gonorrhea is loose in
the USA, which is hella' easier to catch
than HIV and can kill you in a
matter of days through a raging bacterial
infection, it's probably a
darn good idea for everyone to "get smart
& play safe" ALL the time,
zero exceptions, even more so than with
HIV. In which case photography
that portrays an objectified sexuality
without communications isn't just
gross and exploitative, it's a public
health hazard that reinforces
attitudes that put people at risk for
their lives.
-G.
=====
On 13-05-04-Sat 10:34 AM, Romy Snowyla wrote:
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
--
-------
Andrew Lowe
Cell: 831-332-2507 <tel:831-332-2507>
http://roshambomedia.com
It's interesting to me how porn a
Nd erotica always advertise with women's
bodies
with their faces cut off
American apparel digs this etc
Lots of art theory discusses this
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
Sent from my iPad
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>