5 May
2013
5 May
'13
10 p.m.
Sonja, Andrew, Et. Al.-
So now the implicit assumption goes explicit:
"Masturbation is a thing too thoroughly inferior to sex to be classed
with it."
The necessary and inevitable corollary to that is, "Single people are
thoroughly inferior to coupled people." Care to argue that point?
It wasn't long ago that us queerz were also subjected to "Homosexual sex
is a thing thoroughly inferior to heterosexual sex."
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).
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.
In any ontological sense, arguements about the superiority and
inferiority of personal matters of taste among consenting adults, are
groundless, pointless, and ultimately meaningless.
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."
I prefer music X, sexuality Y, and pizza with Z on it.
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.
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;-)
-G.
=====
On 13-05-05-Sun 12:29 PM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
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.
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.
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.
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 1:58 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne
<g2g-public01(a)att.net <mailto:g2g-public01@att.net>> wrote:
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>