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/2011/08/01/study-tracks-masturbation-trends-among-us-teens

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@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@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@gmail.com> wrote:

Or less representation of sex altogether. What does anyone need porn for?

On May 4, 2013 7:10 PM, "Andrew" <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@gmail.com> wrote:

Can I get a link for this gonorreah story?

On May 4, 2013 6:42 PM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <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:
> 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@lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>

_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss




--
-------
Andrew Lowe
Cell: 831-332-2507
http://roshambomedia.com