5 May
2013
5 May
'13
2:53 p.m.
Yeah that's the general notion - that women haven't liked porn
generally because it's by men for men. And maybe that's all there is
to it - maybe there's a pent up demand for porn, and now women are
better served because now there is more porn for women, maybe. Or
maybe instead of copying men and learning to like porn or making new
porn, men should have copied women and drifted away from porn.
Of course a reason this is not possible has already been identified -
"...the fastest growing segment of the porn market..." capitalism
demands new markets. It certainly feeeeeelllllsssss progressive to be
all "free sex! porn for all!" but a result of more porn is more
normalization, more objectification, and new consumer goods. Expanding
the market for porn is just that - expanding a market. Like I said
before, it's remarkable that in otherwise anti-capitalist social
worlds I seem to find unambivalent support for the idea that this
market should expand. It's probably worth being ambivalent about.
Specifically - great - teenage girls are watching more porn, they're
also shaving their pussies way more. If you have porn you have stars,
you have styles, you get notions about what something is supposed to
look like, about what you are supposed to look like while you're
having sex... The notion that initialized this thread was that to
combat that we should have MORE representations, More diversity in
representation, objectification of More types of people. Ok, yeah,
that is an approach, OR you can try to walk away from display and
representation altogether. ... say no to the encroachment of
consumerist, spectator culture into yet another part of your life ...
etc. Am I doing a bad job articulating this position? it should sound
really familiar, it's not at all original. Yous must have heard this
before.
On May 5, 2013 12:50 PM, "Romy Ilano" <romy(a)snowyla.com> wrote:
Sonja actually straight women are the fastest growing segment of the porn market.
It's a pretty big portion of the market at least 40%
Teen girls favor new era stars like James deen ! More attractive male stars
The reason why women in the past haven't favored porn is because its made for
straight men. The new style of porn that focuses more on the male body is changing all
that
---
Romy Ilano
Founder of Snowyla
http://www.snowyla.com
romy(a)snowyla.com
On May 5, 2013, at 12:29, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com> 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> 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> wrote:
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
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> 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> 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>
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>
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> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Can I get a link for this gonorreah story?
>>>>
>>>> On May 4, 2013 6:42 PM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne"
<g2g-public01(a)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(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>> > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>
--
-------
Andrew Lowe
Cell: 831-332-2507
http://roshambomedia.com