4 May
2013
4 May
'13
10:34 a.m.
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
4 May
4 May
10:47 a.m.
its not for a lack of trying
http://bikeporntour.blogspot.com/2013/05/dick-on-bike.html
Feeling hot? You too can cool off!
MacArtBlur is still happening this afternoon in conjunction/defiance to the
DIY menstrual pad-athon at Sudoroom.
http://bikeporntour.blogspot.com/
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Romy Snowyla <romy(a)snowyla.com> 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
--
7 years of sex-positive, human-powered porno
________Hop on The Porny Express________
----------------------- Bike Smut ------------------------
11:01 a.m.
Yeah for these reasons I avoid buying American apparel
I also avoid burlesque but that's really because burlesque makes me bored as heck
But three cheers for trying
I had to see this film last week with no hot male leads and two bunny actresses half the
age of the male love interest ... It was nauseating ...
Sent from my iPad
On May 4, 2013, at 10:47, revphil <revphil(a)gmail.com> wrote:
its not for a lack of trying
http://bikeporntour.blogspot.com/2013/05/dick-on-bike.html
Feeling hot? You too can cool off!
MacArtBlur is still happening this afternoon in conjunction/defiance to the DIY menstrual
pad-athon at Sudoroom.
http://bikeporntour.blogspot.com/
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Romy Snowyla <romy(a)snowyla.com> 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
--
7 years of sex-positive, human-powered porno
________Hop on The Porny Express________
----------------------- Bike Smut ------------------------ 
6:41 p.m.
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
6:55 p.m.
yeah, what can we do to get any erotic event balanced, so that 50% of the
content shows half-naked men, stuff that would appeal to straight women and
homosexual men?
Why does porn/ erotic material always have to show the naked female body?
to me, as an artist who has drawn the nude form and has worked in business
selling a lot of content from porn industry companies exploiting women
(even Vivid) ... women's bodies are so boring, so played out and
uninteresting.
Depicting men's bodies is much more edgy, subversive and fun and should
ideally make up 50% of the content.
+1 for safe sex!
I had to endure this godawful film with Tom Cruise as a love interest last
week to two women half his age. I wanted to vomit halfway through the
movie. And it was on a date too! ugh!
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:41 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01(a)att.net>wrote;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
7:05 p.m.
How about abandoning porn altogether in favor of having sex with people,
and if no one will have sex with you, working out and building skills until
someone will.
On May 4, 2013 6:55 PM, "Romy Ilano" <romy(a)snowyla.com> wrote:
yeah, what can we do to get any erotic event balanced,
so that 50% of the
content shows half-naked men, stuff that would appeal to straight women and
homosexual men?
Why does porn/ erotic material always have to show the naked female body?
to me, as an artist who has drawn the nude form and has worked in business
selling a lot of content from porn industry companies exploiting women
(even Vivid) ... women's bodies are so boring, so played out and
uninteresting.
Depicting men's bodies is much more edgy, subversive and fun and should
ideally make up 50% of the content.
+1 for safe sex!
I had to endure this godawful film with Tom Cruise as a love interest last
week to two women half his age. I wanted to vomit halfway through the
movie. And it was on a date too! ugh!
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:41 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01(a)att.net>wrote;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:
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
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
8:38 p.m.
Romy & Yo's-
For me, a picture of two guys holding hands is sexy, but a picture of
two guys smooching it up is, ...naah, too overdone. It's all about
leaving 98% to the imagination. Though, the usual advertising context
of "affluently surrounded by expensive lifestyle" is a turn-off either
way.
Re. Tom Cruise: Scientology meets pedophilia and flirts with the incest
taboo! (Even if they're legal adults, "half his age" still suggests two
obvious forms of something less than consensual.) Sorry to hear you
were subjected to that on a date.
There's something to be said for Soviet Realism style erotica (and I say
this with tongue only half-way in cheek). A gal in a tight sweater
sitting at the controls of a gleaming new tractor! A guy in factory
overalls holding a spanner at a suggestive angle! Each with their
bookbag near at hand, a volume with a red cover peeking out from under
the flap! In a very real way these images are more empowering than the
current popular images of idle consumers: they were first and foremost
_workers_, whose masculine and feminine strengths stood with their roles
as producers.
Though also in a very real way, they were subject to a kind of
exploitation that, if anything, was more naked and raw (though by no
means in an erotic way) than what we face today. The Party gave orders,
Google and Facebook merely give "suggestions." The KGB installed secret
surveillance devices, today people eagerly buy them as trendy
conveniences and carry them everywhere. The fact that people comply
with the "suggestions" in so many subtle ways, and happily pay a monthly
fee to be spied upon, only shows that the velvet glove does wonders for
the powers of the iron fist. And iron fists, with or without velvet
gloves, definitely aren't sexy.
-G.
======
On 13-05-04-Sat 6:55 PM, Romy Ilano wrote:
yeah, what can we do to get any erotic event balanced,
so that 50% of
the content shows half-naked men, stuff that would appeal to straight
women and homosexual men?
Why does porn/ erotic material always have to show the naked female
body? to me, as an artist who has drawn the nude form and has worked
in business selling a lot of content from porn industry companies
exploiting women (even Vivid) ... women's bodies are so boring, so
played out and uninteresting.
Depicting men's bodies is much more edgy, subversive and fun and
should ideally make up 50% of the content.
+1 for safe sex!
I had to endure this godawful film with Tom Cruise as a love interest
last week to two women half his age. I wanted to vomit halfway through
the movie. And it was on a date too! ugh!
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:41 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:
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>
9:01 p.m.
Let's start a cuddle porn company.
On May 4, 2013 8:38 PM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <g2g-public01(a)att.net> wrote:
Romy & Yo's-
For me, a picture of two guys holding hands is sexy, but a picture of two
guys smooching it up is, ...naah, too overdone. It's all about leaving 98%
to the imagination. Though, the usual advertising context of "affluently
surrounded by expensive lifestyle" is a turn-off either way.
Re. Tom Cruise: Scientology meets pedophilia and flirts with the incest
taboo! (Even if they're legal adults, "half his age" still suggests two
obvious forms of something less than consensual.) Sorry to hear you were
subjected to that on a date.
There's something to be said for Soviet Realism style erotica (and I say
this with tongue only half-way in cheek). A gal in a tight sweater sitting
at the controls of a gleaming new tractor! A guy in factory overalls
holding a spanner at a suggestive angle! Each with their bookbag near at
hand, a volume with a red cover peeking out from under the flap! In a very
real way these images are more empowering than the current popular images
of idle consumers: they were first and foremost _workers_, whose masculine
and feminine strengths stood with their roles as producers.
Though also in a very real way, they were subject to a kind of
exploitation that, if anything, was more naked and raw (though by no means
in an erotic way) than what we face today. The Party gave orders, Google
and Facebook merely give "suggestions." The KGB installed secret
surveillance devices, today people eagerly buy them as trendy conveniences
and carry them everywhere. The fact that people comply with the
"suggestions" in so many subtle ways, and happily pay a monthly fee to be
spied upon, only shows that the velvet glove does wonders for the powers of
the iron fist. And iron fists, with or without velvet gloves, definitely
aren't sexy.
-G.
======
On 13-05-04-Sat 6:55 PM, Romy Ilano wrote:
yeah, what can we do to get any erotic event balanced, so that 50% of
the content shows half-naked men, stuff that would appeal to straight women
and homosexual men?
Why does porn/ erotic material always have to show the naked female
body? to me, as an artist who has drawn the nude form and has worked in
business selling a lot of content from porn industry companies exploiting
women (even Vivid) ... women's bodies are so boring, so played out and
uninteresting.
Depicting men's bodies is much more edgy, subversive and fun and should
ideally make up 50% of the content.
+1 for safe sex!
I had to endure this godawful film with Tom Cruise as a love interest
last week to two women half his age. I wanted to vomit halfway through the
movie. And it was on a date too! ugh!
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:41 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01(a)att.net>wrote;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:
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
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
9:03 p.m.
did you say furries? I was talking to Rabbit about Furries last Wednesday
but we weren't sure if it would freak people out
now that is what you call "cuddle" porn!
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 9:01 PM, Gregg Horton <greggahorton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Let's start a cuddle porn company.
On May 4, 2013 8:38 PM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <g2g-public01(a)att.net>
wrote:
>
> Romy & Yo's-
>
> For me, a picture of two guys holding hands is sexy, but a picture of two
> guys smooching it up is, ...naah, too overdone. It's all about leaving 98%
> to the imagination. Though, the usual advertising context of "affluently
> surrounded by expensive lifestyle" is a turn-off either way.
>
> Re. Tom Cruise: Scientology meets pedophilia and flirts with the incest
> taboo! (Even if they're legal adults, "half his age" still suggests
two
> obvious forms of something less than consensual.) Sorry to hear you were
> subjected to that on a date.
>
> There's something to be said for Soviet Realism style erotica (and I say
> this with tongue only half-way in cheek). A gal in a tight sweater sitting
> at the controls of a gleaming new tractor! A guy in factory overalls
> holding a spanner at a suggestive angle! Each with their bookbag near at
> hand, a volume with a red cover peeking out from under the flap! In a very
> real way these images are more empowering than the current popular images
> of idle consumers: they were first and foremost _workers_, whose masculine
> and feminine strengths stood with their roles as producers.
>
> Though also in a very real way, they were subject to a kind of
> exploitation that, if anything, was more naked and raw (though by no means
> in an erotic way) than what we face today. The Party gave orders, Google
> and Facebook merely give "suggestions." The KGB installed secret
> surveillance devices, today people eagerly buy them as trendy conveniences
> and carry them everywhere. The fact that people comply with the
> "suggestions" in so many subtle ways, and happily pay a monthly fee to be
> spied upon, only shows that the velvet glove does wonders for the powers of
> the iron fist. And iron fists, with or without velvet gloves, definitely
> aren't sexy.
>
> -G.
>
>
> ======
>
>
> On 13-05-04-Sat 6:55 PM, Romy Ilano wrote:
>
> yeah, what can we do to get any erotic event balanced, so that 50% of
> the content shows half-naked men, stuff that would appeal to straight women
> and homosexual men?
>
> Why does porn/ erotic material always have to show the naked female
> body? to me, as an artist who has drawn the nude form and has worked in
> business selling a lot of content from porn industry companies exploiting
> women (even Vivid) ... women's bodies are so boring, so played out and
> uninteresting.
>
> Depicting men's bodies is much more edgy, subversive and fun and should
> ideally make up 50% of the content.
>
> +1 for safe sex!
>
> I had to endure this godawful film with Tom Cruise as a love interest
> last week to two women half his age. I wanted to vomit halfway through the
> movie. And it was on a date too! ugh!
>
>
> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:41 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01(a)att.net>wrote;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
>
>
6:55 p.m.
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
7:10 p.m.
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:
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
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
7:20 p.m.
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
>
>
7:53 p.m.
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
>>
>>
7:55 p.m.
There are ofcourse other reasons for porn. Just pointing out a major one.
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
>>>
>>>
9:07 p.m.
Andrew, Sonja, and Yo's-
With or without the wank factor, consenting adult porn is a legitimate
expression of erotic and sexual feelings in the arts and literature.
There's something to be said for having more erotica and sexuality, and
less violence, in the media. Speaking of things that would generate
major cultural change, keyword search "Prescott" + "violence" for
details ("Body pleasure and the origins of violence", widely available
online).
And there's something to be said for not indulging in the puritanical
bad habit of looking down on a harmless form of recreation that's more
popular in the world than baseball and soccer together.
-G.
=====
On 13-05-04-Sat 7:55 PM, Andrew wrote:
There are ofcourse other reasons for porn. Just pointing out a major one.
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:
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>
_______________________________________________
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
7:57 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
[Some] people want porn for that reason :)
I personally think porn is beautiful and ought to be considered art,
not simply a tool to help someone get off. I think the kind of porn
changes peoples relationships with it... for example, video porn vs
photographs vs literotica. There's also something to be said for
roleplaying.
The shit that comes out of LA and endorses non-consentual
objectification, I generally consider trash, not porn. :)
On 5/4/13 7:53 PM, Andrew 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:
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>
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ sudo-discuss
mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRhcqhAAoJEOrRfDwkjbpTlrIH/3GyDNC0/bFLiu6fQ9U9kAnE
DIKHj9LN5Bl5tLB1BXx9iDZURCmF4+zLLs1nDyQaKogHx0pNB8HYBtiEOXNobfKT
O+zVKpLzmapl3ZZqg1eOfSO8tres9M+9uHFZfVNyBkUlC4UJ9gRpyV5TKAE0LAWf
rlJH8yxbw4wVmyn1uwqek2IglHqNWCm59yIb2Zej7lhOr5gnhxJ5bCMZgN/EC3Ba
Gwb47NXbRsmbZSXj9nrEAS7MexKMIZvQcqcCovQ1hBF2AYxOrHkHQaTOe1Kskl8w
0AsIT1Cn+SFuy089OT8P3gC3qvb4oM3P7Vu1MQLPsIF7TBZ6j8FW7fQ3mtvETzg=
=OgSk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
8 p.m.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I think I should clarify, there is nothing wrong with using porn as a
tool to get off. Of course there are issues when porn becomes the
*only* way someone can get off, but that's another story.
On 5/4/13 7:57 PM, aestetix wrote:
[Some] people want porn for that reason :)
I personally think porn is beautiful and ought to be considered
art, not simply a tool to help someone get off. I think the kind of
porn changes peoples relationships with it... for example, video
porn vs photographs vs literotica. There's also something to be
said for roleplaying.
The shit that comes out of LA and endorses non-consentual
objectification, I generally consider trash, not porn. :)
On 5/4/13 7:53 PM, Andrew 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:
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>
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.18 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRhctdAAoJEOrRfDwkjbpTPRwIAJsEXfX/gIG2AevJaySLBlgA
pDH6WaGoLS2hyci0ZoacXZwzZcuXh6uqZNi3tMxY9MOvmlxN4+x5s6Voe+NA/1GQ
pWQJ2ssEm7yLv3Hl7gQ7reHxnrhVGtoBFxowyEXlC5AO7urIHJF3sKbeG1Me4FLs
bcqT7rGP8j7+MLkeG1lW5Enc5A7bJMWUQeLQG435Gz48LkCXV8rQKGpmrYv1F/WB
RliwXygB7aGB/O1JhMeguKjYqCoWy1pF7u5acuwIoIpqHKkPzbANTnnaVR9rl6td
Us0jKVvQZJXSoAfze2917k553McTuou2u+m9D+VJA1gawXkYBUhtDT6CGHv/b2M=
=xiNe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
5 May
5 May
12:25 a.m.
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
>>>
>>>
12:43 a.m.
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;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
1:02 a.m.
Then what is porn for?
On May 5, 2013 12:43 AM, "Andrew" <andrew(a)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>wrote;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
1:57 a.m.
Porn is an enhancement for people who get bored. It can also be
inspiration. But, people have been masturbating without porn for
centuries, so it's not a requirement.
I do think it makes some people's lives better. Not a huge fan myself...
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Then what is porn for?
On May 5, 2013 12:43 AM, "Andrew" <andrew(a)roshambomedia.com> wrote:
--
Cheers,
Rusty Lindgren
**
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;wrote:
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
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
6 May
6 May
12:02 a.m.
Thanks for having this discussion; a lot of interesting points have been
raised and Im stoked yalls are not shying from this topic. I got a lot to
say on these topics, and I hope it will move this conversation forward.
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Then what is porn for?
I think this is a great question and one I ask myself frequently.
Pornography, like many other tools (eg Critical Mass*) can serve a variety
of functions, some beneficial some harmful. It is largely up to the
person(s) using the tool to define its function.
I am concerned that pornography is standardizing sex. Many grow up with
porn being their only source of sexual information. Cindy Gallop gave a
humorous and terrifying TED talk about being a cougar and dealing with
young men who assumed sex should always end with a facial. She spoke at
length about how when we watch porn alone we are not given an opportunity
to have any discourse. If we watch it with others we can have a dialogue
and learn how these movies affected others. Even a simple "I liked this, I
didn't like that" can be incredibly useful. But its not really an option
unless we demand better sex culture. One where people can feel more
comfortable talking about their sexuality with others.
We could demonize all pornography for being desensitizing and it might very
well be, although excessive behavior of any kind is, of course, by
definition, excessive. But I can't think of a time when prohibition ever
worked for a society. Telling other autonomous beings what not do to has
never been popular. Tragically much of the work of environmental and social
rights movements is trying to stop behavior (eg: don't drive, don't shame).
Thankfully one of the joys of both sex-positive culture AND human-powered
transportation is that we can encourage behavior. Both activities create
virtuous cycles; the more bikes there on the streets the safer the streets
are. Similarly the more exposure we have to sex-positive culture the easier
it becomes to model those behaviors.**
Moreover there are additional benefits from watching porn as a community.
Obscenity is a community standard and if a community does not define it for
itself another entity (usually one that controls the means of distribution,
eg Wallmart, Clear Chanel, Playboy, etc) will define it for you.
[begin shameless chest thumping]
For the past seven years we have shared films on the subject of bikes and
sex, calling for new submissions annually. The content is completely
audience generated. *No reproductions or DVD's are available, so you must
go to a screening to see them*. Films include of variety of
representations of human sexuality, entirely created by amateur bike
pornographers from all over the world!
Bike Smut asks for sex without shame and transportation without homogeny.
It explores radical politics while remaining approachable and fun. Bike
Smut believes in the importance of bringing communities together to
redefine obscenity by creating a consensual space where
different interpretations of obscenity can be watched and discussed. It is
a *joyous exploration* into two integral parts of a quality human life.
Why Distribution Matters
Bike Smut only plays in front of a live audience. There are no DVDs for
sale and no screeners for the media. This method of distribution is a
challenging but vital aspect of the project. Our lives are spent in
isolation when our interactions are mostly through text and technology. Our
true sentiments are masked by media incapable of expressing our full range
of emotions.
This issue is trebled in the realm of pornography:
- We are constantly bombarded with sexual images, but terrified to discuss
sex itself.
- We tolerate lame porn because of the stigma associated with engaging the
genre.
- We shy away from expression and leave our usual consumer-savvy habits
behind.
This shameful silence only encourages censorship and a bland homogenization
of pornography. Only when we use our voices can we challenge what we do not
like. As I said, obscenity is merely a community standard, It is defined by
the society we live in . If we come together as a community to view a
variety of interpretations of obscenity, we can help to redefine our
boundaries and inspire better communication better art and better sex.
Secondly, the avenues for distribution for the short filmmaker are limited.
Once again, the mere volume of content on the internet allows the consumer
a very 'throwaway' attitude to art and information once is constantly
browsing. Film festivals are often expensive to enter and offer little in
return.
The purpose of these films are to share ideas. They were created out of a
desire to help people have a better quality of life, not just as a quick
and exploitative way to earn some cash. By limiting the way in which they
are seen, we can hope to create an effective forum for emerging artists to
screen their work, where their ideas can be expressed, absorbed, considered
and discussed.
'Turning Trixxx' is Bike Smut's *sixth program *of erotic bicycle movies*.
*This year's program includes films ./;''' from *seven different
European
cities* and films by *two Feminist Porn Award-winning pornographers.* Bike
Smut offers a unique art experience that combines the spectrum of human
sexuality with love for the most eco-friendly mode of transportation
available.
I hope this has offered some insight to my opinions. I rarely get around to
talking about distribution (because phrases like "marketplace of ideas" can
cause eyes to gloss over) but I think yalls get it. It is an ambitious
undertaking to challenge the dominant forms of sex AND transportation but
powerful opponents make for spirited fights, and it feels great helping
others appreciate a cause that is so worthy, fun and emancipating!
So for me the big question is, how are YOU gonna share it? Because while it
is easy to just sit back and reap the benefits, actually putting effort
into helping make the show better will make you feel more a part of it and
thus be more meaningful. I encourage you all to find a way to get involved.
If nothing else be sure to bring some friends who might otherwise never get
to experience this because we wont be sharing it ever again. This is the
FINAL SCREENING of Turning Trixxx.
There are a lot of ways to connect with us, Twitter, FaceBook, Tumblr...
pick your fav social media disease or if you wanna do it old school style
and take it to the streets!
in bikes we thrust,
revphil
Bike Smut curator
* Did ya know that for the past 5 years I have been working on a
documentary about the world's most popular bike ride which began in SF 20
years ago last September? Now ya do:
http://microcosmpublishing.com/aftermass
** some excellent words on what Sex-Positive means -
http://bikesmut.tumblr.com/post/48677058885/pervocracys-personal-tumblr-wha…
--
7 years of sex-positive, human-powered porno
________Hop on The Porny Express________
----------------------- Bike Smut ------------------------
Submit YOUR erotic bicycle films by May 25th!
1:29 a.m.
That's a sweet email.
On May 6, 2013 12:02 AM, "revphil" <revphil(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for having this discussion; a lot of
interesting points have been
raised and Im stoked yalls are not shying from this topic. I got a lot to
say on these topics, and I hope it will move this conversation forward.
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Then what is porn for?
I think this is a great question and one I ask myself frequently.
Pornography, like many other tools (eg Critical Mass*) can serve a variety
of functions, some beneficial some harmful. It is largely up to the
person(s) using the tool to define its function.
I am concerned that pornography is standardizing sex. Many grow up with
porn being their only source of sexual information. Cindy Gallop gave a
humorous and terrifying TED talk about being a cougar and dealing with
young men who assumed sex should always end with a facial. She spoke at
length about how when we watch porn alone we are not given an opportunity
to have any discourse. If we watch it with others we can have a dialogue
and learn how these movies affected others. Even a simple "I liked this, I
didn't like that" can be incredibly useful. But its not really an option
unless we demand better sex culture. One where people can feel more
comfortable talking about their sexuality with others.
We could demonize all pornography for being desensitizing and it might
very well be, although excessive behavior of any kind is, of course, by
definition, excessive. But I can't think of a time when prohibition ever
worked for a society. Telling other autonomous beings what not do to has
never been popular. Tragically much of the work of environmental and social
rights movements is trying to stop behavior (eg: don't drive, don't shame).
Thankfully one of the joys of both sex-positive culture AND human-powered
transportation is that we can encourage behavior. Both activities create
virtuous cycles; the more bikes there on the streets the safer the streets
are. Similarly the more exposure we have to sex-positive culture the easier
it becomes to model those behaviors.**
Moreover there are additional benefits from watching porn as a community.
Obscenity is a community standard and if a community does not define it for
itself another entity (usually one that controls the means of distribution,
eg Wallmart, Clear Chanel, Playboy, etc) will define it for you.
[begin shameless chest thumping]
For the past seven years we have shared films on the subject of bikes and
sex, calling for new submissions annually. The content is completely
audience generated. *No reproductions or DVD's are available, so you must
go to a screening to see them*. Films include of variety of
representations of human sexuality, entirely created by amateur bike
pornographers from all over the world!
Bike Smut asks for sex without shame and transportation without homogeny.
It explores radical politics while remaining approachable and fun. Bike
Smut believes in the importance of bringing communities together to
redefine obscenity by creating a consensual space where
different interpretations of obscenity can be watched and discussed. It
is a *joyous exploration* into two integral parts of a quality human
life.
Why Distribution Matters
Bike Smut only plays in front of a live audience. There are no DVDs for
sale and no screeners for the media. This method of distribution is a
challenging but vital aspect of the project. Our lives are spent in
isolation when our interactions are mostly through text and technology. Our
true sentiments are masked by media incapable of expressing our full range
of emotions.
This issue is trebled in the realm of pornography:
- We are constantly bombarded with sexual images, but terrified to discuss
sex itself.
- We tolerate lame porn because of the stigma associated with engaging the
genre.
- We shy away from expression and leave our usual consumer-savvy habits
behind.
This shameful silence only encourages censorship and a bland
homogenization of pornography. Only when we use our voices can we challenge
what we do not like. As I said, obscenity is merely a community standard,
It is defined by the society we live in . If we come together as a
community to view a variety of interpretations of obscenity, we can help to
redefine our boundaries and inspire better communication better art and
better sex.
Secondly, the avenues for distribution for the short filmmaker are
limited. Once again, the mere volume of content on the internet allows the
consumer a very 'throwaway' attitude to art and information once is
constantly browsing. Film festivals are often expensive to enter and offer
little in return.
The purpose of these films are to share ideas. They were created out of a
desire to help people have a better quality of life, not just as a quick
and exploitative way to earn some cash. By limiting the way in which they
are seen, we can hope to create an effective forum for emerging artists to
screen their work, where their ideas can be expressed, absorbed, considered
and discussed.
'Turning Trixxx' is Bike Smut's *sixth program *of erotic bicycle movies*
. *This year's program includes films ./;''' from *seven different
European cities* and films by *two Feminist Porn Award-winning
pornographers.* Bike Smut offers a unique art experience that combines
the spectrum of human sexuality with love for the most eco-friendly mode of
transportation available.
I hope this has offered some insight to my opinions. I rarely get around
to talking about distribution (because phrases like "marketplace of ideas"
can cause eyes to gloss over) but I think yalls get it. It is an ambitious
undertaking to challenge the dominant forms of sex AND transportation but
powerful opponents make for spirited fights, and it feels great helping
others appreciate a cause that is so worthy, fun and emancipating!
So for me the big question is, how are YOU gonna share it? Because while
it is easy to just sit back and reap the benefits, actually putting effort
into helping make the show better will make you feel more a part of it and
thus be more meaningful. I encourage you all to find a way to get involved.
If nothing else be sure to bring some friends who might otherwise never get
to experience this because we wont be sharing it ever again. This is the
FINAL SCREENING of Turning Trixxx.
There are a lot of ways to connect with us, Twitter, FaceBook, Tumblr...
pick your fav social media disease or if you wanna do it old school style
and take it to the streets!
in bikes we thrust,
revphil
Bike Smut curator
* Did ya know that for the past 5 years I have been working on a
documentary about the world's most popular bike ride which began in SF 20
years ago last September? Now ya do:
http://microcosmpublishing.com/aftermass
** some excellent words on what Sex-Positive means -
http://bikesmut.tumblr.com/post/48677058885/pervocracys-personal-tumblr-wha…
--
7 years of sex-positive, human-powered porno
________Hop on The Porny Express________
----------------------- Bike Smut ------------------------
Submit YOUR erotic bicycle films by May 25th!
5 May
5 May
1:22 a.m.
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:
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;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
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>
12:29 p.m.
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;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:
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;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
12:47 p.m.
seriously? because for men sex is purely physical right? Thanks for telling
me how I experience sex, I had no idea.
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com>wrote;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;wrote:
--
-------
Andrew Lowe
Cell: 831-332-2507
http://roshambomedia.com
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:
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;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
12:53 p.m.
Dear Sonja,
This isn't at all sound reasoning, and some people might take offense. Are
you the voice of all men and women? Are men and women really different at
all? Dare you to prove some of that. I don't think men in the porn
industry want women to be like men. I think they want to make money, and
the customers are lining up. Is that because of some conspiracy to make
women more like men? Or, is it a lot more likely that women on their own
have decided to watch porn, because they're intrigued.
I think you should try and re-phrase your arguments, so that they are more
sound and concrete, rather than wild speculations that seem to create this
huge center-divide between men and women. I don't think men and women are
all that different, and most of it is because people insist on creating
differences, rather than letting people do as they please.
-Rusty
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com>wrote;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;wrote:
--
Cheers,
Rusty Lindgren
**
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;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
1:44 p.m.
Part of me doesn't want to step into this, but I feel this thread is not
about openness and learning, but being heard. It's been said elsewhere that
anyone who thinks that masturbation is inferior to sex hasn't been doing it
right. While I agree with the educational intent behind that message, I
think that there's a negativity both in the phrasing of that statement as
well as comments on this list (on all sides!) that is not compatible with
our shared goal of building community. I'm going to talk frankly, and if
you are not cool with that please skip below.
No one needs art, or comedy, or horror, or tragedy: but many people would
rather have these things in their lives rather than life itself. We need to
decide, in this community, between "your kink is OK" vs "your kink is OK
(way the fuck over there)". There's lots of people who can see both the
exploitation of women (and children) in porn and pR0n as a real problem,
and there are people who work in porn who are subverting and challenging
that. At one point I used to be pretty positive about e.g. Kink.com, and
recently I've had real problems both in the focus of their output and in
their behind-the-scenes treatment of actors. If you are a learning growing
person, you need to be able to change your views, or at least be open to
the fact that you don't have all the facts.
Louis CK has an onstage bit where he talks about how he learned to
masturbate as a kid, and when he learned how his best friend masturbated.
He was using just two fingers, and when he realized he could use his whole
hand, get more surface area and grip, he was astounded how much better that
was. He also was weirded out a bit how his friend masturbated, grinding on
the floor.
The point is, is that masturbation is just a word, a word that doesn't
really say anything. Both men and women (can) do it, and unless (or maybe
especially) if you are TG, there's not going to be a lot in common there.
So instead of tearing our community apart over subjects like this, lets all
agree that any form of labor, be it dangerous or unhealthy conditions, or
exploitative wages, can result in abused people- be it in porn or in
sweatshops or slavery. We all, I hope, want to end exploitation and slavery
in this world, and we all will have different approaches to that. If so,
lets remember to value the good intent of others, and take the temperature
level down. The levels of anger on this list are really shutting me down
from participating, and while that may be cool WRT me and my (wealthy white
male) opinions, I'm not cool if that is shutting down people less brave and
less privileged than myself.
It's a shame that some sexually themed events seem to attract some poorly
socialized people who, to Sonja's point, might be able to have more
opportunities at sex if they could overcome their interpersonal issues: and
we ALL could be better at the interpersonal thing. We need both good
teachers, and well intentioned students. Going into things, I never know
what sort of (or how in orientation, as teacher or student, in
the) classroom I'm going to be facing. But I, for one, want to learn how to
be a better person, to learn how to better enjoy my own body and bring
enjoyment to others, and most importantly to share my toys, because shared
toys are more fun.
In short: fix this. Come to consensus. Cause you guys are harshing my
mellow.
Matt (H, hbergeronx)
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Sonja Trauss
<sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
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.
12:50 p.m.
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:
>> 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
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
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
1:01 p.m.
Sonja et al,
You may find the statistics in this article relevant, especially those
relating to manual-self-stimulation as part of a partnered act, and the
efficacy of manual-self-stimulation alone.
http://www.alternet.org/sex-amp-relationships/orgasm-gap-real-reason-women-…
I think it's interesting to think about the ways our lopsided culture has
deeply marked our sexual responses. Probably extends to cover
responsiveness to porn.
On May 5, 2013 12:30 PM, "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;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;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
10 p.m.
New subject: Erotica: superiority and inferiority.
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>
11:43 p.m.
New subject: Erotica: superiority and inferiority.
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.
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.
The whole conversation hinges on the notion that you have access to both,
which I think more people do than realize it.
On May 5, 2013 10:00 PM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <g2g-public01(a)att.net>
wrote:
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>wrote;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:
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;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
6 May
6 May
1:19 a.m.
New subject: Erotica: superiority and inferiority.
Sonja & Yo's-
Not absurd, it's in the language you used: "thoroughly inferior" and
"classed with it." Those are strong words, and unequivocal words.
Translate to housing and it sounds like the way home-owners often put
down apartment-renters. Speaking of which:
"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...."
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.
The problem here is with "superior/inferior" and "class." You can
call
this a class-struggle.
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."
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.
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.
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.
-G.
=====
On 13-05-05-Sun 11:43 PM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
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.
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.
The whole conversation hinges on the notion that you have access to
both, which I think more people do than realize it.
On May 5, 2013 10:00 PM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <g2g-public01(a)att.net
<mailto:g2g-public01@att.net>> wrote:
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>
1:28 a.m.
New subject: Erotica: superiority and inferiority.
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.'
On May 6, 2013 1:19 AM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <g2g-public01(a)att.net> wrote:
Sonja & Yo's-
Not absurd, it's in the language you used: "thoroughly inferior" and
"classed with it." Those are strong words, and unequivocal words.
Translate to housing and it sounds like the way home-owners often put down
apartment-renters. Speaking of which:
"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...."
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.
The problem here is with "superior/inferior" and "class." You can
call
this a class-struggle.
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."
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.
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.
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.
-G.
=====
On 13-05-05-Sun 11:43 PM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
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.
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.
The whole conversation hinges on the notion that you have access to both,
which I think more people do than realize it.
On May 5, 2013 10:00 PM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <g2g-public01(a)att.net>
wrote:
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>wrote;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:
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;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
2:45 a.m.
New subject: Erotica: superiority and inferiority.
Sonja & Yo's-
Uh - you're still stuck on superiority/inferiority, which is the nexus
of the problem, and generalizes far beyond one's choice of partners and
hands.
The latest example is the word "subpar," which means "less than
equal."
It may be that _for you_, a hand is "less than equal" compared to your
partner. But the way you've been wielding the language is ontological
with an imperative tone, rather than personal, starting right here:
"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."
That statement is radically different to the following: "For me,
masturbation is hardly as satisfying as sex with my partner."
The two statements are as different as "X isn't music, it's animal
noise!" vs. "X doesn't appeal to me, I like music that's more Y and
Z."
Sex and sexuality, along with religion, politics, and a few other
things, are intimately connected to peoples' identities. Saying "My
form of sex/sexuality is superior, and yours is inferior," has the same
effect as saying "My form of religion is superior, and yours is
inferior," and the immediate association, thus implication, is "I am
superior, and you are inferior." Whether that association and
implication is strictly logically justified is beside the point: it's
the natural human response.
Atheists in particular can relate to that example: often being subjected
to "if you don't believe in God, you don't have morality," from
religious fundamentalists. For that matter, Jewish children have (and
still are) often subjected to "if you don't believe in Jesus, you're
going to Hell!" from their nominally Christian classmates in school.
Admittedly, bringing the statement down from the level of ontology to
the level of personal preference, carries risks. Saying "I prefer my
partner to my hand," might get others speculating and gossiping, "does
this mean that so-and-so's partner is a super-duper sexual athlete?, or
does it mean that so-and-so's autoerotic technique is barely at
'beginner' level...?"
As with religion, saying "My moral code is based on my belief in God,"
might get others wondering, "does this mean that so-and-so's religiously
inspired morality is consistent and uncompromising?, or does this mean
that so-and-so only refrains from robbing & murdering because s/he's
afraid of going to hell?"
But if anything, those kinds of speculations are more likely when
someone proclaims the superiority of their own preferences by using
language that makes ontological statements of "what is," rather than
personal statements of "my preference."
A statement of personal preference is the more convincing mode of
expression: a report of an empirical fact of one's own experience, a
small nugget of one's own reality that nobody else can judge or deny.
But sweeping generalizations about others' experiences are at high risk
of easy refutation, and once skepticism takes hold, the rest of what
went along with those generalizations also becomes questionable.
-G.
=====
On 13-05-06-Mon 1:28 AM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
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.'
On May 6, 2013 1:19 AM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <g2g-public01(a)att.net
<mailto:g2g-public01@att.net>> wrote:
Sonja & Yo's-
Not absurd, it's in the language you used: "thoroughly inferior"
and "classed with it." Those are strong words, and unequivocal
words.
Translate to housing and it sounds like the way home-owners often
put down apartment-renters. Speaking of which:
"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...."
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.
The problem here is with "superior/inferior" and "class." You
can
call this a class-struggle.
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."
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.
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.
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.
-G.
=====
On 13-05-05-Sun 11:43 PM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
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.
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.
The whole conversation hinges on the notion that you have access
to both, which I think more people do than realize it.
On May 5, 2013 10:00 PM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne"
<g2g-public01(a)att.net <mailto:g2g-public01@att.net>> wrote:
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:
> 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>
>
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
3:19 a.m.
New subject: Erotica: superiority and inferiority: hands vs.partners:
Yo's-
So let's talk about the reasons we might prefer partners and the reasons
we might prefer hands:
Anyone who's grown up with popular music knows the ideal of Romantic
Love: The perfect relationship, each person fully attuned to the
other. Great sex all the time, and great conversation all the time,
though not necessarily both at the same time. Hearts & flowers until
death do us part, whether or not the state or one's employers recognizes
the relationship.
But for the most part, reality doesn't work that way, as the divorce
rate demonstrates.
A hand is always preferable to an abusive partner.
A hand is often preferable to playing HIV roulette, and nowadays,
massively-drug-resistant gonorrhea roulette, not to mention hepatitis C
and other life-threatening diseases, some of which can even be caught
from a (slurpy) kiss.
A hand may be preferable to the competitive game-playing of the sexual
"marketplace," where commodification is often the rule, particularly in
a culture where "revenge porn" has become commonplace (posting nudes of
one's former partners and "conquests" online for all the world to see,
against their will) and cruel gossip spreads at the speed of recycled
electrons.
For that matter a hand or two might be preferable to a partner who's
sexually inept, or of the opposite political or philosophical persuasion
than oneself, or who isn't strong, smart, creative, empathic, or
otherwise capable in at least one way that matters to oneself.
After a particularly painful relationship breakup, a hand may be
retrospectively preferable to the wild ride that ended with the
going-insane feeling of being dumped or betrayed.
And it's probably arguable, as a generalization, that a hand that meets
a basic physical need, is far better all round, than letting the need go
unmet to the point where it builds relentlessly, thereby infecting one's
every glance at another person, and one's every conversation. In other
words, masturbation is not only a personal good thing but a social good
thing when it enables one to keep his/her objectivity rather than
viewing others first and foremost as possible sexual outlets.
Let's hear it for using our hands and keeping our objectivity!
-G.
9:51 a.m.
New subject: Erotica: superiority and inferiority: hands vs.partners:
You got it! Dealing with people is HARD. It's MESSY. It's RISKY.
Here I was thinking, 'sonja, you paranoid jerk, is porn really a
"scab"'?
But, yeah... there you go.
On May 6, 2013 3:19 AM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <g2g-public01(a)att.net> wrote:
Yo's-
So let's talk about the reasons we might prefer partners and the reasons
we might prefer hands:
Anyone who's grown up with popular music knows the ideal of Romantic
Love: The perfect relationship, each person fully attuned to the
other. Great sex all the time, and great conversation all the time,
though not necessarily both at the same time. Hearts & flowers until
death do us part, whether or not the state or one's employers recognizes
the relationship.
But for the most part, reality doesn't work that way, as the divorce
rate demonstrates.
A hand is always preferable to an abusive partner.
A hand is often preferable to playing HIV roulette, and nowadays,
massively-drug-resistant gonorrhea roulette, not to mention hepatitis C
and other life-threatening diseases, some of which can even be caught
from a (slurpy) kiss.
A hand may be preferable to the competitive game-playing of the sexual
"marketplace," where commodification is often the rule, particularly in
a culture where "revenge porn" has become commonplace (posting nudes of
one's former partners and "conquests" online for all the world to see,
against their will) and cruel gossip spreads at the speed of recycled
electrons.
For that matter a hand or two might be preferable to a partner who's
sexually inept, or of the opposite political or philosophical persuasion
than oneself, or who isn't strong, smart, creative, empathic, or
otherwise capable in at least one way that matters to oneself.
After a particularly painful relationship breakup, a hand may be
retrospectively preferable to the wild ride that ended with the
going-insane feeling of being dumped or betrayed.
And it's probably arguable, as a generalization, that a hand that meets
a basic physical need, is far better all round, than letting the need go
unmet to the point where it builds relentlessly, thereby infecting one's
every glance at another person, and one's every conversation. In other
words, masturbation is not only a personal good thing but a social good
thing when it enables one to keep his/her objectivity rather than
viewing others first and foremost as possible sexual outlets.
Let's hear it for using our hands and keeping our objectivity!
-G.
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
10:46 a.m.
New subject: Erotica: superiority and inferiority: hands vs.partners:
"HARD, MESSY, and RISKY?" Your phrasing around those words comes across
as somewhere between condescending and overtly mocking.
So, the status hierarchy is based on the neo-Calvinist willingness to
suffer and die? Or possibly the right to brag about one's perfect
relationships and athletic talents?
Abusive partners: Two weeks ago a close friend of mine was in the
hospital for a week, after having nearly died due to being stabbed in
the back by his psycho girlfriend who is now in jail facing attempted
murder charges. Yeah that relationship sure was HARD, MESSY and RISKY:
was that better than whacking off?
HIV & other deadly STDs: People I knew died of AIDS: slow painful
miserable deaths like radiation poisoning stretched out to make the
agony worse. My "young & cute" years were spent in the middle of a
f---ing public health apocalypse where any given night could be a death
sentence. You really need to take a close look at your heterosexist
assumptions. Those heterosexist assumptions are HARD (for this gay guy
to deal with, without breaking out into expletives), MESSY (expletive
deleted), and RISKY (if the risk of being seen as aggressively
prejudiced means anything to you), but hardly as much so as AIDS.
And I take it you think revenge porn and other vicious tricks of the
sexual marketplace are funny?
There are no extra "good karma points," or social status points anywhere
this side of an infantry platoon, to be gained from doing what's HARD,
MESSY, or RISKY, compared to doing something else that's less likely to
get you killed.
And in my experience, people who insist on setting up invidious
superiority/inferiority hierarchies, and insist on invalidating the
quality of others' intimately personal experience, whether about
f---ery, wankery, geekery, food, music, religion, or whatever, are
usually overcompensating for being terribly insecure about themselves.
And here I've been having conscience-bugs for weeks, about having told
someone at SR who had worked on Asterisk PBXs, that I thought Asterisk
"wasn't ready yet for prime-time" in office environments. In retrospect
I thought my comment, "not ready for prime-time," had been insufferably
rude & arrogant. Wow. By comparison with the present instance, that
item was as mild as refried pinto beans with no salsa.
I'm going to be AFK until later today or this evening. Ta ta...
-G.
=====
On 13-05-06-Mon 9:51 AM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
You got it! Dealing with people is HARD. It's MESSY. It's RISKY.
Here I was thinking, 'sonja, you paranoid jerk, is porn really a
"scab"'? But, yeah... there you go.
On May 6, 2013 3:19 AM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <g2g-public01(a)att.net
<mailto:g2g-public01@att.net>> wrote:
Yo's-
So let's talk about the reasons we might prefer partners and the
reasons
we might prefer hands:
Anyone who's grown up with popular music knows the ideal of Romantic
Love: The perfect relationship, each person fully attuned to the
other. Great sex all the time, and great conversation all the time,
though not necessarily both at the same time. Hearts & flowers until
death do us part, whether or not the state or one's employers
recognizes
the relationship.
But for the most part, reality doesn't work that way, as the divorce
rate demonstrates.
A hand is always preferable to an abusive partner.
A hand is often preferable to playing HIV roulette, and nowadays,
massively-drug-resistant gonorrhea roulette, not to mention
hepatitis C
and other life-threatening diseases, some of which can even be caught
from a (slurpy) kiss.
A hand may be preferable to the competitive game-playing of the sexual
"marketplace," where commodification is often the rule,
particularly in
a culture where "revenge porn" has become commonplace (posting
nudes of
one's former partners and "conquests" online for all the world to see,
against their will) and cruel gossip spreads at the speed of recycled
electrons.
For that matter a hand or two might be preferable to a partner who's
sexually inept, or of the opposite political or philosophical
persuasion
than oneself, or who isn't strong, smart, creative, empathic, or
otherwise capable in at least one way that matters to oneself.
After a particularly painful relationship breakup, a hand may be
retrospectively preferable to the wild ride that ended with the
going-insane feeling of being dumped or betrayed.
And it's probably arguable, as a generalization, that a hand that
meets
a basic physical need, is far better all round, than letting the
need go
unmet to the point where it builds relentlessly, thereby infecting
one's
every glance at another person, and one's every conversation. In
other
words, masturbation is not only a personal good thing but a social
good
thing when it enables one to keep his/her objectivity rather than
viewing others first and foremost as possible sexual outlets.
Let's hear it for using our hands and keeping our objectivity!
-G.
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
10:59 a.m.
New subject: Erotica: superiority and inferiority: hands vs.partners:
Status? I don't know anything about that, but generally something being
hard isn't a good enough reason to not do it. Sometimes it's a good reason
TO do it. We don't become our best selves by avoiding the kind of work that
improves us. I think navigating interpersonal relationships is the kind of
hard thing that is worth doing. If wanting sex will pull you out of your
shell, then you should take advantage of it and not take a short cut. It's
the same kind of reason we should also avoid cocaine. Yeah, you can get
high and feel like you accomplished something, but that's not the route
that gets you closer to your best self.
You don't have to be working towards your best self, but I wanna be, so if
anyone asks, (Haha and when they don't) that's my position.
I'm sorry bad things happened to people you know.
On May 6, 2013 10:46 AM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <g2g-public01(a)att.net>
wrote:
"HARD, MESSY, and RISKY?" Your phrasing around those words comes across
as somewhere between condescending and overtly mocking.
So, the status hierarchy is based on the neo-Calvinist willingness to
suffer and die? Or possibly the right to brag about one's perfect
relationships and athletic talents?
Abusive partners: Two weeks ago a close friend of mine was in the
hospital for a week, after having nearly died due to being stabbed in the
back by his psycho girlfriend who is now in jail facing attempted murder
charges. Yeah that relationship sure was HARD, MESSY and RISKY: was that
better than whacking off?
HIV & other deadly STDs: People I knew died of AIDS: slow painful
miserable deaths like radiation poisoning stretched out to make the agony
worse. My "young & cute" years were spent in the middle of a f---ing
public health apocalypse where any given night could be a death sentence.
You really need to take a close look at your heterosexist assumptions.
Those heterosexist assumptions are HARD (for this gay guy to deal with,
without breaking out into expletives), MESSY (expletive deleted), and RISKY
(if the risk of being seen as aggressively prejudiced means anything to
you), but hardly as much so as AIDS.
And I take it you think revenge porn and other vicious tricks of the
sexual marketplace are funny?
There are no extra "good karma points," or social status points anywhere
this side of an infantry platoon, to be gained from doing what's HARD,
MESSY, or RISKY, compared to doing something else that's less likely to get
you killed.
And in my experience, people who insist on setting up invidious
superiority/inferiority hierarchies, and insist on invalidating the quality
of others' intimately personal experience, whether about f---ery, wankery,
geekery, food, music, religion, or whatever, are usually overcompensating
for being terribly insecure about themselves.
And here I've been having conscience-bugs for weeks, about having told
someone at SR who had worked on Asterisk PBXs, that I thought Asterisk
"wasn't ready yet for prime-time" in office environments. In retrospect I
thought my comment, "not ready for prime-time," had been insufferably rude
& arrogant. Wow. By comparison with the present instance, that item was
as mild as refried pinto beans with no salsa.
I'm going to be AFK until later today or this evening. Ta ta...
-G.
=====
On 13-05-06-Mon 9:51 AM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
You got it! Dealing with people is HARD. It's MESSY. It's RISKY.
Here I was thinking, 'sonja, you paranoid jerk, is porn really a
"scab"'?
But, yeah... there you go.
On May 6, 2013 3:19 AM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <g2g-public01(a)att.net>
wrote:
Yo's-
So let's talk about the reasons we might prefer partners and the reasons
we might prefer hands:
Anyone who's grown up with popular music knows the ideal of Romantic
Love: The perfect relationship, each person fully attuned to the
other. Great sex all the time, and great conversation all the time,
though not necessarily both at the same time. Hearts & flowers until
death do us part, whether or not the state or one's employers recognizes
the relationship.
But for the most part, reality doesn't work that way, as the divorce
rate demonstrates.
A hand is always preferable to an abusive partner.
A hand is often preferable to playing HIV roulette, and nowadays,
massively-drug-resistant gonorrhea roulette, not to mention hepatitis C
and other life-threatening diseases, some of which can even be caught
from a (slurpy) kiss.
A hand may be preferable to the competitive game-playing of the sexual
"marketplace," where commodification is often the rule, particularly in
a culture where "revenge porn" has become commonplace (posting nudes of
one's former partners and "conquests" online for all the world to see,
against their will) and cruel gossip spreads at the speed of recycled
electrons.
For that matter a hand or two might be preferable to a partner who's
sexually inept, or of the opposite political or philosophical persuasion
than oneself, or who isn't strong, smart, creative, empathic, or
otherwise capable in at least one way that matters to oneself.
After a particularly painful relationship breakup, a hand may be
retrospectively preferable to the wild ride that ended with the
going-insane feeling of being dumped or betrayed.
And it's probably arguable, as a generalization, that a hand that meets
a basic physical need, is far better all round, than letting the need go
unmet to the point where it builds relentlessly, thereby infecting one's
every glance at another person, and one's every conversation. In other
words, masturbation is not only a personal good thing but a social good
thing when it enables one to keep his/her objectivity rather than
viewing others first and foremost as possible sexual outlets.
Let's hear it for using our hands and keeping our objectivity!
-G.
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
1:05 p.m.
New subject: Erotica: superiority and inferiority.
Sonja,
For some people masturbation can sometimes be better than sex with another
person for a variety of reasons.
I think it's also important to point out that massage can also be "better"
than sex for a lot of people, or eating a really good meal, or rock
climbing, or programming. But, none of
these activities is intrinsically better than any other activity and sex
is definitely not intrinsically better than any of them.
I know plenty of people (of lots of genders) who masturbate for reasons
other than substituting sex. I am one of these people. I don't masturbate
because I'm not having enough sex. I masturbate because it's a personal
space where I can engage with my mind and my body in ways I don't think I
can reach with another person. Of course not all masturbation is covered in
heavy meaning, as not all sex is.
In addition it's important to realize that for a long time people where
taught (using a lot of the same arguments you are making)
that masturbation was a shameful thing. Personally I think that it's
important to respect people's sexually how ever they experience it. sex
with zero, one, two, or more.
PS. It was nice meeting you yesterday, I like your "local dicks" idea.
--Andrew
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:45 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01(a)att.net>wrote;wrote:
Sonja & Yo's-
Uh - you're still stuck on superiority/inferiority, which is the nexus of
the problem, and generalizes far beyond one's choice of partners and hands.
The latest example is the word "subpar," which means "less than
equal."
It may be that _for you_, a hand is "less than equal" compared to your
partner. But the way you've been wielding the language is ontological with
an imperative tone, rather than personal, starting right here:
"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."
That statement is radically different to the following: "For me,
masturbation is hardly as satisfying as sex with my partner."
The two statements are as different as "X isn't music, it's animal
noise!"
vs. "X doesn't appeal to me, I like music that's more Y and Z."
Sex and sexuality, along with religion, politics, and a few other things,
are intimately connected to peoples' identities. Saying "My form of
sex/sexuality is superior, and yours is inferior," has the same effect as
saying "My form of religion is superior, and yours is inferior," and the
immediate association, thus implication, is "I am superior, and you are
inferior." Whether that association and implication is strictly logically
justified is beside the point: it's the natural human response.
Atheists in particular can relate to that example: often being subjected
to "if you don't believe in God, you don't have morality," from
religious
fundamentalists. For that matter, Jewish children have (and still are)
often subjected to "if you don't believe in Jesus, you're going to
Hell!"
from their nominally Christian classmates in school.
Admittedly, bringing the statement down from the level of ontology to the
level of personal preference, carries risks. Saying "I prefer my partner
to my hand," might get others speculating and gossiping, "does this mean
that so-and-so's partner is a super-duper sexual athlete?, or does it mean
that so-and-so's autoerotic technique is barely at 'beginner'
level...?"
As with religion, saying "My moral code is based on my belief in God,"
might get others wondering, "does this mean that so-and-so's religiously
inspired morality is consistent and uncompromising?, or does this mean that
so-and-so only refrains from robbing & murdering because s/he's afraid of
going to hell?"
But if anything, those kinds of speculations are more likely when someone
proclaims the superiority of their own preferences by using language that
makes ontological statements of "what is," rather than personal statements
of "my preference."
A statement of personal preference is the more convincing mode of
expression: a report of an empirical fact of one's own experience, a small
nugget of one's own reality that nobody else can judge or deny. But
sweeping generalizations about others' experiences are at high risk of easy
refutation, and once skepticism takes hold, the rest of what went along
with those generalizations also becomes questionable.
-G.
=====
On 13-05-06-Mon 1:28 AM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
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.'
On May 6, 2013 1:19 AM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <g2g-public01(a)att.net>
wrote:
--
-------
Andrew Lowe
Cell: 831-332-2507
http://roshambomedia.com
Sonja & Yo's-
Not absurd, it's in the language you used: "thoroughly inferior" and
"classed with it." Those are strong words, and unequivocal words.
Translate to housing and it sounds like the way home-owners often put
down apartment-renters. Speaking of which:
"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...."
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.
The problem here is with "superior/inferior" and "class." You can
call
this a class-struggle.
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."
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.
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.
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.
-G.
=====
On 13-05-05-Sun 11:43 PM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
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.
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.
The whole conversation hinges on the notion that you have access to both,
which I think more people do than realize it.
On May 5, 2013 10:00 PM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <g2g-public01(a)att.net>
wrote:
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>wrote;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:
> 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;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
>
>
4 May
4 May
8:56 p.m.
New subject: Drug-resistant STD: was Re: Erotica and women's bodies
Hi Sonja-
A quick search on https://Ixquick.com (surveillance-free search page)
for "drug-resistant gonorrhea" brings up a bunch of stuff including the
following:
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/10/drug_resistant_gonorrhea_has_come_to_north_…
This article is pretty low-key and has a few links in it that are
probably good sources of information.
Also: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/resistant-gonorrhea-who/
Maryn McKenna is hella' smart and writes extensively about emerging
public health issues.
For anyone who wants to do a detailed search: One source I'd avoid is
the Huff Poo, the health section of which is often chock-full-o'-quackery.
-G.
=====
On 13-05-04-Sat 6:55 PM, Sonja Trauss 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...
...For that matter, now that massively-drug-resistant gonorrhea is
loose in
the USA...
5 May
5 May
12:25 a.m.
New subject: Drug-resistant STD: was Re: Erotica and women's bodies
Thanks!
On May 4, 2013 8:56 PM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <g2g-public01(a)att.net> wrote:
Hi Sonja-
A quick search on https://Ixquick.com (surveillance-free search page) for
"drug-resistant gonorrhea" brings up a bunch of stuff including the
following:
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/10/drug_resistant_gonorrhea_has_come_to_north_…
This article is pretty low-key and has a few links in it that are probably
good sources of information.
Also: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/resistant-gonorrhea-who/ Maryn McKenna
is hella' smart and writes extensively about emerging
public health issues.
For anyone who wants to do a detailed search: One source I'd avoid is the
Huff Poo, the health section of which is often chock-full-o'-quackery.
-G.
=====
On 13-05-04-Sat 6:55 PM, Sonja Trauss 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...
...For that matter, now that massively-drug-resistant gonorrhea is
loose in
the USA...
9:46 a.m.
New subject: Drug-resistant STD: was Re: Erotica and women's bodies
Just a quick side note:
Craig (cc'd in this email) one of our fellow sudo room/biohackers is
working on a project to treat drug resistent gonorrhea. Let him know if
you're interested in helping :)
Best,
Ryan
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Thanks!
On May 4, 2013 8:56 PM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <g2g-public01(a)att.net>
wrote:
--
Ryan Bethencourt
Tel: (415) 794 6463
ryan.bethencourt(a)gmail.com
www.bamh1.com
www.linkedin.com/in/bethencourt
www.logos-press.com/books/biotechnology_business_development.php
Hi Sonja-
A quick search on https://Ixquick.com (surveillance-free search page)
for "drug-resistant gonorrhea" brings up a bunch of stuff including the
following:
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/10/drug_resistant_gonorrhea_has_come_to_north_…
This article is pretty low-key and has a few links in it that are probably
good sources of information.
Also: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/resistant-gonorrhea-who/ Maryn McKenna
is hella' smart and writes extensively about emerging
public health issues.
For anyone who wants to do a detailed search: One source I'd avoid is the
Huff Poo, the health section of which is often chock-full-o'-quackery.
-G.
=====
On 13-05-04-Sat 6:55 PM, Sonja Trauss 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:
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
Romy & Yo's-
Re. "womens' bodies with their faces cut off."
Wow. Thanks for pointing that out...
...For that matter, now that massively-drug-resistant gonorrhea is
loose in
the USA...
4 May
4 May
10:37 p.m.
10:08 pm
I'm jumping in here by responding and making the assumption that we have
started sex-positive discussions for the upcoming bike smut event ?
By breaking a mold and creating a new cultural aptitude that addresses
sexuality in any conscious way one must first and foremost be consistent
with an expansive and inclusive message. One that is revolutionary enough
not to fall into its own trappings of superiority or dogma around ideas
that we must not do certain things because they may misconstrue us in a
negative light as individuals and shine us in a stark and naked light.
Sexuality is more than the form (aesthetic) coopted, commercialized, and
commodified to sell us subconsciously the image of beauty. Which after all
is the essence of our self expression encompassing all aspects sexual.
We just don't need to hype it or sell it.
Referring here to boys/men searching for new avenues to draw attention to
themselves through a newly acculturated legitimacy of what is acceptable
sexual 'play'.
Just looking at fundamentals to see the trends that may or may not suit
well enough to blossom into a true form or social construct that become
useful and has longevity.
However, looking for new unconventional ways to express our sexuality is
always a welcome chance for creativity and collaboration.
Memes come and go, but true ones evolve alongside the dynamics that helped
to create them as an outgrowth in the first place.
Overthinking can become inhibitory, and I've heard some of the best ideas
at a bar over alcoholic drinks while listening to people just let the
honesty of their intentions flow more fluidly than the liquour :)
Games. Yes , games where we begin to ask questions about the structure and
nature of the roles performed and the results(besides fun!) to be elicited
out of the human bonding process I see as a great potentiator for
reclaiming the lost playfulness required for true sexual expression.
I've witnessed it being transferred into focused sports activities that
divide the sexes into competitive forms of struggle and domination.
Domination being some very major aspects of the "chase" a role in which a
suitor pursues a goal to achieve a result in the "game".
I digress.
Discussion is alright. However from my experiences, once i go too deep in
asking questions that really engage people to confront their roles and
relationships to one another in this arena, people get a bit serous and
become intimidated.
So the next step (logically ) is to establish boundaries of comfort for all
players involved.
Who's bringing feathers to tickle people with ?
or will this event be a more visual removal of pornographic experience
followed by a discussion?
As for new ways to break the mold to celebrate the sexuality /
attractiveness of males. we have to brave new considerations beyond women's
need to femminize and enfold men into their own sexualized proclivities
projected.
I welcome as much inquisitive (not hostile )feedback as this forum allows
for and wish to see further discussion around these topics.
Sincerely,
Troy Massey
On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Romy Snowyla <romy(a)snowyla.com> 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
4249
days inactive
4251
days old
45 comments
14 participants
participants (14)
-
aestetix -
Andrew -
Andrew -
Gregg Horton -
GtwoG PublicOhOne -
Matthew Harbowy -
rachel lyra hospodar -
revphil -
Romy Ilano -
Romy Snowyla
-
rusty lindgren -
Ryan Bethencourt -
Sonja Trauss -
Troy Massey