Site New Answers Search Boards ILM ILE Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login

A Porn Debate

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
How many people have read this?

Here is what young women tell me on college campuses when the subject comes up: They can’t compete, and they know it. For how can a real woman—with pores and her own breasts and even sexual needs of her own (let alone with speech that goes beyond “More, more, you big stud!”)—possibly compete with a cybervision of perfection, downloadable and extinguishable at will, who comes, so to speak, utterly submissive and tailored to the consumer’s least specification?

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/

― gatinhaaa, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:01 (eighteen years ago)

Considering how old that article must be (Wolf was 40 in 2002), I'd say lots of people have read it, laughed their collective asses off at how stupid it is and moved on, fucking real, live, and generally imperfect people the whole time.

― Jaq, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:10 (eighteen years ago)

I think I read a version of the argument in another magazine, complete with college boy (supposed to be nice, normal, the standard) saying how he couldn't meet or talk to a girl without thinking about cumming on her face.

Which, you know, might say more about College Boy Test Subject than porn.

― milo z, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:15 (eighteen years ago)

I don't agree, it says a lot to me about the way I think about sex and how I behave. And I'm not a cunt.

― gatinhaaa, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:17 (eighteen years ago)

ughhh, Naomi Wolf

― tokyo rosemary, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:22 (eighteen years ago)

Agreed. A friend who used to work for teenage girls mags said about 10 years ago, the problem page letters were from girls saying 'should I kiss him?' or 'should I let him squeeze my tits' whereas now, it's 'my boyfriend wants to cum on my face, and I don't want to, but I love him and don't want to be a square'. I pastiche slightly, but hopefully you get the point.

In a society where teenage boys - notoriously insecure themselves - get more and a more 'info' on sex from porn than other means, then it's no surprise really.

― The Boyler, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:23 (eighteen years ago)

wow I totally don't see those letters in the magazines at the checkout stand.... (altho women's mags have been totally pornagraphic since at least the mid-80s)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:28 (eighteen years ago)

I dunno this seems like a bunch of puritanical hoohah with little basis in actual understanding of sexuality/sociology/physiology.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:29 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, well, it's Naomi Wolf, FFS.

― Jaq, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:31 (eighteen years ago)

Forgive me for popping the libertarian vibe. Who knew when the market takes prime responsibility that human relationships get degraded? Someone should write a book about that kind of process. maybe call it a manifesto or something.

I didn't say they got published; they were letter sent for publication, which obviously, don't get published.

xpost - nice ad hominem arguments here.

― The Boyler, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:32 (eighteen years ago)

Sounds like TeenCosmo needs to hire Dan Savage for their problem page.

― milo z, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:34 (eighteen years ago)

[q]Who knew when the market takes prime responsibility that human relationships get degraded? [/q]

In the Ariel Levy book she puts it down to when the desire developed to make money out of products related to sex.

― gatinhaaa, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:36 (eighteen years ago)

I would write a detailed rebuttal of this stupid article, but I'm too busy wanking.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:38 (eighteen years ago)

haha wait did someone just call me a libertarian?!?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:38 (eighteen years ago)

I would like some kind of proof of how human relationships have been degraded since the internet boom. are instances of rape/abuse increasing? are fewer children being born? (cuz all those money shots = no babies) Is the marriage rate decreasing? The thing about these claims is that they are always so unscientific... I give Dworkin a pass on some things and feel she unnecessarily painted herself into a corner with her rhetoric, but lolz at this armchair psychoanalysis with no basis in reality

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:43 (eighteen years ago)

porn is as old as art, probably as old as civilization itself (cf Alan Moore's recent article in Arthur)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:44 (eighteen years ago)

i was hoping this thread would just be a video of naked chicks arguing

― ghost rider, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:45 (eighteen years ago)

Who knew when the market takes prime responsibility that human relationships get degraded? Someone should write a book about that kind of process. maybe call it a manifesto or something.

Or they could call it The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State and include a section about homosexuality being caused by capitalism.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:47 (eighteen years ago)

lol engels

― ghost rider, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:51 (eighteen years ago)

the jim belushi of marxism

― ghost rider, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:51 (eighteen years ago)

I'm pretty sure I remember more lumpen members of the Militant Tendency trotting that shite out in the 1980s. Could've been the SWP tho.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:55 (eighteen years ago)

Sistas Wit Problems?

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:58 (eighteen years ago)

The point being? Millies used to go about homosexuality being bourgeois deviationalisation from the class struggle. They were a bit bonkers; who knew? Doesn't actually undermine the point about alienation does it?

The point about babies etc is facile. There are many factors that influence things like childbirth, whilst young boys have very little knowledge of sex apart from porn, what with them having little experience of the thing itself, so representations of the thing are hugely important. I can't - and doubt anyone can - quantify the effect of this - but unless we're going to turn messageboards into learned societies, then it's not particularly a huge problem right here is it?

― The Boyler, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:58 (eighteen years ago)

PORNO FREAK

http://lpcoverlover.wordpress.com/files/2006/11/1034461997398_blowflydiscolp.jpg

― BLASTOCYST, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 21:59 (eighteen years ago)

xpost

The point being when did these utopian relationships outside of a market economy take place? So we can compare them to the current degraded relationships?

Another point being that a certain strand of paternalist leftism has always been afraid of sex that isn't monogamous and vanilla.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:02 (eighteen years ago)

WHY DO THE RENTIERS ALWAYS WANT TO COME ON MY FACE

― ghost rider, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:02 (eighteen years ago)

cumming in a girl's face beats them getting fat and crazy from birth control pills says I

― sexyDancer, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:03 (eighteen years ago)

I would like to see experiments featuring E'd-up rats given a choice between lady rats and a 56kb/s mpeg of Willard.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:05 (eighteen years ago)

Wolf's article seems to have more to do with the insecurity of women due to feeling they have to compete with porn than anything else. Which I'm sure is a real phenomenon, but it's a big leap from there to "OMG PORN HAS RUINED HUMAN INTIMACY FOREVER!"

Trotting out the old canard about women with perfect, implanted breasts, tiny waits, bikini waxes, etc. (which goes back way before the internet as a complaint) she completely ignores the demand for a wide range of different kinds of hetero porn, including BBW, hairy, MILF, "natural," "amateur" etc.

And then we get the classic romanticization of traditional cultures (orthodox Jews, etc.) and their approach to sexuality. Be my guest if you want to take on that kind of role, Naomi, no one is stopping you.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:06 (eighteen years ago)

There are many factors that influence things like childbirth, whilst young boys have very little knowledge of sex apart from porn, what with them having little experience of the thing itself, so representations of the thing are hugely important.

I can't parse this... if you concede that porn isn't actually affecting sexual productivity or conventionally reproductive relationships, then what is your complaint exactly? How are young boys being "damaged" by porn (a specious claim, I think - porn is hardly the only representation of sex that young boys, or girls, are exposed to and challenge you to produce evidence otherwise) if they're growing up into men that lead conventional sex lives (i.e., married and makin babies)? What is your basis for a) claiming that porn is the main sexual imagery young boys are exposed to, and b) how does this actually impact them (and their future sexual partners) negatively?

I can't - and doubt anyone can - quantify the effect of this - but unless we're going to turn messageboards into learned societies, then it's not particularly a huge problem right here is it?

so you prefer an argument composed of competing yet equally unverifiable claims? what the fuck is the point of that?

(honestly my secret hope is that you are actually bethune and will soon return to your shining moment on ILE defending Stalin and soviet computer technology)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:07 (eighteen years ago)

LOL porn

― admrl, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:08 (eighteen years ago)

lolporn has ruined me for women for life

― ghost rider, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:09 (eighteen years ago)

i kept asking my last girlfriend to zing me ;_;

― ghost rider, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:09 (eighteen years ago)

Trotting out the old canard about women with perfect, implanted breasts, tiny waits, bikini waxes, etc. (which goes back way before the internet as a complaint) she completely ignores the demand for a wide range of different kinds of hetero porn, including BBW, hairy, MILF, "natural," "amateur" etc.

this is SO OTM. Visit one chubby chaser website. Human sexuality is a gloriously messy and wildly varied thing, driven by deep and powerful biological processes that dwarf the power of human technology and media.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:09 (eighteen years ago)

i thought you were a "hardcore leftist", shakey?

dave is at least 8079

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:10 (eighteen years ago)

"you want me to do what with the bucket?"

― ghost rider, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:10 (eighteen years ago)

I got fired instead of getting spanked.

― admrl, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:11 (eighteen years ago)

uhm I am a hardcore leftist. I am also totally anti-censorship and pro-sex, so fuck this puritanical nonsense.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:12 (eighteen years ago)

My own theory about angry/degrading/domineering hetero porn is that its popularity is due in part to a taboo on expressing anger at women, a taboo that's particularly strong with "nice" "normal" "liberal" guys.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:12 (eighteen years ago)

Who said anything about utopian times before the market? Fancy a hat for the straw man you've built, to finish it off? I'm simply saying my instinct (no more, no less) is that given the role porn has had in the sexual development of teenage boys, the increasing niche nature of porn and its increased accessibility is a new factor which it seems not unreasonable to think will have an effect.

A certain strain of life - be it left or right - has always had a problem with sex per se, never mind anything outside the vanilla norm, but that doesn't mean Ron Jeremy is the Simon Bolivar of sensuality.

― The Boyler, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:13 (eighteen years ago)

the last straw was probably when i asked her to call me "oink administrator"

― ghost rider, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:14 (eighteen years ago)

Human sexuality is a gloriously messy and wildly varied thing, driven by deep and powerful biological processes that dwarf the power of human technology and media.

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, May 3, 2007 1:09 AM (12 seconds ago)

errrm, no. you can't talk about the two as separate.

My own theory about angry/degrading/domineering hetero porn is that its popularity is due in part to a taboo on expressing anger at women, a taboo that's particularly strong with "nice" "normal" "liberal" guys.

-- Hurting 2, Thursday, May 3, 2007 1:12 AM (1 minute ago)

oh nicely done hurting, vg.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:14 (eighteen years ago)

It's a ludicrous argument being made in the original article - it's one of those pieces where there's a kernel of truth in some instances involving some particularly susceptible people which is blown up into some kind of universal truth.

You know, I think most teenage boys would still prefer having sex with a real living breathing "imperfect" woman to a porn fantasy, hands down, without thinking about it. Because hey, in this day and age, most teenage boys still aren't particularly creepy rapey cunts, regardless of what they're watching.

It's a bit like the argument that rap music or films are responsible for huge shooting sprees. It's a convenient excuse not to engage with the myriad other, and more important, factors that might make someone a murderer/creepy sex pest.

― Matt DC, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:15 (eighteen years ago)

Wolf's article seems to have more to do with the insecurity of women due to feeling they have to compete with porn than anything else. Which I'm sure is a real phenomenon, but it's a big leap from there to "OMG PORN HAS RUINED HUMAN INTIMACY FOREVER!"

yeah i mean it's only the insecurity of women we're talking about, sheesh chillax.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:16 (eighteen years ago)

the increasing niche nature of porn and its increased accessibility is a new factor which it seems not unreasonable to think will have an effect.

if that's really your point - and I think you're backtracking, personally - I don't think anyone's gonna argue that porn affects sexual expression. We can argue over what that effect IS (I would say a negligible one), but that isn't what you said - you directly implied it would "degrade human relationships", which is a qualitative judgment with no basis in fact.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:17 (eighteen years ago)

the article itself is poor, but i dunno, ariel levy i think does have some game.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:17 (eighteen years ago)

qualitative judgements don't as a rule have bases in "fact".

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:18 (eighteen years ago)

wait, I can't talk about biology and technology as separate? are you fucking crazy? One's been around for billions of years, the other, maybe the last few thousand at the most. Let's take a guess which one has impacted the human organism more profoundly....

x-post

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:18 (eighteen years ago)

yes, Naomi Wolf is crazy but I hate the idea that any critique of porn is puritanical.

― horseshoe, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:18 (eighteen years ago)

this book argues what naomi wolf argues but makes more sense doing so.

― g®▲Ðұ, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:19 (eighteen years ago)

(and actually has some studies to back it up)

― g®▲Ðұ, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:19 (eighteen years ago)

qualitative judgements don't as a rule have bases in "fact".

yeah I know, that's why I said it.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:19 (eighteen years ago)

A much better argued polemic is Laura Kipnis' Bound and Gagged, which at least delves into the huge variety of non-mainstream porn out there and doesn't draw such ridiculous and unsupported conclusions.

― Jaq, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:19 (eighteen years ago)

xxxxpost

That episode of Futurama where Fry was dating the Lucy Liu-bot made a similar point.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:21 (eighteen years ago)

What do customers ultimately buy after viewing this item?

71% buy Pornified: How Pornography Is Damaging Our Lives, Our Relationships, and Our Families by Pamela Paul $11.25

18% buy Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture by Ariel Levy $10.50

5% buy Treating Pornography Addiction: The Essential Tools for Recovery by Ph.D. Kevin B. Skinner $14.95

5% buy In the Shadows of the Net: Breaking Free of Compulsive Online Sexual Behavior by Ph.D., Patrick Carnes $10.46

2% buy How to Make Love Like a Porn Star: A Cautionary Tale by Jenna Jameson $20.54


Explore similar items

― g®▲Ðұ, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:21 (eighteen years ago)

wait, I can't talk about biology and technology as separate? are you fucking crazy? One's been around for billions of years, the other, maybe the last few thousand at the most. Let's take a guess which one has impacted the human organism more profoundly....

x-post

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, May 3, 2007 1:18 AM (57 seconds ago)

biology hasn't in any meaningful way "been around for billions of years". but really technology has sort of been absolutely fundamental to all human history... but anyway in an account of sexual mores present, i don't think you can give biology total priority in that way. because that would be to argue sexuality has been some kind of constant through human history, which is bullshit, it's always been culturally constructed one way or another.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:22 (eighteen years ago)

I think cries of "Puritanism" are missing the point, tbh. But many left-ish anti-porn theorists seem to have this weird assumption that Pornography as an industry will/should function differently to any other capitalist industry.

xpost Also what that one guy just said.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:25 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/magazine/29kink.t.html?_r=1&em&ex=1178078400&en=f1ae68f46c02fe17&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

― admrl, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:27 (eighteen years ago)

I think we are misunderstanding each others' use of the term biology, then. When I refer to biology in terms of human sexuality I'm referring to the complex of behaviors that facilitate reproduction and are driven by DNA, which have led to the development of the species and yes have been around for billions of years and predate language and civilization and everything else.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:27 (eighteen years ago)

biology hasn't in any meaningful way "been around for billions of years".

honestly I don't know what you mean by this. our biological make-up drives us to reproduce the way we do (penis in vagina = baby), its built into our species.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:28 (eighteen years ago)

That Times article reminds me of something I wonder about - are there people going to film school (presumably not NYU) now with the intent of getting into porn directing?

― milo z, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:30 (eighteen years ago)

c on ts |= baby

― g®▲Ðұ, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:30 (eighteen years ago)

the 'pornified' book looks interesting. the argument 'porn has always been around' is facile. the fact that in two clicks from now i or any one of us could look at pretty much any pornographic image imaginable is unique to the last few years of human history; given especially that that we can easily include very young people and those images could contain -- well, i'm sure even some of you anti-puritans have your limits. anyway, that situation deserves a better response than it generally gets.

honestly I don't know what you mean by this. our biological make-up drives us to reproduce the way we do (penis in vagina = baby), its built into our species.

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, May 3, 2007 1:28 AM (2 minutes ago)

sounds kind of homophobic to me.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:31 (eighteen years ago)

I wouldn't've thought it was worth the time and money and effort to study porn directing, when there's plenty of money to be made from just pointing and shooting. Ahem.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:32 (eighteen years ago)

“I’m Claire Adams.” “And I’m Wild Bill.” “And this is Jackasswelcome to a very special Men In Pain update.”

― milo z, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:33 (eighteen years ago)

Is there money to be made pointing and shooting? In the past, probably, but if it's a multi-billion dollar a year business now you'd think quality standards would have to go up in order to compete for the almighty wank dollar.

― milo z, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:34 (eighteen years ago)

i don't want to sound derridean but "biology" is construed by language. obviously sex is prior to language systems in general, but they way we conceptualize it can't be, and these conceptualizations are bound to inflect sexuality as it is lived.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:34 (eighteen years ago)

sounds kind of homophobic to me.

do you think homosexuality is biological, or merely a cultural construct?

― never acid again, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:34 (eighteen years ago)

"amateur" in not getting paid shocker, cocker

― sexyDancer, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:35 (eighteen years ago)

I mean evolution has resulted in men having a higher propensity for visual stimulation than women, and in them having a higher drive to spread their seed around, etc. These are basic biological functions no human male has any conscious control over - its behavior that's hardwired in the DNA. Granted there's a range of expression across the species, but all men are designed this way.

sounds kind of homophobic to me.

oh gimme a fucking break with yr red herrings here - you wanna get into the evolutionary basis for homosexuality that's a whole other debate. I'm talkin about the physical mechanics of reproduction - please to show me a human baby NOT created from the male insemination via sperm of a female egg.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:35 (eighteen years ago)

(and of course homosexuality isn't cultural - if it was, why would species with no semblance of culture engage in it. cuz there are AN AWFUL LOT OF THEM)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:36 (eighteen years ago)

multi xpost

I don't think I have any limits in terms of what it's permissible to portray. Technology is also going to make it easier and easier to simulate things that would/should be illegal without actively causing harm, which offers a strange set of moral conundrums I think.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:36 (eighteen years ago)

i don't want to sound derridean but "biology" is construed by language.

NO. the CONCEPT of biology is constructed by language - but biological processes and organisms and functions exist independent of language.

I can't believe I'm getting pulled into this semantic bullshit ayiyiyi...

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:37 (eighteen years ago)

Gary Kremen, who founded both the porn site Sex.com and the dating site Match.com in the mid-’90s.


God only knows what the fucker who started eHarmony was into.

― milo z, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:38 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think I have any limits in terms of what it's permissible to portray.

wolf fucking baby?

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:40 (eighteen years ago)

"NO. the CONCEPT of biology is constructed by language - but biological processes and organisms and functions exist independent of language."

yes i said that, and then some other things.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:40 (eighteen years ago)

"do you think homosexuality is biological, or merely a cultural construct?

-- never acid again, Thursday, May 3, 2007 1:34 AM (5 minutes ago)"

it's not merely cultural, but nothing is just biological either. but i was responding to "our biological make-up drives us to reproduce the way we do (penis in vagina = baby), its built into our species."

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:42 (eighteen years ago)

Matt - it's like football hooligans being organised violent thugs vs generalised low-level twattishness of many a group of football fans. The former is more of a disorder, the latter is much harder to deal with because it's so normalised; it's not a problem, just what we do.

So, the relate it back, the issue isn't about the creation of murderous sex pests, more that the bar on what is considered normal, acceptable expectations of young women in sex is being ratcheted up. It isn't seen as a pathological condition, just what we do. As for most boys wanting real sex, of course. It isn't about people wanting fantasy over reality. It's about what expectations of reality are in the light of the fantasies that have been normalised.

To Shakey - my evidence such as it is for the claim about the importance of porn comes from the fact that for most of the last 40 years, my understanding is that boys learn sex from their peer groups, not from 'responsible' others. That peer groups' own sexual learning has always borrowed heavily from porn in various guises because of the adult-free zone of sexual learning.

The changing dynamic of porn, of both content and distribution, means that much harder porn is much more easily available, sharable and can inform the 'teachers' in the peer group (ie, the cool/hard/advanced kids) who have always been influential in setting the standard of teenage boys' understanding of sex. I'm sorry about not being able to back this up with anything other than instinct and observation, but not being a sexologist/psychologist or indeed someone working in this field doesn't mean I can't and thus shouldn't comment on it.

so you prefer an argument composed of competing yet equally unverifiable claims? what the fuck is the point of that?


delete ilx

― The Boyler, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:43 (eighteen years ago)

JESUS H. CHRiST, that's the only non-jizz babyboo.

um...mega pointles XxXpost

― Abbott, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:43 (eighteen years ago)

re: directing skillz

I wonder if Porn connoisseurs are a significant enough section of the market now to give some directors' work added value? I've read the occasional article about would-be porn auteurs, but I'd've thought the vast majority of porn is still consumed in an undiscriminating and slightly swine-like fashion.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:44 (eighteen years ago)

yeah I know but I don't see how any of it invalidated my assertion that biological forces predate and supercede human cultural/technological ones. I mean Boyler's implication that something that's happened in the last 10 years can somehow compete with an incredibly powerful force (the male sex drive - which is tied up with visual stimulation and the drive to maximize the dissemination of DNA) that's been in place for millions if not billions of years is beyond silly.

x-post

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:45 (eighteen years ago)

Aside from the fact that we have bodies which get horny, I don't see what the point gazillions of years of evolution have to do with it. We've evolved the ability to get off, to fantasise, to wank, but what that has to do with how and what we get off to seems to have everything to do with the culture in which we're brought up and surrounded by and naff all to do with biology.

― The Boyler, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:45 (eighteen years ago)

I mean evolution has resulted in men having a higher propensity for visual stimulation than women, and in them having a higher drive to spread their seed around, etc. These are basic biological functions no human male has any conscious control over [...] you wanna get into the evolutionary basis for homosexuality that's a whole other debate.

O RLY

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:46 (eighteen years ago)

Shakey, evolutionary psychology of the type you're citing with the observations of how evolution has affected male sexuality often strikes me as projecting contemporary cultural stuff onto a hypothetical evolutionary environment. I never trust that stuff when it comes to gender, frankly.

― horseshoe, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:47 (eighteen years ago)

The changing dynamic of porn, of both content and distribution, means that much harder porn is much more easily available, sharable and can inform the 'teachers' in the peer group (ie, the cool/hard/advanced kids) who have always been influential in setting the standard of teenage boys' understanding of sex.

I'm not arguing that this isn't true - I'm asking SO WHAT

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:47 (eighteen years ago)

Look, if all this new technology leads to a qualitative improvement in technique then society's a winner.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:49 (eighteen years ago)

When I was a teenager, the 15-year old cool kids used to boast about how they'd fingered someone. I would be very suprised if the gold standard now was so vanilla.

― The Boyler, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:49 (eighteen years ago)

xpost

Unless you're like, really ugly or sump'n.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:50 (eighteen years ago)

I have tender feelings toward porn as an idea (stimulating stuffs to get you going...not nec. all the current aesthetics) because it absolves some of the world's overwhelming loneliness.

I'm not a guy, but based on a lot of the relationships I had as a teen-ager (not just dating, but generally talking to guys), I don't think guys get that fucked up of ideas from porn. I think they don't know anything proper because no one tells them, and they mostly figured it out eventually. I mean which of you duders here is gonna be like, "OMG, I can't handle a stretch mark and I've got to fuck your throat and ass," you know, as a general idea of sex. I doubt very few people do have this as their conception of 'what sex is.'

Looking at this (NSFW) [url=[Removed Illegal Link] fan forum[/ur;] gave me kind of an idea of the 'raincoat subculture,' if you will. Which is surely NOT the majority of porn-enjoyers.

― Abbott, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:51 (eighteen years ago)

oh dammit, here's thee link

http://forum.adultdvdtalk.com/forum/forum.dlt/forum_id=1/cat_id=1/11.htm

― Abbott, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:51 (eighteen years ago)

I really liked the Ariel Levy book...she struck a good balance.

― Abbott, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:52 (eighteen years ago)

Shakey, evolutionary psychology of the type you're citing with the observations of how evolution has affected male sexuality often strikes me as projecting contemporary cultural stuff onto a hypothetical evolutionary environment. I never trust that stuff when it comes to gender, frankly.


And hella OTM there

― Abbott, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:52 (eighteen years ago)

That Times article reminds me of something I wonder about - are there people going to film school (presumably not NYU) now with the intent of getting into porn directing?

My impression--from conversations with a friend and a New York Press article, neither of which are particularly reliable sources--is that the 'New York Film Academy' is a big magnet for this.

― C0L1N B..., Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:53 (eighteen years ago)

Look, if all this new technology leads to a qualitative improvement in technique then society's a winner.

-- Noodle Vague, Thursday, May 3, 2007 1:49 AM (4 minutes ago)

let this be intentional irony!

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:55 (eighteen years ago)

isn't the point of the article that p0rn sex = bad technique

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:55 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think most people aren't aware of that!

― Abbott, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:56 (eighteen years ago)

It's ACTING for christsakes.

― Abbott, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:56 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think guys get that fucked up of ideas from porn

Agreed, and neither do girls/women.

― Jaq, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:57 (eighteen years ago)

I think "unless you're really ugly" was the clue to me not being dead serious there.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:58 (eighteen years ago)

I don't think guys get that fucked up of ideas from porn

Agreed, and neither do girls/women.

-- Jaq, Thursday, May 3, 2007 1:57 AM (34 seconds ago)

source?

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:59 (eighteen years ago)

I think the whole world of porn is like boys who get into WWE or other prowrestling as 12-15 yr-olds, take it really seriously at the time, and then realize it's all a very choreographed act. They can still enjoy it later, but it's not a reflection of some real world...and later, most people realize porn isn't eaither.

― Abbott, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 22:59 (eighteen years ago)

the 'New York Film Academy' is a big magnet for this

I'll never not be able to think of this when I see their big ad in FilmMaker or MovieMaker magazine. Awesome!

oh dammit, here's thee link

[Removed Illegal Link]
I think I mentioned on another pr0n thread that I enjoyed lurking there sometimes, because the business of porn is kind of fascinating - distribution, the people behind it, motivations. I grew up just WASPy enough, I guess, that the idea of porn as career is mind-blowing.

― milo z, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:00 (eighteen years ago)

why do people get hung up, generally? could it be environmental factors? might porn be one of them?

it doesn't seem too unlikely to me.

but yeah

I think the whole world of porn is like boys who get into WWE or other prowrestling as 12-15 yr-olds, take it really seriously at the time, and then realize it's all a very choreographed act. They can still enjoy it later, but it's not a reflection of some real world...and later, most people realize porn isn't eaither.

-- Abbott, Thursday, May 3, 2007 1:59 AM (2 seconds ago)

is likely otm for most people. but on a lower levy what ariel levy's saying kind of rings true for people over 17.

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:00 (eighteen years ago)

the 'New York Film Academy' is a big magnet for this

I'll never not be able to think of this when I see their big ad in FilmMaker or MovieMaker magazine. Awesome!

oh dammit, here's thee link


I think I mentioned on another pr0n thread that I enjoyed lurking there sometimes, because the business of porn is kind of fascinating - distribution, the people behind it, motivations. I grew up just WASPy enough, I guess, that the idea of porn as career is mind-blowing.

― milo z, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:01 (eighteen years ago)

What specifically that Levy is saying, that one guy?

xpost

― Abbott, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:02 (eighteen years ago)

re: Porn as artifice

Altho the lengths that some fake "amateur" porn now goes to to maintain its audience's belief shows that there's still a desire for an "authentic" porn.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:03 (eighteen years ago)

that porn chic being 'empowering' is illusory

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:04 (eighteen years ago)

how and what we get off to seems to have everything to do with the culture in which we're brought up and surrounded by and naff all to do with biology.

I don't think this is true at all - culture has a lot to do with it, but its hardly the full picture. If sexual expression was divorced from basic biological functions, by logical extension porn would be composed of (or at least predominantly composed of) bizarro fetish-type stuff, which is very time-and-place/culture-specific. But from the studies I've read of the way sexuality emerges (granted this was probably 15 years ago) most people develop innate sexual impulses well before they're exposed to any explicit cultural representations of sex (for ex. all the gay men I know who knew they were gay by, like, age 5). What arouses people can be modified and accessorized as they develop and grow older, but specific sexual impulses are very very deeply ingrained in our biological make-up.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:05 (eighteen years ago)

that porn chic being 'empowering' is illusory

Yes, that is something I totally agree with. Tell me this is a land of confusion?

I think people grow out of that after a year or two, too, though....I went through that for a while to a minor extent. "woot woot porn!" but like 95% of it is boring, and while I wasn't pretending to be empowered from the experience, I wasn't not either.

I really just think it's a nice tool to abate loneliness...porn anyway, not strip clubs, which are just confusing as hell.

― Abbott, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:07 (eighteen years ago)

I mean, the phase just got too dull to continue.

― Abbott, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:08 (eighteen years ago)

I realize this is just my experience tho.

― Abbott, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:08 (eighteen years ago)

I went to the New York Film Academy.

― admrl, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:09 (eighteen years ago)


Altho the lengths that some fake "amateur" porn now goes to to maintain its audience's belief shows that there's still a desire for an "authentic" porn.

Those movies bust through wall #4 way too often to maintain that aspect, plus goddamn if you want to believe this is Stacie's First Anal then be my guest...you're still in like WWE phase. which I still don't think fucks people up.

― Abbott, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:10 (eighteen years ago)

"She's a virgin! Just turned 18 this morning! No, really!"

― milo z, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:12 (eighteen years ago)

observations of how evolution has affected male sexuality often strikes me as projecting contemporary cultural stuff onto a hypothetical evolutionary environment.

I agree this is an issue - it always is when it comes down to processes that are not directly observable and are beyond the scope of documented records. But I think the behavior of other members of the animal kingdom can be instructive in this respect - if not directly applicable to us they give us some clues as to our evolutionary heritage, and can inform our models of how humans developed.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:12 (eighteen years ago)

There was a great article in Harper's once where he talked to a guy who filmed for Rachel Ray cooking shows...he had worked as a porn filmer before, and he said it was basically the same technique. le roffes.

― Abbott, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:12 (eighteen years ago)

I'm not thinking of that stuff tho, more like the anonymous little jpegs/mpegs that circulate around "free" sites, purporting to be home camcorder footage. Some of it is probably genuine, but a lot of it is operating at a much more sophisticated level of fakery than Stacie, god bless her.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:13 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.notmike.com/images/rachael_chocolat.jpg

― milo z, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:14 (eighteen years ago)

Production still from "Anal Princesses Vol. 73"

― milo z, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:15 (eighteen years ago)

Also one of my former colleagues now edits porn here in SF. She makes very, very good money.

― admrl, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:15 (eighteen years ago)

Wolf's article seems to have more to do with the insecurity of women due to feeling they have to compete with porn than anything else. Which I'm sure is a real phenomenon, but it's a big leap from there to "OMG PORN HAS RUINED HUMAN INTIMACY FOREVER!"

yeah i mean it's only the insecurity of women we're talking about, sheesh chillax.

-- That one guy that quit, Wednesday, May 2, 2007 6:16 PM (49 minutes ago)

I acknowledge that it's a real phenomenon, and it's something worth discussing. But I don't understand how internet porn is that drastically different from Playboy in this regard, or even Cosmo or pin-up girls or burlesque shows for that matter. Bottom line is men still can't actually touch/have sex with the woman in the porn, and there are plenty of other things that make women feel insecure, that they can't compete, etc.

Also, I think there's just as much an element of MEN feeling insecure about porn because all dicks are abnormally large, stamina is never a problem (thanks to editing), etc.

If the point is to suggest that porn is causing men to expect more outlandish sexual acts from women, ok, maybe there's something to that, but that's not NECESSARILY the same thing as damaging intimacy.

As for women feeling compelled to act raunchy and all that, I think that has MUCH more to do with the imagery in mainstream PG/PG-13/R culture today than what we're seeing in porn, which has always had a sort of outside status as something one looks at in private.

But ultimately I'm not really sure what the point is - the article is just a fuzzy mess.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:16 (eighteen years ago)

you guys had to bring rachel ray into it didn't you

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:16 (eighteen years ago)

it was either rachel ray or racism. the spinning needle stopped too soon.

― admrl, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:17 (eighteen years ago)

One of the most disturbing things I've ever heard was a couple of guys on the radio saying that they think things should be like they are with animals, that guys should just be able to stick and move and not have to worry about relationships. They spent the next 5 minutes yelling STICK AND MOVE! STICK AND MOVE!

― Jeff, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:17 (eighteen years ago)

I am now really regretting that...fucking SPOONTANG.

xpost

― Abbott, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:17 (eighteen years ago)

xpost

Radio 4 has really gone downhill lately.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:18 (eighteen years ago)

"Start The Week" indeed.

― admrl, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:18 (eighteen years ago)

"Today In Parliament" indeed.

― admrl, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:19 (eighteen years ago)

Leonard Lopate and Brian Lehrer, what's got into you?

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:19 (eighteen years ago)

[img][Removed Illegal Link]

"STICK AND MOVE! STICK AND MOVE!"

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:19 (eighteen years ago)

Treat it like boxing, stick and move, stick and move

― milo z, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:19 (eighteen years ago)

I acknowledge that it's a real phenomenon, and it's something worth discussing. But I don't understand how internet porn is that drastically different from Playboy in this regard, or even Cosmo or pin-up girls or burlesque shows for that matter. Bottom line is men still can't actually touch/have sex with the woman in the porn, and there are plenty of other things that make women feel insecure, that they can't compete, etc.


internet porn is completley different from playboy or burlesque.

― g®▲Ðұ, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:20 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.theultimatenewsquiz.com/images/photos/James_Naughtie.jpg

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:20 (eighteen years ago)

"STICK AND MOVE!"

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:20 (eighteen years ago)

I can't look at that picture without thinking about....never mind.

― admrl, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:20 (eighteen years ago)

t/s: rope-a-dope vs. 'stick and move'

― milo z, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:20 (eighteen years ago)

We should get JOE MATT on this thread, he'd know abt this shit pretty well.

― Abbott, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:22 (eighteen years ago)

internet porn is completley different from playboy or burlesque.

Of course. I'm just saying all can involve women that might create an impossible *ideal* to meet.

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:22 (eighteen years ago)

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42376000/jpg/_42376511_murray2_203bbc.jpg

"STICK AND MOVE!"

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:22 (eighteen years ago)

Of course. I'm just saying all can involve women that might create an impossible *ideal* to meet.


yeah but the point is that the "ideal" has changed from tits and muff to anal milkshakes.

― g®▲Ðұ, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:23 (eighteen years ago)

xpost way back to milo:

I'm a year away from finishing film school, and while I don't exactly aspire to work in porn, I'd say there's a good chance, especially since I'm leaning toward post-grad work in San Francisco, that I'll end up doing some porn work.

The current mainstream crap i.e. gonzo "women are stupid sluts, let's do awful shit to them, and give no indication whatsoever that their very loose consent comes from anything but said stupid sluttiness" has no need/want for those with film training, but the growing sector of higher brow fetish stuff certainly does. This is in part because those who are aroused by the later get part of that arousal from the bright colors, smooth surfaces, and general polish of the whole affair (see GwenMedia, et al). You just can't get that if you don't know something about lighting, set design, etc.

They also like to have a general air of great professionalism to them, not out of pure ethics, but because so much of it is based around dominating women. I don't want to get too New Sexuality, Dan Savage about it, but a lot of the allure of power-based sex isn't the actual taking of the power, it's the idea that the submissive trusts the dominant (and vicariously, the viewer) enough to give it up. Appearing professional makes that more plausible in the viewer's mind.

They want to do so (the aesthetics being a part of it) in order to set themselves apart from the mainstream crap I just mentioned, both from a marketing standpoint and a "you don't have to feel guilty about buying and watching this" one. Having it look good, well-lit, with nicely composed shots, at least on a subconscious level, helps that. Plus it makes it easier to justify the higher prices they often charge.

― en i see kay, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:24 (eighteen years ago)

Bah, that's a bit convoluted. Hope the general point gets across.

― en i see kay, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:25 (eighteen years ago)

Men on this thread, raise your hand if porn has created in you an insatiable desire for "anal milkshakes"

― Hurting 2, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:25 (eighteen years ago)

Well, if you're offering

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:27 (eighteen years ago)

We should get JOE MATT on this thread, he'd know abt this shit pretty well.

hahah yeah I was trying to find a way to post the entirety of R. Crumb's "Cave Wimp" meself

― Shakey Mo Collier, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:28 (eighteen years ago)

Who do you think has the more complicated, expensive camera/lights/edit suite? the guy hand-processing his film and shooting insects on a wall or the guy lensing "anal milkshakes 5"?

― admrl, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:29 (eighteen years ago)

part 5 is out already?

― g®▲Ðұ, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:30 (eighteen years ago)

seriously, the stuff those guys use makes NASA look like the lumiere brothers.

― admrl, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:30 (eighteen years ago)

xp ha

― admrl, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:31 (eighteen years ago)

by the way, I have no firsthand experience of shooting porn (no really) but I bet you these are the people in Best Buy or wherever buying the latest Canon digital camera the week it gets released.

― admrl, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:32 (eighteen years ago)

I dunno, given the fact that "Anal Milkshakes" was probably two dudes, a prosumer HDV camera with a light and mic mounted on it, and a laptop with Final Cut, while the other dude has chemicals, an semi-antique camera, semi-antique splicer, projector, film that can run $20 a minute, etc. they're probably about even.

― en i see kay, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:34 (eighteen years ago)

I demand to see the production budget for Anal Milkshakes.

― admrl, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:36 (eighteen years ago)

Also how much did the insect get paid vs the "talent"?

― admrl, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:37 (eighteen years ago)

More complicated =/= more expensive.

I get your point, though.

― en i see kay, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:38 (eighteen years ago)

It's okay. I didn't realyl have one. I'm just a bored dude in an office.

― admrl, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:39 (eighteen years ago)

by logical extension porn would be composed of (or at least predominantly composed of) bizarro fetish-type stuff, which is very time-and-place/culture-specific


Quite. My impression was that vanilla shagging is passe, and bizarro-fetish type stuff is mainstreamed these days?

― The Boyler, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:41 (eighteen years ago)

porn is as old as art, probably as old as civilization itself (cf Alan Moore's recent article in Arthur)


this is so does-not-apply though - yep, pornography is as old as art. No argument there! Nor is it necessarily unhealthy, immoral, etc. But 24-hour-a-day access to absolutely vivid pornography in one's home, with infinite variety, infinite newness? No, that's not as old as art. It's new, and it probably does have/will have a signifigant effect on human sexuality; it's kinda shrug-inducing to me to hear people basically goin' "hey, plus ca change, people have always viewed multipe facials daily" 'cause umm no they haven't, and your visual environment has a real impact on your interior makeup I think

― J0hn D., Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:41 (eighteen years ago)

My impression was that vanilla shagging is passe, and bizarro-fetish type stuff is mainstreamed these days?

I think the latter is just more availble & higher in quantity, but not the most watched or purchased.

― Abbott, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:44 (eighteen years ago)

higher in quantity than it used to be

― Abbott, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 23:44 (eighteen years ago)

higher in quality too.

― 冷明, Thursday, 3 May 2007 00:01 (eighteen years ago)

hd bds&m mpeg

― 冷明, Thursday, 3 May 2007 00:02 (eighteen years ago)

O, how desensitized I've become to cumming on girl's faces...

― BLASTOCYST, Thursday, 3 May 2007 01:11 (eighteen years ago)

...that's one girl with many faces.

― BLASTOCYST, Thursday, 3 May 2007 01:12 (eighteen years ago)

You've lost the nerve system connecting your spooge to her face?

― Abbott, Thursday, 3 May 2007 01:25 (eighteen years ago)

Could you rephrase your question in the form of a technical diagram

― BLASTOCYST, Thursday, 3 May 2007 01:46 (eighteen years ago)

or an autobiographical comic?

― g®▲Ðұ, Thursday, 3 May 2007 01:53 (eighteen years ago)

or an autobiographical comic?

Yes plz.

― en i see kay, Thursday, 3 May 2007 02:48 (eighteen years ago)

i dunno about women feeling they cant compete with porn women, never heard any girl i know say anything like that. maybe they think it but dont say it, but i dont buy it. i havent noticed girls having less confidence. and 'reality porn' kind of refutes that idea as well

as for the bar being raised regarding expectations, think theres more truth in this, though that also works both ways in that some girls can feel more liberated by not feeling they have to be 'demure'

― 600, Thursday, 3 May 2007 09:44 (eighteen years ago)

demure is wrong, i mean not feeling they have to be vanilla or whatever

― 600, Thursday, 3 May 2007 09:44 (eighteen years ago)

do think the difference between magazines/films and internet is a HUGE change though, not just in regard to sexuality or porn, but everything..

..so i think if youre making these kind of points about porn, it is totally valid to say this is a recent change, because the vehicle for delivery is everpresent and permanently available

the word 'glimpse' should be removed from the dictionary

― 600, Thursday, 3 May 2007 09:52 (eighteen years ago)

There's certainly a lot of "Oh no torment torment must live up to perceived cultural expectations" going on amongst women, w/r/t porn AND le beauty myth AND you know, just about any/every conceivable aspect of appearence and behavior. And it's true that those cultural expectations appear by and large to be vomited up out of some vast inexhaustible well of "Keep Mr. Whitey on Top"--tho Ms. Whitey and all her friends of many colors, sizes, and shapes will happily dunk your head in the same damn bucket--But really honestly eventually women have to take responsibility for the larger part of their feelings of self-worth, sexual or otherwise, regardless of the "message" in the "media." FEELING degraded/devalued is not the same as BEING degraded/devalued.

In other words, talk to me about why women still get paid $0.60 to the $1.00 or whatever, and if you can draw a causal connection to porn (not just a common origin thing), I'll be interested.

If some fratty boymen truly travel through their lives expecting odorless, blemishless sex, it's just that--sad for them. If they manage to find a handful of women willing to act like blow-up dolls, sad for them, too--but the vast majority of humans still crave real intimacy with real people, no matter how flawed we turn out to be at finding/creating it.

FURTHERMORE! I imagine most of us, no matter how old, grew up shrouded in a haze of sex-mystery that was gradually and unevenly penetrated (ahem) by inconsistent and confusing sources of information...sex ed in school, the neighbor's dad's pornographic mickey mouse commics, why do mom and dad lock the bedroom door sometimes in the middle of the afternoon????? In my case, I ended up working in a video store in high school and watched A LOT of porn before I had sex. I was fascinated. I was repelled. I was filled with a funny feeling I could not quite name! And when I saw my first real up-close cock, I was like: HOLY SHIT, THIS IS NOT WHAT I EXPECTED. (Though I was still fascinated, repelled, and filled with that funny feeling.) I had a boyfriend once who went down on me for the first time and told me he was surprised at how biological I tasted. ("What, you expected roses?" "I don't know WHAT I expected!" "Gee, do you not like it though?" "Ummm, I'm not sure yet, let me, ummm, just give it another try, I'll, uhhhh, let you know in an hour or two.") The point is, the role of porn--as well as articles in Ladies' Home Journal, and picture postcards of Michelangelo's David, and even Flossy's litter of kittens--in working out what sex is about will always be trumped by the real deal, and most human beings are more or less capable of continually adjusting their expectations (of anything) based on experience.

That said, once you're a grown-up, and no longer having sex in the backseats of cars (and back rooms of video stores), porn, I think, can fill a very special place in your life. I would tend to separate the viewing of porn from the having of sex with real people the same way I would separate any masturbatory fantasy from real sex. God knows I don't want to be held accountable for what I think about when I'm having a tender moment with myself! So I don't expect porn to be a realistic representation of what anyone wants in bed (on the floor, wherever). (Tho it can be fun to borrow certain details.) I think people who get all bunched up about porn in general probably have some venn-diagram overlap with people who consider jacking off "cheating" or a no-no in some other way. It's true that there's some nasty shit out there these days, but: 1) I'm as fascinated as anyone else, but I still don't want eels shoved up my butt. 2) To the extent that internet porn is connected with actual harmful or deviant behavior (pedophilia e.g.) it is just that, deviance, and hence sort of a different matter from your clueless treats-women-like-shite-in-bed-and-hence-gets-no-quality-pussy wanker.

Anyway, not to get too new-age here, but we're all responsible for getting straight with ourselves/the world/other people/sexuality/intimacy/u.s.w., so plz not to blame porn.

― Chim Chimery, Thursday, 3 May 2007 15:50 (eighteen years ago)

8080 OTM or whatever the kids are saying these days!

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 3 May 2007 16:07 (eighteen years ago)

Incidentally, I went to see a burlesque show a while back. One of the dancers was this petite little brunette with a flat-aby tummy and a round, bouncy ass, perfect tits, and a BIG, INSISTENT, WHITE-TOOTHED SMILE. She was all struttin' and shit, not a trace of cellulite to be seen. The drunk guys behind me were yelling, "YES! YES!" with great enthusiasm. Then came a retro-waved blond with a soft, round belly, small tits, and big dimpled thighs. She seemed kind of shy, though that was probly part of her burlesque act. "REAL! REAL!" yelled the drunk guys, with no less zest.

Point? Negligible. But I thought it was interesting.

― Chim Chimery, Thursday, 3 May 2007 16:08 (eighteen years ago)

So that's where Jesus Jones have gone!

― Mark G, Thursday, 3 May 2007 16:14 (eighteen years ago)

i assumed they were watching the world wake up from history. Which is v. time consuming.

― kenan, Thursday, 3 May 2007 16:16 (eighteen years ago)

if we're sharing stories - here in SF there was a looooong-running burlesque show (Stinky's Peepshow) that featured nothin but hefty, zaftig ladies and it was awesome and very popular and also very fun and funny

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 3 May 2007 16:19 (eighteen years ago)

i always read that word wrong.

http://www.astro.ufl.edu/~bruno/Movies/zelig.jpg

― kenan, Thursday, 3 May 2007 16:21 (eighteen years ago)

HAHAH I love the idea that drunk dudes were yelling "YES YES" and then "REAL REAL." it seems to disjointed and nonsensical.

― Will M., Thursday, 3 May 2007 16:46 (eighteen years ago)

I thought Size 0 models were the new porn.

I mean, in the long list of "things that erode and destroy womens' confidence/self esteem about their looks, their sexuality and themselves" porn is pretty far down on the list.

― Masonic Boom, Thursday, 3 May 2007 17:49 (eighteen years ago)

I think England's a little less porn-saturated than the U.S., K

― J0hn D., Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:04 (eighteen years ago)

I think the worst thing abt porn maybe is it teaches completely stupid cunnilingus....legs played & ttongue extended as far as possible equals useless exhausting bad time. It is sad this finest of acts cannot be displayed any better.

― Abbott, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:07 (eighteen years ago)

yeah, camera angles trump actual pleasure, surely anyone who has both had sex and seen porn understands this

― kenan, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:09 (eighteen years ago)

If anything I think strip clubs are WIERDER, way weirder than porn. This public thing with very real women, a consistently tense and awkward and unsexy atmosphere, but most of all men who can't DO anything to interact. By which I mean they can't masturbate! This has always blown my mind. Why actively participate in a very choreographed charade of a sexual experience (however effective or arousing) and then have to stay there and be able to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to exercise or handle this arousal! How the hell does that WORK? And having the real girl there, it's so less distanced than porn, which is largely an interaction between yourself and your imagination and the tv/computer (alone, I'd imagine). Facing someone removes the screen...it's all an act, I think everyone knows, but STILL...it's right there in your face or lap! How do you deal with that?

― Abbott, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:12 (eighteen years ago)

Body heat, breath, actual movement, but no interaction (with yourself or here)...nothing like porn!

― Abbott, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:13 (eighteen years ago)

xxpost to myself Although in this particular case, I don't see how it would be such a bad thing if dude or madam just went for some down n dirty muff diving and at least tried to look like he or she was getting the job done.

― kenan, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:15 (eighteen years ago)

ME EITHER! This never ever ever happens in porn.

― Abbott, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:17 (eighteen years ago)

Abbott otm about strip clubs. WTF, dudes, you can go to a standard meat market kind of bar and take a girl home with you if you want to see tittays that badly. You can even touch her.

Maybe they are addicted to hearing the song "Closer" by NIN.

― kenan, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:19 (eighteen years ago)

Maybe they are addicted to hearing the song "Closer" by NIN.

OTM
but you know for $20, said stripper will bounce on your cock for you

― sexyDancer, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:23 (eighteen years ago)

I second that OTM, people who like strip clubs have never explained successfully to me the appeal. xpost

― Will M., Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:24 (eighteen years ago)

xpost oh, so i can ejaculate in my pants. The joy.

― kenan, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:25 (eighteen years ago)

In my experience guys go to stripclubs for the benefit of other men, you'll have a group of 6 or 8 guys suddenly get the idea "Hey lets go to a strip club!"

Male bonding ritual or something.

― Siah Alan, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:25 (eighteen years ago)

There's certainly a lot of "Oh no torment torment must live up to perceived cultural expectations" going on amongst women, w/r/t porn AND le beauty myth AND you know, just about any/every conceivable aspect of appearence and behavior. And it's true that those cultural expectations appear by and large to be vomited up out of some vast inexhaustible well of "Keep Mr. Whitey on Top"--tho Ms. Whitey and all her friends of many colors, sizes, and shapes will happily dunk your head in the same damn bucket--But really honestly eventually women have to take responsibility for the larger part of their feelings of self-worth, sexual or otherwise, regardless of the "message" in the "media." FEELING degraded/devalued is not the same as BEING degraded/devalued.

haha the last line is stupid journalese - "but" "really" "honestly" the message people should get over it and take responsiblahblahblah is yet more libertarianism, but to what end?

600's points are mild and he is probably right about most people, though the bit about vanilla/demure is something to unpack. i don't think p0rn is liberating, really.

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:25 (eighteen years ago)

No, it's a masturbation aid.

― Abbott, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:28 (eighteen years ago)

primarily for men

― kenan, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:31 (eighteen years ago)

I love any sex thing called an aid, esp. 'marital aid.' Your circulatory system should be called 'an erection aid.'

― Abbott, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:33 (eighteen years ago)

Barebacking, 'an AIDS aid.'

― Abbott, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:34 (eighteen years ago)

I think Abbot's pretty OTM all over this - agreed about the strip club thing, which is really really weird and un-fun not to mention ludicrously expensive

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:34 (eighteen years ago)

I love aids.

But not AIDS.

― kenan, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:36 (eighteen years ago)

The one time I went, the girls were all like normal fakery smile to the guys and then all sat down with me, "OMG my fucking feet are killing me, no one's tipping, there were supposed to be only 8 girls and only 4 showed." The contrast there too just surrealed it even more.

― Abbott, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:38 (eighteen years ago)

I am girl ps. in case no one knew.

― Abbott, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:38 (eighteen years ago)

I got called stupid on the internet. I feel devalued!

― Chim Chimery, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:40 (eighteen years ago)

I've posted something longer before but an ex tried to explain that the strip club thing isn't primarily sexual, it's...more of a expedition to catalog the tits of a few more females of the human race. As in: a man spends his whole life having breasts concurrently hyped & sexualized beyond anything believable, and also having the sight of almost all of them denied to him. So strip clubs are just a way to chalk up sightings of another few pairs. I...I think he meant it at the time, but it still feels like bullshit to me...?

― Laurel, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:42 (eighteen years ago)

But breasts are for playing with, not merely observing, every man knows this.

― kenan, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:44 (eighteen years ago)

I'm curious about these arguments about porn damaging women's self-esteem - how does that work exactly? Assuming women aren't willfully exposing themselves to large amounts of porn (as opposed to, oh I dunno, women's magazines - which are ostensibly WAY WORSE and way more consistent in terms of creating unrealistic body image expectations) the mechanism for damaging their psyche would have to come from men demanding/pleading/asking/expressing wishes that they look more like porn stars. But I'm curious how much that really happens - I have a hard time believing there are that many men that would turn to their potential partners/girlfriends/wives and say "gosh thanks for having sex with me and everything but I wish you had fake tits, a bad wig, and an excessive amount of make-up on."

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:44 (eighteen years ago)

hahaha kenan OTM

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:44 (eighteen years ago)

xxpost also see, that's the thing, too... going to a strip club is like admitting defeat. It's like, well, this is as close as I'm going to get. Heavy sigh.

― kenan, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:45 (eighteen years ago)

Oh yeah, because women don't find fault with themselves until the man they're fucking points out that their tits don't pass the pencil test I mean c'mon. XP to Shakey

― Laurel, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:46 (eighteen years ago)

I'm curious about these arguments about porn damaging women's self-esteem - how does that work exactly? Assuming women aren't willfully exposing themselves to large amounts of porn (as opposed to, oh I dunno, women's magazines - which are ostensibly WAY WORSE and way more consistent in terms of creating unrealistic body image expectations) the mechanism for damaging their psyche would have to come from men demanding/pleading/asking/expressing wishes that they look more like porn stars.

porn has kind of entered the mainstream -- i think people here are slightly broadening out the debate here to images of women in general. public space is -- not *dominated*, but, you know, there's a lot of it -- by pix of airbrushed women.

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:47 (eighteen years ago)

I had a friend in college who was a stripper in a sad, lonely little club. Sometimes I would hang out there and play pool because whatever? (I was 19?) Men would come up to me and say, "Is that your friend? She seems like a really nice girl, she always smiles, I think she likes me." It was the saddest loneliest thing ever.

― Chim Chimery, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:49 (eighteen years ago)

I'm not willing to conflate other public images of women (magazines, TV, etc.) with porn - that's highly innacurate. You will find a WAY broader swathe of female body types in porn than you will in the pages of Mademoiselle or on television. Porn doesn't bother with the airbrushing - it goes straight to the T&A.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:50 (eighteen years ago)

(um x-post)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:51 (eighteen years ago)

and pix of airbrushed women, hyper-unrealistic idealizations, what-have-you - these predate internet porn by many many many years.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:51 (eighteen years ago)

Titty bars are just a liminal space, a watered down version of the cathouse, which upholds society's constraints by providing an alternative space where the rules are both different and clear. They're different from pornography in that it's not representation, it's a live event that is actually happening, even if its rules are different -- also a way that it's more like the cathouse.

― Eazy, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:53 (eighteen years ago)

I've posted something longer before but an ex tried to explain that the strip club thing isn't primarily sexual, it's...more of a expedition to catalog the tits of a few more females of the human race. As in: a man spends his whole life having breasts concurrently hyped & sexualized beyond anything believable, and also having the sight of almost all of them denied to him. So strip clubs are just a way to chalk up sightings of another few pairs. I...I think he meant it at the time, but it still feels like bullshit to me...?

I'd say that's mostly OTM for a lot of younger guys (not the dudes wanking in the corner or trying to talk a stripper into blowing him), with the addition that it's something you're supposed to do with the boys even if none of you don't particularly enjoy it. Like eating at Hooters.

Besides, strip clubs, in my experience, are the least sexual places on Earth.

― milo z, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:56 (eighteen years ago)

It's not that men make an issue of women's inadequacy compared to something else (necessarily), it's that men are the ones who SEE us with our clothes off, and who we are expecting/hoping to be attractive to. You could argue that women care more what OTHER WOMEN think about their clothes, and more what MEN think about their sexual presentation/display/physique in that context. In a very, very approximate, ballpark sort of argument.

― Laurel, Thursday, 3 May 2007 20:57 (eighteen years ago)

that all makes sense to me.

but it doesn't make any clearer to me the precise mechanism through which porn imagery supposedly adversely impaccts women's self-esteem.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 3 May 2007 21:04 (eighteen years ago)

I mean I'm pretty sure men are still being attracted to/having sex with real live women despite the availability of porn.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 3 May 2007 21:06 (eighteen years ago)

(Joe Matt excepted)

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 3 May 2007 21:08 (eighteen years ago)

I wouldn't say porn doesn't potentially screw up women's self-esteem. I would say: OVERCOME! And make your own porn at home! Also don't have sex with men who don't like real women (i.e. you), whether they watch porn or not!

― Chim Chimery, Thursday, 3 May 2007 21:11 (eighteen years ago)

Unless you like that sort of thing.

― Chim Chimery, Thursday, 3 May 2007 21:12 (eighteen years ago)

i would say that, but not everyone is a shit-kicking libertarian. also men lose out in this exchange, i think.

i'm not "anti-p0rn", but i don't think the amazing availability of it and the porniness of lots of non-porn pop-culture are without problems.

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 3 May 2007 21:31 (eighteen years ago)

dood I am not a libertarian

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 3 May 2007 21:32 (eighteen years ago)

Besides, strip clubs, in my experience, are the least sexual places on Earth.

I think this was MY favorite point in Levy's book! So OTM.

The 'women who are into porn/strippers for personal liberation' category, I think, has to be pretty damn teeny tiny. It can't extend to that many women who are a bit older than college-aged. It happens in certain subcultures, and I think even THEN you have to be into the aesthetics of it---all the girls I know (and many whose opinions I've read) who are looking to porn as this totally liberating, expressive thing are into suicide girls & that kind of dyed/pierced/tatooed look. It just can't encompass that many people.

― Abbott, Thursday, 3 May 2007 22:59 (eighteen years ago)

yep - those girls are well-represented here in SF (probably most publicly at the Lusty Lady, "the first unionized strip club in the world")

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:07 (eighteen years ago)

"We've got a sympathy strike---the Piano Tuners Local 412!"

― Abbott, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:12 (eighteen years ago)

The Lusty Lady in Seattle is a strip arcade, quite different from what most people think of as a strip club.

― Jaq, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:14 (eighteen years ago)

the Lusty Lady in SF is ... well I dunno what you'd call it. There's a big mirrored dancefloor in the center, and then there are all these booths that have windows that open onto it, like the peepshow setup in that madonna video.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:16 (eighteen years ago)

Strip clubs have a lot to do with power.

For men it can be a bit of a (subconscious even) power trip slowly feeding bills to a naked dancing woman. (this works both ways - women can get off on the power they have to make a man part with his cash.) The fact that it is real and live and there is body heat and occasionally physical contact and that it isn’t scripted and cant be played over again make it a completely different thing from porn, even if the guy goes home and masturbates.

― g®▲Ðұ, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:22 (eighteen years ago)

its called a "peepshow"

xp

― g®▲Ðұ, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:23 (eighteen years ago)

That clears a lot of things up for me.

― Abbott, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:27 (eighteen years ago)

actually, i take that back. it is the same thing as porn. i was just explaing the appeal.

for some people the argument is "why would i pay to wank off to a video of a girl who is only 2D on my tv screen when i can go and see the real thing in person?"

its no different from some people being into BBW and others into SM. different shades of the same thing.

― g®▲Ðұ, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:28 (eighteen years ago)

no I think there are some clear differences - the fact that its in public and involves groups of people being a big one.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:29 (eighteen years ago)

I just didn't understand the contradictory nature of the environment. Your post made me understand it a lot better.

― Abbott, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:29 (eighteen years ago)

xp to gradies

― Abbott, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:29 (eighteen years ago)

i'll concede that point but porn theatres pre-home video were too.

xxp

― g®▲Ðұ, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:31 (eighteen years ago)

internet porn makes a lot more sense on an economic level, however.

strip clubs be expensive.

only place ive seen a $12 ATM surcharge.

― g®▲Ðұ, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:32 (eighteen years ago)

xp - It's a peepshow or arcade. Patrons in private booths, dancers on the floor behind a glass window. No interaction between the patrons, so the "it's-a-guy-thing/bonding" element is removed, enough privacy for patrons to do whatever they feel the need to.

― Jaq, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:33 (eighteen years ago)

[url=[Removed Illegal Link] site of 'how to become a stripper'[/i] manages to take out ANY ideas of "Wow, whether or not this is liberating, I could totally make hella bank maybe even have fun!" that some women have, that I had at one point, that I did nothing about after I read this site.

― Abbott, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:34 (eighteen years ago)

(including give eachother BJs)

xp

― g®▲Ðұ, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:35 (eighteen years ago)

Oh dammit I mix up my tags:

http://www.stripper-faq.org/

― Abbott, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:35 (eighteen years ago)

^^^^way common

xp

― g®▲Ðұ, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:35 (eighteen years ago)

diff. kind of male bonding.

― g®▲Ðұ, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:42 (eighteen years ago)

I can't tell if you're talking about stripper blowjobs or two guys going at it in the heat of the moment.

― milo z, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:43 (eighteen years ago)

xp - ok guess that settles it

― milo z, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:44 (eighteen years ago)

i guess less at the ones with an actual peepshow and more at the ones where its just booths with videos...

but those are notorious cruising zones.

― g®▲Ðұ, Thursday, 3 May 2007 23:49 (eighteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.
Site New Answers Search Boards ILM ILE Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login