[sudo-discuss] Erotica and women's bodies
GtwoG PublicOhOne
g2g-public01 at att.net
Sat May 4 20:38:25 PDT 2013
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 at att.net <mailto:g2g-public01 at 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 at lists.sudoroom.org
> <mailto:sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130504/8efb8de5/attachment.html>
More information about the sudo-discuss
mailing list