[sudo-discuss] Erotica and women's bodies

Sat May 4 21:01:04 PDT 2013

Let's start a cuddle porn company.
On May 4, 2013 8:38 PM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <g2g-public01 at 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 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
>> > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> 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/ab5f9bc9/attachment.html>