[sudo-discuss] Erotica and women's bodies
GtwoG PublicOhOne
g2g-public01 at att.net
Sat May 4 21:07:40 PDT 2013
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 at roshambomedia.com
> <mailto:andrew at 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 at gmail.com
> <mailto:sonja.trauss at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> Or less representation of sex altogether. What does anyone
> need porn for?
>
> On May 4, 2013 7:10 PM, "Andrew" <andrew at vagabondballroom.com
> <mailto:andrew at 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 at gmail.com <mailto:sonja.trauss at gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Can I get a link for this gonorreah story?
>
> On May 4, 2013 6:42 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> <mailto:sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org>
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130504/6c1d5ef7/attachment.html>
More information about the sudo-discuss
mailing list