[sudo-discuss] Erotica and women's bodies

Sun May 5 00:43:37 PDT 2013

Sonja,

I disagree with your views on masturbation. For one, I don't think that
masturbation causes people to have less sex. Here's a study a found by
googling I'm sure there is more data to back up the fact that masturbation
does not reduce the amount of sex someone is having.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/womens-health/articles/2011/08/01/study-tracks-masturbation-trends-among-us-teens

It is also just, in general a healthy practice.

second, I can masturbate without porn, and with porn (as can most people).

I really believe that part of being sex positive is also being accepting of
masturbation as natural and healthy.

--Andrew

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:25 AM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss at gmail.com>wrote:

> Yeah .... so what if you didn't have anything, and you couldn't
> concentrate. Would you give up? Maybe the first day. Maybe even the 2nd
> day, but eventually you would be able to masterbate on your own I bet.
>
> I'm a girl and never encountered very much porn I liked at all. I *guess*
> a solution could be to make porn a girl would like, but my solution was to
> have sex instead, which has been overall great. It's forced me to get in
> contact, and stay in contact, with people I otherwise wouldn't have. Making
> porn that girls like, so they can join men in having an activity that
> allows them to have less sex, seems antisocial and a step backwards.
> Yeah the more I think about this the more absurd it seems that a crowd
> that is interested in expanding the audience for porn would overlap with a
> 'do-acracy' hackerspace crowd. Watching porn is watching, not doing.
> On May 4, 2013 7:53 PM, "Andrew" <andrew 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> 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> 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> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Can I get a link for this gonorreah story?
>>>>> On May 4, 2013 6:42 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>>>>
>>>>>

-- 
-------
Andrew Lowe
Cell: 831-332-2507
http://roshambomedia.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130505/80b7f26d/attachment.html>