[sudo-discuss] Erotica and women's bodies

Sun May 5 01:22:26 PDT 2013

That study says nothing about whether masturbation does or doesn't replace
sex. It says that teens who masturbate more have more sex, which makes
perfect sense. These are things that you expect to see together, like
umbrellas and rubber boots, but you would never say that the umbrella
caused the boots, or vice versa. And this study says nothing about whether
sex causes masturbation or the other way around.
It also doesn't say anything about masturbation with or without porn
(although I wish it did).
Masturbation is all well and good, of course, but that's not sufficient to
explain why porn is well and good.
I'm super curious. I can't experimentally not watch porn and see what
happens because I already don't, but if any of you do, then you will be
able to tell me what you would be missing.
On May 5, 2013 12:43 AM, "Andrew" <andrew at roshambomedia.com> wrote:

> 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/20130505/21ca5d11/attachment.html>