[sudo-discuss] Erotica and women's bodies

Sun May 5 01:57:25 PDT 2013

Porn is an enhancement for people who get bored.  It can also be
inspiration.  But, people have been masturbating without porn for
centuries, so it's not a requirement.

I do think it makes some people's lives better.  Not a huge fan myself...

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss at gmail.com> wrote:

> Then what is porn for?
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing list
> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>

-- 
Cheers,

Rusty Lindgren
**
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130505/6c5392e2/attachment.html>