[sudo-discuss] Erotica and women's bodies
GtwoG PublicOhOne
g2g-public01 at att.net
Sun May 5 01:58:37 PDT 2013
Sonja, Andrew, and Yo's-
Whoa there! All this about "masturbation replacing sex" reinforces an
artificial duality that's ultimately founded in puritanism, in which
masturbation may not be "sinful" but it's "not real sex."
To paraphrase an old Campbell's Soup ad, "It's Sex for One and that one
is you!"
What I personally find bizarre as hell, is the degree to which our
culture is so couple-normative, and the degree to which sexual coupling
is normalized and expected as the primary axis on which lifetime
relationships are based. This when there's a near-infinite range of
potential upon which humans could base their relationships.
Have you ever seen a couple that appeared to you to be either overtly
dysfunctional or just plain weird in the manner of "what the hell could
s/he possibly see in him/her?!" The answer usually turns out to be "in
bed," as in: they may be totally incompatible in all other ways, but
they have some unique kink in common, or just screw like mad weasels,
and apparently that's enough to keep them together.
Under all of this is the genetic competition algorithm, that dates back
to bacteria but seems remarkably incapable of producing humans with the
intelligence needed to overcome war, climate change, and all the other
forces of our own making that threaten our near-extinction. In an era
where "the cybernetically-enhanced human" is a common cultural meme,
surely we can do better!
Anyone who thinks that their precious genes are something special (or
that there is any such thing as a superior race), is in for a rude
awakening: we share well over 99% of our genome with chimpanzees and
bonobos. Selfish genes helped us get from our birth as a species to the
point where our survival was assured. Since that time we have
overpopulated and overconsumed the planet, threatening our own continued
existence within our lifetimes.
It's time to move beyond obedience to algorithms that no longer serve us.
-G.
======
On 13-05-05-Sun 1:22 AM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <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
>
>
>
>
> --
> -------
> Andrew Lowe
> Cell: 831-332-2507 <tel:831-332-2507>
> http://roshambomedia.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130505/9c60f118/attachment.html>
More information about the sudo-discuss
mailing list