[sudo-discuss] Erotica and women's bodies

Sun May 5 12:47:44 PDT 2013

seriously? because for men sex is purely physical right? Thanks for telling
me how I experience sex, I had no idea.

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss at gmail.com>wrote:

> mmm according to conservative readings of the bible, all non-reproductive
> sex is sinful. masturbating and pulling out are both sins, and in that way
> equivalent. So if you want to throw around the 'puritanical' label, it
> would have to stick to the idea that masturbation and sex are
> interchangeable, and not the idea they they are two pretty different types
> of activities.
>
> Other women should pipe up here, but the only people who have ever tried
> to tell me that "masturbation is a type of sex" have been men. No,
> masturbation is not sex. In the same way that vitamin pills are not food.
> Masturbation is a thing too thoroughly inferior to sex to be classed with
> it. I guess, from a male pleasure point of view, they are equivalent, if
> you cum from sex or you cum from jerking off, you cum, who cares, but they
> are not equivalent from your gf's pov. I would 1000% prefer my partner to
> cum from fucking me than from jerking off. I get nothing out of him jerking
> off, if he fucks me I will almost surely cum.
>
> The idea that we should make more porn (for women!) has always struck me
> as an example of men thinking women should be more like men. Maybe women
> aren't that into porn, not because there's not that much porn that women
> like, but because porn is lame and boring. Maybe instead of women going
> against their natures and learning to enjoy passively watching other people
> have sex, men should go against their natures and learn to enjoy closing
> the laptop, picking up the phone, waiting 15 minutes for your girl to come
> over, and then fucking her.
>
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 1:58 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne <g2g-public01 at att.net>wrote:
>
>>
>> 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> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 
-------
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/e28f78b4/attachment.html>