[sudo-discuss] Erotica: superiority and inferiority.
GtwoG PublicOhOne
g2g-public01 at att.net
Mon May 6 02:45:50 PDT 2013
Sonja & Yo's-
Uh - you're still stuck on superiority/inferiority, which is the nexus
of the problem, and generalizes far beyond one's choice of partners and
hands.
The latest example is the word "subpar," which means "less than equal."
It may be that _for you_, a hand is "less than equal" compared to your
partner. But the way you've been wielding the language is ontological
with an imperative tone, rather than personal, starting right here:
"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."
That statement is radically different to the following: "For me,
masturbation is hardly as satisfying as sex with my partner."
The two statements are as different as "X isn't music, it's animal
noise!" vs. "X doesn't appeal to me, I like music that's more Y and Z."
Sex and sexuality, along with religion, politics, and a few other
things, are intimately connected to peoples' identities. Saying "My
form of sex/sexuality is superior, and yours is inferior," has the same
effect as saying "My form of religion is superior, and yours is
inferior," and the immediate association, thus implication, is "I am
superior, and you are inferior." Whether that association and
implication is strictly logically justified is beside the point: it's
the natural human response.
Atheists in particular can relate to that example: often being subjected
to "if you don't believe in God, you don't have morality," from
religious fundamentalists. For that matter, Jewish children have (and
still are) often subjected to "if you don't believe in Jesus, you're
going to Hell!" from their nominally Christian classmates in school.
Admittedly, bringing the statement down from the level of ontology to
the level of personal preference, carries risks. Saying "I prefer my
partner to my hand," might get others speculating and gossiping, "does
this mean that so-and-so's partner is a super-duper sexual athlete?, or
does it mean that so-and-so's autoerotic technique is barely at
'beginner' level...?"
As with religion, saying "My moral code is based on my belief in God,"
might get others wondering, "does this mean that so-and-so's religiously
inspired morality is consistent and uncompromising?, or does this mean
that so-and-so only refrains from robbing & murdering because s/he's
afraid of going to hell?"
But if anything, those kinds of speculations are more likely when
someone proclaims the superiority of their own preferences by using
language that makes ontological statements of "what is," rather than
personal statements of "my preference."
A statement of personal preference is the more convincing mode of
expression: a report of an empirical fact of one's own experience, a
small nugget of one's own reality that nobody else can judge or deny.
But sweeping generalizations about others' experiences are at high risk
of easy refutation, and once skepticism takes hold, the rest of what
went along with those generalizations also becomes questionable.
-G.
=====
On 13-05-06-Mon 1:28 AM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
>
> Uh - you're confusing an inferior experience to with an inferior
> person. You should judge yourself however you like, but it wouldn't
> have occurred to me to judge myself poorly for experencing something
> subpar. Like, sometimes I eat mealy apples, I say, 'ew I hate this
> apple, I will throw it away' it wouldn't have occurred to me to say,
> 'i am less of a person for having experienced that subpar apple.'
>
> On May 6, 2013 1:19 AM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <g2g-public01 at att.net
> <mailto:g2g-public01 at att.net>> wrote:
>
>
> Sonja & Yo's-
>
> Not absurd, it's in the language you used: "thoroughly inferior"
> and "classed with it." Those are strong words, and unequivocal
> words.
>
> Translate to housing and it sounds like the way home-owners often
> put down apartment-renters. Speaking of which:
>
> "There are lots of reasons people in single-family homes don't
> have gardens or don't have them much, and ways that
> apartment-renters can have gardens, although having a garden is
> easier if you have a house...."
>
> In context, that sounds like an attempt to back out of a dead-end
> in an arguement, but as long as the "thoroughly inferior"
> statement is not repudiated, the subsequent statement also comes
> across as condescending.
>
> The problem here is with "superior/inferior" and "class." You can
> call this a class-struggle.
>
> One thing we ought to do here is break out the subject matter:
> porn and masturbation and relationship status ("status" in both
> senses of the word, heh) are not the same things. It's good that
> porn is starting to evolve in a direction that's more appealing to
> women, and less engaged with sexual power-dynamics. It would also
> be a good thing if there was a reasonable balance between genders
> and sexualities in terms of percentage of people who play with
> themselves (I don't have the numbers offhand). And it will be a
> great day when "relationship status" isn't equivalent to "status."
>
> But the fact is that we live in a culture of sexual phocomelia.
> For those who don't know the word, it refers to the
> (otherwise-rare) congenital disability that was famously caused in
> large numbers by thalidomide, whereby people were born with no
> arms or legs, their hands and feet attached directly to their
> trunks. Someone with phocomelia has a uniquely difficult time
> eating, because they can't reach to pick up their own food and put
> it in their own mouth. One way to solve this is with a partner,
> where each person picks up the food for the other, and puts it in
> the other's mouth.
>
> Our sexual culture is like that: it starts from the assumption
> that you require another person to meet a basic physical need.
> From that assumption, applied to sexuality, comes all of the weird
> power-dynamics around sex. And while it may be true for
> reproduction (plus or minus cloning), it's not true for love
> (which has avenues of expression other than sex), and for the
> neurochemical benefits (read: pleasures) and other health benefits
> (such as reduction of risk for prostate cancer in men) of sexual
> stimulation and orgasm.
>
> The Abrahamic religious traditions, originating in cultures that
> were harshly oppressed at the hands of the powers-that-be of their
> times, had to conflate reproduction, love, and pleasure, and seek
> to control the latter to ensure the former, else they would not
> have survived. That conflation persists in the mainstream culture
> to this day, where it's the equivalent of a state of civil
> emergency after the hurricane has long since passed.
>
> -G.
>
>
> =====
>
>
>
> On 13-05-05-Sun 11:43 PM, Sonja Trauss wrote:
>>
>> No that's absurd. There are lots of reasons ppl in relationships
>> don't have sex or don't have it much and ways single people can,
>> although it is easier if you have a partner.
>> Also, comparing options means you must have them - if you don't
>> have access to sex then you don't have access to it. Comparing it
>> to masturbation, or comparing it to camping, or to pie, or to
>> music, it's moot.
>> The whole conversation hinges on the notion that you have access
>> to both, which I think more people do than realize it.
>>
>> On May 5, 2013 10:00 PM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne"
>> <g2g-public01 at att.net <mailto:g2g-public01 at att.net>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sonja, Andrew, Et. Al.-
>>
>> So now the implicit assumption goes explicit:
>>
>> "Masturbation is a thing too thoroughly inferior to sex to be
>> classed with it."
>>
>> The necessary and inevitable corollary to that is, "Single
>> people are thoroughly inferior to coupled people." Care to
>> argue that point?
>>
>> It wasn't long ago that us queerz were also subjected to
>> "Homosexual sex is a thing thoroughly inferior to
>> heterosexual sex."
>>
>> Inferior by way of "immoral," and for the longest time (and
>> still, in many places), illegal. In a wide swath of the
>> world, I can go to prison for who I love, and in a slightly
>> less wide swath of the world, I can get beheaded in the
>> public square or hanged by the neck at the end of a crane
>> borrowed from the Public Works Department (as is the custom
>> in Iran, 16-year-old queer guys included, go search BBC.com
>> for that story).
>>
>> Comparisons based on assertions of one's own superiority and
>> others' inferiority, are the last refuge of the will-to-power
>> mentality that is exploitative, oppressive, and ultimately
>> insecure of its own niche in the human social ecosystem.
>>
>> In any ontological sense, arguements about the superiority
>> and inferiority of personal matters of taste among consenting
>> adults, are groundless, pointless, and ultimately meaningless.
>>
>> Would anyone care to argue whether rock is better than rap or
>> vice-versa, or whether jazz is better than country & western
>> or vice-versa, or whether playing a piano, harmonica, guitar,
>> saxophone, or banjo is better? Any such assertion of
>> "better" (and its necessary corollary, "worse"), is nothing
>> more than a linguistic confound of the phrase "I prefer."
>>
>> I prefer music X, sexuality Y, and pizza with Z on it.
>>
>> I have no need to prove to anyone, that any of those things
>> are "better than" music Q, sexuality R, and pizza with S on
>> it. And I will fight for the right to full equality among
>> people who prefer music X or Q, sexuality Y or R, and pizza
>> with Z or S on it.
>>
>> It will be a great day when people stop seeking to dominate
>> each other over matters of personal choice and personal
>> taste. It will be an even better day when people stop
>> seeking to dominate each other altogether, aside from
>> consenting adult dom/sub play;-)
>>
>> -G.
>>
>>
>> =====
>>
>>
>> On 13-05-05-Sun 12:29 PM, Sonja Trauss 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 <mailto: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
>>>> <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/20130506/671f8962/attachment.html>
More information about the sudo-discuss
mailing list