Thinking Sex: Pornography Forum
Comments are posted in the order in which they are received,
with earlier postings appearing first below on this page.
To see the latest postings, click on "Go to last comment" below.
Go to last comment
|Pornography: "Only Words?"|
Name: Anne Dalke
Date: 2003-10-03 11:29:16
Link to this Comment: 6781
This week we'll be talking about pornography: bringing to class examples of what we identify as fitting that category, reading a range of theoretical essays about its power (positive and negative), and then sharing with one another....
our (tentative, temporary and always-revisable) answers to the questions raised by these experiences. Tell us here what you are thinking.
Date: 2003-10-03 23:46:29
Link to this Comment: 6789
I just finished doing our reading for next week and have come out of it feeling kind of torn (which is probably the point?). I actually worked a few summers ago for Off Our Backs (which Allison mentions wrote a nasty article about her) and they still hold their anti-porn position, which I remember feeling conflicted about. They showed me a copy of On Our Backs, the lesbian porn magazine, and pretty much described it as trash. One woman who worked there told me that sex should be like a hug--and that that would end rape, because a hug wasn't about power. This sounded nice to me, but quite a bit unrealistic...and incomplete somehow. Yes, sex can be like a hug, but it can also be a lot of other things...including playing power games.
MacKinnon's article appalled me, as it was meant to. I did feel that she was a bit over-dramatic in certain areas, especially the opening paragraphs in which all manner of torture is carried out. But the fact remains that women are abused in the making of porn and that porn sometimes does inspire violent acts. (You could argue that porn substitutes for violent acts as well--the person masturbating to the video doesn't need to carry out the contents of that video in real life because he can live it through the fantasy portrayed on the screen.) My first thought as I was reading the MacKinnon was that the porn industry needs to be regulated--not abolished altogether. No matter the contents of the material, no one should be harmed in the making of it (like mainstream violent movies). And I was asking myself as I read the MacKinnon what percentage of women making porn really are abused? As Rubin argues, MacKinnon makes it sound like every bit of porn is violent and abuses the women who make it, but this may not actually be the truth. I think this is an incredibly important thing to find out because I would object less to the contents of porn than to the conditions of its production.
I think Rubin makes a great point that many laws, works of literature, etc. are sexist but that we don't abolish the whole industry/genre. Another point she raises that I had also wondered about in the MacKinnon is whether porn is really the CAUSE of women's oppression. Yes, of course it helps it along, but how can it be the cause when it hasn't really been around that long? Women are oppressed in so many other areas of life besides sex that porn can't be pinpointed as the only cause.
One place that I felt Rubin fell a bit short was in her response to the allegations of abuse and coercion of women into the sex industry. Yes, perhaps I too am biased against sex workers, but really, how many of them enjoy their work? Women may choose to be erotic dancers because it's better than a minimum-wage job (or in addition to their minimum-age job) doing something else...but in constrained economic conditions, can this really be called a free choice? I think there need to be studies of the demographics of sex workers to find out how much abuse really occurs...because right now it feels like writers like MacKinnon and Rubin directly contradict each other not only in their opinions but also over basic facts.
Finally, I think porn and erotic materials can add a lot to someone's sex life and sexual consciousness, and if only for that slightly personal reason, I would be very hesitant to condemn the whole industry.
Name: Ro. Finnn
Date: 2003-10-05 21:53:35
Link to this Comment: 6801
I share some of Sarah's reactions to the reading for Tuesday. I do not feeling aligned with either article on pornography and what to do/not do about it. They represent two extremes and do some serious arm waving of pseudo facts to support their respective positions. I find it disturbing that the need to prosecute crimes of violence and coercion--irrespective of the context in which they occur--is glossed over, while the target of the debate cannot even be defined.
If I separate the crimes of violence and coercion from the commercial exploitation of women and then work to eliminate/minimize/prosecute the crimes, isn't this better for women--without sacrificing civil liberties? Maybe i'm being too simplistic here. I find some advertisements far more injurious to many more women than that which is branded as pornography. I'll bring on to class on Tuesday and we can debate the point if you like.
Date: 2003-10-06 08:30:18
Link to this Comment: 6805
...and furthermore, now that I've slept on it (dangerous jargon in this discussion ;-)...
is it only words? Porn comes at us primarily in the form of photography (including video), and this makes the subject all the more complicated for me, as a photographer.
First, there is the issue of consentual vs. coerced production. That should not be muddled in with the other questions swirling around the topic. Crime is crime. Of course, just as race horses are more valuable and therefore, attended to better than draft horses, so have we devalued and largely ignored the women who are the victims of these physical and mental crimes.
That aside, there is the issue of that which is private being taken to a public arena. Nudity is not such a private issue...many societies publicly display all manner of body parts, and this is normal. Taking that thought further, some societies openly practice sexual behavior and acts of sex (whatever those involve). And what we have grown accustomed to doing publicly is not so erotic...we take it for granted. Think of fashion in Victorian times versus now. Then, a glimpse of ankle was erotic. So, if pornography must--by definition--carry some shock value that transports its voyeurs to some state of sexual arousal, then that which is pornographic shifts over time...all of it, not just the titillating, fringe representations of porn that exist in our museums and literature. Hang with me here....;-)
If porn is porn only in context of the prevailing social mores and mannerisms, then how can we possibly think about legislating against it...any of it? OK, so if it should not be banned--given that our freedoms will be seriously at risk if we ban a moving target--then whatj--if anything--needs to be done? What effect does this eye candy have on its makers and viewers, anyway?
Now, to make these abstractions concete...If a woman comes into my photo studio and says, "I want to make some nude/erotic pics for my boyfriend," the first thing that strikes me is the public versus private feeling that--OK, we can do that, but I don't want to bump into you on the street afterwards. I want you to fade into some vague anonymity. It's too risky to you for me to imagine anything else. Photos are immediately public, no matter their intended distribution. They have "legs." They get around. So, I'm wondering to myself, is it better to put a bag over the subject's head, hide her identity? Is it less pornographic if I do that? And my gut says YES. So, now I'm thinking that the most damaging forms of porn are those in which the subject's identity is clearly visible. Hmmm.
But why should that be an issue? Well, there's an "inside/outside" situation kicking in...she is immediately the female "other"...not my girlfriend, wife, sister, mother, etc. She is devalued below the women I just listed and is at risk. What I'm saying is that I suspect the logic that says porn injures all women by objectifying them. Rather, porn fragments women...is a major wedge against women's solidarity, and it is that which I am intuitively sensing when I think through my concrete example.
And I'm still thinking....
|silence, fear & power|
Date: 2003-10-06 12:32:01
Link to this Comment: 6809
After reading Dorothy Allison's piece I began thinking about the effects of silence, fear and power. The woman in the beginning of the article was terrified of turning her sexual desire into words. Allison acknowledges that this woman will never again speak to her because the mere articulation of her "sick" desire put her into such a position of vulnerability ("she would always feel vulnerable to me"). Is this a common sentiment - do women fear that owning up to their sexual desires will render them weaker, more vulnerable, powerless? Let's consider it. A sexual woman in our society is a scary woman - look at the way the token woman in the "bad guys" group is portrayed (think mob bosses girlfriend). She is downright slutty. This becomes clearest in cartoons - evil women wear excessive makeup, short skirts, tight blouses, have voluptuous figures - all features intended to imply evil. We are taught to fear the sexual woman, to identify her evilness. her badness, in order to maintain an image of "good woman" as quiet, modest, servile, helpless. Consider the extremely negative feedback Allison had for offering her private desire to the public. The consequences for articulating her sexual desire in a public conference (on sexuality) were ridiculous! Put Allison challenges silence. She asks us to consider support groups, particularly lesbian support groups. Most of the time individuals sought validation of their sexual desire and practices as "normal", or rather not "perverted", "sick", "twisted", etc. This is not surprising considering that our society stigmatizes sexuality as dirty and repulsive (inherently evil), so of course a strong sexual desire would be internally questioned. I own my sexuality, I am proud of it. I've reclaimed slut as a symbol of my not being afraid of my strong sexual desire - of ANY woman's strong sexual desire. A sexual woman is not a fiend or evil, she is human. As with the AIDS campaign, Silence Equals Death, I believe that loudly bringing sexual desire (in its many forms) to the public arena is integral to embracing sexuality as healthy and natural.
Date: 2003-10-07 14:09:24
Link to this Comment: 6821
I wanted to jot down a few reactions to the discussion while they're still fresh in my head.
I did a little experiment on Yahoo when I was looking for something to bring to class. If you search under "pornography" the top ten results are sites about protecting children from pornography and ending addiction to porn. I found it interesting that this was the result of the search instead of endless links to adult websites. It is only under searches for "sex" and "sexuality" that actual adult websites come up. The questions of the use of language comes up again.
I'm also rethinking my own "definition" of porn as something that causes arousal.I think it's problematic. I was thinking about the last time I saw my boyfriend and how arousing it was to watch him cook dinner. There was nothing sexual about his actions but I was really aroused by it. Does that make it pornograpic?
I wrote down the word "artifical" when people were discussing the production of pornography. Striking certain poses and looking at the camera create this picture that pornography is somehow artificial in its representation of sex. Is pornograhy not real sex?
On a side note to comment on the reading, I'm already biased against Catherine McKinnon. I may be wrong, but I think she's the writer who said, "All heterosexual sex is rape". ???? While I think she had some fabulous little snipets of sentances, I was really concerned that she confined pornography to heterosexual sex. What about gay porn? Is that sexist? Male-Female sex is really just a small portion of pornography, just as Rubin points out that her examples of violent sex acts are not representative.
However, her article did make me question the growing popularity with voyeurism. There are certainly types of voyeurism that is consentual like web-cams but during my search, I noticed a lot of "hidden camera" sites where the women who are being videotapped have no idea that they're on camera. And what about taking pictures/videos with your lover and then having them put them on the internet without your consent, is that okay? It seems that these non-consentual acts should raise more alarm than consentual pornography.
Date: 2003-10-07 14:58:07
Link to this Comment: 6824
I have to admit that I have been feeling torn between two different thoughts surrounding our discussion of pornography. In certain ways I definitely agree with Ali in that I think more women in our country need to claim their own sexuality. All too often we repress our desires, and are taught to believe that our sexuality is in some way gross or something to fear. As Dortothy Allison said in our reading in reference to her Lesbian Sex Mafia group discussions, "Women talked about years of celibacy, self-hatred, rejection, and abondonement by lovers, helplessness after rape or incest, social censure and street violence, family ostracism, and-overridingly-the fear of what our desires mean." (108).
Yet in certain other ways I don't necessarily agree that pornography is the answer to channeling our innermost desires, not because it does not or should not arouse us, but because I think certain forms of pornography completely objectify the woman. I agree with the statement that Anjali made in class today, that some women look at posing in Playboy as an extremely powerful experience. Yet I cannot help thinking how much power can a woman own when she is viewed strictly as sexual? Many of the women at Bryn Mawr have had to explain to male "outsiders" that Bryn Mawr is not a school full of girls who have sex with each other all the time. While it's nice to know that Bryn Mawr is an accepting campus sexually, do we want to be known for only that?
I like the idea that Anne brought up in class today about how women working in the porn industry often view their job as just that. So it makes me question, are the women who work in porn industry channeling their desires, or are they just looking for a paycheck like mostly everyone else in this world?
Hmm, I think I may be feeling more confused after writing this response than I felt prior to writing it. I guess the point I am trying to get across is that I don't necessarily feel completely comfortable looking at women objectify themselves when I don't necessarily know that that is what they really want to be doing with their lives. More power if it is :).
|Pornography: What is it? What does it Do?|
Name: Anne Dalke
Date: 2003-10-07 17:33:22
Link to this Comment: 6835
(As promised): a record of the range of definitions of pornography which we generated in class today, as each of us explained why-and-how we had chosen the representative sample we'd brought to class:
- the objectification of women
- explicit, "out there" portrayal of sexual acts/pictures of people having sex
- something of "local interest"(!)
- something "ruled obscene"
- differs from erotica (which teases/titillates) in its degree of shock value/offensiveness
- differs from erotica in its lack of "aesthetic sense," its lack of "style that appeals," its lack of "expression of creativity," its not "looking good"
- turns us on (and is intended to): a subjective experience
- creates an unconscious/physical/physiological response in our bodies, without our minds
- crosses the "fine line" from romantic and sensual
- looking @ it we feel "forced"; it is assaultive
- it is not pleasurable to the person posing
- emphasizes a power dynamic
- is not humorous (which implies a distance)
- depends not on the sex acts portrayed, but on the activity of production: were the women aware that they were being taped? what legal channels did they have for complaints about their images being used without consent?
- the performer is aware of the viewer and directs her activity/attention toward her; her "knowingness" is key
- the arousal occurs on the part of the performer (a flasher, for instance), not on the part of the viewer (the child/woman being flashed)
- what is central is the both the intent of the maker AND the reaction of the audience
- a "cheap thrill"
- "just sex," with no portrayal of love or a relationship
- exploitation of a woman who is unhappy about her use; the risque quality is less important than the act of manipulation for gain
- the performer has a sense of sexual power
So, out of that list, what have we learned? What can we say?
What is pornography?
Is it good or bad?
Should it be advocated for/improved/legislated against? controlled? policed?
What fears motivate our descriptions of and reactions to the use of pornography?
What norms guide our behavior and responses?
Date: 2003-10-07 18:11:44
Link to this Comment: 6836
With regards to someone's question above: I'm not positive, but I thought it was Andrea Dworkin who said that all heterosexual sex was rape. She and MacKinnon appear to collaborate on many things, so it's possible that they were both authors of the text that included that wonderful line. :-/ I actually heard it for the first time during my internship at off our backs, and thank goodness the women working there stopped short of agreeing with it (although they thought MacKinnon and Dworkin were right about a lot of other things)...that made me REALLY uncomfortable and angry. It's completely insensitive to straight women who feel that they are in fulfilling relationships with men and dismisses any sense of power a straight woman may feel herself to have.
Date: 2003-10-07 20:26:39
Link to this Comment: 6838
If pornography is to be controlled, where will the policing stop? What will be constituted as pornography (i.e. Sex Education? Books? Videos?), which types will be legislated against, will policing boundaries be extended with time? Will the advent of these rules bring on rules against things that are clearly not considered pornography, such as straightforward violence in the media, etc.?
The more you try to establish boundaries, the more obscure they get. Pornography and erotica are, after all, words, abstract, made up by humans, and only become defined and bounded when individuals absorb them and give them life.
McKinnon and Rubin argue from two extreme perspectives about pornography, and I find myself caring less and less about "pornography" and all that it entails, whether it should be encouraged or policed. Have they failed to convince me of their reasonings, or have they beat the discussion to death so that I am too confused to care?
I am wondering how other people reacted to their two articles, having to read them one after the other.
|porn: good or bad or undefineable?|
Date: 2003-10-08 01:16:04
Link to this Comment: 6841
I really disliked reading MacKinnon's article. It was meant to be upsetting and almost assaulting and it was... for me. One comment that I wrote in the margin was "I feel like while I'm reading this, my body is being violated."
However, I got to thinking about things I'd forgotten, my own experiences with porn. I remember a documentary (?) vaguely that I once saw on snuff films. It was an undercover type of thing. For some reason, as a child, I thought that pornography and sex work was empowering for women. I am now comforted knowing that my sister thought similarly; her biggest dream was becoming a prostitute in LA – romantic, isn't it? Seeing the expose on snuff films turned my stomach and made me rethink my previous views on pornography, supported by shows on the Playboy mansion and the 'glamorous' lives of the models. I remember that while I was watching the documentary on snuff, my aunt turned to me and made a comment along the lines of, "See, no matter how bad you think it is inside these walls, it's worse out 'there'."
When I was much younger, my relatives thought that showing us (my cousins, sisters, and I) pornographic videos, etc was positive. They wanted to make sure that we "turned out" straight. (It didn't work in some cases...) It was very important to them, especially due to the kind of lives that we led, that the "kids" not get turned off of heterosexual intercourse. I wonder about their thinking and I am also wondering what I thought at the time. Unfortunately, I cannot remember. Although, I guess my belief that pornography was empowering for women shows to some degree the effect of my early and continuous exposure.
I also remember once watching a show (and I believe that this was only a few years ago) about a woman who was a former sexworker/ stripper/ dancer, or something of the sort who was "past her prime". She gave classes on how to sexualize/ sensualize women. Her clients ranged between the ages of early twenties to early fifties, and the majority consisted of suburban, middle-class women. She "taught" them how to be sexual through movement, posture, dancing, and shared stories about her own experiences. At the time, I thought that it was extremely saddening that women felt the need to attend these classes. Yet, although I was upset by what I thought to be this woman's exploitation of her clients and the coercion of a society that makes women believe that they must "be" a certain way in order to appear "sexy", I do remember a part of myself kind of wanting to attend a class too... which appalled my feminist identity.
Thinking of porn as fantasy for the consumer, I wonder if that is necessarliy "bad". We all fantasize, and some/ a lot of people use pornography to do so. Amber Hollibaugh addresses the idea of fantasy in a dialogue that she has with Cherrie Moraga:
"The real question is: Does it actually limit you? For instance, does it allow you to eroticize someone else, but never see yourself as erotic? Does it keep you always in control? Does the fantasy force you into a dimension of sexuality that feels very narrow to you?" (Hollibaugh and Moraga, "What We're Rolling Around in Bed With")
They are actually having a discussion about sex as a language, etc. It's very interesting and I think that this addresses an important point about the consumer/ fantasizer...
As for the people who direct and produce and pose/act for porn, I don't know what I'm quite thinking about that at this point. The same goes for the question of censorship, etc. Maybe I'll get back to you all...
|a should-be feminist accepting patriarchal roles|
Date: 2003-10-08 19:54:28
Link to this Comment: 6852
The main problem I find with the MacKinnon article is that it reaffirms unhealthy sexual gender roles. For MacKinnon, all women in pornography are necessarily victims. Pornography is an "industry in buying and selling captive smiling women" (5). And further, she implies that all women are abused due to pornography: "You develop a self who is... aggressively passive and silent – you learn, in a word, femininity" (7). She also asserts the theory of uncontrollable male libido. This unrestrainable sex drive is unleashed, she claims, by pornography and causes men to rape women. "The message [of pornography]... is 'get her,' pointing at all women... This message is addressed directly to the penis, delivered through an erection, and taken out on women in the real world" (21). Not only is this argument simplistic and mislead, it ultimately endangers women by relying on patriarchal sexual roles that deny women sexual agency.
Her argument seems to be fueled, as Allison says, by fear of sexuality, or at least heterosexuality. Porn by its nature victimizes women, she says, because the women involved are economically/socially forced into the work. "Empirically, all pornography is made under conditions of inequality based on sex..." (20). But, MacKinnon also thinks that men and women aren't equal at all in society. Does she also think, then, that all heterosexual sex victimizes women, since women in our society are in an inferior position? (Actually, I guess she does... and that's just scary.)
Date: 2003-10-09 01:34:22
Link to this Comment: 6858
Forcing us to verbalize our definitions of porn really helped me think through the discomfort I felt with this assignment. As I stumbled through my thoughts in class and started to form the realization that the shocking, assaultive, non-permission-asking nature of internet porn was what was really bugging me, I definitely felt better about the whole porn issue. I certainly did not want to feel as disturbed as I did at the beginning of class when I felt as though I just hated porn in general, and class really helped me see how individualized porn can be. We all brought in so many different forms of porn I was able to find some in our selection that I could imagine "working" for me. Anyway, good class.
|porn is like the last ingredient.|
Date: 2003-10-09 07:30:11
Link to this Comment: 6859
I'm grateful to Megan for broaching the topic of vouyerism, which I think is the essential component to pornography. If I may offer another definition, pornography is the material post-production results of recorded sex expressions with a particularly vouyeristic bent. Participation in the use of pornography does not directly involve the actors or producers (in the general sense of the terms, also writers/musicians/painters etc.). This would lead me to distinguish pornography from sex work by the degree of direct involvement the sex performer has with the sex worker.
Thinking about this vouyer quality, which is useful in articulating desires when desires are inconveniently socially unacceptable, illegal, expensive, etc., I wondered: is pornography a substitute for sex? An additive? An artificial flavoring?
Date: 2003-10-09 07:34:00
Link to this Comment: 6860
Chagrin for spelling voyeurism incorrectly, and using it so frequently.. My apologies.
|"porn" vs. "porn---ography"|
Date: 2003-10-09 22:20:57
Link to this Comment: 6872
Our discussion in class today really made me start thinking about the word "pornography." I began to wonder exactly what the background of the word was, as I thought it might give me some more insight into its meaning. (Who ever thought "porn" could be so complex!?!?!?!) So after class, I decided to do a little bit of research and I wound up finding this commentary (from the website http://www.panikon.com/phurba/alteng/p.html):
Pornography - "Material Intended to Arouse Sexual Interest." From the French "pornographie" of the same meaning. First, "pornography" meant only writings intended to arouse sexual feelings, hence "graph" as in "graphology" ang the like. It later expanded in meaning to denote any material intended to arouse sexual feelings, written, visual or otherwise. The French version derives from "pornographe" meaning one who writes pornography, but its original meaning denotes someone who wrote about or chronicled prostitution or prostitutes. It probably dates back to the Greek "pornographos" = "the writings of harlots."
Interesting....so originally, the term "pornography" was used to describe erotic writings...not images. Although the definition was later "expanded," according to this site, to include images and other materials meant to evoke sexual feelings, I would argue that today, most people think of porn as dealing with pictures and videos--- explicit images, in other words. If you look on the internet for "porn" on google, only pictures come up; there is no mention of stories whatsoever. Finally, after doing some more research through trial and error, I discovered the buzzword people seem to be using to describe sexual writing nowadays: "erotic stories," or "erotica." NOT pornography. Just thought that was interesting. Personally, I believe that writing can be just as evocative as graphic images... in fact, maybe more so for some people. Like Ro was saying on Tuesday: poems can sometimes do a better job of speaking to people- maybe it's because the message is condensed into such a small amount of words, which makes it more ambiguous and appealing to the emotions (read: the subconscious) and therefore more meaningful to the individual.
Anyway, I am curious as to how porn (or pornography, take your pick) will evolve over time. What new forms of erotic material might this term be "expanded" to encompass in the future? We've got video, pictures, cartoons/ anime, stories, poetry, and magazines--- what's next?
|somebody gave porn a bad name|
Date: 2003-10-16 23:35:45
Link to this Comment: 6902
i think pornography has the sole purpose to get a person sexually arosed. there are some thinks, like erotic photogrhapy, that can be seen as arosing and as artwork. however, i think that the intention of the person making the pornography counts alot.
i think that because pornograhpy has the intent to get you arosed it has been seen as dirty and nasty and taboo. however, pornoghaphy does more that get people arosed. it can also be helpful in letting us know that we are not weird, and that others share our desires.
so, since most people on this forum and in general have seen porn, i wonder if it is getting less and less taboo. i remember being a teen and boys i knew bragging about owning porn. and on south street people nonchalantly walk in and out of store that sell sex toys and porn videos.
is this adding to crime? is this corrupting the youth? i dont think so
|What turns me on...or what I find sexual.|
Date: 2003-10-17 09:06:01
Link to this Comment: 6905
A few people mentioned the idea of empowering women through porn, as opposed to MacKinnon's view that it necessarily disempowers women (is disempower a word??). I do not think it *always* does one or the other, but I do think it can do both. Let me explain:
Yes, it IS true that many times women may pose nude or sell their bodies, etc., etc., because they need money for food, shelter, their kids, drugs, whatever. Yes, it is true that we may not know when these women are posing for the aforementioned reasons or for some other personal reason, but that does not mean that ALL women are doing it for the aforementioned reasons.
In my opinion sexuality does not have to be something that is taken from you or forced on you or forced OUT of you. For many women and men sexuality is something that they use to empower themselves. Just like intelligence or strength, sexuality can be something we take hold of and use to propel ourselves forward, to make ourselves feel better, to form a place for ourselves in this world. I mean, honestly, who says that the woman who is extremely sexual, who any man (or woman) would want to touch, sleep with, be with...isn't just as powerful as the most intelligent woman or man in this world? After all, she can control that person to the same degree that she might be controlled by that person...or anyway, that is how I see it.
In relation to that and Playboy (which I do agree is porn, but not necessarily *bad*) how many of the women that pose for the magazine have other jobs where they are already successful? Oftentimes, the centerfold is some actress or model or even a businesswoman (it has happened!). These women engender power not JUST through their positions, through their jobs, but also through their sexuality.
Let me also mention that I don't think sexuality is JUST a naked body. Who of us hasn't been caught off guard and a little turned on (excited? surprised?) when we see our good friend in her new suit, which happens to accent her body perfectly, match her skin tone superbly, with her makeup on expertly in such a way that it accents her subtle highlights...okay, so maybe we haven't all seen a good friend in this way...but I have and speaking from my experience, it was quite sexual to see a woman looking both intelligent, put together and corporatey (i just made that word up, can you tell?? as in working for a corporation...executivey?) What I'm saying, in all my blabbing, is that sexuality can even be the woman dressed up for an interview, it can be the nice clothes, the baggy clothes, the makeup, the non makeup. It can be the way we look, act, etc. I hope this all makes sense. Nothing I say ever makes sense. Anyway, I've blabbed enough about sexuality. I wish I was sexual...hahahahaha.
Oh, and no, I'm not a lesbian...but yes, sometimes I'm turned on by my friends. They're hot ;)
Date: 2004-02-04 09:37:22
Link to this Comment: 7960
legislation! whew arent we just presumptuous. subjuctivity and consentuality are both key here.
seeing my girlfriend naked is arousing....
ok no surprises. touching ny girlfriend in a sexual way is arousing. ...sounds right....but if i take a picture of her and look at it and get aroused, and then touch myself, then i am evil and objectifying.
hey, where did the sexual openness go.....oh, out the window.
firstly no one can tell us not to photograph each other, its concentual, its private, no else is involved....it happens. secondly if we ourselves dont view these feelings as inherently evil or dirty then why promote the "self loathing" that you seem to be aganst. no woman should ever be forced, corerced, blackmailed ect. into doing something she does not want to do. period. as long as that is not the case then the choice is a choice.. when a choice is concentual and the perception of the goodness of the act is subjective, then you can never limit it. even if you dont like it.
being male i find it hard to get many women to hear this point. but it usally comes up after i hear some tirade about womens sexaul repression.
repression??! icant tell you how many books, events, groups that i have come across touting about how women have nothing to hide about ther sexual feelings. "sexually empowered women arent sluts" "be cunt positive" ect. but as a male i feel as though there is this expectation that i should have something to hide. indeed the many "desires" i have heard expressed in these outlest arent all that different from mine. but these same expressions of desire comming from me or other men have been met with critisism.
that dosent seem to equal to me.
Date: 2005-01-24 14:43:14
Link to this Comment: 12190
I looked up the other night the definition of pornography, which lead me to the definition of prostitution. My question applies specifically to X-XXX pornos inwhich the the actual sex act is filmed. What is the legal and ethical difference between this kind of pornography and prostitution? Is there a difference between a 1st person paying a 2nd person to perform a sexual act (prostitution) versus a 3rd person paying 2 or more individuals to have sex to make a profit(pornography)?
Date: 2005-03-24 09:21:22
Link to this Comment: 13963
just don't ever think about pornography, then your life will be better.....
| Serendip Forums
| About Serendip
| Serendip Home
Send us your comments at Serendip
© by Serendip 1994-
- Last Modified:
Wednesday, 02-May-2018 11:57:32 CDT