Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
erosoplier wrote:I've been a promoter of the bonobo approach to social relations in the past - or have at least suggested it as a potential model - but I'm not so sure now.
No, in fact I take it back now. I thought I was being ruthlessly honest and mature, but I was just fantasizing as it turns out.
The bottom line is, humans bring a new layer of sophistication (or subtlety, if you prefer) to sexuality, and to look to Bonobos as an example is to take a step backwards.
*
As far as porn goes, if you removed all the porn that was done for money, and done for crude ego gratification and peer-pressure compliance, there wouldn't be much porn left to look at. I think that says a lot about porn.
If porn is liberating for women, I think it's quite sad that that, of all things, has become a means of liberation for them.
The modern day porn industry, amateur internet porn included, strikes me as being a product of partiarchy, one of its emanations, not as being something which, being only itself, works to weaken partiarchy.
Am I close to being on-topic?
FourthBase wrote:Depends if you think www.kenomacansuckmydick.com is a hot link.
kenoma wrote:FourthBase wrote:Depends if you think www.kenomacansuckmydick.com is a hot link.
You're quite the pricktease, FourthBase. As my cursor hovered over that link, I convinced myself you'd actually registered a website by that name.
Oh well, a boy can dream.
erosoplier wrote:The internet is first and foremost a technology which is wholly new to humans. It allows us to project our minds around the world, and project images of our naked bodies around the world too. The latter, apart from anything else it may be, is a new way to ego-trip. And I'd say that even for most feminist lesbians, the ego-trip is primary. And ego-tripping doesn't really do a whole lot on its own to improve the lot of women, that I can see.
And it sure as hell matters if someone is getting paid. If payment occurs, all things definitely aren't equal.
And I think I got you mixed up about what I'm not so sure about - I agree with you that monogamy promotes fairness.
FourthBase wrote:OP ED wrote:FourthBase wrote::lol:
Well, what's the female gaze, then? Do females not also stare at certain things, longing to possess them, lusting after their surfaces, fantasizing about them in self-centered ways? I don't get what makes the male gaze so uniquely abhorrent/tasteless.
because it is used by "manipulative men" to snare "hapless women". [quoting the article]
the "male gaze" stuff is usually confined to a critique of the advertising industry, although sometimes this theory is expanded to explain that the universe is unfair. this was a new concept for feminists in this century, apparently.
i'm still trying to think of a polite way to address this. any critiques of this theory, in my experience, meet supreme hostility from its gatekeepers, so one must be very careful.
Well, I'm all about feminism, as long as it means something, the more radical the better. This "male gaze" stuff appears to be the kind of relatively meaningless nagging that gives feminism a bad name.
But it's just absurd to post any particular porno clip or piece of erotica along with the suggestion that the demystification of female sexuality would be greatly advanced if only people realized that women could, if they wished, conform to some (or any) het-male erotic fantasy of unrestrained female sexual freedom. It's also another excellent example of what the male gaze actually is and what it actually does.
erosoplier wrote:Re. payment: If payment occurs, it's no longer simply about sexuality, it's about an economic exchange also.
compared2what? wrote:However, for the record, the original premise is, imo, just about as sexist as it's possible for sexism to get.
Well, I'm all about feminism, as long as it means something, the more radical the better. This "male gaze" stuff appears to be the kind of relatively meaningless nagging that gives feminism a bad name.
That is, first of all, practically my favorite statement by a male feminist of all time, and if I didn't already love you on your merits, I would love you just for the joy you gave me by actually saying, in effect: "I'm all about feminism, as long as the ladies confine their radical insistence on experiencing the world on their own terms strictly to things that are pleasing to me and stay away from that nagging shit."
Second of all, dearly though I love Op Ed, too, his understanding of the feminist implications of the phrase "the male gaze" is less than profound, as I'm sure he would himself be the first to admit. It's part of an idealogy that posits, very loosely speaking, that both genders subscribe to a worldview that assesses women, as a class, by standards that are sometimes superficially flattering and sometimes superficially demeaning, but in all cases, not standards they themselves set, or are empowered to set, or ever have been empowered to set. Your response is itself an excellent example of how unexceptional it is for anyone -- male or female, informed or uninformed, interested or impartial -- to tell women who and what they are and/or should be (or think, or feel, or believe.)
I personally have no problem with teh pron. I like pornography. Because it's hot. But it's just absurd to post any particular porno clip or piece of erotica along with the suggestion that the demystification of female sexuality would be greatly advanced if only people realized that women could, if they wished, conform to some (or any) het-male erotic fantasy of unrestrained female sexual freedom. It's also another excellent example of what the male gaze actually is and what it actually does.
Yet a third is the proposition, based on absolutely nothing other than some imaginary ancient matriarchy, that women are natural inhabitants of the peaceable kingdom, over which they should, therefore, assume their rightful and gentle rule, magically solving all the world's problems just by dint of the attributes you like to imagine they have.
That's superficially flattering to women, no doubt. But speaking only for myself, I don't really enjoy a compliment that locks me into an oppressive, burdensome, and exacting role in which I pretty much don't have any say at all wrt what my own identity is, let alone my own desires.
norton ash wrote:And posting porn is just a provocateur move. I don't need video evidence that women might enjoy double penetration (could be... ACTING!!!) as I have... errr... friends who have told me this is so. And one of the best ways to demystify female sexuality is to ask a woman about hers.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 150 guests