rigorousintuition.ca

Oh, and Jeff, still waiting for a response on the board to the violation I reported. I understand the impetus behind it may not exist, but you better believe I still expect a response from you, if only to prove a point. Thanks.

FourthBase wrote:... the violation I reported.

Sounds hot. Got a link?

Depends if you think www.kenomacansuckmydick.com is a hot link.

Oh, and while you're at it, Jeff, perhaps in your guidelines you could give everyone a good reason for a ban on all porn links, since I received nothing of the sort from you or the other mod. I respect you enough to obey your wishes in the matter, but I still think you owe us a good reason.

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?

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.

I would go back to being not so sure. You were closer to reality.

There are plenty of reasons for humans not to act like Bonobos en masse. Read the book The Moral Animal. Sexual egalitarianism winds up becoming, in the real world as it is today, the opposite of egalitarianism. The closer humans on the whole are to one-on-one coupling, the fairer it is. There is a sexual economy, and widespread serial monogamy is like that pyramid-ish scheme in the other thread. Note the qualifiers, though. En masse. On the whole. Widespread. Because I still think that those whose egos can withstand it, should probably consider unconventional sex structures.

*

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.

It says a lot about the porn industry. Not porn itself.

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 majority of porn is far from liberating. Hence my posting a rare hardcore link where the actress, who was surely paid (and who cares if she was paid, that's irrelevant all things being equal) -- was still surely enjoying an act most would perceive as degrading. Ti-Grace Atkinson said (in the past, may not be relevant today) that prostitutes were the most honest women around. And when you think about it, porn in which a woman is paid to have sex on film, is basically prostitution. Prostitution, another poisonous industry where the thing itself isn't inherently bad. As long as the choice involves full consent, it can even be an act of power. "Sure, I'll fuck you...on one condition." Lysistrata, as the prostitute.

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.

Amateur amateur porn? Like, even porn produced by amateur feminist lesbians?

Am I close to being on-topic?

Very close.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Personally, why I look at porn is to trip in The Other's ego. If you call that ego-tripping...? I get off on the vicariousness, on seeing another person enjoy themselves. The whole time, of course, I'm enjoying myself too. But the primary ego-trip is not my own. And it takes me about an hour to find even a handful ( ) of porn clips I find erotic, because the vast majority of free porn clips on the internet are vile and soulless and exploitative and frankly, scary. I shudder (no lol) at the thought of human beings finding most of the shit out there attractive.

And it sure as hell matters if someone is getting paid. If payment occurs, all things definitely aren't equal.

Again, it depends. If payment occurs, the power could be more (or all) in the hands of the payer, or it could be more (or all) in the hands of the payee, or it could be cancelled out in neither's hands. It totally utterly depends on the situation. As it is now in the real world, sex for payment is usually a situation where a woman has little to no power and is getting screwed, violated, degraded...and not enjoying it.

And I think I got you mixed up about what I'm not so sure about - I agree with you that monogamy promotes fairness.

Ah, now I understand. I hear you.

I've stopped looking at porn because a) a "trip in The Other's ego" morphed into "living an artificial reality" - I started to feel that I was just kidding myself, pure and simple; and b) because even though I had no partner at the time, I wasn't being fair to any potential partner by looking at porn. (After all this, it turns out I want to be a square! ). I guess it's something you could share with a partner, but you're right, you've got to sift through a whole lot of dross before you find something that isn't an insult to one's sensibilities.


Re. payment: If payment occurs, it's no longer simply about sexuality, it's about an economic exchange also. So I think I'm just trying to make the profoundly obvious and impossible point that today's porn industry would collapse and become something completely different if no money were allowed to change hands. And that it would be a good thing if it did.

I am so sorry that I'm too busy to take this thread on right now. However, for the record, the original premise is, imo, just about as sexist as it's possible for sexism to get. Remember this?

FourthBase wrote:

OP ED wrote:

FourthBase wrote:

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.

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.

C2What:

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.

Very well put. Unrestrained female sexual freedom is a scary thing in the muddled hangover stage of the crumbling patriarchy.

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.

Although everybody lies about sex anyway, so we invent a mythology that suits-- or more often darkly mirrors-- where we most like to be touched.

erosoplier wrote:Re. payment: If payment occurs, it's no longer simply about sexuality, it's about an economic exchange also.

Not to be cynical, but it already is, overt payment or not.

compared2what? wrote:However, for the record, the original premise is, imo, just about as sexist as it's possible for sexism to get.

If female supremacy (even just a little bit) is sexist, so be it.

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."

No, it's just: Aren't there more important things to be nagging about?

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.)

You know, at some point, people just have to stop being sensitive to getting their feelings hurt and or wanting to be totally 100% autonomous and just focus on getting shit figured out, whoever's doing the figuring out, no matter why, however imperfect the figuring out is always going to be. Who the fuck cares who is doing the assessing, all that matters is whether the assessing is right. Sister.

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.

The demystification of the female situation, and some of its problems' possible solutions. Who the fuck cares whose fantasy it is, but if you must insist, I'm sure there are some very free women whose fantasy that is, and the whole point is based on female sexual choice. Please do everything you possibly can to realize that wherever you think I've erred because of some intrinsic sexism, is wherever you've misunderstood. Understand me better. This is definitely an excellent example.

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.

So women don't have estrogen?
And the existence of Bonobos is magic, imaginary?

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.

Then, with all due respect, you probably need some metaphorical deep dicking.

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.

Oh fuck off. Everything that's provocative is provocateuring? Great, so go the fuck ahead then and never allow yourself to be provoked into anything.

AND IT WASN'T ACTING AND THE VIDEO EVIDENCE WAS THE ONLY THING THAT COULD SHOW THAT WAS THE FUCKING POINT OF POSTING THE LINK AND YOU MIGHT AS WELL HAVE ASKED THE WOMAN IN THE CLIP ABOUT HER SEXUALITY THEN AGAIN THERE WAS NO NEED TO SHE WAS TELLING YOU LOUD AND CLEAR.

But yours is great advice. Ask a woman, demystify sexuality.

Jeff, if you post another thing anywhere on this board before addressing the violation, realize I quit. It's not coercion. It's a condition I'm setting. All I've got is my membership here to bargain with. But realize, I'm not joking or even slightly exaggerating.