Author
|
Topic: porn for women
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361
|
posted 16 January 2002 12:37 AM
I've seen very few lesbian-made porn films, though dyke porn fiction and photography can be very good (thinking of On Our Backs magazine as an example). Alternately, it can be truly dreadful.Of the porn I've seen, gay men's is certainly the hottest but not every woman is turned on by that. Straight porn tends to be silly in my opinion. I'm always reminded of Erica Jong who said about watching pornography, "After the first twenty minutes, I feel like going home and screwing. After the next twenty minutes, I feel like going home and never screwing again." As to the objectification of women, I don't necessarily think that it's wrong to present the female body as an object of desire. As a queer woman, the female body is the object of my desire. Perhaps what is objectionable in much straight porn is that because it's created for the male gaze, there's no balance. There's not a shift in view to allow the man to be seen as the object of desire. Because of that, there's no interplay - only the woman is seen as desireable, the man is incidental. And how much of a turn-on factor can that possibly have for the average straight girl, who sees men as the object of desire? Little to none, I'd guess. Personally, I find the written word far more exciting than any film or photograph. But for sexy, woman-positive examples of both check HerCurvemainly for queer and transgendered women or Sexilicious for straight, queer, transgendered, etc, etc, women and their friends/lovers of any gender. And, as a little p.s. - re: Loretta's distinction between porn and erotica. To me erotica has a sense of softness, of watered-down-ness. Flowing gauze draperies, and such. Porn, on the other hand, sounds like a good, hard bang. In my humble opinion, most of our lives have space for both! oh, and p.s. #2 - the porn industry might not be less exploitative if women ran it - it would be less exploitative if good employers who may or may not happen to be women ran it.
From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 16 January 2002 08:38 AM
Welcome to babble, skadie. I am skdadl. We are going to have a lot of fun giving oldgoat (also known -- to me -- as Spring Chicken) a run for his money. quote: I spent a minute or so under the misapprehension that the poster of this thread was Skdadl!
Spring Chicken, you don't think I'm as susceptible to getting all hot and bothered as all the fresher, cuter grils around here? You have not seen the finesse with which I've dispatched Li'l Jimmy Flaherty repeatedly on this board, and yet still have him coming back for more? Sadly, actually, you are right -- but for the wrong reasons, oldgoat. I take skadie's topic entirely seriously. If I'm feeling a little distanced from the erotic at the moment, it's not because I'm old, you guys; I'm just resting for a bit. The older I get, actually, the more interested I become in the ways that desire can come and go, as it were. I feel I am seriously out of date, though, not only in the supply terms that skadie raises but more in terms of the theoretical and political issues that andrean breezes through so charmingly. I would be happy to sit at her feet and take instruction in these things for a while. I don't like exploitation, but I really like both sex and art, and I think it's important that women lead in the reinvention, rejuvenation, re-creation of both.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130
|
posted 16 January 2002 12:54 PM
Hi skadie, and welcometo babble. If someone named Little Jimmy Flaherty should ever come panting after you, just give him a good solid wedgie and stuff him in the nearest locker.Well skdadl, SHOCKED I was, to think of someone of your *ahem* dignified station in life to be speaking of such things!! Seriously though, Porn and Erotica; was there ever anything so subjective and in the eye of the beholder. As evolved and enlightened as I like to tell myself I've become, I will never shake the early guilt inducing influences of the nuns, priests, and a stern grandmother, which haunted my formative years. I have to agree with the above, that it is an issue of exploitation. If all involved in the production of porn or erotica are adults, doing so with informed consent, and no one gets hurt, then go for it!! And yet... can a woman allow her body to be used in such a manner, to have such intimate images produces for public consumption without a psychological price to which she can't predict or give informed consent. Maybe consent is given under the duress of limited circumstances. A voice in the back of my head says that this is somehow pathological. Is this voice just the echoes of the nuns, priests and my dear old Gran?? Maybe,... I honestly havn't a clue, so go ahead and enjoy. My doubts needn't be the doubts of others. [ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: oldgoat ]
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Trinitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 826
|
posted 16 January 2002 02:46 PM
Hmm.I found a Walk in the Clouds really boring... no offense vaudree! Why can't we just have a really good story line that just so happens to have long and involved sex scenes? No cameras between the legs and junk like that, just sensuous, consentual, athletic? loving sex. Hmm? Have any of you seen Red Shoe diaries? I've seen them a few times, they're "geared" for women.
From: Europa | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 358
|
posted 16 January 2002 02:53 PM
Gynomite: Fearless Feminist Porn is available from New Mouth from the Dirty South. quote: Containing work by Nancy Agabian, LJ Albertano, Liz Belile,Lee Christopher, Jane Creighton, tatianna de la tierra, Shaila Dewan, Ammi Emergency, Maggie Estep, duVergne Gaines, Gwynne Garfinkle, Amber Gayle, Michelle Glaw, Tammy Gomez, Trish Herrera, Olive Hershey, Melissa Hung, Sassy Johnson, Miriam R. Sachs Martin, Mary McGrath, Pia Pico, Andrea Roberts, Carlisle Vandervoort, Pam Ward and Diana Wolfe. This is more than just a collection of dirty stories. This is a milestone document from an ongoing movement to change the world, one orgasm at a time.
[ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: Adam ]
From: MurderHouse Nation | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Trespasser
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1204
|
posted 16 January 2002 05:40 PM
And there's, of course, the big debate in lesbian/queer/alternative sexualities feminism that could be summed up as Kink vs. Vanilla. Pat Califia, Dorothy Allison and Gayle Rubin are on the side that argues that S/M can be liberatory -- er, nevermind. If I go down this road, I'll end up in too detailed descriptions. I heard Anais Nin wrote womanist pornography but I've never read it. I've only read Henry and June, which left me disappointed. AndreaN mentioned Erica Jong - now that brings back teenage memories. The only book of hers that I liked was The Fear of Flying, and that one was the least sexually explicit of all. Most sexual episodes in her other books sounded somehow phoney and for commercial purposes. (Well, other than perhaps the scene in which she's making love with a guy on the day she gets her period - I think the title of the book had Parachutes in it.) Her account of having sex with a woman in another book was appalling. Bad, bad stuff. Who else? I think that Jeanette Winterson and Ann-Marie MacDonald have some interesting things to say about a woman's desire for another woman (and surprisingly Jonathan Franzen). Visual representation... Difficult to think of anybody. They say that Emmanuelle series is friendly to women's tastes, anyone seen it?
From: maritimes | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 16 January 2002 10:37 PM
The Webster's dictionary explains the difference between between erotica and pornography this way: Erotica is what turns me on. Pornography is that awful, disgusting stuff that turns you on.Kidding. That's my deffinition. The porn for women thing is a kind of chicken and egg argument. Do women shy away from porn because it's for the most part male orientated? Or is it for the most part male orientated because men are more attracted to it? I tend to think it has something to do with the differences between the genders. Men do arouse more quickly, so photographs would seem to cater to their sexuality. Literature might appeal to female sexuality better. Then again, Penthouse "Forum" is a popular feature with men, and that's literature of a sort. I read the "Beauty" series by Anne Rice. I didn't find it boring, but her shotgun approach to the various aspects of BDSM sexuality had me humming and skimming through some passages. For those like me looking for clues into the submissive mind though, it proved interesting. And, there were some images Rice conjured that stick in my mind. Some for good reasons, some for not so good reasons. Anais Nin's book "Delta of Venus" opens with a story of incest. I didn't find that anything but appalling. And in fact more shocking than Donatien Alfonse de Sade's "Euginie de Franvalle", a gothic tale if there ever was one. I read Nin thinking it might be an insight into female sexuality, but in retrospect, I'm sure that was wrong. It has to be remembered that Nin used to write porn at a dollar a page, on order from customers. It could be many of her stories were fantasies not from her head, but from the heads of male customers. What comes from Nin in that book might be guessed at, but we are never sure. And there was great debate over the book "The Story of O" because it was published anonymously. The debate was over the gender of the author. Was it a book written by a man, from the prespective of what he'd want a woman like "O" to think and feel? Or was it written by a woman, the sexuality a reflection of a certain kind of female mind? I read the book with that in mind, trying to see where I'd have come down in the debate. Hard to do when you know the truth ahead of time. But yes, there are clues both subtle and not so subtle that the author was female. Pauline Reage, who passed away not too long ago. Even porn made by and for women today can't escape the influence of what has come before, and what has come before is pornography geared towards men. It should be fun exploring this. As an aside, my prefered porn (I don't go spellunking on line as much anymore....it took about three years, but finally, I seem sated) doesn't usually include nudity. My favorite "Porn" star: Betty Page. And, I prefer pornographic photo's to be done in black and white, not colour. [ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 16 January 2002 11:00 PM
I read about half of the Story of O, and found it the most disgusting, degrading piece of trash I had ever read. I would be willing to bet a man wrote it. I think submissive fantasies are quite common among women to some extent (I don't remember where I read that, so sorry, no source), and I know there is a broad range of submission that turns different women on (from no submission at all to very submissive). But I have never met a woman yet who has read The Story of O and enjoyed it, or thought that it had any redeeming qualities. I'm usually pretty open-minded about the stuff that makes sexual fantasies. My own tend toward the more submissive rather than dominant. But that book - well, I don't think I've ever read anything so misogynistic in my life. Bar nothing. That book was a total turn off. In case anyone hasn't read it and wonders what I'm talking about, the text is here. Don't say I didn't warn you.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 16 January 2002 11:24 PM
While your conclusions are right on, I'm preplexed at your condemnation.The "Story of O" wasn't a primer, it was a cautionary tale, a tragedy. Arg, I have to go to work. Get mad at me and I'll answer tomorrow. [ January 16, 2002: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 16 January 2002 11:29 PM
Who was it a cautionary tale for? Women? I'm not sure I agree with you there, Tommy. The sex scenes are constant and very detailed - that seems more like whacking material than big-sisterly advice, you know what I mean? Judging also from the many "Story of O" sites I saw over the course of a few minutes while looking for the text of the book online, it was a sexual fetish book that is read for pleasure (at least by the people running the fan sites) rather than a sexual dystopia.But maybe I'm reading it wrong, I don't know. As I said, I've only read half of it, and someone else told me how the book ends, so I can't say I've read the whole thing. But from what I read, it seems more like the intent is to arouse, not to warn.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Ian the second
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 732
|
posted 17 January 2002 12:07 AM
Well I'll be darned. I'm pleasantly surprised by the overall tone of this thread. I wouldn't have thought that the Canadian feminists on babble would actually have anything but a totally negative view of pornography. I'm so shocked I'm almost inclined to take up the anti-porn argument and never masturbate again. But let's face it, that's never going to happen. And yes it is my opinion that porn and masturbation goes "hand in hand" if I may use that term, because masturbation almost always involves some form of fantasizing, and I think you'd have to use a purely technical, rather than esthetic, definition to say that porn doesn't. Like I say, gals. I like this thread alot. I like it so much I'm going to read and reread every sinewy sentence while I touch myself. I [ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: Ian the second ]
From: Toronto City, Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 17 January 2002 01:01 AM
quote: I'm pleasantly surprised by the overall tone of this thread. I wouldn't have thought that the Canadian feminists on babble would actually have anything but a totally negative view of pornography.
Um...thanks...I think? quote: Like I say, gals. I like this thread alot. I like it so much I'm going to read and reread every sinewy sentence while I touch myself.
I'm almost speechless. I'm so glad I read this at home and not at the 'pooter lab at school - I'm pretty much doubled over laughing right now.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vox
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2033
|
posted 17 January 2002 10:28 AM
i thought that the whole "porn = objectification of women" one to one reductive ratio had been thrown out the window by now.gimme some jemma jameson any day! *rowr*
From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Slick Willy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 184
|
posted 17 January 2002 11:07 AM
quote: Just watching people randomly screw without much of a story is about as erotic as Animal Planet.
You and me baby ain't nothin but mammals so let's do it like the do on the Discovery channel. A while back I made a very unscientific discovery that, at best is obscure. One night my wife and I were watching the tube and landed on the Pride channel. Here we found a group of guys getting all frisky and what not. Now I, like all the guys I have talked to, quite enjoy watching two (or more) girls getting together for a little hunt and peck, but watching two guys doing the same thing has just about the opposite effect. So I says to the wife I says, "Whoohoo! Now if that isn't just the thing a girl could get into watching, what is?" So my wife told me that this was not interesting at all to her. That got me thinking a bit, so at the next few adult parties we went to, I posses this question to my female peers. Do you find watching two women making love exciting, and does watching two men have a similar effect? Every woman I asked agreed that watching two women was exciting but two men in the same situation was a turn off. Now I have no idea where the attitudes of the other members of this board reside, but I would like to ask if people of both genders feel more comfortable watching two women together than watching two men, while in the company of others? And if so, how come?
From: Hog Heaven | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
andrean
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 361
|
posted 17 January 2002 01:54 PM
I know I'm repeating myself, but... quote: Of the porn I've seen, gay men's is certainly the hottest...
The boys certainly know how to do it up right! I'm not quite sure why more women don't find men together appealing - to me, it's a logical progression. One man is good, well, two should be better! That's how I feel anyway, though I'm an equal-opportunity prevert. However, I know a few straight women who feel, not quite threatened per se, but certainly superfluous in the presence of gay men. The basis of their "power" in interactions with men (i.e. their sexual attractiveness) is removed and they can find that unsettling. I can imagine that feeling being carried into viewing guy porn - the feeling of being replaced as the object of desire. Perhaps for some folks the pleasure of watching porn is imagining what's happening on the screen happening to themselves. The opportunity for that doesn't exist for straight women in gay men's porn
From: etobicoke-lakeshore | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian the second
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 732
|
posted 17 January 2002 02:06 PM
Fag hags don't feel "superfluous" around gay men, and I don't feel superfluous around lesbos. Not that I'm a (what's the opposite of fag hag, "lesbo Joe"?). There are a couple theories about why men like seeing lesbo sex. If a guy doesn't have to jump in and have intercourse, he can sit back and spank off. Also, it might represent a challenge to the straight man. Straight men often "hunt" for their women. I've discussed at great length with my mom what the socio-anthropological origins of the fag hag are... any ideas? I
From: Toronto City, Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 17 January 2002 02:23 PM
[re: The Story of O] quote: I read the book with that in mind, trying to see where I'd have come down in the debate. Hard to do when you know the truth ahead of time. But yes, there are clues both subtle and not so subtle that the author was female. Pauline Reage, who passed away not too long ago.
Just to add a little data... 'Pauline Reage' was actually a pseudonym for a woman named (I think) Dominique Aury, an author and editor well-known in French literary circles. The New Yorker had a feature on her a few years ago, while she was still alive I believe. I hadn't heard about her death since. If I remember right, it wasn't so much a divertissement for her lover, as a love letter or attempt to seduce her editor, whose name escapes me. I haven't read the book, so I can't comment on its literary merits, but it was supposedly agreed to have some -- why the s/m stuff, particularly, I don't know, and can't recall the explanation(s) in the New Yorker feature.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 17 January 2002 06:46 PM
Michelle,Perhaps I didn't read the book the way others might, it's hard to say. I didn't find too many passages in it erotic or arousing. I spent the entire book trying to figure out what it was I thought was missing from "O". I don't recal any indication that she enjoyed her masochism for it's own sake. She endured for her love.....and I question that she loved anyone in the book, but was in fact a slave to the concept of love. That was the master she served, and, it seemed to me, would aquiese to the whim of the figure she was fixated on at the time. And, who could love such a person? who could find that erotic? Who could find it anything but contemptable? The thing that I found "missing" from "O" was her imagination. There wasn't a hint that the character had one of her own.
And such a person is of no interest to me. The fact that they might offer up their body as some kind of paltry substitute for imagination is sad.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 17 January 2002 08:25 PM
quote: I think you might be right, though I've recently come (pardon) to find the idea of gay male sex rather arousing indeed.
everbody dance now ! (boom, boom, boom boomboom.) I reviewed a gay porn cite that a friend of mine has just got up and running. He wanted to know how it worked mechanically, and I also tried to let him know my impressions of it in terms of "porn". I thought I'd be quite useless at that, but in fact when I got the feedback from him about my feedback, it seems to me there are constants in porn/erotica that transcend orientation. Sure, garters and stockings might be traded in for athletic socks and white jockey shorts, but it's still fetish, and even if one doesn't find it arousing, one can still understand the art of the erotic photograph, and the subtleties that make a good shot are the same whether it's for straight or gay erotica.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 17 January 2002 08:30 PM
quote: Sure, garters and stockings might be traded in for athletic socks and white jockey shorts, but it's still fetish, and even if one doesn't find it arousing, one can still understand the art of the erotic photograph, and the subtleties that make a good shot are the same whether it's for straight or gay erotica.
Sex is sex, way I look at it, and erotica's erotica. I'm almost certain that white jockey shorts and athletic socks won't do it for me, however. Garters and stockings typically don't either, come to that. Ptui! on cliches. [ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
skadie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2072
|
posted 17 January 2002 08:45 PM
I have yet to figure out the quote thing that you folks do so effortlessly, but here goes:skdadl, we must have a lot in common. It excited me too! __________________________________________________ andrean "The basis of their power in interacitions with men (ie. their sexual attractiveness) is removed." Ian the Second "Straight men often "hunt" for their women." Boy, am I disillusioned... Thanks guys. _________________________________________________ Tommy_Paine "gay straight or Nova Scotian." NOW THAT'S COMEDY!!!! Loved it.
From: near the ocean | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 17 January 2002 08:50 PM
skadie, to quote you can highlight the text and copy it. Then when you're posting your reply, look below the window to the "instant formatting" options. Clicking on the Quote button gives you two open and close quote codes, thus: [ QUOTE ] [ /QUOTE ] (I added spaces so they'd appear in this message as text). Put your cursor in between, paste in the text, and there you are. Edited to add: But where are my manners? Welcome to babble! [ January 17, 2002: Message edited by: 'lance ]
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
meades
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 625
|
posted 17 January 2002 11:34 PM
quote: There is no room for white socks in my porn. Or anywhere else in my universe. They are a fashion crime against humanity. And heaven help all those straight boys who wear their socks (and nothing else) to bed - they will pay for it in their next lives.
y'know, I have to agree. ------------- What? You thought a 15 year old could stay out of a porn thread? You people have some serious delusions about today's youth ------------- I also find the clichés so absolutely horrid. As for the porn vs. erotica- there's definitely a difference. "porn" is something you hear straight high-school boys shout the minute they see nudey pictures- and keep repeating it; usually every other word in the sentences after the initial discovery- and with special emphasis to boot, as in "PORN!". Erotica, however, is much more sophisticated, and I would classify anything above whacking material, that is still sensual as such. [ January 18, 2002: Message edited by: meades ] [ January 19, 2002: Message edited by: meades ]
From: Sault Ste. Marie | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 18 January 2002 02:02 PM
quote: There is no room for white socks in my porn. Or anywhere else in my universe. They are a fashion crime against humanity.
Agreed. Although... confession time? I do sometimes wear white socks at the gym, though I've begun to cast about for a reasonable alternative. But then some of my gym wear might qualify as a fashion crime, if not necessarily one against humanity, were I to wear it in the public streets. quote: And heaven help all those straight boys who wear their socks (and nothing else) to bed - they will pay for it in their next lives.
Agreed II. But, based on no experience with straight boys/men whatsoever, I can't help but feel that the frequency of this occurrence is wildly exaggerated (like, for example, the number of hockey players who ever lost an eye to a stick with an un-taped butt end). Quite understandably, of course. Perhaps I credit straight boys/men, as a group, with more sense than they actually have. (That's understandable too, I submit). And naturally, I'll defer to anyone else who cares to comment.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 18 January 2002 02:44 PM
Hmm. So many thoughts... quote: This is the secret about sex without love: You need more stimulation every time, whether it's rubber slings, bondage, six-year-old fluffers or German shepherds.
Well, that's certainly true. Though six-year-old fluffers have rather small jaws. Er, I'm told. quote: and without porn, it is entirely arguable, there would be much much less disease, much less cervical cancer, AIDS, Hep C to G (G!), and the populations of Africa and now China, would not be in the process of decimation. Babies are raped in South Africa because ignorant men think sex with an infant can cure you of AIDS.
The scourge of porn is probably behind the rise in Islamic fundamentalism, as well. To say nothing of retreaded 1970s fashions. quote: Mick Jagger was, for most of my generation of men, the opinion makers anyway, the bomb. He was the model of ideal manhood, snaky hips, and rubbery lips and outlaw sex drive. Last gossip I heard had this grandfather sodomizing a stranger in the public bathroom of the Viper Room, so let's not kid ourselves that if half the middle class, educated white boys of the '70s wanted to be him, the entire population of Third World males, without the alternative satisfactions of ambition, accumulation and a happy family to distract them, would take Jagger's behaviour and the advocacy of outsize sexuality in his music as imperatives. The summer of love has become the scourge of the Third World and we are responsible. There are at least 50 new STDs since Mick Jagger came on the scene, and unlike 40 years ago, when syphilis was as rare as a white elephant, they are rampant, everywhere.
Now, what Mick Jagger has to do with all this, I'm not sure I understand. Nor about his influence on the Third World. But wait! That film of the 1972 Stones tour of the US was called "Cocksucker Blues." Now it all begins to fit together! Sure, the thing was never released; maybe not more than a few thousand people have ever seen it. But surely they were influential -- film and media people, that sort. Yes, I really think she's got something there.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vaudree
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1331
|
posted 18 January 2002 04:10 PM
quote: I found a Walk in the Clouds really boring... no offense vaudree!
You were watching it wrong. Some movies you get drawn into and they are interesting in and of themselves. Others you have to draw the whole of your social experiences into them to make them interesting. If you just look at the movie it was two hours of Keanu Reeves not having sex. But you have to contrast him with Al Bundy from "married with children" for end result, with Meatloaf from "Paradice by the Dashboard Light" and "For Crying out Loud" for ability not to give in to whims. He made meatloaf look weak because he was able to control what meatloaf couldn't. You have to compare KR to Elvis at the end of his skate when he won gold in Nagano. You have to listen to your friend's then boyfriend complain that this was another Atwood-like male bashing movie and that KR's two love interest were the most pathetic of women. The problem I think is that if we are with a guy and he is not trying to get into our pants - how do we tell whether we are stuck with KR or AB? quote: It seems that a lot of women enjoy the writing over the image when it comes to getting turned on.
I watched a couple of those movies at my other friends place when she had that jerk boyfriend - I got a bit bored, started feeling sorry for the charactors and almost started crying in the first one. The other was this one about stupid nuns before they decide whether to take the last vows. Note how the men don't look to happy and they don't seem to have much emotional attachment to the women. Also note for the most part they were ugly.Meatloaf may not be that good looking but he had desire, emotion you could almost believe he could die without it. I don't think it's visual - I think the idea of a beautiful woman being attracted to you when you are as ugly as sin and financially not her typê is most guy's fantasy. Actually putting commitment in there with sex just reminds the guy that they would be considered a poor catch. That nun being stuck in the washroom with the lineup basically reminded me of showing up at work as a dishwasher with dishes piled all over the place. It reminds me of all the home work I haven't done yet. Only a person who doesn't do housework could think that was interesting! My fantasy man has to be kind, caring, good sense of humour, faithful, creative, intelligent, and in love with me. None of those porn guys even came close to that fantasy.
From: Just outside St. Boniface | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 18 January 2002 06:16 PM
quote: ... I like the idea of consentual S&M, but it must be consentual.
The motto roundly adopted in the BDSM community is "Safe, Sane and Consentual". There's no end of safety tips available for those that want to include a bit or a lot of this type of activity in thier lives, and submissives have safe words, sounds or signals for activity to stop when something isn't right physically or emotionally. The term "Hard Limits" refers to the line that submissives draw in regards to what they are willing to do. A Dominant recognizes that crossing those hard limits, or ignoring a "safe word" is rape. "No means No" in this activity as well as it does anywhere else. Perhaps more so. I always get a chuckle when tough sounding Dominants claim that they don't tollerate being "topped from the bottom." The great irony is that the submissives are the ones actually in control, and true "Sadists" in the psychological sense need not apply. This doesn't mean everyone with that interest adopts this, (those that don't find themselves expelled from the community or not invited to be part of it) and there are some variations on these ideas, but in the main this is the culture taking shape.
quote: Note how the men don't look to happy and they don't seem to have much emotional attachment to the women. Also note for the most part they were ugly.
I was never much for porn video's, but my ex had a taste for them. We watched some once, and later I was telling my gay friend at work how I expected to see guys who... I *ahem* couldn't measure up to, but in fact if anything, I um...at least measured up. He said, "They hire guys like that for films like that so guys like you don't feel threatened." Touché
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 18 January 2002 06:33 PM
quote: I blame porn, and our silly First World intelligentsia who have cowed our flaccid courts with legalistic arguments that conflate obscenity with free speech, and hence pollute public opinion, so that we think that women having sex with goats for money, anywhere in the universe, is OK.
Well that's hyperbolic and assinine, not as bad as the reference to six year olds, but idiotic all the same. Gee whiz Elizabeth, after three or four years of spellunking on the internet, I've not been confronted with the images of kids and goats that YOU put out there for our consideration. If anyone should "just shut up" it might be Nickson. quote: The only thing that will stop this revolting wallpaper is for ordinary men and women, not the judiciary, not the police or the intelligentsia, who should shut up for once, saying no. We don't want this filth in our communities, on our airwaves or in our magazines, and we want its purveyors prosecuted and convicted.
Maybe we should bring charges against Nickson. After all, she's the one putting ideas about goats and children in people's heads, in a medium one would not not normally expect to find it. Wallpaper indeed. Elizabeth Nickson can bite me.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 18 January 2002 06:56 PM
I haven't got to it yet, Dawna.Just a sec. (demands demands.... my daughter's want rides this place and that {what time? I dunno, what time do you want to go? Well, what time will you be ready?} and all I want to do is talk about porn) Nothing but "A". OHHHHHHHH you probably meant sex with someone else In that case, if memory serves, it's alot of "C" then a little bit of "A" at the end.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064
|
posted 18 January 2002 07:13 PM
quote: B&D a little bit say 10%
I'd go for B&D a good deal more than... O dear, I've misunderstood, haven't I? Never mind. quote: In this Universe, there's no positive linkage between the words "Elizabeth Nickson", "writing" or "brilliant".
So I gathered on my first reading of her, which was this very afternoon. Never even heard of her before. Did you ever have any truck with her stuff in your late lamented "Columnists" feature, or would that have been just too easy?
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214
|
posted 18 January 2002 08:42 PM
So, getting back to the topic at hand, I was wondering how I would do up a "porn for women" website.I think I'd go heavy with text, and I'd probably put thumbnail's into the text. Something perhaps in black and while, and with accent on imagination more than the explicit, tying into the story. Of course, there would be more explicit photo pages in the websight for those women who wanted them, and the I'd try to collect story submissions that ran from "erotica light" to as "pornographic" as the law, and my own "rules", allowed.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|