The Porn Myth

[SmarterthanU]

Has anyone read this (or another, similar) write-up by Naomi Wolf?

http://nymetro.com/nymetro/news/trends/n_9437/

It's a brief article that basically states her opinion that our (i.e., men's) liberal access to so much pornography dilutes the eroticism of actual relationships. In other words, women know they cannot compete with the fantasy of "perfect 10s" who'll do and say anything men want them to, and guys (even if only on a subconscious level) find real women never measure up to the images they're bombarded with. The idea is that this <i>used</i> to be different, when access to pornography was much more limited.

(For those taking issues with the term pornography, just substitute tickling photos, clips, stories, etc. found here.)

I have to say, I have mixed feelings about it myself. I think she makes some valid points. Still, I think this article is tinged with some familiar-sounding insecurities. As if to say: "I probably wouldn't be writing this if all guys still though I was a major hottie." lol (And yes, I know she'd disapprove of that last comment, as she's a very outspoken feminist. 😛 )

Anyway, I won't spill all my opinions here yet until a few others have chimed in.

This is fascinating.

First, I think that there's an inverse relationship bewteen holding porn stars as the feminine ideal and women's desire to have a relationship with you. Much in the same way that there's an inverse relationship between being a professional wrestling fan and women's desire to have a relationship with you.

Second, Ms Wolf may well be right about the availability of female images undermining male interest in their partners, but I doubt it's porn images. It's images of women on tv, in advertising and in movies. Men are CONSTANTLY being told through regular, mainstream media that this or that bit of female perfection is just waiting for you if you buy this or that product. And it isn't just in advertising. Take a look at television - here's one out of left field for you - Family Guy. Fat, stupid guy has thin, beautiful wife who adores him. If you think about it, that general theme goes back to the very beginning of media. The Honeymooners. The Flintstones. It many seem silly and harmless, until you ask yourself this question. Can you name one single example of the reverse? That is, fat, stupid wife with fit, gorgeous husband who adores her? Not likely.

Feminist attacks on porn have been around as long as there have been feminists. But porn has never been the problem in terms of threatening real relationships. All along, the problem has been the mainstream cultural impact on everyone, men and women. Almost every modern culture has created sexually dysfunctional people, and it's that sexual repression that sets the stage for the porn industry and the advertising and entertainment industries.

It's just not true that woman cannot compete with the images in media. Feminists argue that you have to fit into a VERY narrow set of standards to be viewed by men as desireable. Nonsense. I think that in many ways, women are their own worst enemies when it comes to this. Aside from the fact that there are millions of women out there who don't want to be a member of any club that would have them as a member, and millions who think that success in a relationship is marrying the most vicious asshole they can find (mistakenly assuming that Major Prick = More Resources For Me and My Children), I've met SO MANY women who have body image issues as a result of the impact of media. They actually adopt a very stereotypical female ideal in thier own heads and then apply it to themselves. Here's a great example. I know a woman who is so hot, it isn't funny. She has small boobs. She's skinny, and blonde and there are a million guys who would be completely turned on by her. But she isn't into herself. While she doesn't say it in so many words, she's adopted the attitude that normal, viable men like big boobs. She understands that lots of men absolutely LOVE small boobs, but in her mind, those men are not exactly normal. She just doesn't feel sexy with her own body, even though I'd hire her to be a porn actress in a second if I was a porn producer and she was an actress.

Now just apply that story to any number of women, and you can see two things immediately. One, the possiblities run the gambit. ALL body types are available these days in porn. Sure, there's one main body type that is found in run-of-the-mill porn, but run-of-the-mill porn is not ALL porn. Two, ALL body types can be sexy. All "looks" can be sexy. I love skinny, flat, little ragamuffins covered in tattoos who would gag at the thought of using makeup, and I also love classic beauties like Grace Kelly, and I also love cute pudgy girls with bigger boobs, and everything in between. I'm FAR more particular about personality and mind-related things than I am about any one body type.

So, I think the real problem lies elsewhere. And, as usual, it lies within the people who are screaming "victim" at the top of their lungs. Not every woman can look like - well, I was going to name a single female who is the "standard," but I can't. I can't even say that not all women can be skinny - because there are some unbelieveably hot women who are not skinny. I'll say it this way. Almost every woman can be sexy, if she truly believes that she is, and takes care of herself physically and mentally. Sexy isn't a mask or a uniform that you put on. It's a mindset and a way of life.

If you ask scientists to quantify "sexy," they'll tell you it actually can be done. Sexy is healthy. Healthy body, healthy mind ("healthy mind" means "free of debilitating hang-ups"). If people think skinny is sexy, it's really only the the extent that they equate skinny with healthy. Like women who equate being muscular with being healthy in men.

At the end of the day, Darwin always wins. Women who are smart enough to figure it out early have the best chance of having a long, healthy relationship and as many children as they choose. But it's never too late to find the key to happiness.

Looking to academic feminists to hand you the key is definitely looking in the wrong place.

 

[BigJim]

Also, men have an option that women really don't: A man can make himself attractive by looking "handsome" in the classic sense, or by presenting himself as confident and/or successful. To a very large degree men are valued for what they do,

Which is useful for ugly fuckers like me. Thanks for cheering me up today RM. 😀

 

[Amnesiac]

Well, usually I don't like it when people poke holes in my conclusions, but when the edification is as interesting as this, I really don't mind. So, now that I've had some time to ponder the perspectives, I now have some new questions instead of the same complaints.

If you treat a motorcycle like a bicycle then you're going to be frustrated. Still if you can accept that there are differences then your bicycle experience can be helpful.
RedMage

Analagously speaking, someone who knows how to fix a motorcycle would fall back on what he knew when working a bicycle to see if there's similarities. If not, he would do 1 of 2 things: 1) take the bicycle to a qualified repairman--in this case taking your GF to another guy with experience--2) learn how to fix bicycles himself; first through books, and then either a class or practice. Only here, analagously speaking, imagine that bicycles are offended at being a subject of practice and only allow themselves to be worked on if the fixer is willing to give up motorcycles for bicycles exclusively.

If there were some kind of sexual cross-training programs available for people, this would alleviate most of the awkward frustrations, but...cultural concepts of sexual morality would crush such a program. However, I'm open to suggestions🙂

Quote:
Nonononononono. I meant random wantom fucklust in the sense of pointless, meaningless orgasm hunting. Even if a guy has a girl he loves and cherishes and cares for, he STILL gets an occasional out-of-the-blue libido jolt that says "NEED ORGASM. NOW." No explanation, no reason for being, it's just there, and usually can be gratified by a 1-2 minute quickie.

What makes you think women don't experience that? I can tell you they do.

I don't, technically. I've just never seen it or heard any woman admit it happening. Since men and women aren't THAT different, the mathematical likelihood that it exists is high...but willingness to admit or indulge in it is astronomically low.

Ethnic comedy in particular relies on stereotypes that the audience believes to be true, but that doesn't mean that they are true. I'd suggest because of this that you limit the amount of life experience that you gain from stand-up comedy...They think most of our insecurities are just as irrational.

True. I think about these things as CLUES to real, unimagined problems we don't examine because they're so close to us that they may as well be invisible or sacred. I say look past the jokes to their real counterparts...then I realize that the reason they're jokes is because humor makes it safe, whereas serious inquiry makes it offensive. Also, most insecurities on BOTH sides are irrational, but cultural prerogatives focus mostly on men while leaving women alone. You already brought this oversight up quite well in the last paragraph, I just thought I'd mention it again.

I would also suggest that fixing these insecurities would require a painful amount of value-revision and few people on the right or left want that. At least, for purely altruistic reasons anyway.

For both men and women, this sort of casual hotness is very much wanted. But the key is "casual." You aren't supposed to look like you're trying to be noticed, even (heck, especially) if you are.

I just feel there's an inherent danger and hipocrisy in this sort of thinking though. The hipocrisy inherent coming from the idea women hold that modest dress and behavior invented by men is oppressive, but modest models invented by women are good...even though the actions and mindsets are virtually identical. It would mean that women would willingly adopt a sense of modesty for the sake of protecting an innate "purity", a concept invented by men, but for reasons of gynosupremacism instead of breeding restrictions. The female version would have a philosophical reason instead of an obsolete pragmatism.

The danger would come in adjusting to the scenario Mrs. Wolf hints at: a world where ideally men are so unaccustomed to female appearances that they become oversensitized to nudity or sexual situations and more eagerly pursue relations with their wives. The deliberate cultivation of sexual ignorance was a method employed by religious cultures for centuries to preserve family lines and sexual hierarchies. Sexually-charged advertising and marketing was born out of the urge to access the forbidden, and its excess can probably be attributed to adaptative tastes. If modesty hadnt been so rigorously enforced, this likely wouldn't have gotten as out of hand as it is. To intentionally conceal sexuality or repress it in order to enhance the appeal of the feminine is like banning books to eroticize reading. It's sacrificing a long-term benefit for a short-term gain. The kind of persecution people suffered under the old ways would likely re-occur under the new ways, regardless of how different the intention is.

That's where the "megalomania" I was talking about came from: the idea that women would willingly throw away progressive freedoms for the emotional "high" of being overly desireable with the security of being modest. It would be like rolling a joint with the Bill of Rights; the high being more important than the work.

Just to pull it back on-topic, you started off arguing that men turn to porn because women make it so difficult to deal with them sexually (because they aren't more like men). I haven't found this to be true, but in part that's because I haven't found it all that hard to learn about those differences and to enjoy them, rather than complaining about them.

No, I agree with you (although it's hard to tell the way I write ). I suppose I'm suggesting that men turn to porn as a way of giving up. The quibbles between the sexes being too intense and futile for most people to make any headway, so porn becomes a refuge of sorts. Yes it's the easy way out, but in a world where time is so compressed that mere inconvenience is unbearable, it doesn't surprise me. A sense of accomplishment might alleviate this burden, but I don't know how to make this happen globally on an individual basis.

Even worse, fixing blame on other people then places the responsibility for the problem on them.

You got me on this one, lol. I do. The dating system that I abhor was around before I was born; when I reached the age where people start, I was appalled at how dysfunctional, insincere, and asinine it was. So of course my attitude is "You made this mess, YOU clean it up. It was broken when I got here." I DO consider it THEIR responsibility. I turned to porn because I refused to participate in such an ass-backwards system. And I still feed my addiction because the renovation project hasn't made much progress.

You suggest "asking what can do to help" instead of simply criticizing, but what progress can one man--with anger issues--make? This would require the combined collective efforts of everyone to have an effect; one man's ideas alone don't have the communal support, and would be dismissed as prejudicial because they come from neither left nor right field.

In the end, I don't see sex as a bad thing so I'm puzzled, angered, and offended by people who think it is unless it's corraled into a certain box or context, and who complain about how bad things are and don't make any serious effort to collectively fix them.

 

[steph]

I wonder what she'd think of Candida Royale's work...
XOXO

She DOES have some very valid points in terms of mens expectations and objects of fantasy. But I would say that society itself is much more at blame than the porn industry. Limiting a mans access to porn will in no way make the problem go away.


Mimi

 

[Redmage]

If there were some kind of sexual cross-training programs available for people, this would alleviate most of the awkward frustrations, but...cultural concepts of sexual morality would crush such a program. However, I'm open to suggestions🙂

The way I did it was to start with books (The Joy of Sex and related guides), then try a variety of different things with various partners. I asked them what they liked. I experimented, and risked failure. It seems to work.

I've just never seen it or heard any woman admit it happening. Since men and women aren't THAT different, the mathematical likelihood that it exists is high...but willingness to admit or indulge in it is astronomically low.

Not really. Do men talk about "random fucklust" with women? They're a lot more likely to mention it to other men, no? Women are the same way: they don't talk about that sort of thing with men unless they're unusually close. They talk about it with other women.

I just feel there's an inherent danger and hipocrisy in this sort of thinking though. The hipocrisy inherent coming from the idea women hold that modest dress and behavior invented by men is oppressive, but modest models invented by women are good...even though the actions and mindsets are virtually identical. It would mean that women would willingly adopt a sense of modesty for the sake of protecting an innate "purity", a concept invented by men, but for reasons of gynosupremacism instead of breeding restrictions. The female version would have a philosophical reason instead of an obsolete pragmatism.

Sorry, but I just can't get much sense out of this. On the one hand it seems fairly normal that women would find standards they chose for themselves more acceptable than standards imposed on them by men. So I'm not sure why you consider that hypocritical. I don't know what the bit about purity and gynosupremacism is about though.

That's where the "megalomania" I was talking about came from: the idea that women would willingly throw away progressive freedoms for the emotional "high" of being overly desireable with the security of being modest. It would be like rolling a joint with the Bill of Rights; the high being more important than the work.

Sorry, I don't see it. If a woman finds that by making her sexuality more mysterious she can get a better response from the man in her life then I can't see that as "willingly throwing away progressive freedom." And the fact that Wolfe's friend is able to do that in a world where porn is easily available shows that it can be done, porn or no porn.

You got me on this one, lol. I do. The dating system that I abhor was around before I was born; when I reached the age where people start, I was appalled at how dysfunctional, insincere, and asinine it was. So of course my attitude is "You made this mess, YOU clean it up. It was broken when I got here." I DO consider it THEIR responsibility. I turned to porn because I refused to participate in such an ass-backwards system. And I still feed my addiction because the renovation project hasn't made much progress.

You suggest "asking what can do to help" instead of simply criticizing, but what progress can one man--with anger issues--make?

To be honest I think most of the problems you're having are the result of those anger issues, not a dysfunctional dating system.

There are times when social conventions are oppressive, but dating conventions aren't one of those cases. Dating conventions are no more oppressive than table manners, IMO. You're angry about them, though, so you refuse to participate and blame the standards for your situation. But your situation is caused directly by your own behavior, and you have the power to fix it.

 

[Amnesiac]

The Short Post (lol)

Sorry, but I just can't get much sense out of this. On the one hand it seems fairly normal that women would find standards they chose for themselves more acceptable than standards imposed on them by men. So I'm not sure why you consider that hypocritical. I don't know what the bit about purity and gynosupremacism is about though.

Okey dokey. Take veiled societies: 1 created by men, the 2nd created by women akin to Mrs. Wolfe's friend. The former, the veilings are designed to obstruct appearance to prevent both men and women from experiencing sexual excitement and "immoral" copulation...this also restricts sexual partners and ensures bloodlines (see "breeding restrictions"). Primitive tribal practice. The latter, veils are designed to enhance the sexual allure of women to men so they don't get bored and to preserve the idea that an inherent female "purity" exists that is too important to be shown to anyone except "the one"...it also makes female nudity so rare that men become supersensitized to any display of skin and thus making every part of a woman exaggeratedly important. Gynosupremicist (women = most important; no "male" purity...or it will be a variant of female version) and megalomaniacal ("every part of my body is irresistable and that power validates my inherent greatness").

Why hypocritical? Because despite the 2 different intentions, you're STILL using the same techniques, you're STILL shaming and hiding the human form, you're STILL restricting sexual experience and information, and you're STILL enforcing gender disparities. Both share the same marriage agendas and the exploitation of sexual desire to facilitate conformity. Stagnant cultures that cannot adapt to information and circumstance. Expect brutality as enforcement within a few decades of each.

Dating conventions are no more oppressive than table manners, IMO. You're angry about them, though, so you refuse to participate and blame the standards for your situation. But your situation is caused directly by your own behavior, and you have the power to fix it.

How? Capitulation and assimilation? The structural flaws will go unrepaired and I will become complicit in perpetuating them. Society will remain stagnant and emotional and sexual sufferings will go unabated.

 

[Redmage]

Okey dokey. Take veiled societies: 1 created by men, the 2nd created by women akin to Mrs. Wolfe's friend. The former, the veilings are designed to obstruct appearance to prevent both men and women from experiencing sexual excitement and "immoral" copulation...this also restricts sexual partners and ensures bloodlines (see "breeding restrictions"). Primitive tribal practice. The latter, veils are designed to enhance the sexual allure of women to men so they don't get bored and to preserve the idea that an inherent female "purity" exists that is too important to be shown to anyone except "the one"...it also makes female nudity so rare that men become supersensitized to any display of skin and thus making every part of a woman exaggeratedly important. Gynosupremicist (women = most important; no "male" purity...or it will be a variant of female version) and megalomaniacal ("every part of my body is irresistable and that power validates my inherent greatness").

I understood your meaning. I didn't (and still don't) perceive the second case as either "gynosupremacy" or megalomania.

In the second case the goal is not to preserve some notion of "purity," but to enhance a sense of mystery and to emphasize the bond between husband and wife. It's no different from the wife getting a tattoo in a place that no one but her husband ever gets to see, except that the veil or headscarf is a more public statement about that relationship. And since it's an entirely voluntary institution it imposes nothing on anyone - a man who doesn't like it need not get involved with a woman who does.

Why hypocritical? Because despite the 2 different intentions, you're STILL using the same techniques, you're STILL shaming and hiding the human form, you're STILL restricting sexual experience and information, and you're STILL enforcing gender disparities.

I don't think so. Clothing does not "shame or hide the human form". If it's well-made and worn well then it enhances the human form - enhancement always being in the eye of the beholder. Intention is a critical part of this: a woman who is told that she must cover her ankles because it would be shameful not to is of course being shamed. A woman who wears an ankle-length skirt because she and her husband like the look is not.

I don't get the "restricting sexual experience" or "gender disparities" complaints at all. As near as I can tell bras and athletic supporters "enforce gender disparities," since they're designed to be worn by only one gender. Of course, the disparities happen to be real. And anything short of nudity "restricts sexual experience" as near as I can tell.

Here's the bottom line, as I see it: a voluntary restriction is not a restriction at all. A woman who wears what she wants to wear is exercising her rights as an adult. You might or might not like her choices, but that is an aesthetic judgment on your part, nothing more. It carries no more moral weight than disliking her choice of colors. The fact that you read such nasty motives into something so innocuous really makes me think that the problem lies with you, not with the veil.

How? Capitulation and assimilation? The structural flaws will go unrepaired and I will become complicit in perpetuating them. Society will remain stagnant and emotional and sexual sufferings will go unabated.

Here's the thing, though: the vast majority of the emotional and sexual sufferings in this situation are in your own mind. There is no great structural flaw here. Like I said, most of us can chew with our mouths closed just as easily as we capitulate to standard dating customs.

 

[drew70]

I find this a fascinating thread, particularly the comments from Amnesiac. I think he's provided many of us food for thought. Well done!

 

[Amnesiac]

Thanks, Drew, but Redmage ain't no slouch either; in fact, he's keepin his head better than I am.

In the second case the goal is not to preserve some notion of "purity," but to enhance a sense of mystery and to emphasize the bond between husband and wife.

Don't you think that mystery should be a voluntary contruct in an individual relationship as opposed to the default setting? I'm convinced that relationships fall apart MOSTLY (not entirely) because of disappointment and resentment coming from the disparity between the person you MET and the person you came to know. Granted, the SOs can decide whether or not to let those feelings affect them...but wouldn't those feelings be absent entirely if people knew immediately the character of the other person instead of finding out gradually when it becomes more and more difficult and complicated to separate with each passing day?

By the by, what about male mystery? We have none. And if we do, women can't wait to unravel it immediately, yet try to prolong their own as much as possible. Is mystery really that great a thing to relationships?

Intention is a critical part of this: a woman who is told that she must cover her ankles because it would be shameful not to is of course being shamed...a voluntary restriction is not a restriction at all. A woman who wears what she wants to wear is exercising her rights as an adult...The fact that you read such nasty motives into something so innocuous really makes me think that the problem lies with you, not with the veil.

You ARE right, as long as the hypothetical remains in its original state; but have you factored in cultural evolution, both forwards and backwards? All traditions were new at some point, but over time they became intractable parts of communal identity...to the point where their very pervasiveness became a motivation to rebel against them. And as we've seen in global history--including America--rebellions like that are countered with violence, radical revivalism, and propaganda: parents even turn to indoctrinating their children to HATE the different. And if the modesty aesthetic has any relation to older versions, defenders might try reviving the old philosophies along with them. Of course, this takes centuries, but it's happened enough times to suggest it WOULD happen again. Needless conflict and irreperable damage to human progress.

Modern concepts of modesty are mutated versions of old ones, so given the contamination of the past into the present, can we be sure that we're objective enough to make a logical and democratic decision or will we be biased?

What I described above is what I'm ultimately afraid of, especially because it would happen long after I'm dead and unable to fight it. I don't like the idea of people becoming sundered by a dominant philosophy, including my own, especially one that thinks mystery is preferable to knowledge (Why? Mystery prevents us from understanding ourselves or our past well enough to move on).

If we could ensure that everyone participating in modesty mode like Mrs. Wolf portrays does so willingly of their own personal feelings and not because of deep-rooted issues by parents/culture/society/friends who told them it's the proper way, then I'd agree to let it happen. It wouldn't change my disgust with them, but it would make me feel better about it since we could guarantee no one is doing it for the reasons wrong for them.

the vast majority of the emotional and sexual sufferings in this situation are in your own mind. There is no great structural flaw here

You sure? If they affect me, probability suggests they affect many more. Since sufferings lead to unhappiness, and unhappiness leads to dysfunction, the pervasive dysfunction will eventually cripple society as a whole until it collapses. Long-suffering men and women and then children who's evolving dysfunction could cause unspeakable damage to the world at large unless the source is destroyed. Considering how many unhappy people there are, and how this unhappiness manifests itselfin the same ways over and over again, I suggest that the pattern DOES indicate structural flaws much in the same way an accretion disk indicates a black hole. My question is, can they be fixed, and if so, how?

But first I have to ask what the problems are, and where they come from. But I can't do it alone, I need input from other people. Smart people, like RedMage😀

By the way, I'm not deliberately fighting you. You've given more thorough and comprehensive answers than anybody else I've debated and it's refreshing. But I like to explore the depth on both sides (including myself) as far as I can. It's refreshing and stimulating, so I want to hear more.


Finally, I'm SICK of monopolizing this thread! I want other people to chime in and give their musings on the things we've brought up here. I'd especially like to hear from the women because this discussion nd the one before it cencerns them! I'm surprised LindyHopper and kis and the others haven't been clawing over each other to lambaste me considering some of the things I've suggested.

 

[LindyHopper]

Finally, I'm SICK of monopolizing this thread! I want other people to chime in and give their musings on the things we've brought up here. I'd especially like to hear from the women because this discussion nd the one before it cencerns them! I'm surprised LindyHopper and kis and the others haven't been clawing over each other to lambaste me considering some of the things I've suggested.

Dude, I know - I mean to! 😀 I apologize for stepping away from this thread for so long. 🙁 Real life work and fun have been keeping me too busy to post thoughtfully. Give me until tomorrow, possibly the day after. 🙂

 

[LindyHopper]

Wow. This thread is almost three years old. I had to re-read my own words to figure out wtf I was smoking...er...thinking when I wrote it. lol That being said, I agree with MrPartickler. 😀

Dude - I totally didn't notice! I guess nothing really changes around here - same posters, same topics, 'round and 'round we go. 😀

First, I think that there's an inverse relationship bewteen holding porn stars as the feminine ideal and women's desire to have a relationship with you.

I think that's quite true - it's because of what holding that ideal implies. If a man's ideal woman is someone with massive spherical boobs who explodes in (fake) orgasms after just a couple of ins-and-outs, requiring almost no effort or attention on the man's part... that doesn't really sound like someone who's going to be any fun for me. 🙁



Amnesiac... hi. I'm obviously not going to get to everything of interest, but here's a reasonable place to start:

Analagously speaking, someone who knows how to fix a motorcycle would fall back on what he knew when working a bicycle to see if there's similarities. If not, he would do 1 of 2 things: 1) take the bicycle to a qualified repairman--in this case taking your GF to another guy with experience--2) learn how to fix bicycles himself; first through books, and then either a class or practice. Only here, analagously speaking, imagine that bicycles are offended at being a subject of practice and only allow themselves to be worked on if the fixer is willing to give up motorcycles for bicycles exclusively.

So if I translate this analogy... you think women ask men to give up working on penises so they can to master vaginas? That's bizarre. And in any case, in real life, there's an option 3: ask the bicycle what it likes. 😉

If there were some kind of sexual cross-training programs available for people, this would alleviate most of the awkward frustrations, but...cultural concepts of sexual morality would crush such a program. However, I'm open to suggestions🙂

One aspect of BDSM and other alternative lifestyles is to bring sexuality out into the open. It doesn't have to be a private activity confined to two people in the bedroom - there's a lot to be learned by watching others, and even participating. But I agree, the average person is a long way from being able to accept something like that. 😛

I just feel there's an inherent danger and hipocrisy in this sort of thinking though. The hipocrisy inherent coming from the idea women hold that modest dress and behavior invented by men is oppressive, but modest models invented by women are good...even though the actions and mindsets are virtually identical.

It's about choice, Am. Now, in 2007, if I want to be a stay-at-home mom, I can do that. My grandmother was a stay-at-home mom too, but not by choice. For her, it was the only option available, which is obviously oppressive, and that sucks.

Being a stay-at-home mom might not look so different nowadays than it did back then. It's how you got there that makes all the difference. Being able to choose to be a stay-at-home mom is good. Being forced to be one (by men) is bad.

The danger would come in adjusting to the scenario Mrs. Wolf hints at: a world where ideally men are so unaccustomed to female appearances that they become oversensitized to nudity or sexual situations and more eagerly pursue relations with their wives.

Okay, first of all, I don't think Wolf actually wants that extreme. I don't, in any event. Second, I don't think that's where we're headed as a culture, in any way, shape or form.

Third, she's not wrong about the effects of constant exposure to nudity or sexual situations leading to desensitization. As half of a couple who's adopted a certain amount of nudity into everyday life, I can tell you firsthand that mere nakedness doesn't produce the same sexual charge that it used to. The most sexually alluring clothing for us nowadays... is clothing. Something that conceals what's to be revealed later. Some of the excitement is in that concealment... even if you know perfectly well what's underneath. 😉 It's not about "purity" or "gynosupremism" or "megalomania." It's not even about "mystery." It's simply about what kinds of cues trigger a sexual response.

The dating system that I abhor was around before I was born; when I reached the age where people start, I was appalled at how dysfunctional, insincere, and asinine it was. So of course my attitude is "You made this mess, YOU clean it up. It was broken when I got here." I DO consider it THEIR responsibility. I turned to porn because I refused to participate in such an ass-backwards system. And I still feed my addiction because the renovation project hasn't made much progress.

I think some aspects of the DMV are a bloated and nonsensical bureaucracy. I could refuse to take part, either by flouting the rules on a sort of one-woman crusade, or by disengaging entirely. Or I can decide to go along with the system, because my desire to have a valid drivers' license outweighs my discontent with "the system."

In other words, it's not your fault that our dating system is broken, and it's not your job to fix it. But if you don't decide to cope and adapt, you're the one who's going to end up alone. "The system" isn't going to take responsibility for helping you navigate it, any more than the DMV will. Harsh, but true.


All right... I need to go make my husband dinner (damn traditional sex roles! It must be my inherent megalomania/gynosupremism at work). I'll be back later.

 

[Amnesiac]

EEEEEEEE! Fun!

So if I translate this analogy... you think women ask men to give up working on penises so they can to master vaginas? That's bizarre.

Well, typically that's what men become first familiar with, granted, it being their own and not anyone else's; so by the time the guy gets his hands on a bicycle, he uses his experience with motorcycles as a starting point. And it's not so bizarre, given how many women get upset when they catch their guy "working on the motorcycle" alone instead of the "fixing the bicycle" together.

Also, analagously speaking, the bicycle not only demands the guy give up motorcycles, but also other bicycles. The bike won't let him work on it unless he agrees to work her and on no other bikes at all.

But I agree, the average person is a long way from being able to accept something like that.

Question is: "why are they like that?" I believe that people are either naturally shy or open to sex, and their environment/upbringing either enhances it or works against it. It's similar to what I said about women and dress before: is it natural or is is conditioned? If people aren't open to sex because their personality simply isn't up to it, then fine, leave them alone. But if they aren't open to sex because they've been conditioned to close their minds to it, then something has to be done to kill that source of conditioning.

Otherwise, there will never be an end to sexual oppression towards the individual, and the crimes caused by sexually dysfunctional people.

It's how you got there that makes all the difference. Being able to choose to be a stay-at-home mom is good. Being forced to be one (by men) is bad.

What about being forced to by WOMEN? Women can be their own worst enemies, and be just as vicious as men. Alpha females can exploit the desire for social acceptance to cajole other women to conform in thought and action, thus tricking other women into self-suppression in exchange for acceptance. Usually, the manipulated aren't aware they're being manipulated unless someone outside the group informs them; and xenophobia is the first tool an alpha employs to control influence. Since I see women as equals, I look at them the same way with the same suspicion as I see men. And what I think RedMage and you overlook is the oppressive influence women can have over other women as time goes on. Keep in mind, men thought their coercive system was in women's best interests too, and when women pick up the same tool and use it the same way, all the different reasons in the world don't matter.

Third, she's not wrong about the effects of constant exposure to nudity or sexual situations leading to desensitization.

I suppose I can avoid a bloated response by asking this instead: "is desensitization really a BAD thing?"

If the whole point of sensitizing men is so to keep them interested in fucking you, then doesn't that say there's something wrong with the model of relationships in general? That the model we use is guaranteed to produce apathy and requires ignorance-inducing stop-gap procedures to prolong it?

In other words, it's not your fault that our dating system is broken, and it's not your job to fix it. But if you don't decide to cope and adapt, you're the one who's going to end up alone.

Then who is? It's hard to trust a reformer who used to partake in the activity s/he denounces. And how can we be sure the system isn't exploiting the fear of being alone to protect itself from renovation? If the only way to have somebody/somebodies is to go through the one and only channel, that's monopolistic, and not partial to a free society.

 

[Paultickler]

Ms. Wolf needs to come and take a stroll around good old Arizona State University. A SIGNIFICANT percentage of our female population is "porn quality..." Complete with the requisite surgical enhancements, "come hither" attitudes and (yuck) caked-on makeup.

Spend enough time around here, and you'll quickly come to the realization that "hot" does not automatically equate to "attractive."






LOL! I think you summed it up nicely. 😛

I agree with you because here in Argentina there is a very good "porn quality". Anyway I guess that if people feel depressive because they want to be as porn stars at bed is because they're really fool. I think that if you are a little intelligent and (at the same time) you can enjoy porn, you don't need to feel bad about that. It's known that porn stars, and also celebrities have pounds and pounds of make up when they're acting. The other day I was watching T.V. and here we have a very intresting humoristic program called C.Q.C. and one of the reporters made a note about pressures to be ok for the summer. A lot of fashion models said that even them wanted to look as they appear in magazines because there was a lot of "Photoshop" in that stuff. They say that they can change a body and put s.o else's head. So he found a girl who was doing excersice at the gym and he asked her if she was doing that for looking good in the summer, she answer than yes and she would like to be as models in magazines, so he brought her to a place that "produce" her till she finally looks like a Model. Then they print it on a fake magazine. After that they went to the street and she was as natural as posible. He ask some men to rank her and they also admit she was between 8 and 10. So I guess that if you can feel good with yourself, you shouldn't have any problem about PORN.

 

[drew70]

One aspect of BDSM and other alternative lifestyles is to bring sexuality out into the open. It doesn't have to be a private activity confined to two people in the bedroom - there's a lot to be learned by watching others, and even participating. But I agree, the average person is a long way from being able to accept something like that. 😛

More like the average person is a long way past the "Let's make life one big orgy" phase we went through as teenagers, before we got a handle on our raging hormones. Well, most of us, anyway.

 

[SlaverTickler]

Okey dokey. Take veiled societies: 1 created by men, the 2nd created by women akin to Mrs. Wolfe's friend. The former, the veilings are designed to obstruct appearance to prevent both men and women from experiencing sexual excitement and "immoral" copulation...this also restricts sexual partners and ensures bloodlines (see "breeding restrictions"). Primitive tribal practice. The latter, veils are designed to enhance the sexual allure of women to men so they don't get bored and to preserve the idea that an inherent female "purity" exists that is too important to be shown to anyone except "the one"...it also makes female nudity so rare that men become supersensitized to any display of skin and thus making every part of a woman exaggeratedly important. Gynosupremicist (women = most important; no "male" purity...or it will be a variant of female version) and megalomaniacal ("every part of my body is irresistable and that power validates my inherent greatness").

All I know is there arn't going to be no stinking sheets between me and a woman I make love to. She either does it in the hot, sweaty, skint to skin, dirty barbarian style, or she can call a cab.

 

[BigJim]

More like the average person is a long way past the "Let's make life one big orgy" phase we went through as teenagers, before we got a handle on our raging hormones. Well, most of us, anyway.

There's as much difference between that and polyamoury as there is between animal cruelty and having a dog that's suffering put down at the vet's.

Not saying it's 100%, but I believe that's true.