posted
That reminds me of a radio interview I once heard with a mainstream film director (I cant remember the name right now) who had started out in pornography.
During the brief segment of the interview in which he commented on that part of his career, he made a statement to the effect that if film could transmit smell along with sight and sound, no one would ever watch a porno again.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
It also explains part of the reason I'm not fond of a lot of porn... it really DOES look like they aren't enjoying themselves, because they aren't, and seeing the face of a bored or stoned looking woman is not what I would ever want to look at, in real life, or on video.
Which naturally means that I dislike a loooooot of porn.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
This is actually why I almost exclusively prefer eromanga.
IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure that "real women can't convincingly fake enjoyment of a situation reliably enough for me, so I prefer drawings" is really something to brag about, Blayne. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, I may be tolerant of sexual things and all, but your comments on this thread make me feel gross inside. Your cavalier attitude is making me uncomfortable.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I don't feel the TOS is being directly violated, I would very much prefer that if requests are being made for pornography, such as on the previous page, that that be done privately by PM or Email, not as a public post on the thread.
It's along the same vein as my not being comfortable with say copyrighted music being exchanged.
The discussion about good/bad pornography thus far is fine.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's along the same vein as my not being comfortable with say copyrighted music being exchanged.
I'm pretty sure that asking the author of erotica to provide a copy of one of her stories is both legal and ethical, however. How is that in the same vein as asking for a copyrighted piece of music?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's legitimate to prefer not to set precedent that Hatrack is an okay place to exchange pornography on. Whether it's legal and ethical as compared to copyright infringement isn't really relevant.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt that our host would appreciate HR being used to facilitate the distribution of pornography any more than he'd appreciate it being used to facilitate the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works.
Actually, from what he's written in the past, he'd probably mind the copyrighted works a lot less.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Didn't seem to be written in the users' agreement, however. Nevertheless, (since I already have Olivet's gems in my hot little hands) no problem.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: Blayne, I may be tolerant of sexual things and all, but your comments on this thread make me feel gross inside. Your cavalier attitude is making me uncomfortable.
Ah so that's where you arbitrarily draw the line then, hurray for hypocrisy.
IP: Logged |
quote:I doubt that our host would appreciate HR being used to facilitate the distribution of pornography any more than he'd appreciate it being used to facilitate the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works.
As I understood it, the argument against quoting more than five lines of a song or poem and/or linking to copyrighted works has always been the potential exposure to liability, not the dissemination of things of which OSC doesn't approve.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Just so everyone knows, sex positive has more than just a 'traditional definition.' It's a distinct movement and a culture.
For clarity, this is sex-positive:
quote: Sex positivity is "an attitude towards human sexuality that regards all consensual sexual activities as fundamentally healthy and pleasurable, and encourages sexual pleasure and experimentation. The sex-positive movement is a social and philosophical movement that advocates these attitudes. The sex-positive movement advocates sex education and safer sex as part of its campaign." The movement makes no moral distinctions among types of consensual sexual activities, regarding these choices as matters of personal preference.
When you're "sex-positive," it means being sex positive. Not "monogamous sex only while married only between two partners only in the 'right' hole only without any elements of kinky fetish, bondage, s/m, D/s, or otherwise 'unacceptable' elements of sex and without birth control and strictly with the ultimate goal of procreation-positive."
To put it more simply, if your moral views on sex concern themselves with which types of consensual sexual acts people 'should' be having versus which ones are morally unacceptable, you're not sex-positive.
Question about 'sex-positivism': what if someone disapproves of certain sex acts, but not on moral grounds?
This gets back to my last post in this thread. There's a sense in which I do disapprove of something like BDSM, even though I don't consider it morally bad by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, I think it's ugly (parhaps tacky is a better word). In the same way that I think Jeff Koons creates art that isn't beautiful, or that AC/DC's music isn't beautiful music, I think that kinky sex is lacking in beauty.
Can someone who disapproves of kinky sex for purely aesthetic reasons count as sex-positive?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Desti: Is your dislike only a choice for yourself? Or do you not want anyone to engage in BDSM because you think it lack beauty?
Because if it is the former, then I say you are indeed "sex positive", where if it is the latter, then you are probably not.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*grin* At least I knew better than to post a link here.
It is probably worth mentioning that the email address in my profile here is old and extinct. That is deliberate. I have avoided being too closely linked with this site because of some unwanted attention (from a person with questionable motives) in the past. Someone who periodically still hunts for me around the internet.
So, while Boots knows how to get in touch with me (as do several posters and former posters here) private messages to me, if you only know me through this site, might be problematic.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Destineer - I must say that I agree with you,that most BDSM visuals out there are aesthetically lacking. However, a friend of mine (who has a long publishing history of scfi and fantasy short stories as well as erotica) shared a site started by a sex-positive activist (incidentally, a male) called Male Submission Art. I know better than to link to the site from here, though 95% of the images are work safe. In any case, it changed my mind about the apparent *necessity* of power exchange scenarios being ugly. It also bucks the trend of disregarding or devaluing male beauty.
When I was younger, I thought male nudes were generally off-putting, but now I think it was because the eyes composing the images I saw didn't appreciate the unique beauty of the male form. Also, as a culture, we are less likely to be comfortable with images that focus on males as objects of desire.
Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but it can also be be in the eye of the photographer. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Desti: Is your dislike only a choice for yourself? Or do you not want anyone to engage in BDSM because you think it lack beauty?
Because if it is the former, then I say you are indeed "sex positive", where if it is the latter, then you are probably not.
Interesting question, SW. I'm definitely happy that people who like varieties of sex that I don't like do engage in them anyway. If that's what they like, I don't want them to stop on my account. At the same time, I think their sensibilities would in a sense be "better" if they agreed with me.
It's kind of like how I wish more people enjoyed Firefly, and I wish fewer people enjoyed CSI Miami. I'm not sure aesthetic values are objective in the same way moral values are, but I think people who have what I consider bad taste are making a mistake in some sense.
To be clear, this isn't how I feel about everyone who likes different varieties of sex than I do. I don't think straight women, or gay men, all have "bad taste" in sex, for example, even though I myself prefer sex with women.
Olivet, I will check out your non-link. Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ugh. If you actually go there, you should know that he ran out of the pretty stuff fairly quickly, so the best visuals are older. The most recent ones generally contain long essays on sex positive topics (which are also nice). While great portions of it are not to my taste (I have little understanding of some of the sex-positive vocabulary i.e. alternative pronouns, for example, or what people mean when they say say "cis-gendered") it has been informative to read.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, for what it's worth, I'm pretty sure that Firefly being a superior show to CSI Miami isn't a matter of taste, but a simple fact. Much as a t-bone stake is superior to a pile of pig excrement.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's along the same vein as my not being comfortable with say copyrighted music being exchanged.
I'm pretty sure that asking the author of erotica to provide a copy of one of her stories is both legal and ethical, however. How is that in the same vein as asking for a copyrighted piece of music?
It is both legal and ethical so far as the two individuals are concerned. What I'd rather not happen is for Hatrack to become a place where pornography is exchanged on even an infrequent basis. It's very easy to get the material directly from the author if that is the case. I doubt Mr. Card would be pleased though if say a thread were created where those seeking pornography could regularly post requests and have those requests met, as legal as that would be.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Yea, what the heck does "cis-gendered" mean anyway?
The inverse of transgender; having your physical organs/assigned-at-birth gender match your own gender identity. It dates to the 1990s and mostly gets used by academics and the LGBT community. For the rest of the world, it's a "fish have no word for water" sort of thing. If you assume everyone is cisgendered, you don't need a word for it. Once you realize that assumption isn't valid (and especially once you start spending time in subcommunities where it's often untrue), the need for a word becomes somewhat obvious.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(In response to JanitorBlade)For the record, that seems perfectly reasonable to me. One of the things I always appreciated about Hatrack was that it was a safe place to discuss things and be social without people getting risque or obnoxiously flirtatious, which happens to women regularly on other websites. (Although I did end up in a HR writing group with a fellow who wrote rape/skinning and other sexual scenes I wasn't comfortable with, back in the day.)
Percentage-wise the creep factor at Hatrack is statistically insignificant, and a big part of that is our host's discomfort with things of a prurient nature. While I draw a personal distinction between written erotica and "pornography" I can understand and appreciate the desire not to go down that slippery slope.
I would not feel comfortable having this discussion on a Hatrack that trafficked in pornography.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Yea, what the heck does "cis-gendered" mean anyway?
The inverse of transgender; having your physical organs/assigned-at-birth gender match your own gender identity. It dates to the 1990s and mostly gets used by academics and the LGBT community. For the rest of the world, it's a "fish have no word for water" sort of thing. If you assume everyone is cisgendered, you don't need a word for it. Once you realize that assumption isn't valid (and especially once you start spending time in subcommunities where it's often untrue), the need for a word becomes somewhat obvious.
Thanks ambyr! That makes perfect sense in the context of the sex-positive blogs I've been reading. Sometimes discussion of a topic this complex does require a special vocabulary for the sake of clarity as well as understanding the nature of our assumptions.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of note, "trans" and "cis" are terms of geometric isomerism in chemistry.
That is, they are words used to describe molecules that are identical in constituent parts (comparable to 2 people of the same sex) but in which the orientation of the atoms is different (comparable to sexual [indentification], I suppose).
It's a reworking of terms from a nonsexual context that sort of strips away some of the connotations of the language most commonly used in these discussions. "Normal" doesn't just mean "of the norm" anymore -- in our language culture, it carries connotations of "acceptable," "standard," and "appropriate." In conversations within the communities ambyr references, it is more precise and accurate to use terminology that doesn't necessarily also reference those additional connotations.
Of course, "cis" and "trans" are Latin prefixes that predate modern chemistry, but I think it's a useful way to understand the words.
posted
Stone_Wolf: Well, everyone has personal things that make one feel uncomfortable. It isn't that Blayne is being offensive, nor did I tell him specifically to stop. But the attitude given by several of his posts... I could be reading them wrong, but they personally make me uncomfortable for completely personal reasons. Kind of like, drive-by skeeviness that reminds me of leering friends talking about gross things, without much actual contribution to the discussion.
Blayne: Did I say it's because of the hentai? No. I've looked at some hentai myself, to be honest. You only assumed that was what I meant, and that interpretation was convenient for you because it makes me the villain.
What bothers me is the attitude in your posts, which reminds me of people I spent way too much time with in the past.
While it's implied, I never so much said "stop" as "you are making me uncomfortable." It's a personal thing. Perhaps, if you wish to continue talking about how great your own personal kinks are, do so in a slightly more mature manner than like most of the others here are, and I'd feel a little less weirded out.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: This gets back to my last post in this thread. There's a sense in which I do disapprove of something like BDSM, even though I don't consider it morally bad by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, I think it's ugly (parhaps tacky is a better word). In the same way that I think Jeff Koons creates art that isn't beautiful, or that AC/DC's music isn't beautiful music, I think that kinky sex is lacking in beauty
For what it's worth, I'm happy to answer questions about the BDSM scene or offer my own particular take (which may or may not match anyone else's) on how it can be loving and beautiful. But I don't feel like I can do it on the boards without at the least making some members uncomfortable and at the most violating the terms of service. (Which is not a complaint; I like Hatrack's culture, and there are plenty of other Internet hangouts where I can let it all hang out, so to speak.) If anyone wants to talk about it, there's a valid AIM in my profile, and it works for e-mail at yahoo.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
0Mega: As a loud mouth clout myself...I can empathize with Blayne that at times just sharing a personal opinion makes people feel...uncomfortable...*shrug*
Correct me if I'm wrong Blayne, but I think his point was that by preferring more fantastical sexual fantasy source material, he avoids people looking bored, or hostile or drugged and not enjoying themselves...and was actually agreeing with you, that those types of situations are unfavorable.
Maybe I'm just sticking my nose where it doesn't belong...
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, he was agreeing with me. If he'd said it the way you had, oddly enough, I wouldn't have felt quite so weirded out.
I dunno, I suppose it's the way I've perceived his attitude on the matter, not his specific point. I'm happy to drop it, it was just a visceral reaction after all.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
That is pretty much my opinion yes, and I can regularly see girls wearing cat ears.
Whats unfathomable is what you mean by "attitude"? As best I can describe it, cavalier might be accurate, but I would have no idea what is wrong with being cavalier which is just another way of saying "casual without much thought about what others think".
And the correct term is eromanga.
Maybe its the implication that I may or may not find 2D women to be generally more attractive then "real" women, well to an [explainable] extant that's true, but mostly because I read what I find endearing and attractive while real life tends to have a more realistically probabilistic sampling of those traits. So if I read 9/10 manga each one hypothetically features cat ears while only 1/10,000 women I see ever puts on cat ears hence the skew (Unless I go to a convention).
Samething with lesbians, if I see two average and not particularly attractive looking girls just sitting there I wouldn't even notice them; then if they started kissing well then I'ld suddenly look up. Once or twice, my work is important after all.
Though I gave them fair warning, "If you start doing that here I _WILL_ stare." Since it was the school grounds and the clubroom/office.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: At the same time, I think their sensibilities would in a sense be "better" if they agreed with me.
I don't really want to talk about it outside of a private format like email, but I wish to register my disagreement. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the Firefly analogy is flawed, because it is arguably a superior product, at least by some empirical criteria. (My son's creative writing teacher had them watch... Out of Gas? I forget the episode title, but it was the one that starts with Mal lying on the floor bleeding, all alone on the ship, and goes back and forth on the timeline. It was an example of a spiral narrative structure, which, the instructor explained, is a total beeyotch to do well. I sort of see it as the TV writer's equivalent of tying a cherry stem in a knot with your tongue.)
I propose the Raspberry Analogy as an alternative. See, I LOVE the taste of raspberries. Fresh raspberries, raspberry compote, raspberry syrup -- yum! While my dear husband, bless his heart, hates the taste of raspberries with a passion. He calls it "the flavor of the devil" and won't consume anything with raspberries or that purports to taste like raspberries.
I think that makes him just a tiny bit insane.
But, you know, one can live without raspberries. I'm not sure if I'd want to, mind you, but it isn't necessary for healthful living. He likes sweet flavors, but not tart flavors. I love tart flavors, quite passionately. Neither of us is empirically wrong -- it's a matter of taste.
WRT sex, I think that most of us are born with at least a basic capacity to experience sexual pleasure in a variety of ways, with a variety of people, objects or animals. Everything else is a matter of taste.
Some tastes are culturally dictated, and some are not. Different people have different moral contexts with which to interpret their own tastes and those of others. I mostly focus on behaving conscientiously in my own life, and try not to concern myself overmuch with the sex everyone else may or may not be having. I'm happy with that arrangement. Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm pretty sure I'm not a Libertarian. Well, maybe on social issues, if what I just said sounds Libertarian.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Anyway, I'm just coming into this, so I'll just say that Richard Dawkings seems to be famous only for how offensive he is, so it doesn't surprise me that he went after someone for something that most people would have just ignored or accepted. The guy hates everyone who dissagrees with him and doesn't know how to accept different opinions. There's a word for that: Narcissism.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:so I'll just say that Richard Dawkings seems to be famous only for how offensive he is
If you've actually read anything by Dawkins that wasn't written by his detractors, you'd realize that wasn't the case.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The guy hates everyone who dissagrees with him and doesn't know how to accept different opinions.
I'd like to say that I'm surprised to hear you say that. Instead, I am merely disappointed. Can you explain why you believe this to be the case, Jeff?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I *do* somewhat feel that Dawkins is fairly bad at arguing in person so to speak, I've seen internet posters substantiate his points better. He needs a class in debating.
IP: Logged |
quote:so I'll just say that Richard Dawkings seems to be famous only for how offensive he is
If you've actually read anything by Dawkins that wasn't written by his detractors, you'd realize that wasn't the case.
You don't have to read his works to know what he's famous for.
As someone who hasn't read anything by him, but has heard a lot about him, being obnoxious and encouraging other people to be obnoxious do seem to be a lot of what he's famous for.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As someone who hasn't read anything by him, but has heard a lot about him, being obnoxious and encouraging other people to be obnoxious do seem to be a lot of what he's famous for.
It's not difficult to imagine that biased presentation is going to play a large part of that conceptualization of him, especially what with how much people who have invested a lot of their lives into organized religion will want to dislike him fundamentally.
And I say this as someone who doesn't like dawkins.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm hard-pressed to think of much Dawkins has done that falls under the rubric of "obnoxious," personally.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
