At a progressive media reform conference dedicated to resisting corporate control of mass media, where many of the participants focus on gender and racial justice, it shouldn't be difficult to interest people in the feminist critique of mass-marketed pornography.
After all, the pornography industry creates a steady stream of relentlessly sexist and racist films and web sites that undermine attempts to build a healthy sexual culture, while filling the pornographers' pockets with substantial profits. A general critique of the effects of misogyny, white supremacy, and predatory corporate capitalism on mass media dovetails perfectly with the feminist critique of sexual-exploitation media.
Yet as I circulated at last week's National Conference on Media Reform http://www.freepress.net/conference/ and distributed fliers for an upcoming feminist conference on pornography, http://wheelock.edu/ppc/ the responses I got were often skeptical and sometimes hostile. The questions that were commonly asked of me that weekend revealed the need for the left/progressive political community to deepen its understanding of the issue.
The most common of those questions was, "Is your conference an anti-sex project?" reflecting the common distortion that feminist critics of pornography share the right-wing's obsessions about containing sexuality within traditional "family values."
My co-author Gail Dines has developed a clear response to the question, which I borrowed during the weekend in Memphis: When we criticize McDonald's for its unhealthy food, environmentally destructive business practices, and targeting of children through manipulative advertising, does anyone ask whether we are "anti-food"? Of course not, because no one conflates McDonald's with food; we recognize that there are many ways to prepare food, and it's appropriate to critique the more toxic varieties. The same holds for pornography; pursuing a healthy sexuality does not mean we have to support toxic pornography.
Another common response was, "Do you support censorship?" reflecting a distortion of what feminists have proposed as remedies to the problem of pornography. First, the original feminist anti-pornography movement in the 1980s rejected state censorship that works through existing obscenity law and proposed a civil-rights approach that would give people hurt by pornography a chance in court to prove the harm. There are questions to ask about any legal strategy involving expression, and concerns about suppression of free speech are important; there are even disagreements within the feminist anti-pornography movement about this. But that discussion should start from an accurate account of the alternatives.
Second, at this point in the feminist anti-pornography movement the focus is on public education. The goal is to begin an honest conversation about the way in which "mainstream" pornography, the bulk of which is marketed to heterosexual men, is increasingly cruel and degrading to women and more openly racist than ever -- at the same time that it is increasingly accepted as mainstream entertainment. It's ironic to be accused of trying to suppress free speech when trying simply to exercise free speech in critique of profit-driven sexism and racism.
There was much insightful criticism at the conference of the subtle sexism and racism that still pervades mainstream corporate-commercial mass media. Although men and white people -- including in progressive circles -- are sometimes resistant to that analysis, no one argues that it's an inappropriate topic for discussion. Yet for some reason, many of those same progressives -- men and women alike -- don't consider a left/feminist/anti-racist critique of pornography to be part of the media reform/media justice agenda. Why? I think it has to do with fear.
Facing the pornography industry forces us to acknowledge the deep misogyny and white supremacy that still exists in the culture, even with the gains of the feminist and civil-rights movements. Both women and men might understandably be afraid of confronting what pornography tells us about the cruelty of our culture, our own sexual socialization, and the difficult struggles we face to create a world free of sexual violence.
That fear is real, and all the more reason to confront the issue of pornography more openly.
Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center. His latest book, All My Bones Shake: Radical Politics in the Prophetic Voice, will be published in 2009 by Soft Skull Press. He also is the author of Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity (South End Press, 2007); The Heart of Whiteness: Confronting Race, Racism and White Privilege (City Lights, 2005); Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (City Lights, 2004); and Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream (Peter Lang, 2002). Jensen's articles can be found online at http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/index.html.
The same ignorance you refer to has been amply demonstrated right here on opednews many times, Robert.
The exploitation of others for profit is not a progressive ideal.
I expect that I shall have to refer to your article many times before some people here begin to understand that simple fact. Thank you for your exemplary work on behalf of real progressive values.
--Mark
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 29 quicklinks, 77 diaries, 979 comments)
on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 10:04:08 AM
The reluctance to address the porno and its influence is very much due to the intrinsic feeling of privacy. Unlike other malicious things in our culture, porno works on the perception of the 'entertainment of the individual' and as such every individual confronts the issue alone. And every individual, whether man or woman can imagine thyself as a user of that opportunity and as such does not want to subject thyself to the possible self- built repercussions of any regulations or critique. That simple. Porno has no pornocongresses and no Pats Robertsons. It works for you alone or for your trusted company. As such, no matter how destructive it is, it is based on the freedom of choice. I am sorry to say that but porno is as much a user of that freedom of choice as the product of it. In our effort to 'reform', so far just a dream, we should remember that media is not a public property- it is private. Thus we can imagine as much an existence of fierce anti-porno trend and also the pro-porno with the same ferocity. To complete I would say that open critique of porno, showing what it is should be done, surely. But that critique should be addressed to the people who use it, not at the industry itself. If market drops, industry goes down. But be aware that anyone of us is a potential user of that industry and we should not avoid that perception.
by
Mark Sashine (47 articles, 19 quicklinks, 236 diaries, 3362 comments)
on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 12:10:05 PM
As a matter of fact, I recently finished a book by the esteemed Jared Diamond, titled "Why Sex is Fun."
I realize this is a personal and sensitive topic, and that there wasn't much response to Robert Jensen's previous writing on this topic on this site (I am thinking of his article on double penetration), though I have little doubt there was much thought about it.
It is entirely possible that Robert and I have been exposed to different types of pornography. I am neither a connoisseur or rabid devotee of pornography (while realizing such language is relative and may mean different things to different people), but I have so far failed to see the harm in pornography, and frankly, find it most enjoyable.
I have seen very little that demeans other people, in terms of sexual exploitation, racism, or opportunism-what I have seen along that line has been extremely limited and, certainly to me, unappealing and downright stupid. If exploitation, racism, and/or sexism actually rule the day in the pornographic arena, I'd have to say I'm "out of the loop."
In pornography, I see men and women enjoying together that most elemental drive that has propagated out species, and without which not a one of us would be here. Yes, it is generally in that taboo context of apparently unmarried or otherwise emotionally unattached people enjoying one another physically, or, put another way, in the context that sex is for fun and not propagation.
Of course sex can be for either or both purposes, but given that any intelligent human surely sees the need for humans to stop breeding in the manner we have to date, that leaves sex primarily for fun.
This of course goes against what I'd guess most of us have been raised to believe-certainly it does for me, after 12 years of Catholic school.
Should we view sex as primarily for pleasure? This remains an unresolved issue for society in general-ours and many Eastern cultures, as far as I can tell-and I'm certain a quandary and source of misery for untold millions or billions of people. And if we answer, "Yes, sex is primarily for pleasure," as any intelligent person must, then the issue becomes where do you draw the line?
If you're familiar with even some rudimentary biology, and human history, you realize that monogamy is hardly written into our genes. It is a social contract which fulfills many purposes, particularly in terms of stabilizing society. But it also goes against the natural inclinations of a huge number of us, if not all of us-at least at certain times and in certain situations.
I think in general, from what I've read, observed and gathered over the years, men are far more visually oriented sexually than females. They are far more likely to be the primary consumers of pornography for that reason. I've read of efforts to make pornography that would be more appealing to females, but haven't heard of anyone accomplishing that. (This is why writing is a risky business-you might easily display your ignorance for the world to see, and not have a clue that you did.)
I have also read of pornography made specifically for educational purposes in therapeutic situations, and read that it is often successful in bringing the joy of sex into otherwise rather sterile relationships. Is anyone saying that might be a bad thing?
In pornography I'm familiar with, I believe it would be next to impossible for the women to be faking their enjoyment of pleasure-either that, or they are better actors than many Hollywood stars. And is there really a male alive who does not enjoy watching such activity? If so, I may be a cretin and not know it. But given the popularity of pornography-as evidenced simply by the money it draws-I will go on assuming that I'm normal.
I love Robert Jensen's writing and agree with him on almost everything I've read by him, but, without more specifics, I don't get the concern here. I suppose I would need to know more about what is meant by "healthy sexuality" and "toxic pornography," along with who gets to decide on the definitions.
Sex is fun. It's fun to watch. It's fun to engage in. It brings humans together. It keeps our species, and all others, in existence. It might solve the world's problems if more people made love instead of war. If I were openly religious, I would even say that that's how God wanted it to be.
As far as how any one person deals with his or her sexual urges, I think that's a highly personal matter that ought to stay that way. And I'd just as soon not have the state or anyone else poking a nose into my bedroom or my personal business.
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 58 quicklinks, 121 diaries, 681 comments)
on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 1:08:07 PM
There is much more to this little rap about sex than meets the eye. I think ultimately much of what we see around us comes down to our deepest view of the universe, ideas about why we are here, and about human nature itself. I realize such topics are encyclopedic in themselves, but for now I would simply steer the reader to "neoconservatism" in Wikipedia. It's a lengthy article, and to stay on point I'll merely quote this part here, with a reminder that the "neoconservatives" are, ironically, the ones pushing for "more war!":
The movement [of neoconservatism] ... first crystallized in the late 1960s as an effort to combat the radical cultural changes taking place within the United States. Irving Kristol wrote: "If there is any one thing that neoconservatives are unanimous about, it is their dislike of the counterculture." [Which I take to mean "drugs" and "sex for fun"--I seek correction if I'm wrong on this.]
Norman Podhoretz agreed: "Revulsion against the counterculture accounted for more converts to neoconservativism than any other single factor."
Ira Chernus, a professor at the University of Colorado, argues that the deepest root of the neoconservative movement is its fear that the counterculture would undermine the authority of traditional values and moral norms. Because neoconservatives believe that human nature is innately selfish, they believe that a society with no commonly accepted values based on religion or ancient tradition will end up in a war of all against all. They also believe that the most important social value is strength, especially the strength to control natural impulses. The only alternative, they assume, is weakness that will let impulses run riot and lead to social chaos.
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 58 quicklinks, 121 diaries, 681 comments)
on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 2:28:09 PM
that ' freedom is aristocratic'. That is freedom cannot belong to all; it can only belong to those who can handle it.
Neocons and Co proclaim one thing and really believe in another. They want ' freedom' to be only for them. They want to become the modern aristocracy which can do anything to anyone up to the ' first night' but punish all the other 'commoners' for dancing under the trees in the wrong time. Neocons are the primary traitors because they hate... democracy.
Everything else is a tool.
by
Mark Sashine (47 articles, 19 quicklinks, 236 diaries, 3362 comments)
on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 2:48:05 PM
Uh, Daniel, did you read the article before commenting?
Jensen explained clearly that the critique of exploitive porn is no more anti-sex than the critique of McDonald's is anti-food. So it looks to anyone reading your comment as if you never read the article, but just saw the heading, glanced at the first paragraph or so, and had the ignorant knee-jerk response that Jensen describes from some of the people at the conference. From your writings, I've come to expect much better of you.
You write: "It is entirely possible that Robert and I have been exposed to different types of pornography."
That is possible. You may only have seen erotica, that is, depictions of mutual enjoyment, rather than porn which degrades females. It is much more likely though that you cannot imagine having been born female and therefore cannot put yourself in the place of the females in the films, so as to be able to rationally decide if that was how you would wish to be depicted if you were in their place. One of the very first things that a patriarchal society does in imposing gender roles based on sex, is make empathy for others impossible, since we come to think of them as different from us, and therefore cannot imagine ourselves in their place. What might not be okay for us, is therefore fine for them because they are different.
You said, "In pornography, I see men and women enjoying together that most elemental drive that has propagated out species, and without which not a one of us would be here."
You certainly wouldn't be attempting to claim that without pornography our species wouldn't propagate? The human sex drive is extremely strong, and anyone who hasn't become so jaded by pornography that they've lost their natural sex drive, would be aware of or at least remember that fact.
You continue, "I think in general, from what I've read, observed and gathered over the years, men are far more visually oriented sexually than females."
Ah. That must explain why there are no female artists, why males adorn themselves more extravagantly, and why so many interior designers are male? Can you say, "stereotype," Daniel?
You add: "They are far more likely to be the primary consumers of pornography for that reason. I've read of efforts to make pornography that would be more appealing to females, but haven't heard of anyone accomplishing that."
Or could it possibly be that in our patriarchal world females have been subjugated for so long that males, who considered females to be mere slaves, chattel, possessions, or consumer goods for 5,000 years, have not yet shed that mindset and still control the marketplace? Is it possible that prior to the mid-eighties, when the EEO laws began to go into effect, females were, with rare exceptions, barred from the universities, barred from the professions, barred from most lucrative careers, and lacked the purchasing power of males, so many sold or rented themselves to males in order to survive, while males casually bought and rented as many females as they could afford?
Daniel: "(This is why writing is a risky business-you might easily display your ignorance for the world to see, and not have a clue that you did.)"
If you hadn't a clue, you wouldn't have written that. There must have been some trace of a question in your mind as to whether what you were writing was well-informed or ignorant.
Daniel: "I have also read of pornography made specifically for educational purposes in therapeutic situations, and read that it is often successful in bringing the joy of sex into otherwise rather sterile relationships. Is anyone saying that might be a bad thing?"
I don't think anyone has, so I will. If two people are no longer attracted to each other, why force them to have sex? Is marriage supposed to be something like Abu Ghraib where people are forced to be sexual in order to humiliate them? Maybe they'd be happier without sex. Are you certain that refraining from doing something that you do not feel inclined to do, is a bad thing?
Daniel: "In pornography I'm familiar with, I believe it would be next to impossible for the women to be faking their enjoyment of pleasure-either that, or they are better actors than many Hollywood stars."
If you'd had 5,000 years of practice pretending that you enjoyed being dominated so as to avoid being killed, I bet you'd get pretty darned good at it too.
Daniel: "And is there really a male alive who does not enjoy watching such activity? If so, I may be a cretin and not know it. But given the popularity of pornography-as evidenced simply by the money it draws-I will go on assuming that I'm normal."
There is probably not a male or a female alive who does not enjoy having sex when they wish to, with whom they wish to. But there are millions of people alive who would be hard-put to understand what pleasure could be derived from watching other people do it. Before the pornification of our society, most people took sex personally, and those who enjoyed watching it instead of or in addition to doing it, were called voyeurs and considered somewhat abnormal.
Daniel: "I love Robert Jensen's writing and agree with him on almost everything I've read by him, but, without more specifics, I don't get the concern here. I suppose I would need to know more about what is meant by "healthy sexuality" and "toxic pornography," along with who gets to decide on the definitions."
Go back and read the article, Daniel. And then take a look at the agenda for the conference:
Daniel: "Sex is fun. It's fun to watch. It's fun to engage in. It brings humans together. It keeps our species, and all others, in existence."
You seem to be confusing sex with pornography again. They are not the same. If pornography was necessary for sex, none of us would be here, as our ancestors didn't have cameras.
Daniel: "As far as how any one person deals with his or her sexual urges, I think that's a highly personal matter that ought to stay that way. And I'd just as soon not have the state or anyone else poking a nose into my bedroom or my personal business."
But they have, Daniel. They have shaped your habits and desires to the point where you think you are exercising your own personal choice when you purchase a porn flick or view one online, just as you might imagine that you are exercising your own personal choice when you buy any other product that is marketed to you. You are part of a consumer culture where personal choice is seen not as whether or not to purchase something, but which brand or model to buy. As an anti-civilizationist, I think we were meant to have much broader personal choices than that.
--Mark
by danielge
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 29 quicklinks, 77 diaries, 979 comments)
on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 2:55:31 PM
But I now must admit, it isn't always. C'est la Vie!
I did read Robert's article quite carefully, along with the link to the flyer he referred to. I had to look up "misogyny," which I learned means "hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women."
About all I can do is make it clear that is the opposite of how I feel--and may the reader decide for him or herself just how screwed up I am!
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 58 quicklinks, 121 diaries, 681 comments)
on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 4:02:41 PM
I remember the scandals caused by Margaret Mead and other anthropologists who pointed out that some indigenous cultures enjoyed sex outside of marriage and didn't seem to be very screwed up by it.
First we place constraints on human sexuality, and then we devise technological solutions to help us cope with those restraints, rather than simply removing the restraints.
Considering that even creationists admit that people have been around for a few thousand years, and the fact that cameras have only been around for a few hundred, it is clear that porn is not a prerequisite to either procreation or to sex for fun.
Having been around during the sixties, which was before the pornography boom, I know from personal experience that porn is not necessary to the counterculture. Anyone in the industry can tell you that producers and consumers of porn are not limited to either the right or the left of the political spectrum.
Just as many racists will tell you that some of their best friends are people of color, many males who act in hateful ways towards females, beating them, exploiting their unpaid labor, discriminating against them in the workplace, and attempting to dominate and control them, will tell you in all sincerity that they "love women." And many self-styled misogynists will admit that there are females they admire and respect.
The answer to your question about who makes the decision is that such decisions should be made by people who educate themselves on the issue and take part in discussions without preconceptions. That could easily be you. Why not take a stab at answering my question: Are you certain that refraining from doing something that you do not feel inclined to do, is a bad thing?
What if, instead of believing that everyone should have as much sex as possible, our society believed that everyone should drive as fast as possible, and provided incentives and stimuli to help people who weren't inclined to speed? Surely there would be a lot more carnage on the roads. Is it possible that some of the violence in our society is caused by the way we provide incentives and stimuli for people to have sex when they don't feel like it or in ways in which they don't feel comfortable?
Check your spam sometime. I've been remarking for years how strange it is that our society would be concerned about the dramatically increasing rates of HIV infection amongst the elderly, at the same time that it was selling them Viagra, Cialis, and encouraging them to have more sex. My personal opinion is that left to their own devices, people will tend to do what they feel like doing, and that is their right, but when corporations and industries bombard them with multi-million-dollar marketing campaigns, those corporations and industries should be responsible for the consequences.
One of my main objections to porn is that kids are exposed to so much of it these days, that most have so many preconceived notions derived from porn about how to have and think about sex, before they ever have an opportunity to actually have sex, that they are being deprived of their right to explore their own bodies and develop their own sexuality by themselves. To me, that doesn't seem liberating at all -- quite the opposite.
--Mark
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 29 quicklinks, 77 diaries, 979 comments)
on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 4:52:08 PM
You ask: "Why not take a stab at answering my question: Are you certain that refraining from doing something that you do not feel inclined to do, is a bad thing?"
I'm certain of very little, to be sure, and the situation seems to get worse as the days roll by. However, I'll take a stab at your question, but first rephrase it a little differently, if I may, to help myself think about it more clearly (and for you to be sure I got it right).
"Is it a bad thing to refrain from doing something that you do not feel inclined to do?"
I guess I need to think in terms of specific examples, because my initial reaction is that, "it depends."
Example #1: I have a friend who I encouraged to make phone calls via Moveon.org, before the recent elections. He wouldn't do it, and said that making such calls "goes against every fiber in my body-I just can't do it," he said.
I respect that, and indeed I had similar feelings. But due to a writer on this site, and Al Gore's email, I was prompted to go to a local get-together and make the calls. I feel confident that both responses, my friend's and my own, were perfectly legitimate, even though I don't think my calls did much good.
Example #2: Many people don't feel like going to work in the morning. But they do anyway, and I'm confident that in general that's a good thing.
I have occasionally gotten "powder fever"-a common ailment here in Utah after a fresh snow storm-and called in sick. Not going to work in those situations was always good for my mental health (and in fact kept me more physically healthy than many of my colleagues).
Example #3: When I was a kid, I always wanted to refrain from doing my homework. I'm certain it would have seemed like a good thing, at least until my parents found out, when I'm certain it would have seemed like a bad thing.
I'm really not trying to be facetious, just trying to answer your question as directly as possible.
Your Question #2: "Is it possible that some of the violence in our society is caused by the way we provide incentives and stimuli for people to have sex when they don't feel like it or in ways in which they don't feel comfortable?"
I imagine it is possible, but I've read a lot over the years on this topic generally, and never saw a study that actually linked pornography and violence. And that is not because people haven't avidly looked for such a connection (of course, there may be studies I'm unaware of).
Your statement: "One of my main objections to porn is that kids are exposed to so much of it these days, that most have so many preconceived notions derived from porn about how to have and think about sex, before they ever have an opportunity to actually have sex, that they are being deprived of their right to explore their own bodies and develop their own sexuality by themselves. To me, that doesn't seem liberating at all -- quite the opposite."
That may be true, or not, again depending on the situation, but I'm disinclined to make generalizations. For example, what do we mean by kids? Many specialists in sex therapy (depending on who you talk to) claim sexual dysfunctions are caused by lack of education regarding sex. Speaking from experience, and now looking back, I feel I would have benefited greatly from a sex education that pornography might have provided, and that--I assure you--Catholic school did not. Great misery could have been avoided.
Might there be some damaging effects of pornography, which have been or can actually be substantiated? I'd like to know.
Last but not least, I do not condone violence in any way shape or form, or child pornography, and I think there's a pretty bright red line society should be drawing in these areas.
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 58 quicklinks, 121 diaries, 681 comments)
on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 10:03:26 PM
Daniel: "Last but not least, I do not condone violence in any way shape or form, or child pornography, and I think there's a pretty bright red line society should be drawing in these areas."
I'm glad that you oppose violence, but "in any way, shape, or form" seems strange to me. Do you oppose violence in self-defense? I don't. And exactly what is it about child pornography that you are opposed to? Defenders of kiddy porn say that if it is nonviolent and if the child consents and enjoys it, there is no harm done. Apart from the fact that minors are below the statutory age of consent, and therefore are not legally capable of consenting, just what is there about porn that you feel harms children but not adults?
Daniel: "Might there be some damaging effects of pornography, which have been or can actually be substantiated? I'd like to know."
There have been studies of that nature. One famous one was of serial killers, almost all of whom used pornography before they began their careers as serial killers, and credited it with helping them form their world view and shape the fantasies they later carried out. Other studies have linked porn with domestic violence and violence against females by teens.
Daniel: "That may be true, or not, again depending on the situation, but I'm disinclined to make generalizations. For example, what do we mean by kids? Many specialists in sex therapy (depending on who you talk to) claim sexual dysfunctions are caused by lack of education regarding sex. Speaking from experience, and now looking back, I feel I would have benefited greatly from a sex education that pornography might have provided, and that--I assure you--Catholic school did not. Great misery could have been avoided."
Does it never occur to you that great misery could have been avoided by avoiding a religious education, in which case no porn would be necessary to compensate for harm which had never been done? All patriarchal religions insist on and strictly enforce gender roles that make empathy between males and females difficult, if not impossible, and place constraints on human sexuality that inhibit its free expression. If you removed those restraints, as I said earlier, you would not need porn to compensate for them.
Daniel: "I imagine it is possible, but I've read a lot over the years on this topic generally, and never saw a study that actually linked pornography and violence. And that is not because people haven't avidly looked for such a connection (of course, there may be studies I'm unaware of)."
Yes, there are many such studies. But they're not available on porn sites or in porn stores, any more than Ralph Nader's groundbreaking book, "Unsafe at Any Speed," is available at auto dealerships.
As for your comparisons of sex to lobbying legislators, going to work in the morning, or doing homework, you're comparing apples to oranges.
Do you really think of sex as a necessary but unpleasant duty that you have a civic or legal obligation to perform?
Let me rephrase my original question: When I asked if you were certain if refraining from doing something that you did not feel inclined to do, was a bad thing, I was not referring to civic or legal obligations, I was referring to sex. So I'll ask again, more clearly:
Are you certain that refraining from sex when you do not feel horny is a bad thing to do?
by
Mark E. Smith (21 articles, 29 quicklinks, 77 diaries, 979 comments)
on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 3:10:24 AM
Anyone that thinks women are having "fun" in porno movies is ignorant about female anatomy. The way they have sex in those movies a woman isn't being stimulated the way she would need to be to have "fun".
This is a big problem with pornograpy, boys and men are taught falsehoods about a woman and what really pleases her. Women then think something is wrong with her because she isn't enjoying it so pretends to be having "FUN".
Also coming from a woman pornography are very sexist and men often accuse women of being prudes if they protest about it.
As for men being so visual why is that it's men having sex with animals, pies, etc...? Are the animals and pies that attractive?
by
Glenda R (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments)
on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at 4:03:53 PM
I read the whole thing, and it got as little boring. But Daniel, you did fine, and I know exactly how it is..... You mentioned somewhere else, how it's better to reread what one writes laster, or the next morning, before sending it? Yes, that is very true...and I still make the same mistake over, and over again...I don't. And there is room, and reason for such. I understand what you said, and I appreciate your 'realness'....I find what you said almost 'cute', but in a good, and manly way...OK? You were thinking out loud.
As for Mark, you are making good points to the 'text' that was spoken. as usual, you are 'right' about much of what you say. You are smart, and you thought about what you said a lot more carefully as did Daniel, and it is always so much easier to be in the position of the responder. I also agree with you, that this was perhaps not Daniel's most brilliant expression of intellectual, educated, and political, etc..thinking. But this non-brilliant stuff is just as important, and human, and valuable...and real. It enables me to see daniel more as a person, and I find many people's spontaneous 'imperfections' very endearing, and it makes me feel closer to them. Real is better than perfect...any day.
Last, Daniel's comment about men being more visually turned on than women by sex/sex related stuff is not merely a generalization, but it is true, and a known fact.
I do agree that millions of women have unwanted sex every day. (and again, I know this is not limited to women) Perhaps, those numbers are higher among married women than they are among prostitutes. But I also believe, that a natural majority of healthy people do enjoy watching sex in one form , or another, and it does not have to be at every moment, and/or in every form. I personally can't stand watching prolonged kissing..it disgusts me. As for the pornography i have seen, I find it so incredibly boring that I am too tired to even say more. It lacks what I find the 'main, and highest quality ingredient', and which lies simply in the word 'erotic'. There is nothing erotic about pornography. Anyway, so much for my contribution. Just don't feel bad, OK? I am glad I read your conversation, and I learned something from it for myself. (not edited)
by
Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 11 diaries, 525 comments)
on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 5:46:07 PM
