1 edit
Originally posted by demonseedIt's 99% misogyny.
It's 99% misogyny.
Dress it up how you like ... a nurse's uniform if you will but porn caters for the impotent male's need to reclaim power over emancipated woman.
Paradoxically, porn that contains ultra dominant females is the u ...[text shortened]... orn but when I watch it I know why.
Repressed wish fulfillment.
That entirely depends on what porn you're into. Sure, if all you watch is quaterbacks screwing cheerleaders in shower rooms, fair enough I agree (although I think misogyny is a little extreme a word). But there's so many different desires and expressions in terms of sex and porn caters for that.
Dress it up how you like ... a nurse's uniform if you will but porn caters for the impotent male's need to reclaim power over emancipated woman.
That sounds like something Freud would say. I totally disagree with this statement.
Paradoxically, porn that contains ultra dominant females is the ultimate expression of this repressed wish.
But you're assuming that all porn watchers are both male and repressed, this is definitely not true.
Don't get me wrong I like porn but when I watch it I know why. Repressed wish fulfillment.
There is certainly a fantasy element to it and generally most of us are not as endowed or good looking as the people in the films. But I think that is a result of media and celebrity as much as anything else. Humans like to watch beautiful people, be it in a state of undress, or saving the world from evil, it is certainly not specific to porn. There are also plenty of porn films that cater for people who's tastes are not in the stereotypical misogynist realm.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarrmanActually I watched porn with my girlfriend and we liked it.
[b]It's 99% misogyny.
That entirely depends on what porn you're into. Sure, if all you watch is quaterbacks screwing cheerleaders in shower rooms, fair enough I agree. But there's so many different desires and expressions in te ...[text shortened]... ople who's tastes are not in the stereotypical mysoginist realm. [/b]
But I noticed that the sex afterwards seemed to be very aggressive.
As for your contention that porn caters for all tastes, I cannot agree. The vast majority of it is staid and follows familiar patterns.
As for the Freudian comment: I think that the depiction of women in pornography is troubling and is tangential to their increased status in society which leads me to conclude that most pornography is a counter-reaction to the equality of opportunity for the sexes. My objection is a political one rather than psychological.
Originally posted by demonseedI agree, mostly sex is agressive. In most animals it is this way, I guess because the competition for genetic transfer is so important that dominance must be in place within sexual desire to force the process. There has always been the dominance of man over woman as normative state in terms of sex and some cultures still actively practice the submission of women in sex. But I don't agree that this is a result of any equality battle. I would suggest that, since sex is very much a base instinct, goverened by hormones, that such portrayal of man dominating woman is natural to process of sexuality. I know some people will gasp and cry chauvanist here, but I think you're right, most men watch porn with male domination in it and the reason is simply the sexual instinct in humans is made that way.
Actually I watched porn with my girlfriend and we liked it.
But I noticed that the sex afterwards seemed to be very aggressive.
As for your contention that porn caters for all tastes, I cannot agree. The vast majority of it is staid and follows familiar patterns.
As for the Freudian comment: I think that the depiction of women in pornography is t ...[text shortened]... ality of opportunity for the sexes. My objection is a political one rather than psychological.
However, I still maintain that there is porn for all tastes. Sure, it doesn't always appear available, but it's a bit like music. The vast majority of it is trash, churned out by the industry and force fed to the dribbling masses. You have to go looking for the more interesting stuff. Perhaps we should call it 'Indie Porn'...
Originally posted by StarrmanI agree that there is some different/'indie porn out there, in fact I own some.
I agree, mostly sex is agressive. In most animals it is this way, I guess because the competition for genetic transfer is so important that dominance must be in place within sexual desire to force the process. There has always been the dominance of man over woman as normative state in terms of sex and some cultures still actively practice the submission o ...[text shortened]... have to go looking for the more interesting stuff. Perhaps we should call it 'Indie Porn'...
I am sceptical of resorting to instinct as an argument. There is the slight sense of cop out. I don't think sex is automatically an aggressive act .... but I know that sometimes, it is really good when it has that edge.
Examples are found in nature too eg the romeo monkey who not being quite as strong or as aggressive as the rest of its group he resorts to crude seduction techniques.
Good sex starts with seduction, and building anticipation. Okay it might become more aggressive but arousal is heightened by being sensitive to the other person rather than being desensitised by aggressive 'dogging.'
Originally posted by Shanshu311Interestingly, it seems that it was becoming less of an argument and more a meeting in the middle.
Some people/couples enjoy porn, and some do not. Can't we just leave it at that? I know this argument will continue regardless, but I thought I'd throw that out there.
1 edit
Originally posted by demonseedBut it does tend to be the case that while Indie porn is in the minority for human tastes, so too is non-agressive sex for animals. Although lets not forget, we're not talking about courting here, but the act of copulation itself.
I agree that there is some different/'indie porn out there, in fact I own some.
I am sceptical of resorting to instinct as an argument. There is the slight sense of cop out. I don't think sex is automatically an aggressive act .... b ...[text shortened]... r person rather than being desensitised by aggressive 'dogging.'
Certainly humans are more advanced and as such have the capacity for more complex forms of pleasure than 'agressive dogging'. My point was that in a competitive sexual atmosphere (which humans as a successful species are less concerned with), agression is less time/resource intensive than for example seduction or passive sex. Lets look at how partners are chosen, would you as a female for example, prefer a strong healthy powerful mate who can provide for/protect you, or a passive one whose genes are likely to be less successful?
I am pleased that we are discussing more of the dimensions of sex than just 'porn is bad! no porn is good!' kind of stuff 🙂
Originally posted by PalynkaI don't think they meant the brain....
Constipation, definitely.
Anyways, back on topic:
Interesting thread.
A while ago, a came across an interesting study (which, sadly I'm unable to find anymore). They had 2 groups of males. They showed them pictures of women (no, not naked... ). Difference was that one group was shown porn beforehand, while the other group wasn't. When they were shown pictures of women afterwards, they were asked to do a brainstorming and the reactions were very different: eg. there was a black women in a business suit. While the non-porn group said things like "business-like" and "emancipated", the porn group said things like "whore", "slut" etc.
Pretty interesting, isn't it?
But actually, I just thought I'd share it with you, I'm not on a campaign against porn. I actually like porn, from time to time. And I wouldn't mind my boyfriend watching it, if I had one 😉
Originally posted by StarrmanIn terms of myself I am less concerned with physical endowments but rather intellectual endowments.
But it does tend to be the case that while Indie porn is in the minority for human tastes, so too is non-agressive sex for animals. Although lets not forget, we're not talking about courting here, but the act of copulation itself.
Certainly humans are more advanced and as such have the capacity for more complex forms of pleasure than 'agressive doggi ...[text shortened]... ssing more of the dimensions of sex than just 'porn is bad! no porn is good!' kind of stuff 🙂
If I was female I am not sure if my needs would be the same.
Remember it's not just survival of the fittest but also the smartest.
Originally posted by StarrmanOr would you--as a woman--prefer Etruscan-style exogamous relationships?
Lets look at how partners are chosen, would you as a female for example, prefer a strong healthy powerful mate who can provide for/protect you, or a passive one whose genes are likely to be less successful?
I am pleased that we are discussing more of the dimensions of sex than just 'porn is bad! no porn is good!' kind of stuff 🙂
Originally posted by demonseed
In terms of myself I am less concerned with physical endowments but rather intellectual endowments.
I am too, though physical endowments must first reach a minimum level to cause desire before intellectual endowments are a factor (understanding that I am speaking from a purely sexual point of view).
If I was female I am not sure if my needs would be the same. Remember it's not just survival of the fittest but also the smartest.
I was speaking from an evolutionary standpoint rather than one of present human perception. In the modern society perhaps the two are the same thing? Humans have evolved a great deal socially and I believe this impacts on what we find attractive. There is less competition for mates than there was 100,000 years ago, so our tastes have changed.