Last night, trapped in one of those 'I would got to bed if I could be bothered to get off the sofa' waves of apathy, I ended up watching 'SEX: The Annabel Chong Story' on Channel Four. Everybody presumably knows about this now, but if not, Annabel Chong was an American college student of Korean/Singaporean origin who turned her hand to making porn films, and then made the record books by shagging 251 men in ten hours - her notorious 'gang bang'.
This was probably discussed to the nines at the time, but seeing it again, I found myself distinctly uncomfortable all over again with Chong's insistence that she'd made an empowering statement for women everywhere, casting women in the role of the stud rather than the slag - user rather than used. As the queue of greasy truckers formed, it became difficult to believe that the only person getting her kicks was Chong herself. Later on in the film, her admission that she cuts herself regularly to ease the painful memory of her rape in London 5 years previously would seem to indicate that the 'Gang bang' wasn't quite the statement of empowerment she claimed at the time, but more an attempt to assuage the damage done by her previous sexual experience. Anyway.
What I was thinking was this. Annabel Chong's is an extreme example, but her notion of recasting the woman as a stud is an interesting one. Will women ever be treated entirely equally in terms of attitudes to sexual promiscuity? Or are we doomed to all have reactions like mine - to assume, even before I knew she was 'damaged' by the rape (her words - even though when she talks about the rape she makes it sound like just another sexual exploit, bandying the word 'rape' around willy-nilly), that she was entirely delusional and just being 'used' by all 251 men? We have come a long way in our attitudes to sex. Ann Summers has made a shitload of money out of women's increasingly liberal attitudes to their own sexuality. But is promiscuity the last taboo, and will women ever be able to adopt the sexual practices more commonly associated with men without being labelled total slags?
[ 14.03.2005, 06:53: Message edited by: scrawny ]
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Why is it that some women often appear to want to 'empower' themselves into the basest grotesqueries of male behaviour? You know? It's like the whole drive towards female equality has resulted in an increasing number of women acting like men in the worst possible way.
Having done away with the archaic idea that women should be demure, homebound maternal and silent, how do modern young women celebrate this? By going out in noisy gaggles of sexually charged up boozy groups of vomiting neanderthals. Sure - it's being on an equal footing as men, but it's the worst kind of male behaviour.
Upon challenging the double standards in the work place, and forging a position where they could be taken seriously, women had astutely emancipated themselves to take part in avarice, power hunger and money worship at the expense of the family. So they did, emulating the behaviour of fuckwitted money-grubbing kid neglecting porsche driving men throughout the Western world.
So what's up for grabs next? Promiscuity? Now women are after the male lout's supposed kudos for banging vast numbers of the opposite sex in a loveless boozy exchange performed not for affection or pleasure but rather the roaring approval of your intellectually bereft peers? Man - you chicks really do set your aspirations high.
And look: when the plates of sexual equality were shifting, what was the male response? Did we scratch our balls and wait for women to lower themselves to our levels, ready to hand them a Hooch as soon as the were able to mire themselves in the same behaviour. No! Men were endeavouring to elevate their thinking to embrace the higher qualities of femininity. We developed the concept of the new man: a sensitive, loyal, humble character who put his family first and took great care with his health to maximise the amount of pleasure he could draw from the loving relationships with the women in his life. We were looking forward to it! It was going to be a brilliant new world, where everyone embraced the lofty qualities embodied in women. But women let us down. All they want - apparently - is to behave as badly as us. Thanks a lot girls. You ruined everything. Posted by Gemini (Member # 428) on :
I don't think it is about empowerment, or as Thorn has suggested lowering ourselves to the basest of male grotesqueries I think it's just a wish to have preconception of a female who sleeps around as a bad person changed to the realisation that woman like sex as much as men and that sometimes we too would like no-strings attached sex for the sake of it without being labelled as a slut (which has derogatory conatations). Saying that taking part in a 256 men gang-bang isn't really the right way to do that.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Of course, if you cease to care what these people think, then the problem goes away on its own.
Posted by scrawny (Member # 113) on :
Do we think that by going to such extreme lengths to prove she's a stud, not a slut, she has in fact made things worse? By claiming that all women wold be jealous of her stunt, is she reinforcing the idea that all women are dirty slags who would take it in any hole at any time from as many people as possible if they possibly could? That's not empowering. That's taking away my right to choose. i think that's what annoyed me, actually, her endless waffling about how she was doing it for women in one breath, and how she was enjoying making all women jealous of her in the next. Grr. idiot.
On a completely different tack, what do we think of the concept of the male 'stud'? Is this still alive and well, or as thorn puts it, has the new man successfully slain the rutting casanova image for good? I've met a couple of men who've slept with over 100 women. Both of them were extraordinarily charming, and great to have as friends, but I never considered having sex with them. I can't help it, but i always assume that a lad whose sexual criteria simply involve bedding as many different women as possible to be:
Missing something in his life that would make him act like that
Devoid of the requisite personality plus points necessary to hold down a relationship
Diseased
A bit sad, really. LIke this guy:
Maybe it's not that women can't be studs. Maybe 'studs' are just out.
Posted by Gemini (Member # 428) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Of course, if you cease to care what these people think, then the problem goes away on its own.
Good point, but wouldn't it be nice to reach a point where slut or slag meant a woman who did just sleep round without the bad conatations that go with it, just like it would be nice to reclaim the word **** so all it meant a womans private parts rather than being used as an insult. It's the context in which these words are used which is offensive rather than the words themselves.
[ 14.03.2005, 07:23: Message edited by: Gemini ]
Posted by scrawny (Member # 113) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: Of course, if you cease to care what these people think, then the problem goes away on its own.
Not always possible, though, is it? There was just a case of a waitress who was constructively dismissed because she slept with a couple of other staff members and was relentlessly bullied for it until she quit. I'm trying to google it, hang on.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gemini: Good point, but wouldn't it be nice to reach a point where slut or slag meant a woman who did just sleep round without the bad conatations that go with it, just like it would be nice to reclaim the word **** so all it meant a womans private parts rather than being used as an insult.
It's a nice dream, but I think the use of the word nigger has just done more to promote it's use among black men whilst making it punishable by death for white men to even think. Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by scrawny: On a completely different tack, what do we think of the concept of the male 'stud'? Is this still alive and well, or as thorn puts it, has the new man successfully slain the rutting casanova image for good? I've met a couple of men who've slept with over 100 women. Both of them were extraordinarily charming, and great to have as friends, but I never considered having sex with them.
Surely people's reactions to such a number are going to vary, making it impossible to divine an overriding "opinion" for people in any meaningful way. I mean my first instinct to Gemini's comment was "but surely no-one really thinks like that anymore", until my throughts were interrupted by the asinine braying of the sales team behind me and I thought "actually, yes. They would." But no-one worthwhile woulkd, and really we shouldn't need everyone, everywhere from every background to endorse what we do in our sex lives.
I don't think the idea of a seducer, a stud, is dead exactly, but even a cursory examination of the idea reveals it as flawed indicator of sexual worthiness or attractiveness. A friend of mine recently married the ugliest man in Cardiff, and he proudly claims to have banged something like 5 times as many girls as me. Obviously he's not 5 times better than me - he'd have to be some kind of Superman. Plus his delivery of the line reveales his abhorrent habit of using women as trophies, which is an ugly idea I'd never indulge in. Anyway, I've fucked his wife so, realistically, I'm still winning.
Where was I? I forget now. O yeah. I can see why Scrawny would get annoyed about Annabelle Chong's comments on banging 256 guys making other women jealous, but come on - you're playing a dangerous game there. If you venture into a world where you expect porn stars to be able to provide incisive critical commentary on the landscape of sexuality, feminism and labelling you risk invoking a society where you wind up watching porno tapes featuring Germaine Greer being creampied.
[ 14.03.2005, 07:44: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by scrawny (Member # 113) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: If you venture into a world where you expect porn stars to be able to provide incisive critical commentary on the landscape of sexuality, feminism and labelling you risk invoking a society where you wind up watching porno tapes featuring Germaine Greer being creampied.
I didn't expect her to provide it. I would have possibly preferred her to shut the fuck up, or at least take the standard porn route of admitting that it was total titillation ('I'm a big-titted slut and I can't WAIT for your cock!'). It was her that provided what she clearly believed was insightful critical commentary. There were shots of her sitting in her feminist theory class spouting such gems as, 'I believe...you know...women should just, you know...be able to fuck...like men...without feeling bad. We should just todally just empower ourselves...you know...and there's all this bullshit stereotyping...it's, like, so bullshit. I mean, I'm a feminist, and i todally dig fucking, you know?'
Off topic slightly, why did your mate marry someone who is not only the ugliest man in cardiff, but uses women as trophies? Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by scrawny: why did your mate marry someone who is not only the ugliest man in cardiff, but uses women as trophies?
Well, she has a mercilessly strict life plan that necessitated her being married by the age of 24 to someone who could afford a four bedroom house and to support her as she looks after the child - this guy fitted the bill and was willing to replace his laddish activities in favour of a wife clearly out of his league and familial responsibilities. So there's no need for the sad face: they've both gotten what the want out of it and her life is working out entirely according to plan.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
Plus - she's a total slut, and none of the rest of us would have wanted to marry damaged goods like that. I mean - fine for a fuck but you hardly want to settle down with someone like that, do you?
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by scrawny: Maybe it's not that women can't be studs. Maybe 'studs' are just out.
I think we need to update our terminology. The whole point of a stud is to impregnate a mare so as to produce a baby horse for racing, eventing or (in France) devouring.
The human equivalent of a stud, unless he has a death wish, will be using a condom when he does his studding... which surely makes the analogy redundant. I mean, what sort of owner would go to all the trouble of breeding a world-class stallion - and then swaddle the creature's glory in a rubber sheathe whenever the hapless beast was brought into the presence of a lady horse? The very idea is ridiculous.
How about the gender-neutral term 'sexually incontinent'? It's equally judgemental whether applied to male or female subjects.
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: her life is working out entirely according to plan.
B-but, McLusky have split up...
Posted by Tom Boy (Member # 765) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gemini: slut or slag meant a woman who did just sleep round without the bad conatations that go with it,
I do get you, and forgive me if this is off topic but a male slag in my view is nothing to be proud of, the word slag being operative in this discription. someone who has had sex with alot of people is not something to be ashamed of its the way in which its done, EG: Thorns er... aquaintance.
quote:Originally posted by Gemini: just like it would be nice to reclaim the word **** so all it meant a womans private parts rather than being used as an insult. It's the context in which these words are used which is offensive rather than the words themselves.
I think its a persons view that makes something offensive, I know lots of people who use the word cun* with no intention of offence at all, much like the use of the word dick. I think the more these words are used the less offencive they will become thus disarming those verbal barbarians of their weaponary. The attraction of using words like cun* is the fact that they shock and offend people, that is down to the individual being offended dealing with particular language.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
I don't see how women feel like the don't have the upper hand in modern day. For example: one look at the Gemini Ginormopants have kept me quiet all day.
Posted by scrawny (Member # 113) on :
Where the fucking shit is everyone? I mean, I don't expect everyone to post on this thread, but, you know, I kinda expected someone to post somewhere on the WHOLE forum at some point today.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
Hello Scrawny. I am partially here - trying to get my 'house in order' in case I am urgently called away by impending baby action. I was rotten with the common cold over the weekend so am still a little hazy about wh
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
If it makes you feel better, I have been sat, frustrated unable to get my thoughts down to join in this thread. My web window is currently 1x1 pixels large to avoid getting caught in an open plan office.
Posted by scrawny (Member # 113) on :
...Is D having the baby? is she? IS SHE?
Oh my God, this is so exciting. We could document her labour online.
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
Wow - Ben just died halfway through a word. He must have hit reply with his head as he slumped over.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I've recently noticed this happenning every few days on TMO. I guess everyone heads off to their other fora, come the mid afternoon.
You've also been a bit poor in the mornings, TeeMooers. I get in to work at 9:00am and I expect something funny and thought-provoking to read with my coffee. There have been too many mornings when you haven't put any effort in until after 10:00am!
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
even worse, i get in at somewhere between 8-9 am MY TIME. and often see nothing. a whole morning and a bit of the afternoon of non-productivity on TMO. of course this could mean you're all working dead hrd.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
It wouldn't surprise me if Benwife was currently in labour now and he double-backed to the study to post that exciting cliff-hanger.
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
baby: waahh! waahh!
ben: lol n00b! D4D$ p\/\/|\|!1
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
Sorry - the break was supposed to convey my continuing not-with-it-ness today; I necked so much Night Nurse over the weekend it felt at one point like I'd turned into a life-size effigy of myself hewn from cork.
When la-baby-hour begins I'll give the following signal: Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
Omikin - I take it you found your little friends the other night...
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: When la-baby-hour begins I'll give the following signal:
See. Picture ben on a wi-fi laptop typing with his left hand and holding the baby in with his right.
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Omikin - I take it you found your little friends the other night...
yeah, we were back on schedule in no time.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
I'd post but I'm doing more exciting things. I'm sorry. Though I will be cheering with great enthusiasm from the sidelines when D finall sprogs.
Posted by scrawny (Member # 113) on :
Fi...Fifichan?
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
Swuh...swuh...sweetcheeks?
Sorry Scrawny, I will try to write a massive post, like that time I tried to help with online virtual reality, except this time: relevant.
Posted by Louche (Member # 450) on :
I was only trying to make myself sound interesting. I failed again.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
Hello! I'm here, and have even made a new post. But it's in web, and it's about macs, so I am predicting approximately no (0) replies.
I am buying a car tonight! I have to walk through Dalston with a huge wedge of cash in my inside pocket. I am taking a spare pair of pants.
Posted by Octavia (Member # 398) on :
Did you buy your car, herbs? is it good? Does it go, eh, eh? (nudge nudge, wink wink etc etc repeat to fade).
[ 15.03.2005, 03:41: Message edited by: Octavia ]
Posted by Abby (Member # 582) on :
I could write a lengthy rant about estate agents and landlords, but you could probably all imagine it pretty well, and I have to go and shout down the phone again for a bit. Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
O - I did indeed buy my car. It seemed noisier than when I'd 'test-driven' it, and had plenty of time to assess the squeaking suspension as I did a lengthy tour of Hackney's back streets as I tried to get home. As a long-term pedestrian, I hadn't noticed all the 'no right turn's and 'bugger off out of here' signs, thus meaning I went about two miles out of my way. Probably past London's gaff!
But it rules! It has a sunroof, and a CD player and has a fair turn of speed for a 1.4.
Now all I have to do is extract a parking permit from Hackney council, a Herculean feat of endurance involving the sort of pointless tapping on windows normally reserved for communicating with goldfish.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
BUT, on an SnR tip, R is out with his ex-girlfriend tonight. The one I am irrationally jealous of, who is 'only a friend' that I'm not allowed to meet, and about whom if I express consternation he ignores me and changes the subject. Cock-knocker.
Maybe I can spend the evening prowling the streets in my new car, then run her down. Seems only reasonable.
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
Is it possible that a man or woman could have slept with a number of people which some may consider to be large and for them not to have been "trophies"? Personal circumstance may dictate that A has had more lovers than B but that A has used some discretion, has respected all who they have slept with, does not boast about it but is not ashamed of who they have slept with. B may have slept around a little indiscriminately before settling in to a long term relationship. C may have ended a long term relationship and is experimenting sexually and therefore has clocked up a fair number of lovers over a short period of time. D has been in a relationship with the person they lost their virginity too at an early age but has had affairs and one-night stands on the side.
How can you tell who is worthy of being a slut / slag / stud / stag / whatever? Is the marker the number of partners you have had or the respect with which you treat your partners?
I think to a certain degree these names are becoming less applicable. When more women get more confident in their sexuality and men get more confident around sexually confident women then things will even out some more.
I also saw the documentary and I was pleased when I saw this thread yesterday as I thought it would be an interesting discussion although I thought it would have some more meat to it by now. I was doing my support work though so I didn't have a chance to reply in detail yesterday due to work. One of the people I support got annoyed with me yesterday and shouted at me saying I was "talking out of my arsehole." Beat that, Annabel Cheong! Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
i'm a little confused by all the "slag" / "slut" stuff, but this is definitely a "slug":
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
...and here are some total slats:
[ 15.03.2005, 12:28: Message edited by: MiscellaneousFiles ]
Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
Now that's what I call empowerment FOR SLUGS!
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
i would definitely watch a film where 259 men had sex with a giant slug.
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
some porn chick called Houston did, like, 600 men in the "Houston 500". You can also buy videos of her having surgery on her ****. But I guess anybody who has ever heard of the internet already knows this.
I suppose Ms. Chong's thing was that hedonism doesn't have to be run by the males, but as long as your audience and backers are males, then it isn't going to work. Sixties 'Free love' was male driven, and the rise in pornographic output is male driven, so perhaps she wanted to claim sex for the ladies. She could have made a bit more of an effort though. (Like Houston?)
I would say that having loads of booty variation isn't really a taboo now, although it probably varies between societies and cultures even just within the UK. In the states, attitudes are much more conservative than here, regardless of what you might glean from SATC, so perhaps Chong's 'message' would be more relevant to people who would be literally horrified by what she did. And, in a way, maybe she has done something. Was pornography as accepted as it it now when she did the gangbang? Maybe she was a new Lovelace kind of character, putting porn and sex into the news and national conscious. On the one hand you could see this as merely producers and distributers of porn expanding their markets, but on the other it could be a way of getting people publically thinking and talking about sex.
I suppose though, you have to wonder whether porn itself is useful to society. If not, then she's on a loser. Does it liberate or repress? Enhance or deaden?
It's interesting. Regular viewers may remember that I was bemoaning the kind of content in even 'vanilla' porn stockists like Harmony. I'm trying to understand more about the industry, seeing as it is the largest one on the planet, and I'm always up for a good wank. So, I've watched a fair bit recently, and it's weird how quickly you get on a bit of a rollercoaster. I remember this happening on boozy nights on the net - start off looking at a porn star having a wank, and four hours later you're typing "Piss in eyeballs lolita" into google. I can't see how this is beneficial to anybody.
The arguments 'for' almost seem to exist theoretically rather than practically. As much as there are people out there, especially females, who talk about it as a liberating thing, is it really anything else but a way to get people off? We accept it so much now that we don't even notice it. A day out in London reveals semi-pornographic images everywhere. The naked female figure, or the come-to-bed eyes with one finger in a glossy mouth mouth is like our shared comsumer cultural icon. Is this really liberating, or just a way of making us get turned by products?
Sorry, that's garbled.
eta: Perhaps, actually, Chong was more about expressing ownership of her body. As in 'society cannot dicate wat I do with my body'. As Thorn suggested (Davis, Thorn, 'TMO' pg. 5845, 2005), society is a bit more subtle than she probably accounted for. I did watch the show about the fuckfest, but I didn't think it was very good. Is there not an uncut version where you get to see the action?
[ 16.03.2005, 10:09: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
Ha ha! *sigh*
[ 16.03.2005, 10:04: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
I haven't slept with many people though, so wtf do I know? I'm no stud.
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
All I know is I would not like to have been the last guy in.
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
i've seen chong twice now. the first time on a speed comedown, the second in a room full of gay men. neither experience was great.
but! my incredible insight was: she's a bit fucked up innit? what i thought more heart breaking than anything else (never mind the background story, the fact she nearly died of internal bleeding, the fact she was the guinea pig for a gang bang experience this big) was that little more than a week later someone else broke her record. and that woman wasn't as strong mentally. then following that there was the "houston 500" which again wasn't (in my eyes) anyway boner worthy. i don't think that you can enter into these experiences with the idea that you're going to say something political. becuase, hey look at that, the company producing it is just after the cold hard ca$h. and they're always looking at going one further.
so regardless of whether you enter into such things with higher motives, they're not going to come across. it doesn't matter that annabel chong tried to articulate WHY and for what reasons she wanted to push herself to such an emotional level (and if you watch the film i'm not sure she's really thinking "yes yes fat sweaty cocks men in tshirts yes yes" ) because the people that will watch "gangbang sluts 2045" aren't interested. they just want to see gangbanging.
so does this make her a slag? does it make anyone a slag who's slept with more than "x" people in "y" time? no. surely the concept of slagging around is something that doesn't really matter? isn't that shit that should've been left in the playground?
i'm sorry for sounding middle class white and wanky, but if everyone is being safe and no-one is getting hurt then there really is no problem. surely?
you can't seriously think that in a culture when sex is used to market things we may or may not want in our lives that the concept of "slagging around" is a worry anymore?
oh what do i know? nothing really.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
She'd have been better off calling it performance art, so people could find their own meaning in it. It would have been a more powerful statement.
Talking about art, Lol, I went to an arty knitting exhibition at the weekend. That was like the opposite of art. Every 'piece' had so much text to go with it that I don't know why they bothered with the actual knitting itself, and didn't just write a collective essay called "I LIKE NITING!!!1!!!1" Utter wank. Twee and self-defeating woolly-headed nonsense, bereft of any meaning. A knitted terrorist balaclava? Ho ho. A knitted facsimile of a page of chat lines, only with sexual refrences replaced with knitting references? Very avant guarde!! They had a comments board, and I made my comment and somebody covered it over with another commecnt almost straight away. Why? Because they can't handle the truth.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
Some interesting points raised by damo there.
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
really?
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
yeah. Like, we can't on the one hand liberalise porn and then moan about being eye fucked by the admen. Maybe that was Chong's statement. Maybe we're ALL being gangbanged. No. But seriously, I think that Chong's saucy antics mean something. Regardless of who took how many cocks after she did it - are they as famous? Like, Lovelace isn't the only chick to ever have starred in porn or done deepthroat, but few could argue that the film was important.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Benway: Talking about art, Lol, I went to an arty knitting exhibition at the weekend.
We went to the Museum of Erotic Art in Hamburg. First museum I've walked the whole way round with a hard on actually. (Tends to go a bit soft in the 17th Century furniture gallery normally.) But, anyway, it's a fantastic place and thoroughly recommended. It does boil down to hardcore porn in the end, but done so beautifully. Photographs from the 1940s that look like those Hollywood black & white portraits of Lauren Bacall and the like, but the fabulously glamorous woman will be holding a gigantic cock in each hand, or be wearing no knickers.
A strange sensation actually, being instantly aroused but at the same time wanting to look at the pictures for their beauty and detail rather than click straight on to the next one because it might be even kinkier.
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
no thats true but, linda lovelace wasn't exactly compliant in all aspects of deep throat was she?
and i think that yeah, maybe there are people up on the screen who are enjoying and trying to make a statement out of the fuck films they're starring in. but, no matter what statement they may set out to make, its ultimately for the birds because of money driving the production company.
thats not to say i don't enjoy pron or the devilment of sexing.
eta i've done two sex museums the one in copenhagen (grannies fisting each other in s+m gear? check. women sucking horses cocks? check) and the one in amsterdam. both were depressing experiences.
[ 16.03.2005, 11:01: Message edited by: doc d ]
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
quote:Originally posted by doc d: (never mind the background story, the fact she nearly died of internal bleeding,
dat true? i didnt find any reference to that whilst googling.
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
think its mentioned on the film (chong: the story) thats why no fingering in subsequent gang bangs.
Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
quote:Originally posted by doc d: i've done two sex museums... both were depressing experiences.
I think the one in Hamburg concentrates on being erotic rather than being a sex museum. And there is a definite difference. It was artistic rather than gratuitous or gross. IMHO.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
quote:Originally posted by doc d: thats why no fingering in subsequent gang bangs.
Seems a bit harsh. Couldn't they set up a compulsory manicure station for all participants instead?
Posted by discodamage (Member # 66) on :
i dont know if she nearly died. i think she was pretty cut up but id wonder how much blood it would be possible to lose from fingernail cuts, unless one of the men she has sex with in that gangbang had a melty face and was wearing a red and black jumper.
what i find really sad about annabel chong is the idea that someone so patently fucked up could be this guiding light, this empowering figure for other women. there is so much self-delusion in that film, its heart-breaking. the idea that doing the opposite of what has previously oppressed you is automatically feminist and empowering. nah, bullshit. its the kind of 3rd wave feminism that works my nerves 9 times. if shed have been in charge of herself enough to get PAID for it, instead of fleeced, then i might think it was empowering.
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
"Come here, lover" Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
quote:Originally posted by discodamage: if shed have been in charge of herself enough to get PAID for it, instead of fleeced, then i might think it was empowering.
see my point earlier. thats what bothers me about porn. being the whitewankyguardiantwat i am. yet still having a lizard brain that likes to see fucking.
check out annie sprinkles. i saw her last month in nashville. thats an odd one.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
the scene where annabel visits her old school and her parents in singapore is heart wrenching.
and yeah what she did means something. i don't know what. as benway says, she should have called it performance art. what's it all about eh? teh body as mere, um, vessel? alienation? fuck knows.
porn: it's mostly prostitution but with cameras? no? porn makes me uneasy. i don't want to live in a society where fucking for money is celebrated,
oh and the slag thing. me, i have becoming increasingly conservative and semi-religious of late. slaggery is sad, i think.
but i'm practically a virgin again! maybe i am jealous!
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
quote:Originally posted by vikram: porn: it's mostly prostitution but with cameras? no? porn makes me uneasy. i don't want to live in a society where fucking for money is celebrated,
It's not 'fucking for money' that's celebrated - it's just the fucking. The money part is incidental, from the viewer's perspective. You do realise that, don't you? I mean - you might celebrate a Sean Penn performance - but I doubt you'd celebrate the fact he got paid for it.
Posted by vikram (Member # 98) on :
yeah, that's true.
silly me!
Posted by Black Mask (Member # 185) on :
The male equivalent of a slag is a rapist, surely?
Posted by squeegy (Member # 136) on :
You would make a fine magistrate BM
Posted by The H Pony (Member # 784) on :
quote:Originally posted by Black Mask: The male equivalent of a slag is a rapist, surely?
Have been interested this morning in hindsighted reports of all those 'Reclaim the Night' marches in America. Based, apparently, on an entirely spurious set of statistics put about by hardline feminists who wanted something to shout about. It was all bollocks.
Posted by Topanga (Member # 789) on :
I think the only women that would possibly look at her and think "role model" are her co-workers, and the women on the corner thinking about how much money they could make if it were possible to just line up all of her 'clients' like that.
I am far from a feminist ( I actually think the 'women's movement' has done more harm than good ), but I'd imagine even the hard-core feminists wouldn't think that was a very appropriate statement to try and make.
[ 21.03.2005, 10:47: Message edited by: Topanga ]
Posted by Astromariner (Member # 446) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topanga:
I am far from a feminist ( I actually think the 'women's movement' has done more harm than good )
Hi Topanga!
I know you're only passing through, but I'm hoping you'll stick around at least long enough to develop your argument a bit more. Why do you think that feminism has done "more harm than good"? Could you give some examples?
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I suppose it’s all down to freedom of choice. You could say that it’s fairly hypocritical that many feminists seem to want to act in a way which reflects the very worst qualities of men, but I think it’s more about the freedom to choose to act in that way, and only be subjected to the same judgmental criteria which is applied to men who act the same way.
Personally I find the whole concept of ‘slagging about’ pretty nasty. That goes for men and women alike. My opinion is always going to sound biased though, because I look at women in a different way than I do men. I would, for instance, avoid sleeping with a woman of seemingly loose morals on the grounds of their low standards and what I perceive to be a lack of self esteem which are very unattractive qualities. Whereas a man who sleeps around I would simply avoid sleeping with on the basis that I’m not gay and don’t find him at all attractive. I find neither of them attractive but my own natural preferences make me look like I regard the two in different lights. I do in a way, but not with regards to how they choose to conduct themselves with the opposite sex. It’s for this reason that equality can never really be achieved, because nobody can possibly view both sexes in exactly the same way, simply because of our natural biological urges and how they ultimately shape our opinion.
People who spend their time looking for sex with no attachments have always stuck me as wanting for something more, which they either feel they can’t get or don’t deserve. As I say, it all comes down to low self esteem, and the need to have your ego stroked (among other things) to make you feel better about yourself. Some will of course deny this furiously, but I put this down to a lack of insight more than anything else. It’s hard for people to justify opinions when they’re not actually capable of examining why it is they have them.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
Fair enough, Ringers. I think it's more about a person's attitude toward sex than how many people they've slept with, and I don't think that there is any relation between the two. I wouldn't want to sleep with somebody who was hung up about it regardlss of how many people they've slept with, because then it's all tense and weird, but on the flip, I've shagged girls who are pushing 50+, and seem to be the most balanced individuals that I've ever met. There's this new thing called The Kinesy report that you might be interested in, Ringers. It's all about attitudes towards sex, normal sexual behaviour etc. I haven't read it, but it's supposed to put myths like "sleeping with many people denotes identity problems" to bed. Oh wait, that was like, fifty years ago. Never mind.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Benway: I've shagged girls who are pushing 50+
They're not really girls at that age though are they?
Posted by The H Pony (Member # 784) on :
quote:Originally posted by Topanga: I am far from a feminist (I actually think the 'women's movement' has done more harm than good).
Perhaps you'd prefer women to be deprived of the vote, equal pay, and rights over their own bodies? How far would you like to run with this one - women as chattels? women can't testify against their husbands because they are presumed to belong to them? Rape as a crime against a man's property rather than a woman's body?
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
