posted
Yeah, stop there. The next stop is Freddie Starr territory.
For the record, I didn't mean to imply there is no such thing as hardcore lesbian porn. Just that I know very little about it apart from reading Pat Califia's gutter and rat obsessed S&M stuff and giggling.
Also for the record, I am wearing shoes* and socks.
*Definitely not sensible and I should *so* know better.
Posts: 915
| IP: Logged
posted
Um..I don't think I said that you did suggest there was no such thing. I was just adding my 2p. But whatever.
And for the record my knowledge comes from a dissertation I wrote. And I had to google Belladonna. I'm sorry Benway I'm not the lesbian slut I lead you to believe I was, it's not you man, it's me. I hope we can still be friends).
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I don't need a visual prompt to conjure up some pleasantly raunchy daydreams.
I agree. Isn't there some sort of scientific* basis for saying that this is a typically female view? That women tend to favour imagination over obvious and crude visual stimulii?
* quite possibly in a Channel 4 psychological sexperiment kind of way.
edited to remove a superfluous "though".
People say this a lot, especially on Handbag, but I don't know what "evidence" there is for it. As your post shows, this notion about the difference between male and female arousal stimuli is very loaded: men like looking at pictures, which is "obvious and crude" and puts them on the level of a Pavlovian dog, whereas women prefer the more subtle, challenging, complex, active process of reading a book and imagining narrative fantasies, or just dreaming them up from their own imaginations, which makes them creators, imagineers, even authors and dignifies the business of having a wank.
It's obvious that this concept favours women and makes them look like superior creatures, but I don't know how true it is.
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I don't need a visual prompt to conjure up some pleasantly raunchy daydreams.
I agree. Isn't there some sort of scientific* basis for saying that this is a typically female view? That women tend to favour imagination over obvious and crude visual stimulii?
* quite possibly in a Channel 4 psychological sexperiment kind of way.
edited to remove a superfluous "though".
People say this a lot, especially on Handbag, but I don't know what "evidence" there is for it. As your post shows, this notion about the difference between male and female arousal stimuli is very loaded: men like looking at pictures, which is "obvious and crude"
As my flippant remark about Channel 4 also shows, my post wasn't exactly some serious attempt to undermine the sanctity of men's sexuality or to elevate women's wanking Kovacs.
Having said that, there is a whole field of biological/psychological enquiry around whether the way the brain functions is gendered. This is not the same as saying that men and women think and are aroused in different ways, but there is evidence which points to it. (See for example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/add_user.shtml)
There was a recent Channel 4 series which set out to conduct a whole series of experiments into women's sexual stimulation. I watched one installment which featured probes, masturbation, some sort of sonar and a paddling pool of cold water (a definite acquired taste that one). Unfortunately, it was a load of crap and the whole thing was undermined by tedious footage of giggling women being plied with chardonnay and coaxed into giggling about their sex lives. So I don't know what they claimed to discover.
posted
Its like candles in the bath, lingerie, astrology and all that ould fem bollux. Its like Miss cobwebbey clout is giving herself permission to whack one off by disassociating the act from the repellant bloke way of approaching it. There might be some sense to it. After all blokes don't half give their pudding a right pulling, I expect if laydees approached their organs with the same gusto they'd all be suffering from stretched lips and clitty-gout.
Posts: 874
| IP: Logged
posted
So, VOP, let me get this straight... You're into some masochistic scene right but you're too scared to ask?
So to get women to play along you hang around fora, chucking around words like "clitty gout" and wait for them to round on you and start the punishment.
(Actually, it isn't... I just thought I'd throw that in to make it look as though I was paying attention.)
I'm sure we're not saying that men don't have a good imagination - I know I do, and certainly have some interesting fantasies... strangely, though, my imaginitive fantasies generally feature people I know (ref: Kovac's post on p1). Also strangely, much of my favourite pornographic media features people who look a little like people I know.
Perhaps there's something to read into that?
Regarding tonight's Rhino activity, though, I admit to finding the whole lapdance thing quite erotic - more so with the right "performer" than for the simple act itself. There are girls there who really don't do a thing for me, despite being attractive and skilled dancers.
Maybe it's just me, then... I find it erotic in the same sort of way that wandering around the RLD in Amsterdam looking at windows is erotic. Perhaps it's the seediness, or the anticipation / frustration thing... maybe that's the point where I become a "pervert".
quote:Originally posted by Doctor Agamemnon When: I find it erotic in the same sort of way that wandering around the RLD in Amsterdam looking at windows is erotic. Perhaps it's the seediness, or the anticipation / frustration thing... maybe that's the point where I become a "pervert".
I can't think of anything more unerotic than wandering around the RLD in Amsterdam looking at windows. Bored working girls chain smoking in oddly lit glass cages. Dead eyes stare through you as you weave your way in and out of groups of gawking tourists, drunken louts and the Turkish mafia. It's dirty, it smells like a junkie tramp (piss, weed, flat beer and stale cum) doused in cheap whores perfume.
Yuk.
But then again I live here, perhaps anything you're exposed to constantly is unerotic ?
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: [this notion about the difference between male and female arousal stimuli is very loaded: men like looking at pictures, which is "obvious and crude" and puts them on the level of a Pavlovian dog, whereas women prefer the more subtle, challenging, complex, active process of reading a book and imagining narrative fantasies, or just dreaming them up from their own imaginations, which makes them creators, imagineers, even authors and dignifies the business of having a wank.
I don't think of it like that. I just enjoy the fact that my imagination has a plentiful supply of all kinds of enjoyable fantasy situations, available for free and with minimal effort and I wonder why some need a visual stimulus.
It's like, I "know" what a fit boy looks like and I know what I'd like him to do to me. Pictures of other people sexing don't really add anything to what's already in my mind.
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I don't think of it like that. I just enjoy the fact that my imagination has a plentiful supply of all kinds of enjoyable fantasy situations, available for free and with minimal effort and I wonder why some need a visual stimulus.
It's like, I "know" what a fit boy looks like and I know what I'd like him to do to me. Pictures of other people sexing don't really add anything to what's already in my mind.
I'm not arguing with the way you personally might arouse yourself; as I said, I don't find many pictures arousing myself.
I was just questioning the generalisation that men like crude visual stimulus, whereas women prefer something more subtle, sophisticated, complex.
posted
I agree that the visual/imagination thing is a generalisation. If you follow the link above, however, you'll find a much more measured exploration of what gendered differences there might be in *typical* male/female brains (which they are at pains to point out aren't exclusive to the corresponding male/female skulls).
My flip remark notwithstanding, is it fair to say that words are necessarily more subtle and complex a stimulus than images anyway?
Even if you could hypothetically prove that gender a were turned on only by images and gender b only by words, it wouldn't prove that.
I feel wholly unqualified to talk about personal experiences of porn (or prawn as I just typed ) as it doesn't occur to me to purchase either sexy pictures or erotic books. Which is not to say that something I see or read can't set off a reaction, but it's not something predictable.
Posts: 915
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by OJ: If you follow the link above, however, you'll find a much more measured exploration of what gendered differences there might be in *typical* male/female brains (which they are at pains to point out aren't exclusive to the corresponding male/female skulls).
This is the page I got, and it doesn't seem very sophisticated.
-----------
Some researchers say that men can have 'women's brains' and that women can think more like men.
Find out more about 'brain sex' differences by taking the Sex ID test, a series of visual challenges and questions used by psychologists in the BBC One television series Secrets of the Sexes:
Get a brain sex profile and find out if you think like a man or a woman. See if you can gaze into someone's eyes and know what they're thinking. Find out why scientists are interested in the length of your fingers. See how your results relate to theories about brain sex. -----------
I don't know if we should take this concept of distinction between male and female arousal any further if the only evidence anyone is presenting comes from BBC and Channel 4 cod-science shows.
quote: My flip remark notwithstanding, is it fair to say that words are necessarily more subtle and complex a stimulus than images anyway?
That's an interesting point... except that I suppose the kind of images we're talking about here aren't complex or subtle. I'd agree that a painting or photograph can be more challenging and profound than a page of words, but maybe most porn images are pretty simple. Commercial "erotic" literature of the Black Lace variety does have some characterisation and plot, and some emotional context to the sex scenes.
On the other hand, I've read amateur erotic stories online that were incredibly poorly-written and clearly just meant to stimulate -- the equivalent of a blurry snapshot of your wife's tits.
quote: This is the page I got, and it doesn't seem very sophisticated.
Intro pages rarely are. If you followed it through you'd find they do a series of short tests with an explanation at the end of what theory each one is testing.
Perhaps you'd like to trawl some peer-reviewed journals and post links Kovacs. Such things exist.
Posts: 915
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm not down with this idea that chicks don't get off on pr0n. That Kinsey study with the giggling drunk women proved beyond doubt that women get a wide-on from watching monkeys get it on, but they didn't even realise it! Hahaah! So, their bodies were saying 'let's go', but their hearts were saying 'whu-?'. I know plenty of chicks who dig pr0n, and I'm sure there are guys out there who would rather spend an hour working up a pin perfect imaginary scenerio than just beat the meat to some jpgs of a Lithuanian teenager pretending to enjoy her anal lessons. Anyway, what I mean is, it's personal rather than gender wide. Could tradition not play a part? In that, it's generally been made by men for men? It's also designed around the male orgasm, which I'm lead to believe has different pace and timings and things to female one.
I'd agree though that books are probably better than films. I went through a phase recently and read Emmanuelle, Story of the Eye, some De Sade and a couple of black lace books, and spent much of that time in a 'heightened state'. Well. De Sade can be exhausting, but not because of wanking.
[ 28.10.2005, 11:50: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
quote: This is the page I got, and it doesn't seem very sophisticated.
Intro pages rarely are. If you followed it through you'd find they do a series of short tests with an explanation at the end of what theory each one is testing.
Perhaps you'd like to trawl some peer-reviewed journals and post links Kovacs. Such things exist.
Yeah, I saw there were tests, OJ. If you think me doing a BBC website quiz and posting up the result is worthwhile evidence, that's fine, but I didn't think it would advance this discussion.
It would be easier if you just admitted (not just on this occasion) that you posted weak support for your point because you were in a rush and went for the first thing you found, rather than trying to patronise me with this sort of guff like "intro pages rarely are". You don't deserve to take a superior tone.
I get the impression your air of snooty bluff might work have worked on other people, but it seems hollow to me, and I often feel you're covering up a lack of genuine knowledge with semi-appropriate language and a bit of a sneer.
Your advice that I should trawl peer-reviewed journals is another example. You know nobody is going to go through scholarly abstracts to back up a discussion with you on TMO, because it isn't worth their while and everyone has other, more important priorities. That's just rhetoric on your part, backed with a bit of official-sounding terminology.
The fact that there's no way I am going to do an academic search for articles that support my point on a discussion forum doesn't really smokescreen the fact that your evidence was lazy and insufficient, and that you went to some weak website for ideas because you didn't have enough to say on your own. You are all about deflection and pose on here, without substance.
I think it should be possible to discuss this kind of issue, on this kind of forum, by using the information and ideas people already hold in their heads, and applying it with intelligence. That you clutch immediately for the nearest online "evidence" and suggest that a discussion should be supported with a bunch of internet links just suggests you don't have that ability.
posted
Kovacs, the fact that I'd quite jokingly used the words "crude and obvious" in a flippant post referencing Channel Four sex-docs, but wasn't prepared to back it up with any evidence, was something I readily admitted when you picked up on it. In fact I think the original generalisation on my part was in the form of a question and not an argument to that effect.
The fact that you seized upon this as a chance to be right and get one up on me and don't want to let it go is an entirely other matter. As is your six (or seven or whatever???) paragraph post deconstructing my personality, posting style, future chances of happiness etc.
I don't do cod psychology so I'll leave it to you and anyone else who wants to, to draw their own conclusions about that.
Posts: 915
| IP: Logged
posted
Please somebody post something witty, entertaining or vaguely about the subject of the post here please. These grubby, pedantic little spats with Kovacs over nothing are just depressing.
Posts: 915
| IP: Logged
posted
some light weekend reading, peer-reviewed and everything:
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power : society, the person and sexual politics. Cambridge, Polity Press in association with Blackwell.
Dewar, A. (1987). "The social construction of gender in physical education." Women's Studies International Forum 10(4): 453-465.
Goodman, L. and J. De Gay (1998). The Routledge reader in gender and performance. London ; New York, Routledge.
Hines, M. (2004). Brain gender. New York, Oxford University Press.
Klein, A. M. (1990). Little Big Man: Hustling, Gender, Narcissism, and Bodybuilding Subculture. Sport, Men, and the Gender Order. M. A. Messner, Sabo, D. Illinois, Human Kinetic Books: 127-139.
Messner, M. A. (1992). Power at play : sports and the problem of masculinity. Boston, Beacon Press.
Messner, M. A. and D. F. Sabo (1990). Sport, men, and the gender order : critical feminist perspectives. Champaign, Ill, Human Kinetics Books.
Nadeau, R. (1996). S/he brain : science, sexual politics, and the myths of feminism. Westport, Conn., Praeger.
Paul, E. L. (2002). Taking sides. Clashing views on controversial issues in sex and gender. Guilford, Conn., McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.
Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play : girls and boys in school. Buckingham, Open University Press.
posted
Back on topic-ish, I think even "perverted" porn has become quite mainstream, but I also think it depends largely on the subculture you're immersed in.
Case in point: By American standards, Boston is a fairly liberated city. Among the general population, you'd probably find a fair percentage who would admit to watching porn in one form or another. I'm not sure if people would readily trumpet about it (ie. standing on a streetcorner yelling "I love porn" would be somewhat embarrassing for all concerned), but it's almost accepted. And I've known quite a few people who wouldn't think twice about going out to the local fetish club for an evening - just for fun.
I'm assuming that this may not apply elsewhere in the states, though. Even putting places like Utah aside, I think most of "middle america" is still caught in the tittering state of the 1950s Kinsey survey participants who enjoy porn but are too nervous or guilty to admit to it. But then again, the stats seem to show billions of dollars going to porn from the wallets of US consumers each year, and it all can't be coming from the "liberal" states.
So I suppose there's still some degree of fundimentalist hypocracy going on here, in which the person calling you a pervert today for watching porn probably had a good porn-assisted wank on their own the night before.
-------------------- Give 'em .0139 fathoms and they'll take 80 chains. Posts: 3201
| IP: Logged
posted
And how would you propose we go about this?
-------------------- Give 'em .0139 fathoms and they'll take 80 chains. Posts: 3201
| IP: Logged
H1ppychick
We all prisoners, chickee-baby. We all locked in.
posted
I've seen both hardcore porn (although nothing too extreme - no scat or animals or similar) and soft porn, and to be honest, hardcore doesn't really do anything for me. Instead of a physical response, I end up having a more intellectual one, like trying to figure out how a jigsaw puzzle works.
Soft porn is a bit better but still seems a bit hollow and mechanical. Also I find that visual porn doesn't necessarily lend itself that well to a more leisurely build up and perhaps "sustained" result - perhaps it's the thing that Benway mentioned about pacing and timing.
For a more visceral reaction, I'm more tuned into audio than video, for some reason it gives me more of a gusset whump. For example I used to enjoy listening to the sound on the "adult" channels on the old analogue Sky broadcasts with the picture fuzzed out. Similarly I like erotic fiction - Black Lace and similar.
So for me, the impact of erotica is all experienced between my ears rather than between my legs.
-------------------- i'm expressing my inner anguish through the majesty of song Posts: 4243
| IP: Logged
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'm not the lesbian slut I lead you to believe I was, it's not you man, it's me. I hope we can still be friends).
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
) as it doesn't occur to me to purchase either sexy pictures or erotic books. Which is not to say that something I see or read can't set off a reaction, but it's not something predictable.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic