Banned from reading Haunted!

[QUOTE=ehquestionmark]Wow. This little thread got CRAZY. People telling me to abuse my girlfriend, people showing an alarming lack of respect for women as a whole, people questioning my masculinity in some kind of bizarre machoistic pissing-contest. Hell, I even got called stuffy. I didn't mean to cause such a stir and I don't want to make any enemies but please, I'd appreciate it if you didn't talk about my loved ones like that - that's a pretty scuzzy way to treat people don't you think?

Thanks to Vidalia, who's been taking this question seriously about why Playboy has this standing that it does. Perhaps it's telling that most people here are willing to just accept that what is essentially a pornographic magazine is a respected publication. I still find that odd.[/QUOTE]

We can get that pickle out of your ass you know.

All you have to do is ask.
Stop taking everything so seriously. People are just joking around. You must live in a box or something. You arent making enemies, we are just joking with you. If you cant take a couple jokes, maybe you shouldnt be here. And yes you got called stuffy... O MY GOD.

[QUOTE=stoyan]Well that I guess is just a differece in personal preferences. I think Playmates are beautiful. Indeed very much so.[/QUOTE]
but your personal standards of what makes a woman beautiful aren't really the topic at hand. i mean, i think monica belucci is hot stuff, but i don't see how that's relevant. and maybe you do wish all women looked like pamela anderson lee whatever the hell her name is these days, but i don't see how that helps your point... i'm trying to discuss what the effects are of porn... and is it fair in its portrayal... does it do a service to humanity? i'd argue, in its current form from many sources, probably not.

[QUOTE=stoyan]1. Don't tell me how to discuss and argue. [/QUOTE]

i'm suggesting that flat out "no" and "wrong" aren't effective methods of debate. i'm not telling you what to do. take it easy.

[QUOTE=stoyan]
What my point is, is that there is nothing wrong with it.[/QUOTE]

alright. but you're not saying why. my "why" is that it encourages an unrealistic mentality. help me understand why it's a positive. i'm being serious, here. i'd like to expand my understanding.

[QUOTE=vidalia]i'm suggesting that flat out "no" and "wrong" aren't effective methods of debate. i'm not telling you what to do. take it easy.

alright. but you're not saying why. my "why" is that it encourages an unrealistic mentality. help me understand why it's a positive. i'm being serious, here. i'd like to expand my understanding.[/QUOTE]

I don't think it encourages an unrealistic mentality. That would be strictly the fault of the porn (ab)user.

I do not feel that any woman is merely an object, whether she's sitting accross from me in a business meeting, or lifting up her minishirt to reveal she's not wearing any panties. She is a woman, and my ultimate goal is to enjoy her for mind, spirit, love, and of course, her sexuality. I would expect her to feel the same about me.

To me, porn is a positive. I know there's no way in the world I'm going to be able to have sex with 101 Women ([I]The Luckiest Man in the World[/I]: Hustler Video), but it sure is fun to fantasize about it. The visuals are there to aid my imagination. I place myself in those fantasy situations. Those wild fantasies are merely just that. I do not actively seek such women to fulfill my life. (by such women, I mean women in the porn biz...you know...the ones who get paid to perform those sexual activities whose real lifes are about as ordinary as ours.) The same goes for anal sex. It turns me on to see it, but the women I date are not going to go through the whole process of fasting, enemas, and all that just so we don't get shit on the sheets, because that's the reality of anal sex if such precautions are not taken. Porn is an accesory to my imagination, it is a medium to fuel my fantasies, not to take over my real-life sexuality. Granted some fantasies can be taken to a realistic level, but the relationship often slips into a different level, usually resulting in disintegration.

There are unstable individuals that feel a need to act out their fantasies, however sick and twisted they are. Their unstableness encourages their need for fantasy fulfillment (so-called deviant behavior), not the other way around. Normal sexually active people can seperate fantasy from reality.

Women watch porn also, more so than you think. They are comfortable expressing their sexuality. The saying that promiscious women are insecure with themselves is merely cliche'. But not all women watch porn, simply because they do not like it. To each there own.

I have lurked this thread for the last few days. What I am giong to say has pretty much already been said.

I got a free subscription to Playboy last month was my first issue. As I flip through it there are 200 pages. 30 of which are pictorial photo shoots. 20 of which had photos which either featured nudity or see-thru clothing (i counted see through clothes to be liberal, even though photos of Paris Hilton in a slutty dress can be seen all over the media etc) I did not include comics.

That means in a very liberal count 50 of 200 pages featured nudity. Which is 25%. For a "Porno" mag, this isn't much. You'd be hard pressed to pick up a hustler and find 1 page without nuidty. Bear in mind that Playboy does not portray sex acts in thier photos.

Anyhow enough stats. When I got my first issue I was surprised how little nudity was actually in this magazine. The first run through it, I flipped through each page, looking for interesting stuff (as I do with every magazine I pick up) of course I checked out the photos. The second time I opened it, I don't think I even looked at the photos. There is a surprising amount of good writting in it. Good short fiction, good interviews as well as video games, music, movies and other gadgets.

I would not say that Playboy is the highest quality publication out there, because it is not, but it actually contains some really good stuff. The view you seem to have is certainly not one of someone who has read an issue (mine was quite similar before getting this). However, I don't have a problem with nudity.

I guess the reason I wrote the big message is because I couldn't believe the ignorance in the comment in which you implied that Chuck should not have to lower his writing to the audience of Playboy.

If you are not comfortable with this type of publication, that's fine. Don't buy it. But, you originally came into this thread with the claim that your girlfriend had banned you from reading it. Which is, simply put silly. Unless of course, you are some kind of christian fundamentalist... In which case I can't see you reading Chuck's books anyhow.

Oh, and I can now say "I read Playboy for the articles"

[QUOTE=vidalia]but your personal standards of what makes a woman beautiful aren't really the topic at hand. i mean, i think monica belucci is hot stuff, but i don't see how that's relevant. and maybe you do wish all women looked like pamela anderson lee whatever the hell her name is these days, but i don't see how that helps your point... i'm trying to discuss what the effects are of porn... and is it fair in its portrayal... does it do a service to humanity? i'd argue, in its current form from many sources, probably not.[/QUOTE]
Some basic truths.

Porn does not show women realistically. It does show them as objects. And that's the intention.

The porn industry is a business. plain and simply. No way around it. It's apparent that in modern society SEX is a central drive. It's what people relate to quickly and viscerally.

It's not going anywhere because it's what the masses obsess about. Personally, I have other obsessions, and I find it odd that people obsess over it so much. But then again it's not my place to say you can't look at that. Since one of my obsessions is the ARTS, I'll go to my grave fighting for the freedom of voice and expression. Don't get me stated on the Patriot act. motherf...

If porn offends you don't look at it. But it's not anyone's right to say this is vulgar, therefore you can't see it, regardless of your opinion.

I think you said your from England. I lived there for a year. I do understand the difference in American and English values. And there is a distinct divide between the two, but then there's a divide between all cultures. And shit I'm going off.....

Boy, wouldn't this of been simpler is chuck's story was published in [I]Poets and Writers[/I].

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]
Boy, wouldn't this of been simpler is chuck's story was published in [I]Poets and Writers[/I].[/QUOTE]

Haha, yes it would have. But then again, no one would have seen it, who needs to see it. The Lit Community already knows who the chuskster is, Playboys target audience is also Chucks target audience.

[QUOTE=vandamage]I don't think it encourages an unrealistic mentality. That would be strictly the fault of the porn (ab)user.

I do not feel that any woman is merely an object, whether she's sitting accross from me in a business meeting, or lifting up her minishirt to reveal she's not wearing any panties. She is a woman, and my ultimate goal is to enjoy her for mind, spirit, love, and of course, her sexuality. I would expect her to feel the same about me.

To me, porn is a positive. I know there's no way in the world I'm going to be able to have sex with 101 Women ([I]The Luckiest Man in the World[/I]: Hustler Video), but it sure is fun to fantasize about it. The visuals are there to aid my imagination. I place myself in those fantasy situations. Those wild fantasies are merely just that. I do not actively seek such women to fulfill my life. (by such women, I mean women in the porn biz...you know...the ones who get paid to perform those sexual activities whose real lifes are about as ordinary as ours.) The same goes for anal sex. It turns me on to see it, but the women I date are not going to go through the whole process of fasting, enemas, and all that just so we don't get shit on the sheets, because that's the reality of anal sex if such precautions are not taken. Porn is an accesory to my imagination, it is a medium to fuel my fantasies, not to take over my real-life sexuality. Granted some fantasies can be taken to a realistic level, but the relationship often slips into a different level, usually resulting in disintegration.

There are unstable individuals that feel a need to act out their fantasies, however sick and twisted they are. Porn encourages their so-called deviant behavior, not the other way around.

Women watch porn also, more so than you think. They are comfortable expressing their sexuality. The saying that promiscious women are insecure with themselves is merely cliche'. But not all women watch porn, simply because they do not like it. To each there own.[/QUOTE]

ok, this is more the discussion i was looking for. you raise some good points, and i appreciate that. one thing about me is that i don't really consider- for myself, i emphasize - porn a separate sector from my real-life sex life. it's all part of my sexual identity/activity, and so if i look at it, i incorporate it into my actual sexual consciousness, you know what i mean? so sometimes it confuses me when porn is kind of gross, the women are absurd, etc. b/c i feel like porn i'd look at reflects my reallife fantasies, i.e. if there's some fantasy that i have, i'm happy to find a way to actualize that, and since i don't have a secret fetish that involves, you know, sex with beluga whales or something, that's all totally plausible. so, sometimes it makes me think that maybe what might be desirable is to be blond and tan, or thinner, or whatever, since that's what's in most porn. are you following me here? i know this rambles.

as for porn inciting rape or something, i don't know... i think if you're a criminal, and you're a rapist, it's not porn's fault that it incites you to do that, it's your own. i think what i'm talking about is encouraging real-life objectification. i say this because i can tell you a lots of examples of being objectified/mistreated b/c of my looks, my body, my general girlness, whatever. i'm not saying that's all because of Porn and that's that; i'm just saying that in its common forms, i feel it may contribute in some way to, like i said, a wider sense of archaic-style relations with women, for some lesser intellectually-endowed people.

^^^ you quoted me before I changed an obvious contradicition in my argument. Porn does NOT encourage deviant behavior.

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]Some basic truths.

Porn does not show women realistically. It does show them as objects. And that's the intention.

The porn industry is a business. plain and simply. No way around it. It's apparent that in modern society SEX is a central drive. It's what people relate to quickly and viscerally.

It's not going anywhere because it's what the masses obsess about. Personally, I have other obsessions, and I find it odd that people obsess over it so much. But then again it's not my place to say you can't look at that. Since one of my obsessions is the ARTS, I'll go to my grave fighting for the freedom of voice and expression. Don't get me stated on the Patriot act. motherf...

If porn offends you don't look at it. But it's not anyone's right to say this is vulgar, therefore you can't see it, regardless of your opinion.

I think you said your from England. I lived there for a year. I do understand the difference in American and English values. And there is a distinct divide between the two, but then there's a divide between all cultures. And shit I'm going off.....

Boy, wouldn't this of been simpler is chuck's story was published in [I]Poets and Writers[/I].[/QUOTE]
you're missing my point. i'm not anti-porn, or against the pictorial representation of sexuality, nor am i from england. i'm from boston. i'd even like porn, and look at it more often, if it felt like it was a party to which i was actually invited. but it's not, because i'm not turned on by the majority of the common aesthetic featured there... i'm complaining that in order to enjoy this massive, widespread, mainstream industry, i'm forced to dramatically adapt my tastes.

In truth I went to my girlfriend and asked her if she would be comfortable with me buying the magazine, which is not something I'd usually think of doing. She wasn't cool with it and I can certainly understand that - as I said before I wouldn't be into it if the roles were reversed.

What I really like is that this thread has become a place to discuss the functions and effects of pornography. And as I think is evident from the mixed reaction that there has been, not everyone sees the value in it. I've been open about my dislike for porn, but I hope I didn't give off the impression that I was against people who were into it: the recurring phrase in this thread is fittingly 'each to his own'.

M-M, I wasn't being uptight - I was just more into the actual discussion on this thread than the namecalling and abuse suggestions.

[QUOTE=vandamage]^^^ you quoted me before I changed an obvious contradicition in my argument. Porn does NOT encourage deviant behavior.[/QUOTE]
right, ok, well, i agree with you. i was saying it may encourage an attitude. extreme behavior is outside the bounds of that.

[QUOTE=vidalia]you're missing my point. i'm not anti-porn, or against the pictorial representation of sexuality, nor am i from england. i'm from boston. i'd even like porn, and look at it more often, if it felt like it was a party to which i was actually invited. but it's not, because i'm not turned on by the majority of the common aesthetic featured there... i'm complaining that in order to enjoy this massive, widespread, mainstream industry, i'm forced to dramatically adapt my tastes.[/QUOTE]

so basically, you're saying most of the porn you've experienced is unintelligent?

That's actually my one complaint about porn. Very few sexy smart women. Occasionally a gonzo (sex only) flick will have a behind the scenes feature and you'd be surprised at the intelligence level of most of these women. But then again, there are some royal morons in the group too, but they were stupid way before taking a load in the face for the camera.

[QUOTE=ehquestionmark]In truth I went to my girlfriend and asked her if she would be comfortable with me buying the magazine, which is not something I'd usually think of doing. She wasn't cool with it and I can certainly understand that - as I said before I wouldn't be into it if the roles were reversed.[/QUOTE]

I don't understand how you can defend that.
You are in a position where you are wanting to buy a magazine that has an article/story by an author you respect. The magazine just so happens to also have nudity in it. Neither of you would understand if the other wanted to buy such a magazine, rip out the article in question, and immediately throw out the offending remainder of the magazine?

How old are you, just out of curiosity? (<-- note, that isn't an attempt at sarcasm. I really do want to know)

(*edit* I looked at his profile and he's 23.)

You two should really be old enough, mature enough, and secure enough to be able to handle this situation differently.

well, sure, that's one angle of this. i don't see why sex must be linked with stupidity.

i could name a million movies or certain film aesthetics that i find erotic - i'm thinking secretary, etc. - but porn - actual porn not movies someone would call "pornographic" - is just so vapid. it's filled with stupid, ugly, desperate women, and most of them make me sad before they make me excited.

this of course is going to invite the "well, of course, you're a woman, you like plot and soft lighting, etc..." which is not entirely accurate. i don't really care about lighting.

[QUOTE=vidalia]well, sure, that's one angle of this. i don't see why sex must be linked with stupidity.[/QUOTE]

I do. Someone would have to be pretty stupid to have sex with me

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]I do. Someone would have to be pretty stupid to have sex with me :)[/QUOTE]
very cute.

[QUOTE=vidalia]well, sure, that's one angle of this. i don't see why sex must be linked with stupidity.

i could name a million movies or certain film aesthetics that i find erotic - i'm thinking secretary, etc. - but porn - actual porn not movies someone would call "pornographic" - is just so vapid. it's filled with stupid, ugly, desperate women, and most of them make me sad before they make me excited.

this of course is going to invite the "well, of course, you're a woman, you like plot and soft lighting, etc..." which is not entirely accurate. i don't really care about lighting.[/QUOTE]

Candida Royale produces porn with themes of love, betrayal, redemption. Of course the main theme is sex, but there seems to be a great deal of intelligence she tries to create in her films.

Brad Armstrong (Wicked Pictures) produces high budget films with some kind of plot. [I]The Collector[/I] is about a man who collects rare art, insects, and sexual liasons.

[QUOTE=ehquestionmark]Wow. This little thread got CRAZY. People telling me to abuse my girlfriend.[/QUOTE]

I re-read this thread a few times and I am sure that it was not "people" that told you to abuse your girlfriend. It was a person. Me. I am the ONLY one that suggested that you abuse your girlfriend. Please do not include all of these people that are having a serious discussion about some very interesting topics in on my JOKE.

Because I will and can make another joke. And it will be funny. Just like the first one is.

[QUOTE=vandamage]Candida Royale produces porn with themes of love, betrayal, redemption. Of course the main theme is sex, but there seems to be a great deal of intelligence she tries to create in her films.

Brad Armstrong (Wicked Pictures) produces high budget films with some kind of plot. [I]The Collector[/I] is about a man who collects rare art, insects, and sexual liasons.[/QUOTE]
yeah, i've heard of them. i wrote a paper a long time ago in defense of porn under terms of free speech rights for my women's studies class, mostly to get up in the craw of my virulently anti-porn prof - who inexplicably gave me a lowish grade on the thing, just because she disagreed with me. it was actually quite a good paper. i've never seen any of those movies and it would probably help my, um, quest for understanding - most of what i've seen and am criticizing is on the internet.

i guess what i feel like sometimes when cheeseheads make comments or ignore my words in favor of my rack is that i feel like they learned that from message after message showing women as objects and not so much more.

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]I don't understand how you can defend that.
You are in a position where you are wanting to buy a magazine that has an article/story by an author you respect. The magazine just so happens to also have nudity in it. Neither of you would understand if the other wanted to buy such a magazine, rip out the article in question, and immediately throw out the offending remainder of the magazine?

How old are you, just out of curiosity? (<-- note, that isn't an attempt at sarcasm. I really do want to know)

(*edit* I looked at his profile and he's 23.)

You two should really be old enough, mature enough, and secure enough to be able to handle this situation differently.[/QUOTE]

We don't want to handle this situation differently. I'm more than happy to wait for the story to appear in another form, be it [I]The Guardian[/I] or in [I]Haunted[/I] itself. I didn't intend this thread to be a place for people to critique my relationship (which is fine thanks). I don't know quite what I expected when I wrote the starting post but I didn't think I'd have to defend my relationship, just because it doesn't include an appreciation of pornography.

[QUOTE=rkdaley]I re-read this thread a few times and I am sure that it was not "people" that told you to abuse your girlfriend. It was a person. Me. I am the ONLY one that suggested that you abuse your girlfriend. Please do not include all of these people that are having a serious discussion about some very interesting topics in on my JOKE.

Because I will and can make another joke. And it will be funny. Just like the first one is.[/QUOTE]

I apologise. Please feel free to joke away, and I will not include it in the serious discussion. Do you have any with lepers?

[QUOTE=ehquestionmark]In truth I went to my girlfriend and asked her if she would be comfortable with me buying the magazine, which is not something I'd usually think of doing... What I really like is that this thread has become a place to discuss the functions and effects of pornography.[/QUOTE]

Hello. This is an interesting thread that, as you noted, evolved out of and beyond your question's frame. But a good evolution. Personally, I don't consider Playboy to be pornography. When inside the mag's pages you can SEE guts--and not just read a story titled as such--then you may have stepped into some real porn. And I've no problem with pornography. It is beyond a "rights"-issue to me. Nevertheless, I suppose I can respect you for being so respectful to your girlfriend's feelings. Yet, why are you still trying to figure a way of procuring the shit? If the old lady has put her foot down, the heel will doubtfully be raised. So I guess--as far as your initial question goes--if you want to read the story, but don't want to get the magazine, then either read it at a friend's house, or go to the library and read it (yes, some libraries do have Playboy... but be prepared to ask an oddly intimidating older woman librarian to retrieve it for you), or... fuck it. Wait until the book comes out. Besides, does your girlfriend know that, among others, CHOKE is extremely 'pornographic' in multiple passages? At times, it is better (or is that, worse?) than any Playboy or Penthouse Forum out there. More along the Hustler lines. But anyway, the pornography issue is too much to debate. Neverending. So I hope you are able to work this one out. If not, like I say, wait for the book. And hope the cover doesn't look 'pornographic'.

[QUOTE=vidalia]you're missing my point. i'm not anti-porn, or against the pictorial representation of sexuality, nor am i from england. i'm from boston. i'd even like porn, and look at it more often, if it felt like it was a party to which i was actually invited. but it's not, because i'm not turned on by the majority of the common aesthetic featured there... i'm complaining that in order to enjoy this massive, widespread, mainstream industry, i'm forced to dramatically adapt my tastes.[/QUOTE]
Actually i don't understand why you would force yourself to conform to mainstream entertainment. if your interests are elsewhere then there's no reason why you need to adapt your tastes. you don't need to follow mainstream pop, give me sex, drugs, etc. if porn was being forced on you I'd agree with your argument. but you have a choice. perhaps you feel you don't have a choice since our culture is so inundated with porn.

Man leave it to philosophy and debate to convolute and wrap things around so they come back to where they started.
[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]I do. Someone would have to be pretty stupid to have sex with me :)[/QUOTE]
hah ahahahahahaahahaha. man. i needed that.

[QUOTE=Dr.Jekyll&Mr.Hyde]Actually i don't understand why you would force yourself to conform to mainstream entertainment. if your interests are elsewhere then there's no reason why you need to adapt your tastes. you don't need to follow mainstream pop, give me sex, drugs, etc. if porn was being forced on you I'd agree with your argument. but you have a choice. perhaps you feel you don't have a choice since our culture is so inundated with porn.

Man leave it to philosophy and debate to convolute and wrap things around so they come back to where they started.

hah ahahahahahaahahaha. man. i needed that.[/QUOTE]
i guess i'm saying, i don't want to conform my tastes - and i don't intend to, because having tried to, it just doesn't work. but, like i said, i'm saying, it doesn't have to be the way that it is. there's box wine and there's nice pinot noir. just because it's wine doesn't mean it's got to be one way. i feel like most of the porn is ripple. perhaps i wouldn't mind some nice pinot, if only there wasn't such an inexplicable demand for silicone and bleach.

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx] So I hope you are able to work this one out. If not, like I say, wait for the book. And hope the cover doesn't look 'pornographic'.[/QUOTE]

Thanks. There's nothing to work out. It wasn't an argument, it was a discussion and like I said I'm more than happy to wait for the book.

In answer to the question you didn't actually ask: my girlfriend has read [I]Fight Club[/I] and thoroughly enjoyed it but the difference to my mind is that Chuck is never mysogynist in his portrayal of women, and he doesn't objectify them as I think [I]Playboy[/I] and a lot of modern media of all forms and perceived as belonging to various "classes" is guilty of doing.

I'm so proud of this odd little discussion we have going because I can't think of any other board where you'd get it other than right here at The Cult.

playboy only seems tame now because our standards have changed. personally, i find it the mildest of all porn mags / vids / sites i've ever seen, and for me, pretty boring. i'm not attracted to women at all, so just looking at their bodies might interest me in some clinical way (whoa, how do you get your pubes like that?) but not sexually.

i am a woman. and sometimes i look at / watch porn elsewhere. hear me roar.

[QUOTE=vidalia]i guess i'm saying, i don't want to conform my tastes - and i don't intend to, because having tried to, it just doesn't work. but, like i said, i'm saying, it doesn't have to be the way that it is. there's box wine and there's nice pinot noir. just because it's wine doesn't mean it's got to be one way. i feel like most of the porn is ripple. perhaps i wouldn't mind some nice pinot, if only there wasn't such an inexplicable demand for silicone and bleach.[/QUOTE]
Those are great analogies. Just thought I'd point that out.

[QUOTE=ehquestionmark]I don't know quite what I expected when I wrote the starting post but I didn't think I'd have to defend my relationship, just because it doesn't include an appreciation of pornography.[/QUOTE]

I apologize if I made you feel you had to defend yourself.
I was in almost the exact situation a year ago when Guts was published in Playboy, and it never occurred to me to try to say "hey, how about I just buy it and cut out the article, and throw the rest away." I was honestly just hoping someone else could try that and have it work

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx]Hello. This is an interesting thread that, as you noted, evolved out of and beyond your question's frame. But a good evolution. Personally, I don't consider Playboy to be pornography. When inside the mag's pages you can SEE guts--and not just read a story titled as such--then you may have stepped into some real porn. And I've no problem with pornography. It is beyond a "rights"-issue to me. Nevertheless, I suppose I can respect you for being so respectful to your girlfriend's feelings. Yet, why are you still trying to figure a way of procuring the shit? If the old lady has put her foot down, the heel will doubtfully be raised. So I guess--as far as your initial question goes--if you want to read the story, but don't want to get the magazine, then either read it at a friend's house, or go to the library and read it (yes, some libraries do have Playboy... but be prepared to ask an oddly intimidating older woman librarian to retrieve it for you), or... fuck it. Wait until the book comes out. Besides, does your girlfriend know that, among others, CHOKE is extremely 'pornographic' in multiple passages? At times, it is better (or is that, worse?) than any Playboy or Penthouse Forum out there. More along the Hustler lines. But anyway, the pornography issue is too much to debate. Neverending. So I hope you are able to work this one out. If not, like I say, wait for the book. And hope the cover doesn't look 'pornographic'.[/QUOTE]
hey ralph! good stream of consciousness you got going here....

[QUOTE=insomnomaniac]playboy only seems tame now because our standards have changed. personally, i find it the mildest of all porn mags / vids / sites i've ever seen, and for me, pretty boring. i'm not attracted to women at all, so just looking at their bodies might interest me in some clinical way (whoa, how do you get your pubes like that?) but not sexually.

i am a woman. and sometimes i look at / watch porn elsewhere. hear me roar.[/QUOTE]
yeah, a lot of my reaction, especially to playboy-style posed nudie pics is, well, ok, i have that too. i mean, i go to a women's gym, and see other women all the time. just the looking is usually nothing on my radar.

so, they'd have to be interacting in some way that i'd find erotic. and most of the time, they're kind of awful nail salon women just being kind of leathery and happen to have something sticking out of them... or else "amateur" stuff with veiny boobed, pimply assed morons smiling at you, and that doesn't go too far beyond clinical, either... i guess maybe i need more context.

[QUOTE=akeelm]I had a girlfriend like that once, some of the stuff she said I began to agree with, that's what some people call [I]"pussy whipped"[/I].

One of the best decisions I ever made in life was dumping her.

Are you going to make the right choice's today, or suffer the consequences tomorrow?[/QUOTE]
sigh.

"pussy whipped" is a stupid, sexist term. you wouldn't call a woman cockwhipped because she agrees with her male partner. it implies that agreeing with a woman makes you weak. it's an insecure, moronic thing to play power games.

these two should discuss what it is that makes her uncomfortable about it, and maybe they can come to a compromise that makes them both happy. everyone can get what they want. it's not a cagefight. compromise doesn't make you a vagina, er, pussy.

[QUOTE=vidalia]
these two should discuss what it is that makes her uncomfortable about it, and maybe they can come to a compromise that makes them both happy. [/QUOTE]

That's exactly what I was trying to say. Discussing this issue could only improve a relationship, and get more shit out in the open.

[QUOTE=vidalia]
compromise doesn't make you a vagina, er, pussy.[/QUOTE]
Not at all. Though it can assist you in acquiring one.

I personally like my pussy Whipped with cream, and even drizzled with chocolate syrup.

Very tasty. And of course there are benefits for eating it regardless of it having a topping or not.

Drenching it with champange is cool too.

[QUOTE=BitOfAFinger]

Not at all. Though it can assist you in acquiring one.[/QUOTE]
now that's more like it. you are correct.

[QUOTE=vandamage]I personally like my pussy Whipped with cream, and even drizzled with chocolate syrup.

Very tasty. And of course there are benefits for eating it regardless of it having a topping or not.

Drenching it with champange is cool too.[/QUOTE]
um.. i have to ask... wouldn't champagne sting? being alcoholic, and all...

[QUOTE=vidalia]um.. i have to ask... wouldn't champagne sting? being alcoholic, and all...[/QUOTE]

Tequila sure does. Careful with those body shots, fellas.

[QUOTE=vidalia]um.. i have to ask... wouldn't champagne sting? being alcoholic, and all...[/QUOTE]

Yep, gotten complaints too. Try very small amounts at the top of the pubic mound, let it run down the sides of the outer lips, and get your partner to use his/her tongue to keep most of it away from the inner labia. It's definitely more for the lickers benefit than the lickees. Too much in there can cause discomfort.

One of my girlfriends poured champagne over my penis, and some managed to get into the hole. That did NOT feel too hot, kinda like soap, but not as much burning.

the best/grossest sex stories always include these weird, nightmarish "so and so got such and such stuck in their yadda yadda yadda," and it's always with the weirdest frickin foods.

not that champagne is weird, and is perfectly at home in the romantic scenario... still, i'm going to stay away from the "not as much burning" sort of accessory, if i can help it.

[QUOTE=ehquestionmark]In truth I went to my girlfriend and asked her if she would be comfortable with me buying the magazine, which is not something I'd usually think of doing. She wasn't cool with it and I can certainly understand that - as I said before I wouldn't be into it if the roles were reversed.

What I really like is that this thread has become a place to discuss the functions and effects of pornography. And as I think is evident from the mixed reaction that there has been, not everyone sees the value in it. I've been open about my dislike for porn, but I hope I didn't give off the impression that I was against people who were into it: the recurring phrase in this thread is fittingly 'each to his own'.

M-M, I wasn't being uptight - I was just more into the actual discussion on this thread than the namecalling and abuse suggestions.[/QUOTE]

Alright thats fine, and sorry. Let the debate continue sir. Its interesting to read.

[QUOTE=ehquestionmark]

I'm so proud of this odd little discussion we have going because I can't think of any other board where you'd get it other than right here at The Cult.[/QUOTE]

i'm always up for good academic deconstruction of sexuality. this is fun. go cult.

This is fun!

Ladies, Gentlemen...
Do you [B]really [/B] think Playboy is porn? I think of porn as depicting sex. I've seen a lot of Playboy magazines, and there's no sex. Its nudity. Some sexual cartoons, jokes, articles...but that isn't porn to me. There are no spread legs, penetration, insertion, etc.
I'm not a Playboy stockholder or anything, I just don't see what the big deal is. I think Chuck's stories can go in there because its a high-profile mag and the readers are supposed to be adults who can handle it...(not saying anyone on here isn't an adult. I'm saying that the intended reader base for Playboy is grown ups. You wouldn't want Guts showing up in like, Good Housekeeping or Highlights for Kids...)

[QUOTE=a-bit-odd]
Do you [B]really [/B] think Playboy is porn?[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. No, they are not actually having sex, but every pose, every look, every angle is definitely sexual, with the overt intent of making you think of sex.

Let me clarify. Playboy *contains* porn. But as we've stated, it also contains a lot of content that is not in anyway pornographic.

I'm not saying its not sexual, but sexuality doesn't = pornography.

I dont see the porn in Playboy. And, not that it necessarily makes a difference, but I'm a woman and straight. I only mention that because it seems that it is usually women (or very conservative men) viewing Playboy as porn.

[QUOTE=a-bit-odd] And, not that it necessarily makes a difference, but I'm a woman and straight. [/QUOTE]
I think that makes a huge difference.

Would you consider a magazine that showed "hot" naked men pornography?

"What defines pornography" is one of those questions that doesn't have a clear answer. "I know it when I see it" seems like a cop out, but that's really the best way to answer.

I just don't think that something needs to show explicit sex acts in order to be pornography. I think my definition is something along the lines of, something that contains nudity and/or sexual acts with the intent of arousing the viewer....or something. I dunno. Like I said, it's hard for me to quantify.

[QUOTE=a-bit-odd]Do you [B]really [/B] think Playboy is porn?[/QUOTE]

American Heritage Dictionary, 2000: "Pornography: 1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. 2. The presentation or production of this material. 3. Lurid or sensational material: “Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the … pornography of the era” (Morris Dickstein, New York Times Book Review (On the Web) May 2, 1982)."

By that criteria, to me, Playboy is pornography only as some of the content is there for the sole purpose of "causing sexual arousal". But it is not lurid. To me. So there is no fence here--one can wander from "porn" to "not porn" all one wants. But does this make a Ralph Lauren or Todd Oldham advertisement pornography if it is of an "attractive" person posing in a "sexually provocative manner", while the assumed intent would be to advertise the hat they have on?

[QUOTE=ralphthompsonxxx]American Heritage Dictionary, 2000: "Pornography: 1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. [/QUOTE]

Awesome, my made up definition matches the dictionary's almost exactly. I get a gold star.

[QUOTE=akeelm]It always amuses me how women rant on about sexism, equal rights and sexual discrimination. Now, I wouldn't consider myself sexist, if I had a partner I would help with cleaning of the house, washing, cooking, etc. I would also expect her to go to work too.

It's quite strange how sexual discrimination only comes into play when it suits the woman...

So tell me Vidalia, how many times have you paid for dinner on a date? How many times have you bought your partner a bunch of flowers?

Feminists are the some of the most sexist people in society.[/QUOTE]
you've got more to edit here than just a spelling mistake. you sound like a presumptuous twit here in your, um, fifth post.

i took my honey to dinner LAST NIGHT at our favorite chinese restaurant, because i thought some mai tais and hot & sour soup would be a nice way to brighten the evening, and i wanted to pay because he's been so wonderful and supportive. otherwise, we usually split 50-50 unless someone offers otherwise, like we did last night. i've bought him flowers too, as a gesture of general cuteness - once, after a fight, i wrote him a poem and bought him a gerbera daisy. i'd be happy to buy him flowers more often, but i can't imagine he'd prefer that to going for a drink or a fun new movie or something.

you're right that gender equality goes both ways. sexual discrimination goes both ways. if you bothered to read any of what i've written, you might have seen my careful attention to noting both men and women as much as it applies.

calling something porn can also be a quick way to discredit art - usually film, like last tango in paris, which definitely has an erotic scene or two, but is a lot more than just those scenes... bertolucci deals with that fight all the time.

[QUOTE=vidalia]calling something porn can also be a quick way to discredit art - usually film, like last tango in paris, which definitely has an erotic scene or two, but is a lot more than just those scenes... bertolucci deals with that fight all the time.[/QUOTE]

See, I agree with you...BUT...that brings up a really interesting point.

We've all agreed that Playboy's content is, at best, 25% nude pictures. The other 75% ranges from news to stories to reviews, etc.

So...does that mean Playboy isn't porn? If a film isn't porn because it only contains an erotic film or two, is a magazine not porn if the vast majority of its content wouldn't be classified as such.

Maybe the difference is that a film that contains erotic scenes has an actual established plot and characters, whereas Playboy's nude images are just that. Nude images with no context. Absolutely no purpose other than to arouse.

OK, I officially feel like we've beaten this dead horse into a fine paste.