4 ms·

"Most porn so strongly caters to male fantasy" That in itself doesn't seem to make it sexist? "Most porn is strongly rooted in objectifying women in a way whi

• Mz 14y ago
  Let me restate that: I think most porn today is sexist, much of it in a manner which is demeaning to women. I also think it is basically irrelevant. Male or female, attacking someone sexually is generally one of the ugliest forms of attack known by humankind.
  • Tichy 14y ago
    I certainly don't want to diminish the attack that took place here. The question about porn was just a side subject.
    • Mz 14y ago
      Generally speaking, across the globe, female sexuality is framed as something which exists for the pleasure of men. A stronger rebuttal to remarks which objectify a woman sexually is not to be all in a huff but to turn it around and talk about men like they are sex objects. I am a woman. I have done that. It is such a powerful thing to do that if I am not extremely careful, rather than teaching men they should not talk that way about women, it teaches them I am some crazily dangerous, disrespectful person whose presence should not be tolerated. Women put up with that every single day. It is such a strong part of global culture that I believe it is the real reason that "Silence of the lambs" creeps people out. I wrote a blog post on that some time ago. This may not be the time or place to go into it. I usually try to tread very lightly on such topics on HN. Which is a longish way of saying that, globally, it is so common for women to be treated in a demeaning manner that many women view porn per se as demeaning to women. I do not. But I do think a great deal of porn is done in a fashion which is demeaning. Hopefully that satisfies your side question in some meaningful manner, hopefully without getting me publically lynched for daring to say it. Oh, and have an upvote.
      • Tichy 14y ago
        "female sexuality is framed as something which exists for the pleasure of men." I must say I have never noticed this, so I am not sure what to say. I can't really make sense of it either. My impression was sex exists to create babies, not to pleasure men. I don't say that to try to be funny, just to express that it seems a very long way from that to "female sexuality exits to pleasure men". Or do you mean the use of women in advertising, their sexiness associated with chocolate or cars or whatever? I guess it could be interpreted like that, only I wouldn't have referred to a woman's presentation in a (supposedly) sexy way as her sexuality. With "female sexuality" I thought about what arouses women. Maybe I misunderstood. My interpretation of women is advertising is simply that men desire women, not that women's purpose is to pleasure men. Actually, isn't it rather the other way round? You want that car because supposedly it helps you get the woman, it seems to be more about pleasing women than men? Edit: also, my apologies, I am getting tired and HN is probably not well suited to this kind of discussion. I am interested in it, though.
        • Mz 14y ago
          I really do not know where to begin. Yes, biologically, sex is to make babies. But culturally, there is a very strong bias globally that men are entitled to such pleasure, women are not (to the point that some cultures cut away the clitoris to try to keep women faithful to their spouse). I have met men who thought they were enlightened, new age men because of their attitude "I do not mind if you enjoy the ride, honey". These men have no clue. None. If he doesn't get it that making sure I enjoy it is his job, I have zero reason to service the selfish, disrespectful, clueless asshole. If it is my job to make sure I enjoy it, I can do that without the extra work of servicing him or the exposure to risk of pregnancy and disease. It's called masturbation. I do not need a man's company for that, thank you. Buying a car to impress a lady is not about what she wants. It is about what you want. Most women do not have orgasms because they saw a nice car. The point of such activities is rooted in the fact that most heterosexual relationships involve some degree of a man buying his way into a woman's bed. That makes her a servant. He who has the gold makes the rules. Unless you bought the car as a gift for her, it isn't even a generous thing to do. It is merely bragging that you can afford to buy your way into her bed. And women are kind of stupid to go along with that paradigm. The typical outcome is that she becomes his maid and property, not some pampered person of privilege. But since women are the ones that get pregnant, that paradigm isn't going to go away any time soon. The nuclear family with male breadwinner model works pretty well on the whole and beats the hell out of the often hostile American model of women's lib which declares "I don't need a man!" Most women want babies. A baby is a big burden. The single parent thing is an extremely hard row to hoe. But planning for the fact that sex leads to babies, at which point you will be better off if the father makes enough money to support a family, in no way makes that about her sexual gratification. I have talked to plenty of people over the years and read plenty of books and articles on human sexuality. An awful lot of people express the idea that it is perfectly okay if she doesn't orgasm every time, women just aren't biologically the same as men, blah blah blah, it is reasonanle for him to get his anyway. And it is true, we are different, biologically. But the big difference is that women are far more capable of being multiorgasmic than men are. The degree to which it is assumed that sex is primarily or solely for male pleasure is pretty rampant. There is zero biological reason to frame it that way. I am also tired and should probably drop out of this conversation. I have spent years backpedaling from a pattern of being a loudmouthed brassy broad and getting lynched for it. It isn't a hobby I care to resume.