Posts by Dylan Reeve
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I meant it isn't level in any setting really. Men have it better in almost all things.
-
The playing field when it comes to men and women isn't really level in any sense.
In some ways I actually think women have more power in sexual matters than men - sod all women would flock to the streets to watch Cocks on Cars (sorry best I can come up with). For better or worse. I guess what that does do is put women sometimes in a position where they are bargaining with themselves as it were.
-
You guys are too fast . I can't catch up... Ok here's one.
GOLD for the yachting!!! :))Timeline!
That was like 40 minutes ago. They bumped the one Close Up story I wanted to watch so they could do a crappy phone cross with the dude.
-
I've got that part down pat, the hard part for me is understanding that objects aren't women.
By the way, you need to clean your couch. Sorry.
Bro! How about you buy me a new couch!
-
Actually if simple anecdotal shit is good enough for the anti-porn people, then it's good enough for me.
I've viewed pornographic material on more than one occasion (and just recently looked at pictures of boobs on bikes and tits on tanks) and I not only have never committed any acts of sexual violence, I am unreservedly against any form of it. I think at least two other people I know would be the same.
-
From Oxford University Press Political Dictionary "Female pornography is seen by feminists as a mode of oppression and exercise of power by the stronger sex. The woman's body is sexualized and various parts of her anatomy are used to provide pleasure to the male gaze. Pornography entails sexual exploitation and male violence."
Oxford... Dictionary...? Pfft. What do those toffs know?
If those gals sitting astride the bikes with little pants on and boots and bare boobs ain't "sexualised" and geared to "provide pleasure to the male gaze" I'll eat my hat:)
Sexualised, sure. Provide pleasure, I guess. There is nothing inherently sexual about their simple presence - I find them more aesthetically pleasing than sexually pleasing, they are some genuinely nice looking breasts.
Okay - the "male violence" thing is OTT but I still sympathise with the feminist marchers because Boobs on Bikes DOES objectify women. someone on Nat Rad said Crowe was a "pimp". Hmmmm.
Crowe is a pimp, basically. And it does objectify women. Those specific women anyway. Most people in a normal society with normal interaction with actual women however understand that women in general are not objects. Those women have chosen to objectify themselves. In some ways I think they are quite empowered by the whole thing (maybe more so the parade than being in porn generally).
For what it's worth, women in porn earn quite a bit more than men.
-
I think you can make a good case that a lot of modern porn reflects and encourages a thread of sexualised violence against women that is present in mainstream areas of society as well (see pretty much all crime dramas). I don't think that simply saying "porn causes violence" is going to solve the problem (any more than banning Grand Theft Auto is going to stop school shootings.)
It's an interesting situation I'll grant. I'm no expert, but most of the 'mainstream' porn I've ever come across (and I really am not porn addict) is much beyond what most of us do in our own bedrooms. A little more contrived, and more 'fake' but largely the same.
But then, of course, I think porn reflects fantasy - from hardcore videos to softcore 'romance novels'. It not really different from the way mainstream entertainment tends to be an exaggerated version of real life. So in the world of porn that extends to power-play issue things, which I believe form the basis of the most common sexual fantasies. Is porn the cause of that, or is it just a reflection of common sexual fantasies, desires and taboos?
I have no doubt that many sexual offenders are 'porn users' but I don't for a second believe that porn makes them like that. And isn't even responsible for their general heightened sexual stimulation really - I mean I'm pretty sure that in most cases the sexual desire comes first, then the porn. If there porn were totally absent, then the imagination could fill in for sure.
-
Flickr Set of Boobs on Bikes
I've looked through there - and it you'll excuse the expression - I am not titillated - I don't think it's porn. -
Shit, that is enlightening Sacha. And kinda freaky.
-
And my rant (sorry, I'm arriving late to this). The parade is very transparently promotion for Crow's Erotica expo. So what. It isn't explicitly pornographic, the expo is R18 and no one seems to be serious objecting to the expo itself.
Crow is a sleezy dick, but that's his problem.
The thing I've found most offensive in this whole thing is the message of the group that held their little counter-protest ahead of the Booby-bikey parade. It was "pornography fuels sexual violence against women and children" - I call bullshit on that, and the whole premise really offends me. It is effectively saying that anyone who views porn will become a rapist.
They cart out their "well just take for example" of a man in Wanganui who sexual assaulted his handicapped wife (although why her state should make a difference I don't know) after viewing porn with two of his friends. Porn didn't cause that.
What about the vast vast majority of 'porn users' who have never and will never commit sexual violence? And I'm certain there'll be a case of someone who went out and raped someone after watching Shortland Street, or Fair Go - that is not causation.
And I wager that almost all people convicted of sexual violence in New Zealand have watched One News, eaten Corn Flakes, and had a delicious hot Milo.
Sex fuels sexual violence, but even that isn't the whole story, is it.