ed strong
This Website contains adult content which may include images and videos of a sexually explicit nature. If you are under 18, please leave the site now.

Daily Email

Receive a daily email digest: the headlines and summaries of articles posted each day. Click below.

Mailing List

Latest Comments

WEDNESDAY 3 DECEMBER

"Twilight" - Sex & The Teenage Girl [3,327]

Naked Sex: Top Ten Turn-Ons [8] [2,733]

Breast Milk Fetish: Extraordinary Video [Most Popular Articles - Last 28 Days] [1,670]

Today's Front Page Photos [12.02.08] [1,583]

Every "Terrorist" Attack Has the History of Western Imperialism Behind It [809]

Muslims Are the New Untouchables in India [661]


TUESDAY 2 DECEMBER

Celebrity Culture: From Andy Warhol to "American Idol" [8,005]

Sex Photos: This Teenage Beauty Brings out the Vampire in Me [3,210]

Sex & Art: Semi-Naked Women Sell Condoms [1,538]

Today's Front Page Photos [12.01.08] [1,497]

Are We Watching a Hollywood Movie Called "Obamaland"? [1,274]

Mumbai Attacks Part of Islamic Resistance to Western Aggression [714]


MONDAY 1 DECEMBER

30: Fantasy Five Explicit Videos [3,905]

58: This Week's Center-Spread Sex Photos [23-29 November] [2,460]

Condoms, Strawberries, Whipped Cream & Bananas [1,954]

Sex Matters [12] [1,562]

For the Record: Best of the Week [25-28 November] [857]


SUNDAY 30 NOVEMBER

10: Softcore Porn Videos [3,916]

1: Way Out Left [Radical Politics] [3,770]

Funky Spunk: How Does Your Semen Taste? [2,734]

Today's Front Page Photos [11.28.08] [2,168]

32: Top Five Sexually Viral Videos [Electro Special] [2,158]

Mighty America: All Aboard the Titanic [1,522]


MOST READ [24-29 NOVEMBER]

1. Sex Photos: Kirsten [Stunning Erotica] [12,782]

2. 29: Fantasy Five [Very] Explicit Videos [12,213]

3. Female Masturbation: The Pleasure Principle [11,470]

4. Sex, Lust & Porn [Photos 3] [9,426]

5. Squirt: Female Ejaculation [Most Popular Articles - Last 28 Days] [8,556]

6. 32: Top Five Sexually Viral Videos [7,104]

7. Celebrity Culture: From Andy Warhol to "American Idol" [7,094]

8. 57: This Week's Center-Spread Sex Photos [16-22 November] [6,911]

9. Nude Art Photos [2] [5,863]

10. Michelle Obama's Booty [Wow!] [5,785]

11. Naked Sex: Top Ten Turn-Ons [7] [5,663]

12. Am I a Porn Addict or Recreational User? [4,500]

13. Erogenous Zones: From Face to Feet, So Much Sexual Pleasure [4,483]

14. Oooh! for Orgasm: Moan, Groan, Cry Out [4,247]

15. Sex Matters [11] [3,902]


FRIDAY 28 NOVEMBER

Naked Sex: Top Ten Turn-Ons [7] [3,092]

Oooh! for Orgasm: Moan, Groan, Cry Out [2,294]

Today's Front Page Photos [11.26.08] [2,097]

High Culture Goes Tabloid [It Must Be Kim Catrell's Tits] [1,236]

Liberal Hollywood & Same-Sex Marriage [1,018]

Nightmare on Sunset Boulevard: Spend Thanksgiving with a Celebrity [998]


WEDNESDAY 26 NOVEMBER

Squirt: Female Ejaculation [Most Popular Articles - Last 28 Days] [2,622]

Nude Art Photos [2] [1,989]

Erogenous Zones: From Face to Feet, So Much Sexual Pleasure [1,704]

Today's Front Page Photos [11.25.08] [1,593]

Irony Is Dead in Obamaland [817]

Marketing Obama: A New Brand of Toothpaste [795]

««Dec 2008»»
SMTWTFS
 
1
2
3
4
56
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031

Porn Is the Zeitgeist [Classic Porn Clip]

posted Sunday, 3 August 2008

Pornography has never been more acceptable

In other words, it has taken the market

so long to catch up with the zeitgeist

that it shows an inverse curve,

only this century registering a discussion

that has been raging for the whole of the last





Feminist protest against porn

has its own grey areas to wrestle over.

The rhetoric of objectification

relies on the idea that it's one-way traffic,

that only men objectify,

and only women are objectified

So, say women do objectify men

to the same degree, on the same grounds

as they themselves are objectified

How degrading is porn, then, and for whom?

Anti-Porn Rhetoric Is So Conservative

Feminists claim the problem has always been male sexuality

Ha, if it wasn't for male sexuality none of us would be here

They haven't worked out how to grow babies in vats just yet. The naked female form excites most men, always has and always will.

The naked female form during sex is even more exciting. This is why there is a market for porn, just like why there is a market for fast cars and expensive technology, it excites men.

Of course it excites some women as well but it's mainly men. Now unless you want to neuter men's desires for the opposite (or same) sex then you will not get rid of porn.

So stop moralising and accept sex as a necessary part of human nature and porn as an expression of that.

Oh and of course porn objectifies women. Most men do anyway. It's the difference between a one night stand and a relationship.

The latter is about finding the personality behind the object.

Yes I'm being deliberately provocative but honest too.

A Woman Responds

Surely I'm not the only woman who likes to watch a bit of porn, who finds the visual imagery arousing (yes we are visual too) and who finds that my partner is not made less imaginative, nor is our sex life made more boring by this.

Some of our practices are borne of our own imaginations, some ideas we get from mags and movies watched while having some good clean adult fun.

I have no qualms about going to a sex shop on my own and picking up some new toys or images to bring home when we're planning a "quiet" night in.

I do not feel less feminine or intellectually evolved because I like to watch human beings copulating. It is a human imperative and it turns me on greatly to watch other people doing it.

In fact the only kind of porn that I without question find offensive, is the soft porn stuff that doesn't feature actual sex (which is natural and makes perfect sense) and only features lone women holding open gaping vaginas.

And this is the stuff teenage boys are most likely to start with, which I believe is much more damaging than the idea that sex involves people pleasuring each other, not woman displaying themselves for men--that is real objectification.

If I had to spend a night in a hotel with porn channels and was unfortunate enough not to have brought a good book, as an intelligent, feminine, beautiful, confident, sexual woman, hell I'd be watching the porn, of course I would.

Anti-Porn Rhetoric Is So Conservative

I didn't know the Travelodge chain was known for its plentiful porn, but then I guess I'm not its core clientele, since as a lady I am filed under "family".

The chain, anyway, has decided to axe its pay-per-view channels, in a bid to make the hotels more family friendly.

Apparently it will cost the company millions in lost revenue, but it is thought to have weighed this against all the crystal meth, sorry, knitting patterns it'll flog to the new influx of mothers, and decided it was worth it.

The family "leisure" segment now accounts for 70% of Travelodge custom, having doubled since 2003.

It's the business share that watched the rude stuff, apparently - so even if the business travellers were all men, and this seems like a rash assumption in an age when women filch jobs even outside the arena of pornography, the men still don't dominate to the degree that their televisual preferences would automatically take precedence.

So, from a business point of view, this decision is pretty straightforward. From a cultural point of view, it's decades too late.

There probably hasn't been a time in history, no pause for breath in the segue from patriarchal considerations of decency to a feminist crusade against objectification, when pornography has been considered as acceptable as it is now.

Did lad culture make it funny? Does objecting to porn mean you have no sense of humour? At what point does it cease to be ironic?

If the irony is in the mindset of the beholder, does that make it a thought crime (you are not appreciating it ironically enough), and if so, is protest dated, insanely authoritarian, to the point of being meaningless?

Feminist remonstration has its own grey areas to wrestle over. The rhetoric of objectification relies on the idea that it's one-way traffic, that only men objectify, and only women are objectified.

Before you even consider where this leaves homosexuality, you can only accept this model if you take as a starting point that women have no physical imperative - or if they do, it's an imperative for cuddles - and while there is an alarming number of people calling themselves feminists who persist with such ideas, this area is at least now open to debate.

So, say women do objectify men to the same degree, on the same grounds as they themselves are objectified. How degrading is porn, then, and for whom?

Besides which, we can't ignore the way the mainstream has embraced pornographers themselves; the fact that the most despised aspect of a man like Richard Desmond is now his personality.

Suffice it to say, a discussion about the flaws of the business is mainly now about working conditions - are the participants willing, are they paid properly, does the taboo around the industry leave them unprotected by industrial standards?

The discussions are no longer about the ethics of the business itself. That's where the cultural curve is now.

Pornography has never been more acceptable. In other words, it has taken the market so long to catch up with the zeitgeist that it shows an inverse curve, only this century registering a discussion that has been raging for the whole of the last.

In its scramble for bland conformity, Travelodge has been so slow that it is actually swimming in the opposite direction. How delightfully ironic. If it were a lady, you could dress it in crotchless undercrackers and put it on the cover of Loaded.

People always present the market as without prejudice - the purity of its money imperative freeing it from bigotry.

There's a tacit credit given to capitalism as the real engine of beneficial social change, because in a cash nexus, gender and race fall silent and only cash speaks.

Who'd have thought you'd find the truth in a Travelodge, but here it is: the market is not unprejudiced.

It is incredibly conservative. And incredibly slow. And if it ever turns out to be on the side of right, it is probably by accident.

Zoe Williams @ CIF

tags:          

links: digg this    del.icio.us    technorati    reddit




1. stevie left...
Wednesday, 25 July 2007 6:53 pm

I am - in bouts - a porn addict.

I don't know quite what influences have shaped my desires, what makes me lust for women but not for men, what draws me to one body and not another, but I find some bodies--yes, as objects, I guess, real objects, not imagined--intensely desirable, others not. I find my wife's body intensely desirable, but hers is far from being the only body I find desirable; hers just happens (?) to belong to someone I wish to spend my life with. My lust seems to be pretty much insatiable, whether I like it or not. It doesn't seem mysterious to me that I should find it exciting to look at pictures of naked bodies which I find intensely desirable--even 'love'--and to pretend to myself that the owners of these bodies are as willing as they pretend to be. The fantasy involved in getting off on the picture of a desirable stranger is the passing fantasy that they might want to share their lust with me or that they are genuinely turned on by what they are doing. I am not aware that this fantasy in itself has any moral implications at all. Why anyone should suggest that this reveals a 'lack of imagination' I cannot, er, imagine--it is real beauty--airbrushed or not--for which I trawl through the dross in search of. How my porn addiction affects my sex life with my wife is another question: to some extent porn has enhanced and refined my lust, has made me love her c**t all the more; on the other hand, it is sometimes, not always, selfish of me to deplete my lust to the point where I cannot have sex with her when she wishes. (I say 'not always' because I want sex more often--or at different times--than she does.)

For whatever reasons, the shape my desire takes does not seem to be in any great conflict with my ethics: that is, I don't find it desirable to do or imagine doing anything with anyone that they do not desire to do. I'm grateful for the relative simplicity of my lust in that respect. I cannot be self-righteous about it for I can only guess that it is a matter of chance; and for that reason I can't condemn another's desires--I may be wrong but I assume most paedophiles, for example, wish they weren't paedophiles. But there can be no doubt that any porn which caters to such desires by exploiting unwilling/desperate people to do things they find repellent goes against any moral code I think anyone could reasonably suggest living by. The moral issues involved in porn are far from very clear--would 'virtual' or animated exploitation be rightly considered criminal? How would this apply to our dreams/nightmares?--but some moral lines are perceivable. In short, the kind of porn I find exciting does not torture me morally.

Yet I say I am a porn 'addict' because I spend far more time looking at porn than I would wish. For three hours at a time, day after day in some periods, I can search and search for a body that I desire, a body I desire that seems to be in a state of desire. I think many people, and yes this still seems to apply to more men I know than women, resent the power of their lust. To give into this power, as to give into any other insatiable desire, seems to be dangerous. And while it seems less harmful, for myself, to channel my lust towards porn rather than go in search of affairs, I cannot say that porn has not damaged my sense of myself. I don't know why but it feels demeaning--no, I don't think self-evidently 'pathetic' or 'sad' or whatever other adjectives make some feel superior--to sit staring at c**t after c**t for hours of one's day. It is not a productive use of one's time. Whether it is any more self-destructive than many other ways of squandering one's time, I'm not sure. But, in my case anyway, it seems compulsive--stronger than my powers to resist: I have become a slave to my lust. That says something about me and my weakness or emptiness or whatever, not porn.

All the above seems a long statement of the obvious. There seems no mystery. I'm afraid I don't understand the 'objectification' argument. Our bodies are objects: some desirable to others, some less so. If I had a desirable body and was offered money to display my body as an object I would certainly consider the deal. If I were offered money to have sex with someone I didn't want to have sex with, on the other hand, I would have to consider the costs: my own experiences of sleeping with men whom I did not desire have had a toll, I believe--they have alienated me from my own body in some sense. I hope that is not the price paid by porn actors/actresses.


2. danny left...
Friday, 1 August 2008 11:29 am

Good comment from Stevie. I too don't understand the feminist argument that men see women as sexual objects. What man dislikes a woman seeing HIM as a sexual object?

BTW, great class porn clip1 Circa the sixties, I'd guess. The good old days, when female porn stars still had pubic hair!