LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksOriginally Posted by if not why not
Perish the thought......
Perish the thought......
l wanted to take an approach to women's consumption of porn, which to my mind is led by a female OP. Its in media cos we have no women's fora. erections are mostly not a huge deal because *mostly* we are not as visual.
Where have you been? Did nobody tell yaHow long have you been a moderator????
Not to mention that mostly they're not huge either
'Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.'
Inigo Montoya.
Not to mention that mostly they're not huge either
Er, fair enough.
I don't see the slightest relevance to anything I've written though.
Please sign the petition to establish a national day of celebration in honour of the vision of the United Irishmen!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
You misunderstand.
It is not to protect women from porn.
It is an esthetic issue.
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!
Interesting article from the feminist pages of guardian.co.uk today regarding a new English magazine called 'Filament'. Apparently this is a 'high-brow' magazine that will treat its intellectual readership to such thought provoking articles such as "Atheist Parenting" and "Hard Core vs Soft Core".
In addition to the articles, it has pictures of disrobed hot men (so basically it's a Playboy for women pseuds). This month they have underwear on, but apparently due to pressure from the readership, they had hoped to feature photos of naked men in an aroused state. Their plans were scuppered when the printers refused to handle such copy, on the basis that they might receive objections from the 'women's/religious sector'.
This has agitated the Guardian contributors, and in their article they seek to justify the objectification of men on the basis that it is merely equality with porn for men. After years of being told that the problem with porn was that it objectified women and treated sex as a commodity, now it appears that the only problem is that it doesn't tend to objectify men as much.
Further, the magazine's website celebrates what it calls 'the female gaze'. This is clearly a play on the phrase 'the male gaze' which was created by feminists to criticise the way men (allegedly) objectify women as sex objects. But is it now ok for me to direct my dirty gaze on a woman as long as she feels free to do the same back to me?
So, is this porn for women a true example of genuine equality between the sexes? Were the arguments of anti-porn feminists over the past 40 years simply hypocritical?
A limp response to women's erotica | Kristina Lloyd and Mathilde Madden | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
Filament magazine
Reply With Quote