Pornography in the service of women

[xssve]

Sweet, the ocean always get's me hot. I see it as a metaphor for the futility of mans attempt to subdue woman's primal nature - his mates usually have to pluck him out of the murk.

Or maybe it was a reminder to always employ proper prophylactic measures, I forget.

Gnarly vid though.

One good link deserves another: Picturing sex: Kinsey explores what turns us on.

News article, but you can follow the link trail to galleries of previous juried art show exhibits, here's the 2007 show.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Nice link thank you xssve!

“One thing that struck me, and it brings sense to why Playboy is cutting back, is that people are producing high-quality work at home,” Cahn said. “And I think homemade erotica can be much more powerful than something you buy on the newsstand.”

Although I notice that much of that 2007 show is nudes. Female nudes, solo.

I worked with a show for three years called "Wicker Park Erotic" and found the same tendency in the curators-- which is why I got involved. It's difficult to find 'fine' art that is actually about sex or sexuality-- much of it is political commentary couched in genital imagery.

The last year, we did a petting zoo, and the artists wore animal costumes

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Nice link thank you xssve!
Although I notice that much of that 2007 show is nudes. Female nudes, solo.

I worked with a show for three years called "Wicker Park Erotic" and found the same tendency in the curators-- which is why I got involved. It's difficult to find 'fine' art that is actually about sex or sexuality-- much of it is political commentary couched in genital imagery.

The last year, we did a petting zoo, and the artists wore animal costumes

Damn! If I'd know about that one, I'd have tried to go.

 

[xssve]

No doubt, I wish I lived someplace where I might see one of these exhibitions, I have a serious case of art envy going on.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Here's yet another one of those "I'm a feminist but I like Spartacus"-sorts of stories, by the author of a series of books called "Girlfriend's Guides"
Mommy Porn: What We're REally Fantasizing About excerpt:

I am shocked by this and a little disturbed by this inconsistency in my feminist politics and here's why: These books portray the archetypal barely-civilized man lusting, actually hungering, for a frail and naïve woman. She loves him because he's physically superior--tall, broad-shouldered, the whole Greek god thing, he knows her in a deep way that the rest of the superficial world has overlooked, and best of all, he can beat up anybody who messes with her. I am capable of some introspection and I, like you, can see that for a traditionally non-violent person who believes that a woman stands alone as a force to be reckoned with, there's an obvious disconnect here. Yeah, but I'm in a mood.

I'm in the mood to see more people punched in the nose by a handsome hero. Perhaps the evolution of 21st century men into laptop toting, UFL-lit frequent fliers to further self-importance leaves many women hungering for a man who can cut down a tree, rebuild an engine and catch and gut a fish. And I want one of those kinds of guys handing out a few shiners to the girly men on my list: Bernie Madoff, Bill Clinton, Rush Limbaugh to name a few. Admit it, it felt good to see someone punch Perez Hilton, didn't it? Viral bullying like his is no match for a physical call to attention. "Say it to my face, Tough Guy!" Bam!
[...]
I'm on my fourth book about a twentieth century woman who travels through time and falls in love with an eighteenth century Scottish Highlander. He's gorgeous, huge, fights with daggers and broadswords and wears a kilt. He also loves his woman with a fury that occasionally borders on the side of uncivilized. Best of all, when someone offends her, he later presents her with a sack holding the offender's head. Then they have sex.

This is on a page that, coincidently, also features a link to Why Do Girls Like Geeky Guys?

I'm all for women finding out what turns them on. I just wish that, once they find it, they wouldn't be so quick to generalize from there to "men", and judge those who don't turn them on so harshly.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I'm all for women finding out what turns them on. I just wish that, once they find it, they wouldn't be so quick to generalize from there to "men", and judge those who don't turn them on so harshly.

Yeah... I wish men wouldn't generalise about women and judge those who don't turn them on so harshly.

Must be human nature, huh? Neither particularly male nor female.

 

[xssve]

Here's yet another one of those "I'm a feminist but I like Spartacus"-sorts of stories, by the author of a series of books called "Girlfriend's Guides"
Mommy Porn: What We're REally Fantasizing About excerpt:

This is on a page that, coincidently, also features a link to Why Do Girls Like Geeky Guys?

I'm all for women finding out what turns them on. I just wish that, once they find it, they wouldn't be so quick to generalize from there to "men", and judge those who don't turn them on so harshly.

The murk I was referring to above.

Women don't know what the hell they want, it's a scientific fact, it literally changes with their menstrual cycle - they want a "bad boy" when they're ovulating, a nerd when they're not, complicated by "ladder theory" which posits that women tend to categorize their male relationships early on into platonic or potentially erotic.

Males are more single minded, they combine sexual and social desirability.

And then there is the fact that women constantly write books and columns like these giving each other relationship advice, so to whatever natural complications arise form their hormones you have to add whatever the current fad is, and no woman want's to get caught with an outdated accessory: is it Disco Dan or NASCAR guy this week? And it always changes because women, as a group, know less about what they want than they do individually.

Again, guys are simpler: we write books and articles about cars, and if you're reasonably presentable and not too much of a bitch, you're golden.

So, neither "male nor female" is correct in principle, but the devil is in the details.

You might say that for every virgin/whore there is a poet warrior - the difference being women are less "hypocritical" about it, they marry the poet and fuck the warrior.

Let the melee commence!

 

[Stella_Omega]

You're trolling, xssve. That's the same stupid bullshit that has been hashed out over and over and over here. Go somewhere else to find your abuse for the day.

 

[xssve]

You're trolling, xssve. That's the same stupid bullshit that has been hashed out over and over and over here. Go somewhere else to find your abuse for the day.

It's not bullshit, read the links, this is all objective data, you can't just dismiss it wholesale.

You know what you like, period, if you want to talk about that, then talk about that, if you want to talk about "Women", en masse, I have no choice but to go with the statistical averages, along which curve you personally, as an individual, can fall anywhere. Believe me, I fall well in the margins, I've never been big cars and sports guy.

Can we not agree on that single point?

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's not bullshit, read the links, this is all objective data, you can't just dismiss it wholesale.

You know what you like, period, if you want to talk about that, then talk about that, if you want to talk about "Women", en masse, I have no choice but to go with the statistical averages, along which curve you personally, as an individual, can fall anywhere. Believe me, I fall well in the margins, I've never been big cars and sports guy.

Can we not agree on that single point?

And now you're being passive aggressive.

"oh, i didn't mean it like that!"

 

[xssve]

And now you're being passive aggressive.

"oh, i didn't mean it like that!"

I said what I meant, if you want to infer a personal slight, I cannot prevent you from doing that. You have no comment on the links?

Rhetorical question.

 

[penandpaper]

Saying "malleable sexual orientation" is more innate in the female is true on the surface. Especially when one is dictated by societal constraints, upbringing, etc. However, the latest edition of Scientific American Mind would refute this. (This particular theme was Your Sexual Mind. The theme changes bi-monthly.) The article Bisexual Species by Emily Driscoll supports the evolution of bisexuality among both genders across species. It has a Darwinian slant, with several references to neurochemistry. It is quite a good read if you're interested in that sort of thing.

 

[xssve]

I believe that bisexuality, limited or otherwise, is pretty well established as a standard behavior among humans and always has been by the historical record alone. There is, on the contrary, no significant body of scientific evidence that disputes it that I'm aware of.

Strict heterosexual monogamy is relatively much more rare, across the entire spectrum of the animal kingdom.

The problem is not one of fact, but of perception; i.e., currently, most of the deniers subscribe to the Calvinist doctrine of innate depravity, although mixed feelings on the subject have been recorded at least since the OT.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Darwinian psychology got off to a running start without enough data. self aggrandisers like Richard Dawkins made lots of publicity hay out of notions that puffed human egos but had no real empirical support.

Decades later, real researchers-- ones who don't have pre-formed ideology- are slowly repairing the damage. Slowly. Brave Hunters bringing down mastodons and Aurochses by brute force!
This is the stuff dreams (and fantasies) are made of, and having been fed such rich food, we hate to return to the humdrum snaring of rabbits.

 

[penandpaper]

Darwinian psychology got off to a running start without enough data. self aggrandisers like Richard Dawkins made lots of publicity hay out of notions that puffed human egos but had no real empirical support.

Decades later, real researchers-- ones who don't have pre-formed ideology- are slowly repairing the damage. Slowly. Brave Hunters bringing down mastodons and Aurochses by brute force!
This is the stuff dreams (and fantasies) are made of, and having been fed such rich food, we hate to return to the humdrum snaring of rabbits.

You are right Stella; however, I humbly disagree with the notion that scientists today don't have pre-formed notions. I believe, they just have a better understanding. The whole standing on the shoulder of giants thing.

 

[Pure]

I believe that bisexuality, limited or otherwise, is pretty well established as a standard behavior among humans and always has been by the historical record alone.

so is murder.

 

[xssve]

I believe that bisexuality, limited or otherwise, is pretty well established as a standard behavior among humans and always has been by the historical record alone.

so is murder.

True, but what is your point?

From a strictly mammalian basis, murder is abnormal, bisexuality isn't.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You are right Stella; however, I humbly disagree with the notion that scientists today don't have pre-formed notions. I believe, they just have a better understanding. The whole standing on the shoulder of giants thing.

yeah, well even if you stand on the shoulders of a dwarf you'll see further than the dwarf did.

But having no shoulders under one's feet does not make one a giant...
Dawkins begat Buss. And the 'selfish gene' begat a generation of shoddy excuses, instead of a search for solutions.

 

[xssve]

Solutions to what?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I believe that bisexuality, limited or otherwise, is pretty well established as a standard behavior among humans and always has been by the historical record alone.

so is murder.

And eating, defecating, laughing... Nursing a child, masturbation.

oh, and murder.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Solutions to what?

yeah, solutions is the wrong word-- resolutions perhaps.

Every behavior that humans exhibit can be explained culturally.

Just because some of these cultural impulses mimic biological behaviors in other mammals does not mean they can't be changed culturally. And to pretend that biology explains and therefore excuses sexual disconnects is very detrimental to both women and men.

Evopsyche has slowed intersocial understanding down to a sluglike crawl. It lets men scratch their heads and pretend women aren't human the way men are-- and vice versa.

You already know what I think about that.

 

[Pure]

note to xs,

xs said: //From a strictly mammalian basis, murder is abnormal, bisexuality isn't.

surely some cautions are in order for those who read morality from nature.

http://www.tvo.org/bi/resources/mediaPDFs/BL2009_MetroNews_Mar11_09_02.pdf

If animals commit
murder, does that
make it natural?

BRIAN TOWIE FOR METRO CANADA
March 11, 2009 05:34
Is murder part of natural life, or an anomaly of behaviour? Shawn Lehman wants to find out.
The anthropology professor at the University of Toronto will discuss death in the animal kingdom in his lecture

Primate Infanticide: Adaptation Or Social
Pathology

on Sunday March 15 as part of
TVO’s Ontario’s Best Lecturer series on
Big Ideas.

[[lecture on videotape is at
http://odeo.com/episodes/24309426-S...te-Infanticide-Adaptation-or-Social-Pathology ]]

A controversial subject to say the least, primate infanticide deals with the killing of offspring in ape species. This can happen in various ways for a number of reasons: An alpha male ape may defeat another male for control of a “harem” of female apes, for example, then kill the offspring of the rival ape.

The question, Lehman says, is this: Is primate infanticide part of how
animals naturally evolve or is it this a pathological pattern of behaviour that can only be detrimental to a species?

“Are we working towards evolution or are these just a bunch of crazy
monkeys running around killing each other?” he asks. “There are
well-known cases where chimpanzees, our closest natural relative, have behaved like this, and yet it doesn’t benefit them in any way.”

So if our closest relative can kill indiscriminately, does that explain away murderous behaviour in humans? Yes and no, according to Lehman. “How do you assess it?” he said. “We are subject to a lot of the same biological imperatives and what they do
can offer some insight, but humans are even more complex. We do things that animals don’t do.”

===

http://myreality.churchofreality.org/index.php?showtopic=1758
[is murder a uniquely human activity {thread}]

posting by ocelot, nov 2008

[define murder as unnecessary killing]

From



http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/writing/Assign/so/male-violence.html

QUOTE
Until a decade or two ago, it appeared that other animals -- including monkeys -- did not kill members of their own species, whereas humans did. But as field studies in animal behavior have become more thorough, the myth of the peaceful primate -- or non-murderous animal generally -- has largely been dispelled. Orangutans rape, for instance, and chimpanzees murder. Wolves also kill others of their own kind, as do lions, elk, and bison. In fact, nearly every animal species that has been carefully studied sooner or later reveals its penchant for lethal violence.

Also from http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_cult_2.html


QUOTE
Field studies in Tanzania illustrate how some chimps occasionally murder other chimps for no apparent survival-related reason. Premeditated, gangland-style attacks were directed by a large group of male chimps on a smaller group of males and females that had previously broken away from the larger group. Over the course of five years, each member of the splinter group was systematically and brutally beaten. All died.

Only young males initiated the attacks, which occurred only when the victims were isolated from the others. Hands, feet, and teeth were often used by the attackers, though sometimes field-workers noticed stones being deliberately thrown. The hope, of course, is that comparative studies like these will uncover the reasons behind not only chimp misdemeanors but human belligerence as well, perhaps helping to guide the future survival of the human species, which, it would seem, can no longer tolerate intraspecies aggression.

Or from {Bloom's book, _The Lucifer Principle_}
http://www.howardbloom.net/chimpanzees_and_romans.htm


QUOTE
Then the newly triumphant members of the younger generation execute an atrocity. They wade into the screaming females, grabbing babies left and right. They swing the infants against the trees, smash them against the ground, bite their heads and crush their skulls. They kill and kill. When the orgy of bloodlust is over, not an infant remains. Yet the females in their sexual prime are completely unhurt.

ocelot: The field of primatology has been criticised for perhaps asserting overly anthopomorphic intentions behind primate behaviour. Are these a further example of this trend or can the activities descibed in these studies be equated to the human phenomenon of murder?

If primates do murder then can their study help us to confront our own bestial behaviour?

====
ocelet said further: In langurs [infanticide] it appears that this behaviour is normal. The purpose of the attack is to gain possession of the females. If we were to anthropomorphise further then surely the female would resist the amorous attentions of a gang that murdered her child. Yet in reality it appears that the strategy is successful and the new dominant male selected from the gang of victors by a fight to the death, does get to pass on his genes. [...]my understanding of the behaviour is clearly only at an introductory level.

===

there is further, balanced discussion by an anthropologist, Phyllis Meek, of infanticide, at

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/infant.html

she frames this hypothesis, from Sarah Hrdy [famous anthropologist and primate sociobiologist],

http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/fghij/hrdy_sarah.html

[[an original paper of Hrdy on the topic of infanticide, based on direct observation, is at
http://nsm1.nsm.iup.edu/rgendron/Hrdy_Infanticide.pdf ]]


and finds evidence in support:

Meek: Sexual selection hypothesis


Infanticide is a male reproductive tactic:

Loss of suckling infant leads to the onset of estrous in the mother

Males gain a reproductive advantage through earlier conception by females.

There was a lot of initial resistance to this idea (it was primarily Sarah Hrdy's) but there is some really convincing evidence for it.

 

[xssve]

Absolutely true. It's not at all uncommon among predators, to whom their own offspring represent competition, and mothers in almost every mammalian species are at pains to keep males - all males - at a distance during pregnancy and nursing - I never suggested abandoning all social custom here, for one thing, we aren't strictly speaking, like other great Apes, we have these large brains, and our children require a great deal more care - a human child is not theoretically capable of independent survival until probably Eight at a minimum, and that only includes a bare minimum of survival skills, by which time it would be a fully grown, breeding adult if it were any other species, Twelve )average age of puberty) is the traditional "age of consent" almost universally among human populations.

The behaviors you refer to have precedents in human history, but they are largely confined to war and unstable teenage father being left alone with crying babies.

Even among humans, there is a tradition of the women and children isolating themselves from males much of the time.

Otherwise our great brains are largely the result of this prolonged period of childcare and it creates stressors that require new adaptational modes of social interaction in order to sustain - K-strategy reproductive behaviors.

The gang violence thing is interesting, i.e., they gang up on members who have already been socially marginalized - this is the same thing serial killers do: i.e., these are victims who are "weaker", in that they are typically unable to call on support from other members of the group.

The article does not state why these individuals have been marginalized, and since presumably, these primates have relatively short memories for the limited abstractions they can form, I'm guessing the reasons involve genetic damage (detectable by scent in many instances), or some other reason whereby they present some threat to group fitness.

You really have to understand how the group fitness vehicle works here; for one thing, you can't assume that even the behavior of these primates is "normal", any current observations about primates has to take into account that they are under enormous population, environmental ans resource stress, being crowded into smaller and smaller ranges, and being picked off at the margins, particularly the more adventuresome individuals, and in evolution, much like economics, all the action happens at the margins.

"Natural", therefore, becomes a relative term. The result on increasing resource stress and territorial reduction I predict would be increasing centripetalization, which is usually accompanied by greater levels of intragroup violence needed to maintain discipline, and distribute available resources more asymmetrically to the most aggressive individuals. NAZI Germany, basically.

It might also reflect genetic damage/drift in the core population, if resource stress is favoring the most aggressive males over the more intelligent, which also has cultural repercussions in terms of limiting the amount and quality of learned (culturally transmitted) behaviors that indirectly maximize the breeding potential of more innovative individuals - naturally, you're going to get more aggressive behaviors emerging across the population, accompanied by a corresponding repression of more benign cultural innovations, the resulting social stressors may result in the emergence of true sociopathic traits in the core population - it's a downward spiral, as the population becomes increasingly aggressive in order to survive.

Nature just rolls the dice, reproductive success determines the outcome.

Remember: a human generation, the time it takes for an individual to reach reproductive age and raise it's own offspring to reproductive age, is about Thirty years, historically - among apes, it's less than half that. i.e., It doesn't take many years to select for individuals with higher rates of testosterone production, while stress itself tends to also increase testosterone production.

r-strategy reproduction in the first place is predicated on high rates of infant mortality.

It turns out that the rate of molecular evolution i.e., the rate of random mutation (I think), is very close between humans and Chimpanzees, but we're talking sexual selection here, recombinant DNA, which has a generational effect, the more or less "immediate" effect of the genetic contribution of a more aggressive vs. a less aggressive individual.

My point was very different, nearly all male animals fight over females and resources, virtually none of them fight to the death - and the reason for this simple: both individuals are subject to injury. If one animal "submits", the fight is over. If neither submit, the fight will go on until one or both are either dead or crippled, and the group, instead of getting a slightly larger share of the victors genes, will get neither, and also lose two Alpha's who would otherwise contribute to group defense.

To sum it up, populations whose males routinely fight to the death are doomed to extinction.

 

[penandpaper]

At the risk of sounding cliche, bonobos do not exhibit those aggressive behaviors. The worst seen in a wild bonobo is pack hunting a small monkey. The difference in that is it's as much a female affair as it is a male, despite size and physical strength differences.

So yes, all these traits of violence can be traced back to something atavistic. But, perhaps, it's just a short detour we took - not a long road. And speaking of roads...

Stella, please do not blame Dawkins or Hutchins (and I am not saying they are right or trying to convince people of otherwise) for using Evolutionary Psychology and leading us down the wrong path. Maybe, just maybe, we went down the path and it was wrong, but walking down that path may lead to other paths we didn't see in the first place. (Think of Frued's bullshit. Almost all wrong, yet gave us some insights in what to look for in the field of neurobiology.) Those men are just using something to refute the existence of God, which doesn't have a whole lot of data backing it up either. Both sides are just using very convincing language - not numbers. So yes, you may be right. But speaking cryptically, albeit intelligently, doesn't always make it so. I would make a claim that any evolutionary psychologist can show you data or leads within neuroscience that are beneficial to our understanding of human nature. I'm not sure, you could do the same, since we didn't follow down your path. Just a thought.

PS - You should know that you seem like a smart person and I like hearing your opinions. The reason I'm pinning this one on you though, is it seems more of an attack based on your view point, not fact. And that doesn't always seem to be the case with you. Thanks for listening.

 

[Pure]

note to xs

xs said, some excerpts //Absolutely true. It's {infanticide} not at all uncommon among predators, to whom their own offspring represent competition, and mothers in almost every mammalian species are at pains to keep males - all males - at a distance during pregnancy and nursing [...]

The gang violence thing is interesting, i.e., they gang up on members who have already been socially marginalized - [...]

My point was very different, nearly all male animals fight over females and resources, virtually none of them fight to the death - and the reason for this simple: both individuals are subject to injury. If one animal "submits", the fight is over.//

ok, if we're to use nature as our teacher: we're agreed males mammals don't naturally/normally kill each other, unless one is socially marginalized (or there's a war of groups); one submits or leaves the scene.

they do naturally/normally, kill another male's babies (who are in the company of the mother, of course), in some circumstances, e.g, when the mom will be available as a sexual partner. they do rub off on each other sometimes (e.g., intercrural), but as to the anal penetration, the current, solid evidence, outside captivity, is scanty, see e.g. Diamant, Psychology of Sexual Behavior, pp. 142-5, for a summary: http://books.google.com/books?id=5IdO6wisyUUC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142