LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Pornography in the service of women

At the risk of angering you two, I just want to point out that a little less than 1% of the human population can be traced to Khan, and yes that was through force. Kill, pillage, and such. A successful strategy. So, the theory holds no sway in today's society, yet a mere thousand years ago???
 
penandpaper said:
At the risk of angering you two, I just want to point out that a little less than 1% of the human population can be traced to Khan, and yes that was through force. Kill, pillage, and such. A successful strategy. So, the theory holds no sway in today's society, yet a mere thousand years ago???
Click to expand...
yeah, I have Khan genes. That would explain so much, right ?

He's the exception that proves the rule-- an example of just how much rapine a man would need to accomplish to make a procreative difference.

Not to mention how important an individual would have to be, for those genes to be treasured so much that even his bastard children would prosper and procreate.

Culture had a big, big, part in the Khan genetic legacy. Once he was leader of your tribe, your son was of royal blood.
 
Last edited:
Stella_Omega said:
In what way?
Click to expand...
Dawkins workaround w/respect to group selection is the extended phenotype apparently.

Forget about "irreducable complexity" group selection is the elephant in the room in natural selection theory, which posits the individual as the unit of selection. In this paradigm, there is no room for altruistic behavior, the individual organism should not willingly sacrifice itself (reduce it's fitness) for any reason.

Obviously, there is plenty of actual evidence contradict this prediction and not just among humans.

The most obvious example is the mother protecting her young, and, clearly this is an example of group selection, i.e., one organism risking it's reproductive potential to protect another organism, in this case, it's own offspring, duh, but still and example of group selection.

Dawkins poses the genome as the unit of selection, and recasts group selection as extended phenotype: i.e., the mother protects her offspring because they carry her genes, her genes see her offspring as extensions of her own genome.

This can be abstracted all up the social ladder after that; reciprocal altruism is individuals making sacrifices that are not to their immediate advantage, but they build up "goodwill" or something that enhances the breeding potential of their offspring or relatives (kin selection).

This all seems pretty reasonable, my problem with it is that it anthropomorphizes the genome to some extent, I'm sure he explains that in terms of selection, i.e., if the trait (encoded in the genome), proves advantageous to the extended genome (children, close relatives), then the genome will be selected.

Vehicle selection, as an explanation for the similar behaviors, operates much more broadly, it posits the individual as the unit of selection, and the group as "vehicle" - i.e., contributions to the fitness of the group as whole benefit the organism in a variety of ways, safety in numbers for browsers, opportunistic feeding for predators, etc., and it seems to work whether you posit the genome or the individual as the unit of selection.

Again, the trait of group "loyalty" is selected if it proves advantageous to the individual, and most species of mammals do tend to aggregate in groups, to varying degrees of tightness or looseness.

The genome as unit of selection does have a certain appeal, but it's still under dispute.

Anyway, Ghengis khan's immediate group was clan based, i.e., presumably composed of large numbers of relatives (kin selection), which in turn was allied with other clans with whom they were probably intermarried, etc.

The result being, that as a group, the Khan (the Alpha of the troop) was accorded the most breeding opportunities, supported by his extend clan who shared not only the genome, but benefited from the extended groups dominance over the competition, in terms of resources, breeding opportunities, etc.

S'why I asked you what it is about social constructs that are artificial - they appear to be the result of natural selection, albeit more abstract social constructs tend to accumulate a certain amount of baggage, since the underlying processes are mostly subconscious.

The more superficial aspects of a given construct may represent situational or short term advantages lobbied into the model by individuals long dead, no longer have any immediate relevance for the group, and may even be detrimental.

Abstraction and language allow us to pass on these constructs culturally, via oral tradition, and the dogmatic aspect of religion/culture may reflect the process of eidetic linguistic memorization that oral tradition is based on, i.e., exact repetition, imitation, rote learning.
 
Selection for a "rape gene" is about the same as selection for a homosexual gene: monogyny and polygyny.

If the available breeding females are monopolized by the Alphas, breeding opportunities for the remaining males become limited - "War Children", the other selection vehicle for a rape gene, often have limited reproductive success themselves (and they are not always the product of rape), being discriminated against by the culture of both victor and vanquished.

There is drift, etc., but monopolization explains a great deal more of human behavior in that it not only creates a vector for a rape gene - when female "chastity" is prized, as it is throughout the statistical majority of human cultures, females have much to lose by disclosing rape - if her husband suspects she may be carrying children that are not his, it is very common to kick her to the curb, victim or no. Males, at least, are historically very protective of their phenotype and will not risk diverting resources from their own offspring to raise the child of another man.

It also incentives a whole host of opportunistic and deception based strategies, that explain the sneakier aspects of human behavior, as well as homosexuality selection, as homosexuals inhabit a niche similar to eunuchs. i.e., non threatening.

In polygyny, the Alpha is still limited in how many female he can impregnate simply by the time it takes for his sperm count to regenerate, while women living in groups tend to synchronize their fertility cycles - this creates plenty of breeding opportunities for lower status males, given the opportunity - again, the existence of eunuchs argues that it was considered enough of a problem that attempts to limit it were made.

At the margins, males can benefit from raising the children of others, and various forms of polyandry, while they don't get as much press, are not uncommon historically - serial monogomy and even prostitution can be seen as polyandry of a sort.

When it comes to other animals, most mammalian females are able to produce litters comprised of offspring from more than one male, and even human women, on rare occasions, are able to produce fraternal twins from different fathers - thus, numerous forms of subterfuge and even, to be crude, partaking of "sloppy seconds", cuckolding, swinging, etc., are selected for, providing more opportunities for lower status males, and increasing overall group fitness through increased genetic diversity.
 
Last edited:
When it comes to marital rape, while a man can theoretically impregnate a woman every Three days or so, women are limited to roughly One pregnancy every 18 months or so at best, and few women are able to stick to that schedule, both because the previous children add to the burden of caring for more, and that the potential risks of pregnancy and childbirth tend to increase with each instance - thus, the old cliche that married women lose interest in sex - it isn't sex they're avoiding, it's pregnancy.

Throw in a limited understanding of the female fertility cycle and sexual reproduction, and add a male status seeking impetus, and you have a recipe for selection of female submission/forced sex.

Originally, of course, it likely had much to do with the loss of estrus that seems to have occurred around the same time as bipedalism was selected for - i.e., a very long time ago, leaving populations with severely limited anoetic instincts for what to do, or when. Humans essentially had to reinvent sex at this point.

And in many respects, we're still at it.

See Elaine Morgan, The Descent of Woman: forget about aquatic Ape theory, currently unprovable, read her chapter on sex.
 
Last edited:
Here's the statistics on forcible rape, by state, for comparison. Map.

Can't tell what the date is on this data, in looking at local crime statistics the other day, there was a jump in all categories 2004 that declined again in 2005, not sure why.

I don't see any direct correlations jumping out, Florida does come in at #3, while Nevada comes in at #32.

Naturally, these are reported rapes, the actual rates may be less easy to pin down, if it happens to be under reported for whatever reason, date rapes, drug and alcohol involvement, parental freakouts, etc.
 
Last edited:
You really should check it out, as a matter of scientific curiosity, there's something for everybody in that one.
 
To me it's a case of 'diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks'. But then you know full well I can't get off from pain, mine or anyone else's. :rolleyes:
 
Handley_Page said:
one question: why make sex seem something from Torquemada ?
Click to expand...
It's one of the ways my wires twist. I did warn.

But I'm wondering if xssve or Huck can figure out why this gets me off, and doesn't offend me, when I've turned up my nose at nearly every link and image that xssve has posted.
 
...and because I don't have much luck finding hardcore vanilla hetero images that turn me on, evidently.
:mad:
1) Both people should be worth looking at.
2) It should be obvious that they are fucking. Dick in pussy is good.
3) they should be looking at each other, not at the camera
4)Their bodies should be touching in more than the genital area
5) It would be real damn nice if they were kissing while they were fucking.

Anyone have an image like that? I have not found one.
 
Last edited:
Stella_Omega said:
It's one of the ways my wires twist. I did warn.

But I'm wondering if xssve or Huck can figure out why this gets me off, and doesn't offend me, when I've turned up my nose at nearly every link and image that xssve has posted.
Click to expand...
So, are you looking for endogenous or exogenous explanations? I'm not getting into psychoanalysis of your particular situation, if that's what you're fishing for. People I know who are into some more extreme forms of BDSM range from abuse survivors to fashionistas - I don't presume to know what is going through a given person's mind. For example, do you project yourself into the situation? If so, as the "torturer" or the "victim"?

I look at the pictures on your site, and I can imagine that the bound women perhaps find a psychological release through forced orgasms. Maybe they carry some guilt related to their sexual thoughts, and through punishment they release enough emotional control to experience intense orgasms. Maybe their self-image is bound to being different or extreme.

Maybe the physical exertion heightens their senses. Maybe pain floods their nervous system, making pleasurable sensations more intense. I know people into rope bondage have preferences for different types of rope for different uses - the feelings against their skin are an important part of the experience.

I don't see how this categorically supports or refutes the broader notion of evo-psych. For example, I can see where sexual thoughts may draw on certain portions of the brain that are also linked to other primal emotions, but that because of cultural and personal circumstances, those links manifest themselves in particularly contrived scenarios.
 
Those are interesting thoughts, but they don't address the question I put to you.

Why do I get off on these images of women in hardcore bondage, when I don't like other images of women in hardcore bondage?

More women than I have talked about the elements we look for in porn, and some of them right here in this thread, just saying.
 
Last edited:
AT LAST!!!!!
It's commercial film. It's hardcore. It's vanilla
And much of it is filmed, and all of it is reviewed, from women's perspectives.

A film maker says;
...After all, porn these days is famously unromantic; distinguished by sexual positions that seem both improbable and uncomfortable. But we decided to take the risk, and after lengthy discussions between Jon B (of Mile High Media) and me, “Sweet Sinner” was born.

At first, there was no shortage of advice from acquaintances with “experience” shooting boy/girl. I was advised to shoot most sex scenes on couches because “the angles are better” than on a bed. I was further told that I’d have to “learn how to deal with the guys when they can’t ‘get wood’ (an erection)” and “make sure they open up for the camera so you can get hardcore shots. Don’t let them do missionary (position); it’s too hard to shoot.” I listened to the well-intentioned cautions, but ultimately I discarded almost all of them. My one goal was to create an environment where real sex and real passion could be captured on film. If that meant that I wouldn’t always get extreme close ups passionless genitalia banging together mercilessly, then so be it.

So far, our philosophy is working and my fears have been put to rest. The male performers are thrilled by the chance to really make love to a woman, rather than simply to “bang” her. And not surprisingly, they don’t seem to have many “wood problems” when they’re allowed to kiss and indulge in foreplay before moving into the actual sex. It just feels more real to them — and to the female performers, who are surprised by how much they enjoy a more intimate, natural encounter...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

OddLove
Perhaps a boost of motivation for all the authors.
2
Replies
25
Views
804
PrimalDual
P
WeShallUnclench
How do you figure your characters have "depth" and are not just wish fulfillment / in service of the fantasy?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
818
DeMont
DeMont
I
Bisexual in LS?
Replies
15
Views
217
Nightaelf
Nightaelf
S
Does the niche of your writing affect your chances in the story contests?
Replies
11
Views
217
SimonDoom
SimonDoom
Belegon
The dynamics of the dating world in the modern era...
2
Replies
43
Views
1K
Belegon
Belegon
Back
Top