fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3755 ]

i've been told that porn of non-dicked women is "objectifying" them whether it's real or cartoon, does that not also apply to porn of ladies with penises?

well, clearly, I don't agree that pornography is objectifying as such. it seems like you're expecting some kind of intellectual unity that doesn't exist. people who thought that would probably object to you watching any pornography regardless of whether or not the women had dicks. however, this comm has clearly talked about pornography many times in the past, so it would seem strange for us to object in this case.

and second, the objections that people actually raised here have been totally unrelated to the pornography and the masturbating, and mostly about other things like the language that's being used. so it seems to me that we've basically been in this framework the whole time where we're talking about specific things, and not about objections to masturbation or pornography as such.

so in other words, it seems clear to me that this whole thing has basically not been about whether or not you should masturbate or watch porn, but about some other things not intrinsically related to the fact of masturbating. that's definitely how I feel about it.

i don't know what you mean by "layer of abstraction" because i don't see any difference between real or cartoon, they're still ladies with penises (or without penises, or whatever floats your boat)

it doesn't make any difference to your willingness to masturbate to them, but there are still some differences (viz, one is of real people and one is animated) (that is, in fact, a difference). it's also significant that - as Case pointed out - there's some things that are specific to the animated version where it's got its own thing going on.

i find it very strange that you (and i presume others, if this is a common attitude here) see a tangible difference between real and fictional ladies with penises. at the end of the day, it's not the artwork, or, i don't know, framing/lighting in a video that people are fapping to. it's the lady with a penis.

even if we put aside the supposed difference between real vs cartoon, what about the difference between porn and people? i've heard conflicting arguments. one side, yours, says porn is not objectifying. the other side says porn is objectifying because it reduces real people to an idea (or an ideal.) which am i supposed to believe?

earlier there was discussion about why certain words like "trap" are apparently offensive, and i understand that, but even if we don't use those words when talking about ladies with penises, we're still talking about ladies with penises not as people but as an idea/ideal. (or any other kind of person someone might want to fap to... boys with vaginas, maybe, or... i don't know, lesbians.)

if what you're telling me is true, that porn isn't objectifying, then why do some people get so angry when there's porn of a kind of... demographic qualifier for lack of a better term that they happen to share? like i've heard lesbians complain about lesbian porn because they feel objectified. doesn't that mean porn is objectifying?

i just want to know what i'm supposed to feel guilty about when i'm done masturbating. :/

i find it very strange that you (and i presume others, if this is a common attitude here) see a tangible difference between real and fictional ladies with penises. at the end of the day, it's not the artwork, or, i don't know, framing/lighting in a video that people are fapping to. it's the lady with a penis.

because what people are fapping to in the video is only one of the things about the video. Its fapworthiness might be the only aspect of it that you care about, but it also has an existence separate to its fapworthiness.

even if we put aside the supposed difference between real vs cartoon, what about the difference between porn and people? i've heard conflicting arguments. one side, yours, says porn is not objectifying. the other side says porn is objectifying because it reduces real people to an idea (or an ideal.) which am i supposed to believe?

Well, you know, you have your reason, you're an adult human being, you kind of have to decide for yourself. (although I should clarify, I think there is some porn that is objectifying (or problematic in other ways), but I don't think that porn is inherently objectifying, or at least not objectifying in a problematic way.)

earlier there was discussion about why certain words like "trap" are apparently offensive, and i understand that, but even if we don't use those words when talking about ladies with penises, we're still talking about ladies with penises not as people but as an idea/ideal. (or any other kind of person someone might want to fap to... boys with vaginas, maybe, or... i don't know, lesbians.)

I think you can talk about ladies with penises as a general class in a way that is aware of and takes into account their existence as real people. The key is to do that. Part of that is using the right nomenclature.

if what you're telling me is true, that porn isn't objectifying, then why do some people get so angry when there's porn of a kind of... demographic qualifier for lack of a better term that they happen to share? like i've heard lesbians complain about lesbian porn because they feel objectified. doesn't that mean porn is objectifying?

For a lot of different reasons, I expect. Probably some of them do think that porn is intrinsically objectifying. For another thing, there's all kinds of ways in which individual examples of lesbian porn can be objectifying or otherwise bad - even to the extent that they pervade huge swathes of lesbian porn as a genre - without it meaning that lesbian porn is inherently objectifying or otherwise bad. And I think that's basically the case.

i just want to know what i'm supposed to feel guilty about when i'm done masturbating.

Again, you're an adult human being endowed with a reason and a conscience, you kinda gotta figure that one out yourself. What we're offering here are reasons why we think certain things are and are not wrong and objectionable, and (this is Case's bailiwick not mine but) ways in which our community standards are informed by those beliefs.

what about the people who feel objectified? surely this stuff isn't hurting them or anyone else, right? it's just porn.

i found a thread from a few days ago about "sexiest disabilities" and some people were very upset. what do we do with them? do we just ignore them?

It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what."

[I saw hate in a graveyard -- Stephen Fry, The Guardian, 5 June 2005]

AYRT

I think you should pay attention to people who are offended, but being offended doesn't always make them right, but often they are

Wrt to the disabilities thing, to me, it's a question of focusing on disabled people who are sexy, and focusing on disabilities being sexy. The latter is way more dehumanizing imo

[ SECRET POST #3755 ]

Re: Why was my post deleted?

Re: Why was my post deleted?

Re: Why was my post deleted?

Re: Why was my post deleted?

Re: Why was my post deleted?

Re: Why was my post deleted?