[ SECRET POST #3776 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3776 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.
[French politics / My Little Pony]


__________________________________________________


09.






Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 56 secrets from Secret Submission Post #541.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Is there porn that exists that doesn't fetishize or objectify somebody?

[(Anonymous)]

It really depends on how you define those two words, because both of them can be applied in a lot of different ways.

[(Anonymous)]

The answer appears to be "no" then, since the question was asking about porn that definitely does not do either.

[(Anonymous)]

I guess my point is that I don't think it's a very meaningful or useful question as framed

[(Anonymous)]

That's not a very meaningful or useful point as framed. I could say that depends on how you define meaningful or useful

[(Anonymous)]

It's not super well known, but there is a subset of porn that revolves around happy people enjoying sex with each other.

I mean the line can get blurry, but there's a noticeable difference between a couple having filmed sex and the couple happens to be interracial, and a white woman screaming "Give me your big chocolate cock, n****r-boy! You damn n***r! Fuck me, n***r." during porn.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, yes. The question wasn't what is definitely a fetish and objectification, but rather whether something that can be definitely considered not fetishizing or objectifying, exists.

[(Anonymous)]

...Yes? It's all in how you describe the characters, tbh. Think of a female character with a sexuality. There are characters in that category who exist that aren't meant to be straight male fap fodder, but are written for girls. (Congrats: if a girl's story in her canon is about her reclaiming her sexuality, she's typically written for other women as someone to show that it's OK to have one and it's yours to own ad do with as you please)

Doesn't stop men from latching onto them, but you can tell in how they're treated by the narrative and other characters. Are they treated positively? Is there the sense they're a character and not, you know, an object in how the narrative treats her?

It's similar in how you can tell from the narrative if an author condones the negative views of their characters or not. So yes, there's porn out there that exists that doesn't fetishize or objectify anyone and this feels like someone feeling around for an excuse to keep doing it.

[(Anonymous)]

I think you misunderstood? The question was about porn, not about a character who reclaims their sexuality. I don't think you can call every story with sex in it porn.

"this feels like someone feeling around for an excuse to keep doing it"

You're reaching very far with this. I'm not a straight male, if you're wondering. I'm not looking for an excuse to "keep doing" something I'm not doing, because I don't produce any porn.

I'm someone who believes all porn objectifies someone, and objectification-free porn basically isn't porn. Note, I made no judgments about whether said objectification is bad or good or not. Or whether porn itself is good or not. But to me there is an obvious delineation between stories with sex in them and straight up porn, and that line is once fetishization or objectification happens. Which many people indulge in. Which I do not necessarily judge them for.

I have a hard time imagining a "porn" that is not about objectification and fetishization. I can easily imagine a romance story in which sex happens. But that porn and romance are different genres is clear as day to me.

[(Anonymous)]

No, you are literally arguing all porn is objectification and fetishization. You claim to not pass judgement, but you obviously do and you seem to think it's A-OK to treat someone like a sexual object and not a person. Again: narrative tells you how people view the subject matter. That doesn't make all porn objectification. Porn is sexual media. That is the definition to it. Like, this is the definition: "printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings."

...Yeah. You're literally arguing that porn is not porn by definition and it HAS to objectify people. I've found perfectly sensual porn that's meant to get you hot and bothered that isn't all tits and ass and how hot those sluts are and shit like that. You're wrong, and it's not reaching. You don't have to be producing objectifying porn, but consuming it, either hence "looking for an excuse."

Your romance novel example. If the scene is sexual and meant to turn people on, congrats, it's fucking porn. Sexual romance novels are called smut novels for a fucking reason. Because the romance is sexualized. It is there to be titillating. To turn you on. It's why not all romance novels have sex. Because not all romance novels are porn, and not all porn is romance, but there's certainly some overlap at points. Some people, surprise, find romance in their porn is great, and it's why even happy couples porn exists.

[(Anonymous)]

That is what I am arguing.

"intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings"

Emphasis mine. If there is emotional feelings intended, as with your empowered reclaiming sexuality example, then it is more about that power than about eroticism.

You quoted it yourself.

[(Anonymous)]

"perfectly sensual porn that's meant to get you hot and bothered that isn't all tits and ass and how hot those sluts are and shit like that"

I would also argue that this is objectification of the usually female body and making it into an object, hence objectification, of sensualness and sexuality. When women are turned into objects, hence objectification, of mystery and eroticism and sensuality, is that not objectification?

"You claim to not pass judgement, but you obviously do and you seem to think it's A-OK to treat someone like a sexual object and not a person."

I don't understand why you think this either. You seem to have some strawman version of me that you are arguing with who has said many things I have not said to you.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm someone who believes all porn objectifies someone, and objectification-free porn basically isn't porn...I have a hard time imagining a "porn" that is not about objectification and fetishization.

Well, yes, because you've defined porn as inherently objectifying. I'm not sure why you're asking people to provide you with counterexamples when according to your personal (some might say idiosyncratic) definition of porn, you'll either categorize any suggestions as not objectifying and therefore not porn, or disagree with the person making the suggestion and agree that it's porn, but only because you view it as objectifying.

That may sound like a fun time to you, but I'm hard-pressed to see why anyone would choose to join you in this little game.