[ 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)]

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.