contd..

Likewise, Pynchme is blind to the diversity of pornography. It is all awful, reprehensible stuff to her and the invention of capitalist 'menz'. To take an example, she is blissfully unaware of the interest and joy of many women (and men) in erotica.

Through being blind-sided by her prejudice, in Pynchme's world it is impossible to see that the growing interest in and volume of 'pornography' has very much to do with the spread of the Internet, which has overcome previous restrictions over accessing information and ideas, especially for women and the less well off.

Whether Pynchme likes it or not, more and more women will be accessing 'pornography' and for a myriad of reasons: they are just as curious as men; they like a bit of titillation too (but maybe a bit different to some men); they like to see the human form; they would like to compare themselves with others; they might get some information from it to help with their lovemaking; and for no better reason than it is there.

Pynchme isn't interested in definitions or unpacking the 'pornography' suitcase, it is all vile porn to her (shudder, shudder) and it is impossible that women would be interested (the wymmin on the rad site support rough-house, let it all hang out porn for lesbians, but somehow that is different).

It is all capitalist 'menz' lies isn't it Pynchme?

Meanwhile, other women (and their men) are hoping that their interest in erotica will be better catered for on the Net in the future, with better scripts, better acting and more poetry please. Hopefully competition will swamp out the way-out crude stuff with creative, quality productions.

All this talk about porn and how it's all the nasty men with their sick brutish misogynist fantasies reminds me of all that wonderful work from Nancy Friday.

Now if only a porn producer could buy the rights to some of those women's fantasies. That would really give the moral crusaders something to talk about.

The one with the woman taking the massive ape penis, the rape fantasies, the incest fantasies, the humiliation fantasies. Man, I can see why these feminists find male fantasy so appalling; it's way too tame!

If only Hollywood would replace the positioning of men in chick flick type fantasies as the Madonna-whore like untamed Bad-boy/pathetic boring nice guy duopoly with some Nancy Friday stuff we could see the real grunt of women's sexual desire!

Houellebecq

That is where Pynchme and her Eighties rad fems fail, they cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality and they cannot trust others to do so either.

Dear Cornflower,

Just a reminder ...

You once said to me on another thread -
something about, not losing my cool,
when things got a bit emotive - and you
pointed out to me the fact that it was after
all, just a debate.

It's obvious that you feel
strongly about the subjects you've raised -
on this thread. It sounds to me though
that you could use a cuppa. Like the
one you offered me that time.
You need to chill
out a bit.

Research into the
sexual practices of people is very limited and
often unreliable. The greatest obstacle is
the difficulty of surveying a representative,
random sample of the population.

It is easy enough to discover how people will
vote or which brand of washing powder they use, but
it's much more difficult for researchers to inquire
in depth into the sex lives of complete strangers.
Understandably, many of those sampled will refuse to
respond. Since these people differ in unknown but
perhaps significant ways from those who are willing
to answer, the results of the survey may be biased.

In addition, many who do answer may not always tell
the truth. No sex researchers have yet been able to
fully overcome these problems.

Oh dear.

All this pontificating and not one person has mentioned the obvious: we evolved as a pack/tribe creature. For most of our evolutionary history we (the species) lived as part of a group.

Furthermore, that group had a hierarchy, just as ape and dog groups do today.

That means two things: there was as "alpha" male/man who very probably was quite keen to get the pick of the females/women and did his best to keep the rest of the males/men at bay and there was very probably no way to avoid seeing sex happening. It doesn't take much imagination to work out that for a subordinate male, the best time to get some nooky was when the alpha male was distracted with some nooky of his own. the human female's lack of a "season" may have evolved out of this social behaviour as well, since it behooved her to be "receptive" to use CJMorgan's preferred term.

IOW, see sex, get horny, have it away was the norm.

Porn is simply an artificial reproduction of one of the aspects of our social heritage.

All the wowsers in the world can't change that, or the fact that youngsters were routinely exposed to the act of sex within our Western society as recently as a few decades ago, when many people still lived in single-room or at best shared bedrooms between generations.

All that has changed is that the nominally sexually dysfunctional (wowsers) no longer have to face that dysfunction (revulsion at seeing the act of sex) willy-nilly thanks to our large homes and independent lifestyles. For normal people the imperatives created by evolution remain, hence pornography prospers.

The imperatives created by evolution remain, according to antiseptic
I get suspicious when people use the word "simply" and "hence" so easily . Animals we may be, but using animals as our models - I thought you believed in progress?
We can all blame the genes when it suits us. Children now do
But if you are right , Men don't have any brains and women don't have any choice .Unless women are the mysterious wowsers you seem to think are around somewhere?. I wonder what more subtle talk and action the women in the cave got up to to deal with simple talk and expectations of men?
Sounds more like we're more stuck in the past , than liberated.
The violence and pornography are evidence of failure - its not working mate , unless of course it works for you? The cave, that is