Rampant issues with feminism....
ArrantPariah wrote:
Quote:
If there’s such a thing as porn for women, it revolves around the romance novel.......although women aren’t willing to pay for such typically male-oriented visual porn, they’re quite happy to pay for the privilege of reading romance fiction. So happy in fact that such erotica actually produces more revenue than does online pornography for men...
The hero in romance novels may be, as Ogas and Gaddam describe him, “virile, dangerous, and lusty” (p. 87), but he’s not reduced to a sex object either—as, so commonly, are women in “adult” fiction for men. In fact, the hero in romances becomes increasingly human—and vulnerable—as the story develops and, unexpectedly, he falls head-over-heels in love with the much more innocent (and less experienced) heroine.
These heroes are virtually always alpha males, to whom a considerable majority of women seem almost magnetically attracted. And romance novels exploit this preference in various ways. It’s not simply the hero’s physical prowess that is so compelling to female readers: it’s also his “status, confidence, and competence” (p. 95). Each of these traits contributes to his overall dominance—and such male authority, or ascendance, is what most women appear hard-wired to be susceptible to, as well as willing to submit to. Ogas and Gaddam, observing that studies have repeatedly demonstrated the erotic appeal of alpha dominance to women—from the sensory cues of the male’s voice, to his scent, to his movement and gait, to his sharply defined facial features...
No coincidence, then, that the ten most popular vocations of the hero—as Ogas and Gaddam’s determined through reviewing the titles of more than 15,000 Harlequin romance novels (!)—are doctor, cowboy, boss, prince, rancher, knight, surgeon, king, bodyguard, and sheriff. Moreover, swaggering alphas aren’t simply natural, born leaders and hyper-confident about their abilities, they’re also fiercely protective. So even though, rationally, contemporary women are less and less in need of a forceful male savior, they still find them immensely attractive as romantic partners.
Inevitably, men have become increasingly aware of this fundamental sexual cue for women, which is what accounts for the Pickup Artist culture made famous (notorious?) by Neil Strauss in his book The Game (2005). The seduction techniques delineated there are contrived (as Ogas and Gaddam put it) “to activate women’s psychological cues in the same way that Botox, collagen, and implants are designed to artificially trigger men’s visual ones.” And the main requirements for successful seduction is, well, to “always be an alpha” (p. 96)...
The hero in romance novels may be, as Ogas and Gaddam describe him, “virile, dangerous, and lusty” (p. 87), but he’s not reduced to a sex object either—as, so commonly, are women in “adult” fiction for men. In fact, the hero in romances becomes increasingly human—and vulnerable—as the story develops and, unexpectedly, he falls head-over-heels in love with the much more innocent (and less experienced) heroine.
These heroes are virtually always alpha males, to whom a considerable majority of women seem almost magnetically attracted. And romance novels exploit this preference in various ways. It’s not simply the hero’s physical prowess that is so compelling to female readers: it’s also his “status, confidence, and competence” (p. 95). Each of these traits contributes to his overall dominance—and such male authority, or ascendance, is what most women appear hard-wired to be susceptible to, as well as willing to submit to. Ogas and Gaddam, observing that studies have repeatedly demonstrated the erotic appeal of alpha dominance to women—from the sensory cues of the male’s voice, to his scent, to his movement and gait, to his sharply defined facial features...
No coincidence, then, that the ten most popular vocations of the hero—as Ogas and Gaddam’s determined through reviewing the titles of more than 15,000 Harlequin romance novels (!)—are doctor, cowboy, boss, prince, rancher, knight, surgeon, king, bodyguard, and sheriff. Moreover, swaggering alphas aren’t simply natural, born leaders and hyper-confident about their abilities, they’re also fiercely protective. So even though, rationally, contemporary women are less and less in need of a forceful male savior, they still find them immensely attractive as romantic partners.
Inevitably, men have become increasingly aware of this fundamental sexual cue for women, which is what accounts for the Pickup Artist culture made famous (notorious?) by Neil Strauss in his book The Game (2005). The seduction techniques delineated there are contrived (as Ogas and Gaddam put it) “to activate women’s psychological cues in the same way that Botox, collagen, and implants are designed to artificially trigger men’s visual ones.” And the main requirements for successful seduction is, well, to “always be an alpha” (p. 96)...
It would appear that feminism is attended by a certain amount of hypcrisy.
Because feminists loooove romance novels where the protagonists are a**holes.
(/sarcasm)
Just like porn, not all romance novels are the same. There's a lot of it with a**hole male leads, true, but there are also a lot of romance novels where the male lead is interested in a partner and not a conquest.
MXH
Veteran
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain
LKL wrote:
I will quote myself, because of the misrepresentation in several responses to me:
The edit was in before any of the responses to my post. Bolding added.
Quote:
A lot of men out there - even heterosexual men - would rather masturbate than use a prostitute, and don't need degrading porn to do so. (edit: not all porn is degrading, but most of the professional stuff is).
The edit was in before any of the responses to my post. Bolding added.
Won't argue whether most porn is degrading or not. Haven't seen nearly enough of it to make that call. Besides which, what is and isn't degrading is based too much on personal opinion to say, one way or the other.
But...
Quote:
Beyond the particular physical, or visual, cues that men seek for arousal, some additional psychological cues might also be mentioned here. The first of these may seem a little surprising, for what I’ve been describing probably suggests an almost shamelessly egocentric attitude toward women. But for the great majority of men it turns out to be the most arousing stimuli of all. Namely, it’s the depiction of women (in stills or, even better, in videos) gasping, moaning, screaming, and swooning: that is, the portrayal of women seemingly electrified by the most intense sexual pleasure. As Ogas and Gaddam’s research leads them to conclude: “This may be the most common cue across all varieties of online porn.” To further highlight this point, they quote one male porn devotee exclaiming on Reddit: “Seeing and hearing a woman who is truly turned on like crazy has to be the biggest aphrodisiac I can think of . . .” (p. 186).
this is from the article I linked to earlier. aside from the actual sexual acts, what men want to see most is women enjoying those acts. Which, I think, runs counter to the idea that men watch porn to see women degraded. Unless of course one finds consensual, mutually pleasurable, sex to be degrading.
MXH wrote:
LKL wrote:
MXH wrote:
LKL wrote:
'For an erection lasting more than four hours, call your doctor.'
Haven't you seen any celexa/viagra ads?
Haven't you seen any celexa/viagra ads?
thats only if you took the darn pills.
No, it's not. It's a dangerous condition.
ummm, no it isnt. Id know, i have a penis
/wpargumentlogic
I don't have a penis, but I do have a background in biology and medicine. Medical literature backs me up:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/priapi ... N=symptoms
http://www.everydayhealth.com/erectile- ... tions.aspx
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/777603-overview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priapism
etc, etc, etc.
Erections happen because blood flow out of the penis is blocked. This is not good for long periods of time. It's pretty simple.
MXH
Veteran
Joined: 28 Jul 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,057
Location: Here i stand and face the rain
LKL wrote:
MXH wrote:
LKL wrote:
MXH wrote:
LKL wrote:
'For an erection lasting more than four hours, call your doctor.'
Haven't you seen any celexa/viagra ads?
Haven't you seen any celexa/viagra ads?
thats only if you took the darn pills.
No, it's not. It's a dangerous condition.
ummm, no it isnt. Id know, i have a penis
/wpargumentlogic
I don't have a penis, but I do have a background in biology and medicine. Medical literature backs me up:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/priapi ... N=symptoms
http://www.everydayhealth.com/erectile- ... tions.aspx
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/777603-overview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priapism
etc, etc, etc.
Erections happen because blood flow out of the penis is blocked. This is not good for long periods of time. It's pretty simple.
you dont have to rush to the hospital because of a 4 hour erection. You go when you have a 4 hour erection that has had no reason to be up for 4 hours. Which is what a priapism is "does not return to its flaccid state, despite the absence of both physical and psychological stimulation, within four hours". They have that line on pill commercials because the pills can cause an erection to not subside after lack of stimulation or having been finished with the duty.
you tend to get better information when it can actually affect you rather than when you're armchair diagnosing.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o5i2jUzMB0[/youtube]If they had their way!
Whether we like it or not!
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
MXH wrote:
you dont have to rush to the hospital because of a 4 hour erection. You go when you have a 4 hour erection that has had no reason to be up for 4 hours. Which is what a priapism is "does not return to its flaccid state, despite the absence of both physical and psychological stimulation, within four hours". They have that line on pill commercials because the pills can cause an erection to not subside after lack of stimulation or having been finished with the duty.
you tend to get better information when it can actually affect you rather than when you're armchair diagnosing.
you tend to get better information when it can actually affect you rather than when you're armchair diagnosing.
this is the original description of symptoms:
Quote:
Say a guy has no access to pornography (I'm including both still images and video here).
He has an erection, it isn't going away on its own, and it's starting to get painful. What does he do?
He has an erection, it isn't going away on its own, and it's starting to get painful. What does he do?
1)absence of external stimuli.
4)not going away.
2)starting to get painful.
I think that fits with my descriptions better than yours - but, you are correct that I lack the equipment and thus will never be someone who has to make a choice in this situation. Your body, your choice.
mds_02 wrote:
Quote:
Beyond the particular physical, or visual, cues that men seek for arousal, some additional psychological cues might also be mentioned here. The first of these may seem a little surprising, for what I’ve been describing probably suggests an almost shamelessly egocentric attitude toward women. But for the great majority of men it turns out to be the most arousing stimuli of all. Namely, it’s the depiction of women (in stills or, even better, in videos) gasping, moaning, screaming, and swooning: that is, the portrayal of women seemingly electrified by the most intense sexual pleasure. As Ogas and Gaddam’s research leads them to conclude: “This may be the most common cue across all varieties of online porn.” To further highlight this point, they quote one male porn devotee exclaiming on Reddit: “Seeing and hearing a woman who is truly turned on like crazy has to be the biggest aphrodisiac I can think of . . .” (p. 186).
this is from the article I linked to earlier. aside from the actual sexual acts, what men want to see most is women enjoying those acts. Which, I think, runs counter to the idea that men watch porn to see women degraded. Unless of course one finds consensual, mutually pleasurable, sex to be degrading.
Porn actresses are paid to feign pleasure regardless of whether they feel it (which they usually do not), meaning that men who watch porn are led to believe that non-pornstars will enjoy things that most of them find uncomfortable and/or degrading.
http://std.about.com/od/sextips/tp/10-B ... n-Porn.htm
http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/why-por ... 16627.html
http://theresurgence.com/2011/11/19/7-n ... ts-of-porn
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all ... ts-bad-sex
TL,DR: porn isn't about real sex, and does not represent what most real people (especially women) enjoy in sex.
LKL wrote:
Porn actresses are paid to feign pleasure regardless of whether they feel it (which they usually do not), meaning that men who watch porn are led to believe that non-pornstars will enjoy things that most of them find uncomfortable and/or degrading.
http://std.about.com/od/sextips/tp/10-B ... n-Porn.htm
http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/why-por ... 16627.html
http://theresurgence.com/2011/11/19/7-n ... ts-of-porn
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all ... ts-bad-sex
TL,DR: porn isn't about real sex, and does not represent what most real people (especially women) enjoy in sex.
http://std.about.com/od/sextips/tp/10-B ... n-Porn.htm
http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/why-por ... 16627.html
http://theresurgence.com/2011/11/19/7-n ... ts-of-porn
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all ... ts-bad-sex
TL,DR: porn isn't about real sex, and does not represent what most real people (especially women) enjoy in sex.
Very next paragraph in that article talks about men looking for cues that the woman's enjoyment is genuine. Which, they (and I) believe, at least partially explains the rise in popularity of homemade amateur porn.
I agree that some pay far too much attention to what women in porn enjoy, and not nearly enough to what their actual partners enjoy. And it's very unfortunate. I think the best way to counter that is by making women more comfortable about expressing their own wants. Any ideas on how that could happen?
All I meant is I think there is a difference between a man who wants to see women degraded (which is how some people like to portray men who enjoy porn) and a man who wants to see women really enjoying themselves (which, even if porn doesn't always [or usually] deliver, is what most of the consumers seem to actually want).
LKL wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o5i2jUzMB0[/youtube]If they had their way!
Whether we like it or not!
"We"?!
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6htvoFdYmjs[/youtube]
_________________
Your Aspie score is 193 of 200
Your neurotypical score is 40 of 200
You are very likely an aspie
No matter where I go I will always be a Gaijin even at home. Like Anime? https://kissanime.to/AnimeList
AspieOtaku wrote:
LKL wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o5i2jUzMB0[/youtube]If they had their way!
Whether we like it or not!
"We"?!
You think that guys are regularly forced to have sex that thy don't want (ie, raped), by women who are four times bigger than them?

