|
njlauren -> RE: The Ethics of Extreme Porn (5/20/2013 9:35:12 PM)
|
I think the article is trying to juxtapose two very different issues and trying to make them one, and they aren't. What is described here is some relatively heavy scene play, and the key word there is play; the 'degradation' the woman is experiencing is part of role play, it is obvious from the way the Domina and the guy treat her that they aren't out to abuse her or really degrade her, everything is controlled, they are aware of her and her needs and so forth. The problem is they are like the feminist morons like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon who were all so hell bent on taking porn away to the point that they were siding with the religious right and with the Reagan Administration in trying to ban it, that they couldn't tell the difference with porn or that some of it isn't necessarily harmful, as a fantasy. I have seen real degradation, folks, the piece of garbage in Cleveland being a classic example, and this is not it. It isn't just that it is consensual, it is that the performer apparently gets something out of it as does I would assume the two in the top role, as do the audience. Other then one fuckhead yelling to 'choke the bitch', the 'degradation', of calling her a useless cunt and such, is part of the act, it is kind of like interactive theater where, for example, the audience is part of a theatrical 'wedding', interacting with the 'guests' and so forth.......It might be extreme, but this is still 'play', and I think the negative reaction is that people still have this puritanical notion that somehow sex cannot be about play, which is sad, it should be.
I don't think those objecting have trouble with the play in this or it being degrading because of what they do, I think they are hung up on the idea that sex has to be about love. It is for many people, and that to me in some ways is the ultimate expression, but sex for fun, sex for a 'rush', sex to have fun is what floats people's boats, and this idea that somehow people having sex without love being immoral is more then a bit old fashioned, to say the least. There are people happily married, for example, who swing, do threesomes, or play with other people in scene space, that isn't about love, but sex for fun, the thrill, etc....yet are happily married. This idea that sex outside of a loving relationship is empty or meaningless is crap to me (it can be meaningless and empty, of course, but it doesn't have to me).
It reminds me too much of the Catholic idea of sex, with their whole jazz about it being open to life, and how a couple having sex in 'lust' is wrong or *gasp* having sex outside the missionary position, using your fingers, your mouth, etc, to give you partner/wife pleasure is immoral, because it must be 'open to life', i.e making babies....just too medieval and regressive, and coming from a church whose moral authority is quite suspect to start with, well.
It seems that people want to look at this and immediately project this means the end of love, and that is absolute, utter bullshit IMO. One of the ironies is last I was reading, younger people today are getting married later, but they also seem to be more centered than earlier generations, in that they seem determined not to end up a divorce statistic and seem more level headed, divorce rates from what i can tell are headed down (if the 50% divorce rate is even that true, I have my doubts). It doesn't mean it is a panacea, I wish there was a lot more out there in terms of erotica showing sex as pleasuring your partner and an intimate act, rather than the porn that dominates, I would only hope that porn isn't being used as an instructional guide, it is a fantasy, and often not a well made one.......but I don't buy all the hoopla that society is empty, that kids are empty, I think that is the oldest game in the book, that the young of today are degenerates. When WWII was winding down, they thought they were going to have to quarantine the soldiers, including my dad, because they were a bunch of sex obsessed killers, who might have turned out to be horny (hence the baby boom) but the rest, guess Tom Brokaw never got the word, the kids of the 1930's were indolent and lazy and amoral, etc, etc.......
I have seen things that I question, I have seen extreme scenes that makes what is described here look mild, the seattle leather dyke scene makes this seem like romper room, and some of it makes me wonder, there is a famous person around the NY scene who I have seen play at public play parties who quite frankly made me want to retch, their playing style is basically beating the sub up, there is nothing sensual about it to me, nothing I would ever do (she ever tried that on me, I would practice some marlinspike on them, using their arms instead of rope), but I assume the person playing with that person is into it.....
My take is as long as someone has consented to it and as long as there is no real harm being done or their real dignity and sense of humanity isn't being threatened, I don't have the right to stop it....I do have limits, I would have a hard time with consensual slavery where basically the slave agrees to anything the M wants to do, literally nothing is off limits, including physical harm, and if I saw that I suspect I would step in, but this isn't that,that is an entirely different kettle of fish.
BTW if it sounds like my life is the 'empty sex', sex as thrills, well, not me.......my primary relationship has lasted 30 years through thick, thin and many things that would blow up most other people's relationships, and for me sex is tied with love in my primary relationship (I use that term kind of broadly, since I am not poly, I mean in potential). I could have fun outside it, assuming we were both game (threesomes, whatever), but primarily it is about love for me, even if getting a good flogging or whatever:)
|
|
|
|
