Gus Van Horn blog Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog Some stupid puns are impossible to resist! [Editorial Note: While composing this post, I realized that using the obvious, four-syllable word to describe what I am discussing might make my blog unable to get past certain common filters. So I shall use the word "umptysquat" instead. Besides, I find it amusing.] Via Arts and Letters Daily, whose blurb momentarily threw me for a loop by mentioning "the anatomical variety among bunnies," I found a couple of book reviews at the web site of n+1, a magazine that might be worth looking into. One of them discusses Playboy: The Complete Centerfolds, and the other, Mr. Playboy: Hugh Hefner and the American Dream. I have always found whatever umptysquat I have encountered odd, off-putting, boring (more on that later), or just plain confusing, to the point that my curiosity about it has been mainly of an intellectual, or even anthropological, nature. "Why waste time and money on magazines when there are real women out there?" might summarize my overall attitude, but there was always an additional rebellion against many of the subtexts I'd encounter. "Sex isn't wrong or shameful, so this isn't doing anything for me," would sum up much of this. And then there are the fetishes. Were I to take my own limited forays into umptysquat as an indication, I would conclude that I am the only man on earth who doesn't constantly fantasize about lesbian sex. Maybe I'm weird. Oh well. Many of the attitudes about sexuality one encounters are, predictably, reflective of the views dominant in our culture, a major one being the Madonna-whore complex, which is the mind-body dichotomy as applied to sexuality. Human psychology and sexuality both being as complex as they are, it would certainly follow that much of the emotional fallout of our altruistic and collectivist culture would also play out as common, but warped sexual tastes, and views about sexuality. So it was mainly boredom -- from a desire for more -- that really drove me away, and on many levels at that. Let's see.... What do I find more interesting? A random slut -- or an attractive woman I have taken the time to know? Sex with an endless parade of women I barely know -- or a shared life of physical and emotional intimacy with one woman I care deeply about? Notice what's missing from the umptysquat here: the fact that women have minds. (The efforts by Playboy to overcome this limitation as described in the first review were necessarily superficial.) For a young man exploring his sexuality for the first time, this may be fine, but when I was growing up, Playboy wasn't even good for this because all the models looked the same. In those days [starting in the mid 1950s --ed] Hefner liked his centerfolds "round, soft, and with a maximum emphasis on the beauty of being female." The Playmates of the first three decades follow this formula, flashing biteable bottoms and breasts. Things go downhill in the 1980s as breast implants became popular: the new boobs are globe-like and tactile only in the way that bowling balls are tactile. Some of them cast a glare, like cartoon balloons. Food metaphors no longer apply. Something else (related) happens around this time: Playboy ceases to be about the erotic everyday encounter. Flesh and blood women turn to images; the "girl next door" becomes distinctly mediated. The bunnies were always mediated, of course, but something about the earlier photographs made you forget the medium and feel as though you were staring straight into the eyes of a luscious partner. Enthusiastic photoshopping has aided the transformation. Gone are the freckles and downy arm hairs of the predecessors. Breasts are surgically standardized; gym routines and spray tans produce identically toned and tinted bodies. Girls of all ethnicities blend together into one latte-colored woman, and the result looks computer-generated. When you try to imagine how the models might feel and smell, things like rubber come to mind. [bold added] Exactly. If, as I do, you find beauty in actual women, including their inevitable departures from the Platonic "ideal" the entertainment industry wishes to foist on everyone, and you were trapped in the late eighties, you were out of luck even for window-shopping. Having said that, sexuality is a very complicated phenomenon, involving one's deepest convictions (both in terms of how one views sexuality and in terms of what one responds to on an emotional and sexual level) and one's psychology (which can affect what optional things, such as what physical "type" one finds attractive, manifest as fetishes, or even affect sexual orientation). There is an enormous variety in what a rational, healthy individual can find sexually attractive. That strikes me as something to celebrate, rather than hide from behind the photoshopped pages of a tawdry magazine. -- CAV Cross-posted from Metablog Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Sophia~ Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Great post! Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zip Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Well said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 "Why waste time and money on magazines when there are real women out there?" might summarize my overall attitude Mine as well. Plus, promiscuity is at best a character flaw (and outright prostitution is, in all normal contexts, an evil), so there is an inherent contradiction in obtaining pleasure from the sight of such women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadkat Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 What do you make of all the otherwise seemingly rational and good folks who sleep around, like one-night stands and multiple short-term relationships (even concurrent ones)? I'm not talking about professional users and those who are out to hurt/take advantage of people. I mean just regular folks who get a ton of tail (from different sources...I'm all for getting lots of tail from the same awesome person!). Mine as well. Plus, promiscuity is at best a character flaw (and outright prostitution is, in all normal contexts, an evil), so there is an inherent contradiction in obtaining pleasure from the sight of such women. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacirema Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 What do you make of all the otherwise seemingly rational and good folks who sleep around, like one-night stands and multiple short-term relationships (even concurrent ones)? I'm not talking about professional users and those who are out to hurt/take advantage of people. I mean just regular folks who get a ton of tail (from different sources...I'm all for getting lots of tail from the same awesome person!). I'd say just a slight flaw in reasoning that leads to the conclusion that sex is dirty, bad, and evil. As such, it should only be shared by people of those same traits. Since it's so bad and dirty, it also doesn't matter to be discriminate in your actions, especially if those people match the assumption about sex said person holds. The person then continues to feel guilty and empty after each act, but assumes it is because that is simply "how one feels" after such an act, regardless of the person. So they continue to go through life, fulfilling empty conquest after empty conquest, secretly trying to find the one person who won't make them feel cheap and tarnished. But, like the man who hopes to gain class by buying pieces of art that he finds absolutely tasteless, his premises are skewed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarrisan Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 Am I wrong in thinking that having sex with lots of people is okay... as long as all of those people are really awesome and people you value (And there is no deception involved, of course)? Or must sex be something that is always monogamous? This is just a hypothetical by the way -- I don't have sex with lots of people (Or any, in fact...). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Link Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 (edited) By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog Some stupid puns are impossible to resist! [Editorial Note: While composing this post, I realized that using the obvious, four-syllable word to describe what I am discussing might make my blog unable to get past certain common filters. So I shall use the word "umptysquat" instead. Besides, I find it amusing.] Let's see what red flags are raised by using these words: porn pornography Mmm... No red flags. So why use the euphemism "umptysquat"? There is an enormous variety in what a rational, healthy individual can find sexually attractive. That strikes me as something to celebrate, rather than hide from behind the photoshopped pages of a tawdry magazine. Here's one place to see pictures of a wide variety of beautiful nude women: http://www.domai.com Edited February 6, 2009 by John Link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capitalism Forever Posted February 6, 2009 Report Share Posted February 6, 2009 What do you make of all the otherwise seemingly rational and good folks who sleep around, like one-night stands and multiple short-term relationships (even concurrent ones)? Same as one would make of all the otherwise seemingly rational and good folks who go to church every Sunday: they are fundamentally moral, but they are wrong about one particular aspect of life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadkat Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 Same as one would make of all the otherwise seemingly rational and good folks who go to church every Sunday: they are fundamentally moral, but they are wrong about one particular aspect of life. Yeah, that sounds about right. Mind-body dichotomy for the lose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 By Gus Van Horn from Gus Van Horn,cross-posted by MetaBlog Some stupid puns are impossible to resist! [Editorial Note: While composing this post, I realized that using the obvious, four-syllable word to describe what I am discussing might make my blog unable to get past certain common filters. So I shall use the word "umptysquat" instead. Besides, I find it amusing.] Dr. Peikoff's most recent podcast of February 9, 2009 #48 had some interesting things to say about pornographic umptysquat. He had a lot of other interesting things to say, but hearkened back to a radio show where he basically recommended pornography to help to stimulate variation is sex; and also, from memory, to help induce a spark of interest in sex, as a kind of romantic sex teaser. Well, someone asked him what about the people engaging in the pornography, could they be moral? can someone just doing sex for payment be considered moral? Dr. Peikoff hesitated on this, and included his reply to show that he has to think some things through, because he really didn't have an answer -- however, he didn't fully take back what he said about viewing pornography. I also remember that he said pornography for individuals was OK, but not in excess due to it becoming pure fantasy and not reality on that radio broadcast. What I found most interesting is that he said he originally said what he said about pornography because many Objectivists tend to be prudes, and he just had to try to get them out of that mode of thinking about sex. In other words, in order to fully enjoy sex, if pornography helps you in that enjoyment, then do it with complete enjoyment and without guilt. I certainly realize that pornography is primarily fantasy, even though it has live actors and actresses really doing sex, but if it turns you on and helps you to concretize what sexual enjoyment is, then there is nothing wrong with it. Of course, I agree with Gus Van horn that a real woman is better all around, provided you can find someone who turns you on sexually that way and provided one can entice each other into a sexual romance -- I mean, it's the best thing on earth! I just wanted to bring this up in this context, so I'm glad Dr. Peikoff brought it up in a podcast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themadkat Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 I have no idea whether being an actor/actress in a porn can really be moral, although in the past I will certainly admit to having enjoyed some porn. For those of you with a more literary mindset, I recommend erotica, which requires no other people to participate in the making (unless you want to write with a collaborator, who can still keep all their clothes on, unless of course you have other plans...). After all, parts of Rand's novels qualify as erotica, but there is lots of other stuff out there as well, ranging from the aspiring literary (mindcaviar.com) to variety amateur hour (asstr.org), all of which can be satisfying depending on your tastes. If you want a real challenge/treat, write your own, and if you're really brave share it with other readers or someone you want to reenact it with. On a related note, since when did the term "sex-positive" come to refer to accepting all consensual sex as good without reservation? I have always considered myself a "sex-positive" person but lately I see it used in many circles to glorify hedonistic sexual pursuits, and apparently if you don't think indiscriminate sex or sex without romance is good, you are not "sex-positive". Any thoughts on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas M. Miovas Jr. Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 I have always considered myself a "sex-positive" person but lately I see it used in many circles to glorify hedonistic sexual pursuits, and apparently if you don't think indiscriminate sex or sex without romance is good, you are not "sex-positive". Any thoughts on this? I've never heard of that term, but it sounds like they think animalistic sex based upon mere physical attraction is a positive. Of course, it is not, since this type of behavior is actually anti-consciousness, from the perspective of what a rational man ought to want. Miss Rand once said (I think perhaps in her letters or in her journal)[paraphrasing]: Who is the most sexually oriented person; he who has indiscriminate sex in the manner of a glutton or he who has sex in the selective manner of a gourmet? So I can understand some people's view of pornography, since it is usually more on the level of the glutton who will do it with anyone who has the right parts in the right place. But, for me, coming from serious Catholicism converting to Objectivism, it was a way of me breaking into the idea that woman want sex, and that it is good. And there is a sense of beauty involved in the better pornography, though erotica is good as well for the more artistic touches. I think one's reaction to erotica of any form has to do with personal tastes and background; and one's sexual psycho-epistemology (what one has automatized in the sexual realm). But what Dr. Peikoff was suggesting is that it is not a good idea to have sex just as a routine -- that it should be fresh and exciting each time, and that pornography or erotica can help to make it less routine and more focused on the enjoyment (even perhaps of the unusual, though not the all out weird). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myself Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 As a person who can't stand regular pornography (especially hardcore), I was intrigued when I came across this brilliant concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beautiful_Agony Beautiful Agony is an erotic website featuring head shots of user-submitted videos showing the participant having orgasms, without providing any visual description of what technique is being used or revealing anything below the neck and upper chest. Both men and women are featured on the site. A few examples: http://www.dailymotion.com/Heritor/video/x...agony-0163_sexy http://www.dailymotion.com/Heritor/video/x...agony-0180_sexy http://www.dailymotion.com/Heritor/video/x...agony-0242_sexy To me, watching a woman's face as she stimulates herself to orgasm is ten times more intimate and erotic than actually seeing the deed. It made me completely revise the way I thought about pornography and it's potential. Also, I'll second John's recommendation of Domai, another great website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted February 11, 2009 Report Share Posted February 11, 2009 I've always found a well-dressed, well-groomed woman to be more attractive than a naked one. Maybe it's just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krattle Posted September 15, 2009 Report Share Posted September 15, 2009 Bumping an old topic here... I just had to add my own comment because I find pornography, or rather, the interest in pornography very...interesting. I have never actually watched hardcore pornography because I never found the notion of watching two strangers having sex alluring. It just struck me, even as a young man, as rather disgusting. Would I want to go watch my neighbors having sex? NO! So why would I want to watch two people who are paid to do it just for my sake? Not to mention, too much of pornography is just weird, deviant fetishistic junk (e.g. S&M). Nowadays, S&M is probably just the tip of the iceberg in terms of weird, though. When I was young I simply found pictures of non-nude, and sometimes nude women far more intriguing than straight out sex. I was able to form an image of what I found physically attractive, something I don't think would have been possible through hardcore pornography. I know it's typically considered normal for a guy to watch pornography, but I have to ask, why would that be normal? Maybe once, but beyond that, as a regular thing? Someone who does it every day of every week for years has definitely got a psychological or social problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.