Jive Turkey
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
i disagree. i think porn is porn, and its about fucking. .
this
i disagree. i think porn is porn, and its about fucking. .
i disagree. i think porn is porn, and its about fucking. i think that the male equivalent to the unrealistic expectations in a rom-com would be the heroics of the aforementioned Han Solo or Indiana Jones (or James Bond, or Jason Bourne, or whatever).
men like porn and women like rom-coms? were i a woman i'd be upset at the simplification of my sexuality required of the comparison.
Not sure if I'd agree, I think there's a valid debate to be had around pornography. I would automatically discount viewpoints based solely on religious strictures, but still.
I think the non-religious problem with porn is that it reduces people to nothing more than objects of desire.
It can also disturb the wiring in our minds to think of sex differently than what it is actually like. This results in poor intimacy skills in genuine sexual relationships.
Also ,anything that degrades the dignity of a human being in fantasy can change your attitude in reality.
Also, does it pass this litmus test: would I mind if my own daughter did this? (acting in porn movies)
I can't imagine any of the greatest thinkers in our history arguing for the goodness of porn.
Porn is about fantasy fucking and many women feel threatened by the idea that they don't measure up to their partners' sexual fantasies.
In that context, the Indiana Jones comparison isn't valid. If box office receipts are an indicator, women generally fantasize about romantic heroes.
There are multi-billion dollar industries built on these simplifications spawned from the simplistic notion that men are sexual and women are emotional. Simplistic and prevalent. And profitable.
no, it's the Indiana Jones = Meg Ryan that's the legitimate comparison, not Jennifer Aniston vs. porn.
Mars meet venus....
No, what I'm saying is that Jenna Jameson (porn object of male sexual fantasy) = John Cusack (rom com object of female romantic fantasy).
i guess it really sucks that women think that men are thinking this, because i don't think that they are.
But, I think there is a certain amount of responsibility if a woman is ignoring legitimate needs of her husband.
thanks Mrs.........cause to be honest wit cha, the more I read and hear all this, the more withdrawn I become.
yes yes, my own issue I know..................but still.......its a bigger issue if its more so seen that men own women.
my partner is not free to do and be what he needs to do and be ... well, he is, but his behavior could indeed jeopardize our relationship. he might prefer to, say, go on a sex tour of Thailand, but i wouldn't be waiting for him when he returned. i'd be with someone else. relationships have rules, and they're usually mutually created and negotiated, but they do exist. it is not a free for all.
see this, I hear and read this a lot more than I do about a womans needs.
its almost like, esp when she marries the guy, that she is his slave.......
'Im the man, you must satisfy me, and slave for me otherwise I leave you, bitch!'
I think Im better off never being more than mates with guys. seriously. if this is what I will be met with.
I know, Im naive because Im an observer.
For the lucky women whose men do remember Mother’s Day, return the favor by giving him something nice on Father’s Day.
But I can understand the desire for some positive attention from a male in that case.That's a natural desire when you're feeling forgotten and mistreated.
There are "married-dating websites"?
That's pretty sad.
In my book, if you find the state of your sex life with your partner unacceptable, and s/he is unwilling or unable to make changes, then that is cause for ending the relationship/divorce--not for infidelity. What I would not want to do is pinpoint specifics as to what a "hypothetical reasonable wo/man" should or shouldn't find "unacceptable." (It might not be out of line for a longtime close friend or sibling to argue that this or that expectation is unreasonable on your part, but anyone else, I don't think that's their place.) Monogamy isn't just about the comfort factor of always having someone to come home to, it's an always-evolving partnership and neither person is going to be exactly who the other would like 100% of the time; yet everyone has a breaking point, and it's your responsibility to know and assert yours.however ... here's a discussions scenario: let's say, for example, that a man is married to a woman who hates to perform oral sex on him, or hates to have it performed on her (we can reverse the genders as well, this isn't supposed to be gender specific, women can have purely physical needs that go unmet, orally or whatnot). this causes the husband to feel sexually dissatisfied because he misses oral sex. he loves his wife, he knows they have hectic lives, but he also knows that there is place for him to go online where he could seek out a partner to have no-strings-attached oral sex from time to time. he scratches the itch, his wife never knows, and their marriage continues with greater sexual satisfaction. he also chooses this because it's such a relatively small thing that bringing it up might cause greater problems than it's resolution might solve. better don't ask, don't tell.
In my book, if you find the state of your sex life with your partner unacceptable, and s/he is unwilling or unable to make changes, then that is cause for ending the relationship/divorce--not for infidelity.
What's the point in st(r)aying in a monogamous relationship that simply can't supply what you personally NEED from a committed partner? I can't think of a good one. Either you find value in the risks (and benefits) of being that open with someone else about your needs and your limits in meeting their needs, or you don't.
Then have an open relationship, not a fake monogamous one. I've never understood why so many people talk about open relationships as if they're on a par with incest and bestiality. My impression of people who believe in that as a way to manage their intimate lives is that they'll be the first to tell a prospective partner that upfront, because they don't want misunderstandings and they don't want to lie to anyone.
[...]
I realize this is a heavily anecdote-reliant response, and that your question was more philosophical in nature. But I don't know how to explain why I distrust this line of thinking so strongly without trying to illustrate the dynamic I personally feel I've seen to be associated with it. I can grasp it as a fair argument against the general premise of monogamy, but if one's conclusion there is that yes, this is an institution whose negatives outweigh its positives, then it seems to me the only ethical response to that is to choose open relationships and tell prospective partners so openly, rather than exploiting them by hedging your bets.
For starters, the commercials are hilarious. One television spot shows a glamorous couple in the throes of passion. A title card reads, "This couple is married ... but not to each other." In another ad, a man retreats to the sofa to escape his obese, snoring wife while a voice-over declares, "Most of us can recover from a one-night stand with the wrong woman, but not when it's every night for the rest of our lives."
The ads, as well as the slogan, were written by the company's 37-year-old founder and chief executive, Noel Biderman, a former attorney, sports agent and self-described happily married father of two who started the company in 2001.
I met up with Biderman, who is from Toronto, on Monday at KTLA Channel 5, where he was a guest on the morning news. Despite much hand flapping and righteous indignation from the hosts (even the weatherman wanted in on the questioning), Biderman calmly suggested that because many members are in sexless marriages but don't actually want to leave their spouses, the company "preserves more marriages than we break up." He added that the most sign-ups occur around New Year's and that, ahem, Los Angeles is the company's biggest market.
When I talked to him after the broadcast, Biderman, whose mild-mannered comportment belies the seediness of his enterprise, explained that in hard economic times, a lot of people who've been planning a divorce suddenly cannot afford one. The money-saving solution? Seek carnal comfort in others. He also made an analogy between his extramarital dating service and handing out condoms to teens.
"Some people say it promotes promiscuity," he said. "But if you don't do it, you get behavior that's way more harmful to society. Infidelity has been around a lot longer than Ashley Madison."
He believes that hearing about the service in a commercial is not going to persuade anyone to have an affair. "It's a decision they've come to already. All I'm saying is, don't do it in the workplace where it could result in someone losing their job, don't go to a singles dating service and lie about your status, don't hire a prostitute. Given that affairs are going to happen no matter what, maybe we should see Ashley Madison as a safe alternative."
And just who is Ashley Madison? Is she the steamy love child of Laura Ashley and a Dolly Madison chocolate Zinger? Is she Heidi Fleiss with a Daughters of the American Revolution name? Alas, she doesn't exist. In an effort to attract women to the site, Biderman and his colleagues combined two of today's most popular baby names and invented their fictional proprietor.
By tracking information provided on user profiles, Biderman has been able to learn quite a bit about his clients, even if he doesn't know their real names. Seventy percent are men, he says; among those who are "active" members (sign-up is free but you must purchase credits to interact with others), the male-to-female ratio is 1-1. The majority of the men, who tend to be in their late 30s to early 40s, are married. The women, who skew a bit younger, fall into three categories: the suburban housewife "who is seeking validation of her desirability"; the "quintessential mistress" who is not interested in a family life but wants things like trips and dinners out; and women who've been married only a short time and suddenly wonder what they got themselves into.
The company put me in touch with a "quintessential mistress" named Jackie (at least she wanted to be named Jackie for the purposes of this column) who professes total satisfaction with Ashley Madison. A self-described "very fit and attractive" 43-year-old college graduate who lives in Beverly Hills and works in real estate, she says she values her independence too much to pursue a conventional relationship. Of all the dating sites she's tried, Ashley Madison has worked out the best for her. (It can't hurt that the site sometimes offers free points to members who will talk to the media.)
"A few weeks ago, I had a fantastic meeting with someone who's been married for 15 years and has three children," Jackie said. "I met him at the Four Seasons on Friday night and we met up again Saturday morning and went to Vegas for two days. I didn't really care that the guy's married. He has no desire to leave his family, and I have no desire for a commitment. So it's ideal."
What's that furious clacking sound I hear? Is it the sound of apoplectic readers typing irate e-mails about the subject of this column? Or is it the sound of people signing on to Ashley Madison?
Or is it the sound of divorce lawyers lowering their fees? Maybe some good can come of this after all.
Ashley Madison's secret success - latimes.com
this kind of thinking always seems to stress men's needs and wants at women's expense.