I was having a discussion the other day in which I was referred to as a "pervert" for admitting that I quite like pornography. I'm not talking about hardcore donkey rape action, granny battering or anything scatty. No, just common or garden vanilla "pretty nudey girls" type of stuff.
quote:pervert noun a person whose sexual behaviour is considered strange and unpleasant by most people
Now call me wrong if you like, but "pervert" to me suggests something "against the norm", and as far as I can work out, it's perfectly normal to enjoy mainstream porn. Find me a man who is genuinely offended by mainstream stuff, and I'll point at him and call him a pervert. You get the idea.
I'm off to Spearmint Rhino tonight, too. Something else which many would call "perverted", but again: Find me a heterosexual man who genuinely doesn't enjoy a strip joint, and I'll show you a liar (or a jolly unusual chap, at least).
So, what's your take?
Maybe you're a P.C. "Modern Man" who believes that the girls in pornography or strip clubs are exploited and it shouldn't be allowed.
Maybe you're a flag-waving Doc Marten'd lesbian who hangs around outside lapdance clubs with a cricket bat, waiting to slug it to inebriated clientele?
Maybe your a girl, or "lady", who doesn't like nudity and thinks it degrades her and all her sistren. Maybe you're a girl who likes pornography.
Or maybe, just maybe, you're a porn star / stripper and enjoy exploiting men (email in profile).
Or are you a real pervert, who "flicks one out" in the ladies' pants section of Tesco, or sniffs rubber BDSM slattern magazines for kicks - or maybe you like Cold Shit Action.
Porn. Like it or loathe it? Are you a "pervert"?
Posted by MiscellaneousFiles (Member # 60) on :
I give it 6/10.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
I like a bit of porn, but I think my interest kind of ends at the shit/vomit side of things. It's not always for wanking either. I've got an ongoing mission to find that perfect picture/film clip, that will do the trick every time for the rest of my life. It's a passive thing, I'm not dedicated to it, but I know that somewhere, this image exists.
It's weird how wanking off to porn is totally acceptable and normal now. I'm sure that's fairly recent.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doctor Agamemnon When: I'm off to Spearmint Rhino tonight, too. Something else which many would call "perverted", but again: Find me a heterosexual man who genuinely doesn't enjoy a strip joint, and I'll show you a liar (or a jolly unusual chap, at least).
I find strip joints pretty depressing in that
- the girls' attitude to the male customers is on a spectrum from indifference to contempt, veneered with not-very-convincing fake enthusiasm
- the spectacle of a naked woman performing acrobatics becomes so unerotic, so unexciting, so so-so, so quickly.
I've probably said this before but the only "porn" I find at all fascinating now is pictures of girls I kind of "know" from films, tv and music, either stripping down or being caught revealed.
Of this group, I only find pretty girl-next-door types attractive (Rachel Stevens, Sam Heuston, Kirsten Dunst) so it's a very small category and there aren't often any new pictures to look at/for.
Basically it's the erotic focus I obviously had fixed in me at a very early age -- the idea of seeing your pretty classmate or neighbour, or in later life your attractive friend or colleague, wearing fewer clothes. Because I sort of media-know Dunst, Heuston and Stevens and have seen them wearing clothes, doing normal stuff, being interviewed -- doing non-porn stuff -- I find images of them undressed slightly arousing.
That's about it though as far as porn goes, for me.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
I think porn has been pretty acceptable and normal since the early 70's what's changed is the way in which it is presented. VHS changed it all and now with Divx and Mpeg its moved on to a whole new sub level, like a bonking Readers Wives if you will, with anyone looking to make a buck being able to tap into whatever fetish audience they want to reach. Ugly women, ugly men, old, mature, young (barely 18 though not kiddie porn) cum, poo, piss, anal gape, Dp, TP and an all holes filled ski pole special.
In the 70's with the likes of Deep Throat and Debbie does it was women being forced to perfom acts but being made to look like they wanted it, now it's women wanting to do acts and being made to look like they're forced into it.
Control is the key and I've lost track of who has hold of it these days.
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
Like Kovacs and the bloke from Sex, Lies & Videotape I get aroused by the newdiness of people I know. I need the interaction. That's not porn though. Porn, like when there's a bird you don't know with her kit off and gyrating, isn't really arousing, there hasn't been a two way process involved. Can I get off to it - well yes, absolutely, I'm a bloke. It's not in itself arousing though. Sometimes I give the models back-stories, or sometimes they look like people I know .. thats when I can really take a grip and get a wank going that'll affect my heart-rate. Porn though, is more like when you're doing a hooker and you want to get off quickly so you can get back down to the bar with your mates.
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
I have a friend who thinks all "porno" is pretty perverted. I'm also fairly certain that she thinks her long term boyfriend has never looked at porn or masturbated since they've been going out.
I find porn either briefly comical or just ugly and unerotic. Seeing as my imagination furnishes me with all kinds of wonderful scenarios from being a Derby-winning jockey to being lost on the island with Dr Jack Hero and sultry Saeed fighting over me, I've never understood why people need to look at quite posed and unrealistic pics to fantasise. I mean, my memories of sex must be fainter than anyone else's here, but I don't need a visual prompt to conjure up some pleasantly raunchy daydreams.
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I mean, my memories of sex must be fainter than anyone else's here, but I don't need a visual prompt to conjure up some pleasantly raunchy daydreams.
Neither do I. In fact your beautiful words have conjured up an image of a cobwebby clout.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
VP is really hot IRL, VOP.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
HUJI Benway! KEWN & TOoA-NC lol Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
He's right about the cobwebs.
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
oh vogon.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: HUJI Benway! KEWN & TOoA-NC lol
this seems new and exciting, what does it mean?
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I don't need a visual prompt to conjure up some pleasantly raunchy daydreams.
I agree. Isn't there some sort of scientific* basis for saying that this is a typically female view? That women tend to favour imagination over obvious and crude visual stimulii?
* quite possibly in a Channel 4 psychological sexperiment kind of way.
edited to remove a superfluous "though".
[ 28.10.2005, 08:18: Message edited by: OJ ]
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
Is there such a thing as true lesbian porn ? You know made specifically for the lesbian market and not aimed at men who just like looking at lesbians and secretly hoping they get the nod to join in ?
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
Darryn, the simple answer to that is that yes there is. I don't really know about the hardcore variety, but certainly soft stuff is available. Calendars, books etc. As far as I can tell, books are far more popular in the lesbian market than the explicit photos that are aimed at men. I have no idea whether this is more the case for lesbians than it is for straight women.
Genre stuff seems to be particularly popular, both in "erotic" fiction and just fiction in general - vampires are popular (lesbian goth), some S&M stuff which is harder (Pat Califia etc.), detective novels are another popular genre which I think crosses over into porn.
The longer answer is that pornography is still somewhat of a fraught issue, broadly split on generational lesbian-feminist/ so called post-feminist lines.
Posted by Niffer (Member # 266) on :
Harcore porn (by lesbians for lesbians) does exist. It's more of an American thing tho' having its roots in 1990s San Fran.
As OJ mentions because of the intensely political debate (the industry apeing the patriarchy versus reclamation of the female body in a non-exploitative form) it was usually dressed up as "art" or "performance art" and to some extent still is. Annie Sparkle springs to mind.
This is either, depending on your viewpoint, because: as a lesbian watching porn that actually appeals to you shouldn't be tied up in gender politics or an attempt to sidestep the real harm that "real" hardcore lesbian porn does to the "cause" in order to tap a new market and is a treacherous sellout.
Mostly, it's just shit though.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
Are lesbians for or against Belladonna?
Posted by Niffer (Member # 266) on :
H-how could anyone fail to love the star of Cum Dumpsters 4?
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
I bloody knew it! Lesbians are sluts.
Posted by Niffer (Member # 266) on :
Are you calling me a carpet muncher Benway?
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
look at your shoes, niffer. are they comfortable? you could be a lesbian and not even know it! Posted by Niffer (Member # 266) on :
I'm not wearing any shoes om. What does that mean? Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
you might be "at it", then.
is there a naked man or woman in the room with you? do they look happy or sad? are you out of breath? are you experiencing euphoria, disappointment, or guilt?
just trying to build a picture.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
quote:Originally posted by Niffer: I'm not wearing any shoes om. What does that mean?
It means you've given me a semi.
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
jonesy = easily-aroused foot fetishist.
Posted by Niffer (Member # 266) on :
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999:
quote:Originally posted by Niffer: I'm not wearing any shoes om. What does that mean?
It means you've given me a semi.
I'm losing my touch Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
let the record show that i interacted with teh niffer purely in the interests of increasing knowledge.
it was jonesy who got all dirty with his cock-talk.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
quote:The Niffer I'm losing my touch.
"I am not wearing any shoes or socks" = a detached.
[ 28.10.2005, 09:37: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
quote:Originally posted by omikin: jonesy = easily-aroused foot fetishist.
Did anyone see Room 101 the other night with the Ballon fetishist video ? Gave me the raging horn that did, I tell you I certainly wasn't expecting that.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Hosiery chat = hotel on Mayfair.
[ 28.10.2005, 09:38: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by Niffer (Member # 266) on :
Actually I'm not wearing either. And for om, I'm in a room with a filing cabinet and the only other living thing present is a hamster*
*the hamster is not in the filing cabinet. That would be cruel.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Hamsters have all the luck.
ETA: I'm going to stop now. I'm creeping myself out.
[ 28.10.2005, 09:42: Message edited by: jonesy999 ]
Posted by Niffer (Member # 266) on :
Don't be like that Jonesy; I'm easing the edge of my black silk stocking over the toes on my right foot really slowly.
Just for you.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
Wellies = £1 terrace in Barnsley?
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Thanks Niffer. I appreciate it. You’re a good girl.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
Yeah, stop there. The next stop is Freddie Starr territory.
For the record, I didn't mean to imply there is no such thing as hardcore lesbian porn. Just that I know very little about it apart from reading Pat Califia's gutter and rat obsessed S&M stuff and giggling.
Also for the record, I am wearing shoes* and socks.
*Definitely not sensible and I should *so* know better.
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999: Hamsters have all the luck.
Hmmmm - in a thread requiring us to define and explain perversion I love the way Jonesey has decided to explain by example. Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Thank God someone got it.
Posted by Niffer (Member # 266) on :
Um..I don't think I said that you did suggest there was no such thing. I was just adding my 2p. But whatever.
And for the record my knowledge comes from a dissertation I wrote. And I had to google Belladonna. I'm sorry Benway I'm not the lesbian slut I lead you to believe I was, it's not you man, it's me. I hope we can still be friends).
FWIW, OJ, I agree with you about Califia.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ:
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I don't need a visual prompt to conjure up some pleasantly raunchy daydreams.
I agree. Isn't there some sort of scientific* basis for saying that this is a typically female view? That women tend to favour imagination over obvious and crude visual stimulii?
* quite possibly in a Channel 4 psychological sexperiment kind of way.
edited to remove a superfluous "though".
People say this a lot, especially on Handbag, but I don't know what "evidence" there is for it. As your post shows, this notion about the difference between male and female arousal stimuli is very loaded: men like looking at pictures, which is "obvious and crude" and puts them on the level of a Pavlovian dog, whereas women prefer the more subtle, challenging, complex, active process of reading a book and imagining narrative fantasies, or just dreaming them up from their own imaginations, which makes them creators, imagineers, even authors and dignifies the business of having a wank.
It's obvious that this concept favours women and makes them look like superior creatures, but I don't know how true it is.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I was going to say the same, but couldn't quite find the right words for it.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs:
quote:Originally posted by OJ:
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I don't need a visual prompt to conjure up some pleasantly raunchy daydreams.
I agree. Isn't there some sort of scientific* basis for saying that this is a typically female view? That women tend to favour imagination over obvious and crude visual stimulii?
* quite possibly in a Channel 4 psychological sexperiment kind of way.
edited to remove a superfluous "though".
People say this a lot, especially on Handbag, but I don't know what "evidence" there is for it. As your post shows, this notion about the difference between male and female arousal stimuli is very loaded: men like looking at pictures, which is "obvious and crude"
As my flippant remark about Channel 4 also shows, my post wasn't exactly some serious attempt to undermine the sanctity of men's sexuality or to elevate women's wanking Kovacs.
Having said that, there is a whole field of biological/psychological enquiry around whether the way the brain functions is gendered. This is not the same as saying that men and women think and are aroused in different ways, but there is evidence which points to it. (See for example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/add_user.shtml)
There was a recent Channel 4 series which set out to conduct a whole series of experiments into women's sexual stimulation. I watched one installment which featured probes, masturbation, some sort of sonar and a paddling pool of cold water (a definite acquired taste that one). Unfortunately, it was a load of crap and the whole thing was undermined by tedious footage of giggling women being plied with chardonnay and coaxed into giggling about their sex lives. So I don't know what they claimed to discover.
[ 28.10.2005, 10:13: Message edited by: OJ ]
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
Its like candles in the bath, lingerie, astrology and all that ould fem bollux. Its like Miss cobwebbey clout is giving herself permission to whack one off by disassociating the act from the repellant bloke way of approaching it. There might be some sense to it. After all blokes don't half give their pudding a right pulling, I expect if laydees approached their organs with the same gusto they'd all be suffering from stretched lips and clitty-gout.
Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: I was going to say the same, but couldn't quite find the right words for it.
Indeed. Right on Brother 'Vacs.
Obviously you all know I'm a pervert like all us filthy, disgusting, base menfolk.
Lol@clitty-gout.
[ 28.10.2005, 10:25: Message edited by: Boy Racer ]
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
So, VOP, let me get this straight... You're into some masochistic scene right but you're too scared to ask?
So to get women to play along you hang around fora, chucking around words like "clitty gout" and wait for them to round on you and start the punishment.
The minxes. Posted by Doctor Agamemnon When (Member # 189) on :
Ooh. Controversial.
(Actually, it isn't... I just thought I'd throw that in to make it look as though I was paying attention.)
I'm sure we're not saying that men don't have a good imagination - I know I do, and certainly have some interesting fantasies... strangely, though, my imaginitive fantasies generally feature people I know (ref: Kovac's post on p1). Also strangely, much of my favourite pornographic media features people who look a little like people I know.
Perhaps there's something to read into that?
Regarding tonight's Rhino activity, though, I admit to finding the whole lapdance thing quite erotic - more so with the right "performer" than for the simple act itself. There are girls there who really don't do a thing for me, despite being attractive and skilled dancers.
Maybe it's just me, then... I find it erotic in the same sort of way that wandering around the RLD in Amsterdam looking at windows is erotic. Perhaps it's the seediness, or the anticipation / frustration thing... maybe that's the point where I become a "pervert".
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doctor Agamemnon When: I find it erotic in the same sort of way that wandering around the RLD in Amsterdam looking at windows is erotic. Perhaps it's the seediness, or the anticipation / frustration thing... maybe that's the point where I become a "pervert".
I can't think of anything more unerotic than wandering around the RLD in Amsterdam looking at windows. Bored working girls chain smoking in oddly lit glass cages. Dead eyes stare through you as you weave your way in and out of groups of gawking tourists, drunken louts and the Turkish mafia. It's dirty, it smells like a junkie tramp (piss, weed, flat beer and stale cum) doused in cheap whores perfume.
Yuk.
But then again I live here, perhaps anything you're exposed to constantly is unerotic ?
[ 28.10.2005, 10:39: Message edited by: Darryn.R ]
Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: [this notion about the difference between male and female arousal stimuli is very loaded: men like looking at pictures, which is "obvious and crude" and puts them on the level of a Pavlovian dog, whereas women prefer the more subtle, challenging, complex, active process of reading a book and imagining narrative fantasies, or just dreaming them up from their own imaginations, which makes them creators, imagineers, even authors and dignifies the business of having a wank.
I don't think of it like that. I just enjoy the fact that my imagination has a plentiful supply of all kinds of enjoyable fantasy situations, available for free and with minimal effort and I wonder why some need a visual stimulus.
It's like, I "know" what a fit boy looks like and I know what I'd like him to do to me. Pictures of other people sexing don't really add anything to what's already in my mind.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poetess: I don't think of it like that. I just enjoy the fact that my imagination has a plentiful supply of all kinds of enjoyable fantasy situations, available for free and with minimal effort and I wonder why some need a visual stimulus.
It's like, I "know" what a fit boy looks like and I know what I'd like him to do to me. Pictures of other people sexing don't really add anything to what's already in my mind.
I'm not arguing with the way you personally might arouse yourself; as I said, I don't find many pictures arousing myself.
I was just questioning the generalisation that men like crude visual stimulus, whereas women prefer something more subtle, sophisticated, complex.
Posted by Doctor Agamemnon When (Member # 189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darryn.R: I can't think of anything more unerotic than wandering around the RLD in Amsterdam looking at windows...
Oh, God, Darryn. I feel so dirty now.
[ 28.10.2005, 11:04: Message edited by: Doctor Agamemnon When ]
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
I agree that the visual/imagination thing is a generalisation. If you follow the link above, however, you'll find a much more measured exploration of what gendered differences there might be in *typical* male/female brains (which they are at pains to point out aren't exclusive to the corresponding male/female skulls).
My flip remark notwithstanding, is it fair to say that words are necessarily more subtle and complex a stimulus than images anyway?
Even if you could hypothetically prove that gender a were turned on only by images and gender b only by words, it wouldn't prove that.
I feel wholly unqualified to talk about personal experiences of porn (or prawn as I just typed ) as it doesn't occur to me to purchase either sexy pictures or erotic books. Which is not to say that something I see or read can't set off a reaction, but it's not something predictable.
Posted by Darryn.R (Member # 1) on :
quote:Originally posted by Doctor Agamemnon When: Oh, God, Darryn. I feel so dirty now
See, now THAT's erotic !
(sorry, I meant to quote and made an edit on your post)
Posted by Doctor Agamemnon When (Member # 189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darryn.R: (sorry, I meant to quote and made an edit on your post)
Thank fuck for that. I thought my diet of seedy non-erotic masturbatory stimuli was sending me mad.
I'm a FREAK I tell you! DON'T LOOK AT ME.
[ 28.10.2005, 11:21: Message edited by: Doctor Agamemnon When ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ: If you follow the link above, however, you'll find a much more measured exploration of what gendered differences there might be in *typical* male/female brains (which they are at pains to point out aren't exclusive to the corresponding male/female skulls).
This is the page I got, and it doesn't seem very sophisticated.
-----------
Some researchers say that men can have 'women's brains' and that women can think more like men.
Find out more about 'brain sex' differences by taking the Sex ID test, a series of visual challenges and questions used by psychologists in the BBC One television series Secrets of the Sexes:
Get a brain sex profile and find out if you think like a man or a woman. See if you can gaze into someone's eyes and know what they're thinking. Find out why scientists are interested in the length of your fingers. See how your results relate to theories about brain sex. -----------
I don't know if we should take this concept of distinction between male and female arousal any further if the only evidence anyone is presenting comes from BBC and Channel 4 cod-science shows.
quote: My flip remark notwithstanding, is it fair to say that words are necessarily more subtle and complex a stimulus than images anyway?
That's an interesting point... except that I suppose the kind of images we're talking about here aren't complex or subtle. I'd agree that a painting or photograph can be more challenging and profound than a page of words, but maybe most porn images are pretty simple. Commercial "erotic" literature of the Black Lace variety does have some characterisation and plot, and some emotional context to the sex scenes.
On the other hand, I've read amateur erotic stories online that were incredibly poorly-written and clearly just meant to stimulate -- the equivalent of a blurry snapshot of your wife's tits.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
quote: This is the page I got, and it doesn't seem very sophisticated.
Intro pages rarely are. If you followed it through you'd find they do a series of short tests with an explanation at the end of what theory each one is testing.
Perhaps you'd like to trawl some peer-reviewed journals and post links Kovacs. Such things exist.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
I'm not down with this idea that chicks don't get off on pr0n. That Kinsey study with the giggling drunk women proved beyond doubt that women get a wide-on from watching monkeys get it on, but they didn't even realise it! Hahaah! So, their bodies were saying 'let's go', but their hearts were saying 'whu-?'. I know plenty of chicks who dig pr0n, and I'm sure there are guys out there who would rather spend an hour working up a pin perfect imaginary scenerio than just beat the meat to some jpgs of a Lithuanian teenager pretending to enjoy her anal lessons. Anyway, what I mean is, it's personal rather than gender wide. Could tradition not play a part? In that, it's generally been made by men for men? It's also designed around the male orgasm, which I'm lead to believe has different pace and timings and things to female one.
I'd agree though that books are probably better than films. I went through a phase recently and read Emmanuelle, Story of the Eye, some De Sade and a couple of black lace books, and spent much of that time in a 'heightened state'. Well. De Sade can be exhausting, but not because of wanking.
[ 28.10.2005, 11:50: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by OJ:
quote: This is the page I got, and it doesn't seem very sophisticated.
Intro pages rarely are. If you followed it through you'd find they do a series of short tests with an explanation at the end of what theory each one is testing.
Perhaps you'd like to trawl some peer-reviewed journals and post links Kovacs. Such things exist.
Yeah, I saw there were tests, OJ. If you think me doing a BBC website quiz and posting up the result is worthwhile evidence, that's fine, but I didn't think it would advance this discussion.
It would be easier if you just admitted (not just on this occasion) that you posted weak support for your point because you were in a rush and went for the first thing you found, rather than trying to patronise me with this sort of guff like "intro pages rarely are". You don't deserve to take a superior tone.
I get the impression your air of snooty bluff might work have worked on other people, but it seems hollow to me, and I often feel you're covering up a lack of genuine knowledge with semi-appropriate language and a bit of a sneer.
Your advice that I should trawl peer-reviewed journals is another example. You know nobody is going to go through scholarly abstracts to back up a discussion with you on TMO, because it isn't worth their while and everyone has other, more important priorities. That's just rhetoric on your part, backed with a bit of official-sounding terminology.
The fact that there's no way I am going to do an academic search for articles that support my point on a discussion forum doesn't really smokescreen the fact that your evidence was lazy and insufficient, and that you went to some weak website for ideas because you didn't have enough to say on your own. You are all about deflection and pose on here, without substance.
I think it should be possible to discuss this kind of issue, on this kind of forum, by using the information and ideas people already hold in their heads, and applying it with intelligence. That you clutch immediately for the nearest online "evidence" and suggest that a discussion should be supported with a bunch of internet links just suggests you don't have that ability.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
that's the second or third time I've used 'wide on' in the space of a week.
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Keep it up Benway. The birds love words.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
yeah man! Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
When is London going to contribute to this thread?
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
Kovacs, the fact that I'd quite jokingly used the words "crude and obvious" in a flippant post referencing Channel Four sex-docs, but wasn't prepared to back it up with any evidence, was something I readily admitted when you picked up on it. In fact I think the original generalisation on my part was in the form of a question and not an argument to that effect.
The fact that you seized upon this as a chance to be right and get one up on me and don't want to let it go is an entirely other matter. As is your six (or seven or whatever???) paragraph post deconstructing my personality, posting style, future chances of happiness etc.
I don't do cod psychology so I'll leave it to you and anyone else who wants to, to draw their own conclusions about that.
Posted by OJ (Member # 752) on :
Please somebody post something witty, entertaining or vaguely about the subject of the post here please. These grubby, pedantic little spats with Kovacs over nothing are just depressing.
Posted by herbs (Member # 101) on :
quote:Originally posted by jonesy999: Keep it up Benway.
Gibber.
Will that do?
Posted by Modge (Member # 64) on :
some light weekend reading, peer-reviewed and everything:
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power : society, the person and sexual politics. Cambridge, Polity Press in association with Blackwell.
Dewar, A. (1987). "The social construction of gender in physical education." Women's Studies International Forum 10(4): 453-465.
Goodman, L. and J. De Gay (1998). The Routledge reader in gender and performance. London ; New York, Routledge.
Hines, M. (2004). Brain gender. New York, Oxford University Press.
Klein, A. M. (1990). Little Big Man: Hustling, Gender, Narcissism, and Bodybuilding Subculture. Sport, Men, and the Gender Order. M. A. Messner, Sabo, D. Illinois, Human Kinetic Books: 127-139.
Messner, M. A. (1992). Power at play : sports and the problem of masculinity. Boston, Beacon Press.
Messner, M. A. and D. F. Sabo (1990). Sport, men, and the gender order : critical feminist perspectives. Champaign, Ill, Human Kinetics Books.
Nadeau, R. (1996). S/he brain : science, sexual politics, and the myths of feminism. Westport, Conn., Praeger.
Paul, E. L. (2002). Taking sides. Clashing views on controversial issues in sex and gender. Guilford, Conn., McGraw-Hill/Dushkin.
Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play : girls and boys in school. Buckingham, Open University Press.
Posted by froopyscot (Member # 178) on :
Back on topic-ish, I think even "perverted" porn has become quite mainstream, but I also think it depends largely on the subculture you're immersed in.
Case in point: By American standards, Boston is a fairly liberated city. Among the general population, you'd probably find a fair percentage who would admit to watching porn in one form or another. I'm not sure if people would readily trumpet about it (ie. standing on a streetcorner yelling "I love porn" would be somewhat embarrassing for all concerned), but it's almost accepted. And I've known quite a few people who wouldn't think twice about going out to the local fetish club for an evening - just for fun.
I'm assuming that this may not apply elsewhere in the states, though. Even putting places like Utah aside, I think most of "middle america" is still caught in the tittering state of the 1950s Kinsey survey participants who enjoy porn but are too nervous or guilty to admit to it. But then again, the stats seem to show billions of dollars going to porn from the wallets of US consumers each year, and it all can't be coming from the "liberal" states.
So I suppose there's still some degree of fundimentalist hypocracy going on here, in which the person calling you a pervert today for watching porn probably had a good porn-assisted wank on their own the night before.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
perhaps we should harness the power of the internet community to conduct our own investigation into the women-porn debate.
[ 28.10.2005, 12:47: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by froopyscot (Member # 178) on :
And how would you propose we go about this?
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
I've seen both hardcore porn (although nothing too extreme - no scat or animals or similar) and soft porn, and to be honest, hardcore doesn't really do anything for me. Instead of a physical response, I end up having a more intellectual one, like trying to figure out how a jigsaw puzzle works.
Soft porn is a bit better but still seems a bit hollow and mechanical. Also I find that visual porn doesn't necessarily lend itself that well to a more leisurely build up and perhaps "sustained" result - perhaps it's the thing that Benway mentioned about pacing and timing.
For a more visceral reaction, I'm more tuned into audio than video, for some reason it gives me more of a gusset whump. For example I used to enjoy listening to the sound on the "adult" channels on the old analogue Sky broadcasts with the picture fuzzed out. Similarly I like erotic fiction - Black Lace and similar.
So for me, the impact of erotica is all experienced between my ears rather than between my legs.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
lol, when I stayed over my friend's house and he had sky, I was sleeping in the lounge, and spent about an hour and a half making love to myself whilst listening to the locked adult channels. Imagine my surprise when his parents informed me, my friend, and my friend's sister the next morning that the tv in their bedroom was picking up whatever channel was being watched in the lounge.
Froopy - I'm thinking that the dickless members of the forum try to frig themselves off to some hardcore banging action, and report back. As a control, they should also try this with non pornographic material*, and have a session using their no doubt lively imaginations. We can send the results to the Kinsey Insitute, and at worse, get a channel 5 documentary out of it.
*Due to the findings of the recent televised Kinsey backed study, this should not include Monkeys making out.
[ 28.10.2005, 13:42: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Benway: spent about an hour and a half making love to myself
* looks at benway with new found respect, and a little fear *
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Benway with your Sky confession and your liking for erotic fiction, I think you may be my wanking soultwin, or schizophrenic other half. You are ying and I am yang, or something. Are you sure you're not me? Have we been in the same place at the same time? Did anyone see us both?
not enough 'w's
[ 28.10.2005, 13:47: Message edited by: H1ppychick ]
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
I'd like to apologise for my tone at the moment. I'm working out some issues.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
*badumtish*
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
Men always seem to be on the back foot when it comes to wanking though don't they. I mean, OJ's "flippant remark" demonstrates nicely what I think a large number of women seem to think about male self service - i.e. that male sexuality is crude and superficial while female sexuality is deep and sophisticated. Not to mention empowering.
Interesting too that it's perfectly acceptable for a woman to bring herself off using a giant plastic cock, while for a man to use a masturbation aid is seen as a fairly seedy or shameful act.
I'm not really drawing any conclusions from this, I just find it interesting the contrast between perceptions of femal and male sexuality with regards to masturbation.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
*waits to be accused of whining*
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: *waits to be accused of whining*
I'm not going to accuse you of whining, but you have made me feel seedy and shameful. I may never be able to pleasure myself again. Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: Interesting too that it's perfectly acceptable for a woman to bring herself off using a giant plastic cock, while for a man to use a masturbation aid is seen as a fairly seedy or shameful act.
I brought this subject up in 2002 in this very forum, and was never given a good answer. It was called 'The fetishism of female desire', and went on to talk about how female sexuality has become commodified under the guise of empowerment.I posited that women are now expected to spend money in order to realise their sexual potential to themselves, to externalise it in the form of clothing and sensual comfort that all costs money. It was all centered around the shameful and backwards television program "Sex And Cities", where three ropey looking women and one okay one had Robin Asquith style sexual mishaps. Unfortunately, Misc started a thread about funny looking parrots in Life around the same time, and my efforts sank without a trace.
[ 28.10.2005, 13:57: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
Basically, I was just having a veiled crack at straight women who didn't devote themselves to men.
[ 28.10.2005, 13:59: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
quote:Originally posted by H1ppychick: Are you sure you're not me?
Don't go there. That kind of shit freaks me out.
Posted by Kira (Member # 826) on :
aaah Pr0n
Yeah its ok, I've never watched it on my own though, usually as a back drop for other *ahem* activities.
However, in answer to VOP's orginal question...
I dont think there is anything remotely perverted about standard porn. I'm personally not a fan of strip clubs but to be honest I dont think anyone will be surprised at that. I do find the whole strip/club/lapdancing thing a bit tacky but then I would also say the same thing about male strippers. Seeing something like the dream boys, is more likely to make me heave than it is to make me horny.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
I think it is awful that the porn targeted to women is full of all this extraneous plot. If I wanted that I'd be a daytime TV fan, and I'm not. Porn is about fantasy, so for me, it has to be a little more than normal life sex.
Posted by froopyscot (Member # 178) on :
quote:Originally posted by rooster: ... it has to be a little more than normal life sex.
I guess Hentai would fit under this heading, also - fantasy driven by exaggerated, larger-than-life representations of sexual situations.
Oh, and the tentacles. Let's hear it for tentacle action.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
I agree with Ringo and Benway. I know "me too" is a pretty poor post, but just to let any girls know that if you want to argue with me, you'll have to go thru them first, OK.
I just watched Superman II and it got me feeling real punchy.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
I'm confused as to what you actually agree with - that there's a double standard? or that you want to use masterbatory aids?
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
That there's a double standard whereby women using vibrators tend to be seen seen as an empowered, cheeky, modern, fun, you-go-girl, whereas men using the more subtle, natural and sophisticated means of their own hand to achieve orgasm tend to be seen seen as sad, pathetic, sordid loners and losers. The term wanker mainly applies to men and to male masturbation, and it has negative connotations. Bean flicker is not an insult.
Posted by saltrock (Member # 622) on :
I still wouldn't want to shout, "Oi! Bean-flicker!" across the street at me though.
I don't think that people think that blokes wanking are sad, loner, losers anymore. I think everyone accepts it's just a normal part of life now and not something that never is to be mentioned in public, evah!
I'd kind of forgotten that wanker, the insult, originally had anything to do with wanking. If someone calls a bloke a wanker, I don't think, "oh, they wank a lot" I just think he's a bit of a git or something. I think it's probably lost it's original insult meaning somewhere along the line.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
No, "wanker" doesn't literally mean that you wank a lot, but just as some women object to the word "c*nt" because it uses their sexual parts as an insult, the root implication is that you [a man] are pathetic because you wank a lot, because you can't find anyone to have sex with.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
Maybe at the root of that double standard is the idea that woman choose to have sex while men need to have sex. Therefore, a woman pleasuring herself must have wanted it that way and is not just substituting for something she can't get.
Most people feel like it is easier for a woman to get laid than a man, right?
Not sure if I do...and anyway, I think a man self stimulating is sexy.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
I think it's partly the idea that a man masturbating is fulfilling a stereotype, or at least an expected behaviour -- we have had jokes about men polishing the sugarplum, bashing the bishop, choking the snake, making Mr One-Eye cough custard &c for many years -- whereas women are breaking a taboo and being "daringly" actively and independently sexual by masturbating and by mentioning that they do.
Because of the greater taboo around female masturbation, until recently at least, for a woman to say outright that she's going to give herself an orgasm still has some overtones of taking sexuality into her own hands and almost performing a feminist act.
Maybe the gradual increase in joke-terms for a woman's masturbation -- we used to only use coy, 70s phrases like "pleasuring herself", but now as I noted, we have "flick the bean" in quite common currency -- shows that the female activity is becoming more equivalent to the male, ie. considered normal, funny and sometimes perhaps sexy for others, rather than a wonderful journey into self-exploration.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
"flick the bean" isn't common over here - can't think of any little joke ways of describing female masturbation actually.
Posted by froopyscot (Member # 178) on :
quote:Originally posted by rooster: "flick the bean" isn't common over here - can't think of any little joke ways of describing female masturbation actually.
it's more common than you think
eta: i meant that in a joking, everyone-else-is-doing-it way. which obviousy was not conveyed well in the above one-liner.
[ 29.10.2005, 11:56: Message edited by: froopyscot ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
I think the relative lack of any joke terms for female masturbation, compared with the volumes for male masturbation, indicates that culturally we still don't see both activities in the same way.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
Yes, see above as to why I think we don't see the activities in the same way.
Posted by Roy (Member # 705) on :
Oh, Froopy Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by rooster: Yes, see above as to why I think we don't see the activities in the same way.
What, this.
quote:Maybe at the root of that double standard is the idea that woman choose to have sex while men need to have sex. Therefore, a woman pleasuring herself must have wanted it that way and is not just substituting for something she can't get.
Most people feel like it is easier for a woman to get laid than a man, right?
That may be a reason but my immediate feeling was that the difference lay in women only recently becoming more self-reliant in terms of "owning" their sexuality. It wasn't so many decades ago that women didn't expect to have orgasms during sex, let alone working out the best toy to give them the best orgasm on their own. As it's assumed that men have been familiar with and in control of their own sexual response for far longer, it doesn't seem nearly as "progressive" for a man to masturbate. For a woman to do it almost has, or anyway had, political connotations.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
All I'm saying is a man can't be empowered by something he (presumably) has no control over.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
By "presumably" you seem to be saying you believe a man has no control over whether he masturbates or not -- that it's a need. I don't think this is any more true for men than it is for women. I think that's just a cultural box men and women have been put into; traditionally, historically, men are driven by desires, whereas women have none of their own. That's not a generous view of either gender.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: That may be a reason but my immediate feeling was that the difference lay in women only recently becoming more self-reliant in terms of "owning" their sexuality.
I think you're onto something here. Historically female sexuality has generally been something there simply to serve men. i.e. a woman is not a sexual creature unless she has a man to please, in which case she fulfils that role. This probably explains to a large part why a lot of women view the use of pornography as crude, and lacking in self reliance or imagination, because for the modern empowered woman I think it's very important that sexuality starts within and not without. And of course it helps a lot of you feel slightly resentful towards men for centuries of sexual oppression, to cast yourself in a better light and demean male sexuality as little more than a simple bodily function like eating or going to the toilet.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: By "presumably" you seem to be saying you believe a man has no control over whether he masturbates or not
Um, no, not me - I'm saying that society has this view.
ETA: That's why I had the presumably in there.
[ 29.10.2005, 14:28: Message edited by: rooster ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
"Presumably" doesn't mean "this is what other people think, though I don't hold this opinion myself". I would say "supposedly" comes closer.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
Ugh, a silly discussion, but they are synonyms anyway: here.
Either way, I presumed this is what people think because I don't know for sure (I would know for sure if it was me), and I thought my comments earlier illustrated the fact that I personally don't believe men have to have sex or masturbate or whatever and women don't.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Well, OK: when someone says "presumably" I take it to mean "I presume", whereas when they say "supposedly", I take it to mean "according to what others believe."
The crater was presumably created by an alien landing seems to imply that you personally believe aliens created the crater.
The crater was supposedly created by an alien landing seems to imply that others have said as much, but that you're sceptical.
I see your link backs you up, but this would be the common sense distinction as I hear it. Perhaps I'm wrong. Anyway it is off-topic though that doesn't really matter on TMO these days, as long as the spin-off topic is interesting.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
By the way, do you actually think all these words mean the same thing as presumably, or indeed each other?
quote:Synonyms: absolutely, apparently, assuredly, clearly, doubtlessly, easily, for sure, indisputably, most likely, of course, ostensibly, positively, precisely, presumably, probably, seemingly, supposedly, surely, truly, undoubtedly, unequivocally, unquestionably, without doubt
Supposedly isn't a synonym for unquestionably or precisely! I take back my admission of possible error.
This is what I meant on the other thread about let's trust to our own ideas and intelligence instead of trying to back it up with inadequate internet references!
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
Goodness Kovacs, you can't expect the nuances of everyone's lexicon to be the same - that's why dictionaries are useful. A check of the Merriam-Webster thesaurus (certainly no inadequate internet reference) shows both words as having the same definition, "to all outward appearances."
Obviously what got us into this mess into the first place is "trust[ing] our own ideas and intelligence," as that's what leads to disagreement.
And yes, not all those words are synonyms, but I'd still claim these two are. To me, "it is presumed," certainly doesn't mean I agree.
ETA: Disagreements based on ones own personal insights are fine of course, but arguing that a particular word doesn’t mean what the dictionary says it does and saying that is why someone is wrong just doesn’t fly (according to my own personal insight).
[ 29.10.2005, 21:31: Message edited by: rooster ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by rooster: Disagreements based on ones own personal insights are fine of course, but arguing that a particular word doesn’t mean what the dictionary says it does and saying that is why someone is wrong just doesn’t fly (according to my own personal insight).
But you agreed that this dictionary listed a whole group of words that aren't synonyms, and claimed they were synonyms. Hence it isn't a reliable source.
I know this instance doesn't really matter -- it's no skin off anyone's nose if I was using "presumably" differently to you -- but perhaps it is interesting to debate, up to a point.
In view of my previous example about aliens causing the crater, I am certainly surprised if the two words "supposedly" and "presumably" officially mean the same thing. I wouldn't say they meant the same thing in those sentences, at all.
[ 30.10.2005, 05:04: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Posted by Doctor Agamemnon When (Member # 189) on :
Gosh - it IS getting perverted with all this S&M* going on.
(* Semantics and Meaning)
My work here is done.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Yeah, they've totally bummed me out. I was getting a kinky perve* out of people's wanking histories and then the discussion got derailed into vocabulary. How disappointing for a girl.
*not really.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
THIS should get pulses racing!
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: THIS should get pulses racing!
She doesn't do anything for me. Sorry!
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
Actually, talk about words turns me on plenty.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Apparently it's Kiera Knightley. She doesn't really work for me either. I was just trying to get things hot again. For Hippychick. Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: Apparently it's Kiera Knightley. She doesn't really work for me either. I was just trying to get things hot again. For Hippychick.
I didn't mean to imply that she was hideous or anything. I just prefer rounder ladies.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
I prefer less Asian-looking girls, actually.
Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
She looks very different here Though really no more attractive I guess.
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
She looks completely different. Much more attractive. Still too skinny for me though.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
She does look a little too skinny to the extent that her head seems wobbly and over-large... it gives an unnerving childlike effect.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
What hot-blooded male mortal can resist 4 gorgeous, identical twin sisters? Academic quizzes on BBC website have shown that the top male fantasy in the UK is having four gorgeous sisters giving him a Sunday roast... and it's the lilt of the Irish that really push his buttons. That's why pop act The Conway Sisters, a quartet of twin babes, are currently odds-on to win telly entertainment the X-Files.
pluck of the irish: Conways hope to win
Research on Channel 5 internet quiz reveals that British guys' fascination with four twin sisters stems from trendy films and news stories about clones. "Attack of the Clones, with heartthrob Ewan McGregor... The Island, also about clones, with hunk Ewan... Lost, on TV... clones are everywhere these days," explains telly critic Zane Maddoc.
Girls Aloud started the trend for clone bands when they cast Nadine alongside her genetic double, Kimberley. Unfortunately mutations led to a falling off in tragic Kimberley's isotopes, and the band had to split earlier this year.
make love not clone war: Nadz and Kim Posted by rooster (Member # 738) on :
Are we going to start talking about those nazi twins again?
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Oh yeah! full circle.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Sexy-but-sick twins Lynx and Lamb Gaede have shocked the British nation with their foul views. Their proud admission that their favourite colours were "Prussian Blue" and "red... the colour of Jewish blood" made a nation's gorge rise.
Now a storm threatens family website Handbag.com as the hot underage fascists add another hero to their weird fan-listing.
he's our man: Gaede twins admire Rick
"Rick J is a hero, but he has to call himself Camberwick Exile on the liberal media," Lynx confides, pointing her cursor - the poisonous image of a swastika - at a page on the family website. "That's like how Hitler's descendants used false names."
"To preserve the Blut-lein!" her sister pipes up, in a twisted approximation of the German tongue.
evil behind the innocence: lamb of God says "I want nothing to do with these girls"
"It's a shame Camberwick Exile was banned by the white liberal media just for telling the truth," Lynx goes on, shaking her head as she reads aloud. "Things have got worse as 'gangsta' culture and all of its 'fashionable' paraphernalia have boldly ventured into the mainstream." Lynx turns her face to me, and her pretty eyes are shining with tears. "I'd like to meet this man. He sounds so strong, so full of clear reason."
"Sieg Exile!" Lamb squeals.
next: the lynx effect Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
..
[ 31.10.2005, 18:35: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Hot Hitler-addicts Lynx and Lamb Gaede, who turned British stomachs by proclaiming their favourite colours were "anything but black, and yellow... and whatever color Jews were", have launched a new look that will shock their sickest fans.
The twins, aged 11 and 12 due to their births in a twisted fascist "NeuJahr" ceremony, announced their darker, more adult image in a weird ritual at London's Leicester Square cinema, as they promoted an idea for their first movie.
all grown up: the twins are sick adults now
Barely recognisable in what the pic shows as grey outfits, with pallid lighter-grey faces and sort of greyey black, white-streaky hair, the twins spoke of their evil film.
"Our biggest heroes apart from Hess, Hitler and Rick J are the Olson Twins and British girl band, the Spice Girls!" grinned Lamb. "Geri is a beautiful example of Nordic beauty."
"And Cheryl fought back against a N*gress in a public bathroom," Lynx adds, foul hate-words spewing from her lips.
"Our movie is going to be like Spice World meets Untergang?" Lamb explains. (That's the Hitler movie "Downfall".) Her face lights up, swastikas almost seeming to gleam in her eyes as she outlines her sick film. "It stars us as Rick J's secretaries, the only people who were loyal to him right until the end. We based the characters on the ladies from Handbag.com who support and defend Rick J when he tries to give voice to the truth."
"I have to say that I rather like the idea of being surrounded by 'handmaidens' who would like to jump into bed with me," Rick J commented wryly when told about the twins' movie plans. "I'm not sure if Mrs C would approve, though."
In contrast to Rick's smiling approval, more of God's creatures have spoken out against the Hitler hotties.
not my prob, mate: a lynx or bobcat disowns his namesake
And a representative of bestselling male vanity products, Lynx deodorant, has also issued a firm disclaimer.
a clean breast: lynx products aren't the same as lynx gaede
[ 31.10.2005, 18:39: Message edited by: kovacs ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
A new shadow stalks Britain tonight, on the spookiest day of the year. Cult author Rick J, banned from liberal feminist website Handbag.com, chose the date to rise "like a fiery phoenix" and keep posting on the forums despite his outlaw status.
The craze gripped a weary nation, and soon a parent voiced the fear that disenfranchised youth might seize upon this new folk hero as a mascot, or figurehead. Through an imaginary interview, those fears become only too real.
he's one of us: marsha and graeme are rick-fans
Marsha (left) claims to be the first follower of this new cult. "I was already into [cyberpunk "anime"] Gatchaman," she confesses, "so if I put the fiery phoenix logo from the cartoon on my best top, it would look like Rick's symbol."
"You could wear it out on the street," her f*ckbuddy Graeme laughs, looking at the camera as Marsha glances down at how the top would look [see picture]. "Then people'd' know you was a fan of Gatchaman."
And of Rick J?
"Who?" Graeme mugs, then lets us in on the joke. "To be honest 'wiv 'jer, I hadn't hear of the geezer! Until you told us."
But he sounds... alright? Like, 'your sort of geezer.'
"Yeah, 's'pose so!" Graeme nods easily. "'Adn't really thought a'bt it."
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
lol - ausgeseichnet! Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
quote:Originally posted by rooster: Goodness Kovacs, you can't expect the nuances of everyone's lexicon to be the same - that's why dictionaries are useful. A check of the Merriam-Webster thesaurus (certainly no inadequate internet reference) shows both words as having the same definition, "to all outward appearances."
Obviously what got us into this mess into the first place is "trust[ing] our own ideas and intelligence," as that's what leads to disagreement.
And yes, not all those words are synonyms, but I'd still claim these two are. To me, "it is presumed," certainly doesn't mean I agree.
Language is all about nuance and the best place to find nuance explicated is a hard-copy dictionary, not a thesaurus (Gk - 'misused lizard').
The distinction Kovacs draws between 'presumably' and 'supposedly' is valid and, if we don't want to see language utterly flattened and drained of its subtlety (see also: disinterested/uninterested) we have to guard against illiteracies and sloppy usage.
OED defines 'presumably' as referring to 'what may reasonably be presumed' while 'supposedly' refers to 'that which is generally supposed'.
To illustrate:
quote:Rick J was supposedly banned from the forums at handbag.com - presumably the moderator's off having a wank somewhere.
Hope this is useful - and I don't mean to have a go. Posted by Vogon Poetess (Member # 164) on :
lol (cloned)
Posted by jonesy999 (Member # 5) on :
Genetically identical lol.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
Thanks Kovacs for that entertaining 'expose' - laugh a second stuff, indeed. One thing though - 'Fiery Phoenix' was the name of my old business partnership, and the name was not thought up by me but by my then business partner, a designer who was in hindsight a little too left-wing for my liking. The Fiery Phoenix was extinguished in mid-1999.
[ 01.11.2005, 07:41: Message edited by: Samuelnorton ]
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: lol - ausgeseichnet!
It's ausgezeichnet, you muppet.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
Oh. Sorry.
[ 01.11.2005, 08:33: Message edited by: ben ]
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
dp.
[ 01.11.2005, 08:29: Message edited by: ben ]
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
lol.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
Aside: It's rather funny that on a thread called 'pervert', Kovacs tries to sidetrack the topic.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
" "
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
Why do you keep bringing that up? It isn't as if it's amusing or anything.
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: Why do you keep bringing that up? It isn't as if it's amusing or anything.
I did add a winky-wanky, Ben.
Posted by H1ppychick (Member # 529) on :
Yeah, in "inverted commas".
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
If its inverted that would mean it was a wanky winky, something few women have ever found a use for.
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
Have you ever said something just because you were bored and nobody else was talking?
Thats what happened there. Sorry.
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
Keira Knightley does nowt for me. Its the accent that gives me the horn, and the timbre, and nice tits. Poor plummey Keira, she'll never have me.
Posted by froopyscot (Member # 178) on :
Actually, I can probably attribute most of what I've ever posted here to that phenomenon.
Still, it's nice to see the dust brushed away from S&R on occasion. It was rather a long dry spell.
Posted by froopyscot (Member # 178) on :
By sheer post timing, it is now unclear which phenomenon I was referring to - the 'saying something in an empty room' one or the 'kiera knightly horn' one.
In the interest of preserving the sense of mystery and intrigue which has inadvertently been created, I don't see any reason to clarify further.
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
Though you didn't specify the 'phenomenom', your use of the phrase 'dust brushed away' and 'rather long dry spell' leads me to infer you were talking about a fellow poster.
Cruel.
Posted by ben (Member # 13) on :
She was pretty foxy in Bend Her Like Beckham and the saucily-named Hole, but Pirates of the Carribean was grim fare and I don't think the world really desperately requires any more Jane Austen adaptations. Domino just looks shite.
Posted by New Way Of Decay (Member # 106) on :
blib blob blim
[ 01.11.2005, 11:59: Message edited by: New Way Of Decay ]
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
Its not as if there's much to her, clitorally speaking. She's pretty but there's not a hint of the horn about her. She's unapproachable, a girl who might be described as the unwet. No-one wants to return to the schoolyard taunt of 'frigid' or 'vaginally challenged', I think we've all got past that kind of skanky talk. NO, she just doesn't make me want to go 'ohh yeah you luv it don't you you dirty bitch oh yeah thats where its going no it'll stretch don't you worry grrrr.
Which is what you want from a sex-goddess.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
I have stood next to her, and she is TINY.
Posted by Thorn Davis (Member # 65) on :
I'd definitely fuck Kiera 'Twice' Knightley. My preference would be just after she's puked herself to death in 'Hole' - actually probably starting while she's still going, but definitely finishing after she's passed on, and her body is just a warm pale ragdoll with which I can do as I please. Failing that it'd be as Elizabeth Swan in Pirates of the Carribean, just after she's been fished out the water. It would depend on my mood as to whether I gave her mouth to mouth, during the session - I quite like the idea of resuscitating her at the point of orgasm (mine, obviously).
[ 01.11.2005, 12:04: Message edited by: Thorn Davis ]
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
Benway and KK yesterday:
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
quote:Originally posted by Thorn Davis: puked body pale ragdoll mouth to mouth session orgasm (mine, obviously).
It's NOT got willow thin sophisticate KK in it, but it IS a Pirates themed porno. I can report that it's pretty good. The effects are easily as good as you'd find in buffy, and the plot makes some sense. The high production values are very visible, but the overall quality has been upped on what you'd normally get - story, acting, eroticism. Anyway, it's here.
[ 01.11.2005, 13:09: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
lol
[ 01.11.2005, 13:25: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
How is it sidetracking the topic of perversion, when I called two prepubescent Nazi twins "Hitler-hotties"? How many lines do I have to cross? Posted by froopyscot (Member # 178) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: How is it sidetracking the topic of perversion, when I called two prepubescent Nazi twins "Hitler-hotties"? How many lines do I have to cross?
It's nothing, really;
1943: Hitler Youth 2005: Hitler Hotties
It's what they call rebranding.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I don't think they're actually prepubescent, they seem to have reasonably well developed breasts. I mean it doesn't really make it any better, but I think it's important we all know the difference between a child and a teenager.
Posted by pettibone (Member # 838) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs: How is it sidetracking the topic of perversion, when I called two prepubescent Nazi twins "Hitler-hotties"? How many lines do I have to cross?
But what does that mean Hitler-hotties?
Could you call one prepubescent Nazi twin Hitler-hotties? Surely when you call them hotties it will have to be both twins? Or else it should've been the singular, you know.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: I think it's important we all know the difference between a child and a teenager.
Not literally, because you could have breasts by around age 11 I think, and yet not be a teenager. But this is uncomfortable ground.
Posted by pettibone (Member # 838) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ringo: I don't think they're actually prepubescent, they seem to have reasonably well developed breasts. I mean it doesn't really make it any better, but I think it's important we all know the difference between a child and a teenager.
Itsa simple, innit. A teenager is someone in their teens. A child is somewhat younger.
You really should elaborate on the 'reasonably well developed breasts' remark. What's ' reasonable' for girls their age in your opinion and why have you ever even considered it?
Posted by pettibone (Member # 838) on :
How on earth could you be in your teens (11) and not be a teenager.
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr. Benway: piratessxx
but its digital playground innit.
does it have the dude that has no neck, big abs, red tattoos and fucks like a drill? i hate him.
Posted by froopyscot (Member # 178) on :
quote:Originally posted by pettibone: How on earth could you be in your teens (11) and not be a teenager.
Do you say "eleventeen"?
I always thought "teens" was 13-19...
Posted by ralph (Member # 773) on :
quote:Originally posted by froopyscot: I always thought "teens" was 13-19...
Must be an American thing.
Posted by Ringo (Member # 47) on :
I'm not going to get drawn into this one.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Just looking for pictures of those twins, and I discovered a page about their music video.
quote:The girls' baby sister Dresden appears, too
It's not often I'm dumbstruck.
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
quote:Originally posted by kovacs:
quote:The girls' baby sister Dresden appears, too
It's not often I'm dumbstruck.
well it is a bit of a bombshell.....
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Posted by doc d (Member # 781) on :
oh come on it wasn't at all funny i was expecting a get my coat style rebuttal.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Posted by Samuelnorton (Member # 48) on :
Hilarious.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Sorry I don't know what overcame me. Once I started.
Posted by omikin (Member # 37) on :
respec to your madd photoshop skillz, m9.
Posted by not... (Member # 25) on :
It seems pretty uncalled for, however I like the way that Rick's hair has gone all afro.
Posted by kovacs (Member # 28) on :
Oh it wasn't meant as a big visual "cuss". I was just grooving on this greatest comic you've ever seen. It's not intended to be offensive or anything.
Posted by Dr. Benway (Member # 20) on :
I thought it was good. Any attack on Rick is fine by me.
[ 02.11.2005, 04:47: Message edited by: Dr. Benway ]
Posted by Doctor Agamemnon When (Member # 189) on :
quote:Originally posted by ben: She was pretty foxy in Bend Her Like Beckham and the saucily-named Hole, but Pirates of the Carribean was grim fare... Domino just looks shite.
B... But... she looks lovely in Pirates of the Carribean! Maybe it's a corsetry thing. I think KK is extraordinarily pretty - it's just that I'd need to feed her up to about a size 10 before I did.
And posh birds talking dirty give me the horn.
Posted by Vanilla Online Persona (Member # 301) on :
I think its disgraceful that you guys have chosen to concentrate and comment on the external appearance of someone. To break someone down until they become simply the sum of sexual parts ... its a horrible and childish thing to do. How do you think they would feel? Have you no shame?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
"
