Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Porn and Cows

chicago dyke's picture

I'm sure you've seen this.

Among the images on the site were a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal. He defended some of the adult content as "funny" but conceded that other postings were inappropriate.
Kozinski, 57, said that he thought the site was for his private storage and that he was not aware the images could be seen by the public, although he also said he had shared some material on the site with friends.

I just got off the phone with someone following this a little more closely, and I'm told that this is the gentle description of the stuff that was on his "private" public site. Yadda yadda, to each his own, if it doesn't involve the unwilling or children I'm OK with it. But: ick. What is wrong with republicans? Cows? Cows??? Anyway, besides being totally grossed out, and not at all surprised that even 'libertarian' Republicans are sick fucks, this comment from that link pissed me off:

besides, everyone looks at porn of some sort. most people are just afraid to admit it.

No, not "everyone." I've written some porn here, so I won't make the claim that I'm 'porn-free.' But mostly, I did that to raise some money so the site admin here doesn't have to sell blood to keep this place going. And frankly, it made me uncomfortable and somewhat depressed. But whatever, I grok that people will look at porn all the livelong day but can't be bothered to read and/or lift a finger to save American Constitutional Democracy. Still, I hope the commenter eventually is told: no, and I'm speaking both as a non-conusmer of visual porn, as well as a friend to lots of (mostly women) people who aren't either; not everyone "enjoys" porn.

There's a whole nuther discussion about why porn is hateful, hurtful, misogynist, anti-feminist, ubercapitalist, hurts children, encourages rape and violence, and degrades our 'moral values.' I won't start that here as I don't think most of you want to hear it. But while I'm enough of a Freedom of Speech All the Time sort of person, I will not accept that porn is always "healthy" and "normal" and that "everyone" should "enjoy" it. If you do, that's your right. But please understand, there are actually quite a few of us who don't. That's our right as well.

I'm sorry Twisty doesn't post so often anymore. She said it best, and I have to agree: what's wrong with long walks on a beach at sunset? Holding hands? Reading poetry? Linking arms over a toast? Is a pretty face not enough anymore? Must it be closeups of clits and fake tits, all the time, and nothing else? Is perceiving the whole being/object of your attentions/attraction really that hard, such that people (men?) must always and only see the "juicy" parts to get excited? If so, that strikes me as really sad, and a sign of the degree of sickness in our society.

0
No votes yet

Comments

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

good to see you're feeling better.

I'd offer some trenchant comment, but nothing I can think of would do anything but get me in trouble with one interest group or another. When it comes to strange sex, though, very little today is any stranger than what your beloved Sumerians, or the Etruscans or Egyptians or Romans or Greeks, got up to.

As for this judge? Udderly disgusting, that's all I'll say.

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

it's the comment that "everyone" lurvs their pr0n. i know it's highly unfashionable to say so, esp on the intertubes which are more or less funded by american love of pr0n, but the older i get, the more i can understand authors like dworkin and mackinnon.

i've read a great deal of sumerian sex-texts. one thing that always struck me about them, as well as a lot of the erotic art: they love women and don't reduce them to 'parts.' sure, there's a great deal of the ususal, "your breasts are like (fruit/veggie/something full and round), your sea scent is intoxicating," etc. but nothing like today's emphasis on some or another part of women, and nothing else. flame away, but it bothers me, a lot.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

but for sure the graffiti on old Roman bath house walls was word for word the equivalent of anything found on a modern bathroom stall.

Not dismissing your disinterest in visual porn, I like some and not others, no interest at all in the gynecological approach and little in parts-focused efforts - seen 10,000 live naked bodies, seen them all - but I'm not sure but what the connection of porn to human objectification is casual rather than causal.

(Confession, old male that I am; I agree with 99.9%+ of what Dworkin has written. She's often misinterpreted; it may shock some to hear, but men suffer from the same objectification and Andrea gets that. She is as much a humanist as a feminist.)

It is, I believe, perfectly possible to view pornographic images as objects (they are) and still view actual human beings as valued living entities deserving to be cherished. Equally, it is possible to abhor or be unaffected by pornography and still treat surrounding actual people as objects whose sole purpose is to be subjected to manipulation and control.

I'm not sure that the relationship between objectification of individuals and stimulation by pornographic images is as straightforward as it is sometimes assumed.

scarshapedstar's picture
Submitted by scarshapedstar on

Is perceiving the whole being/object of your attentions/attraction really that hard, such that people (men?) must always and only see the “juicy” parts to get excited?

Not sure I follow. Most of the time, when I want to stare at digital abstractions of tits and clits, it's because the real McCoy isn't available. Plenty of single, or married, or otherwise sex-deprived guys are in the same boat.

The relative merit of actually looking at the throbbing members and glistening slits, versus reading their descriptions in cheap paperback novels, is another matter entirely.

But I suppose your real question is why we want to see the dirty parts in the first place, as opposed to watching videos of long walks on the beach or candlelit lobster dinners. If the preponderance of dating-based "reality" shows is any indication, well, people already do want to see that and are, in fact, seeing it.

But I still believe
And I will rise up with fists!!

But I still believe
And I will rise up with fists!!

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

why *not* long walks on the beach? why isn't it "exciting" to see a woman say, reading a book, brushing her hair, helping a child...you get my drift. it's not that i'm a puritan, sure, ya, everyone has a taste for some kind of "sexy" body and i'm fine with that. it's the fact that "getting excited" these days seems to come from pr0n that utterly excludes anything, dare i say it, 'romantic.' fuck, fuck, fuck that hole. that's what a lot of pr0n seems to me to be about, or rather, the stuff i read about pr0n seems to suggest. perhaps i'm wrong, i guess i really wouldn't know anymore as i don't consume it.

i'm just wondering why there are 1,000,000,000,000 graphic "parts" kink sites out there, and so very few devoted to, "and i came to desire her because she had done something romantic/good/that changed the world." i guess that sort of woman isn't "sexy" to most unless she's also naked and posing for a close up shot of some fur.

Gidget Commando's picture
Submitted by Gidget Commando on

As someone who enjoys certain sexually explicit material, I say right on! Enjoy it, or don't, and don't anybody get off calling the other group abnormal. Humanity is wide and varied enough to be perfectly normal throughout the spectrum.

But I hafta draw the line at this weird Republican bestiality thing that keeps popping up. Barnyard critters can't give consent.

mauro7inf's picture
Submitted by mauro7inf on

You know, we are animals. We have sexual desires. For some of us, long walks on the beach talking about music theory and math won't bring us much closer to orgasm, though we may enjoy it immensely anyway (or really just me). Porn is bad for many reasons (and the reason I don't consume it is that it doesn't really turn me on, not for those reasons), but it's also good for some people in that it intensifies their sexual feelings. Sometimes you need something more real than mere fantasy, and seeing sex in your face can help you.

I've dated women with very different sexual needs, and there, too, one finds that some people like being tied, some like tying, and some like neither or both. People have fantasies -- sometimes involving situations reproducible in pornography -- and porn is useful for them. The point of pornography is not to substitute for intimacy; it's for SEXUAL arousal. There's no point to eliciting warm and fuzzy feelings of attraction here when all that is needed and wanted is sexual stimulation. Sometimes the sexiest thing is a story or something verbal -- for me, this is best -- but whatever will get people horny isn't too bad by definition!

Granted, the execution and normalizing content of pornography leaves a LOT to be desired. It may encourage chauvinism (though then again, it may also just serve as an outlet for chauvinism as opposed to, say, rape), it makes money in a way that promotes exploitation of the actors, etc. But I don't think we can dismiss the concept of porn offhand because of these things. Like going at 100 mi/h, there's nothing really wrong with going that fast -- it gets you places in less time, it's fun, etc. -- but it has a secondary negative effect on safety, hence speed limits. Porn is good for a lot of reasons for those who like it, but it has a secondary negative effect on society and those who make it. Is that bad enough to merit banning all pornography? I don't think so. But I think one can enjoy pornography if one wants to without being branded as a pervert.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/

The media may have given you the impression that feminists support moves to censor sexual media, so you might be surprised to know just how many feminists out there have been actively opposing such censorship since long before there was an Internet. And we still do.

Scare stories about the alleged new dangers of the Internet haven't changed our minds. We still see the same dangers in censorship that we always have, and the "new" arguments really seem remarkably familiar.

The equation is simple: Those who have power get to censor, and those who lack power get silenced. If you find yourself in a position to demand and get censorship, you can be sure you are among those who have the power, and you are acting to oppress others.

Yes, supporting freedom of speech means you may have to hear and see expression that you don't like. But if you cave in to censorship, you will still hear expression you don't like - from the Powers That Be - and be left without a voice to counter it. Don't be fooled.

These pages will tell you more about Feminists Against Censorship and other groups that are fighting for free expression, both on the net and off it, from bookstores to libraries, in Britain and America. Follow the links to essays, announcements, campaigns, history, resources, and others who wish to promote the right to speak freely. And join us.

As to the particular story in question, bestiality doesn't IMHO meet the "consenting adults" test that few would argue with.

It's animal abuse. And ewwww. And book 'im, Dan-o.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Patterico has been doing some follow up on this, and it seems that the LA Times has made more out of this story than there really is.

Like this:

Among the images on the site were a photo of naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal.

Is actually the YouTube of the urinating man running from a sexually aroused donkey that is chasing him.

Still an interesting discussion, but it seems likely that the judge can be let off the hook.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond