Up Front: Do My Homework For Me
177 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
I have been told our own censors are obliged to spend a lot of time trying to decide whether they're looking at female ejaculation (okay) or urination (probably not okay). I'm also told the time spent thus is a source of considerable frustration to them.
Obviously I'm an innocent soul, but I would have presumed it would have been something that could have been determined at a glance. Are there women out there who look like they're having an orgasm while actually peeing?
-
Interesting. I remember ages ago reading an article on Real Dolls (it was on Salon.com - don't have time to hunt it down now). At one point, the guy who makes them mentioned that he gets asked every now and then if he could make child versions of his sex dolls, to which he always said "no". The same arguments showed up then: "Isn't it better that paedophiles have sex with a fake child instead of going and finding a real one?" vs "Won't having sex with a fake child reinforce their tendencies and make them more likely to eventually go and find a real one?"
Not sure if that's a different situation from looking at porn or not - it seems more active, but is that a relevant difference?
-
Obviously I'm an innocent soul, but I would have presumed it would have been something that could have been determined at a glance. Are there women out there who look like they're having an orgasm while actually peeing?
Well, that's the theory. There's a debate over whether "squirting" is ejaculation at all, or just a peeing trick. Or so I am told.
The other question is whether consensual "watersports", however icky they might seem to most people, should really be in the same category as sexual violence.
-
Well, that's the theory. There's a debate over whether "squirting" is ejaculation at all, or just a peeing trick. Or so I am told.
Anna Span recently got a British court to rule that yes, female ejaculation is a real thing. And here's the New Scientist explaining how it works.
Fascinating quote?
According to Whipple, when Philadelphia gynaecologist Martin Weisberg saw their report he said: "Bull... I spend half my waking hours examining, cutting apart, putting together, removing or rearranging female reproductive organs... Women don't ejaculate."
Silly women. Hush now, the grown-ups are talking.
-
Silly women. Hush now, the grown-ups are talking.
It's been linked before, but it deserves to be linked again.
There goes the start of Consider Phlebas. Good book too.
I was thinking the same thing when I reread that passage the other day.
-
Anna Span recently got a British court to rule that yes, female ejaculation is a real thing. And here's the New Scientist explaining how it works.
Well thank god. I was unaware of this development in the 'science'. About time...
Silly women. Hush now, the grown-ups are talking.
Now now, don't be mean :) That was before he was presented with the undeniable evidence -- and I've heard numerous women say exactly the same thing re. fem. ejac.
-
And here's the New Scientist explaining how it works.
Amazing. I wonder if any women get prostate cancer?
-
3410,
yes, female ejaculation is a real thing
I must say, I'm a bit amazed that this is controversial.
-
I must say, I'm a bit amazed that this is controversial.
Consider: many diagrams of female genitalia used in sex education omit the clitoris - it not being involved in reproduction. Male pleasure is innately involved in the process of making babies but female pleasure isn't, so the organs and physical processes involved get left out - otherwise you end up talking about sex as pleasure, not function.
It's also rare, so perhaps not widely understood in the same way that people don't seem to be aware than men can both ejaculate without orgasm, and vice versa.
-
I must say, I'm a bit amazed that this is controversial.
I wouldn't go so far as to say controversial, just.... interesting? Mostly when you're talking about porn, and censorship, and especially Australia's retarded new rules/laws and if "watersports" are banned then should "squirting" also be? Because it's not real, it's peeing yada yada yada or it is actually really truly real, not peeing, and yada yada yada...
-
3410,
I just find it hard to believe that Philadelphia gynaecologist Martin Weisberg or the members of the British Film Board have not talked to at least a few people who've told them, "Uh... dude... it does exist".
-
Hang about - if they are going to treat anything that looks like it's under eighteen as if it really is underage then shouldn't they treat anything that looks like female ejaculation as if it really is?*
*My understanding is that if something were provably squirting and not peeing it would be let through - please gently correct me if I'm wrong.
-
I'd love to see a censor "prove" that
-
"Uh... dude... it does exist".
Unfortunately, one of the problems is that much of this commercial pornography features women who aren't ejaculating, but are instead using a bag filled with liquid to create the appearance of ejaculation.
I'm also worried that once this becomes mainstream not only will there be anxiety over failure to orgasm (and that of partners to bring the other to orgasm), there will be female ejaculation anxiety too.
-
Bull... I spend half my waking hours examining, cutting apart, putting together, removing or rearranging female reproductive organs... Women don't ejaculate
"I was hacking away at her g-spot for hours, & she never came once"
PS @ George Darroch - heh - "mainstream"
-
PS @ George Darroch - heh - "mainstream"
It's surprising how quickly things go from pornography to popular culture. I know this... ummm... from reading Ariel Levy... honest.
-
Consider: many diagrams of female genitalia used in sex education omit the clitoris
And some world maps exclude New Zealand, go figure.
-
And some world maps exclude New Zealand, go figure.
To be fair, New Zealand seldom brings billions of women to orgasm.
-
We do what we can...
-
We do what we can...
A NZ devoted solely to pleasure? That's an idea.
-
I know several women who have visited New Zealand and said they would come again if they could find it.
-
I feel creeped out by the idea that someone would make a porn (or not) movie using women who look like pre-pubescent girls, presumably to appeal to the market for adults who believe that it is ok to have sex with children. Call me old fashioned, but I can't be ok about that.
I listened to the Sunday BBC radio interview with the man who sexually molested his eight year old daughter. He made a comment along the lines that he believed himself to be a good man so his sexual feelings towards his young daughter couldn't be bad. Imagine if he had watched kiddy porn, he probably would have been able to convince himself that his daughter desired him too.
I strongly believe that depicting sex with children is wrong, even if it the actors are adults (in the legal sense) because it is implicitly saying "this is ok". Quite apart from the whole power imbalance issue children are not ready for sex with adults. And I don't give a toss about how sexual children are, that doesn't mean it is ok for adults to have sex with them, or to pretend that given a choice the children involved wouldn't rather be a million miles away.
Have I missed a point somewhere? Am I being overly sensitive? I get the feeling from comments that I'm the only one out here feeling very disturbed by the idea of porn using child like actors.
So in answer to Emma, it is never ok to depict sex with children (or animals, touch my dog and you're a dead man). Most TV shows dealing with child molestation don't show the act and are fairly damning of the perpetrator.
Not so sure about peeing etc, is that illegal in NZ? A weird fantasy but not exactly harmful (except in a health sense). Maybe I'm wrong, I guess it could screw someone up big time if their partner insisted on it. But that goes back to the whole power thing.
-
I get the feeling from comments that I'm the only one out here feeling very disturbed by the idea of porn using child like actors.
Dinah, an eighteen year old can be made to look under-age, but "child-like"? How would you make an eighteen year old look like an eight year old?
I'd prefer to completely separate the ideas of depicting sex with a pre-pubescent child (paedophilia) and depicting sex with an adolescent (possibly pederasty but not necessarily). It's not possible because we're talking about a grey continuum, but it's kind of tiresome when you're talking about sixteen year olds to suddenly find someone assuming you're talking about little children.
So Dinah, once you get to absolute nevers, the question becomes this: do you think it's okay for an 18 year old to prosecuted for child pornography for taking photos of herself?
Not so sure about peeing etc, is that illegal in NZ?
Depicting it is definitely illegal. Doing it is definitely not.
Unfortunately, one of the problems is that much of this commercial pornography features women who aren't ejaculating, but are instead using a bag filled with liquid to create the appearance of ejaculation.
You mean.., exactly like they do with male ejaculation?
-
You mean.., exactly like they do with male ejaculation?
You mean to say that male ejaculation is a myth too? Call the censors!!
-
Unfortunately, one of the problems is that much of this commercial pornography features women who aren't ejaculating, but are instead using a bag filled with liquid to create the appearance of ejaculation.
Do you shout this out when it's on as well? "That's not real! She's bagged that up beforehand! C'mon people..."
Post your response…
This topic is closed.