Cracker: Get it Off
255 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 Newer→ Last
-
At least that explains the shaking. ; )
I'm joining the National Distribution Union (Actors Equity) in the morning.
Off Topic
Great link to UN CERD.
I'm really keen on No13 Intro of The Treaty of Waitangi into Domestic law, any thoughts? -
That is an interesting article, but like a lot of evo-psych it seems to me that it assumes that the phenomenon described is innate and looks for an evolutionary explanation. I am highly, highly suspicious of such just-so-stories. Especially when so many measured male:female differences are quite small, much more like tendencies than absolute distinctions, and with plenty of people with the "wrong" behaviour. It could be the reporting, mind you. The press loves articles that say "women are like THIS, men are like THAT" and they like it even more if the story reinforces traditional sex roles.
That aside, this passage:
"Men are much more likely to have sex with a total stranger. And assuming you don't have many friends who are porn stars, porn shows you images of strangers who haven't even so much as bought you dinner"
... would lend just as much weight to the argument that women don't like porn because it isn't produced with them in mind.
-
Binik, the study's author, said he didn't actually show that women like pornography — just that their bodies react to it.
Nor does the study, as represented in the article, appear to show that women don't like pornography. As some women clearly DO like pornography (unless you take the view that they're delusional, liars, or stupid, all of which are pretty insulting) I'd have to say... um, and?
One thing that really boggles me about those studies: a lot of them seem to be producing results on 'who responds to pron in public/ in a clinical environment'. Cause I don't think I could really enjoy myself with a bunch of men in lab coats watching...
-
Back tracking on the tread to music & gangsta rap. This has to be an antidote to misogyny & right in C4s tgt market.
Def Poetry Jam
-
__Binik, the study's author, said he didn't actually show that women like pornography — just that their bodies react to it.__
Nor does the study, as represented in the article, appear to show that women don't like pornography. As some women clearly DO like pornography (unless you take the view that they're delusional, liars, or stupid, all of which are pretty insulting) I'd have to say... um, and?
No, that kind of makes sense, I mean, I'm occasionally disgusted by what turns me on, so I don't like it as such.
-
I'm occasionally disgusted by what turns me on, so I don't like it as such.
Oh, thank god. The other day I read something that made me think: "Eww!"
Not to dumb down the conversation or anything, but did anyone else read the article in last month's Metro and go "Damn, Chris Trotter was kinda hot in 1981"?
-
This is the link to the article Dyan was referring to.
Thank you Deborah, I was struggling with that. I still don't know what you did... my links kept leading to that dreaded "404 not found" message.
Stephen Judd wrote:
That is an interesting article, but like a lot of evo-psych it seems to me that it assumes that the phenomenon described is innate and looks for an evolutionary explanation. I am highly, highly suspicious of such just-so-stories. Especially when so many measured male:female differences are quite small, much more like tendencies than absolute distinctions, and with plenty of people with the "wrong" behaviour. It could be the reporting, mind you. The press loves articles that say "women are like THIS, men are like THAT" and they like it even more if the story reinforces traditional sex roles.
Yes, I absolutely agree that evolutionary biologists and psychologists tend to seize on a phenomenon, assume it is innate and try to find an evolutionary explanation, and in many cases they're demonstrably wrong.
A few years ago researchers discovered London taxi drivers had greater neurological capacity for map reading, which must have surprised the evolutionary biologists who'd been convinced that the female brain had less capacity for spatial skills. They keep finding the brain is more plastic, and far later into life than we had first assumed.
Another thing that perplexes me is the search for the origins of language - they keep looking at explanations around tools, community building etc, when it seems pretty obvious that the only members of our species that could possibly have invented a language would be babies, with older siblings and parents as imitators and interpreters who eventually learn the skill. But anyone over 6 struggles to learn a language, it seems blindingly obvious to me that no one over 6 invented language.
Having said that, I'm fascinated by what we have in common with other mammals, what make us human, which differences between us are innate and which are learned, and why certain phenomena exists at all. Evolutionary biology and psychology certainly have something to contribute to our lives, and if a trait exists, there is a reason - usually (though not always) an evolutionary reason. If something can be known, then it is always good to know it. Ecologist Tom Reimchen's (UBC) work on the intricate relationship between bears, fish, flies, beetles, birds, waterways and their total dependence on each other is very beautiful, satisfying and symmetrical, not to mention indespensible to some of Canada's most valuable industries. As David Suzuki puts it "Reimchen's work eloquently demonstrates that forest and fish need each other, that they connect the air, the oceans and even the hemispheres in a single interdependant system".
I would also like to know what makes people fall in love, and then excise it with a scalpel and preserve it in jar filled with formalin, but I read a lot of 19th century novels and consequently have a terribly romantic streak.
-
I would also like to know what makes people fall in love, and then excise it with a scalpel and preserve it in jar filled with formalin
That is one great metaphor.
-
interesting that the discussion has gone back to the audience & who's in it & how it feels for them. is that because we're uncomfortable with what's happening for the ones that are on stage? i'd go back to my earlier comment that it doesn't really matter who's watching and why.
i'd be interested in knowing what life is really like for the strippers. what, for example, was their socio-economic status before they came to the job? if it's true that they are predominantly poor women, are the audience taking advantage of their poverty? how many of them are in long-term relationships? if they aren't, does it bother them? what's going on with their physical health - what proportion have std's/aids & how does that compare with the rest of the population? how many of them have had surgery, at what age, and how does that affect them 5 years/10 years/20 years after the surgery?
i'd actually be interested in the research around such questions. perhaps sir linkalot could help us out - i only say that because it seems to me that you enjoy this field of study much more than i ever could :).
Also, based on the idea that perhaps female stripping is starting to fall more into line with male stripping in the way it's becoming more of a "fun night out" - and I imagine this is one angle that'd be pushed by that branch of feminists who think we need to empower women in the sex industry rather than rescuing them from it.
i'm really interested in how exactly you "mainstream" this. does it mean that everybody accepts it as ok? or that everybody gets involved in it? would it be "mainstream" if rich & middle class women/men were equally stripping? do we need to have some kind balance of ethnic representation? would mainstreaming involve having this as an option at careers expo, and if not why not?
there you go, that's me. always the questions, never the answers...
-
But they are good questions, Anjum. And they show that there is no eay resolution in this area, without retreating into some person's account of morality.
There is a gender and class dialectic lurking behind stripping, and it's very hard to tease it out. So keep asking the difficult questions!
-
__I would also like to know what makes people fall in love, and then excise it with a scalpel and preserve it in jar filled with formalin__
That is one great metaphor.
Metaphor? I saw it more in a Jack-the-Ripper kind of way - in line with the 19th century romanticism... But that'd be my 21st century steampunk/splatterpunk romaticism shining thru.
-
Another thing that perplexes me is the search for the origins of language .... But anyone over 6 struggles to learn a language, it seems blindingly obvious to me that no one over 6 invented language.
Which is why we must accept that God gave us language, and took it away when we misused it (Tower of Babel). But the Scient0l0g1sts might have a different view.
i'd actually be interested in the research around such questions. perhaps sir linkalot could help us out - i only say that because it seems to me that you enjoy this field of study much more than i ever could :)
To be honest all those links I provided came through one googling effort. I was trying to find a story I'd read previously via HuffPo (lordy, you don't think I troll porn sites do you?) which said pornstars last on average 18 months before getting out. I couldn't find the story tho'. Suffice to say they generally leave the industry not much better off financially than when they started.
i'm really interested in how exactly you "mainstream" this. does it mean that everybody accepts it as ok? or that everybody gets involved in it? would it be "mainstream" if rich & middle class women/men were equally stripping?
It's mainstream in the sense that no-one really bats an eye anymore. It's 'harmless fun' and it's not like they're doing porn y'know? But the reality (to generalise) is that most pornstars started out as strippers. If you get used to showing off your body for money you quickly learn how to make even more money. That is not to say that NZ strippers all end up as pornstars, obviously, but that's probably because we have no real indigenous industry. Kiwi strippers aspire to a photoshoot in Aussie Penthouse/Playboy thinking that might end up with a job in LA for American Penthouse/Playboy.
A stripper will start by doing a classy sensual routine ("I'm a dancer really, stripping just allows me to get paid for what I love") and then get more raunchy when they realise what gets the biggest tips. Then they might start incorporating 'toys' into their act because that get more dollars. Then they start doing private shows that are even more sexual, and that may or may not lead into sex-for-money ("but don't call it prostitution, I'm not a hooker"). And from there they get into porn, because after all, why not?
That's not to say all strippers end up doing porno, its just a matter of how far up the pyramid you wanna go. But I would be very upset if my daughter became a stripper. Because I know how badly it could potentially end up.DISCLAIMER All my info/opinions are based on last century. It may well be a much different industry now. That was Catherine Schaer's assertion in the Sunday magazine two weeks ago. She went to Showgirls and had a lovely time, and met the girls, and they were very nice, and wore classy (not slutty) dresses, and there were women in the audience, and they had a lovely time too. Which gave me tremendous dejavu because Rainton Haistie was big believer in making sure the girls dressed 'classy'. Because everyone (esp the media) love a 'class act', it means you don't have to feel bad for the people involved.
But then we're back to that circular argument: is there no legitimate reason for a woman to strip/do porn/prostitute herself? Must she, by definition, always be an exploited person? There are women out there who strip/do porn/prostitute themselves who would argue otherwise. Do we then dismiss their view of themselves on the basis that that they can't see the exploitation that we (in our humble righteous opinions) 'know' is there?SVU
Anyone else watch it last night? The storyline involved 14 y.o. runaways working the streets for their pimp, whom they were in love with. In one scene the girl explained how the other girls (actually dead, but she didn't know that) were gone because they had been 'adopted' by rich guys in Upper Manhattan -- "just like Julia Roberts and Richard Gere in Pretty Woman. Thats my favourite movie, I've watched it a hundred times". Okay, obviously that was scripted dialogue, but it does give a reasonable indicator of how young impressionable people can be manipulated by the mainstreaming of ... what are we calling it now? ... raunch culture. Once you turn 18 in NZ you are legally smart enough to know whether you want to strip/do porn/prostitute yourself.
Pretty Woman was a huuuuuge blockbuster and yet no-one pays any real attention to the subject matter. Julia Roberts is a prostitute but she's portrayed as 'a class act' falling for Richard Gere FFS who falls for her too. It was sold as a 'love story', a bit like Cinderella. And ppl lapped it up. A film about selling your body one hour at a time to fat middle aged men who's wives don't understand them probably wouldn't have sold so well.Clearly I could talk all day on this
But it's just rant so I'll STFU now.
-
But then we're back to that circular argument: is there no legitimate reason for a woman to strip/do porn/prostitute herself? Must she, by definition, always be an exploited person? There are women out there who strip/do porn/prostitute themselves who would argue otherwise. Do we then dismiss their view of themselves on the basis that that they can't see the exploitation that we (in our humble righteous opinions) 'know' is there?
And I could keep coming back to this all day, obviously. Not because I think this is the dominant experience for strippers, at all, just because I'm fascinated by inherent contradictions and exceptions rather than rules. So people like Victoria Zdrok fascinate me, because why does someone who's passed their bar exam and who has a doctorate in clinical psychology become a porn actress? I know this isn't typical but it's a hiccup for easy answers. And I'm not Allison Janney so I don't know why she chooses to pole dance as recreation, but she says she loves it so I believe her.
And I honestly think the discussion here moved in the direction it did because we simply don't have the experience or the data to answer anjum's questions, so we naturally drift to stuff that maybe we can get somewhere exploring, it's not that we're saying it doesn't matter.
-
Must she, by definition, always be an exploited person? There are women out there who strip/do porn/prostitute themselves who would argue otherwise.
I think there's exploitation and there's exploitation. Case in point: I was watching some random German porn movie with my flatmates, who'd unearthed the tape that they used to pass around their social group when they were teenagers, and there were a couple of very average-looking girls and guys fucking. So far so normal, I didn't feel like any of them were particularly exploited, they looked willing and I'm sure they were paid well. Then in came a woman with obvious breast implants which were quite literally the size of her head, which made me feel really, really sick (and in reference to my earlier comment about being disgusted by what turns me on occasionally, no, I really really did not find her arousing), because she'd had her body mutilated like that so that pretty much all she could do for a career was porn. I felt like that was exploitation, even if it was a decision she'd made herself.
-
people like Victoria Zdrok fascinate me
Wow - that is a great link! The short answer is that it's 'easy' money. Once you get your head around having your picture taken whilst naked ....
Some 'stars' do leapfrog straight into the big time, usually because they know their worth and start with a good agent to ensure they get into the big time ie Penthouse/Playboy. Although Wiki doesn't mention it , it's widely believed that Pamela Anderson signed with Playboy on the condition she would also win that years Playmate of The Year.
But the industry (fortune) is based on novices who sign a release for 'test shots' for $150, that end up on websites and Hot Horny Teen magazine. And it's a given that a novice doing porn will be 'strongly encouraged' to do anal because 'everyone does anal' ie before she finds out that actually they don't. At least not straight away.On a broader level, I'm constantly amazed at the number of stunning/gorgeous/drop-dead beautiful women who are prepared to take their clothes off for money in some low-rent sleazy magazine/video. One would presume they had other options, but no, there they are. Presumably all chasing the dream of being an industry Super-star.
BTW - sometimes pornstars lie to the media about their background. Hence a school dropout may claim to have gone to College or got a degree. Most are taken at their word (esp those coming to NZ for Erotica). It all fits in with the "I love my job and wouldn't do anything else" schtick.
-
I think there's exploitation and there's exploitation. Case in point: I was watching .... a couple of very average-looking girls and guys fucking.
That's the dichotomy of pornography. We do respond to it at some level, and if someone can find a way to make the equivalent of 'Fair Trade' porn we'd all buy it.
There's been huge growth in the amount of 'home porn' ie couples filming themselves (video or web-cam) and posting it to free sites on the net. One could argue that this is (where it demonstrably two consenting adults enjoying themselves) non-exploitive porn -- altho' I would note that it's usually always the womens face we see, and not the man's. What may have seemed like a fun a idea now may not be so good 10/20/30 years from now. The interweb is forever.
"hey Johnny, is this your mother?" -
Certainly all the prostitutes one sees quoted about who their clients are claim they are "y'know, judges, lawyers, MPs.." Because that is who they said they were. Wouldn't you, in their position, rather than tell her you're a panelbeater or a beneficiary?
I can't speak with first hand experience of the sex industry, but I can partly contribute to Emma's question about why someone with a degree would work in the flesh trade. A former colleague of mine, with a degree and a good future, abandoned a well-paid public service position to run a sex toys business. We had long talks about what led to this decision. She had been abused as a child, loathed men, become a lesbian, and was so frightened of rape that she would never wear a skirt. Her lesbian friends worked in massage parlours. The sex trade drew her to it like a magnet. Her estimate of her self-worth wouldn't let her mix with "normal" people.
I have no idea how typical this was, but it is someone I knew well and can vouch for its accuracy.
-
I had a friend who was a sex worker for dhort while who'd had a history of abuse, who definitely had issues with her body and her relationships. On the other hand I also had a friend who worked in the industry while doing her degree because she made a lot of money doing it - who didn't have a history of abuse, or any drug problems (she deliberately worked the day shift to avoid the drug scene in the brothel). And I had a male friend who got into sex work because he had a sugar daddy anyway so it just seemed like an extension of that to him (This is an old piece I wrote about them before the Prostitution Reform Bill was passed). So I don't know if there are any 'typical' people in the industry as such.
-
On the other hand I also had a friend who worked in the industry while doing her degree because she made a lot of money doing it
ditto, only woman I know who was a sex worker (as opposed to those I might know who didn't reveal it), did it purely, and only, until her student loan was paid off (in record time probably).
Neither abuse in her past, nor esteem problems. I knew her parents too & I'm sure of that.
-
But then we're back to that circular argument: is there no legitimate reason for a woman to strip/do porn/prostitute herself? Must she, by definition, always be an exploited person?
i don't think i said that? don't think anyone else did either but am too lazy to go back and check. what i was interested in was the proportion of women coming in from a low socio-economic background etc etc. i'm sure there are some women who aren't exploited, but how many? then there would be the ones who say they aren't exploited but are afraid to say otherwise (either from external pressure or because they personally don't want to admit to it). then there would be those who might change their mind about whether or not they are exploited if they had more information or had gone through the kind of debating process we're having here. then there would be the ones that are genuinely exploited and know it but are unable to get out due to financial circumstances/poor self-image or some other reason.
so how do you know which category the particular one you're watching falls into? i'm pretty sure nobody goes through any kind of investigative process before watching porn/strippers about the women involved - it wouldn't be practical for a start, and you're probably not in that frame of mind. i guess the fair trade analogy is quite apt - by choosing to buy cheap products without doing any investigation, we in effect endorse sweatshops & the like. similarly, if we fail to ask the questions, we are endorsing the exploitation of some unknown percentage of women in the industry.
there is then the question of the wider societal effects. the individual woman may be empowered but what does the industry/culture do for women as a group? what are the unintended effects of what she does, and how well do we understand these?
And I honestly think the discussion here moved in the direction it did because we simply don't have the experience or the data to answer anjum's questions
and this is something that i find really troublesome. why don't we have that data readily available to us? i think we should have it, but then we go into questions about who's going to fund it? who's funding the research around why men like porn & what porn women like, and aren't they interested in researching these other issues? now that is a whole issue in itself.
my sense is that we don't have data about the questions i raised in my previous post because there's not the demand for it. it could be because there's no effective lobbying for it. it could be because anyone who tries to raise the questions and push for some critical thinking in this area is written off as moralistic/judgemental/negative to women. it could be because we don't want to acknowledge or can't see that there is a problem.
of course i could be totally wrong - we do have the data, but no-one here has bothered looking for it (including me!).
-
Joanna & Andrew I wonder if you're both talking about the same person? I would think she is the tip of the ice berg anyway.
Those I've seen on Manchester St are worse for wear. Including being seriously assulted in broad day light & bloody needles left on the footpath. I assumed she was hospitalised as it looked like a bit of blood was lost. -
Michael, given that Llew and I are of different age groups and that we were living in different cities, I find it much harder to believe that it was the same girl rather than OMG there might actually be more than one prostitute with an education...
-
Joanna & Andrew I wonder if you're both talking about the same person? I would think she is the tip of the ice berg anyway.
Oh hey, I'm not arguing otherwise, just passing on my small experience, which struck me as being similar to Jo's.
No, highly unlikely to be the same person.
-
If I mention that her day job (this was after, not during her studies) involved caring for sick & dying people, might it explain something about her that made her able to perform the sex act with strangers?
It just seemed to make sense, when it was explained to me.
-
Michael, given that Llew and I are of different age groups
are you older than me?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.