This thread might very well need killing, and who better to do it than ME! (If it works, this will rack up my 5th thread I've killed in the last 2 weeks WOO-HOO!)
A man wiser than me once said:
YOU CAN MASTURBATE TO ANYTHING WITH THE RIGHT IMAGINATION.
My own exhaustive experiments have proven this to be true.
DO NOT DISPUTE ME ON THIS...you don't want me to break out the proof that made this the 3rd Law of Sexual Dynamics.
Don't believe me? Case in point:
http://www.cracked.com/article_17149_5-ridiculous-safe-work-fetishes.html
Anything can be interpreted in a sexual context witht he right set of eyes, imagination, and association so it's LUDICROUS to assume that there is an ironclad asexual medium...the closest you can get is the original "intent" of the author. And "intent" is hardly a consideration for a pedophile who's favorite newspaper section is the JC Penney summer children's clothing flyer; the photographer probably didn't have that goal in mind, yet it was taken out of his hands regardless.
So intent and execution are the only things we as consumers can consider when determining the merit of a production...because there's an indeterminate number of potential sexual associations with the content, we can't control it and should strike that consideration from our criteria. Yes, it's a bit disparaging, but then again, the only thing we have to contend with is the idiocy oft he people who don't know that.
ANOTHER perspective to contemplate is this:
why, out of all these back-and-forths, have the assumptions been negative? Whether an offensive or defensive statement by
AnnieHall, Wolf, Bella, etc. is the entire tone of the discussion based on the negative association with sexual material? It's a fairly Western/Abrahamic perspective to have and not very objective. I know that when it comes to opinion or value systems nothing ever is, but an intellectual or academic discussion should at least TRY to be.
Maybe it's just me but I never understood this negative attitude people have towards sex without some traumatic experience to provide them with evidence. We seem to reflexively accept it as immoral, degrading, dirty, filthy and exploitative and we're fixed on this. Yes we all define porn differently, but the practices in which it's been executed have changed over time: people with more open minds have experimented and taken new steps with the materials in question and produced products that are both familiar (similar intent and agendas) and radically different (execution and audience). There never used to be such a thing as "couples porn" or "glamour porn" and when they were first attempted, people probably assumed there was no audience opurpose to it because neither fit the definition or standard of what porn was...now audiences have come to accept intent and execution as part and parcel of the field.
Now, you can DOWNPLAY how important those considerations are to you, but you can't negate their existence because of your own obliviousness. That's the idiocy and ignorance that often prevents people from even pursuing an interest or experimentation in multiple fields...they don't want to endure the abusive attitudinal judgments from the reservoirs of morons we have to cohabitate with who don't know or care about the considerations.
So if meritorious material has the potential to be sexually appealing with the right applications (and exploited as such) than exploitive material has the potential to be meritorious with the right applications as well. That's the beauty of mathematics: if a transformation exists, than so does its inverse. And that's why we have to consider the limitations of our own perceptions and opinions and examine the objective evaluations of the material in question.
...but if you're talking about what this topic is about, which is "how would you react if you recognised somebody in a fetish video?" then that reaction is entirely subjective to the person telling it. The mistake would be to assume that that person's subjective answer is the universal reality.
I personally would understand that the person in the video is more than just the content of the video, and while I'd be a total geek and ask all sorts of geek questions when the time was right, after I got it out of my system I'd be able to realign myself and incorporate that part of them into their entire character. But then again I went to film school and was taught this which might make it harder for others to separate the person vs. the character.
![P[a]pi](/data/avatars/m/45/45669.jpg?1704922715){kind=avatar}
)
