My question is about masturbation as i find is my weakest link, specially regarding the argument that masturbating thinking in women or with images of women is degrading to them by converting them into a sex object. Argument to which i hypocritically agree. My questions are, is this argument reasonable? are there other ways to approach that action? Is there a proper rebuttal besides the slippery-slope of "If it is not with woman, guys will start looking for pictures of animals or ..."?
I still feel left out because I've had laser hair removal. :(
Please define the difference for me?
I'm just asking cus my gas-chamber isn't working at the moment.
To me a feminist is someone who wants to establish equal rights for women, protect them from retarded sexism and abuse merely for having a vagina. And maybe one day see them as respected members of a society. (No, we're not there yet, and it's going to take a while until women stop all this fashion and child bearing bullshit and start actually doing some more work)
The usual stuff you know.
A feminazi can be easily distinguished. First of all, they're the sort of dumbasses who think sexism only works one way. "You can't be sexist to a man!! Sexism is only done by men to women!" Yeah, hey, help yourself to a dictionary you cunt. Right?
These idiots also blame men in general for ..well everything. And not just some/specific/most men, but ALL men. They blame men for their own incompetence and shortcomings. They're the types of heartbroken losers that when they see a little baby boy they say or think "yeah he's cute now but he'll be a chauvinist ass when he grows up!" They don't give a shit about the tortured women in other countries, who really might need their help - but instead they run around telling people that things like porn, blowjobs or jacking off to women is objectifying and degrading. Because that's more important, you know.
There is the spirit of so much mainstream (old school) feminism: men are bad, put them all on the Moon, etc. Refreshingly, sex-positive and even pro-porn feminism is on the rise, but I would hesitate to call it mainstream just yet. Give it a couple more decades and the Andrea Dworkins and Naomi Wolfs will have less of a voice.
KOrsan, are you really a feminist? Has any woman thought you are? You called women cunts. You should be barred just for that. And saying we should start doing some work - how dare you!
Oh yeah, watching sheep 'do it' is such a turn on to me. The furrier, the better. In fact, I love it when 2 female sheep go at it with each other.
Why do men never complain when a gorgeous guy with a sunlit tan is sprawled across an advertisement with a beautiful woman next to him - in an cologne ad or something.
Why do men never say that it is degrading to all men when a woman enjoys watching a hot guy in a porn flick doing to a woman what she has always fantasized about?
If I was a woman, I would feel more respected and more beautiful in regards to my body because men value it and basically worship it (if it is a nice body of course) and totally get off to it.
Women enjoy being sexy and feeling sexy and having their man or woman find them sexy. But the argument is masturbating to porn somehow objectifies women? Oh pleeeaaassse.
Let's remember, it is the women who sign the pornography and nude art contracts. They make good money and some of them actually enjoy the work.
OK, I'm just going to ignore the animal part... Seems to me the problem you are trying to express is this: You object to pornography (as it objectifies the participants) and you hypocritically use it as a masturbation aid. Is that right?
I'm, going to assume it is correct and continue.
To start with, the participants are all consenting adults and enter the adult film industry in the full knowledge that people will use their images to aid in masturbation. So the people you are seeking to protect (by feeling guilty) actually don't need any protection because they knew what they were doing.
Second, I'm sure if you were to ever meet one of the actors, you would talk to them to and realise that they are really nice people. Pornography is their job, just like most other people have a job.
Third, do you objectify a rose by admiring its beauty? What if that rose is just a metaphor for a woman?
In conclusion, drop the religious guilt trip and enjoy your pornography! (stay away from the animal stuff though, pretty sure that's illegal)
Animals cannot give consent. They do not have the capacity to.
When a model poses for a piece of art, isn't he or she being objectified (by definition?)
How is this different than a man or woman posing for you as a masturbation aid?
What if it is scientifically proven that animals feel great pleasure when another human being is doing things of a sexual nature to it / with it?
Same thing as if you found a small child that experienced physical pleasure during a molestation. Or a severely mentally handicapped person. Or anyone/anything else that doesn't have a capacity to give informed consent.
By that standard humans shouldn't even have pets, and certainly shouldn't use animals as beasts of burden. I guess those people in The Third World who use horses, donkeys, or oxen to scrape together a living are bad people.
Putting words in my mouth, now? :)
Are you equating pet ownership or parenthood with sexual exploitation?