0714: "Porn For Women"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby uncivlengr » Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:40 pm UTC

yet another steven wrote:No; what I'm trying to say is you expect an inversion of the usual male centred porn; this inversion could be very literal, "just exchange the roles of men and women and replace male fantasies by female fantasies"; but it can also be slightly more abstract, "men's porn is about what men most like to see; let's make women's porn about what women most like to see." If you don't know "porn for women", you first expect it to be a literal inversion, like the girl in the comic. But when this turns out not to be correct, the second most obvious interpretation is that "porn for X" means "stuff that X likes to see best".
Have you looked at the examples from the book? I posted a link earlier.

The actual impression someone would get looking at the actual book would never be "just like male porn except for women", or even "not actually porn, but still things women genuinely find attractive".

If you were only to base your impression on what this comic described, then you may come to that conclusion, but that would not be the fault of the author. Even if you only based an opinion on the title before understanding the premise of the book, that's still not the fault of the author... someone said something about books and covers and judging, I can't remember how it went exactly.

In general, forming an opinion about something in ignorance is a bad idea. Just saying.

ishkabibble wrote:
uncivlengr wrote:I don't think it's fair to say the the views expressed are merely the fictional views of a "character" - xkcd is pretty evidently autobiographical in nature, especially in preachy comics like this.


If the comic stemmed from a conversation with a female friend, that is, if a woman FIRST expressed this sentiment and Randall said "ha! that's a good point!" and THEN wrote the comic, would you still have the same objection?
I don't think I actually expressed any objection to Randall creating this comic as a male, I just don't think your criticism of ieeeaaa (whatever their nickname was) was justified. You insisted that his commentary was offensive to you because he presumed to know what offended women, when he didn't make any such claims.

Conversely, you didn't seem to take into account the possibility that ieeeaaa was expressing an opinion based on something he had previously discussed with a woman before labelling his post as offensive.
ishkabibble wrote:And my earlier question remains: since Randall is a man, should he be prohibited from EVER using female characters in his strips?
Nope, but again, I don't see where my posts would have suggested that I did.
Last edited by uncivlengr on Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:13 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
I don't know what to do for you

makomk
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:16 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby makomk » Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:46 pm UTC

ishkabibble wrote:Why do you assume it has to be one or the other? That working to stop violence against women means ignoring (or, according to your post, actually encouraging) violence against men? I've been to a few V-Day events and can't remember a single male burned in effigy. Yes, there are SOME feminists that are anti-men, but there are many, MANY feminists who want to partner with men in ending sexual violence, including sexual violence against men.


Because in practice it generally does, for some reason?

For example, male victims of female-perpetrated domestic violence are often reluctant to seek police help, because of the risk they won't be taken seriously or will be arrested. In fact, US-based organizations tend to advise them to not involve the police unless their lives are in imminent danger. If you take a look at why the police are arresting them, in quite a few US states they're legally required to due to a combination of mandatory arrest and so-called "primary aggressor" laws. ("Primary aggressor" is a misnomer; the laws effectively require the arrest of the man in almost all circumstances, and the police have terrible problems deciding who to arrest when faced with a same-sex couple.) Why is the law this way? Because the anti-domestic violence groups demanded it, in case an abused woman accidentally got arrested. Since domestic violence is an exercise of male power and privilege, so the argument goes, there's no need to worry about women doing it to men.

ishkabibble wrote:feministing has posted several articles regarding the deplorable lack of resources and recognition for male rape: feminists and men should be allies, and I'm sorry if you've encountered people who think otherwise. Ending sexual violence isn't about women vs men, it's about people vs. assholes.


Got any links? That'd surprise me; I've seen a lot of comments about how the issue of rape and domestic violence against men is a distraction from women's issues, doesn't happen all that often, etc - including from the men. (Feministe had a post on the subject recently, but the comments thread demonstrated all these and more.) I've also seen quite a few examples of people dismissing male rape as rare based on statistics that systemically exclude lots of male rape victims, both there and on other feminist sites. Likewise, domestic violence statistics based on number of arrests are often used for the same purpose; see above for why this is flawed.

Thorough discussion of this would probably need its own thread, of course...

sliverstorm
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 11:10 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby sliverstorm » Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:07 pm UTC

Poppy Appletree wrote:
sliverstorm wrote:I've always wondered about that. There isn't any natural child-producing attack vector that does stimulate it particularly well. (emphasis on natural. Anything contortionist-esque or requiring especially aerobic feats don't count) Kind of seems like a failure on nature's part. Course, on the other hand, as we are still alive as a species it is impossible for nature to have failed. We should broaden our horizons. Who says it was supposed to be pleasurable anyway? Shouldn't we just be glad we aren't a species of traumatic insemination? 8)

Oh god... if we were, the feminist movement and the survival of the entire fscking human race would be diametrically opposed...


A statistic of approximately one in four women being raped in their lifetime might oppose that view. :|


Huh? You are disagreeing as to whether we are a species of traumatic insemination? I think you must be unfamiliar with the term, because we sure as H-E-double hockey stick are not. Traumatic does not refer to tragic emotional experience. It refers to a literal stab wound, created by the penis, through which insemination happens. Your first clues we are not such a species:
1) Females do not come away in excruciating pain, dripping blood, and then go to the hospital to be treated for a 7 inch deep stab wound
2) Men always aim for the same spot. In species that *do* exhibit traumatic insemination, pretty much the entire body is a fair target.

If you don't believe me, or think I'm joking or using a metaphor, I'm not. I'm totally serious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_insemination
Last edited by sliverstorm on Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:48 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

amodelqueso
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:19 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby amodelqueso » Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:33 pm UTC

A joke comic about a joke book? PARADOX!

I'm thinking Randall doesn't get the idea of the book...

MichaelKarnerfors
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 3:30 am UTC
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby MichaelKarnerfors » Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:46 pm UTC

*groans*

The only thing the current comic shows is an individual that rejects a stereotype. And for that you get into 5 pages of heated discussion?! Seriously people... you have messed up an extremely simple comic.

You have all just made this comic come true.

Image

Get a grip and stop making things complicated.

/Michael

Czhorat
Posts: 365
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:28 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby Czhorat » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:40 pm UTC

MichaelKarnerfors wrote:*groans*

The only thing the current comic shows is an individual that rejects a stereotype. And for that you get into 5 pages of heated discussion?! Seriously people... you have messed up an extremely simple comic.


If you don't like it, there's no need to participate. Some people might feel that one strength of XKCD and its forums here is that the comics occaisonally serve as jumping off points for interesting and even serious discussion. If we can't go off on tangents about sexism, Capitalism, politics, or whatever else the comic brings to mind then we might as well be those mouth-breathing cretinous dolts on the XKCDSucks blog with barely a single coherent thought amongst the group of them.

Case in point, today: on this side we have a discussion of what is and isn't sexism, and when a male author may take a female viewpoint. On the other we have the literminded dolt running the blog arguing that it's statistically unlikely that his readers, as an aggregate, have less sex than Randall does. I know which community I prefer.

Poppy Appletree
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:20 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Poppy Appletree » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:44 pm UTC

Karrot wrote:I'm not sure that the statistic of one in four women having experienced rape or attempted rape is quite the same as one in four actually being raped. (I can't decide if they mean that the woman "experienced an attempt at rape" or that the woman herself "attempted rape," although I'm guessing the former based on the slant that the website seems to take.) Of course, there's also issues like the consumption of alcohol meaning that consent can't be given, so if a heterosexual couple both drink, then agree to have intercourse... then the man is the rapist. Double standards much?

That being said, the lack of data regarding men being raped really annoys me. What few statistics there are suggest that up to 10% of men will be raped during their lifetime (google: "Male Survivors" michigan.gov). Oh, and let's not forget, stupid movements like V-day that want to end violence against women. Who cares about ending violence against men, right? Heck, we're feminists, let's support violence against men!

If I had any faith in humanity, it would make me sad to see how discriminatory these "equality" movements are.


The figure for men in the US is estimated at 1 in 6, so it's in no way a non-issue. I commented that there was a range of figures available for the statistics of actual rape; the difference between upper bound figures like 1 in 4 and lower bound figures like 1 in 10 don't magically make it okay. That's still a lot of rape.

sliverstorm wrote:Huh? You mean that we aren't a species of traumatic insemination? I think you must be unfamiliar with the term, because we sure as H-E-double hockey stick are not. Traumatic does not refer to tragic emotional experience. It refers to a literal stab wound, created by the penis, through which insemination happens.


FYI, I'm a biology student specialising in this area, so your entire post struck me as condescending, and would have done even if I wasn't. I was using a metaphor, please don't talk down to me because of that.

User avatar
hotaru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:54 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby hotaru » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:51 pm UTC

firinne wrote:as a woman, I highly prefer it to male authors not speaking up on behalf of women.

yeah, the implication that women are incapable of speaking up for themselves is great.

Code: Select all

factorial product enumFromTo 1
isPrime n 
factorial (1) `mod== 1

sliverstorm
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 11:10 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby sliverstorm » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:52 pm UTC

Poppy Appletree wrote:
sliverstorm wrote:Huh? You mean that we aren't a species of traumatic insemination? I think you must be unfamiliar with the term, because we sure as H-E-double hockey stick are not. Traumatic does not refer to tragic emotional experience. It refers to a literal stab wound, created by the penis, through which insemination happens.


FYI, I'm a biology student specialising in this area, so your entire post struck me as condescending, and would have done even if I wasn't. I was using a metaphor, please don't talk down to me because of that.


I had no way of knowing your specialization, or your major. I'm sorry you found it condescending. I assumed you must have not known, because I can't see how your post makes sense if you do.

This leaves me utterly confused as to what your quoted statistic opposes in my original statement.
Last edited by sliverstorm on Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:55 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

sliverstorm
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 11:10 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby sliverstorm » Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:54 pm UTC

hotaru wrote:
firinne wrote:as a woman, I highly prefer it to male authors not speaking up on behalf of women.

yeah, the implication that women are incapable of speaking up for themselves is great.


How exactly does someone sticking up for you imply you can't stick up for yourself? You're saying you'd rather men not support women's rights? What exactly would you have us do then?

I mean heck, according to women's rights, men are actively oppressing women more than women simply allowing themselves to be oppressed. How exactly do you expect to progress if you don't want the men on your side? If the entire movement was 'ladies be strong' sorts of things, then sure you don't need guys. But ladies being strong is not going to have much impact on rape occurrences, at least the drugged/alcohol/violent kind. You need the guys to be on your side to fix that, unless you're secretly teaching all your feminists martial arts to fight fire with fire.

User avatar
phillipsjk
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 4:09 pm UTC
Location: Edmonton AB Canada
Contact:

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby phillipsjk » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:04 pm UTC

cephalopod9 wrote: (I am pissed off at a lot of people in this thread now too, but instead of screaming my head of, I'm just going to end on this thought: think about all the places you see boobs, promenently displayed, the shape of them through clothing, things shaped like them, etc. now imagine that all switched with testicles. I'm only sort of trying to make a point, mostly I just find it amusing.)


It's been done; mainly to show off... or something:
May or may not be SFW.
Did you get the number on that truck?

Poppy Appletree
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:20 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Poppy Appletree » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:07 pm UTC

sliverstorm wrote:I had no way of knowing your specialization, or your major. I'm sorry you found it condescending.

This leaves me utterly confused as to what your quoted statistic opposes in my original statement.


I wasn't stating that it was wrong as a fact, simply saying that the essence of what you were putting across (that humans do not experience horrific acts of copulation) didn't really stand up, because we have our own mechanisms of making life awful for each other, and so do most other species. Actual traumatic insemination is of course limited in use, as you said, but rape is virtually ubiquitous across the animal kingdom. Especially with spotted hyenas - they freak me out.

EDIT:

How exactly does someone sticking up for you imply you can't stick up for yourself? You're saying you'd rather men not support women's rights? What exactly would you have us do then?


I agree completely, Silverstorm. To provide a corollary, as a woman, would you rather I not stand up for men's rights? With the feminist movement appearing so critical of the masculist movement, it seems like men's rights could do with some help, and I don't care if I'm not a man. Men and women, we're on the same side here.

ishkabibble
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:45 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby ishkabibble » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:11 pm UTC

makomk wrote:For example, male victims of female-perpetrated domestic violence are often reluctant to seek police help, because of the risk they won't be taken seriously or will be arrested. In fact, US-based organizations tend to advise them to not involve the police unless their lives are in imminent danger. If you take a look at why the police are arresting them, in quite a few US states they're legally required to due to a combination of mandatory arrest and so-called "primary aggressor" laws. ("Primary aggressor" is a misnomer; the laws effectively require the arrest of the man in almost all circumstances, and the police have terrible problems deciding who to arrest when faced with a same-sex couple.) Why is the law this way? Because the anti-domestic violence groups demanded it, in case an abused woman accidentally got arrested. Since domestic violence is an exercise of male power and privilege, so the argument goes, there's no need to worry about women doing it to men.

ishkabibble wrote:feministing has posted several articles regarding the deplorable lack of resources and recognition for male rape: feminists and men should be allies, and I'm sorry if you've encountered people who think otherwise. Ending sexual violence isn't about women vs men, it's about people vs. assholes.


Got any links? That'd surprise me; I've seen a lot of comments about how the issue of rape and domestic violence against men is a distraction from women's issues, doesn't happen all that often, etc - including from the men. (Feministe had a post on the subject recently, but the comments thread demonstrated all these and more.) I've also seen quite a few examples of people dismissing male rape as rare based on statistics that systemically exclude lots of male rape victims, both there and on other feminist sites. Likewise, domestic violence statistics based on number of arrests are often used for the same purpose; see above for why this is flawed.

Thorough discussion of this would probably need its own thread, of course...


Yes, there are a lot of cultural and legal obstacles that prevent male victims from receiving help. But female victims face the same obstacles. Despite the "advantage" or being female, women still face cops who don't believe them, a media culture that loves to blame the victim ("she was drunk/dressed like a slut/came on to him,") and groups that actively lobby against them. The point isn't that one type of victim "wins" over the other, it's that there's a universal lack of support for all victims of sexual assault. Regardless of whatever shitty criminal code is in place now, effective legislation doesn't have to favor one group over the other.

By far, the majority of posts on Feministing re: sexual violence are about violence towards women. This is a result of Feministing's culture and the general lack of coverage of male victims in the media. I would suggest the solution is to add your voice and concerns to the conversation. Several of the posts below are simply lists of links to other blogs and news sites. It would be great to have someone elaborate on those headlines and develop full posts for them - this is how many of the full length items on the site develop.

"When Men are Sexually Assualted, Let's Call It What It Is: Rape"
http://www.feministing.com/archives/014813.html
http://www.feministing.com/archives/010283.html

Males are the Primary Victims in Sexual Assaults in Juvenile Prisons
http://www.feministing.com/archives/010068.html

Why Media Fails to Acknowledge Male Rape
http://www.feministing.com/archives/019884.html

Victim Blaming A Male Student Raped By His Teacher
http://www.feministing.com/archives/009587.html

Male Rape victims in the Congo and South Africa
http://www.feministing.com/archives/017382.html
http://www.feministing.com/archives/017123.html
http://www.feministing.com/archives/016191.html

sexual assault of male prisoners in Abu Ghraib
http://www.feministing.com/archives/015718.html

sliverstorm
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 11:10 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby sliverstorm » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:19 pm UTC

Poppy Appletree wrote:
sliverstorm wrote:I had no way of knowing your specialization, or your major. I'm sorry you found it condescending.

This leaves me utterly confused as to what your quoted statistic opposes in my original statement.


I wasn't stating that it was wrong as a fact, simply saying that the essence of what you were putting across (that humans do not experience horrific acts of copulation) didn't really stand up, because we have our own mechanisms of making life awful for each other, and so do most other species. Actual traumatic insemination is of course limited in use, as you said, but rape is virtually ubiquitous across the animal kingdom. Especially with spotted hyenas - they freak me out.


Ah :) I was commenting purely on the mechanism. On the one hand, to the casual observer it might seem like the female end of things was set up wrong- clitoris is not stimulated during practically all forms of normal copulation. You'd be inclinded to complain, and yell 'hey nature, you're doing it wrong!'. But, besides the part where nature can't have been *wrong* (obviously the mechanics do their job, which is all that matters to nature, because we are still alive as a species. Nature doesn't give a crap about whether we enjoy sex, so long as it happens) it's just that, as I wrote the post, it popped into my head that hey- On the other hand, we can at least be glad the basic mechanics of human sex is simply a little imperfect and perhaps lacking, rather than horrific like in some species. :lol:

Purely discussing mechanics. You're totally right, humans to experience horrific sexual acts. I wasn't going that high-level. :wink:
Last edited by sliverstorm on Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:22 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: Porn For Women

Postby uncivlengr » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:20 pm UTC

Regarding the issue of whether or not Randall should be sticking up for women, I'll note that the comic never explicitly says the view reflects the opinion of women in general - she never actually says, "We women want..." or anything similar. Whether or not it's implied could be debated, I suppose.

She is expressing an opinion, and she is a woman, but that doesn't mean she is "sticking up for women", or represents the general opinion of women.

But I suppose that's How it Works.
I don't know what to do for you

yet another steven
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:22 am UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby yet another steven » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:30 pm UTC

uncivlengr wrote:...stuff...

You remain convinced I'm stupid; I keep trying to explain my point of view, which is reasonable. Let's just agree to disagree.

MichaelKarnerfors wrote:*groans*
The only thing the current comic shows is an individual that rejects a stereotype. And for that you get into 5 pages of heated discussion?! Seriously people... you have messed up an extremely simple comic.

It sort of seems to have been turning out that way... apologies for my part in this!

By the way, does anyone else have the feeling the discussion that followed the "Creepy" comic (also about gender perceptions) was much better than the discussion for this one? Why is that? Better cartoon?

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:11 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby BioTube » Tue Mar 16, 2010 8:50 pm UTC

sliverstorm wrote:Ah :) I was commenting purely on the mechanism. On the one hand, to the casual observer it might seem like the female end of things was set up wrong- clitoris is not stimulated during practically all forms of normal copulation. You'd be inclinded to complain, and yell 'hey nature, you're doing it wrong!'. But, besides the part where nature can't have been *wrong* (obviously the mechanics do their job, which is all that matters to nature, because we are still alive as a species. Nature doesn't give a crap about whether we enjoy sex, so long as it happens) it's just that, as I wrote the post, it popped into my head that hey- On the other hand, we can at least be glad the basic mechanics of human sex is simply a little imperfect and perhaps lacking, rather than horrific like in some species. :lol:
Actually, if you assume that having a caring lover was an evolutionary advantage, nature rewarding women who found one with fun sex makes sense(either that or there's something we should know about Mother Nature :twisted: ).
Purely discussing mechanics. You're totally right, humans to experience horrific sexual acts. I wasn't going that high-level. :wink:
Or maybe it could be a psychological defense, given what(admittedly little) I've read.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

User avatar
Ephemeron
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 12:39 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby Ephemeron » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:00 pm UTC

Great, now my browser menu thing looks like this...

Image

That's gonna be awkward if anyone looks over my shoulder. :oops: They'll start the myth that xkcd is a feminist porn site. It will end up causing a media explosion, which ultimately means... more publicity for xkcd. :)

User avatar
she-ra
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 7:45 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby she-ra » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:08 pm UTC

I must say I'm a little sad. I was hoping by page 4 or 5 someone would have suggested that we use our collective brain to write some good porn one paragraph at a time but now you're all angry with each other so I guess it won't happen... Sigh...

Also we need more stupid people on these forums. Thoughtful well educated people arguing about feminism makes for very boring reading.
Without me the world would be doomed.

yet another steven
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:22 am UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby yet another steven » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:12 pm UTC

Ephemeron wrote:They'll start the myth that xkcd is a feminist porn site.

Whereas in actuality it only provides "porn for feminists". We're just lucky that the name xkcd is so cryptic.

yet another steven
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:22 am UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby yet another steven » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:15 pm UTC

she-ra wrote:I must say I'm a little sad. I was hoping by page 4 or 5 someone would have suggested that we use our collective brain to write some good porn one paragraph at a time but now you're all angry with each other so I guess it won't happen... Sigh...

Featuring you and he-man? :D (sorry that was a bit obvious) EDIT: I do like your idea though...

she-ra wrote:Also we need more stupid people on these forums. Thoughtful well educated people arguing about feminism makes for very boring reading.

Yeah, but stupid people who don't enter into heated arguments are even harder to come by than well-educated people who don't :?
Last edited by yet another steven on Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:01 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

project2051
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 2:20 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby project2051 » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:59 pm UTC

yet another steven wrote:
she-ra wrote:Also we need more stupid people on these forums. Thoughtful well educated people arguing about feminism makes for very boring reading.

Yeah, but stupid people who don't enter into heated arguments are even harder to come by than well-educated people who don't :?


Image

User avatar
hotaru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:54 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby hotaru » Tue Mar 16, 2010 9:59 pm UTC

[deleted]
Last edited by hotaru on Wed Aug 01, 2018 4:52 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Code: Select all

factorial product enumFromTo 1
isPrime n 
factorial (1) `mod== 1

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby uncivlengr » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:09 pm UTC

yet another steven wrote:
uncivlengr wrote:...stuff...

You remain convinced I'm stupid; I keep trying to explain my point of view, which is reasonable. Let's just agree to disagree.
I'm not convinced of anything but the fact that your argument has no merit. You insist that if you take a very narrow minded view of the premise of the book, ignoring all the context in which the book actually exists, there's room to be offended. I don't see how that's "reasonable", or how such a line of thinking benefits anyone.
I don't know what to do for you

sliverstorm
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 11:10 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby sliverstorm » Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:51 pm UTC

hotaru wrote:
sliverstorm wrote:How exactly does someone sticking up for you imply you can't stick up for yourself? You're saying you'd rather men not support women's rights? What exactly would you have us do then?

women have more rights than men in a lot of the word now, including the part i happen to live in.
here, if a woman even accuses a man of rape, he gets arrested and questioned, a warrant is issued for his dna, etc... before it's even determined if the woman making the accusation has even been involved in any kind of sexual activity at all. but if a woman rapes a man and he reports it to the police, he's accused of filing a false police report.

And naturally, men can't oppose these trends without being figuratively burned at the stake. :wink:

hotaru wrote:
sliverstorm wrote:But ladies being strong is not going to have much impact on rape occurrences, at least the drugged/alcohol/violent kind.

that's pretty bold. have you even considered the possibility that you might be replying to a man who was raped by a woman?

Are you saying ladies being strong is going to increase the rate of rapes committed against men?
My point though I may have phrased it poorly was occurrences of rapes committed against females will probably not go down much if the feminist movement only focuses on teaching women, because there are few things they can teach a woman to do to prevent being raped under drugs/booze/violence/coercion, and that it seems clear the most effective method to reduce rapes committed against women is to win men over to their cause.

User avatar
hotaru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:54 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby hotaru » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:04 pm UTC

[deleted]
Last edited by hotaru on Wed Aug 01, 2018 4:51 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Code: Select all

factorial product enumFromTo 1
isPrime n 
factorial (1) `mod== 1

sliverstorm
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 11:10 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby sliverstorm » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:13 pm UTC

hotaru wrote:
sliverstorm wrote:Are you saying ladies being strong is going to increase the rate of rapes committed against men?

no. i'm saying that it's not ladies who need to be strong, it's men. they need to stop believing women are helpless.

This is a very convoluted thought you present. You trying to say that women are attempting to hid the face that they are not helpless and taking advantage of men having the idea that they are?

Otherwise, if that's not what you meant I'm lost. Please illuminate your argument a bit more.

User avatar
hotaru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:54 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby hotaru » Tue Mar 16, 2010 11:44 pm UTC

[deleted]
Last edited by hotaru on Wed Aug 01, 2018 4:50 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Code: Select all

factorial product enumFromTo 1
isPrime n 
factorial (1) `mod== 1

MichaelKarnerfors
Posts: 94
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 3:30 am UTC
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby MichaelKarnerfors » Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:01 am UTC

she-ra wrote:I must say I'm a little sad. I was hoping by page 4 or 5 someone would have suggested that we use our collective brain to write some good porn one paragraph at a time but now you're all angry with each other so I guess it won't happen... Sigh...


*sighs too and shares popcorn*

Sad isn't it? So much creativity lost.

/M

sliverstorm
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 11:10 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby sliverstorm » Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:03 am UTC

hotaru wrote:
sliverstorm wrote:You trying to say that women are attempting to hid the face that they are not helpless and taking advantage of men having the idea that they are?

they're not trying to hide it, but they are taking advantage of it. they don't need to hide it, since so many men still think they're helpless when they obviously aren't.

Ah, I see. :)

Suggestion: In the future, illustrate your point a little more clearly. I was in a discussion, talkingtalkingtalkingTANGENT! It was out of the blue and somewhat unrelated, so your post made almost no sense and it took me about 5 minutes to figure out even remotely what you meant.

cryogenia
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 7:18 am UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby cryogenia » Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:59 am UTC

Czhorat wrote:That's one interpretation. The other is that it's a fantasy of women to have more male involvement in things like housework because, as a rule, men do far less of that kind of work then women do. Run a google search on "division of household chores by gender" and see what I mean. Earlier in this thread, I mentioned that men who lose their jobs spend, on average, an extra FIVE MINUTES per day doing household chores (and either 2 or 4 hours, I forget which, watching TV). The Porn for Women books can be read as a jab at male unwillingness to engage in what are considered typical female tasks, and as such I find it worth at least a chuckle. And no, I find nothing wrong with women enjoying sex or sexuality or porn. To say that Porn for Women makes the statement that they shouldn't is, in my opinion, missing the point.


Fair enough. I had not considered that interpretation precisely because to me, division of labor comes standard-in-box, and any model that doesn't do their fair share should be returned to the store. I still do think it's sad that such fail is prevalent enough to be a joke. If you had a roommate who constantly trashed the place and never picked up anything, you'd boot them out on their butt. I don't know why women have to put up with that treatment from their romantic partners.

sliverstorm
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 11:10 am UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby sliverstorm » Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:17 am UTC

cryogenia wrote:
Czhorat wrote:That's one interpretation. The other is that it's a fantasy of women to have more male involvement in things like housework because, as a rule, men do far less of that kind of work then women do. Run a google search on "division of household chores by gender" and see what I mean. Earlier in this thread, I mentioned that men who lose their jobs spend, on average, an extra FIVE MINUTES per day doing household chores (and either 2 or 4 hours, I forget which, watching TV). The Porn for Women books can be read as a jab at male unwillingness to engage in what are considered typical female tasks, and as such I find it worth at least a chuckle. And no, I find nothing wrong with women enjoying sex or sexuality or porn. To say that Porn for Women makes the statement that they shouldn't is, in my opinion, missing the point.


Fair enough. I had not considered that interpretation precisely because to me, division of labor comes standard-in-box, and any model that doesn't do their fair share should be returned to the store. I still do think it's sad that such fail is prevalent enough to be a joke. If you had a roommate who constantly trashed the place and never picked up anything, you'd boot them out on their butt. I don't know why women have to put up with that treatment from their romantic partners.


Remember the origin of this structure comes from hundreds of years ago. Men had jobs and fought wars and stuff, and women did housework, and it made sense. Specialization. Somebody had to do both things, and it made sense to specialize. Rights took a backseat to getting shit done, cause fairness and equality typically takes a backseat to whether or not you can afford food. So, that's why the system exists the way it does, and I don't think that's lamentable. Whether it is outdated and antiquated is a valid discussion in some respects, but it's why things are the way they are today.

Call me misogynistic, but if I marry a girl, and I am working full time while she stays home (a common enough scenario that it may well be the case for me, or at least be the case for me for some part of my life), I sure hope she won't expect me to do all the housework or necessarily even half of it. I've done some stints of working full time, and I wind up with 3-4 hours a day of time I'm not either working, sleeping, traveling, or eating. If housework is as vast of a task as you guys present, half of it cannot be done in 3 hours a day, so even if I spent my entire day doing nothing but sleep, work, travel, eat and do housework I could not possibly meet the 'quota' of what's 'fair'.

Now, if she works and I work, then we would totally split it up as best we can
Last edited by sliverstorm on Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:04 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

ishkabibble
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:45 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby ishkabibble » Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:38 am UTC

uncivlengr wrote:I just don't think your criticism of ieeeaaa (whatever their nickname was) was justified. You insisted that his commentary was offensive to you because he presumed to know what offended women, when he didn't make any such claims.


His statement,
ieeeaa wrote:"Women have had enough thousands of years with men telling them what they should wear, what they should think about, and what they should care about. Leave 'em alone"

is a pretty clear presumption. I LIKED the comic. I don't WANT Randall to "leave 'em alone" because I'd like to read more comics like it. If ieeaaa (or whatever) found the comic offensive or distasteful, he is welcome to share that opinion. But let it be his opinion,I don't need or want him to speak up on my behalf.

uncivlengr wrote:Conversely, you didn't seem to take into account the possibility that ieeeaaa was expressing an opinion based on something he had previously discussed with a woman before labelling his post as offensive.


OK, "offensive" is a little too serious of a word. If ieeeaaa's opinion came from a woman, I would still find it overblown and melodramatic: there is nothing in the strip to suggest that Randall is claiming to speak for all women. That ieeeaa, as a man, feels such a compulsion to protest "this is one more example of men presuming to know what women should want " demonstrates such cognitive dissonance it's almost funny.

LittleBigSpoon
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 4:04 am UTC
Location: Lebanon, NH
Contact:

Re: Porn For Women

Postby LittleBigSpoon » Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:57 am UTC

Halrandir wrote:This has been something that's bothered me (as a man) about that book series for a long time. What bothers me more is that some people actually think Porn for Women is a funny sort of feminine empowerment, while it just perpetuates the erroneous concept of women either not having or not SUPPOSED to be having libidos.

</soapbox>


I've never actually heard of Porn for Women (and whenever I google it I get nothing relevant :( ), but I totally agree. Women, like men, are sexual beings with needs and desires. Needs and desires which DON'T involve arduous labor.

jakkofclubs
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:18 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby jakkofclubs » Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:25 am UTC

silversmith
Ah

I was commenting purely on the mechanism. On the one hand, to the casual observer it might seem like the female end of things was set up wrong- clitoris is not stimulated during practically all forms of normal copulation. You'd be inclinded to complain, and yell 'hey nature, you're doing it wrong!'. But, besides the part where nature can't have been *wrong* (obviously the mechanics do their job, which is all that matters to nature, because we are still alive as a species. Nature doesn't give a crap about whether we enjoy sex, so long as it happens) it's just that, as I wrote the post, it popped into my head that hey- On the other hand, we can at least be glad the basic mechanics of human sex is simply a little imperfect and perhaps lacking, rather than horrific like in some species.


Purely discussing mechanics. You're totally right, humans to experience horrific sexual acts. I wasn't going that high-level.




Actually, the woman on top produces the best result for clitoral stimulation. It gives the woman the ability to grind. I hope that this is among the list of "normal" positions for copulation.

Nature does somewhat care if we enjoy it, as it's more likely to end in a pregnancy if the woman and the man had more pleasure (not only by frequency, but with a man there's actually more sperm contained in the ejaculate the more pleasurable it is and for the woman there is more sperm that is actually passed up to the uterus).

I liked Biosmith's comment on how evolution might've came up with a caring mate as an anwer as well :)

User avatar
RockoTDF
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:08 am UTC
Location: Tucson, AZ, US
Contact:

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby RockoTDF » Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:10 am UTC

Ichapp wrote:
RockoTDF wrote:The point of the comic is to say that it is ok for women to have similar sexual interests of men, and that it might be sexist to say that doing chores around the house is something that women enjoy. He isn't "speaking on behalf of women" he is saying that "as a male, this situation seems odd, and I could see a woman writing a letter like this."


Thanks for coming onto the boards and clarifying this for us Randall. There were so many people confused. It's good to get the author's commentary on his work.

Also, I'd like to point out that International Women's Day was last Monday.


I wish I had a time machine, so I could travel back to the first time you read Lord of the Flies (or any other work often read in school). Then, when you say "Lord of the Flies is a story about...." I can come in and say "Thanks for coming back from the dead, William Golding. There were so many people confused. It's good to get the author's commentary on his work."

If you ever took a course in Literature, your post makes you a hypocrite.
Just because it is not physics doesn't mean it is not science.
http://www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com <---- A collection of humorous one liners and science jokes.

sliverstorm
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 11:10 am UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby sliverstorm » Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:48 am UTC

jakkofclubs wrote:
Ah

I was commenting purely on the mechanism. On the one hand, to the casual observer it might seem like the female end of things was set up wrong- clitoris is not stimulated during practically all forms of normal copulation. You'd be inclinded to complain, and yell 'hey nature, you're doing it wrong!'. But, besides the part where nature can't have been *wrong* (obviously the mechanics do their job, which is all that matters to nature, because we are still alive as a species. Nature doesn't give a crap about whether we enjoy sex, so long as it happens) it's just that, as I wrote the post, it popped into my head that hey- On the other hand, we can at least be glad the basic mechanics of human sex is simply a little imperfect and perhaps lacking, rather than horrific like in some species.


Purely discussing mechanics. You're totally right, humans to experience horrific sexual acts. I wasn't going that high-level.




Actually, the woman on top produces the best result for clitoral stimulation. It gives the woman the ability to grind. I hope that this is among the list of "normal" positions for copulation.

Nature does somewhat care if we enjoy it, as it's more likely to end in a pregnancy if the woman and the man had more pleasure (not only by frequency, but with a man there's actually more sperm contained in the ejaculate the more pleasurable it is and for the woman there is more sperm that is actually passed up to the uterus).

I liked Biosmith's comment on how evolution might've came up with a caring mate as an anwer as well :)

First of all, even then it's not ideal (at least I don't think so? At least that's how it's seemed). I mean, you'd have a *massive* jump in *ahem* response if you just moved the darn thing down about 2 inches instead of having to screw around with specific positions. Second, while that's totally normal today, it's definitely not the primary, and it's kind of hard to imagine neo-human, pre-civilization human doing it much. I am not a pre-civilization human sciences specialist, so I try to apply my imagination :D For starters, I've noticed in many species relatively close to us, sex is an aggressive dominance related act that either resembles rape or is rape. I'm not familiar with any species where the female is the initiator or takes a leading role (while there probably are some, I don't think they are the majority!) Also, I figure the enjoyment many women seem to get out of being dominated likely stems from a sexual history of male domination. (feminists, please don't start with me, it's a fact that different sexes have different sexual behaviors. I am not insinuating anything by it other than speculating at the history that might have made it so.) So, I apply that to neo-human, and use my uneducated brain to figure neo-human probably didn't use cowgirl much.

Upshot of that is by 'normal' I am not referring to TODAY'S normal, but ancient normal back when we as a species were still developing (we are of course still evolving even today, but it seems like it's either ground to a halt [badum-chhh] or hasn't been long enough for anything to really happen)

My argument to your last point is simple. While those are good points and interesting facts, human sexual reproduction is obviously working just fine even though nearly all women report being sexually unsatisfied (today! in this day and age of sexual enlightenment and experimentation!). So, I'd argue that the evidence fairly conclusively shows that pleasure is not *necessary*. Your idea would hold a lot more water if sex was a very rare opportunity for an individual, but I think on the whole that is not the case.

Biosmith does have a sweet idea. Now if only nature was sweet, instead of brutal and self-serving :mrgreen:
I don't mean to knock on you Biosmith, but I can't help but remember how much women complain about how little attention the organ is paid in our day and age, and how little men seem to know about it. This is the information age. So how much do you think Joe Slave, builder of Pyramids, knew about the clitoris? Essentially what I'm saying is your idea of a caring mate giving the organ more attention makes the assumption that men on the whole knew much, if anything, about it in the first place.

edit: now, speaking of neo-human there is something interesting to think about. If we were ever largely a tree people... well, let me just say if you and your partner are physically fit, it can be done in trees. It works really well. And that adds like 2 whole more dimensions to the question of position, both in the physical frame sense, and the metaphorical sense. I'll have to think about that more.

cactus box
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:47 am UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby cactus box » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:30 am UTC

'porn for tired mums'
Last edited by cactus box on Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:39 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Alzhaid
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:00 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Alzhaid » Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:22 am UTC

Raptortech97 wrote:
Alzhaid wrote:Trying to access the .png directly, I receive the message: "The page you are trying to access cannot be visualized, because it belongs to a not allowed category: [entertainment|pornography]" I guess it's because the png is called porn_for_women.png. I hope I won't get fired because I tried like a thousand times to load it :mrgreen:


Have you been able to access xkcd before? At my school, when I accessed *any* xkcd comic it said it was blocked under the categories "comic" and "pornography," probably because of that one in the restaurant, where the people said, "Get out of here! This is a family friendly establishment!" I forget the name of the comic.


I remember that one, I found it funny and I was surprised that so many people said it wasn't safe for work and the like. I think it's absolutely impossible that I could get fired because of watching a xkcd comic, even that one!
This is the first time I can't see the comic, all because that porn_for_women.png name :|

User avatar
BioTube
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:11 am UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby BioTube » Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:57 pm UTC

sliverstorm wrote:Biosmith does have a sweet idea. Now if only nature was sweet, instead of brutal and self-serving :mrgreen:
I don't mean to knock on you Biosmith, but I can't help but remember how much women complain about how little attention the organ is paid in our day and age, and how little men seem to know about it. This is the information age. So how much do you think Joe Slave, builder of Pyramids, knew about the clitoris? Essentially what I'm saying is your idea of a caring mate giving the organ more attention makes the assumption that men on the whole knew much, if anything, about it in the first place.
First, I'd like to point out my handle's BioTube. Second, you've got a point; if my little(completely unresearched) theory has any truth at all, it's probably more to do with selection of position.
Frédéric Bastiat wrote:Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests