Don't We Have Things Backwards, or is it just me?

[camstory]

I think I get it a little bit, but if I'm right, you're suggesting that because most ppl are not up to the level of honesty that is required to deal with their understanding of violence then it is best to avoid the question altogether? (But I'm pretty sure that isn't exactly right)

seems to me any topic/conversation that attempts to relate two seeming disparate parts of our natures are vital to the attempt to define ourselves, cam....collectively or individually.....it is akin to the interrelationships that the science of ecology seeks to describe in order to make the politics of environmental sustainability a consideration for our survival....and i write the way i do because i'm an indian who doesn't want one the white man's gun, but is content to ride around the circled wagons of our convictions, wondering what the hell we're all out here in the middle of nowhere and not smoking something.

which is all meant to say that there is an undeniable connection between human intimacy and human violence....in the cheesy, aquarian age sense, it is captured by the difference between "i/thou" and "we/them".....intimacy is maybe the autonomous nervous system, providing senses to experience each other, and violence one system of involuntary response to the information those senses gather....a society like ours then, that seems almost to celebrate violence, perhaps suffers from a kind of sensual deprivation where intimacy is concerned.....i'd make an arguement for the global implications of that statement, but i've only got 60000 characters :lol:

still -regardless of it's roots or it's manifestations- the primal urge of violence is always protection, imo....and if we have successfully captured that urge in a game or a movie or the attitudes of language, etc, then it strikes me that the question becomes "what is the end result of satisfying that urge?"

to me, we have to look across the aisle at intimacy for an answer, not because it's a better place to look, but because -just like joy having little meaning without sadness- violence has little meaning without intimacy, imo

and that's what my whole commune comment was about....our biological "roles" cannot be denied, but it is our ability to explore beyond their boundaries which make this topic of yours important....and yeah: honesty is the cornerstone

I hope I have not offended in any way. There was no sarcasm meant in any of my praise, and I saw my lack of understanding as my shortcoming not yours. And this ^^^^^ I got first time through. Again you have pointed out some fundamental truths that once brought into view are clear and sharp. This is without doubt one of the most profound single pieces of writing I have ever experienced. I reserved the right to return to it with full computer cut and paste capabilities, so I might better express my "WOW" of it.

Proofing I have to qualify my , got this first time through, I did but got more the second, : and am sure more to follow. Did I say, WOW!!!

 

[bob]

this is an excellent point....while i've read about the "where lots of people die" part of "communes"....my experience with them vis a vis sexual intimacy/jealous/the stuff of "primal instincts" is that they require a level of honesty that turns the we/them separation of violence into it's very own mystery.....one that scares most people back into the shadows of taboo.

Well jealousy is only an undesirable trait when you divorce sex from its original context - reproduction. From the point of view of animals competing to have their genes perpetuated (the primal driving force of all animals), jealousy has probably been a quite successful trait which is why it's one that has persisted.

It's fine to say we 'shouldn't be jealous' or that we can overcome such urges (or to say that we can't) but let's understand it in context rather than just from our (very) limited cultural perception as 21st century homo sapiens.

bingo :thumbleft:
and tho many would argue against this.....that kind of jealousy is, even it's "safest" or most acceptable state, an internalized violence...a battle with oneself, to protect oneself, and to deal it with honestly.

which, imo, leads to questions about the relationship between the taboos surrounding nudity and sexuality, and our endorsement of violence.

 

[Jupiter551]

I agreed with you. The TV has become the baby sister for too many children.

Fox News is the mentally impaired, slightly creepy uncle :lol:

 

[IsabellaSnow]

Wow. Stating the 'nature of art' for even one society is a bold move, claiming the nature of ALL art is to be provocative and push cultural boundaries is just blatantly wrong. What about religious art? What about art celebrating a successful hunt or a great victory? What about scenes of nature, or carved sea-serpents decorating the prow and hull of a viking longboat?
To suggest that the common depictions of nudity in classicly inspired western art is about pushing boundaries or being provocative is just ridiculous. They were an attempt at reviving classical Greek figures and sculpture, homages to the human form.

I believe he was referring specifically to the nude art, which was generally painted as a fantasy/beautiful object/to shock. Or maybe just because people back then found nakedness as exciting and interesting as we do now, in fact more so! My favourite artist is Manet, he has a great nude painting called Olympia, it's of a prostitute lying naked on a bed with an expression that seems to say "so what?" At the time people found Manet's work extremely shocking/racey! We may not find that kind of art sexual now, but that does not mean it wasn't a big deal then!

It's ridiculous to suggest men can't think rationally with erections. If this were true, we'd have to lock up every teenage boy in the world and not let them go until they're middle aged or older.

Although not every man is completely out of control, as you are not a woman (I assume) if you have various control of your dick you may not be aware of how little control the majority of other men have. As much as it'd be great to change human nature, this may be very difficult.

Essentially we are how we are, there are perks, there are negatives. Deal with it. Grass is always greener.

With tv violence one thing I'll say is small children will always play fight, it is what they do. Now small children also run around naked, and some do experiment, but their minds are not on sex etc. But as a child I have to say, when I saw anything sexual/naked on tv I was shocked/excited and couldn't believe it, violence? meh that's boring. Violence on tv is generally not real, it's a bit hard to fake nakedness/sex. In fact you could play out a violent act with a child without hurting them and they'd be in a fit of giggles, whilst if you play acted a sexual act with a child without touching them, you would be arrested (ok that's a sexual nudity). As a child I saw my parents naked, my friends naked, nakedness didn't bother me, but I would NOT have liked to see the neighbour naked!

Violence is in human nature from when we're children, we understand it, we're excited/interested in nudity from a young age, but we don't want to see too much of it until we're older. Actually, I hate the fact that I still have memories of my parents naked. Ew.

Also all very well for everyone in California to say "let's run around naked!" But I'm from england. I happen to like my clothes very much! And seeing as I'm used to being dressed, I like it that way!

 

[Jupiter551]

I believe he was referring specifically to the nude art, which was generally painted as a fantasy/beautiful object/to shock. Or maybe just because people back then found nakedness as exciting and interesting as we do now, in fact more so! My favourite artist is Manet, he has a great nude painting called Olympia, it's of a prostitute lying naked on a bed with an expression that seems to say "so what?" At the time people found Manet's work extremely shocking/racey! We may not find that kind of art sexual now, but that does not mean it wasn't a big deal then!

Well he said 'the nature of art', but even all nude art is hardly meant to be provocative. Manet's Olympia was considered racy but not because she was nude, rather because it seemed both boldly sexual and more than a little brazen. Again, not because she was nude - there had been before that centuries old tradition in art depicting Greek mythological scenes, in fact Olympia is superficially similar to a number of these, with a nude female in almost identical poses (though without the direct gaze which, I think, is part of why it was a bit of a scandal). Even the name 'Olympia' is a clear reference to this tradition.
Michaelangelo's David is obviously one of the most famous sculptures of all time, is nude, and has nothing to do with sexuality. It's only one of countless examples.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Wow. Stating the 'nature of art' for even one society is a bold move, claiming the nature of ALL art is to be provocative and push cultural boundaries is just blatantly wrong. What about religious art? What about art celebrating a successful hunt or a great victory? What about scenes of nature, or carved sea-serpents decorating the prow and hull of a viking longboat?
To suggest that the common depictions of nudity in classicly inspired western art is about pushing boundaries or being provocative is just ridiculous. They were an attempt at reviving classical Greek figures and sculpture, homages to the human form.

I believe he was referring specifically to the nude art, which was generally painted as a fantasy/beautiful object/to shock. Or maybe just because people back then found nakedness as exciting and interesting as we do now, in fact more so! My favourite artist is Manet, he has a great nude painting called Olympia, it's of a prostitute lying naked on a bed with an expression that seems to say "so what?" At the time people found Manet's work extremely shocking/racey! We may not find that kind of art sexual now, but that does not mean it wasn't a big deal then!

Isabella is right. It was a long post that was getting longer. The point I was trying to make is that we should not mistake the amount of nudity in old paintings as being representative of the cultural norms of the time. No matter how, beautiful the technique, a painting of 50 year old peasant is less likely to survive the ages as one of beautiful woman especially if she is in various stage of undress. So there is a survivor bias to art. I remember touring Pompeii and was pleasantly surprised at our tour guide's honesty when he describe the collection of paintings and sculptures of Greeks fucking in various positions, as porn and not art. I didn't mean to imply that all art is porn or it is meant to shock, my sister, the artist, would have me castrated if she heard that. But when the merchants of Venice commissioned a work of art at great expensive,and it is not mere coincidence, that even when depicting religious scenes the woman are beautiful and are showing their big naked boobies. I'm no bible scholar, but details of bare boobs are strangely missing in the version I read. I think that plenty of art patrons in the Renaissance were horn dogs also and tipped big for boobies. :-D

It's ridiculous to suggest men can't think rationally with erections. If this were true, we'd have to lock up every teenage boy in the world and not let them go until they're middle aged or older.

Nope it ain't ridiculous it is a scientific fact backed up by decades of research which you can easily find with Google. Think it about it blood flows into you penis making it bigger, the blood has to come from somewhere. Well they have used CAT scans on guys with erections and the blood flow to the portion of your brain the deals with higher level reasoning gets decreased dramatically. Sorry we are truly stupid when we are hard, and if you don't believe me try this experiment. Multiple the last two digits of your (no cheating and having 00) remaining token by the day of month (e.g. for me it would 15x49 ) in your head. Write down how long it takes you. Now try multiplying two random two digits number in your head, while fully erect and wanking vigorously, compare the times.

There are tons of fun studies on this but one of my favorites is this one where they show that guys are stupider just talking to attractive woman.http://tinyurl.com/bvhp6ns The moral of the story, being guys don't take tests, do your taxes, or write computer code shortly after being on MFC it will screw you up. :mrgreen:

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Nudity involves a serious lack of pockets, sunburn and the potential for skid marks on public seating. I don't particularly have a thing for nudity one way or another, and don't see it as a significant issue. What I would like is the freedom of expression and a movement away from the view that women who expose skin are asking for it. There was a 14 yo girl shot by the Taliban in Pakistan recently for speaking out in favour of education for women. That is the attitude that needs changing.

I forget to mention this in my long post. My greatest fear in the liberalization of nudity and sex is provoking a backlash. However, ambivalent I maybe about seeing sex and nudity become even more common places. I am 100% certain that that Taliban, and the other Islamic extremist groups views on the subject of woman, and sex are bat shit crazy and extraordinarily dangerous. When we are battling for the heats of minds of hundreds of millions of moderate Muslim, it is much easier to argue that putting woman in Burqa is bad and evil, if western presentation of woman was not filled with images of a girl being fucked by 3 guys, while peeing on fourth and worse.

 

[Jupiter551]

Nudity involves a serious lack of pockets, sunburn and the potential for skid marks on public seating. I don't particularly have a thing for nudity one way or another, and don't see it as a significant issue. What I would like is the freedom of expression and a movement away from the view that women who expose skin are asking for it. There was a 14 yo girl shot by the Taliban in Pakistan recently for speaking out in favour of education for women. That is the attitude that needs changing.

I forget to mention this in my long post. My greatest fear in the liberalization of nudity and sex is provoking a backlash. However, ambivalent I maybe about seeing sex and nudity become even more common places. I am 100% certain that that Taliban, and the other Islamic extremist groups views on the subject of woman, and sex are bat shit crazy and extraordinarily dangerous. When we are battling for the heats of minds of hundreds of millions of moderate Muslim, it is much easier to argue that putting woman in Burqa is bad and evil, if western presentation of woman was not filled with images of a girl being fucked by 3 guys, while peeing on fourth and worse.

I'd like to see the Taliban try to sneak a suicide bomber into a nudist society lol

 

[PlayboyMegan]

I have a few different opinions on this subject.
I like the fact that nudity is taboo because cam models wouldn't make money if it wasn't.

I'm not so sure this is right. I not so it isn't ether, but I can imagine a more relaxed and less taboo attitude about sex and nudity actually being more conducive to paying cam site users. I wonder what % of MFC freeloaders who now don't dare use their cc to buy tokens might end up spending a couple hours a week with their wife/gf , spending a few tokens if things were not so taboo?

I was over exaggerating. We might make SOME money, but I don't think as much. The reason I can charge what I do for videos, panties, etc. is the fact that my family might see me and the fact I may never again be able to get a "normal" job. Those two things are only a problem because nudity is taboo. If it wasn't, girls would be able to tell everyone freely, including their future employers. Instead, we most likely have to hide it and they might still find out. The risk of never being able to get a job again, is a big one, and if I'm going to take it, you better pay up!

 

[lordmagellan]

It seems that a lot of people are taking this "pro-nudity" stance to mean that everyone everywhere at anytime would be nude. I don't think this is what most of us are meaning, I know I certainly don't. Even at our play parties where anyone can be nude, to do so you need to be careful what you sit on (we provide puppy pads and ask that they are used). I'm not looking for a society where everyone goes to work naked because, "Fuck it, it's hot outside." Some jobs require clothing- fry cook, for example. And I'm not looking for porn on the tv 24/7 (that's what the internet is for). I just kind of think it's silly and, actually, dangerous to hide the natural human body behind this idea of taboo and sin. I mean we have women in senate (or somewhere) being barred for saying the word "vagina." Aren't we fucking adults that can talk about the body in technical terms? I found a clip of Sara Silverman on Conan, coincidentally, that addressed this just today. It's not really worth posting, but she talks about thinking people should just be comfortable talking about and owning their bodies; I think she was referring to children at the time.

But I have to say, I don't necessarily see a more relaxed view on nudity leading to a decrease in cam model earnings or porn sales. It may actually increase, if only for a short term, due to men's (and women's) nearly constant arousal. I think the more successful models owe more to their interaction with fans than to their tits. Tits are free. They're all over the net. I could do a Google search and find 1001 pictures or videos of women's pussies that are as pretty or (arguably) prettier than Ambercutie's (it's a thing of beauty, truly), but there's only one Ambercutie. (I use her only as an example- a glorious, beautiful example.)


Also, my last post, I think suggested I'm against violent depictions. I actually rather enjoy it. Don't know why. Just do. But there's certain elements involved with it that I enjoy, usually; be it a cartoon aspect (Ichi the Killer), a bit of S&M, or something that naturally evolves from the story.

 

[HarmlessSquirrel]

It's ridiculous to suggest men can't think rationally with erections. If this were true, we'd have to lock up every teenage boy in the world and not let them go until they're middle aged or older.

Although not every man is completely out of control, as you are not a woman (I assume) if you have various control of your dick you may not be aware of how little control the majority of other men have. As much as it'd be great to change human nature, this may be very difficult.

Essentially we are how we are, there are perks, there are negatives. Deal with it. Grass is always greener.

I can't juggle with my dick, but I can certainly make a conscious decision about where I'm going to stick it, even if I have an erection. Other guys can too. If they act like they can't, there's a name for them - assholes. To really lose control, there's got to be something else at work -- lots of alcohol, drugs, mental illness, something.

Hmm, I'm a man, so I don't know about men. Seriously? Do I know about women, then, or are men unable to know about either gender?

Nope it ain't ridiculous it is a scientific fact backed up by decades of research which you can easily find with Google. Think it about it blood flows into you penis making it bigger, the blood has to come from somewhere. Well they have used CAT scans on guys with erections and the blood flow to the portion of your brain the deals with higher level reasoning gets decreased dramatically. Sorry we are truly stupid when we are hard, and if you don't believe me try this experiment. Multiple the last two digits of your (no cheating and having 00) remaining token by the day of month (e.g. for me it would 15x49 ) in your head. Write down how long it takes you. Now try multiplying two random two digits number in your head, while fully erect and wanking vigorously, compare the times.

There are tons of fun studies on this but one of my favorites is this one where they show that guys are stupider just talking to attractive woman.http://tinyurl.com/bvhp6ns The moral of the story, being guys don't take tests, do your taxes, or write computer code shortly after being on MFC it will screw you up.

Wanking vigorously is significantly different from just being hard. It's very distracting. So is texting from your cell phone. Both will leave less available attention for other tasks while you're actually doing them. Neither is advisable while driving or doing something else that requires quick reactions. On the other (ahem) hand, while yes some blood flow is diverted toward the genitals during arousal, having an erection just does not leave you with zero brainpower or the impulse control of a slug. Perhaps one isn't at one's peak for making complex calculations with decreased blood flow, but you're not going to be so impaired by a boner that your going to attack people at random or do something else crazy. If someone is a bad guy when he has a boner, it's a pretty sure bet he's just a bad guy period. If a boner alone turns Jekyll into Hyde, Jekyll is a much bigger man than I am and probably needs penis reduction surgery for the good of society.

 

[LadyLuna]

You guys are making the assumptions that guys at nudist colonies walk around with boners all the time. Why? In the Victorian age, a woman's ankles were sexualized because men never saw them. Do you still get boners over ankles? What about shoulders? And knees?

Conversely, I'm not into feet. I've seen naked feet all over the place since I was very little. Contrary to what people here seem to believe should happen, I actually love the look and feel of my partner's feet. Show me another man's foot, and nothing, but let me stroke my man's foot, and all of a sudden I'm getting horny. I see myself naked all the time, cause of camming. It doesn't turn me on to see myself naked in the shower, or in the bathroom. But when I start gyrating my hips, all of a sudden- sexual.

A person can be naked without giving off sexual vibes. Try as I might, I can't get any of the few men I've been with hard if I don't have a sexual vibe going within myself. Unless I actually touch them. But if I'm feeling sexaul, then I move sexually, and whether I'm naked or not become irrelevant to the size of their boner.

I will give you that it's hard to think while you're horny. But I think you're overestimating how often a man will be horn in those circumstances. And as was already stated, if men were incapable of raping women when they are horny, high schools would still be separated by gender.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Nope it ain't ridiculous it is a scientific fact backed up by decades of research which you can easily find with Google. Think it about it blood flows into you penis making it bigger, the blood has to come from somewhere. Well they have used CAT scans on guys with erections and the blood flow to the portion of your brain the deals with higher level reasoning gets decreased dramatically. Sorry we are truly stupid when we are hard, and if you don't believe me try this experiment. Multiple the last two digits of your (no cheating and having 00) remaining token by the day of month (e.g. for me it would 15x49 ) in your head. Write down how long it takes you. Now try multiplying two random two digits number in your head, while fully erect and wanking vigorously, compare the times.

There are tons of fun studies on this but one of my favorites is this one where they show that guys are stupider just talking to attractive woman.http://tinyurl.com/bvhp6ns The moral of the story, being guys don't take tests, do your taxes, or write computer code shortly after being on MFC it will screw you up.

Wanking vigorously is significantly different from just being hard. It's very distracting. So is texting from your cell phone. Both will leave less available attention for other tasks while you're actually doing them. Neither is advisable while driving or doing something else that requires quick reactions. On the other (ahem) hand, while yes some blood flow is diverted toward the genitals during arousal, having an erection just does not leave you with zero brainpower or the impulse control of a slug. Perhaps one isn't at one's peak for making complex calculations with decreased blood flow, but you're not going to be so impaired by a boner that your going to attack people at random or do something else crazy. If someone is a bad guy when he has a boner, it's a pretty sure bet he's just a bad guy period. If a boner alone turns Jekyll into Hyde, Jekyll is a much bigger man than I am and probably needs penis reduction surgery for the good of society.

I am not saying the having a boner makes you an idiot, incapable of exercising any type of control. Just that it impairs your judgement, just like drinking. The cellphone is a good example, I've had my first smart phone for a bit over a month, I've finally trained myself not look at except to answer calls while in the car, but they are somewhat addictive.

But if a girl gives me a blowjob while driving, I am not going to be able to exercise the same level of self control, and say I thank you my dear, but this is distracting and for the sake our safety please refrain from sucking on my cock. I have a much easier time controlling my impulse to check twitter and facebook which impairs my driving than I do controlling my sex impulses. Even writing this short post, I got distracted and checked out which of my favorite models were on MFC. Boobies are a distraction, naked boobs are even more distracting, and hot naked models masturbating are pretty much crack cocaine to a lot of guys. More isn't necessarily better

 

[bob]

I hope I have not offended in any way.

oh...heck no cam...i really appreciated that you took a few minutes to actually wonder what the hell i'm talking about...twice now

 

[Jupiter551]

Repressing sexuality doesn't prevent sexual dysfunction, it causes it.

 

[lordmagellan]

Nope it ain't ridiculous it is a scientific fact backed up by decades of research which you can easily find with Google. Think it about it blood flows into you penis making it bigger, the blood has to come from somewhere. Well they have used CAT scans on guys with erections and the blood flow to the portion of your brain the deals with higher level reasoning gets decreased dramatically. Sorry we are truly stupid when we are hard, and if you don't believe me try this experiment. Multiple the last two digits of your (no cheating and having 00) remaining token by the day of month (e.g. for me it would 15x49 ) in your head. Write down how long it takes you. Now try multiplying two random two digits number in your head, while fully erect and wanking vigorously, compare the times.

There are tons of fun studies on this but one of my favorites is this one where they show that guys are stupider just talking to attractive woman.http://tinyurl.com/bvhp6ns The moral of the story, being guys don't take tests, do your taxes, or write computer code shortly after being on MFC it will screw you up.

Wanking vigorously is significantly different from just being hard. It's very distracting. So is texting from your cell phone. Both will leave less available attention for other tasks while you're actually doing them. Neither is advisable while driving or doing something else that requires quick reactions. On the other (ahem) hand, while yes some blood flow is diverted toward the genitals during arousal, having an erection just does not leave you with zero brainpower or the impulse control of a slug. Perhaps one isn't at one's peak for making complex calculations with decreased blood flow, but you're not going to be so impaired by a boner that your going to attack people at random or do something else crazy. If someone is a bad guy when he has a boner, it's a pretty sure bet he's just a bad guy period. If a boner alone turns Jekyll into Hyde, Jekyll is a much bigger man than I am and probably needs penis reduction surgery for the good of society.

I am not saying the having a boner makes you an idiot, incapable of exercising any type of control. Just that it impairs your judgement, just like drinking. The cellphone is a good example, I've had my first smart phone for a bit over a month, I've finally trained myself not look at except to answer calls while in the car, but they are somewhat addictive.

But if a girl gives me a blowjob while driving, I am not going to be able to exercise the same level of self control, and say I thank you my dear, but this is distracting and for the sake our safety please refrain from sucking on my cock. I have a much easier time controlling my impulse to check twitter and facebook which impairs my driving than I do controlling my sex impulses. Even writing this short post, I got distracted and checked out which of my favorite models were on MFC. Boobies are a distraction, naked boobs are even more distracting, and hot naked models masturbating are pretty much crack cocaine to a lot of guys. More isn't necessarily better

You're still using two completely different things. Males get erections just because it's that time of day. I wake up with a raging hard-on, I can only think of taking a piss and the rest is kinda foggy, but that's not because my dick is hard- it's because I just woke up. You keep saying men can't think while erect, then toss in this scenario to illustrate your point wherein a man is either stimulating himself or is being stimulated to arousal. Erection does not always equal arousal and to suggest otherwise is displaying ignorance of male physiology. We get hard at random times of the day, just because.

Sure tits are a distraction; sure guys use the excuse of, "I was just so horny," but it's a bullshit excuse. The science may point to decreased blood flow to areas of the brain that are responsible for higher function, but I doubt it's really that significant a decrease, seeing as the average penis only a few inches larger when erect and the body is engineered for equilibrium, it all balances out after a fashion; unless there's a leak, in which case you need to see a doctor. Your distraction have more to do with psychology than physiology. I jokingly blame my dick for my looking at porn everyday, but I know damn well it's my brain that has the dysfunction.

You guys are making the assumptions that guys at nudist colonies walk around with boners all the time. Why? In the Victorian age, a woman's ankles were sexualized because men never saw them. Do you still get boners over ankles? What about shoulders? And knees?

I forgot to touch on that. At the nudist resort I visited- Hedonism III- very few erections were observed. And it wasn't because it was cold. I don't even remember seeing one erect penis, except for a dude getting his dick sucked in one of the pools. Granted I wasn't cock checking every guy that walked by, but a hard-on kind of sticks out. Actually, I do remember watching another couple have sexy times on a lawn chair on the beach. But just walking around the pool or hotel with naked people all around? Nope, no erections.

I think we saw a poor guy with an "innie," actually. Maybe he just had a really big gut. Conversely, there was a dude with a cock that my memory says was as long as my forearm, but was probably only half that. Still, fucking huge. My wife said she felt afraid of it. HE may have suffered cognitive dysfunction while erect.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Several of you are getting hung up on the term boner or erection and are being too literal. The scientific literature that I've read generally refers to it as a "sexually aroused state" and measure the significant decrease in cognitive performance when guys are in such a state. For purposes of a cam girl forum, boner, getting hard, and erection seem more appropriate, but feel free to substitute a "sexually aroused state" for the other slang terms I have used in previous posts.

Ultimately of course the brain governs our behavior and we are responsible for our own actions. However, just as guys and gals who are drunk often use poor judgement, so do guys in a sexually aroused state because it brings out our more primal instincts. Yes this applies to woman, but to a less extent than men. I am pretty sure the woman on the forum can verify this.

Now back to the topic of the thread do we want less restrictions on nudity. Does the viewing of nudity, especially in a sexual context, increase the likelyhood of men entering a "sexually aroused state". Well doh, hell ya. :roll:

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

I wanted to get back to CamStory's OP

Does it make any sense that full frontal nudity is restricted from broadcast TV while the most graphic depictions of murder are allowed even in Saturday morning cartoons?

I am not certain about how I feel as to how this imbalance be corrected, but only that it is a crazy imbalance. That everyone seems to feel that the naked human body is somehow more dangerous to our minds than is seeing a decapitated head mounted on the back of a tortoise.

After spending too much time thinking about this here is my final thoughts. I think there are 4 distinct groups of opinions.

There are plenty of people who feel exactly as you do, violence is ugly, the human body is beautiful and so is sex.

There are also plenty of people who agree with you about violence, but also feel that nudity is something that should be reserved for two people (preferably married) in the privacy of their home, and feel very passionately that children should not be exposed to either one. Needless to say AFC doesn't have a lot of member who feel this way.

A smaller group who find make belief violence fun and exhilarating,but are uncomfortable with nudity.

Plus a pretty large group of people like myself, who don't get offended by either one, and think adult should be free to see what they want, and parents should make their own decisions for their children, with the some help from the government; V chips, family hour.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion and if you find something offense don't watch it, and rest assured you are not alone.

However, when it comes to placing restriction on what others watch, I think the government needs to use a standard much higher than XYZ offends someone.
Groups like Parents Television Council, and before it the Action for Children Television, spent millions of dollars lobbying to maintain or tighten the existing standards. They kept commissioning studies trying to prove that kids who saw sex and violence (primarily violence) in TV and movies were harmed and pretty much failed to show any harm. Which is part of the reason that there isn't much restriction on violence on TV.

TV restriction on nudity have remained pretty much the same over the decade. But the internet has made TV mostly irrelevant regarding nudity. From, what I can tell there has not been a lot of research on the impact on lots of nudity in media on society. So I think we should be in no rush to change the existing rules until we know more.

 

[cupcakeattack]

This is a stigma created by the Greeks and Romans; they both defined what it means to be a "barbarian" and “civilised”:

If you've ever looked at Greek art you'll notice that most, if not all, their women have short hair, small breasts, and their males all look quite feminine. This is because everything that was seen as animistic was tabooed, this included our classical imagery of sexuality, or sexual appeal (a female instinctively looks for a strong male to protect her, and a male looks for large breast and wide hips for the event of child baring).
So the Greeks had this rather bizarre idea that “Unsexy things to animals must be sexy to a civilised person”, which is pretty regular thinking if you know anything about classic Greek thinking.

The Romans more than a hand in our ideas of the classes in society, but they did have a fair influence thanks to the Roman Catholic Church.
The church glorified the one-man-one-women thing, and created this stigma around sex; sex was an animistic act if done for pleasure, instead procreation is the holy, and civilised way of doing things.

We now know only Dolphins and Humans have sex for fun, and feel “horny” as we do (a sexual desire without the desire for breeding). So the Romans and Greeks had it backwards; sex for pleasure is actually a highly civilised act, as for sexual imagery; it's black and white, but you can't say it's “wrong” as such.

Anyway, as to the topic at hand: Yes, it's stupid; sex is such a tabooed subject due to these lingering ideas, and these ideas linger because no one wants to think about things, it's always just “that's the way we do things”, so I try and point this out whenever I get the opportunity; so we can flip this stigma around, and realise that it's not “perverted”, we're being civilised human beings.

 

[Jupiter551]

Several of you are getting hung up on the term boner or erection and are being too literal.

My apologies, I wasn't aware we were talking about metaphorical boners.

 

[DudeExtreme]

I have a few different opinions on this subject.
I like the fact that nudity is taboo because cam models wouldn't make money if it wasn't.

I'm not so sure this is right. I not so it isn't ether, but I can imagine a more relaxed and less taboo attitude about sex and nudity actually being more conducive to paying cam site users. I wonder what % of MFC freeloaders who now don't dare use their cc to buy tokens might end up spending a couple hours a week with their wife/gf , spending a few tokens if things were not so taboo?

I was over exaggerating. We might make SOME money, but I don't think as much. The reason I can charge what I do for videos, panties, etc. is the fact that my family might see me and the fact I may never again be able to get a "normal" job. Those two things are only a problem because nudity is taboo. If it wasn't, girls would be able to tell everyone freely, including their future employers. Instead, we most likely have to hide it and they might still find out. The risk of never being able to get a job again, is a big one, and if I'm going to take it, you better pay up!

I am glad to pay up because you are worth it!

 

[bob]

I wanted to get back to CamStory's OP

my thank button is busted this morning...but i liked your post

However, when it comes to placing restriction on what others watch, I think the government needs to use a standard much higher than XYZ offends someone.

i would hope that the internet is ultimately a source for broadened horizons, as well, but i find it appalling that in the self proclaimed "home of the free and land of the brave", we cower before the idea of free and easy access to information and entertainment.
politically, there is almost unanimous agreement that it's parents who must take the responsibility for raising their children, yet american leaders especially have a difficult time accepting what that means vis a vis the internet....it almost feels like the www is some distant earthquake to them: but the tidal wave of discussion it has set off -surrounding layering the availabilty of content by wealth, and less subtle forms of censorship- keeps on rolling towards us, the tiresome voice of people who can't enjoy their individuality unless somebody tells them it's ok to have it.
critical thought was not a part of my parent's life, nor a part of the education i received....it was my own rebelliousness that woke me up to the land of opportunity and all that phrase implies.
kids like my daughter represent the first generation to grow up with internet as a "natural" part of their life, just like i grew up with the "newness" of tv....but the content of tv ultimately separated families perhaps because of the belief that it's content was made universally "safe" (this was before cable, for you youngins :lol: ) but government supervision....it made me, anyway, very sleepy about the idea of "possibility"
it might be that, then, that fosters my belief that the internet has renewed the partnership between parents and their kids, reminding the older generation of it's right to editorialize and/or restrict content because we're parents, and it's our job to transmit the values that are meaningful to us...even in the primitive days of the www, it's interactivity encouraged -at the very least- the fluttering of the butterfly wing of individualism and it's critical thought within a society numbed by the restrictions imposed on freedom by a censorship where tv was the tip of the iceberg.
maybe it's fair to say the internet has institutionalized rebelliousness and the idealism that is youth, as well as the purpose of parenting, bringing the issues that make them both important closer to a public eye that isn't yet scrutinized by people who need to tell you how to think.

So I think we should be in no rush to change the existing rules until we know more

heh....you sound like rush limbaugh talking about climate change :lol:
that's supposed to be ironic humor....my way of saying "oops" about the rant...i have a hard time staying on topics like these

 

[SweepTheLeg]

People are much more comfortable knowing you're going to be watching a movie about an ax murderer going around killing everyone in the most horrific of ways than they are about watching two people have sex with their clothes off.

 

[Zoomer]

I have been wanting to write a post for a while now, but felt I would not be able to articulate exactly what I wanted to say. I don't think I can yet, but am going to do my best. I'll start by saying I think that some time in the future, maybe 100 or 200, or 500 years from now what I am going to suggest will be common sense.

Does it make any sense that full frontal nudity is restricted from broadcast TV while the most graphic depictions of murder are allowed even in Saturday morning cartoons?

I am not certain about how I feel as to how this imbalance be corrected, but only that it is a crazy imbalance. That everyone seems to feel that the naked human body is somehow more dangerous to our minds than is seeing a decapitated head mounted on the back of a tortoise.

Though they would both make national news, I think what would get more gasps of, "My god that is crazy", and would be more likely to be remembered a year after, "Two caught making love on the Whitehouse lawn", rather than, "Man shot dead on Whitehouse lawn".

In our very popular crime series like CSI there is not an episode that there is not some graphic description of how a body was murdered, or mutilated and then murdered, but when it comes to any question of sexual content it is most often explained by ether a positive or negative finding of seaman.

"Pop a cap in your ass" was a popular tag line some years back, but "Do you up your ass" never had a chance.

Personally the fact that "Sex and Violence" get used in the same breath when ppl talk about what is wholesome for our children, I find a little outrageous. The fact that we have the two so completely backwards is just plan wrong, IMhO.

What do you think?

Wait, actual murder? or fake heads and props?

At the same time you can have such scenes shown on tv here, you can also show full nudity and sex scenes. But nothing graphic or pornographic - meaning no erect penis or anything of this nature. Hence how Red Shoe Diaries used to air - I think at 11pm?

The time it can be done is called the "Watershed". But real murders, and real sex, are forbidden from the screens. I think there is a further discretion that the more graphic something is, the later it is too. You won't get, generally, something like "Hostel" showing at 9pm (Watershed time).

So guessing the US has slightly different rules? or do I misunderstand?

 

[Just Me]

I have been wanting to write a post for a while now, but felt I would not be able to articulate exactly what I wanted to say. I don't think I can yet, but am going to do my best. I'll start by saying I think that some time in the future, maybe 100 or 200, or 500 years from now what I am going to suggest will be common sense.

Does it make any sense that full frontal nudity is restricted from broadcast TV while the most graphic depictions of murder are allowed even in Saturday morning cartoons?

I am not certain about how I feel as to how this imbalance be corrected, but only that it is a crazy imbalance. That everyone seems to feel that the naked human body is somehow more dangerous to our minds than is seeing a decapitated head mounted on the back of a tortoise.

Though they would both make national news, I think what would get more gasps of, "My god that is crazy", and would be more likely to be remembered a year after, "Two caught making love on the Whitehouse lawn", rather than, "Man shot dead on Whitehouse lawn".

In our very popular crime series like CSI there is not an episode that there is not some graphic description of how a body was murdered, or mutilated and then murdered, but when it comes to any question of sexual content it is most often explained by ether a positive or negative finding of seaman.

"Pop a cap in your ass" was a popular tag line some years back, but "Do you up your ass" never had a chance.

Personally the fact that "Sex and Violence" get used in the same breath when ppl talk about what is wholesome for our children, I find a little outrageous. The fact that we have the two so completely backwards is just plan wrong, IMhO.

What do you think?

Wait, actual murder? or fake heads and props?

At the same time you can have such scenes shown on tv here, you can also show full nudity and sex scenes. But nothing graphic or pornographic - meaning no erect penis or anything of this nature. Hence how Red Shoe Diaries used to air - I think at 11pm?

The time it can be done is called the "Watershed". But real murders, and real sex, are forbidden from the screens. I think there is a further discretion that the more graphic something is, the later it is too. You won't get, generally, something like "Hostel" showing at 9pm (Watershed time).

So guessing the US has slightly different rules? or do I misunderstand?

They are talking about fake movie/TV violence and murder. Here in the US, and things are a little more blurred with cable, but with broadcast television you can see depictions of some very graphic violence and murder but you will never see any nudity. There have been a few rare shows that have shown a naked butt, but I am not aware of any actual nudity. Sex scenes are usually under covers or with underwear on.

I wonder how many people out there actually think the violence and death they see in movies and TV shows is real? I ask that question because too many times I have seen comments from people on the internet that really believe the sex scenes they have seen in a movie or TV show are real, and they were not talking about pornography. Maybe they believe one but not the other?

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Interestingly enough in one of the most nude tolerant cities in the US and possibly the world San Francisco, there is a growing backlash against public nudity.

Public nudity ban eyed in fed-up San Fran



SAN Francisco may be getting ready to shed its image as a city where anything goes, including clothing.

City lawmakers are scheduled to vote on Tuesday on an ordinance that would prohibit nudity in most public places.

The blanket ban would represent an escalation of a two-year tiff between a devoted group of men who strut their stuff through the city's famously gay Castro District and the supervisor who represents the area.

Supervisor Scott Wiener's proposal would make it illegal for a person over the age of five to "expose his or her genitals, perineum or anal region on any public street, footpath, street median, parklet or plaza" or while using public transit.

A first offence would carry a maximum penalty of a $US100 ($A97.26) fine, but prosecutors would have authority to charge a third violation as a misdemeanour punishable by up to a $US500 fine and a year in jail.

more here. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-fed-up-san-fran/story-fn3dxix6-1226519378357

 

[Jupiter551]

Interestingly enough in one of the most nude tolerant cities in the US and possibly the world San Francisco, there is a growing backlash against public nudity.

Public nudity ban eyed in fed-up San Fran



SAN Francisco may be getting ready to shed its image as a city where anything goes, including clothing.

City lawmakers are scheduled to vote on Tuesday on an ordinance that would prohibit nudity in most public places.

The blanket ban would represent an escalation of a two-year tiff between a devoted group of men who strut their stuff through the city's famously gay Castro District and the supervisor who represents the area.

Supervisor Scott Wiener's proposal would make it illegal for a person over the age of five to "expose his or her genitals, perineum or anal region on any public street, footpath, street median, parklet or plaza" or while using public transit.

A first offence would carry a maximum penalty of a $US100 ($A97.26) fine, but prosecutors would have authority to charge a third violation as a misdemeanour punishable by up to a $US500 fine and a year in jail.

more here. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-fed-up-san-fran/story-fn3dxix6-1226519378357

lol wait, the guy who wants to stop men showing their wieners in public is named Wiener? :lol:
I've been to san francisco a couple of times, I gotta say it's one of the nicest cities I've ever been to, and it's only right-wing media that seems to portray it as some kind of den of iniquity where you can't go to the bathroom without getting anally fisted.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

lol wait, the guy who wants to stop men showing their wieners in public is named Wiener? :lol:
I've been to san francisco a couple of times, I gotta say it's one of the nicest cities I've ever been to, and it's only right-wing media that seems to portray it as some kind of den of iniquity where you can't go to the bathroom without getting anally fisted.

Well we had a Congressman Anthony Weiner who tweeted dick pictures to his followers. So it is only fair that another Weiner is trying to keep guys dicks in their pants.

If you got the name Weiner, dick jokes are going to be part of your life!

 

[Rose]

You guys said Weiner.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

You guys said Weiner.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes we did and another thoughtful thread veers wonderfully off topic. Got to love forums. :lol: