# Morals/Ethics and Porn



## The Weatherman (Mar 5, 2006)

This is a question that has been worrying me for awhile. Not that I am some prude (though I was raised Catholic, lol)... it's just that I worry about objectifying women, which is something I never want to do.

And so part of me always feels a bit guilty or ashamed when I visit bbwpinups or similar sites. For all the 'tasteful' veneer of such sites, when it comes down to it, they exist for one reason and one reason only.

And yet I keep coming back. For the most part, I'm just resigned to the reality that I'm an 18 year old male who hasn't had a date in 5 months, and who would probably go nuts without the sexual release that such sites provide.

So now I have two questions:

1) Why is it that there are so many more sites featuring women for the purposes of turning men on than vice versa?
-I read somewhere that the visual component of male sexuality is much more prominent than the visual component of female sexuality. So that merely looking at hot girls in various states of undress is a fairly intense sexual experience for males, whereas females respond more to touch and emotion... obviously that's a HUGE generalization, but I think there's something to it. So maybe the medium of magazines and the internet is more conducive to pleasing sexually frustrated guys than sexually frustrated gals.

2) Can porn be liberating for women?
-This site has opened my eyes to this possibility. So many of the beautiful women here have gone their whole lives thinking that because of their weight, they were unattractive, until awakening to the world of bbw/FA and realizing that they have sex appeal too. Maybe having a paysite affirms the fact that they are sexy, which can be a very good and healthy thing.

So anyways, I would appreciate thoughts on this subject...


----------



## herin (Mar 5, 2006)

I don't know if it is morally wrong. That's a question you have to answer for yourself. However, I enjoy porn in all it's pervalicious aspects from erotic short stories to soft core; even hard core stuff. I've heard that males usually get turned on by what they see, but I guess I'm just a very visually oriented person.  To me, it's only wrong if it feels wrong. Hope that helps.


----------



## Zandoz (Mar 5, 2006)

Anything done by anybody, anywhere, anytime can be seen as victimizing someone, somehow, somewhere, sometime.

JMHO...In this particular case, the only ones who have any real victimization rights claims are the individuals who's images are being viewed. If they have consented to the use of their image, they have waved their rights to claim victimization. Those who have not consented have a legitimate beef....but not with the viewer, with the proprietor. All other claims have no real basis. The concept of victimization by proxy just does not fly with me.


----------



## Scott M (Mar 6, 2006)

I don't generally think pornography is too objectifying, but then again, the porn that I buy is more specialized than most. Whenever I look at a site like Scoreland or a big corporate site, I think that there's a higher chance of the women being used than there is in a self-run paysite like Tami or Ivy's. Independent sites have more character and seem more empowering than just doing a porn site "as a job"


----------



## missaf (Mar 6, 2006)

1) There are sites out there for the versa of your statement, although we FFAs have to be curious and daring to find some of them. BellyBuilders, Bigger City, GainrWeb, to name a few. And BBW Pleasure Dome is going to be starting a site with Andy, her fat boyfriend 

All that being said, men are more stimulated by imagery and "doing things," while women are more stimulated by emotional connections. While that doesn't always hold true for everyone on both sides of the gender gap, it's true most of the time.

2) In my opinion, the majority of women posting pictures anywhere on this site feel a certain sense of liberation and confidence by sharing themselves here, and that's not always a bad thing. I am amazed at the wonder and personality changes we've seen over the years in many of the women here, and they all have inspired a new generation of people to share themselves and accept themselves as who they really are.


----------



## zonker (Mar 6, 2006)

herin said:


> I don't know if it is morally wrong. That's a question you have to answer for yourself. However, I enjoy porn in all it's pervalicious aspects from erotic short stories to soft core; even hard core stuff. I've heard that males usually get turned on by what they see, but I guess I'm just a very visually oriented person.  To me, it's only wrong if it feels wrong. Hope that helps.


Interesting discussion. I have often wondered if women are not "turned on" more in this way by the written word -- by romantic novels, short stories, erotic literature. In way-back generations, women may have enjoyed Harlequin romances in the same way men enjoyed the Vargas girls. I think women are still more interested in some sort of emotional connection. And for men, the images are more important! Of course, these are just generalizations, and they don't apply to any one individual. :eat2:


----------



## moonvine (Mar 6, 2006)

The Weatherman said:


> So now I have two questions:
> 
> 1) Why is it that there are so many more sites featuring women for the purposes of turning men on than vice versa?
> -I read somewhere that the visual component of male sexuality is much more prominent than the visual component of female sexuality. So that merely looking at hot girls in various states of undress is a fairly intense sexual experience for males, whereas females respond more to touch and emotion... obviously that's a HUGE generalization, but I think there's something to it. So maybe the medium of magazines and the internet is more conducive to pleasing sexually frustrated guys than sexually frustrated gals.



I would say there is definitely something to the fact that women aren't as visually stimulated as men are (in general, of course). This is also why Playboy has millions of readers, and Playgirl doesn't (and my understanding is that most of the readers they do have are gay males).

I have absolutely no desire to see anyone naked that I am not in a relationship with. On the whole I think naked men look kind of silly. 




> 2) Can porn be liberating for women?
> -This site has opened my eyes to this possibility. So many of the beautiful women here have gone their whole lives thinking that because of their weight, they were unattractive, until awakening to the world of bbw/FA and realizing that they have sex appeal too. Maybe having a paysite affirms the fact that they are sexy, which can be a very good and healthy thing.
> 
> So anyways, I would appreciate thoughts on this subject...



Oh man. I am not sure how to put what I want to say without coming off horribly, so I will just say that *for me* it would not be liberating *at all.* If someone can't find me sexy without seeing naked pictures of me, that's fine with me, because that person is not going to be a good match for me. 

I do think that if you *need* a paysite to affirm the fact that you are sexy, your self-esteem isn't all that it should be. 

And then for some paysites are all about the money, which is fine too. I had a friend who used to make enormous amounts of money, but I think that was mostly from doing live video chat.


----------



## Elrond (Mar 6, 2006)

The Weatherman said:


> 1) Why is it that there are so many more sites featuring women for the purposes of turning men on than vice versa?



I think that's simply in the nature of our species. Women play the alluring role, and use endless bags of tricks to attract males. Men are visual, love to conquer and seduce, but are also eminently susceptible to being seduced. It's simply powerful natural forces at play. I'd say, enjoy it. When I was your age, all we had was the occasional fat magazine, and in most of them the models were showed in unflattering poses and with mocking commentary.



The Weatherman said:


> 2) Can porn be liberating for women?



First of all, you have to be specific what you consider "porn". The Chicken Littles of this world will consider just about anything "porn" and throw it all in the same pot. Me, I see a very distinct difference between hardcore pornography and elegant, alluring, artful depiction of the fat female body. In fact, I sometimes chuckle when I see the same folks who label the great photography shown on some paysites or even here as pornography then fawning over a collection of much raunchier pics published in book form as a glorious manifesto of political liberation...

Anyway, yours are questions to which there are no firm answers. I'd suggest you don't beat yourself up over it. However, do realize that the women in the pictures are real people and not just fantasies. If it is those bountiful women who fill your needs and desires, aim to include them in your real life.


----------



## The Weatherman (Mar 6, 2006)

Elrond said:


> First of all, you have to be specific what you consider "porn". The Chicken Littles of this world will consider just about anything "porn" and throw it all in the same pot. Me, I see a very distinct difference between hardcore pornography and elegant, alluring, artful depiction of the fat female body. In fact, I sometimes chuckle when I see the same folks who label the great photography shown on some paysites or even here as pornography then fawning over a collection of much raunchier pics published in book form as a glorious manifesto of political liberation...



But when it comes down to it, the purpose of both the 'artful' pics and the raunchy pics is the same. You can put a dog in a fancy suit, but it's still a dog.



moonvine said:


> I do think that if you *need* a paysite to affirm the fact that you are sexy, your self-esteem isn't all that it should be.



Yeah, I agree with that statement. Sometimes I just get really sad when I'm scanning the paysite boards, and see all the horny guys saying stuff like, "yowza, you look hot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and wondering how much of the girls' self-esteem revolves around such comments. But if she has good self-esteem regardless of such comments, and just runs a paysite as an expression of her sexuality which she believes is tasteful, erotic, and satisfying, then I guess there's not a problem. But I'm not a master psychologist or mindreader, so it's hard for me to tell who's insecure and who isn't. Then again, that goes for all areas of life.



moonvine said:


> On the whole I think naked men look kind of silly.



Lol, all that hair is gross. It's hard for me to fathom why you women put up with it, lol.


----------



## pinuptami (Mar 6, 2006)

Scott M said:


> I don't generally think pornography is too objectifying, but then again, the porn that I buy is more specialized than most. Whenever I look at a site like Scoreland or a big corporate site, I think that there's a higher chance of the women being used than there is in a self-run paysite like Tami or Ivy's. Independent sites have more character and seem more empowering than just doing a porn site "as a job"




Thanks for the mention, hon. Although I do run the other girls sites, I never ever pressure them to do things they aren't comfortable with, if anything, my no hardcore rule is more limiting than some girls would like me to be. Although some of us do have the site as a main source of income, it's not the main reason for having it. First and foremost, we have fun with it 

xxoo


----------



## pinuptami (Mar 6, 2006)

The Weatherman said:


> This is a question that has been worrying me for awhile. Not that I am some prude (though I was raised Catholic, lol)... it's just that I worry about objectifying women, which is something I never want to do.
> 
> And so part of me always feels a bit guilty or ashamed when I visit bbwpinups or similar sites. For all the 'tasteful' veneer of such sites, when it comes down to it, they exist for one reason and one reason only.
> 
> ...




Since you referenced my site directly, I needed to respond:

First of all, yes, we're a softcore site...but the models aren't stupid by any means. We know that for the most part, people don't join just to see our fabulous smiles and behinds...it's more than that. As far as what women are turned on by...women are strange creatures  That's all I care to comment on for that, otherwise I'd get into a huge spiel about what's hot to me, and that's not the point of this.

For me modeling is liberating. It's fun, and it's a good self esteem boost. Do I NEED to model in order to feel good about myself? Absolutely not, but I have made a lot of good friends (with the other models and fans) and through it all, I LOVE my body now, and what I once saw as imperfections I embrace. So, did modeling help me get out of the hollywood beauty ideal? You betcha. 

Also, I get tons of emails from girls who are having self esteem issues saying that my site and the sites that I run are inspirational for them...that seeing confident and sexy big girls has helped them in their own lifes. For that itself, I would do the modeling. I am honored to be an inspiration to some.

By the same token, there are those who scoff, and dislike that I have a paysite...I've recieved nasty emails from women calling me a slut and the like...but at this point those just roll off me. I am in this for myself, and the girls who are inspired by the site...if there are men or women out there who find me sexually appealing and want to use the site to that end, I am fine with that as well.


So please, don't say we exist for one reason only...there are a number of reasons for bbwpinups to exist. First and foremost, I enjoy modeling, and running the girls sites. If it ever stops being fun, or if I ever feel objectified, I would quit. However, for now, I don't see that happening as long as there are big girls out there who gain a positive outlook on themselves by viewing my site, and loyal, kind fans who do not see us as things, but as real women, with personalities, and character.


----------



## The Weatherman (Mar 6, 2006)

pinuptami said:


> Since you referenced my site directly, I needed to respond:
> 
> First of all, yes, we're a softcore site...but the models aren't stupid by any means. We know that for the most part, people don't join just to see our fabulous smiles and behinds...it's more than that. As far as what women are turned on by...women are strange creatures  That's all I care to comment on for that, otherwise I'd get into a huge spiel about what's hot to me, and that's not the point of this.
> 
> ...



Actually, that reassured me quite a bit... I never really considered the how a site affects anyone outside of the models and their patrons... but mentioning how your site shows other bbws, maybe ones who wouldn't be comfortable with modeling themselves, that they are sexy.

And I definitely appreciate how active most of your models are on the dimensions forums. It really does give me and others a window into who they are as a person, what they like to do when they're not modeling, etc. I actually found these forums through a link from bbwpinups.com...

And I only mentioned your site coz it's my favorite... lol


----------



## pinuptami (Mar 6, 2006)

The Weatherman said:


> Actually, that reassured me quite a bit... I never really considered the how a site affects anyone outside of the models and their patrons... but mentioning how your site shows other bbws, maybe ones who wouldn't be comfortable with modeling themselves, that they are sexy.
> 
> And I only mentioned your site coz it's my favorite... lol



You would be amazed the number of emails I get from women who have found that the site helps them...it's the most rewarding part of being a model and running the site 

and awwwwww...I'm glad to run your favorite :wubu:


----------



## Augustcandy (Mar 6, 2006)

I don't think men are more visually stimulated than women, generally or other. We live in a Patriarch world. Men and women are not seen as equal. We have gender roles which are strict and teach men to be open and women to be shy/secret. This whole "emotional" trip many societies submerge women's passion in, is fluff to me.. (Yes women have emotions but they don't rule or blind us). Think about it only in the past 30 years has it even been excepted in america that women even like sex at all. The reason there are more sex sites for men than women is because Men demand it. Look at how we sell clothes, food, business ...its sex....and sex in a Patriarch is women. Until women are respected as equals sexually and otherwise there will be more erotic evrything for men than women.

Just my 2 cents=)


----------



## moonvine (Mar 6, 2006)

Augustcandy said:


> I don't think men are more visually stimulated than women, generally or other. We live in a Patriarch world. Men and women are not seen as equal. We have gender roles which are strict and teach men to be open and women to be shy/secret. This whole "emotional" trip many societies submerge women's passion in, is fluff to me.. (Yes women have emotions but they don't rule or blind us). Think about it only in the past 30 years has it even been excepted in america that women even like sex at all. The reason there are more sex sites for men than women is because Men demand it. Look at how we sell clothes, food, business ...its sex....and sex in a Patriarch is women. Until women are respected as equals sexually and otherwise there will be more erotic evrything for men than women.
> 
> Just my 2 cents=)



Hrmm. Well, there has been years and years and years of research that shows that men are more visually stimulated than women. I guess the question is were the women acting in a certain way because they thought they were supposed to? Some things (for example, if they were hooked up to machines to measure physical signs of arousal) would be difficult to fake. If a study were self-reported, though, I guess the women could answer differently because they thought they should answer that way. I will have to Google this stuff when I have a minute and I'm not at work, since I don't think I can really research that topic here. I do think that people who want their research taken seriously control for that stuff as best they can.


----------



## Augustcandy (Mar 6, 2006)

LOL....who exacty is doing this research? MEN! LMAO.....its very obvious your going to get what is expected, in fact what is accepted as female behavior.. but come on....I would like to see an underground report done by women asking other women about sexuality.That i think would be much more fair. If women are prone to be less visually stimulated then please explain the burst of sex-esteem as i call it that has erupted in american culture by women? esteem that is heavily based on visuality...

Now don't get me wrong..i love my fellow brother. But come on you cannot tell me a board full of men or even littered with a few women can accuratly account for a womens sexuality. Come on ladies help me out here..


----------



## moonvine (Mar 6, 2006)

Augustcandy said:


> LOL....who exacty is doing this research? MEN! LMAO.....its very obvious your going to get what is expected, in fact what is accepted as female behavior.. but come on....I would like to see an underground report done by women asking other women about sexuality.That i think would be much more fair. If women are prone to be less visually stimulated then please explain the burst of sex-esteem as i call it that has erupted in american culture by women? esteem that is heavily based on visuality...
> 
> Now don't get me wrong..i love my fellow brother. But come on you cannot tell me a board full of men or even littered with a few women can accuratly account for a womens sexuality. Come on ladies help me out here..



I'm actually not sure that men have done the majority of the research (and this is serious, scholarly research I'm talking about here, not the results of some opinions on a board or whatever), but again I will have to check. It started with Kinsey, but he died in 1953, so there is work that is a lot more current out there, produced by both men and women. Dr. Ruth Westheimer has completed post-doctoral work in human sexuality, for instance. 

I can tell you that speaking for myself I am not visually stimulated at all. Seeing nekkid folk does nothing for me. I guess that is why I've never questioned the research, since it is true for me.


----------



## BeaBea (Mar 6, 2006)

The Weatherman said:


> 2) Can porn be liberating for women?



Ummm, I have to admit that finding BBW porn on the internet was a HUGE step to my own self acceptance. I was astonished that there were men whose desire for bigger women was so strong they were actually prepared to pay to see pictures of them!?! 

It blew my mind at first but it definitely reinforced the heretical theories that a fervent FA friend of mine kept advancing. I was curious enough to email a few of the fabulous pin-ups I saw and was lucky enough to forge some great friendships. These fabulous and generous women helped educate me further - but it was definitely their pay sites which kicked it all off.

Just my experience 

Love to All
Tracey


----------



## Augustcandy (Mar 6, 2006)

Perhaps that is my arguement as well, i question it because it doesn't hold true for me or the many female friends i have. I just don't think its fair, or realistic to say the majority of men are this and the majority of women are this, especially when survey's have been skewed over the many years and for sure when sex is invovled. I am a women yet i don't feel or act as some over emotional, withering flower only excited by touch. I love visual stimulation and in this society that is not something that is openly accepted. Although i found it a wonderfull thing to find BBW sites on the net it still puts me as a woman in that place of an "object". An either Bony or Fat its not a place i want to be.


----------



## moonvine (Mar 6, 2006)

Augustcandy said:


> Perhaps that is my arguement as well, i question it because it doesn't hold true for me or the many female friends i have. I just don't think its fair, or realistic to say the majority of men are this and the majority of women are this, especially when survey's have been skewed over the many years and for sure when sex is invovled. I am a women yet i don't feel or act as some over emotional, withering flower only excited by touch. I love visual stimulation and in this society that is not something that is openly accepted. Although i found it a wonderfull thing to find BBW sites on the net it still puts me as a woman in that place of an "object". An either Bony or Fat its not a place i want to be.



I'm not sure why it isn't fair or realistic to say that the majority of one sex is whatever, and the majority of another sex is whatever else. I don't think anyone has ever tried to say that all of anyone is anything.

By the way, women (in general) aren't "excited only by touch." They also tend to be more excited by written erotica than men are, thus the popularity of Harlequin romances

I think research like this is important and valuable in many ways, from people trying to improve their love lives to just understanding human sexual response better. Then again, I used to be a therapist

And I sure don't think that not liking nekkid pictures makes me an overemotional, withering flower. I don't think ANYONE who knows me would ever use those words to describe me. Of course I could be wrong


----------



## Augustcandy (Mar 6, 2006)

Its not fair because when we place gender into these sex roles we force people into stereotypes. My overdramatization was ment to be funny. Ask what characteristics a woman has and you will hear, soft, sweet, pretty. Which at first doesn't seem so bad but what happens to those who don't fit in those categories? they ar deemed not female, enough. And about harlequin romances that actually proves my point...that women are expected to have their sexual desires in private...in a book. In fact if the people buying most of these books are women that proves that women are very visually stimulated. Obviously no matter what i say the bigger picture i am tyring to explain is being missed. You havn't once touched on the Patriarchal society i speak of. infact you out right ignored it. I asked you this do you honestly only get your opinion from professional Survey's and statistic? if so, then i guess we will never see eye to eye.


----------



## moonvine (Mar 6, 2006)

Augustcandy said:


> Its not fair because when we place gender into these sex roles we force people into stereotypes. My overdramatization was ment to be funny. Ask what characteristics a woman has and you will hear, soft, sweet, pretty. Which at first doesn't seem so bad but what happens to those who don't fit in those categories? they ar deemed not female, enough. And about harlequin romances that actually proves my point...that women are expected to have their sexual desires in private...in a book. In fact if the people buying most of these books are women that proves that women are very visually stimulated. Obviously no matter what i say the bigger picture i am tyring to explain is being missed. You havn't once touched on the Patriarchal society i speak of. infact you out right ignored it. I asked you this do you honestly only get your opinion from professional Survey's and statistic? if so, then i guess we will never see eye to eye.



Well, I am not sure people are placed into stereotypes by it. My sexual preferences were pretty firmly set long before I was old enough to be interested in statistics and data, believe me

Do I *only* get my opinion from professional studies? No, not solely. I do think they are a valuable data point though, and sometimes they contribute to positive social change - for example, homosexuality was no longer classified as a sickness by mental health professionals based partially on the work of Alfred Kinsey.

I believe I did respond to your patriarchal society statement by saying that many researchers (sexologists) are female, not male. 

Just because the majority of any group of people share a certain characteristic doesn't mean they all do - there's plenty of room for variation.


----------



## Augustcandy (Mar 6, 2006)

moonvine said:


> Well, I am not sure people are placed into stereotypes by it. My sexual preferences were pretty firmly set long before I was old enough to be interested in statistics and data, believe me
> 
> Do I *only* get my opinion from professional studies? No, not solely. I do think they are a valuable data point though, and sometimes they contribute to positive social change - for example, homosexuality was no longer classified as a sickness by mental health professionals based partially on the work of Alfred Kinsey.
> 
> ...


In a happy world the majority would not mean all. But in the REAL WORLD that is exactly what it means. Yes i do believe there are various variations in anything but this isn't so in the world. Look around you all we do is create and place people into catagories. 

You menitoned the studies that were done for homesexuality and i must admit you are right although i am bashing womens sexuality studies i am not bashing all studies. Funny how you _assumed_ when i said the majority..lol I would be willing to wager that these same types of studies were intially done to classify homosexuality as a sickness in the first place. Which is my biggest issue, studies can be extremly bias.

Yes there have been some females who are researchers but i bet anything that the number between women researches who do studies about women and men researches that do studies about women are no where near equal. I mean jeez, look at our own goverment only 17% of our goverment, (american) goverment are women. That is a sad, sad number. 

Another thing i am sorry to tell you about is that your preference wansn't created just by you. What roles and expectactions come from our society is a major part of what we like. We are all subject to these expectations even before we leave the womb. ...

okay i'm done...Break


----------



## Mini (Mar 6, 2006)

If women want to do it, they can go right ahead. If it empowers 'em, that's great. If it empowers others, that's equally great. And hey, if men want to see it, that's just fantastic.

It's not immoral to need to get your rocks off every once in awhile.

I guess that goes for both sexes.

/Wonders why there needs to be studies on why men like ejaculating
//Didn't actually read the entire thread


----------



## The Weatherman (Mar 6, 2006)

Augustcandy said:


> In a happy world the majority would not mean all. But in the REAL WORLD that is exactly what it means. Yes i do believe there are various variations in anything but this isn't so in the world. Look around you all we do is create and place people into catagories.
> 
> You menitoned the studies that were done for homesexuality and i must admit you are right although i am bashing womens sexuality studies i am not bashing all studies. Funny how you _assumed_ when i said the majority..lol I would be willing to wager that these same types of studies were intially done to classify homosexuality as a sickness in the first place. Which is my biggest issue, studies can be extremly bias.
> 
> ...



This post reminded me of the word of the year, as determined by I think the OED: truthiness. Popularized by comedian Stephen Colbert, truthiness is what happens when people feel that something is true, but lack hard evidence. I can't wait for moonvine to come back with more detailed info on the studies (I'm too lazy to do it myself, lol)...

Anyways, it seems to me like you want say that any differences between men and women (in general) are a result of society. But women and men have different bodies, and different hormones to go with them. It seems intuitively odd that such differences wouldn't affect stuff in the mind. And since the differences are primarily for sexual purposes, it would seem even odder if they didn't affect sexuality. Remember that Harvard professor who got lambasted for saying that maybe the reason that there are so few women in math and science is because men's brains are more apt for math and science? He got absolutely lambasted by the radical feminists, and he wasn't even asserting it, he was just throwing it out there as a possibility to be looked into! Anyways, a lot of radical feminists profess to be promoting tolerance, but when they put the lid over mere ideas, it seems to me as if they are preventing tolerance rather than promoting it, in effect saying, "This might be true, we can't let it get out."

Anyways, I'm not an expert on the subject, but the evidence that I have seen, both anecdotal/in my experience and through studies I have seen, leads me to be pretty convinced that male sexuality is, on the whole, more visual. Obviously there is a lot of variation amongst individuals, and I am sure that there are women out there who are more visually stimulated then me. But does not pornography respond to macroeconomic market demands, which focus on the makeup of the whole population, rather than individuals? Not that it wouldn't be kind of fun to see someone set up a paysite solely for the purpose of pleasing me, but... lol, that was a JOKE, people!


----------



## Buffie (Mar 6, 2006)

Looks like your questions have been abundantly answered, Weatherman. I especially agree with Tami in that I do my site for a lot more than one reason. I also agree with Mini. If it's empowering for the "object" then perhaps the objectification isn't necessarily a bad thing. 

I know my own reasons for having my site and that's enough. I don't need to know other people's reasons for viewing it. Some people probably think of me only as an object and some don't, either way, it has no bearing on the way I live my life. 

The judgments, however, I could certainly do without. Tami totally knows what I'm talking about here... other women can be damned unkind about it. To them I say, disagree with what I do because that's absolutely your perogative. But don't f-ing judge me and if you DO judge me, keep your opinion to yourself. Which is precisely why I don't talk about my site in mixed company. My close friends know about it and a select very few relatives know. Is it because I'm ashamed? No way. It's because it's more trouble that it's worth, trying to decide who I can trust to NOT look down their nose at me. Speaking from experience on that one... 

Of course there are other more profound things I can and often do to empower myself because there are hundreds of simple little ways to celebrate diversity and reaffirm the positive aspects of having curves. But my site is the thing that involves fabulous shoes, glitter lip gloss and fake eyelashes. 

If you're digging the BBW paysites, more power to ya, amen. But if it's making you feel questionable about yourself, take a break. Go for a walk, maybe you'll meet some outrageously hot big girl who's been looking for a sharp 18 year old to fix her 5 month dry spell. Just a thought.


----------



## The Weatherman (Mar 6, 2006)

Buffie said:


> If you're digging the BBW paysites, more power to ya, amen. But if it's making you feel questionable about yourself, take a break. Go for a walk, maybe you'll meet some outrageously hot big girl who's been looking for a sharp 18 year old to fix her 5 month dry spell. Just a thought.



Lol, if that happens, I'll let ya know.


----------



## fatlane (Mar 6, 2006)

Regarding dressing a dog up and it's still porn... There's a fine line between Renaissance art and gay porn. Donatello's _David_ is considered a fetishist's dream. Michaelangelo's _David_ is a masterwork of anatomical genius... and a amazingly delicious bod, from what my gay friends tell me. Botticelli burned a bunch of his work when he decided it was sinful, and yet we hang the stuff he didn't burn in galleries and say it's beautiful, in contradiction to the artist's later judgment. 

Quite a few of these artists were getting their rocks off on dating the male models for their works, so it wasn't all innocent with them. And the ones not getting it on with the male models were quite scandalous with the female models... Sure, the art's beautiful, but there's an _interesting_ history behind it.

Fast forward to today... It's a big crazy world with all kinds of people. If you're doing something you think is wrong, cut it out, unless you like the rush from feeling guilty. If someone else is doing something you think is wrong, mind your own damn business unless they ask you if you think what they're doing is wrong.

We all work out our own pathway to heaven and hell. I'm working on my own and I'm trying to do the best I can. So's everyone else. If we all work on the beams in our own eyes, we won't sweat the specks in others' eyes.


----------



## Santaclear (Mar 6, 2006)

The Weatherman said:


> But when it comes down to it, the purpose of both the 'artful' pics and the raunchy pics is the same. You can put a dog in a fancy suit, but it's still a dog.



Sounds interesting. You have any links?


----------



## herin (Mar 6, 2006)

zonker said:


> Interesting discussion. I have often wondered if women are not "turned on" more in this way by the written word -- by romantic novels, short stories, erotic literature. In way-back generations, women may have enjoyed Harlequin romances in the same way men enjoyed the Vargas girls. I think women are still more interested in some sort of emotional connection. And for men, the images are more important! Of course, these are just generalizations, and they don't apply to any one individual. :eat2:




I don't know about Harlequins as I'm more of a Letters to Penthouse kinda girl! I can see where you're coming from with the whole emotional vs visual thing. Don't get me wrong, I love the emotional connection when "making love", but sometimes it's not about emotions. Its about pure animal lust. :shocked: lol


----------



## Tina (Mar 7, 2006)

Romantic novels? Blech. 

Artful naked pics of guys do not exactly turn me off. Though I don't often go looking for them, I enjoy them when they're done well. This guy at Deviant Art has some interesting work, but also some *very graphic* photos, so don't click if you're easily offended by nudity and 'alternative lifestyles.' I'm not in love with all of his stuff, but some is really lovely.

Personally, I think both men *and* women enjoy beauty, and as an artist and one who has enjoyed drawing the undraped figures of both males and females, I find beauty in both.


----------



## missaf (Mar 7, 2006)

While I enjoy a good hawt porn picture once in a while, there's nothing like undressing a man with my eyes, especially if he's wearing a suit and tie-- the more pieces the better


----------



## Tina (Mar 7, 2006)

I agree, though for me it's workboots, Levis button-flys, cut just right... and a long-sleeved white linen shirt. *fans self*

I love a suit and tie, and I love a tux, too. Something about a blue-collar guy is pretty hot, too, IMO.


----------



## Vince (Mar 7, 2006)

To Fatlane who said: *"If someone else is doing something you think is wrong, mind your own damn business unless they ask you if you think what they're doing is wrong."*

That ought to be pinned at the top of the board for everyone to follow, huh?


----------



## moonvine (Mar 7, 2006)

fatlane said:


> Fast forward to today... It's a big crazy world with all kinds of people. If you're doing something you think is wrong, cut it out, unless you like the rush from feeling guilty. If someone else is doing something you think is wrong, mind your own damn business unless they ask you if you think what they're doing is wrong.



For me, it depends on what the wrong thing is. If I see someone beating his wife, I'll not only tell him I think he's wrong, I'll call the police. If I ever catch the person who is throwing kittens out of car windows on the highway, I may kill that person myself with my bare hands. I'll beg people to get their pets spayed and neutered.

But posting nekkid pics of themselves on the Internet? Not so much.


----------



## moonvine (Mar 7, 2006)

The Weatherman said:


> For the most part, I'm just resigned to the reality that I'm an 18 year old male who hasn't had a date in 5 months



I haven't had a date in almost a year (of course, I also am not an 18 year old male). Hopefully we will both find a date soon.


----------



## The Weatherman (Mar 7, 2006)

fatlane said:


> Fast forward to today... It's a big crazy world with all kinds of people. If you're doing something you think is wrong, cut it out, unless you like the rush from feeling guilty. If someone else is doing something you think is wrong, mind your own damn business unless they ask you if you think what they're doing is wrong.



Ah, a libertarian, eh? A very alluring position... yet liberalism is so hardwired in me that I feel uneasy whenever I actually contemplate living a libertarian's life.


----------



## mouse (Mar 7, 2006)

This is my experience only:
But, when I found "fat porn" on the internet I thought I had found real stimulation, it was a huge turn on.
But then when I found stories :smitten: :smitten: :smitten: 
And I have watched porn, and looked at pictures, definitely some do turn me on, but it's not so much about the sexual experience itself, but of that which got you there, which is why I overall prefer stories, both can be enveloped.
Although variety is good for the soul  
This is just the opinion of a young woman very secure in her sexuality, and very open to experiencing different things.


----------



## fatlane (Mar 7, 2006)

moonvine said:


> For me, it depends on what the wrong thing is. If I see someone beating his wife, I'll not only tell him I think he's wrong, I'll call the police. If I ever catch the person who is throwing kittens out of car windows on the highway, I may kill that person myself with my bare hands. I'll beg people to get their pets spayed and neutered.
> 
> But posting nekkid pics of themselves on the Internet? Not so much.




Well... yeah... something THAT wrong, sure. When it affects life, liberty, or the purfuit of happineff. Otherwise, leave well alone...

And Libertarianism *is* Liberalism. What passes for Liberalism these days in America is actually restrictive buisiness policy coupled with personal freedoms.


----------



## Jane (Mar 7, 2006)

fatlane said:


> Well... yeah... something THAT wrong, sure. When it affects life, liberty, or the purfuit of happineff. Otherwise, leave well alone...
> 
> And Libertarianism *is* Liberalism. What passes for Liberalism these days in America is actually restrictive buisiness policy coupled with personal freedoms.


HEY!!!!!!!

Have I spouted off about your religion?


----------



## herin (Mar 7, 2006)

Vince said:


> To Fatlane who said: *"If someone else is doing something you think is wrong, mind your own damn business unless they ask you if you think what they're doing is wrong."*
> 
> That ought to be pinned at the top of the board for everyone to follow, huh?




Amen brother


----------



## The Weatherman (Mar 7, 2006)

fatlane said:


> Well... yeah... something THAT wrong, sure. When it affects life, liberty, or the purfuit of happineff. Otherwise, leave well alone...
> 
> And Libertarianism *is* Liberalism. What passes for Liberalism these days in America is actually restrictive buisiness policy coupled with personal freedoms.



Lol, and your computer is an 18th-century printing press!

But yeah, classical liberalism is essentially libertarianism. It can even be argued that modern day liberalism is restrictive not only of business but of personal freedoms... just of a sort that doesn't immediately come to mind when you think 'personal freedoms.' I just finished reading "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" by Robert Nozick, and it's gonna take me awhile to sort out what I think of it. Definitely an eye-opening experience for me, though.

And historically, the saying was "life, liberty, and property." Jefferson just substituted "pursuit of happiness" because he thought it would be a better sell. A lot of things you do might affect my pursuit of happiness, but that doesn't mean that they should be regulated, as I am not some sort of god.


----------



## fatlane (Mar 7, 2006)

Indeed. It muft have alfo been fun to meff with everyone with thofe funny-fhaped f'f.


----------



## ripley (Mar 9, 2006)

Vince said:


> To Fatlane who said: *"If someone else is doing something you think is wrong, mind your own damn business unless they ask you if you think what they're doing is wrong."*
> 
> That ought to be pinned at the top of the board for everyone to follow, huh?




Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.


----------



## Jes (Mar 9, 2006)

The Weatherman said:


> This is a question that has been worrying me for awhile. Not that I am some prude (though I was raised Catholic, lol)... it's just that I worry about objectifying women, which is something I never want to do.
> 
> And so part of me always feels a bit guilty or ashamed when I visit bbwpinups or similar sites. For all the 'tasteful' veneer of such sites, when it comes down to it, they exist for one reason and one reason only.
> 
> ...



answers
1. your answer makes sense, and the larger answer is that our culture is a patriarchal one. 
2. i consider myself a sex-positive feminist and I don't have a lot of probs with porn like some people do. i'm no catharine mackinnon. But, I think it's a complex issue a lot of the time as it involves women's agency which, in a patriarchy...well, you see the problem.
3. have a nice day!


----------



## Jes (Mar 9, 2006)

moonvine said:


> Hrmm. Well, there has been years and years and years of research that shows that men are more visually stimulated than women. I guess the question is were the women acting in a certain way because they thought they were supposed to? Some things (for example, if they were hooked up to machines to measure physical signs of arousal) would be difficult to fake. If a study were self-reported, though, I guess the women could answer differently because they thought they should answer that way. I will have to Google this stuff when I have a minute and I'm not at work, since I don't think I can really research that topic here. I do think that people who want their research taken seriously control for that stuff as best they can.



There WAS a study recently (just as you say--women hooked up to a monitor and watching porn)--the women were more into what the designers of the study had theorized, but what the designers later figured (and probably correctly so) is that the response was a socialized one (or whatever that word is). Meaning, women KNOW they're supposed to respond a certain way b/c they've been socialized to respond that way, and so again, it's hard to say for sure that what they're feeling is a genuine automatic physical response. I'm not doing a good job of explaining it, b/c I listen to NPR at 7.45 am.


----------



## Jes (Mar 9, 2006)

Tina said:


> I agree, though for me it's workboots, Levis button-flys, cut just right... and a long-sleeved white linen shirt. *fans self*
> 
> .



i like how you've totally picked out the outfit already, tina! hahahaha. You're like: Oh, whatever, it's just a jeans and a shirt. A white shirt. A white linen shirt. With 7 buttons. And a....


----------



## Tina (Mar 9, 2006)

Heh.  I don't care about the number of buttons -- though if there are too many it can make it difficult to unbutton. Particularly with one's teeth...



Jes said:


> There WAS a study recently (just as you say--women hooked up to a monitor and watching porn)--the women were more into what the designers of the study had theorized, but what the designers later figured (and probably correctly so) is that the response was a socialized one (or whatever that word is). Meaning, women KNOW they're supposed to respond a certain way b/c they've been socialized to respond that way, and so again, it's hard to say for sure that what they're feeling is a genuine automatic physical response. I'm not doing a good job of explaining it, b/c I listen to NPR at 7.45 am.



This is true. And women have also been socialized to find other women attractive, even when heterosexual.


----------



## missaf (Mar 9, 2006)

Tina said:


> This is true. And women have also been socialized to find other women attractive, even when heterosexual.



Is that a bad thing? 

I think women are socialized into sexualizing other women based upon male perceptions and fantasies, but I don't think it's a socialization to look at a women and say she's attractive, I think it's just a matter of preference and style, like an artist saying what looks good and what doesn't.


----------



## Jes (Mar 9, 2006)

Tina said:


> Heh.  I don't care about the number of buttons -- though if there are too many it can make it difficult to unbutton. Particularly with one's teeth...
> 
> 
> 
> This is true. And women have also been socialized to find other women attractive, even when heterosexual.



Right. I think that's exactly what it was. The scene woman-on-woman and b/c women know they're supposed to get worked up, they respond in that way to a certain extent, but we can't then assume that they really ARE genuinely getting...
yeah, ok.

god. i'm bored. email me, people. amuse me. dance for me, my little monkeys!


----------



## Vince (Mar 9, 2006)

Are what you gals suggesting is that men are more genuine than women are? I will buy that because women have to use stealth to get along with other people.


----------



## The Weatherman (Mar 9, 2006)

Vince, why do have to post stupid offensive stuff like that in my thread? C'mon... don't be a *****.


----------



## Vince (Mar 9, 2006)

There is nothing stupid about what I said. If some don't like it that is their problem. Look at what the gals said and make your own conclusions. 

Besides, this is an open forum. The threads don't belong to you. I find it offensive that you criticized me.


----------



## The Weatherman (Mar 9, 2006)

Well, boo hoo for you. I know the thread doesn't belong to me; I just intensely dislike misogynists. That's all. 

And... now I'm gonna stop arguing with you because it probably isn't worth my time.

Toodles!


----------



## Vince (Mar 9, 2006)

This site has become the home for the worshipping of large women. Well, maybe some of those gals deserve that for a change. I will debate with them and treat them as intelligent persons who are responsible for what they post. If they are not logical or if they speak nonsense then why not have a go and communicate with them? The very idea that those who challenge women are misogynists is absurd and offensive to them. 

I know I don't have much tact or diplomacy. I tend to say what is on my mind. I don't have to post in the paysite forum what I think about others. 

There is no necessity for the Knights in shining armour to defend the ladies here. When they do that they become misogynists by default.

Now let's explore that amazing claim by Tina that women are socialized to find other women attractive. Even when heterosexual! Goodness me what is she claiming here? Do women find other women sexually attractive because they have been socialized to do so? Men are making women objects so women see other women as objects and are attracted to them or something? This has to be explained to me because I don't buy it.


----------



## Jes (Mar 9, 2006)

The Weatherman said:


> Well, boo hoo for you. I know the thread doesn't belong to me; I just intensely dislike misogynists. That's all.
> 
> And... now I'm gonna stop arguing with you because it probably isn't worth my time.
> 
> Toodles!



Why the hell did you have to bring HER into it?!


----------



## Vince (Mar 9, 2006)

Well, Jes, you have the best one-liners on the board. Very sharp wit.


----------



## Santaclear (Mar 9, 2006)

Vince said:


> Well, Jes, you have the best one-liners on the board. Very sharp wit.



That hurts me, Vince. Why do you have this vendetta against me?


----------



## Vince (Mar 9, 2006)

You have Fatlane and Chipmunk ahead of you. And Steve from Abundance.


----------



## Santaclear (Mar 9, 2006)

Vince said:


> You have Fatlane and Chipmunk ahead of you. And Steve from Abundance.



Aw. I bet my ego is bigger than yours or FatLane's. I challenge you.


----------



## Vince (Mar 9, 2006)

Hey, they know you over at the paysite so who cares about egos, huh?


----------



## Tina (Mar 10, 2006)

missaf said:


> Is that a bad thing?
> 
> I think women are socialized into sexualizing other women based upon male perceptions and fantasies, but I don't think it's a socialization to look at a women and say she's attractive, I think it's just a matter of preference and style, like an artist saying what looks good and what doesn't.



Is it a bad thing? Well, not if you don't mind being brainwashed, which we all are, to one degree or another.

I think it's more complicated than you characterize it, simply because it's more than preference and is all about using women's bodies, ad nauseam, to sell products, whether the product is cigarettes, make-up, men's cologne, movie theatre seats, food -- any number of consumables. In the process the woman's body kind of becomes a consumable, too.

We are told which parts of a woman's body to focus on and find attractive by which parts the camera focuses on. Likewise, we are told which bodies are the most attractive by seeing what kinds of bodies are given attention. We are told how a woman should act to be sexual and how a man should act in responding to said bodies. Or a woman. Given that much of this stuff is run by men, and/or is made for men, is it any surprise that the amount of girl-on-girl action has increased exponentially over the years, while we still do not see boy-on-boy action?

I remember going to see the _Jackass_ movie with my son. Whatshisname got naked, dick jiggling, and guys audibly went, "uggh!" I had to crack up. It's like, "Hey, dudes, get used to it. Us women have to see naked women all the time, but you rarely have to sit through dick just to see a film." The same thing happened in _Southpark, The Movie_, with Sadaam Hussein's floppy dick: audible male disgust. The real difference is, the naked guy in _Jackass_ was just naked, he wasn't acting sexual. When a woman is naked in a film, it's rare when she *isn't* acting sexual or being sexualized in some way.

Am I saying every woman is attracted to other women? No, of course not. Are we all nothing but lemmings? Heck no, but we do see these things over and over just in the course of a day if we read magazines, watch television or go to the movies. And that's not even including porn, where unless it's gay porn, the man is considered nothing more than a prop and is paid accordingly. 

An interesting thing. A couple of the message boards I post on that are populated mostly by women have discussed this very thing, prompted by talking about being attracted to womens' bodies while not at all being lesbian or bi-sexual. In having the discussion this very subject came up and I think it's a valid one.


----------



## Vince (Mar 10, 2006)

The idea that feminists can be brainwashed by men's advertising is patent nonsense! Of course advertizing affects all of us but to credit or blame that for our libido interests is rather pushing the point. Do you think any saturation of images of thin women will make admirers fancy those gals? Nope. It isn't going to happen. Psychologists would suggest that any desires evoked through advertising were probably in people already. 

I have heard anecdotal reports of women fantasizing about other women. I just do not think it is because of the bombardment of images of thin women and other women is 'sexy' poses. We really are in rather conjectural water when we deem images as sexy. That quality often resides in the viewer. 

Do you think that heterosexual guys who look at photos of men will fancy men, too? It won't happen. 

By the way, most women's magazines are staffed by other women. Go have a look if you don't believe me. 

Are you suggesting that if there is a photo of a woman's cleavage that some of you gals get to thinking about playing with those puppies?


----------



## Tina (Mar 10, 2006)

Hi Vince. Have a nice day!


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 10, 2006)

I like Porn! I like looking at naked bodies and it does turn me on. I think some of the women here who have soft core sites helped me come to terms with my own body issues. There was a site I used to like to visit from time to time (I think it's been censored now) it was called, Rate my schlong.com. It was great - just pics of erect penii. LOL I assume most were photo shopped and if not *ouch*. Is that TMI??? LOL 

All men are NOT created equal. LOL


----------



## Vince (Mar 10, 2006)

Hey, Tina, want to talk about the weather instead? It is still summer in Sydney and about 90 here where I am. Late afternoon.


----------



## Tina (Mar 10, 2006)

Vince, I doubt there is much we can talk about any more, really, but I will say that the pictures you have posted of your beaches are lovely, and you are quite a good photographer. I understand your love of photographing flowers; I used to like to go to orchid shows for that purpose.



Sandie_Zitkus said:


> There was a site I used to like to visit from time to time (I think it's been censored now) it was called, Rate my schlong.com. It was great - just pics of erect penii. LOL I assume most were photo shopped and if not *ouch*. Is that TMI??? LOL



Oh, I saw that site once. Interesting for a couple of minutes, then it gets a little monotonous. I'm not a big fan of disconnected body parts. Still, have you seen the penis boquet?


----------



## Vince (Mar 10, 2006)

Tina, excuse me if I sound a bit dense but you said in a very nice way that you won't discuss posts. Gosh, what an awful thing to say to anyone friend or foe! Good thing I am about as sensitive as a dumbbell, huh? Yes, you are right, leave the philosophy and important subjects to the men and you gals chat about getting turned on by each other. 

I do like taking photos, though, you are correct about that. I just bought a Canon Pro1 and it is a really great little 8 Mp camera. Metal body and really sharp images straight from the camera. I got my oldest daughter one, too.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 10, 2006)

Tina said:


> Oh, I saw that site once. Interesting for a couple of minutes, then it gets a little monotonous. I'm not a big fan of disconnected body parts. Still, have you seen the penis boquet?



I mostly went there to see just how big these guys were gonna make their *little men* It cracked me up! And I find the penis bouquet hysterical!!!


----------



## Tina (Mar 10, 2006)

I have a Kodak and it's okay, but I hear the Cannons are really the best. Have you taken any photography classes? They're a lot of fun, though unless you can find a digital photography class you generally need a 35-mm. I wasn't very good at darkroom work (would rather do the manipulations in Photoshop).

Honestly, Vince, I'd rather not get into any sort of heavy discussion with you, and we don't have to agree about anything. I've really had enough of the fighting, and have no interest in all the drama we used to get into. So we can talk pleasantries or not, either way.

Sandie, I think they have those rating sites for pretty much everything.


----------



## Santaclear (Mar 10, 2006)

Vince said:


> Hey, they know you over at the paysite so who cares about egos, huh?



Huh?


----------



## Tina (Mar 10, 2006)

Santa, you have a paysite??? C'mon, fess up!


----------



## Santaclear (Mar 10, 2006)

:kiss2: :kiss2: :kiss2: *crying*


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 10, 2006)

Tina said:


> I remember going to see the _Jackass_ movie with my son. Whatshisname got naked, dick jiggling, and guys audibly went, "uggh!"



Maybe it's because male genitalia are just plain ugly. Women's privates are internal and men's just hang out there like a turkey gizzard. I mean come on! That's just nasty.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 10, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> Maybe it's because male genitalia are just plain ugly. Women's privates are internal and men's just hang out there like a turkey gizzard. I mean come on! That's just nasty.



Said like a man Jack. LOL Every Penis has it's own personality and I find them fascinating.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 10, 2006)

BTW: Sandie 

I love your avatar.


----------



## Arkveveen (Mar 10, 2006)

An interesting post indeed... but, I despise XXX porn, I only want to see modeling/flaunting, nudity, and a smiling face. I want to see fat girls who love their bodies, who enjoy showing off, not just to get a kick out of men getting arousals. 
I do know there is a double standard held between men and women... yet, I think porn exists to help men(even women), to not do terrible things. Without porn, lot's of people whould rape, become child molesters, or various things that are far worse then sitting in front of a computer and partaking in some "activity" while looking at pornography. There is a definite difference between causing REAL harm and looking at porn, ya know?
You do know though, that I rather look at women for their personality too? When I check out some beatuiful fat gals at my HighSchool, I also look for a beautiful face, or even for a hint of a wonderful personality. Personality matters alot to me, even in mild porn! hahahaha
These things all exist to keep people from doing terrible things... but, some are unsaitable animals who rather DO something then look at porn. So I guess it's not 100% effective.
People have their own opinions about... everything, include a matter such as THIS.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 10, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> BTW: Sandie
> 
> I love your avatar.



Thank you Darlin!


----------



## Santaclear (Mar 10, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> Maybe it's because male genitalia are just plain ugly. Women's privates are internal and men's just hang out there like a turkey gizzard. I mean come on! That's just nasty.



Yep. They gotta come off. Not right to leave 'em hanging there. :bow:


----------



## Jack Skellington (Mar 10, 2006)

Santaclear said:


> Yep. They gotta come off. Not right to leave 'em hanging there. :bow:



I hear you. If I didn't need mine to take a whiz I would have got rid of it years ago.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Mar 10, 2006)

Jack Skellington said:


> I hear you. If I didn't need mine to take a whiz I would have got rid of it years ago.



You guys are freakin me out:shocked:


----------



## Jes (Mar 10, 2006)

Vince said:


> Well, Jes, you have the best one-liners on the board. Very sharp wit.


I'm glad your giant blue letters think so. I prefer silly humor to the fighting that seems to have crept up all over most boards, here.


----------



## Jes (Mar 10, 2006)

Tina said:


> Vince, I doubt there is much we can talk about any more, really, but I will say that the pictures you have posted of your beaches are lovely, and you are quite a good photographer. I understand your love of photographing flowers; I used to like to go to orchid shows for that purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I saw that site once. Interesting for a couple of minutes, then it gets a little monotonous. I'm not a big fan of disconnected body parts. Still, have you seen the penis boquet?



I LOVE the penis bouquet! I send it to friends for birthdays and such. 

Tina, your points that women register a kind of arousal (which is NOT the same as what V. is talking about--the desire to ACT on that arousal, or a genuine arousal, for lack of a better term) while viewing certain things is well taken and the same thing I'm saying. Which I heard on NPR. And which I don't question. Because it's NPR.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 10, 2006)

moonvine said:


> I do think that if you *need* a paysite to affirm the fact that you are sexy, your self-esteem isn't all that it should be.



That may be true for some, but for most I think that this description may be akin to putting the cart before the horse. I applaud women who have the self confidence to put themselves out there on their own terms and stare down the fat haters and finger shakers that come with the territory. It takes a certain measure of pride and balls of steele to do what these beautiful talented ladies do. I myself get a self esteem boost every day just by looking at some of their work and I can say from experience that many of the ladies have almost as many female fans as male fans. One need only check the subscription list to Dimensions to see what a far reaching impact these confident women have made on fat girls everywhere who were told, "NOT FOR YOU!" their whole lives. They're women on a mission they are!


----------



## moonvine (Mar 10, 2006)

Jes said:


> I'm glad your giant blue letters think so. I prefer silly humor to the fighting that seems to have crept up all over most boards, here.



I prefer discussion/debate to the silly humor. I think it is good there is room for both here.


----------



## moonvine (Mar 10, 2006)

LillyBBBW said:


> That may be true for some, but for most I think that this description may be akin to putting the cart before the horse. I applaud women who have the self confidence to put themselves out there on their own terms and stare down the fat haters and finger shakers that come with the territory. It takes a certain measure of pride and balls of steele to do what these beautiful talented ladies do. I myself get a self esteem boost every day just by looking at some of their work and I can say from experience that many of the ladies have almost as many female fans as male fans. One need only check the subscription list to Dimensions to see what a far reaching impact these confident women have made on fat girls everywhere who were told, "NOT FOR YOU!" their whole lives. They're women on a mission they are!



Wow, Lilly, this is interesting. I guess this is just another example of "all people are different" because this is not the avenue that I would choose to improve my self-esteem. I also do not look at any of it, so I get no self-esteem hits, positive or negative, from it existing.

Thank you for opening my eyes to this.


----------



## Jes (Mar 10, 2006)

moonvine said:


> I prefer discussion/debate to the silly humor. I think it is good there is room for both here.


i suggest you killfile me.


----------



## moonvine (Mar 10, 2006)

Jes said:


> i suggest you killfile me.



I never killfile people. I would surely never killfile you - how would I find out when you are doing something cool like The Cupid Project?


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 10, 2006)

moonvine said:


> Wow, Lilly, this is interesting. I guess this is just another example of "all people are different" because this is not the avenue that I would choose to improve my self-esteem. I also do not look at any of it, so I get no self-esteem hits, positive or negative, from it existing.
> 
> Thank you for opening my eyes to this.



I suppose if you don't like that kind of stuff then it's existence wouldn't really make much difference to you either way. But to people who do like it and always felt that the door was closed to them, it means a lot. Self esteem is merely having esteem in one's self and if part of that self includes a burning desire to be a storm chaser well... OK! Doesn't mean I should want to go though.


----------



## Tina (Mar 10, 2006)

Santaclear said:


> :kiss2: :kiss2: :kiss2: *crying*



You never fail to crack me up.  

Jack, I don't find male genitalia ugly at all. 



Arkveveen said:


> I do know there is a double standard held between men and women... yet, I think porn exists to help men(even women), to not do terrible things. Without porn, lot's of people whould rape, become child molesters, or various things that are far worse then sitting in front of a computer and partaking in some "activity" while looking at pornography. There is a definite difference between causing REAL harm and looking at porn, ya know?



Let's be real: most porn exists to help *pornographers* get rich and that's it. But beyond that, there has always been a male fascination with female bodies and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But before you say that porn exists to help guys not do terrible things, you have to keep in mind the guy in the midwest who made his daughter watch porn so she could know what to do to him and how to behave when he raped her regularly. And then Ted Bundy who watched violent porn before he went out to murder women, and the list goes on. There is a whole undercurrent to porn that completely demeans women and portrays us as nothing but disgusting objects to spew semen, urine and shit on, or to be smacked around or choked. And worse.

It's one thing to create something like what the Big Cuties offer and yet a whole other to make photos and video that demeans. And hey, I say this as someone who modeled for the Dimensions print mag and doesn't regret it. But anyway, yes, we all have our opinions, like you say, and that's mine.



Jes said:


> I LOVE the penis bouquet! I send it to friends for birthdays and such.



Yeah, it's great, isn't it? 



> Tina, your points that women register a kind of arousal (which is NOT the same as what V. is talking about--the desire to ACT on that arousal, or a genuine arousal, for lack of a better term) while viewing certain things is well taken and the same thing I'm saying. Which I heard on NPR. And which I don't question. Because it's NPR.



Yeah, I felt that's what you were saying, and I don't see why it would be a difficult concept for some. After all, haven't we women been brainwashed to hate our bodies enough to lose weight and make diet companies rich? Enough to buy cosmetics and have plastic surgeries so we can look "acceptable"? They use dissatisfaction in order to make money and even though that take is a bit different than what I first outlined, the focus on what is desirable is all of a piece and in a way works synergistically: Appeal to sexual urges, feelings of inferiority, dissatisfaction, fear and vanity in order to make money. Not only that, but last year I was reading an article (one I've tried to find again but cannot, dammit) outlining how advertisers are studying the brain so they can even more effectively push our buttons to brainwash us to buy their products.


----------



## Anguisette (Mar 10, 2006)

My concern isn't right or wrong.

My concern is that so many sites and groups for BBWs put a heavy emphasis on sex, and have an active tone that indicates fetishism. In other words, I am very worried that people surfing around the internet will get the impression that the only sex fat men or women have is fetish sex, and that the only value fat women have is as objects for those who have a sexual peccedillo.

It IS a concern. Any marginalized group has to struggle for acceptance and legitimacy. When curious people type BBW into a search engine and come up with thousands of sex sites... well, it certainly doesn't help.


----------



## moonvine (Mar 10, 2006)

Anguisette said:


> My concern isn't right or wrong.
> 
> My concern is that so many sites and groups for BBWs put a heavy emphasis on sex, and have an active tone that indicates fetishism. In other words, I am very worried that people surfing around the internet will get the impression that the only sex fat men or women have is fetish sex, and that the only value fat women have is as objects for those who have a sexual peccedillo.
> 
> It IS a concern. Any marginalized group has to struggle for acceptance and legitimacy. When curious people type BBW into a search engine and come up with thousands of sex sites... well, it certainly doesn't help.



This expressed what I believe very well. Thanks Anguisette!


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 10, 2006)

Hmmm, you do have a point there. I do remember once though that I was looking for a granny boot to wear with a fancy dress since they ran out of the ones I had my eye on in my size. I typed 'Granny Boots' into the search engine, nothing but porn sites and I was at work! I was flabbergasted. It was tough to type in much of anything without getting porn-o-graphics stuck on my screen with a porn window popping up every few minuts or so even after I rebooted. Calling tech support was embarassing.

Maybe it's not the same. Porn doesn't pop into most women's minds when yo say 'Grandma.' Most people associate fat chicks with heart disease, diabetes and stroke though. Having that view changed to one of being merely fetish material isn't much of an improvement for us or for Grandma. 

I typed in 'Granny Boot' just now and got completely respectable sites run by sweet little old ladies across the globe selling cookies, clothes and other knick knacks with only one porn reference. Did people suddenly lose interest in hot sex crazed Grandmas, did Grandma stop modeling or is it because enough people complained I wonder? I agree with you on all points but I'm not sure I'm ready to blame paysite owners and models for the way BBW Googles or Dogpiles. There are bigger things at play here I'm suspecting. I'd be surprised if there weren't still a market for Grandmas in black boots crawling around the net but somebody raised cane and now you have to look a little harder to find it. I'm guessing anyway.


----------



## moonvine (Mar 10, 2006)

Hey Lilly,

This isn't germane to the thread, but you might want to turn safe search on in Google when searching at work. It can prevent stuff like that from happening. Unless you have a more tolerant workplace than I do.


----------



## Vince (Mar 10, 2006)

Well, Lilly, I think Google searches evolve. In other words that service responds to what surfers want. If most want porn then that is what those pages will show when you type in words like "animal", "young", "sex" and so on. I agree that it is annoying when you are doing a serious search and get all those sex links. Bad grammar and all! 

Now don't go fessing like you are all innocent at work. To have sex sites pop up and take over your computer you must have been looking and seeing what was on some of those sites. That is how those programs work. I know because a friend told me. I don't look at disgusting stuff on line. A person has got to pray that filth doesn't ruin lives. If your computer is overtaken by porn sites you were looking!!


----------



## Jes (Mar 10, 2006)

Lilly, I will now lock you and your dirty pillows in the hall closet with the jesus statue and pray you repent!


----------



## LillyBBBW (Mar 11, 2006)

After I posted my ramblings about Granny porn, I thought about posting again to clarify this misunderstanding but thought that by doing so I would make myself seem overly defensive and incriminate myself further. 

When the search engine brings up the sites it includes a bit of what it says on the site within the body of the link that leads there. I went down the list and saw a few that were neutral enough so that they just might possibly be what I was looking for but soon discovered that I was horribly wrong. So truly I am innocent. 

At least at work I am. Knowing that looking at porn in the office is inappropriate I had made a mental note to repeat the Granny search at home. Out of morbid curiosity I felt I just *had* to see what Granny porn looks like and what people get off on. After seeing how these sites take hold of your computer and embed themselves in the hard drive I scratched that from the list. As curious as I was, it was not strong enough to take the chance that I could not repeat the hocus pocus performed by the office tech and stop the popups from taking over my home computer. And the porn that did take over the office computer had nothing to do with Granny at all, it was just your standard silicone enhanced vanilla porn. What's the fun in that?


----------



## Anguisette (Mar 11, 2006)

Please don't misunderstand me by thinking that I am anti-erotica. I'm a writer, and I write a significant amount of romance and erotica under more than one name. Why? So I can look the little old ladies at the library in the eye. LOL And I also wrote a column on body image for several years and did not want to damage my credibility with others' ignorance.

I simply worry that the size acceptance movement won't be taken seriously if those outside it constantly find anything labeled "BBW" has strong sexual associations. In my long years of experience this is very often the case. 

I love being a big, strong woman. I love sex. I think celebrating BIG LOVE is great. But I also want to wear other hats. I also want to be taken seriously on occasion. 

In a perfect world we could be adults who celebrate fat sexuality and speak with authority and dignity about serious issues without one creating a predisposed notion that mars the other. If anyone finds that perfect world please give me a call.


----------



## voidhead (Mar 11, 2006)

The Weatherman said:


> This is a question that has been worrying me for awhile. Not that I am some prude (though I was raised Catholic, lol)... it's just that I worry about objectifying women, which is something I never want to do.
> 
> And so part of me always feels a bit guilty or ashamed when I visit bbwpinups or similar sites. For all the 'tasteful' veneer of such sites, when it comes down to it, they exist for one reason and one reason only.
> 
> ...




I'm so sorry to hear about your Catholic upbringing. I hope one day you have the courage to renounce that unwholesome, morbid, faith and its relentless fixation with death, repression, misogyny and self-denial. 

Until that time you will probably continue to struggle against your nature because that is the path of your Church...attempting to deny the very parts of ourselves that we must celebrate. 

Yes fat porn can be liberating to the women who are posing and I think in general fat porn is very positive. 

But either way the male sex drive is inherently "objectifying" of anything and everything. For some reason men are far more visually stimulated sexually. It's all about certain images and scenarios and fantasies. 

This can reach an extreme where some men are need to experience highly specific scenarios in order to even be aroused. These men will pay professionals to dress up like their childhood nurse, for example, and spank them. 

As males, our ideas of sexuality are inextricably tied to certain scenarios and images based on childhood experiences.


----------



## The Weatherman (Mar 11, 2006)

Lol voidhead, I renounced the Catholic Church long ago... rationally at least. Certain moral notions that were implanted in my head as a youngster (by my parents, through the church) still remain though, and so sometimes I do things that, rationally, I don't really have a problem with, yet still *feel* guilty.

To say that everything about the male sex drive is inherently objectifying is a bit of a cop-out, too. It's a matter of degree; not black and white. Touch and emotion are part of my sexuality, too (and I think of most men), just in different degree and proportions from the average woman.

As for sexuality being tied to childhood experiences, I think you're on to something. The best way I can describe it is that, as a child, I was always particularly "attuned" to fat and fatness. Then, when I got older, it became an integral part of my sexuality.

Trying to understand sex rationally is hella impossible, though... at least I can make neither heads nor tails of it. Why humans don't work like other animals (males only interested in ovulating females, never do it 'just for fun') beats me.


----------



## Santaclear (Mar 11, 2006)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> You guys are freakin me out:shocked:



Hiya Sandie!  *waves to her with his freshly cut-off penis lol* :shocked:


----------



## Anguisette (Mar 12, 2006)

Man, guys, Catholic-bashing is soooooo nineties.


----------



## SilkyAngela (Mar 13, 2006)

I logged on here today after a long absence and was thrilled to find this discussion going on. We're doing a call-in show on BBWRadio this Wednesday night on the subject. 
Although I am an amateur in the adult arena, I realize that some people strongly oppose pornography/eroticism of any kind on the grounds that it objectifies women. I have heard from others who may not oppose porn but they feel it is harmful to relationships giving men a false sense of what real women are like...or leaving them disappointed when the woman in their lives won't do the acts they see depicted in porn.
I would love for anyone willing to share their opinions on the air to call the hotline Wednesday during my show.

big hugs to all,
Angela


----------



## fatlane (Mar 13, 2006)

Santaclear said:


> Aw. I bet my ego is bigger than yours or FatLane's. I challenge you.



Mine's bigger, you size queen.


----------



## Santaclear (Mar 13, 2006)

fatlane said:


> Mine's bigger, you size queen.



My problems are bigger than yours.


----------

