# Paysites and relationships



## Scorsese86 (Mar 8, 2009)

Hi.

I was wondering if there are people here who are members of paysite, as well as being in a relationship?
I was wondering, I'm a member of just one paysite, but during the last months I have starting dating a very sweet girl... but is it "normal" to be a member of a paysite and in a relationship? I am just wondering, maybe people think it's a silly question, so sorry for that.


----------



## olwen (Mar 8, 2009)

I don't have a paysite, but I don't think I understand the question. Are you asking if it's normal for paysite ladies to be in relationships?


----------



## Weeze (Mar 8, 2009)

I think he's asking whether or not it's normal to be in a relationship but still LOOK AT paysites of other women....


right?


----------



## tonynyc (Mar 8, 2009)

I think the question might be ...

"Is it normal to appreciate the Paysite Models while still trying to maintain a relationship?" 

IMO : 
You appreciate the Paysite models for what they are- they present a wonderful fantasy.It is perfectly normal as long as it doesn't interfere with the intimacy that you enjoy with your significant other. To be fair - I'm sure that there are men that your date might admire which is fine.


----------



## Dr. Feelgood (Mar 8, 2009)

olwen said:


> I don't have a paysite, but I don't think I understand the question. Are you asking if it's normal for paysite ladies to be in relationships?




I think he wants to know if it's normal for HIM to be in a relationship while subscribing to a paysite.

The answer, of course, is that there is no such thing as normal, so why worry about it?


----------



## MisticalMisty (Mar 8, 2009)

I think porn and relationships are somewhat normal..unless it's an addiction and you start choosing the porn over your girl.

I think the best way to gauge your feelings on it is to ask yourself how you would feel if the roles were reversed. Would you be ok if she had a paysite subscription or even a playgirl subscription?


----------



## TraciJo67 (Mar 8, 2009)

Scorsese86 said:


> Hi.
> 
> I was wondering if there are people here who are members of paysite, as well as being in a relationship?
> I was wondering, I'm a member of just one paysite, but during the last months I have starting dating a very sweet girl... but is it "normal" to be a member of a paysite and in a relationship? I am just wondering, maybe people think it's a silly question, so sorry for that.



Normal. Normal. Normal.

Normal.

You're fine.

Normal


----------



## olwen (Mar 8, 2009)

Ooohhh, okay. Then if you both are right, then what Tony said is good. 

ETA: There were more answers after I posted. I agree with what everybody else has said so far.


----------



## Donna (Mar 8, 2009)

Yep, what Tracijo said. I would add that if you are concerned about it, talk about it with your significant other. Ask her how it makes her feel, and work together on any concerns either of you have. I know a lot of women, myself included, who are in relationships whose SO looks at Playboyesque magazines and/or paysites.


----------



## Sandie S-R (Mar 8, 2009)

I agree with the "it's normal to look" as long as it doesn't become an obsession or take anything away from what you have with your own lovely lady.


----------



## Ned Sonntag (Mar 8, 2009)

My late wife was perhaps the first supersize pinup-girl with her two famous Charles Gatewood poses in the early 80s... now in late middle-age I'm dating a super-talented younger woman who'd LOVE to lose weight. Distressing when reality intrudes,:doh: but things could be worse, eh?


----------



## mossystate (Mar 8, 2009)

Good or bad...whatever.....normal. I am sure your girl has her own secrets, and one day, you might find her hot man porn stash....so you kids just enjoy one another as things are right now.


----------



## Scorsese86 (Mar 8, 2009)

krismiss said:


> I think he's asking whether or not it's normal to be in a relationship but still LOOK AT paysites of other women....
> 
> 
> right?



That's right.

Thanks for the replies. I don't have an obsession or anything, it's just I'm a member of this one paysite, and has been for a while... now, with my relationship status being a bit different, I find it a little weird... and I wanted to know if anyone has a problem with this... aww, and sorry for my language. English is not my first language.


----------



## olwen (Mar 8, 2009)

Scorsese86 said:


> That's right.
> 
> Thanks for the replies. I don't have an obsession or anything, it's just I'm a member of this one paysite, and has been for a while... now, with my relationship status being a bit different, I find it a little weird... and I wanted to know if anyone has a problem with this... aww, and sorry for my language. English is not my first language.



It's only a problem if you prefer porn to your girlfriend, or if you think the porn is more important than your girlfriend. If she says she has a problem with it, then you have to have a discussion about it. If she's okay with it then you're okay. If you feel weird about it, then just drop the subscription for a while and see how you feel about it. That's what I would do. 

And this question comes up quite often actually so other guys have had issues with this too. You're not alone.


----------



## missy_blue_eyez (Mar 8, 2009)

I personally wouldnt be particularly thrilled if I was with a guy who was paying to look at said girls. Id much rather him spend that cash on me to dress up all sexy and the like..........hehe looking at porn in general though, I agree with everyone else its normal as like as you can still differentiate the boundaries of it.


----------



## Scorsese86 (Mar 8, 2009)

I have to say, it's not really porn. I am no fan of porn, but there are photos of the model where she has little clothes on.

It's not full out porno, and it's a site by a model who posts here... off course.

I am glad for all replies.


----------



## Scorsese86 (Mar 8, 2009)

I almost regret starting this thread... I feel like such a pervert right now...

...


----------



## missy_blue_eyez (Mar 8, 2009)

Porn - creative activity of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire.

Obviously you look at said girl for a reason, Im guessing there is some kind of desire involved, so it is porn....she satisfies a desire. It dosent matter, clothed, unclothed etc, etc.....

Theres no need to feel 'like such a pervert' but if you do, doesnt that answer your opening question? If it makes you uncomfortable, then stop subscribing......


----------



## Scorsese86 (Mar 8, 2009)

missy_blue_eyez said:


> Porn - creative activity of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire.
> 
> Obviously you look at said girl for a reason, Im guessing there is some kind of desire involved, so it is porn....she satisfies a desire. It dosent matter, clothed, unclothed etc, etc.....
> 
> Theres no need to feel 'like such a pervert' but if you do, doesnt that answer your opening question? If it makes you uncomfortable, then stop subscribing......



I feel pervert talking about anything that's sexual. The thing is that most people know me as a prude. And I don't like porn. But I understand your reasoning there.

I also have to say there is no way I would choose the paysite over this girl! She means a lot to me, and, she is not my girlfriend, but maybe we'll become a couple... we'll see. But what I was wondering was really if guys here are members of paysites, and in relationships... or whatever. I mean, you all have to excuse my bad English.


----------



## exile in thighville (Mar 8, 2009)

i think the elephant in the room is that dims is a niche community and unlike most regular porn, merely boarding here means interacting with webmodels and sometime objects of desire on a day to day basis. i wouldn't worry about it unless the girl brings it up, but if she does, discuss and disclose.

you're not a pervert for paying for and looking at porn.


----------



## superodalisque (Mar 8, 2009)

"normal" is kinda a weird word when it comes to real relatonships. you just have to find a fit for the two of you. it seems to me that the downfall of most relationships is looking around to see who agrees with what you are doing. they aren't in your relationship so they really don't matter. worrying about what is normal or what other people feel is right instead of doing what feels right for both of you can have a terrible result.

you know, you have a right to your own space. you have a right to a fantasy life so long as you know the difference between that and real life. the problem is a fantasy always seems to look better than reality--until you meet it that is. its easy to convince yourself that you've fallen for someone you haven't met and don't know if you believe all of the blurbs and you don't have any idea of who the real person is. its easy to forget that its all a public personae formulated to get your dollar. just make sure you know where the line is. 

also make sure you don't hurt your real girl with it by doing silly things like making comparisons and pointing out all the parts on your fantasy that you like that your real girl might not possess. i don't know why but it seems that a lot of people have gotten callus like that and need to be reminded of how they might feel if they were compared to a man who was more well endowed, wealthier or more handsome on a regular basis. that comparing someone you supposedly love to a sexual fantasy smacks of gamesmanship in a way. it can seem like some kind of veiled threat to some women that if you aren't like this for me i'll go and find it elsewhere. most times thats not even what its about but thats how a partner can often process it. i know that a lot of people talk about thier fantasy life in the spirit of openess and honestness in their relationship. thats a good goal but honesty can be over rated. this has nothing to do with a woman's confidence really but it is a matter of respect. thats also another good reason to keep your fantasy life to yourself then you can enjoy those aspects without impacting your girl at all. if you aren't always putting it in her face you can have the best of both worlds.


----------



## Scorsese86 (Mar 8, 2009)

superodalisque said:


> "normal" is kinda a weird word when it comes to real relatonships. you just have to find a fit for the two of you. you know, you have a right to your own space. you have a right to a fantasy life so long as you know the difference between that and real life. the problem is a fantasy always seems to look better than reality--until you meet it that is. its easy to convince yourself that you've fallen for someone you haven't met and don't know if you believe all of the blurbs and you don't have any idea of who the real person is. its easy to forget that its all a public personae formulated to get your dollar. just make sure you know where the line is.
> 
> also make sure you don't hurt your real girl with it by doing silly things like making comparisons and pointing out all the parts on your fantasy that you like that your real girl might not possess. i don't know why but it seems that a lot of people have gotten callus like that and need to be reminded of how they might feel if they were compared to a man who was more well endowed, wealthier or more handsome on a regular basis. that has nothing to do with a woman's confidence really but it is a matter of respect. thats also another good reason to keep your fantasy life to yourself. then you can enjoy those aspects without impacting your girl at all.



You seem like quite an intelligent person, superodalisque. Very well-written "said". I have no desire in comparing this girl with the model, I think that makes no sense. It's not that. I would never do a thing like that, and I am very well aware that fantasy is one thing, and a real relationship is quite different. As I've said before, we don't have a relationship right now, but things look positive. Why I subscribe to a paysite is because I am a fan of this model, and enjoy looking at a big, beautiful woman modelling. But with the girl I'm seeing it's so much more than just looks. She is an amazing person. I know the difference between fantasy and reality.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Mar 8, 2009)

Scorsese, at your tender age, you should be flying a freak flag, and proudly at that.

Belonging to a BBW paysite is so within the scope of normal that it's <yawn> ... I feel like a nap, all of a sudden 

Let go of the guilt & shame. You aren't hurting anyone. Enjoy yourself. Life is too short. <insert further trite-but-true platitudes here>


----------



## superodalisque (Mar 8, 2009)

Scorsese86 said:


> You seem like quite an intelligent person, superodalisque. Very well-written "said". I have no desire in comparing this girl with the model, I think that makes no sense. It's not that. I would never do a thing like that, and I am very well aware that fantasy is one thing, and a real relationship is quite different. As I've said before, we don't have a relationship right now, but things look positive. Why I subscribe to a paysite is because I am a fan of this model, and enjoy looking at a big, beautiful woman modelling. But with the girl I'm seeing it's so much more than just looks. She is an amazing person. I know the difference between fantasy and reality.



then i don't see that you really have much of a problem except that you have a personal conflict with being perhaps in love and being a sexual being. i'm not sure they are always the same thing. if you are feeling uncomfortable about it you can always take a break for a while.


----------



## mossystate (Mar 8, 2009)

* waits for Traci to get a paysite, so I can feel ashamed *


----------



## Scorsese86 (Mar 8, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> Scorsese, at your tender age, you should be flying a freak flag, and proudly at that.
> 
> Belonging to a BBW paysite is so within the scope of normal that it's <yawn> ... I feel like a nap, all of a sudden
> 
> Let go of the guilt & shame. You aren't hurting anyone. Enjoy yourself. Life is too short. <insert further trite-but-true platitudes here>



Thank you for the advice I know, I know... I hate that word "normal". But then I was reffering to people on this site. I think all members of Dimensions as not normal, but extraordinary



superodalisque said:


> then i don't see that you really have much of a problem except that you have a personal conflict with being perhaps in love and being a sexual being. i'm not sure they are always the same thing. if you are feeling uncomfortable about it you can always take a break for a while.



Once again, well-written words from you. I thank you for them. I agree, being in love and being a sexual being can often be two very different things.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 8, 2009)

Scorsese86 said:


> I almost regret starting this thread... I feel like such a pervert right now...
> 
> ...



Why would you feel like a perv? Goodness, you have a complex! It's normal to look at women you are attracted to. And most paysite stuff posted here is no where near porn.....I think you are golden. I think the hard thing about plus size webmodels and the fans being in relationships is that the models here are very contactable and personable. I would not be a happy camper if I found my man chatting with said models, unless of course they were friends in real life. But if I found out tomorrow that Mike had subscriptions to websites, I would be soooooo pissed off!!! But only cos he didn't share with me


----------



## Emma (Mar 8, 2009)

I'd be fine with my boyfriend viewing paysites, but, like Donni I wouldn't be comfortable with him talking to the models. Either way, you're not a freak or a pervert and I'm sure she wouldn't mind.


----------



## Scorsese86 (Mar 8, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> Why would you feel like a perv? Goodness, you have a complex! It's normal to look at women you are attracted to. And most paysite stuff posted here is no where near porn.....I think you are golden. I think the hard thing about plus size webmodels and the fans being in relationships is that the models here are very contactable and personable. I would not be a happy camper if I found my man chatting with said models, unless of course they were friends in real life. But if I found out tomorrow that Mike had subscriptions to websites, I would be soooooo pissed off!!! But only cos he didn't share with me



Yeah, complex. I mean, I am not one of those who watch adult films or buy magazines. Also, years with anxiety and depression always makes me paranoid. And yes, it's not really a porn site. And thank you for being so understanding. I have no desire to get to know the model. That's like saying someone thinks Angelina Jolie is sexy, and wants to meet her. That's over the line. Too much.


I hope for your Mike behaves


----------



## Tina (Mar 8, 2009)

There are just two things I'd like to bring up. I'm not sure how I feel about the subject, but am more in the camp of, it's not a huge deal unless it's so much a part of your life that you're looking at it morning noon and night, and it's become part of a sexual addiction.

The first thing is, if it feels wrong to you, don't do it. It doesn't matter what I say or what anyone else says, if it bothers your conscience, then you have found where your morals or boundaries lie, and should stay within what makes you feel right.

The second is, I'd like to turn this on it's ear a bit, just to stay within societal 'norms.' It is way more 'normal' for guys to look at porn than women to. Not that we don't do it at all, but more that men are more likely to go in search of naked bodies than women are. Whether it's socialization that is responsible for this, or genetics, who knows? So, let's look at the norm. The norm is for women to BE in porn, not to look at it. So then, how would you feel if your girlfriend was participating in it, too? You as the watcher, but her as the paysite model (whether you actually look at her or not, just that she is available for the viewing, as you as the 'consumer,' view. I don't necessarily make a distinction -- just as I think that in what has become our stripper/porn culture, by some it's viewed as being okay by some that a married man, or a man in a committed relationship, go to a strip bar and maybe have a lap dance, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and it should be okay for the woman in that part of the relationship to go and GIVE lap dances. Why is it all of a sudden different? Because the man can claim passivity? It was DONE to him, while she was the one DOING it? No, each is a participant and any claims of "all I did was sit there, but it was my wife was off grinding against some guy."

This stuff always interests me when viewed through a feminist filter, and I think that it's often not always looked at that way, when IMO, it should be. They're both of a piece, IMO.

That's all, just thinking out loud and playing devil's advocate.


----------



## Scorsese86 (Mar 8, 2009)

I have to say I only take monthly subscriptions to the site... and I don't stare at it all hours of day. Sometimes I am a member, sometimes not.


----------



## mossystate (Mar 8, 2009)

Can't rep Tina.

But...yes. Don't be asking other people whether how you conduct yourself...is right for ...you. If you are wondering...then there is more to things.

As for the rest of Tina's post....spot on. 

The argument of..." well, that's different "....doesn't wash.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 8, 2009)

Tina said:


> There are just two things I'd like to bring up. I'm not sure how I feel about the subject, but am more in the camp of, it's not a huge deal unless it's so much a part of your life that you're looking at it morning noon and night, and it's become part of a sexual addiction.
> 
> The first thing is, if it feels wrong to you, don't do it. It doesn't matter what I say or what anyone else says, if it bothers your conscience, then you have found where your morals or boundaries lie, and should stay within what makes you feel right.
> 
> ...




I think you raised some good points. However, I think bbw and ssbbw models have something that thin models don't. All of the successful bbw/ssbbw models have their "thing" Like mine is my belly. A guys girlfriend or wife may not have the fantasy belly and her modeling might not suffice. Like, we ALL know I am gorgeous, lol, but we, as a couple have subscribed to sites sometimes to see someones fleshy arms and rolly legs, because I don't have those.

I too like to look at porn through feminist coloured glasses. It is interesting because of the whole objectification aspect, but sometimes it can be a liberating experience. To me, my site is not porn. It is "adult entertainment" and some people may bring themselves to a "state of satisfaction" (lol) looking at my pics and videos, but all I am doing is taking pics and videos in my normal state. Thin women get away with this type of thing in public. If guys are going to lust after me, I might as well make a buck

I do think porn and adult type entertainment is geared towards men because they are visiual creatures. Women want the emotional security and love....which is why chick flicks are called just that "chick" flicks. They feed the need women have much in the same way adult entertainment feeds the need of men.

Of course I am generalsing because this woman likes the visual of a ssbbw very much. And not all chicks like chick flicks. I do think a lot of it has to do with socialisation. Men are this and women are that. Those are the boxes we are put into as babies...as the dr proclaims IT'S A BOY or IT'S A GIRL....those words define us for the rest of our lives in some aspect or another.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 8, 2009)

mossystate said:


> Can't rep Tina.
> 
> But...yes. Don't be asking other people whether how you conduct yourself...is right for ...you. If you are wondering...then there is more to things.
> 
> ...


I got her fir ye cause i also liked the cut of her jib!
Was going to say, that if anyone thinks the paysite stuff isnt porn just because much of the time tits and vagina isnt shown would be really off the mark. Pornography is anything that has the 'intent' to turn people on. If someone is a model specifying in Fa paysites and makes a video of themselves eating a cake and rubbing their bellies..THIS IS PORN!! It is made with the intent to turn people on and it does. Tits and vagina non required in this case..
Anyway, To reply to the o.p. I think if something makes you feel bad then its not worth doing.. Though on the other hand if looking at this particular site is something you feel you 'need' to do.. then maby you need to ween yourself away anyway. Do you think its something you would tell your gf about?


----------



## mergirl (Mar 8, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> I think you raised some good points. However, I think bbw and ssbbw models have something that thin models don't. All of the successful bbw/ssbbw models have their "thing" Like mine is my belly. A guys girlfriend or wife may not have the fantasy belly and her modeling might not suffice. Like, we ALL know I am gorgeous, lol, but we, as a couple have subscribed to sites sometimes to see someones fleshy arms and rolly legs, because I don't have those.
> 
> I too like to look at porn through feminist coloured glasses. It is interesting because of the whole objectification aspect, but sometimes it can be a liberating experience. To me, my site is not porn. It is "adult entertainment" and some people may bring themselves to a "state of satisfaction" (lol) looking at my pics and videos, but all I am doing is taking pics and videos in my normal state. Thin women get away with this type of thing in public. If guys are going to lust after me, I might as well make a buck
> 
> ...


Its porn!!


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 8, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Its porn!!



How? By what dictionary? I keep my clothes on and my bits covered. Why is it not porn when a thin woman poses in nothing in mens car magazines, but if I do it, cos I'm fat, it's porn. I call bull shit.


----------



## goofy girl (Mar 8, 2009)

Is the issue because it's a pay-site model? If her pics were else where online for free would you still feel guilty for looking at them? 

As others have said, it's perfectly healthy to look at and be aroused by sexual images, as long as nobody is getting hurt by it....which is sounds like nobody is...


----------



## superodalisque (Mar 8, 2009)

when it comes to porn and feminism i find the whole thing confusing. on its face its feminist for a woman to chose to take the value from her own body if she wants and to feel free to do that. for BBWs it goes double just because of how the rest of society tends not to view us as sexual beings. a lot of BBWs who participate or view it have an element of body pride involved that is important. thats how i approach it. but at the same time i can't hold the idea that partcipating in pornography makes a woman a victim. she has a choice unless she is the victim of a sexual crime. but thats another situation. 

the guy i'm dating right now has a hard time watching porn ever because he has workd with teens in NY who were forced into prostitution etc... so he has a whole different view on things. i really repsect him, his views and his sensitivity.

i would feel a lot more comfortable with my own view of porn etc... if i did feel women were coming to it willingly and in a healthy mental state. but, when you live in a society where 3:4 girls has experienced some kind of sexual abuse or asault it doesn't always compute. and its even worse when you see how they turn out later. i wonder whether the stats are different for BBWs.


----------



## missy_blue_eyez (Mar 8, 2009)

Have to agree with Mergirl, it is, essentially deemed as porn......


*"Porn - creative activity of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire."*

That is a dictionary definition..........although our society does not view fat, bellies, chubby arms, rolls, stretchmarks etc etc etc in the same way as tits and ass those things are why essentially 'most' FA's are attracted to larger partners, as these parts stimulate some kind of desire.........

For instance.......lots of FA's would probably be really aroused by the sight of jiggling fat, eating sets etc.....and gain sexual gratification from those things.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 8, 2009)

missy_blue_eyez said:


> Have to agree with Mergirl, it is, essentially deemed as porn......
> 
> 
> *"Porn - creative activity of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire."*
> ...




So then every CK advert is porn? Every car magazine with a hot babe in a thong on the hood of a car is porn? Sport Illustrated Swimsuit issue is porn? Come on, get real.


----------



## missy_blue_eyez (Mar 8, 2009)

Essentially....yes they are....we all know advertising is highly sexualised because as we know....sex sells!

After that, as we know porn is broken down into categories.....soft, hard, explicit etc etc etc........

Again, just because you havent got on show 'tits and ass' the bare bones of what is on show is pornagraphic to a select audience as it panders to there desires.......


----------



## olwen (Mar 8, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> How? By what dictionary? I keep my clothes on and my bits covered. Why is it not porn when a thin woman poses in nothing in mens car magazines, but if I do it, cos I'm fat, it's porn. I call bull shit.



This makes me wonder, if a picture of you doing your thing appeared in Gourmet magazine would it be the equivalent of a thin model in a bikini in say Maxim? 

Just because the belly is the focus rather than boobs doesn't make what you do any less sexually stimulating. The audience is just different.


----------



## superodalisque (Mar 8, 2009)

i think the basic test to see if something is porn or not is whether your selling a object kind of product or are you seling the woman and her sexuality. if you are selling say--jeans its different from just selling yourself. but whatever the definiton of what you do is it doesn't take away your humanity. 
one of the few problems i really have with websites is that a lot of men think they have actually bought the woman in some way when they pay thier $15 they think they have the right to tell her what to weigh and how to dress. thats not the same as for a jeans commercial. the men don't think they own a part of Brooke Sheilds or whomever they use to sell them now.


----------



## olwen (Mar 8, 2009)

superodalisque said:


> i think the basic test to see if something is porn or not is whether your selling a object kind of product or are you seling the woman and her sexuality. if you are selling say--jeans its different from just selling yourself. but whatever the definiton of what you do is it doesn't take away your humanity.
> one of the few problems i really have with websites is that a lot of men think they have actually bought the woman in some way when they pay thier $15 they think they have the right to tell her what to weigh and how to dress. thats not the same as for a jeans commercial. the men don't think they own a part of Brooke Sheilds or whomever they use to sell them now.



True they don't own the woman, but they do own the fantasy since that's what they pay to see. As paying customers they have a right to say, hey I'd love to see you do X. If she doesn't deliver he'll spend his money elsewhere. By that same token she has a right to refuse to play out the fantasy and to do what ever turns her on the most (because how she projects that sexual energy gets picked up by the camera and I'm sure being turned on in some way helps) or makes her feel most comfortable, knowing the dollars will go elsewhere. The most loyal customers and the ones who spend the most on that service are well aware it's fantasy.

Ultimately the woman who offers that service decides how much of herself to give up. And how much she gives up will determine how fast she burns out. If it becomes too much she can find another line of work.


----------



## bdog (Mar 8, 2009)

A person has a finite amount of sexual energy. It can be used up in porn, or it can be used up in a relationship, or it can be used up with various partners.

Generally speaking I don't look at porn when I'm in relationships. I prefer to have all my sexual energy focused on a single individual. The intensity created has both pros and cons, but that's a different discussion. 

Sex is really important to me, and if I'm not deeply attracted to someone I simply don't date them. And if I am really attracted to someone, I don't mind giving up the porn that much. Giving up porn, by the way, may not be the easiest thing in the world if you've grown accustomed to it. 

Anyway, as others have said, you'll find the answer that's true for you.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 8, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> How? By what dictionary? I keep my clothes on and my bits covered. Why is it not porn when a thin woman poses in nothing in mens car magazines, but if I do it, cos I'm fat, it's porn. I call bull shit.


If a thin chick posed in a mag that specialised in thin chick admiration showing off her ribs for money so that guys could have a wank over her, then yes it would be porn. If the intent from the 'model' is to turn on the 'custumer' then it is porn. If you can in all honesty say that you dont try in any way to turn on Fa's when you pose in your site then it wouldnt be porn..but i would call bullshit in that case.


----------



## moore2me (Mar 8, 2009)

Here's one thing that really hasn't been talked about too much in this thread (and I realize it was not part of Scorcese's question) - 

Many of the women here would enjoy viewing men's bodies just as much as you men enjoy viewing women's. There's just not as much opportunity - look at the DIMS paysites for example. Not many men on display there - heck there's not even men & women. 

Regardless, when you (men) say it's fine to patronize Paysite boards when you are in a committed, single woman relationship - remember what's good for the goose is also good for the gander.

If you get the privilege, we do too.


----------



## Fascinita (Mar 8, 2009)

MisticalMisty said:


> Would you be ok if she had a paysite subscription or even a playgirl subscription?
> 
> [/COLOR]



Or, I think a more appropriate question may be:

_"How would you feel if some-to-most of your girlfriend's spare time were spent in showing pictures of herself to strangers on the internet, enjoying and being aroused by the attentions she receives, fantasizing about the men who find her attractive?"_

If it's true that men enjoy looking and women enjoy being looked at, it seems to me that this scenario might represent the true female parallel to porn use by men.


----------



## NoWayOut (Mar 8, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> So then every CK advert is porn? Every car magazine with a hot babe in a thong on the hood of a car is porn? Sport Illustrated Swimsuit issue is porn? Come on, get real.



I agree, I think it's not completely cut and dry.

Were I in this situation, I couldn't feel good about joining a paysite. I might comment on a preview like I do now, but that would be it.


----------



## sugarmoore (Mar 8, 2009)

if you guys are just dating you have no need to tell her about your mastibatory habits. not to mention, who knows how long she will be around, your web girl will always be there! now if you guys get serious and move in...you still need to jerk off, right?


----------



## Fascinita (Mar 8, 2009)

sugarmoore said:


> your web girl will always be there!



Right. Because relationships with pictures are so emotionally satisfying and life-rewarding. And men are just horndogs. They _never_ need anything more than to get off.

Let's face it, the ideal relationship is that of a man with his porn. Those of us who want to love men and share our real lives with them had better get used to that.


----------



## superodalisque (Mar 9, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Right. Because relationships with pictures are so emotionally satisfying and life-rewarding. And men are just horndogs. They _never_ need anything more than to get off.
> 
> Let's face it, the ideal relationship is that of a man with his porn. Those of us who want to love men and share our real lives with them had better get used to that.



oh the hostility! ( says like the aftermath of the crash of the hindenberg)


----------



## superodalisque (Mar 9, 2009)

i wonder, do the women here ever feel guilty about the fantasies they use to get off on? does it take away from your relationships? how much of an important place do you give those in your life? how would you feel if your guy said you were never allowed to have them anymore?

personally i never feel guilty about my sexual fantasies. i don't think that i could because they are just that separate from my realty. sometimes i rely on them and sometimes i don't but they are always there when i want them. and i feel they are no one's business but my own unless i choose to share. if its something my partner can't participate in i don't feel i should bother him with it.


----------



## superodalisque (Mar 9, 2009)

olwen said:


> True they don't own the woman, but they do own the fantasy since that's what they pay to see. As paying customers they have a right to say, hey I'd love to see you do X. If she doesn't deliver he'll spend his money elsewhere. By that same token she has a right to refuse to play out the fantasy and to do what ever turns her on the most (because how she projects that sexual energy gets picked up by the camera and I'm sure being turned on in some way helps) or makes her feel most comfortable, knowing the dollars will go elsewhere. The most loyal customers and the ones who spend the most on that service are well aware it's fantasy.
> 
> Ultimately the woman who offers that service decides how much of herself to give up. And how much she gives up will determine how fast she burns out. If it becomes too much she can find another line of work.



true, but its just the idea of people feeling they have those kinds of powers over you and your not having a choice even if you do. you know a lot of people who strip and do porn have a lot of sexual issues because of thier exposure to that kind of attitude. even though its commercially valid, over a long period of time it can be wearing and people who are the actors etc... can be affected by it in a negative way. it can change your overall opinion toward th opposite sex to be exposed to that. also how much is made in that industry depends on how much a person gives up of themselves. the consumers can see if you don't. so women who won't don't last very long or do very well. often they get burned out. thats why they retire so early even when they are perfectly capable of going on.


----------



## NoWayOut (Mar 9, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Right. Because relationships with pictures are so emotionally satisfying and life-rewarding. And men are just horndogs. They _never_ need anything more than to get off.
> 
> Let's face it, the ideal relationship is that of a man with his porn. Those of us who want to love men and share our real lives with them had better get used to that.



If I didn't know that was sarcasm, I'd find that incredibly insulting.


----------



## Suze (Mar 9, 2009)

sugarmoore said:


> if you guys are just dating you have no need to tell her about your mastibatory habits. not to mention, who knows how long she will be around, your web girl will always be there! now if you guys get serious and move in...you still need to jerk off, right?


congrats! 
you accomplished to offend both sexes there, sugar.


----------



## Fascinita (Mar 9, 2009)

superodalisque said:


> oh the hostility! ( says like the aftermath of the crash of the hindenberg)



It wasn't hostile, F. Just sarcastic, which is common enough. I only wanted to bring up what I thought was the subtext of sugarmoore's take on this issue. IT upset me and I wanted to point out what I found upsetting about it.


----------



## superodalisque (Mar 9, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> It wasn't hostile, F. Just sarcastic, which is common enough. I only wanted to bring up what I thought was the subtext of sugarmoore's take on this issue. IT upset me and I wanted to point out what I found upsetting about it.



i was pulling your leg, hence the wink


----------



## Ivy (Mar 9, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> How? By what dictionary? I keep my clothes on and my bits covered. Why is it not porn when a thin woman poses in nothing in mens car magazines, but if I do it, cos I'm fat, it's porn. I call bull shit.



"As I say in one of my shows, "In erotica you use a feather, in porn you use the whole chicken." Or, as my friend Gloria Leonard says, "it's all in the lighting." The words erotica and pornography generally describe a genre, but these words can be quite interchangeable. Some porn is more erotic than erotica. Some erotica can be pornographic and not erotic at all. But that's what makes it real folk art in a way, these things can't be easily defined." - from an interview with Annie Sprinkle.

pretty much covers how i feel about the whole subject. is what your site and my site contain straight up pornography? no. but, all the pictures were taken for one main purpose. and we all know what that is.. haha. so, while it's not exactly porn, it's not exactly not porn. yanno?

as far as the whole CK ad thing you mentioned.. the main difference between our paysites and a CK underwear ad is that the purpose of the ad is to sell underwear, and they use sex to sell it. the purpose of our site is to sell our internet persona (which includes all the pictures, videos, blogs, etc) for the purpose of male ahh.. enjoyment. 

as for the original poster's question, you're normal and it's nothing to feel weird or be ashamed of. as long as it doesn't become a constant obsession and you're not hitting up models on messenger, i think that you are not doing anything wrong at all.


----------



## Tina (Mar 9, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> I think you raised some good points. However, I think bbw and ssbbw models have something that thin models don't. All of the successful bbw/ssbbw models have their "thing" Like mine is my belly. A guys girlfriend or wife may not have the fantasy belly and her modeling might not suffice. Like, we ALL know I am gorgeous, lol, but we, as a couple have subscribed to sites sometimes to see someones fleshy arms and rolly legs, because I don't have those.
> 
> I too like to look at porn through feminist coloured glasses. It is interesting because of the whole objectification aspect, but sometimes it can be a liberating experience. To me, my site is not porn. It is "adult entertainment" and some people may bring themselves to a "state of satisfaction" (lol) looking at my pics and videos, but all I am doing is taking pics and videos in my normal state. Thin women get away with this type of thing in public. If guys are going to lust after me, I might as well make a buck


Donni, I'm going back and forth trying to decide, "should I post?" and "should I avoid it?" I'll probably post. Those of you long-timers who have read my posts regarding feminism and porn can just move along, because I can already feel your eyes rolling. However, I can't say my feelings have changed much at all if any.

Donni, I would say that your site (though I haven't seen it and don't know for sure) would likely fall into the category of "erotica" or "soft porn." My feelings are this:

Porn has existed in order to quantify womens' bodies sexually and come up with a dollar amount. This is usually done by madams or pimps -- sometimes the woman herself. We'd like to think that there are many little websites with happy women running them who feel great about what they do. There are likely some women like that. They, unfortunately, are in the minority when looking at the whole of the porn industry, which has worked hard to make this a porn culture, and has succeeded.

This stuff has always gone on from one degree to another. I have some beautiful old b&w erotica photos somewhere on a hard drive. One I can find I'll post below. I find it to be completely beautiful and lovely. In its day, it was porn. I think that people's ideas of what porn is varies. A lot of that comes from just how immersed they are in it and how normalized it has become for them.

Fact is, quite often when one sees porn -- movies and many of the larger porn mainstream sites and usually the strip clubs and brothels -- they are run by men. Men with lots of money. Yes, some women are very much taken advantage of, kept drugged, beaten, etc. This is the foundation upon which the porn empires were built. Of the several strippers I know, they have all been sexually abused and raped in their childhood and teen years. I'm sure there are women who didn't have those experiences in their background that do the work, but many do. And often these women also end up detesting men, are disgusted by giving them lap dances and have girlfriends and female spouses. Corporate porn wasn't built by "On Our Backs" feminists who believe that what they are doing is re-claiming their bodies, etc, etc.

All materials that can be deemed to be porn feeds into this system of making money from womens' bodies. And yes, commercials and ads, too. Women have been used to make corporations money since time immemorial. They are used as chattel to exchange money from one hand to another. There's a lot I'm not going into because I'm bound and determined to get my ass to bed at a halfway decent time tonight, so pardon the missing areas, etc. here.

This porn and stripper culture we now have inures young men into patterns of spending and builds their sexuality around frequent viewing of naked women. Often even at work. A number of men begin and end their day with images of naked, or mostly naked, women. Is this okay? That's not for me to decide, but don't anyone tell me it makes no difference and that it hasn't changed society, or that the guy who is viewing porn at work doesn't treat his fellow female employees differently. Porn has become so mainstream that there are porn ring tones, porn film makers making music videos and commercials. And it has somehow become acceptable for men to be stimulated to orgasm by a stripper's gyrating crotch the night before his wedding. Now THERE'S a man who I'd never marry... Again, what would he think about his future bride doing something like that to some guy? I will bet anything that most men wouldn't stand for it. Young men and teenagers are being brainwashed. They are being shown, by those who profit by it, that it's healthy and normal to want not just a thin woman, but a woman whose looks are so impossible that the real woman who modeled doesn't even look like herself. He's being taught by porn what 'real' women should do in bed for them, how they should sound, etc. It's all an artificial environment, but with enough viewing, it somehow becomes part of an expectation, even if unconscious. The same could be said about fat porn, though the number of young men being inured by it are far smaller. Still, same deal.

All of this normalization has made some people not just rich but ultra-rich, so it must be perpetuated, just like the riches that are earned by the diet companies. I have no illusions that anyone will decide that it's wrong and just give up and live on an average wage. One thing about earning lots of money is that it changes lifestyles -- lifestyles that those who are living them do not want to stop, or move down any degree of notches and affluence. So, the show must go on.

Having said that, I do not dislike the women who participate in it (unless I dislike them personally, but would not be rude to someone and say I wouldn't be friendly to them because they have a paysite), but support their own right to make those decisions even if I think that overall it feeds into the whole machine and is ultimately harmful to women on the whole.

Also, I am complicit myself for being in an issue of Dimensions, which I do not regret. While I would never consider Dimensions magazine to be porn, it was used as such, and also was a tiny cog in the machine. Still, I am able to make distinctions between levels of porn and erotica and don't get so wrapped up in it that I'm rabid about it. I just know that I have been part of it in some way, and doing it served me in some ways (not talking about financially -- that always matters, but wasn't at all the important part about doing what I did). After the mag, I declined all other offers, because it _did_ serve me and that was good enough.

So I'm not here to tell anyone what to do or what not to do, just to say that my eyes are wide open with this stuff, where I see a lot of men who would rather just ignore that and continue to get their fix. I at least respect that the OP is doing some self-analysis and asking questions. I think that's a good thing.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 9, 2009)

missy_blue_eyez said:


> Essentially....yes they are....we all know advertising is highly sexualised because as we know....sex sells!
> 
> After that, as we know porn is broken down into categories.....soft, hard, explicit etc etc etc........
> 
> Again, just because you havent got on show 'tits and ass' the bare bones of what is on show is pornagraphic to a select audience as it panders to there desires.......



ok so is it porn when you post pics of your nights out at bgp? You wear low cut dresses to show off your boobs to get sexual attention. When you post pics of yourself is said dress are you not then posting porn?

I do agree there are different categories of porn.....but why not call it what it is, soft porn, erotica etc....just calling something porn and calling it a good day isn't ok with me. Google bbw porn. There you will find the porn I am referring to. When you google bbw porn you will not find any of the paysites, but instead you will find fat women fucking and getting fucked. That is porn in my mind.

And I do agree that paysites CAN be pornographic, but mine is not. It is more like soft core erotica. 

But I digress. I'm bored of this issue.


----------



## Scorsese86 (Mar 9, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> But I digress. I'm bored of this issue.



Blame me. I started this.
Wow. I am just strange:blush:


----------



## missy_blue_eyez (Mar 9, 2009)

Ivy said:


> so, while it's not exactly porn, it's not exactly not porn. yanno?



.....And this is exactly the point I was trying to make......your photos have a purpose, you have a target audience, you know what they are going to do with said photo's etc etc, so hence those photos satisfy a desire to that audience for a price. Thats all, Im not saying theres anything wrong with it at all, Im all for bbw paysites.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 9, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> ok so is it porn when you post pics of your nights out at bgp? You wear low cut dresses to show off your boobs to get sexual attention. When you post pics of yourself is said dress are you not then posting porn?
> 
> I do agree there are different categories of porn.....but why not call it what it is, soft porn, erotica etc....just calling something porn and calling it a good day isn't ok with me. Google bbw porn. There you will find the porn I am referring to. When you google bbw porn you will not find any of the paysites, but instead you will find fat women fucking and getting fucked. That is porn in my mind.
> 
> ...


I actually have nothing whatsoever against pornography. I am and have been very good friends with a few 'porno queens' for a good number of years. A couple of which are very open about it and know EXACTLY what it is they do and the effect it causes. I did have one friend that 'did some porn' and kinna saw it as her just wearing nice clothes and showing her belly.. i was like "yeah, but you do know that everyone who subscribes to your site is wanking off to you showing your belly right?" 
Plain and simple. 
In your above statement you compared it to missy wearing a dress. This is a rediculous comparison. Firstly, she doesnt think when putting on her dress.."hmm..men will wank while watching me wear this" secondly she doesnt get paid for the privilage. 
Just because you are not physically there while people are 'having their fantasies' doesnt mean its not happening.
If you are doing your site for 'art' then why not show the pics at a local art gallery. When Ivy mentioned the erotica/fan saying, this is in regard to non 'speciality' pornography. BBW porn is speciallity so unless you are hiding your belly coquettishly behind a fan ..then it really doesnt sound like erotica..
In Fa porn, it is the belly much of the time which is the 'object of lust' not the vagina or tits. 
This is just one oppinion of course but i really think its deluded to thing otherwise.
If ANY Fa who subscribes to a bbw erotic/porn site (call it what you will, as a porn site by any other name is still for wanking to) does so for ANY reason other than to get off on it to.. then i might have to review my ideas. i doubt it though.
I was a phone sex worker for about 6 months for a laugh and it really opened my eyes to the realities of the industry of sex. For one thing, its harder to dissillusion yourself that what you are doing isnt effecting people sexually when you can hear them comming down a phone at you. And i didnt even have to show my belly!!


----------



## Fascinita (Mar 9, 2009)

superodalisque said:


> i wonder, do the women here ever feel guilty about the fantasies they use to get off on? does it take away from your relationships? how much of an important place do you give those in your life? how would you feel if your guy said you were never allowed to have them anymore?
> 
> personally i never feel guilty about my sexual fantasies. i don't think that i could because they are just that separate from my realty. sometimes i rely on them and sometimes i don't but they are always there when i want them. and i feel they are no one's business but my own unless i choose to share. if its something my partner can't participate in i don't feel i should bother him with it.



In the case of porn, I think it's fair to say that more than fantasy is involved. You mention keeping your fantasies separate from reality, Felicia, but I wonder if it's ever possible to separate porn from reality entirely: Porn costs money and requires time and energy to consume (sometimes only a little, and sometimes exorbitantly); the realities of the porn industry (the industry that porn usage supports) are complicated and at times disturbing; etc. 

Fantasies and fodder for fantasy are not the same things. Nowhere is it written that fantasies have to begin and end with porn usage. That we currently enjoy freely available porn to feed our need for fantasy is a complicated thing, with real consequences in real life--some positive and some negative.

I'm pro pornography as a vehicle to discovering and enjoying one's own sexuality. But on the other hand, I can't close my eyes and ignore that it's not as simple as "enjoying a fantasy life." As soon as I open my eyes I have to acknowledge the realities of a world where porn involves a lot more than mere fantasizing. 

It doesn't seem honest to claim that all that is involved is the private fantasy life of the porn consumer. What might be fairer would be to say that porn has both its uses and its costs, and that all this should be acknowledged and navigated with skill and sobriety by everyone involved.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 9, 2009)

Maybe I'm in denial. And I'm a porn star, but honestly, I don't consider it porn unless nudity is involved. Guys wank off to the Victoria Secret cataloge and it is known all around the world, yet that's not considered porn...it's just girls in bras and panties....just like me.

I guess I'm just pissed off that fat =naughty, forbidden, dirty, pornographic once again. It just adds to the message I get everyday that I am bad, dirty, sinful, different because of my body and different standards apply to me.

I agree what I do is adult entertainment. I even agree that it is erotica, but I disagree that it is porn, even though I KNOW some people are getting off. I am not doing anything pornographic. I don't play with my tits, I don't touch my vagina, I'm not getting fucked, I don't do blow jobs, etc....to me THAT is porn.

But like I said, maybe I am denial and I'm a big ol fat porn star and each video I make is big ol fat one woman porno.


----------



## wrestlingguy (Mar 9, 2009)

Should this thread be on the Paysite Board?


----------



## mergirl (Mar 9, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> Maybe I'm in denial. And I'm a porn star, but honestly, I don't consider it porn unless nudity is involved. Guys wank off to the Victoria Secret cataloge and it is known all around the world, yet that's not considered porn...it's just girls in bras and panties....just like me.
> 
> I guess I'm just pissed off that fat =naughty, forbidden, dirty, pornographic once again. It just adds to the message I get everyday that I am bad, dirty, sinful, different because of my body and different standards apply to me.
> 
> ...


I think maby where we are differing is in definition. To you, 'porn' might include 'playing with your tits or touching your vagina' but to an Fa 'rubbing your belly' for example has the same power sexually that the former things you mentioned have to non Fa's (perhaps even more so). 
I dont think fat porn sites perpetuate the message that you are bad, dirty, sinful or different because of your size. Naughty, forbidden, pornographic, perhaps, but is that not the pull of the paysite anyway? 
I really dont swallow your argument about bra magazines or other commercials which use models to sell their goods being pornographic. Sure, some people will get turned on by this. Unfortunatly SOME people will get turned on by a nappy (diper) advert or a horse lovers magazine this doesnt make these things porn by proxy. The intent has to be there.
Why did you decide to do your site? 
If it was for money, then you must be aware of why people are paying to look at you. You understand the workings of Fa's and so can play up to the things that will encourage Fa's to part with their cash;
i havnt actually seen your site but i imagine it will be stuff along the lines of 'watch me rubbing my belly' or 'look how big my belly is' .. this is the general guist of fat porn, Adult entertainment.. call it what you will. Intent to excite people sexually via the medium of photography or video is classed as pornography. In most peoples minds and in the dictionary too.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 9, 2009)

mergirl said:


> I think maby where we are differing is in definition. To you, 'porn' might include 'playing with your tits or touching your vagina' but to an Fa 'rubbing your belly' for example has the same power sexually that the former things you mentioned have to non Fa's (perhaps even more so).
> I dont think fat porn sites perpetuate the message that you are bad, dirty, sinful or different because of your size. Naughty, forbidden, pornographic, perhaps, but is that not the pull of the paysite anyway?
> I really dont swallow your argument about bra magazines or other commercials which use models to sell their goods being pornographic. Sure, some people will get turned on by this. Unfortunatly SOME people will get turned on by a nappy (diper) advert or a horse lovers magazine this doesnt make these things porn by proxy. The intent has to be there.
> Why did you decide to do your site?
> ...


 
The Victoria Secret catalog is not just a catalog selling underwear. It is created with men in mind. But you don't have to "buy" anything I say because it isn't for sale. And you probably have no idea what a Victoria Secret catalog is anyhow.


----------



## Fascinita (Mar 9, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> Maybe I'm in denial. And I'm a porn star, but honestly, I don't consider it porn unless nudity is involved. Guys wank off to the Victoria Secret cataloge and it is known all around the world, yet that's not considered porn...it's just girls in bras and panties....just like me.
> 
> I guess I'm just pissed off that fat =naughty, forbidden, dirty, pornographic once again. It just adds to the message I get everyday that I am bad, dirty, sinful, different because of my body and different standards apply to me.



I would say that the VS catalog is pornography disguised as underwear marketing. I'd also say that porn is not dirty or naughty or sinful. Having said all of that, I'd add that porn is more alluring to some people when it's seen as dirty or secretive or sinful. That's _one_ reason people will pay for porn as porn, when a million VS catalogs can be had free of charge.

We keep pushing the boundaries of what can be displayed out in the open without shame. The new Stacker 6 commercial seems to flirt with the idea of people having sex onscreen, in the name of selling the product. Is that anything like pornography? These are interesting times. Pleasure is promised to the six winds, and profit is usually at stake. :bow:

I think you should rest easy, Doni. Showing your beautiful fat body in photos is not shameful nor dirty nor any of those other qualifiers. While I'm at it, let me say that I appreciate the intelligence and sense of fat pride you seem to bring to your work.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 9, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> The Victoria Secret catalog is not just a catalog selling underwear. It is created with men in mind. But you don't have to "buy" anything I say because it isn't for sale. And you probably have no idea what a Victoria Secret catalog is anyhow.


haha. Well thats me told, what with your succinct debate. 
I DONT buy your words but i could if i wanted to, buy your porn! 

p.s I have heard of Victoria Secrets, I'm from the Uk not the moon, i have access to a lot of American culture and have American friends. This however is besides my point totally.


----------



## moore2me (Mar 9, 2009)

Scorsese86 said:


> I almost regret starting this thread... I feel like such a pervert right now...
> 
> ...





Scorsese86 said:


> I feel pervert talking about anything that's sexual. The thing is that most people know me as a prude. And I don't like porn. But I understand your reasoning there.





Scorsese86 said:


> Blame me. I started this.
> Wow. I am just strange:blush:



Scorsese86, You are not strange. You are not a pervert. From what I have seen on these Boards you are a nice, polite, intelligent, young man. And by association, the young women trying to make a little money on the Paysite Boards, are equally good people. They just happen to be more brave, more attractive, or outgoing than the rest of us.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 9, 2009)

Soooooo, if a model on a foot fetish website posts pictures of her pretty lil feet....is that porn?


----------



## BothGunsBlazing (Mar 9, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> Soooooo, if a model on a foot fetish website posts pictures of her pretty lil feet....is that porn?



to some one who likes feet, yes. 



well, if they're paying for the service, yes. I consider the women who don't show anything y'know, in the "private" area but still doing the paysite deal to be doing soft core porn and well, I am pretty sure everyone knows what the member signing up is planning on doing with the content once they get it.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 9, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> Soooooo, if a model on a foot fetish website posts pictures of her pretty lil feet....is that porn?


Yes, without a doubt, because the intent "on a foot fetish forum" would be to excite those with that particular fetish by showing their feet. A Dr Martins magazine on the other hand may show shoes but is not pornographic because satiating a foot fetishists desire was not the point of the magazine in the first place, the selling of shoes was.


----------



## Scorsese86 (Mar 9, 2009)

moore2me said:


> Scorsese86, You are not strange. You are not a pervert. From what I have seen on these Boards you are a nice, polite, intelligent, young man. And by association, the young women trying to make a little money on the Paysite Boards, are equally good people. They just happen to be more brave, more attractive, or outgoing than the rest of us.



Thank you for those kind words

Look at me... I started a long discussion on what the term pornography is... which was not my goal at all. Sorry everyone.


----------



## Fascinita (Mar 9, 2009)

Scorsese86 said:


> Look at me... I started a long discussion on what the term pornography is... which was not my goal at all. Sorry everyone.



You should be ashamed of yourself! 







Kidding!


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Mar 9, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> How? By what dictionary? I keep my clothes on and my bits covered. Why is it not porn when a thin woman poses in nothing in mens car magazines, but if I do it, cos I'm fat, it's porn. I call bull shit.




The difference, IMO, is that they women in the men's car magazines are there for the main purpose of selling cars. Yeah the people putting together the magazine know that men are going to go crazy over the girls but the main intent is to sell cars. Not to get men off.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 9, 2009)

Ella Bella said:


> The difference, IMO, is that they women in the men's car magazines are there for the main purpose of selling cars. Yeah the people putting together the magazine know that men are going to go crazy over the girls but the main intent is to sell cars. Not to get men off.



Maybe. I guess I'm just a little confused in that my product is only considered porn by a very small group.....I consider porn a universal thing...like you know it when you see it. Like the example I used of feet. Except for a small community, it wouldn't be considered porn. So if it isn't considered porn by the majority, is it really porn? 

And one could say, I am selling the idea that being super fat is beautiful I know that's total BS....but I could say it anyhow.

Ads cross the lines though. There is a new CK advert on TV and it's a couple drying humping and making out. I have no idea if it is selling jeans or a fragrance...to me it is like soft core porn. And why should selling a product make it any less of porn? So if in the middle of my videos I try to sell some avon or tupperware....would you not consider it porn anymore?


----------



## Scorsese86 (Mar 9, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> You should be ashamed of yourself!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am kind of ashamed. Everybody here probably thinks I am a sex-addict or something...


----------



## fatchicksrockuk (Mar 9, 2009)

por&#8901;nog&#8901;ra&#8901;phy
&#8194; &#8194;/p&#596;r&#712;n&#594;gr&#601;fi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pawr-nog-ruh-fee] Show IPA
noun
obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.
Origin:
184050; < Gk pornográph(os) writing about harlots (porno-, comb. form of pórn&#275; harlot + -graphos -graph ) + -y 3 

ob&#8901;scene
&#8194; &#8194;/&#601;b&#712;sin/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uhb-seen] Show IPA
adjective
1. offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved: obscene language.
2. causing uncontrolled sexual desire.
3. abominable; disgusting; repulsive.

I _think_ that most bbw paysites without graphic sexual content do not count as pornography. 

Think of it this way - what movie rating would you apply to it? 15 or under (UK) or PG-13 (US) = not porn. A BBW in underwear would not be above a 15 or PG-13...


----------



## TraciJo67 (Mar 9, 2009)

Scorsese86 said:


> I am kind of ashamed. Everybody here probably thinks I am a sex-addict or something...



I can't speak for everyone, but I'm fairly certain that most of us are thinking quite, quite, quite the opposite, Scorsese.


----------



## Fascinita (Mar 9, 2009)

fatchicksrockuk said:


> ob?scene
> ? ?/?b?sin/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uhb-seen] Show IPA
> adjective
> 1. offensive to morality or decency; indecent; depraved: obscene language.
> ...



Because these sites don't cause uncontrolled sexual desire? 

I think that of course they are porn. And porn is not obscene unless it shows something despicable. Sex of itself is not despicable.

Morality and decency ain't what they used to be. I think it sounds like you're personally offended by some kinds of pornography and therefore see a need to differentiate what's not offensive to you from what is. It's fine to not have a taste for certain types of porn, but there's no need to discount it as obscene or depraved across the board. Sure, some porn is certainly depraved and exploits the worst of human desires, but I don't think what's moral and what's not in porn can always be decided simply by drawing a line between 'soft' and 'hard.' Hardcore sex can be depicted in a way that's absolutely morally squeaky clean, while exploitative photos of minors in their underwear would be CLEARLY morally corrupt.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Mar 9, 2009)

moore2me said:


> Scorsese86, You are not strange. You are not a pervert. From what I have seen on these Boards you are a nice, polite, intelligent, young man. And by association, the young women trying to make a little money on the Paysite Boards, are equally good people. *They just happen to be more brave, more attractive, or outgoing than the rest of us.*




Maybe its just me but I find myself a bit insulted at the bolded line. Just because someone chooses to post pictures on the paysite boards doesn't make them more brave, outgoing, or even more attractive than me. They just happen to be someone who posts pictures on the paysite boards, because they enjoy it, or like the extra money or whatever their reasons are. But in no way does it make them more anything than me.


----------



## altered states (Mar 9, 2009)

I think the ultimate anti-feminist position to take is that women are too incompetent to be trusted to use their bodies properly. Porn, strip clubs, and prostitution are indeed dominated by men. So are banks, advertising agencies, fast food chains, and all of the world's political systems. And if we look at the formation of these entities and their day-to-day operations, you will find an enormous amount of exploitation in there as well. 

It's unfair and downright bizarre to compare Dimensions-promoted paysites to the worst aspects of the sex industry, as if they're all part of some kind of continuum of evil and female exploitation. Unless I'm mistaken about Donni's situation, hers and most other Dimensions paysites have as little to do with sexual slavery as someone enjoying a beer does to a child shot by the Cali drug cartel. Both are aspects of the human urge to intoxicate oneself, but that's about where it ends. I absolutely believe people need to be protected from exploitation, and back this up with action. But I also believe we as free beings have the right to engage in actions that are mutually beneficial as long as both parties are doing so under their own free will. This is the antithesis of exploitation, and what a free society is all about.

Fighting the crimes themselves - abuse and exploitation - is the key. The more that basic human urges such as men looking at women in a sexual way are made mainstream and acceptable, the less opportunity there will be for women to be taken advantage of. It's a horrible irony that radical feminists in Canada linked up with religious moralists to craft censorship laws, thus pushing their sisters further into the shadows.

The activity of a woman using her body in a sexually provocative way for money is not evil in and of itself. And just because you don't like these activities - they offend you - doesn't make them evil, or even unfair. Many activities and pursuits have aspects of evil and exploitation in them. That doesn't mean the activity or pursuit itself is inherently evil or exploitative. Jesus, even EATING is exploitative. Hear about the slave tomato pickers in Florida? The key is not to stop eating tomatoes, but to make sure the tomatoes we eat are picked by people paid and treated fairly. You're advocating boycotting tomatoes.

You don't like the sexualization of modern society, but the overall status of women in a society and the availability and ubiquitousness of porn and sexual images have little to do with one another. Western Europe and America are lousy with porn and are extremely sexualized cultures and yet are among the most gender-equal societies that have ever existed on the planet. Societies where women are not free to use their bodies are also societies where they're not free to use their minds. I'd argue that one begets the other, and I can't think of an example on earth today or in recent history that disproves this. (That said, I'm not an anthropologist - anyone who does know an example, let me know - seriously!)

Last but definitely not least, if it is such a great thing that the OP is questioning his actions, why did you tell him in your first post that if he's asking the question, he already knows the answer? That sounds moralistic and closed-minded, dangerously close to the thinking of the "moral majority" types who'd just as soon keep women subservient. Yes, we ALWAYS have to ask, and should. That's part of developing the tools we need to make up our own minds.



Tina said:


> Donni, I'm going back and forth trying to decide, "should I post?" and "should I avoid it?" I'll probably post. Those of you long-timers who have read my posts regarding feminism and porn can just move along, because I can already feel your eyes rolling. However, I can't say my feelings have changed much at all if any.
> 
> Donni, I would say that your site (though I haven't seen it and don't know for sure) would likely fall into the category of "erotica" or "soft porn." My feelings are this:
> 
> ...


----------



## mergirl (Mar 9, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Because these sites don't cause uncontrolled sexual desire?
> 
> I think that of course they are porn. And porn is not obscene unless it shows something despicable. Sex of itself is not despicable.
> 
> Morality and decency ain't what they used to be. I think it sounds like you're personally offended by some kinds of pornography and therefore see a need to differentiate what's not offensive to you from what is. It's fine to not have a taste for certain types of porn, but there's no need to discount it as obscene or depraved across the board. Sure, some porn is certainly depraved and exploits the worst of human desires, but I don't think what's moral and what's not in porn can always be decided simply by drawing a line between 'soft' and 'hard.' Hardcore sex can be depicted in a way that's absolutely morally squeaky clean, while exploitative photos of minors in their underwear would be CLEARLY morally corrupt.


i had actually started writing something along these lines.. then i thought.."och never mind, ive said enough".. then you said it and better than i could have! excellent work!


----------



## Fascinita (Mar 9, 2009)

tres huevos said:


> The activity of a woman using her body in a sexually provocative way for money is not evil in and of itself. And just because you don't like these activities - they offend you - doesn't make them evil, or even unfair.



Provocative post, Eggs. I wondered, though, for the sake of clarity, if you'd mind saying how you'd feel about your SO using her body in a sexually provocative way for money. Would that bother you? Would you see it as objectionable? I think the integrity of your position on this would depend on whether you'd be just peachy with your wife choosing a career in sex work. If you were offended when it applied to your wife, you couldn't well fault anyone for being offended when it applies to women in general. 

(Just checking, so that I can "read" all of your post and maybe respond once I've understood your position.)

(Of course I am speaking purely in theory, leaving asides such factors as the fact that your SO may not be inclined to use her body in a sexually provocative way for money.)


----------



## fatchicksrockuk (Mar 9, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Because these sites don't cause uncontrolled sexual desire?
> 
> I think that of course they are porn. And porn is not obscene unless it shows something despicable. Sex of itself is not despicable.
> 
> Morality and decency ain't what they used to be. I think it sounds like you're personally offended by some kinds of pornography and therefore see a need to differentiate what's not offensive to you from what is. It's fine to not have a taste for certain types of porn, but there's no need to discount it as obscene or depraved across the board. Sure, some porn is certainly depraved and exploits the worst of human desires, but I don't think what's moral and what's not in porn can always be decided simply by drawing a line between 'soft' and 'hard.' Hardcore sex can be depicted in a way that's absolutely morally squeaky clean, while exploitative photos of minors in their underwear would be CLEARLY morally corrupt.



I'm really surprised you can infer what does and doesn't offend me from my post. Generally, if it is not hurting anyone and is consensual, I'm not offended. 

A BBW paysite where there is nothing more explicit than lingerie pictures is no different to a underwear catalogue or advert. Sure, some people will find it sexually desirable, but pretty much everything can be found sexually desirable. Doesn't make it porn. Although, see Rule 34 of the Interwebs.

My quote was simply taken from dictionary.com - not my own words.

My opinion:

Imagery (non-graphic i.e. no nipples or suchlike) e.g. some BBW paysites, lingerie adverts etc = not porn

Graphic imagery (i.e. nipples etc, sex acts, simulated or otherwise) = porn

Drawing a distinction between a lingerie advert and a BBW in lingerie, labeling one not-porn and the other one porn, seems somewhat sizist. For example, the permittable adverts on the paysite board, I do not consider porn, as explicitly sexual images (i.e. sex acts, nipples etc) are not shown. Here in the UK we have had lingerie adverts (i.e. bra and panties) on buses and billboards. They clearly aren't porn!


----------



## mossystate (Mar 9, 2009)

Ella Bella said:


> Maybe its just me but I find myself a bit insulted at the bolded line. Just because someone chooses to post pictures on the paysite boards doesn't make them more brave, outgoing, or even more attractive than me. They just happen to be someone who posts pictures on the paysite boards, because they enjoy it, or like the extra money or whatever their reasons are. But in no way does it make them more anything than me.



Ummmm...yeah. There are many reasons why women do the paysite thing. Some even regret it after a time...again, for many reasons. I think there is waaaay too much wishful thinking that if a woman is saying " oooo baby, thank you for wanting me *, she actually means it, or is even all that outgoing. Can be a way for a few extra bucks and she goes through some motions. Others do it and love it and get what they absolutely choose to get from it.

There is a weird attitude among many that by accepting money for posted pictures...a person is somehow this Goddess...above all other women, and other women must surely see themselves as indequate. Oh, and, a bunch of the paysite women ( not all...some have egos the size of Alaska ) I see who post all over the boards?....they do not view themselves as better ...or worse. Seems to come from lots of other places, that attitude.

Now, somebody give me a dollar for all the bravery/super-attractiveness I used to show out here.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 9, 2009)

mossystate said:


> Ummmm...yeah. There are many reasons why women do the paysite thing. Some even regret it after a time...again, for many reasons. I think there is waaaay too much wishful thinking that if a woman is saying " oooo baby, thank you for wanting me *, she actually means it, or is even all that outgoing. Can be a way for a few extra bucks and she goes through some motions. Others do it and love it and get what they absolutely choose to get from it.
> 
> There is a weird attitude among many that by accepting money for posted pictures...a person is somehow this Goddess...above all other women, and other women must surely see themselves as indequate. Oh, and, a bunch of the paysite women ( not all...some have egos the size of Alaska ) I see who post all over the boards?....they do not view themselves as better ...or worse. Seems to come from lots of other places, that attitude.
> 
> Now, somebody give me a dollar for all the bravery/super-attractiveness I used to show out here.



Well for what it is worth, I am not pretty, I am not confident, my ego is smaller than Leadore Idaho and I am shy as all hell....but I do consider myself a Goddess But I thought that way before I had a site


----------



## Redhotphatgirl (Mar 9, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Its porn!!


If this is the case then porn is everywhere fat women are.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 9, 2009)

Redhotphatgirl said:


> If this is the case then porn is everywhere fat women are.



Exactly.


----------



## Tina (Mar 9, 2009)

tres huevos said:


> I think the ultimate anti-feminist position to take is that women are too incompetent to be trusted to use their bodies properly. Porn, strip clubs, and prostitution are indeed dominated by men. So are banks, advertising agencies, fast food chains, and all of the world's political systems. And if we look at the formation of these entities and their day-to-day operations, you will find an enormous amount of exploitation in there as well.


Yes, but of a different sort. I was discussing the subject at hand, not banks, advertising agencies, etc. I smell straw. 


> It's unfair and downright bizarre to compare Dimensions-promoted paysites to the worst aspects of the sex industry, as if they're all part of some kind of continuum of evil and female exploitation. Unless I'm mistaken about Donni's situation, hers and most other Dimensions paysites have as little to do with sexual slavery as someone enjoying a beer does to a child shot by the Cali drug cartel. Both are aspects of the human urge to intoxicate oneself, but that's about where it ends. I absolutely believe people need to be protected from exploitation, and back this up with action. But I also believe we as free beings have the right to engage in actions that are mutually beneficial as long as both parties are doing so under their own free will. This is the antithesis of exploitation, and what a free society is all about.


Heh. It's funny that you think I was comparing. I was discussing the entire issue, not comparing, and never said some of the things that the filter in your brain seems to think I said. Please re-read, or better, just ignore.



> The activity of a woman using her body in a sexually provocative way for money is not evil in and of itself. And just because you don't like these activities - they offend you - doesn't make them evil, or even unfair. Many activities and pursuits have aspects of evil and exploitation in them. That doesn't mean the activity or pursuit itself is inherently evil or exploitative. Jesus, even EATING is exploitative. Hear about the slave tomato pickers in Florida? The key is not to stop eating tomatoes, but to make sure the tomatoes we eat are picked by people paid and treated fairly. You're advocating boycotting tomatoes.


I'm finding this way too entertaining. Posting on a message board and receiving some responses is very much like getting an art critique. Often, people read things into art that are never meant, never intended and for all intents and purposes aren't there. It's why I enjoy them; it's funny to see how people interpret things.

Evil!!




I don't believe the word "evil" was in any of my writings in this thread. You're very dramatic!



> Last but definitely not least, if it is such a great thing that the OP is questioning his actions, why did you tell him in your first post that if he's asking the question, he already knows the answer? That sounds moralistic and closed-minded, dangerously close to the thinking of the "moral majority" types who'd just as soon keep women subservient. Yes, we ALWAYS have to ask, and should. That's part of developing the tools we need to make up our own minds.


Again, you have misread me entirely. I did not say that if he's asking the question he already knows the answer. Let's go look at what I _actually did _say, shall we? I said:



> The first thing is, if it feels wrong to you, don't do it. It doesn't matter what I say or what anyone else says, if it bothers your conscience, then you have found where your morals or boundaries lie, and should stay within what makes you feel right.



Do you see the difference between what I said and how you interpreted it? Again, very dramatic of you. I said that if it feels wrong, no matter what I or anyone else thinks, he has found his boundaries. Isn't that how we all create our own boundaries, by what feels wrong? It feels wrong to let someone berate us. We create a boundary by letting that person know, in whatever way feels right to us, that it's not okay for them to insult us. If the OP feels weird or guilty for looking at porn, or whatever, then that is telling him something, and no words from a thousand people can change that if it's how he feels inside, independent of a message board on the web. Capice?

Now, let's see how you interpret this one. Should be amusing!


----------



## mossystate (Mar 9, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> Well for what it is worth, I am not pretty, I am not confident, my ego is smaller than Leadore Idaho and I am shy as all hell....but I do consider myself a Goddess But I thought that way before I had a site



....that is why the women themselves get to choose who and what they are.....not the yahoos who are handing out the labels.
-----
-----

You know what I also find a wee bit interesting? So many people who are so ' pro porn ' are so quick to scurry to not see certain things as porn...even to say soft core. It's like they feel it is something shameful. Now, they might say it is simply a matter of wanting the right ' labels ' to go on the right situation...but...I still go.......hmmmmmmmm.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 9, 2009)

mossystate said:


> ....that is why the women themselves get to choose who and what they are.....not the yahoos who are handing out the labels.



I think that's why this whole conversation is pissing me off, lol. It's another damn label I have had applied to me. I want to chose my labels dammit. But oh well...you win some, you lose some.


----------



## Shosh (Mar 9, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> Well for what it is worth, I am not pretty, I am not confident, my ego is smaller than Leadore Idaho and I am shy as all hell....but I do consider myself a Goddess But I thought that way before I had a site



I have always thought that you are super confident. On your site it says you have the prettiest face on the net etc.


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 9, 2009)

Susannah said:


> I have always thought that you are super confident. On your site it says you have the prettiest face on the net etc.



lol. Well let me let you in on a little secret about me......I live by the motto "fake it til you make it".....I'm still trying to make it


----------



## Shosh (Mar 9, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> lol. Well let me let you in on a little secret about me......I live by the motto "fake it til you make it".....I'm still trying to make it




Yeah that is my motto too.


----------



## Scorsese86 (Mar 9, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> I can't speak for everyone, but I'm fairly certain that most of us are thinking quite, quite, quite the opposite, Scorsese.



Well, thank you... I hoped you could speak for everyone though...


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 9, 2009)

Scorsese86 said:


> Well, thank you... I hoped you could speak for everyone though...



I think you are very normal and sensitive since you are even thinking about the issue without your SO bringing it up.


----------



## mossystate (Mar 9, 2009)

Scorsese86 said:


> Well, thank you... I hoped you could speak for everyone though...



*JESUS H MACY....DO NOT ENCOURAGE HER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## exile in thighville (Mar 9, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> Soooooo, if a model on a foot fetish website posts pictures of her pretty lil feet....is that porn?



just about anything on the internet is porn to someone


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 9, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> just about anything on the internet is porn to someone



Exactly. But just because it is porn to someone....that does not make it "porn".


----------



## Scorsese86 (Mar 9, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> I think you are very normal and sensitive since you are even thinking about the issue without your SO bringing it up.



...Thank you,


----------



## exile in thighville (Mar 9, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> Exactly. But just because it is porn to someone....that does not make it "porn".



it does though, porn is a totally subjective concept, even the legal definition is totally specious


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 9, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> it does though, porn is a totally subjective concept, even the legal definition is totally specious




sooo if everything is porn....doesn't that negate the definition of porn and everything just becomes normal?


----------



## fatchicksrockuk (Mar 9, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> just about anything on the internet is porn to someone



Dude, Rule 34.


----------



## exile in thighville (Mar 9, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> sooo if everything is porn....doesn't that negate the definition of porn and everything just becomes normal?



you're trying to apply a formula to subjective terms, but you can make the distinction of intention. if the intention of your website for instance, is for people to pay for access to things they would like to masturbate to, you're knowingly creating porn. however, if i jagged to some fully-clothed girl whose webshots page was posted on curvage, that would be porn to me, but it was not the reasons the photos were taken. and you could argue that the photos on your site weren't taken for that purpose either, but this would be naive.


----------



## exile in thighville (Mar 9, 2009)

Ella Bella said:


> Maybe its just me but I find myself a bit insulted at the bolded line. Just because someone chooses to post pictures on the paysite boards doesn't make them more brave, outgoing, or even more attractive than me. They just happen to be someone who posts pictures on the paysite boards, because they enjoy it, or like the extra money or whatever their reasons are. But in no way does it make them more anything than me.



it makes them more willing to pose naked for pictures and receive money for it than you and there is a whole spectrum of positive and negative judgments people inevitably place on that that run the gamut from "brave" to "slutty"


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Mar 9, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> it makes them more willing to pose naked for pictures and receive money for it than you and there is a whole spectrum of positive and negative judgments people inevitably place on that that run the gamut from "brave" to "slutty"




Right, and that's all that it makes them. I don't care what anyone does with their body, I don't judge people based on whether they do or don't post naked pictures of themselves online and I dont think it makes them brave or slutty. Just someone living their life they way they see fit. Someone suggesting that I'm somehow less than because I choose not to, I do care about that.


----------



## exile in thighville (Mar 9, 2009)

Ella Bella said:


> I do care about that.



not worth it


----------



## mergirl (Mar 9, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> sooo if everything is porn....doesn't that negate the definition of porn and everything just becomes normal?


Porn is porn, which is only porn when you make it porn. Everything else is not actually porn. 
You could argue that what you were doing was art however but you would have to conceptualise it. Perhaps "A social commentry on how porn is porn when its porn"! lol


----------



## Fascinita (Mar 9, 2009)

fatchicksrockuk said:


> Here in the UK we have had lingerie adverts (i.e. bra and panties) on buses and billboards. They clearly aren't porn!



See, to me, "porn" isn't defined by whether images can be splashed on a public billboard or have to be viewed in private. Porn is defined as images that are constructed such that they attempt to be sexually arousing. Whether it's a billboard or a catalog or a paysite: If it's constructed such that it tries to provoke a sexual reaction, it's porn.

What's more, porn is not inherently obscene. Certain practices in the production and consumption are obscene and reprehensible, just as certain practices in other categories of entertainment (and other industries) are obscene and reprehensible.

I think we could do worse than take a position of moderation when it comes to our attitudes to porn, which is so pervasive, as I think we all agree. *Just because you personally don't like it, doesn't mean it's all bad. And just because I personally enjoy it, doesn't mean there aren't problems with some of it.** 

Absolutist attempts at defining porn as all one thing or the other don't seem practical. Often, claims that this is fine and the other thing is not read as self-serving. There are many gray areas in the ways in which porn may be defined. In fact, it seems appropriate to say that we all participate in a culture of looking and gaining pleasure from looking, with sexually explicit pornography as only one manifestation of those tendencies. There is a sense in which it's impossible to separate the consumption of visual pleasure at large from the consumption of the kinds of pornographic images that come down to us as "porn" in the tradition of "naughty" and "obscene." Sometimes it seems to me that _all_ of the hyper-visual culture that surrounds us is geared to provoking onanistic responses, to mesmerize us away from each other and to lock us in a relationship of dependence on the pleasures of looking, which are always provided for us by means of mass media distribution for profit.

(* I'm using the rhetorical "you" and "I".)


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Mar 9, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> not worth it




Well maybe not to you, and that's totally fine. 

I do care what other people think of me, because whether I like it or not that makes a difference in my life. If I go interview for a job, and someone takes one look at me and thinks I'm not qualified simply because I'm fat or because my right eye droops a little lower than my left (wierd example but it has been pointed out to me) then that has an effect on my life. 

And yeah I get that my example is not the same as the porn example but we (not you) as women really need to stop looking down on each other for being "less than".


----------



## AnnMarie (Mar 9, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> Normal. Normal. Normal.
> 
> Normal.
> 
> ...




Agree... outlets are outlets, and I don't think they should be threatening or issues as long as it's not an addiction or something that's used to compare/contrast the person you're seeing (i.e., Why can't you be more like....? I saw her wearing this... why can't you?, etc.)

So, you're fine, carry on.


----------



## AnnMarie (Mar 9, 2009)

In the _very broadest_ sense of the word - I make porn. 

I take pictures that are sexy and the _intent_ is that they're enjoyed by the consumer of said content. It comes down to intent. 

You can argue degrees and more until the cows come home, but there's an umbrella and I'm clearly under it. Even having never showed a nip or pink bit or done a single sexual thing, or even an implied sexual thing. 

We're unique in that we happen to have an audience who finds the mere presence and display of fat to be arousing. By knowing that and providing it in a consumer-based package, it's porn. It's no different than being a girl with a foot fetish site (since that's been brought up). The feet are the arousing item, the product is produced for a consumer, it is consumed. 

However, the only niggly point to me is that I believe a lot of the content produced has artistic merit in our community. I don't think that stops it from falling under the general porn umbrella. 

If the images were produced for viewing and not for purchase, but a similar tone/feel/concept, then I would downgrade to erotica/cheesecake. But I believe that once you add the consumer aspect, you've graduated to porn in a very broad/general sense. 

The bottom line here is that no one can define porn for another - we all have our own barometers of where it starts and stops and what I see as porn another will not.


----------



## tonynyc (Mar 9, 2009)

AnnMarie said:


> In the _very broadest_ sense of the word - I make porn.



What's next the fucking  Hayes Code on the Dims Board!!!  
AnnMarie makes Art and not Porn :wubu: :wubu: :wubu:


----------



## mossystate (Mar 9, 2009)

tonynyc said:


> What's next the fucking  Hayes Code on the Dims Board!!!




WHOA, tiger....nobody is threatening to take any pictures away from you. Sometimes, there is actual conversation on Dimensions. This is one of those times.


----------



## tonynyc (Mar 9, 2009)

mossystate said:


> WHOA, tiger....nobody is threatening to take any pictures away from you. Sometimes, there is actual conversation on Dimensions. This is one of those times.



Whew - thanks that is a comforting thought


----------



## goofy girl (Mar 9, 2009)

Scorsese86 said:


> I am kind of ashamed. Everybody here probably thinks I am a sex-addict or something...



I don't think anyone is even thinking about you anymore! LOL


----------



## mergirl (Mar 9, 2009)

mossystate said:


> WHOA, tiger....nobody is threatening to take any pictures away from you. Sometimes, there is actual conversation on Dimensions. This is one of those times.


Apparently i have given out too much rep in the past 24 hours and even if i had it i probs would have to spread it out a bit before i gave you another hit. So here is what i would have said to you;
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!


----------



## wrestlingguy (Mar 9, 2009)

While I again will ask if this is the proper forum for this thread (would the fat sexuality forum have been more appropriate), I have what I hope will be at least a small contribution to this thread.

The famous comedian Lenny Bruce once said during one of his performances, "if it makes you horny, it's porn". I happen to agree, but with an explanation. Many of you have indicated that whether it's a CK ad, a car magazine, hell, the National Geographic..........they have all been used to fap to as much as any other source of horniness. That said, I think what is porn is actually in the eye (or any other body part) of the beholder. Definitions nonetheless, people jack to lots of stuff. I know of a guy who gets his jollies by the sound of tires spinning in the snow. Porn, or art?

With regard to the original post, the only thing I have to add is that while one should not feel guilty about appreciating other women, regardless of size, the idea of size could become an issue if the OP's significant other was not fat, and found out his pornographic desires. 

I have much to say on relationships like the one I am in, but will reserve comment, as the topic falls more the other way, with the VIEWER of the porn being involved with someone. Maybe I'll start a thread about that soon, although there are few guys in the same boat I'm in (thank god............)


----------



## missy_blue_eyez (Mar 9, 2009)

AnnMarie said:


> In the _very broadest_ sense of the word - I make porn.
> 
> I take pictures that are sexy and the _intent_ is that they're enjoyed by the consumer of said content. *It comes down to intent.*
> 
> ...


An there it is! The voice of reason!


----------



## olwen (Mar 9, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> Maybe. I guess I'm just a little confused in that my product is only considered porn by a very small group.....I consider porn a universal thing...like you know it when you see it. Like the example I used of feet. Except for a small community, it wouldn't be considered porn. So if it isn't considered porn by the majority, is it really porn?
> 
> And one could say, I am selling the idea that being super fat is beautiful I know that's total BS....but I could say it anyhow.
> 
> Ads cross the lines though. There is a new CK advert on TV and it's a couple drying humping and making out. I have no idea if it is selling jeans or a fragrance...to me it is like soft core porn. And why should selling a product make it any less of porn? So if in the middle of my videos I try to sell some avon or tupperware....would you not consider it porn anymore?



It's apparent to me that anyone - anyone who sees a fat woman offering up her belly in a suggestive way, especially in the format of a paysite will assume it's pornographic. Hardcore or softcore, it doesn't matter. Somebody's gonna get off on it.

Porn doesn't have to be considered porn by the majority for it to be porn. If that were the case then all the things FAs get turned on by are meaningless and you are saying their turn ons aren't real, but hey, money's still green. 

A woman wearing a dog collar kneeling on the floor snuggled up against a man's leg is erotic to me. They could both be wearing business suits and it could be a titilating ad for the dog collar and the image would still do it for me. A woman or a man who's tied up, blindfolded and bent over a chair is erotic to me fully clothed or not. Just because other people would be put off by that doesn't make it any less pornographic to the people who get off on it.


----------



## Tina (Mar 9, 2009)

AnnMarie said:


> The bottom line here is that no one can define porn for another - we all have our own barometers of where it starts and stops and what I see as porn another will not.



What's that line? I know it when I see it? 

I guess that pretty well encapsulates it. But yes, in the broadest sense when it's for sale as material for sexual arousal it's technically porn. But there can be hair-splitting until the cows come home. And I don't think that it makes the person posing for said photos less of a human being -- nor the person looking at them. 

Personally, I detest hardcore, but happen to like some erotica. That's *my* take. We all have our own. 

I still think that the real barometer, for the OP, is how he feels about it after he's looked (beyond arousal, of course ).


----------



## moore2me (Mar 9, 2009)

Quote:
Originally Posted by moore2me 
Scorsese86, You are not strange. You are not a pervert. From what I have seen on these Boards you are a nice, polite, intelligent, young man. And by association, the young women trying to make a little money on the Paysite Boards, are equally good people. *They just happen to be more brave, more attractive, or outgoing than the rest of us.* 



Ella Bella said:


> Maybe its just me but I find myself a bit insulted at the bolded line. Just because someone chooses to post pictures on the paysite boards doesn't make them more brave, outgoing, or even more attractive than me. They just happen to be someone who posts pictures on the paysite boards, because they enjoy it, or like the extra money or whatever their reasons are. But in no way does it make them more anything than me.





Ella Bella said:


> Right, and that's all that it makes them. I don't care what anyone does with their body, I don't judge people based on whether they do or don't post naked pictures of themselves online and I dont think it makes them brave or slutty. Just someone living their life they way they see fit. Someone suggesting that I'm somehow less than because I choose not to, I do care about that.





Ella Bella said:


> Well maybe not to you, and that's totally fine.
> 
> I do care what other people think of me, because whether I like it or not that makes a difference in my life. If I go interview for a job, and someone takes one look at me and thinks I'm not qualified simply because I'm fat or because my right eye droops a little lower than my left (wierd example but it has been pointed out to me) then that has an effect on my life.
> 
> And yeah I get that my example is not the same as the porn example but we (not you) as women really need to stop looking down on each other for being "less than".



Dear Ella Bella, 

Sorry I didn't reply to your comments sooner, but I have spent all afternoon at a doctor's appointment and wasn't able to look at DIMS boards until now. After reading your comments, I realize what I wrote wasn't clear and didn't come out as intended. I did not mean to offend you or any of the other women here, almost all of my virtual female friends fall within the same group that you are in - not Paysite models. I would never deliberately dis them or suggest that they are wrong in the way they live their lives.

What I meant to say in the last sentence was that these models on the Paysite Boards were more attractive, more outgoing, or braver than *I was at their age.* I really did not want to drag anyone else into this with me. I stand alone.

From what I have seen from your avatar Ella, you are the bee's knees. I apologize to you and others.

Moore2me
I know I have the right to remain silent, I just don't have the ability
Ron "Tater Salad" White


----------



## olwen (Mar 9, 2009)

AnnMarie said:


> In the _very broadest_ sense of the word - I make porn.
> 
> I take pictures that are sexy and the _intent_ is that they're enjoyed by the consumer of said content. It comes down to intent.
> 
> ...



Sounds about right to me.


----------



## GutsGirl (Mar 9, 2009)

About the original question of a person 'using' paysites when they're in a relationship....

Someday I plan (and hope) to be married. If I were to find out that my husband used paysites... or bought porn... or downloaded it... or somehow secretly subscribed to porn magazines... yes, I would be hurt. I would consider it a betrayal. To me, it's not the issue of if a married guy is masturbating (I think that phone sex or mutual masturbation within a married relationship is A-OK), it would be that he's looking at, lusting after, and fantasizing about having sex with _someone else_, someone not his wife. And that would hurt. 

To me it would be saying, "You are not good enough for me, your body and the way you pleasure me are not enough for me, I need more, if only in my mind". And *if* you've sworn a vow to love one person, be faithful to one person, for the rest of your life, how is that honoring of that vow?

To me, it's insulting, and I'd say it's insulting if a guy marries a thin woman and then looks at BBW porn or paysites, or the reverse, if a guy has a chubby wife and then looks at Playboy or Penthouse. It's just as much of an insult either way because the man is saying to the wife that she is not enough for him and that she is not enough to satisfy him.


----------



## olwen (Mar 9, 2009)

superodalisque said:


> true, but its just the idea of people feeling they have those kinds of powers over you and your not having a choice even if you do. you know a lot of people who strip and do porn have a lot of sexual issues because of thier exposure to that kind of attitude. even though its commercially valid, over a long period of time it can be wearing and people who are the actors etc... can be affected by it in a negative way. it can change your overall opinion toward th opposite sex to be exposed to that. also how much is made in that industry depends on how much a person gives up of themselves. the consumers can see if you don't. so women who won't don't last very long or do very well. often they get burned out. thats why they retire so early even when they are perfectly capable of going on.



I thought I responded to this earlier but I guess not.

I agree somewhat with what you're saying....this is all kinda tricky....This has me thinking about actors. For all intents and purposes a lot of what sex workers do is an act. It doesn't matter what kind it is. You take on a persona and you become that person for a little while. Actors do the same thing. The audience feels like they are part of you if what you do affects them whether it's to cry or be scared or angry or to cum, but if you don't do it well they don't bother to watch. They viewer can't take away anything if the actress puts nothing into it. So in that regard I think the porno actress does have control. She burns out quickly if she puts too much into it a little too well and doesn't know how to manage the emotions - as sometimes happens to actors - or if she gets sick of making the effort to not put anything into it....I feel tho that what I'm saying might be a bit of oversimplification if only because sex can be had with zero emotion by anyone anyway and still be considered great sex, so how far from reality is the portrayal of said sex sometimes?.....I dunno, and at this point I'm just thinking out loud....


True the actresses can be affected in a negative way but I don't see that as a reason to not do it or a reason for it to be a bad thing to do. It is what it is. If anything the actress would learn something from the experience and that's not necessarily a bad thing. Like I said, if it gets to be too emotionally exhausting they can easily quit if they are able. If their opinion of men changes then it changes. ::shrugs:: However, if they are forced into sex work then what you are saying is much more more urgent. 

Also, it's more than possible to have a negative attitude about men even if you're not a sex worker. Not all women and girls get to have positive male role models early on in life or even at all anyway. That to me is more of a tragedy since it might affect more women than the percentage who do sex work. Hell if a teenager is kidnapped and sold into prostitution by a male relative, which can and does happen, then she never even had a chance to have a positive opinion about men...I guess what I'm saying is that it seems a little....(I don't have the right word to describe the emotion I'm feeling) bothersome perhaps to assume that women who do sex work automatically become poisoned against men after the fact, and even if they do it just doesn't seem like that much of a tragedy in the grand scheme of things, especially when men have the power to do horrible things outside the scope of sex work.....it almost seems hard not to have a negative opinion of men sometimes...I don't think there are enough good men out there in the big bad world to begin with. 

I'm not down on men either, so I hope you or anybody else gathers that from my post...just trying to see the big picture I guess.


----------



## AnnMarie (Mar 9, 2009)

GutsGirl said:


> About the original question of a person 'using' paysites when they're in a relationship....
> 
> Someday I plan (and hope) to be married. If I were to find out that my husband used paysites... or bought porn... or downloaded it... or somehow secretly subscribed to porn magazines... yes, I would be hurt. I would consider it a betrayal. To me, it's not the issue of if a married guy is masturbating (I think that phone sex or mutual masturbation within a married relationship is A-OK), it would be that he's looking at, lusting after, and fantasizing about having sex with _someone else_, someone not his wife. And that would hurt.
> 
> ...




I understand what you're saying about how you'd feel, although I cannot agree at all. However, do you really think that keeping them from joining a paysite is going to keep anyone from fantasizing about another during your sex life?? It's a pretty base issue of most sexual beings. Your mind will travel, snippets, movie reels, etc. 

I just think that focusing on paysites or porn or something is missing the point about human sexuality. And if you meant phone sex with the partner, I get it... but if you meant phone sex or mutual masturbation with someone else... I'm completely baffled by your stance. 

I just can't imagine that's what you meant, but I can't even see how you'd bring it up otherwise because anything you do "with" your partner should obviously be fine. 

Anyway, I wish you luck in either finding the man who fits the bill, or finding one that you can believe fits it. It's a tall order.


----------



## Santaclear (Mar 9, 2009)

Babes make erotica. Broads make porn. :bow:


----------



## mergirl (Mar 10, 2009)

Santaclear said:


> Babes make erotica. Broads make porn. :bow:


If i didnt just make myself say that out loud in a 'guys n doll's' accent i would think you were being fattist!


----------



## marlowegarp (Mar 10, 2009)

I think Tom Lehrer framed the porn/art debate nicely in this 1965 song:
It's called...

Smut!
Give me smut and nothing but!
A dirty novel I can't shut,
If it's uncut,
and unsubt- le.

I've never quibbled
If it was ribald,
I would devour where others merely nibbled.
As the judge remarked the day that he
acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
"To be smut
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance."

Por-
Nographic pictures I adore.
Indecent magazines galore,
I like them more
If they're hard core.

(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties,
samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!
More, more, I'm still not satisfied!)

Stories of tortures
Used by debauchers,
Lurid, licentious, and vile,
Make me smile.
Novels that pander
To my taste for candor
Give me a pleasure sublime.
(Let's face it, I love slime.)

All books can be indecent books
Though recent books are bolder,
For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)

I thrill
To any book like Fanny Hill,
And I suppose I always will,
If it is swill
And really fil
thy.

Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
I've got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.
But now they're trying to take it all
away from us unless
We take a stand, and hand in hand
we fight for freedom of the press.
In other words,

Smut! (I love it)
Ah, the adventures of a slut.
Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,
I don't know what
Compares with smut.

Hip hip hooray!
Let's hear it for the Supreme Court!
Don't let them take it away!


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Mar 10, 2009)

GutsGirl said:


> Someday I plan (and hope) to be married. If I were to find out that my husband used paysites... or bought porn... or downloaded it... or somehow secretly subscribed to porn magazines... yes, I would be hurt. I would consider it a betrayal. To me, it's not the issue of if a married guy is masturbating (I think that phone sex or mutual masturbation within a married relationship is A-OK), it would be that he's looking at, lusting after, and fantasizing about having sex with _someone else_, someone not his wife. And that would hurt.
> 
> To me it would be saying, "You are not good enough for me, your body and the way you pleasure me are not enough for me, I need more, if only in my mind". And *if* you've sworn a vow to love one person, be faithful to one person, for the rest of your life, how is that honoring of that vow?
> 
> To me, it's insulting, and I'd say it's insulting if a guy marries a thin woman and then looks at BBW porn or paysites, or the reverse, if a guy has a chubby wife and then looks at Playboy or Penthouse. It's just as much of an insult either way because the man is saying to the wife that she is not enough for him and that she is not enough to satisfy him.



GutsGirl, have you ever been married? Or in a long term relationship? If so did you stop noticing other men? 

Noticing people that you find attractive doesn't stop after you enter a relationship. You don't become blind all of the sudden, and I think its perfectly normal to notice or find someone else attractive. That shouldn't be acted upon unless that kind of thing is ok within the relationship but that's a whole nother topic. 

I do water aerobics and sometimes my s/o goes with me. Well I caught him checking out some girl a week or so ago and it was pretty funny because he got so flustered that he lost track of what he was doing. She was a beautiful girl, with a body totally opposite of mine. It didn't make me feel any less pretty in his eyes, he was going home with me after all.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Mar 10, 2009)

GutsGirl said:


> About the original question of a person 'using' paysites when they're in a relationship....
> 
> Someday I plan (and hope) to be married. If I were to find out that my husband used paysites... or bought porn... or downloaded it... or somehow secretly subscribed to porn magazines... yes, I would be hurt. I would consider it a betrayal. To me, it's not the issue of if a married guy is masturbating (I think that phone sex or mutual masturbation within a married relationship is A-OK), it would be that he's looking at, lusting after, and fantasizing about having sex with _someone else_, someone not his wife. And that would hurt.
> 
> ...



I sincerely wish you the best of luck in finding a companion who will completely respect or even share your viewpoint.

I've been married for 15 years. I'm at the point, if my husband were perusing a site or a magazine, my first thought would be "Great! An extra hour of sleep for me tonight!"


----------



## altered states (Mar 10, 2009)

As it is, she's fairly modest and somewhat self-conscious, but honestly, I'd have no problem if she did. I think the exception would be outright prostitution, because I'd fear for her health and safety. But the IDEA of her sleeping with other men doesn't disturb me, except that I'd fear that maybe she'd fall for someone else, or that my own "skills" would be found lacking.

For myself, no way. I was raised in a very free environment, sexually and in every other way (for better or worse), but I'm very self-conscious about my own body and fairly modest. I don't like talking about sex but don't mind if others do - or don't. Weird, I know, but that's how I roll. But I think that's a different issue - I certainly respect women who DON'T want to be seen as sex objects, and that's really my default position - that they aren't.



Fascinita said:


> Provocative post, Eggs. I wondered, though, for the sake of clarity, if you'd mind saying how you'd feel about your SO using her body in a sexually provocative way for money. Would that bother you? Would you see it as objectionable? I think the integrity of your position on this would depend on whether you'd be just peachy with your wife choosing a career in sex work. If you were offended when it applied to your wife, you couldn't well fault anyone for being offended when it applies to women in general.
> 
> (Just checking, so that I can "read" all of your post and maybe respond once I've understood your position.)
> 
> (Of course I am speaking purely in theory, leaving asides such factors as the fact that your SO may not be inclined to use her body in a sexually provocative way for money.)


----------



## mergirl (Mar 10, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> I sincerely wish you the best of luck in finding a companion who will completely respect or even share your viewpoint.
> 
> I've been married for 15 years. I'm at the point, if my husband were perusing a site or a magazine, my first thought would be "Great! An extra hour of sleep for me tonight!"


An HOUR?? Am i remembering hetrosexuality right????:happy:


----------



## mossystate (Mar 10, 2009)

mergirl said:


> An HOUR?? Am i remembering hetrosexuality right????:happy:



Ha!

Well, you have to understand all the begging and pleading that goes on in the Jo household. We won't discuss the scurrying around to find all the ...props.


----------



## exile in thighville (Mar 10, 2009)

GutsGirl said:


> About the original question of a person 'using' paysites when they're in a relationship....
> 
> Someday I plan (and hope) to be married. If I were to find out that my husband used paysites... or bought porn... or downloaded it... or somehow secretly subscribed to porn magazines... yes, I would be hurt. I would consider it a betrayal. To me, it's not the issue of if a married guy is masturbating (I think that phone sex or mutual masturbation within a married relationship is A-OK), it would be that he's looking at, lusting after, and fantasizing about having sex with _someone else_, someone not his wife. And that would hurt.
> 
> ...



what if he had different tastes, his wife can't be both fat and thin...how would he would satisfy both? most guys are sexually attracted to more than one woman, no matter how faithful he is, or what a nice guy he might be, you can never be everything there is for one person. this is not a bad thing. but elevating your potential husband's porn to a level of competing with you isn't healthy. it's one thing to express distaste for it or take issue with where he obtains it, it's another to consider looking at anything but you to be betrayal....you're asking for total resentment.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 10, 2009)

mossystate said:


> Ha!
> 
> Well, you have to understand all the begging and pleading that goes on in the Jo household. We won't discuss the scurrying around to find all the ...props.


Ahh.. i see i see. So thats an hour taking into consideration the commute and injury time.. i see i see.:blush:


----------



## Mishty (Mar 10, 2009)

This is _all_ so American!
Have you guys ever seen French Vogue?

Theirs.
Ours.


I mean really, models have been naked in Europe since the begininng of fashion, even full frontal nudity for the males in some Giorgio Armani ads(and others).
Is this porn? Um, I'd say no, but a big ole bunch of people would disagree.

I consider anything _without_ sexual pink, just Fetish stuff. I'd say 90% of all the sites on the paysite boards fetish sites. 




Now, the possibilty of a normal paying customer on a _porn_ website dating/fucking/kissing/meeting Bella Donna, Jenna Jameson, or Chloe Black(just examples) are slim to none, lets be honest. Those girls show up for shoots, and films and sign contracts, very few have much input into their sites or the content. Here(dims and other fat boards) it's a normal thing!
Almost any FA with a nice suit and plane ticket can meet, and maybe date/have a relationship/befriend with his fave model, at some random bash/event. 

Yes, I know AVN has an expo where you can meet, and get your photo taken with your fave porn star, but I'm thinkin' that 'ole Jenna doesn't email with Billy from Philly the same way that some of the awesome chicks on these boards do. 

One word: Amateurs
These aren't high gloss high priced sites, it's Amateur Fetish stuff, and I wonder if other Amateur Fetish sites, have boards where you can talk and get to know the models. Probably. 


Did that all come out right?


----------



## TraciJo67 (Mar 10, 2009)

mossystate said:


> Ha!
> 
> Well, you have to understand all the begging and pleading that goes on in the Jo household. We won't discuss the scurrying around to find all the ...props.



Well, MossytheStank, I will say this: My props do not involve greasy, half-eaten lamb chops. They are, at least, human. Or a reasonably acrylic facsimile therein. 

Therein. I said therein <snickering>


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 10, 2009)

Mishty said:


> This is _all_ so American!
> Have you guys ever seen French Vogue?
> 
> Theirs.
> ...



This!!!!! I accept that I am a fetish model, but I reject that I make porn.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 10, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> This!!!!! I accept that I am a fetish model, but I reject that I make porn.


You think that liking fat is a fetish?


----------



## BeautifulPoeticDisaster (Mar 10, 2009)

mergirl said:


> You think that liking fat is a fetish?




No, but I think the guys who like ME have a fetish. I'm not fat all over (well comparatively) I am all belly. And when I take pics of me playing with my fat, eating and weighing I am tapping into a fetish....not just "admiration"


----------



## altered states (Mar 10, 2009)

Tina said:


> Yes, but of a different sort. I was discussing the subject at hand, not banks, advertising agencies, etc. I smell straw.



I was pointing out that exploitation and abuse exists in many industries and occupations, and that calling out the sex industry for these things is unfair to the subject at hand. Is porn by nature exploitative or abusive, or just an industry that happens to contain a huge amount of exploitation and abuse? You think the former, I think the latter. I don't think I've misinterpreted that from your post, nor am I setting up false comparisons.



Tina said:


> Heh. It's funny that you think I was comparing. I was discussing the entire issue, not comparing, and never said some of the things that the filter in your brain seems to think I said. Please re-read, or better, just ignore.



You wrote that Donni's site is "soft core porn," and then went on to write:

_"Porn has existed in order to quantify womens' bodies sexually and come up with a dollar amount. This is usually done by madams or pimps -- sometimes the woman herself. We'd like to think that there are many little websites with happy women running them who feel great about what they do. There are likely some women like that. They, unfortunately, are in the minority when looking at the whole of the porn industry, which has worked hard to make this a porn culture, and has succeeded."​_
I reread your post again and found no caveat that Donni's site, as the "soft core" variety of porn was immune from this fairly harsh critique. So then aren't you comparing her site to porn, which you seem to object to, strongly?



Tina said:


> I'm finding this way too entertaining. Posting on a message board and receiving some responses is very much like getting an art critique. Often, people read things into art that are never meant, never intended and for all intents and purposes aren't there. It's why I enjoy them; it's funny to see how people interpret things.



You don't seem entertained nor amused, and just as well, as I do take censorship very seriously, hence the drama. Squashing free expression "for the common good" has been responsible for far more bad things than the alternative, and I dislike the inclination to banish ideas and expressions that make us uncomfortable for only that reason. I sensed this inclination from your original post and in re-reading it, again, I still feel it. Your response couched it in breezy "let's entertain what this fool thinks for just a bit longer..." rather than in harsher, more moralizing terms. As the kids say, whatever.



Tina said:


> Evil!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You didn't write the word "evil," but forgive me if I consider the things you wrote about the porn/sex industry to be the very essence of evil. I mean, you write about an industry based on abuse and exploitation that doesn't just affect its direct victims, but actually harms half the world's population through its very existence.



Tina said:


> [me:] _"Last but definitely not least, if it is such a great thing that the OP is questioning his actions, why did you tell him in your first post that if he's asking the question, he already knows the answer? That sounds moralistic and closed-minded, dangerously close to the thinking of the "moral majority" types who'd just as soon keep women subservient. Yes, we ALWAYS have to ask, and should. That's part of developing the tools we need to make up our own minds."​_
> Again, you have misread me entirely. I did not say that if he's asking the question he already knows the answer. Let's go look at what I _actually did _say, shall we? I said:
> 
> _"The first thing is, if it feels wrong to you, don't do it. It doesn't matter what I say or what anyone else says, if it bothers your conscience, then you have found where your morals or boundaries lie, and should stay within what makes you feel right."_​
> ...



I think anyone, especially someone as young as the OP, may be dealing with a system of morals and boundaries that aren't his "own" at all. Constant questioning and searching is essential to becoming a fully-realized, independent person and not just a drone spouting off whatever belief system happens to be comfortable or close at hand. 

This extends to every aspect of ourselves, including boundaries of trust, privacy, respect, etc. He may not be comfortable belonging to a paysite because of a system of beliefs and boundaries that have nothing to do with the realities of his relationship - what he and his girlfriend really feel about the matter, which is far more important than any religious or feminist or other dogma he may have absorbed. I believe opening it up to a public forum like this is a fine way to test and better understand his feelings. He may very well wind up coming to the same conclusion you did, or may say the hell with it, why does it make me any less of a mate or a man or a human being if I'm occasionally roughing it up to a paysite. God help us if we're all stuck with our boundaries unquestioned from age 20 on, or 40 or 80 for that matter.


----------



## altered states (Mar 10, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> No, but I think the guys who like ME have a fetish. I'm not fat all over (well comparatively) I am all belly. And when I take pics of me playing with my fat, eating and weighing I am tapping into a fetish....not just "admiration"



I agree guys who go for the measuring, weighing, eating aspects of your site are fetishists. Those who just like looking at you find you attractive and sexy, which you are. There's no doubt a lot of crossover between the two - I know I represent both aspects of FAdom - but I don't think we're EVER gonna settle this one, in this thread or anywhere!


----------



## mergirl (Mar 10, 2009)

BigBellySSBBW said:


> No, but I think the guys who like ME have a fetish. I'm not fat all over (well comparatively) I am all belly. And when I take pics of me playing with my fat, eating and weighing I am tapping into a fetish....not just "admiration"


Thats what i'm saying. You do specialised or fetishistic porn. I would say fat porn is specialised and i would say that if the focus is on eating, weighing etc it might well be fetishistic depending on whether 'eating' or 'weighing' is someones 'fetish'. Might just be that it is part of the Fa experience that they like however.. i guess you wouldnt know unless you asked them.


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Mar 10, 2009)

missy_blue_eyez said:


> Porn - creative activity of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire.
> 
> Obviously you look at said girl for a reason, Im guessing there is some kind of desire involved, so it is porn....she satisfies a desire. It dosent matter, clothed, unclothed etc, etc.....
> 
> Theres no need to feel 'like such a pervert' but if you do, doesnt that answer your opening question? If it makes you uncomfortable, then stop subscribing......


I agree, it's porn. I used to think the ones that don't show bare naked private parts weren't really porn but then Mer and I had a conversation about it and she said the same as you missy, if the other person is getting sexual pleasure from it then it doesn't matter if it is a vagina or a belly they are looking at, it's gratification just the same. The same as a foot fetishist looking at pictures of feet, if you model feet on a foot fetishist site then your a foot porn model not if you're in a shoe catalogue.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 10, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> I agree, it's porn. I used to think the ones that don't show bare naked private parts weren't really porn but then Mer and I had a conversation about it and she said the same as you missy, if the other person is getting sexual pleasure from it then it doesn't matter if it is a vagina or a belly they are looking at, it's gratification just the same. The same as a foot fetishist looking at pictures of feet, if you model feet on a foot fetishist site then your a foot porn model not if you're in a shoe catalogue.


Oh cool! we both have laptops.. i can argue with you while perusing dimensions!! Though, in this case i agree!!


----------



## Tina (Mar 10, 2009)

tres huevos said:


> ...


Actually, I was quite amused and still am. We have differing opinions. You have read into what I've said, quite dramatically, I might add, and that's your right. It doesn't change that *I* know what I was getting at. I never demonized Donni, and did make some distinctions. But you will read my words as you will, and that's fine. I truly do have more important things to do than go back and forth with you, an it matters not at all whether you truly understand me. I could go back and forth with you all day and we'd still be in the same place. My world doesn't hinge on this subject or whether you approve of what I say or not. We disagree. *shrug* Carry on.


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Mar 10, 2009)

fatchicksrockuk said:


> por&#8901;nog&#8901;ra&#8901;phy
> &#8194; &#8194;/p&#596;r&#712;n&#594;gr&#601;fi/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pawr-nog-ruh-fee] Show IPA
> noun
> obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.
> ...


Where did you get this definition?...I'm guessing the same place that describes being gay as deviant behaviour. I'm not against porn or think it's immoral if the models are of legal age and sound mind to be doing it. So I think you should look up another non victorian definition to share with us more open minded folks.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 10, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> Where did you get this definition?...I'm guessing the same place that describes being gay as deviant behaviour. I'm not against porn or think it's immoral if the models are of legal age and sound mind to be doing it. So I think you should look up another non victorian definition to share with us more open minded folks.


yeah, i would say the definition of obscene doesnt describe any of the porn ive seen, which actually isnt much because as ive said before ive never found any i have liked. As for the ones i have seen i wouldnt class them as 'disgusting' or 'repulsive'..but then, i'm no puritan.


----------



## chocolate desire (Mar 10, 2009)

Being a paysite girl myself I can say that I don't mind my guy looking at other sites or adverts most of the time. But If we have had a fight or a misunderstanding I admit to feelings of being insecure. I must say though I do enjoy discussing other sites and models with him alot of the time.JMTC


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Mar 10, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Oh cool! we both have laptops.. i can argue with you while perusing dimensions!! Though, in this case i agree!!


Yes, it's cool my darling. I quoted Missy there and then read on and seen that I've said more or less what you have said, we think so alike my love. I'm happy for you to peruse the dims just so long as you're not subscribing to any belly porn,lol.xx


----------



## Mishty (Mar 10, 2009)

Okay, well here's tha thing...

You can't go to a *Fat Only *strip club, and you can't find a beach full of scantily clad fatties on every coast, unlike our skinny...ugh, sisters, we pretty much hide. Now I know there are some great chicks on here that would proudly wear a micro-mini and a halter through a subway, and that rocks. But for some, we don't see that fat postive lushness often, if ever. So we use Fetish sites for our fix, I mean when you watch _Short Bus_ for the 459th time and still get magically off ,that's porn right? 

I've subscribed to a few girl's sites before, and well, sometimes, you just want to _know_. Y'know?


So, maybe porn isn't porn, just 'cause it seems to might be porn in the eyes of someone that doesn't think it's porn...?


----------



## GutsGirl (Mar 10, 2009)

AnnMarie said:


> I just think that focusing on paysites or porn or something is missing the point about human sexuality. And if you meant phone sex with the partner, I get it... but if you meant phone sex or mutual masturbation with someone else... I'm completely baffled by your stance.
> 
> I just can't imagine that's what you meant, but I can't even see how you'd bring it up otherwise because anything you do "with" your partner should obviously be fine.
> 
> Anyway, I wish you luck in either finding the man who fits the bill, or finding one that you can believe fits it. It's a tall order.



Whoops; I meant phone sex/mutual masturbation with one's partner, not with others... sorry for the confusion. :blush:

Yeah, I know it's a tall order... thanks for the well-wishes.  

In response to the poster who asked if I've been married/in a relationship... well, I have a boyfriend now, and have never been married. My relationship now is my first 'romantic' relationship. 

To clarify, it's not that I'd object to my partner thinking someone else is attractive or good-looking (because there are plenty of good-looking people in the world and it's ludicrous to think that every one of them should become comparatively hideous to either me or my partner), it's fantasizing about sex with them.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 10, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> Yes, it's cool my darling. I quoted Missy there and then read on and seen that I've said more or less what you have said, we think so alike my love. I'm happy for you to peruse the dims just so long as you're not subscribing to any belly porn,lol.xx


Nah, Why pay when youtube is free??!! lmao


----------



## sweetmarc (Mar 10, 2009)

My opinion is when in relationship stay away from looking at porn, websites, etc.

This is quite the interesting thread. Lots of different opinions. Sometimes it is semantics.

Okay, enougb with the words, I am going to go look at some pictures.


----------



## kayrae (Mar 11, 2009)

Why don't you talk to her about it? You seem like a good enough guy. Ask her what she's comfortable with.


----------



## olwen (Mar 11, 2009)

GutsGirl said:


> Whoops; I meant phone sex/mutual masturbation with one's partner, not with others... sorry for the confusion. :blush:
> 
> Yeah, I know it's a tall order... thanks for the well-wishes.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry but you can't stop your partner from fantasizing about whatever it is he wants to fantasize about and he can't stop you either. Fantasizing isn't cheating. Cheating is cheating. Our fantasies are our own and nobody can police that.


----------



## Emma (Mar 11, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Thats what i'm saying. You do specialised or fetishistic porn. I would say fat porn is specialised and i would say that if the focus is on eating, weighing etc it might well be fetishistic depending on whether 'eating' or 'weighing' is someones 'fetish'. Might just be that it is part of the Fa experience that they like however.. i guess you wouldnt know unless you asked them.




Can't you just leave it now? You think its porn, Donni doesn't. I think you might be upsetting her by insisting that what she does is porn. 

I'm keeping schtum on what I think about the matter.


----------



## Shosh (Mar 11, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Oh cool! we both have laptops.. i can argue with you while perusing dimensions!! Though, in this case i agree!!



Aww how cute. Domestic disputes on Dims. Yay GD, Yay Mer.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 11, 2009)

CurvyEm said:


> Can't you just leave it now? You think its porn, Donni doesn't. I think you might be upsetting her by insisting that what she does is porn.
> 
> I'm keeping schtum on what I think about the matter.


There are two people arguing. If she is upset that she is doing porn then she should just stop doing it!? Am i missing something? 
If she is upset about a disagreement about definitions she can tell me and we can stop discussing it.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 11, 2009)

Susannah said:


> Aww how cute. Domestic disputes on Dims. Yay GD, Yay Mer.


haha.. i never win.. Just so you know that. Possibly causing my psychological need to try to win here all the time!! lmao.


----------



## MisticalMisty (Mar 11, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Or, I think a more appropriate question may be:
> 
> _"How would you feel if some-to-most of your girlfriend's spare time were spent in showing pictures of herself to strangers on the internet, enjoying and being aroused by the attentions she receives, fantasizing about the men who find her attractive?"_
> 
> If it's true that men enjoy looking and women enjoy being looked at, it seems to me that this scenario might represent the true female parallel to porn use by men.



I don't think so at all. I'm a woman who enjoys porn..and when I'm not in a relationship, it's what I use to keep my self satisfied..

This is comparing apples to oranges..being a paysite model is completely different animal than a man watching porn..


----------



## wrestlingguy (Mar 11, 2009)

GoldenDelicious said:


> Where did you get this definition?...I'm guessing the same place that describes being gay as deviant behaviour. I'm not against porn or think it's immoral if the models are of legal age and sound mind to be doing it. So I think you should look up another non victorian definition to share with us more open minded folks.



SO, is there anything wrong with the Lenny Bruce definition, that "if it makes you horny, it's porn"? That is certainly a more modern interpretation thank the one previously described.

I wonder sometimes if people actually read these posts. Not you personally, Golden, just in general.

As someone who is married into this "business", I will weigh in at some time with my thoughts, after everyone decides what porn actually is, which means, I may never give my response.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 11, 2009)

wrestlingguy said:


> SO, is there anything wrong with the Lenny Bruce definition, that "if it makes you horny, it's porn"? That is certainly a more modern interpretation thank the one previously described.
> 
> I wonder sometimes if people actually read these posts. Not you personally, Golden, just in general.
> 
> As someone who is married into this "business", I will weigh in at some time with my thoughts, after everyone decides what porn actually is, which means, I may never give my response.


I think "If it makes you horny its porn" is a really good description. Cept i would add that it has to be made with the intent to turn you on. ie. Some people might get turned on by a field of sheep but a field of sheep isnt porn. If you get what i'm saying..


----------



## altered states (Mar 11, 2009)

wrestlingguy said:


> As someone who is married into this "business", I will weigh in at some time with my thoughts, after everyone decides what porn actually is, which means, I may never give my response.



There's a legal definition and a popular definition, so yeah, we may never know! The word "fetish" also may never be resolved in these parts, for the same reason.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 11, 2009)

tres huevos said:


> There's a legal definition and a popular definition, so yeah, we may never know! The word "fetish" also may never be resolved in these parts, for the same reason.


To be honest i dont know that definition makes much difference anyway. People know what they are and they know what they do. Personally i dont see whats wrong with 'pornography' or 'fetish'. maby its because they have conotations or 'wanking' and 'weirdo'..which by definition i have no problem with either!?


----------



## altered states (Mar 11, 2009)

mergirl said:


> To be honest i dont know that definition makes much difference anyway. People know what they are and they know what they do. Personally i dont see whats wrong with 'pornography' or 'fetish'. maby its because they have conotations or 'wanking' and 'weirdo'..which by definition i have no problem with either!?



I have no problem with them either, personally. However both terms can be used in a clinically descriptive way, as a simple description, but most commonly they're meant as perjoratives. We're both from fairly liberal societies and yet if someone is said to be "a fetishist" or "is into porn" it's not usually meant just as a neutral, descriptive thing.


----------



## Victim (Mar 11, 2009)

I'm sure glad Dimensions is a place I can retreat to for solace when what I am and/or what I like to share with like minded people is being assaulted by the rest of the world.

Oh, wait...


----------



## mergirl (Mar 11, 2009)

Victim said:


> I'm sure glad Dimensions is a place I can retreat to for solace when what I am and/or what I like to share with like minded people is being assaulted by the rest of the world.
> 
> Oh, wait...


You feel assaulted for what you are/what you like to share? In what way?


----------



## Victim (Mar 11, 2009)

I wasn't saying anything in particular about ME, just the situation here in general.

Bill and Ted would very disappointed.


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Mar 14, 2009)

Victim said:


> I wasn't saying anything in particular about ME, just the situation here in general.
> 
> Bill and Ted would very disappointed.


Maybe I'm dense but I don't get that Bill & Ted comment, care to explain?


----------



## kayrae (Mar 14, 2009)

Maybe he's saying that Dimensions is no longer an excellent adventure.


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Mar 14, 2009)

kayrae said:


> Maybe he's saying that Dimensions is no longer an excellent adventure.


well in that case, I don't share the humour? O'h well, thanks for the explanation. I do agree that some people turn the place into a continuous agrue fest at times.


----------



## Victim (Mar 14, 2009)

"Be excellent to each other" - Wyld Stallions


----------



## GoldenDelicious (Mar 14, 2009)

Victim said:


> "Be excellent to each other" - Wyld Stallions


 ah I see, people on here aren't always excellent to each other


----------



## Fascinita (Mar 16, 2009)

MisticalMisty said:


> I don't think so at all. I'm a woman who enjoys porn..and when I'm not in a relationship, it's what I use to keep my self satisfied..
> 
> This is comparing apples to oranges..being a paysite model is completely different animal than a man watching porn..



It's not comparing apples to oranges, and here's why:

First: I'm not drawing a comparison between being a paysite model and a man watching porn. I'm drawing a comparison between a man enjoying looking at pictures of women, and a woman enjoying pictures of herself being looked at. Paysite modeling does not enter into this equation, but consumption of images from both sides of the lens does.

Second: I'm talking about people in relationships, not about people using porn to satisfy themselves when they're not in relationships. I'm talking about putting the shoe on the other foot: Given two "regular" (non paysite model) people in a relationship, when one objects to the other being habitually aroused by pornographic images, I think it's fair to ask, "What if your significant other entered into a habit of being habitually aroused by reactions to pornographic images of herself?"

Third: There's no denying that the bulk of pornography is produced for the enjoyment of men. Whether or not women and men both use it and enjoy it, it's still a game of "If a man's going to look at photos of women, how would he feel if his wife/GF/ladybug let other men look at photos of her?"

The relationship between male viewer and female object of pleasure that is posited in most porn can't be transposed equally onto female viewers. The act of a woman looking at photos of naked women drawing out the jealousies of her partner or spouse is not unheard of, but unless the woman's bisexual, it's probably safe to say that the woman isn't looking at the photos with the assessing eye she uses to look at her husband's body. _That_ is apples and oranges. A man looking at images of women that arouse him _is_ likely assessing the women in the photos for sexual attractiveness, more or less with the same eye he uses to assess his spouse's/GF's attractiveness. Somewhere in that act, the female spouse/GF may wonder if her body's being compared or devalued in relationship to that of the model's.

In the same fasion, a man might feel devalued whose spouse/GF chose to consume the attentions of anonymous admirers, possibly preferring the level of arousal she gains from reading the words of strangers to that which she gains from interacting with her husband. That's the truer parallel.


----------



## olwen (Mar 17, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> ........In the same fasion, a man might feel devalued whose spouse/GF chose to consume the attentions of anonymous admirers, possibly preferring the level of arousal she gains from reading the words of strangers to that which she gains from interacting with her husband. That's the truer parallel.



I don't even think you have to go that far...the closest thing women probably have to some kind of porn is written erotica/romance novels. I dunno, would her man be pissed if she had a huge collection of them and read them constantly or would he understand that the men in those stories who look like fabio and act like prince charming aren't real and just dismiss them? Would he understand the need to read them since he watches porn? 

....Can there really be a true parallel here when women's sexuality is so often glossed over and plain misunderstood?


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Mar 17, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Third: There's no denying that the bulk of pornography is produced for the enjoyment of men. Whether or not women and men both use it and enjoy it, it's still a game of "If a man's going to look at photos of women, how would he feel if his wife/GF/ladybug let other men look at photos of her?"



I'm not sure that what you are describing is the same thing, I think that for someone to look at pictures and another to share pictures of themselves is very different. For example, I know that my S/O looks at porn, and he knows that from time to time I look at porn. Neither one of us has a problem with that. However, if I were to find out that he was taking pornographic pictures of himself and sharing them with others I would be quite upset and he'd be just as upset if I did the same.


----------



## Tina (Mar 17, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> It's not comparing apples to oranges, and here's why:
> 
> ...That's the truer parallel.



And yes, that _is_ the truer parallel, simply because of the dynamics of our society. Feeling too sick to go into it again, but I just want to show appreciation for you, Fasc. :wubu:


----------



## Fascinita (Mar 17, 2009)

Ella Bella said:


> I'm not sure that what you are describing is the same thing, I think that for someone to look at pictures and another to share pictures of themselves is very different. For example, I know that my S/O looks at porn, and he knows that from time to time I look at porn. Neither one of us has a problem with that. However, if I were to find out that he was taking pornographic pictures of himself and sharing them with others I would be quite upset and he'd be just as upset if I did the same.



I'm simply considering the act of looking at pornography from both ends of the lens. Since most porn is made to be consumed by men, and most porn posits a relationship of men looking at women, I'm looking at where it is that women as sexual beings fit in this dynamic--that is, it's clear that women as sexual beings "belong," where porn is concerned, in front of the camera, as the objects that arouse when they are looked at. In this regard, pornography recreates the act of sexual appraisal that takes place in the real world, where a man may look at a woman he finds attractive and be aroused by her. In most pornography, this dynamic is recreated from a male POV--that is, of a man as sexual being directing his eye at a woman as sexual being. Men who consume pornography are engaging in a recreation of the act of appraising a woman sexually. 

To ask a man to imagine what it might feel like to have his SO look at porn does not get to the gist of the problem of sexual jealousies that may arise when a man in a relationship invests his sexual energy in the image of a woman who's not his SO. A man looking at porn is (most often though not always) inhabiting a role in which he is a male in relationship to the image of the woman in the photo. A woman looking at porn can't place herself in the same position, since woman is (almost) always the object that's being looked at and consumed. A woman may imagine that she's being consumed/lusted after/consumed/fucked/admired by putting herself in the model's/actress's metaphorical shoes (or she may be aroused by the pleasure that's being portrayed, or she may enjoy the voyeuristic aspects of looking, or she may enjoy fantasizing what it might be like to be a man), but she is never the male consuming the female from the POV posited by mass-market pornography. Pornography is not made _for_ women, IOW. Though women find ways of engaging with it and enjoying it, a woman (who's not a lesbian or bisexual) can't enjoy pornography as the recreation of the real-world act of appraising women as sexual beings and being aroused by them. That role and that power is always given to men in pornography. And this is where sexual jealousies may arise. There is a sense in which pornography allows men to direct his sexual energies at the image of the woman in the photo just as he would a real woman, in a way that it does not allow women to direct her sexual energies with the images in the photo, just as she would with real men.The woman in the photo is always there to provoke the man looking at the photo. Even if there are men present in the photo, not one of the bodies in a mainstream pornographic image is there to provoke women who may end up looking at the photo.

Of course we all have fantasy lives. There's no denying the link between sexuality and fantasy. To the degree that we live in a porn-saturated world, where pornographic images help sell cars and beer and generally grease the wheels of consumption, pornography has become something just about everybody is exposed to and may choose to engage with. This, however, does nothing to deny the man-as-consumer/woman-as-object-of-consumption dynamics which most pornography is built on, and the harnessing of the male sexual gaze to commercial purposes. 

To be an actor on the level of a man acting to consume women in pornography, a woman must literally act to become pornography and offer herself up for consumption. In the dynamics of porn, recreating the real-world male sexual gaze, those are the only roles available for inhabiting. Two actors: man consuming and woman offering herself for consumption. My assertion takes both ends of the dynamic into account: A man who enjoys and engages in the dynamic of porn consumption (man consuming the woman-object) finds his equivalent not in the woman who consumes porn (that woman has a different relationship to the pornography) but in the woman who IS porn.


----------



## Fascinita (Mar 23, 2009)

bdog said:


> A person has a finite amount of sexual energy. It can be used up in porn, or it can be used up in a relationship, or it can be used up with various partners.
> 
> Generally speaking I don't look at porn when I'm in relationships. I prefer to have all my sexual energy focused on a single individual. The intensity created has both pros and cons, but that's a different discussion.
> 
> ...



This is a really interesting perspective. Adds food for thought.

I don't know if you'll see this, as the thread as been dormant for days, but I wonder if you'd mind saying more about what you mean by the bolded part above? I'm honestly curious about why that might be--sounds like there's an element of addiction about it? Or maybe something else is at work? Thanks in advance.


----------



## enxtc (Mar 23, 2009)

I have been in a relationship with a man, that had to have his porn (he doesn't pay for it). At one point in our relationship we looked at it together, but, I am not interested in women, of any size, so, he started hiding it. Like closing computer windows when I would walk into the room. I told him may times that it bugged me. I was also told, that if an opportunity were to come along for him to be with another woman he would take it. I told him that would be the end. I don't know if it ever happened, all I have is his word it didn't.
If you love the person you are with, you should be up front and honest about it. See, if you can find something that both of you will like. It may end up helping your relationship, not hurting it.


----------



## sugarmoore (Mar 23, 2009)

sugarmoore said:


> if you guys are just dating you have no need to tell her about your mastibatory habits. not to mention, who knows how long she will be around, your web girl will always be there! now if you guys get serious and move in...you still need to jerk off, right?





Fascinita said:


> Right. Because relationships with pictures are so emotionally satisfying and life-rewarding. And men are just horndogs. They _never_ need anything more than to get off.
> 
> Let's face it, the ideal relationship is that of a man with his porn. Those of us who want to love men and share our real lives with them had better get used to that.





susieQ said:


> congrats!
> you accomplished to offend both sexes there, sugar.




wow this tread grew fast! and those are your words not mine ^ i dont feel that way at all. i just think that men and woman are different when it comes to masterbation, i had boyfriends who wanted me to give up my sex toys because they felt threatened, and i have girlfriends who dont allow the men in there life any pornography for the same reasons. my point is why give up your paysite membership just cause your dating somone? you are still going to masterbate. if things get serious address it then. im sure i did "offend" some people. sex and masterbation is a touchy issue...for some


----------



## Fascinita (Mar 23, 2009)

sugarmoore said:


> my point is why give up your paysite membership just cause your dating somone? you are still going to masterbate. if things get serious address it then. im sure i did "offend" some people. sex and masterbation is a touchy issue...for some



I think it's more complicated than that, sugar. For starters, not everybody has the same needs/same level of sexual drive. So to say that "you're definitely still going to need this or that" feels reductive, even prescriptive. 

You also seemed to be recommending that, even after things get serious, people will still need to maintain their pornography habits. I'm glad to see you're taking a softer line now, with "address it then." :bow:

Anyway, no real harm done. And all's well that ends with a wink.


----------



## enxtc (Mar 23, 2009)

Okay maybe a man does need his porn for his self pleasure, but, when it is more than with his partner, then there is a problem. Or when he loses reality and forgets about the person he is with as a person, not just a nice face, ass, tits or belly. Then that becomes a problem.


----------



## kayrae (Mar 23, 2009)

That is a very jerky thing to say to you. I realize that I'm not privy to all the details of your relationship to your man, but I cant believe that he would even say something like that. It's so hurtful to the relationship, and how would you be able to trust him if he says those kinds of things?



enxtc said:


> I have been in a relationship with a man, that had to have his porn (he doesn't pay for it). At one point in our relationship we looked at it together, but, I am not interested in women, of any size, so, he started hiding it. Like closing computer windows when I would walk into the room. I told him may times that it bugged me. *I was also told, that if an opportunity were to come along for him to be with another woman he would take it. I told him that would be the end.* I don't know if it ever happened, all I have is his word it didn't.
> If you love the person you are with, you should be up front and honest about it. See, if you can find something that both of you will like. It may end up helping your relationship, not hurting it.


----------



## sugarmoore (Mar 23, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> I think it's more complicated than that, sugar. For starters, not everybody has the same needs/same level of sexual drive. So to say that "you're definitely still going to need this or that" feels reductive, even prescriptive.
> 
> You also seemed to be recommending that, even after things get serious, people will still need to maintain their pornography habits. I'm glad to see you're taking a softer line now, with "address it then." :bow:
> 
> Anyway, no real harm done. And all's well that ends with a wink.



im just saying those are my opinions. i dont feel the need to deconstruct and argue out pornography. im giving my opion on the mans question. i dont need any approval about my opinions, nor do i need to approve or disapprove anothers. and im a well rounded even keeled individual that rarley if ever says "your definitely still going to need this or that" so stop putting words in my mouth...AGAIN. some people wont read what i accually wrote and i dont need any false representaion. all's well that ends with minding our own post


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Mar 23, 2009)

sugarmoore said:


> i just think that men and woman are different when it comes to masterbation,




I don't think that men and women are all that different when it comes to masterbation. I believe that some people think we should be, but in all honesty most everyone does it. Even if they aren't comfortable admitting it.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 23, 2009)

Ella Bella said:


> I don't think that men and women are all that different when it comes to masterbation. I believe that some people think we should be, but in all honesty most everyone does it. Even if they aren't comfortable admitting it.


I think the ways women and men differ in that aspect is in what they think about when masturbating. Ive asked most of my friends, male and female the types of things they think about when fantasizing. (i have pretty open minded pals! lol) and from what i can gather women tend to be more elaborate and men seem to be more focused on athstetics. Though this might just be my friends..but i think this would make sense.


----------



## sugarmoore (Mar 23, 2009)

mergirl said:


> I think the ways women and men differ in that aspect is in what they think about when masturbating. Ive asked most of my friends, male and female the types of things they think about when fantasizing. (i have pretty open minded pals! lol) and from what i can gather women tend to be more elaborate and men seem to be more focused on athstetics. Though this might just be my friends..but i think this would make sense.



well said :bow:


----------



## Fascinita (Mar 23, 2009)

sugarmoore said:


> all's well that ends with minding our own post



Not at all. In a conversation, we mind each other's posts. Your assertion that I'm misrepresenting you is neither here nor there. You had some things to say, and I had some things to say in response. I understand you may not want to entertain my ideas or to enter into a conversation with me, but I continue to feel free to express myself and address myself to anyone whose ideas I find curious/interesting/debatable. Thanks for understanding. :bow:


----------



## Fascinita (Mar 23, 2009)

Ella Bella said:


> I don't think that men and women are all that different when it comes to masterbation. I believe that some people think we should be, but in all honesty most everyone does it. Even if they aren't comfortable admitting it.



I don't think there's any question of everyone "doing it." But I'm skeptical about jumping from this to a conclusion about the impact of pornography on relationships. Not everyone who "does it" uses pornography, after all.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Mar 23, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> I don't think there's any question of everyone "doing it." But I'm skeptical about jumping from this to a conclusion about the impact of pornography on relationships. Not everyone who "does it" uses pornography, after all.



True. I guess I just dont get what the big deal about porn is. 
Anything can be damaging to a relationship, if there are secrets or shame attatched to it.


----------



## Fascinita (Mar 23, 2009)

Ella Bella said:


> True. I guess I just dont get what the big deal about porn is.
> Anything can be damaging to a relationship, if there are secrets or shame attatched to it.



I think it's only a big deal if one person objects to its being used while in a relationship. In other words, if there are differences to be ironed out, there's a number of ways to handle them. I think it's only fair to approach this from this direction: It doesn't pay to say "Well, it shouldn't bother you that I use it." It takes two to be in a relationship.
 
You nailed it, I think, Ella, that shame and secrecy can creep into it too easily. And I agree completely that this is damaging. This is why I kinda advocate discussing it openly and honestly with an eye to seeing what can or cannot be compromised on. It's bound to be different for each couple.


----------



## enxtc (Mar 23, 2009)

kayrae said:


> That is a very jerky thing to say to you. I realize that I'm not privy to all the details of your relationship to your man, but I cant believe that he would even say something like that. It's so hurtful to the relationship, and how would you be able to trust him if he says those kinds of things?



Well, me not trusting him was a big issue with him. And he could never understand why.


----------



## GutsGirl (Mar 24, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> ...In most pornography, this dynamic is recreated from a male POV--that is, of a man as sexual being directing his eye at a woman as sexual being. Men who consume pornography are engaging in a recreation of the act of appraising a woman sexually.
> 
> ...A man looking at porn is (most often though not always) inhabiting a role in which he is a male in relationship to the image of the woman in the photo. A woman looking at porn can't place herself in the same position, since woman is (almost) always the object that's being looked at and consumed. A woman may imagine that she's being consumed/lusted after/consumed/fucked/admired by putting herself in the model's/actress's metaphorical shoes (or she may be aroused by the pleasure that's being portrayed, or she may enjoy the voyeuristic aspects of looking, or she may enjoy fantasizing what it might be like to be a man), but she is never the male consuming the female from the POV posited by mass-market pornography. Pornography is not made _for_ women, IOW. Though women find ways of engaging with it and enjoying it, a woman (who's not a lesbian or bisexual) can't enjoy pornography as the recreation of the real-world act of appraising women as sexual beings and being aroused by them. That role and that power is always given to men in pornography.
> 
> ...



What about porn like _Playgirl_, which is written for women (but has a sizable gay male following)? Isn't that for a woman to, as you put it, "appraise" a man sexually, similar to _Playboy_ and other visual forms of male-oriented porn? Is this in your opinion a recreation of the male viewpoint of porn consumption for a woman, or is it something different?


----------



## Fascinita (Mar 24, 2009)

GutsGirl said:


> What about porn like _Playgirl_, which is written for women (but has a *sizable gay male* following)?



See following.



> Isn't that for a woman to, as you put it, "appraise" a man sexually, similar to _Playboy_ and other visual forms of male-oriented porn?



Maybe.



> Is this in your opinion *a recreation of the male viewpoint of porn* consumption for a woman, or is it something different?



A recreation...

Which is why... 

_"The women’s dreams crashed when Blue Horizon Media, which also puts out hard-core magazines, announced it was shutting Playgirl. The last issue, dated January/February 2009, recently arrived on newsstands.

Although the Playgirl Web site is still running, the graphic content is geared more toward gay men. None of the magazine’s editors are involved."_

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/16/fashion/16playgirl.html

What do you think?


----------



## mergirl (Mar 25, 2009)

This is slightly off topic but kinna relivent. When i was a giggling teenager i was dared to go buy some porn by my gay male friend. So (lmao..i actually remember this!) i bought 'lesbian licks', which is a porno for men, portraying lesbians and 'euroboy' a gay male porno for gay men. When i handed over the money all giggling stupidly the guy behind the counter said 'Your boyfriend shouldnt make you buy him this'! lmao.. I was pretty insensed that he he couldnt concieve that perhaps they might be for me and MY pleasure so i said 'Oh actually they are both for me'. He just sort of looked away. I had a weird realisation that night, that the fact a women would openly seek pleasure might not even be believed and that pornography is mainly for men and everyone knows it. Actually i watched a docu about women who make pornography for women (not only lesbian porn) They basically work out of a warehouse and while they are doing really well, they would never reach the heady hights that male directed pornography would. I dont know if this is because women dont like porn or that its just that a lot of the porn thats available is more directed towards men. I think the later.... Anyway..just thought i would share that.


----------



## sugarmoore (Mar 25, 2009)

mergirl said:


> This is slightly off topic but kinna relivent. When i was a giggling teenager i was dared to go buy some porn by my gay male friend. So (lmao..i actually remember this!) i bought 'lesbian licks', which is a porno for men, portraying lesbians and 'euroboy' a gay male porno for gay men. When i handed over the money all giggling stupidly the guy behind the counter said 'Your boyfriend shouldnt make you buy him this'! lmao.. I was pretty insensed that he he couldnt concieve that perhaps they might be for me and MY pleasure so i said 'Oh actually they are both for me'. He just sort of looked away. I had a weird realisation that night, that the fact a women would openly seek pleasure might not even be believed and that pornography is mainly for men and everyone knows it. Actually i watched a docu about women who make pornography for women (not only lesbian porn) They basically work out of a warehouse and while they are doing really well, they would never reach the heady hights that male directed pornography would. I dont know if this is because women dont like porn or that its just that a lot of the porn thats available is more directed towards men. I think the later.... Anyway..just thought i would share that.



wow, i saw the same thing and i agree i know i dont buy porn because its for men, i watch amature online. its more real. and it doesnt make me feel skanky. i know that the people want to be sharing this and that they like what they are doing. its hard to watch starving wannabe starlets get banged by mr. grossington and trying to play it off like they like it when i can clearly see shes had one xanax too many to try and not feel whats happening. eeww


----------



## mergirl (Mar 25, 2009)

sugarmoore said:


> wow, i saw the same thing and i agree i know i dont buy porn because its for men, i watch amature online. its more real. and it doesnt make me feel skanky. i know that the people want to be sharing this and that they like what they are doing. its hard to watch starving wannabe starlets get banged by mr. grossington and trying to play it off like they like it when i can clearly see shes had one xanax too many to try and not feel whats happening. eeww


Yeah, ive never been turned on by 'porn porn'. It just seem very fake and makes me feel uncomfortable cause most of the time you just KNOW the people arn't into it and most of them look kinna drugged up. I wonder if there is a difference between male and female enjoyment of this sort of pornography? This might explain the fact it seems to be geared more towards men..hmm.. yeah tis pretty skanky. Plus How DO the women manage to get totally undressed and manage to keep their high heels on???!! lol Its just not realistic!:happy:


----------



## Cors (Mar 25, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Yeah, ive never been turned on by 'porn porn'. It just seem very fake and makes me feel uncomfortable cause most of the time you just KNOW the people arn't into it and most of them look kinna drugged up. I wonder if there is a difference between male and female enjoyment of this sort of pornography? This might explain the fact it seems to be geared more towards men..hmm.. yeah tis pretty skanky. Plus How DO the women manage to get totally undressed and manage to keep their high heels on???!! lol Its just not realistic!:happy:



PMing you the link to the top straight women's porn site. Women's porn generally boasts of handsome well-hung males, couples videos with kissing, focus on cunnilingus and the female's pleasure. The movies are also of higher quality with less cheesy scripts. Erotica, forums for female members to interact and give sex advice is a common feature too. 

And haha, I do keep my high heels on in bed! Then again, I suppose it isn't the norm.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 25, 2009)

Cors said:


> PMing you the link to the top straight women's porn site. Women's porn generally boasts of handsome well-hung males, couples videos with kissing, focus on cunnilingus and the female's pleasure. The movies are also of higher quality with less cheesy scripts. Erotica, forums for female members to interact and give sex advice is a common feature too.
> 
> And haha, I do keep my high heels on in bed! Then again, I suppose it isn't the norm.


See, wearing high heels and being naked is fine.. its the magic act that is keeping them on even though the rest of the clothes, including tights have been removed!! Lol...i guess it would be asking for too much realism to see the women taking their tights and shoes off then putting their shoes back on.. Might as well ask the porn directors to start filming the porno in the shops while the character is buying the squirty cream to spray over someones nipples later in the 'film'! lol


----------



## olwen (Mar 25, 2009)

mergirl said:


> This is slightly off topic but kinna relivent. When i was a giggling teenager i was dared to go buy some porn by my gay male friend. So (lmao..i actually remember this!) i bought 'lesbian licks', which is a porno for men, portraying lesbians and 'euroboy' a gay male porno for gay men. When i handed over the money all giggling stupidly the guy behind the counter said 'Your boyfriend shouldnt make you buy him this'! lmao.. I was pretty insensed that he he couldnt concieve that perhaps they might be for me and MY pleasure so i said 'Oh actually they are both for me'. He just sort of looked away. I had a weird realisation that night, that the fact a women would openly seek pleasure might not even be believed and that pornography is mainly for men and everyone knows it. Actually i watched a docu about women who make pornography for women (not only lesbian porn) They basically work out of a warehouse and while they are doing really well, they would never reach the heady hights that male directed pornography would. I dont know if this is because women dont like porn or that its just that a lot of the porn thats available is more directed towards men. I think the later.... Anyway..just thought i would share that.



I once went to a panel discussion about women in porn and I got to hear Candida Royale talk about her motivations for making porn and if I remember correctly she said it was because she didn't like anything she saw because it wasn't as realistic. She wanted to see the kind of stuff that couples actually do in bed and she felt hardcore stuff wasn't sexy or appealing, so she makes the kinds of movies that feature stuff she likes to see. 

Hardcore porn can be good, but I find I'm often struck wondering who thought the ultra mega close ups of penetration would really be hot. I find them kinda boring and distracting. There's just too much focus on penetration in a lot of those movies. I'd rather see a far away shot of two (or more) people just doing it the way real people do it. I also don't like the way the acts are broken down by scene, like here's the obligatory bj, here's the obligatory dp. Boring. Then if the girl is too plastic and the guy is too plain looking I'm too focused on the contrast to be turned on by that. It also doesn't work for me if they're both too pretty. It's like I want to be the voyeur but in the way that a voyeur doesn't want the people she's watching to know she's there and I don't feel like I get that from hardcore porn. And softcore porn is just as artificial, plus, ugh, most of the time they can't act. Painful to watch. And you know what else is totally missing from straight hardcore porn? Guys masturbating. I get why, but it just seems like a travesty to me.


----------



## olwen (Mar 25, 2009)

mergirl said:


> See, wearing high heels and being naked is fine.. its the magic act that is keeping them on even though the rest of the clothes, including tights have been removed!! Lol...i guess it would be asking for too much realism to see the women taking their tights and shoes off then putting their shoes back on.. Might as well ask the porn directors to start filming the porno in the shops while the character is buying the squirty cream to spray over someones nipples later in the 'film'! lol



Mer, the secret is to wear shoes with straps and no stockings, or crotchless stockings.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 26, 2009)

olwen said:


> Mer, the secret is to wear shoes with straps and no stockings, or crotchless stockings.


oh lmao! Thanks! R.E post above that one.. I have a LOT of straight(ish) female friends who also say they LOVE to watch men masturbating. I wonder why that is? I seems like they are really vulnerable when thay are doing that plus its kinns voyouristic..hmm i dunno. What i do know, is that i HATE in porn porns when you see a guy jizz all over a womans face!! Now thats just rude!! Its kinna degrading somehow..Wonder how many hetro male made porno's show Female ejaculation?? I bet not many!


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (Mar 26, 2009)

Want to reply so badly to this thread but avoiding a workplace pornological diatribe.

Will be back later. I promise, no Tolstoyesque ramblings.


----------



## olwen (Mar 26, 2009)

mergirl said:


> oh lmao! Thanks! R.E post above that one.. I have a LOT of straight(ish) female friends who also say they LOVE to watch men masturbating. I wonder why that is? I seems like they are really vulnerable when thay are doing that plus its kinns voyouristic..hmm i dunno. What i do know, is that i HATE in porn porns when you see a guy jizz all over a womans face!! Now thats just rude!! Its kinna degrading somehow..Wonder how many hetro male made porno's show Female ejaculation?? I bet not many!



I'm definitely not thinking about it being a vulnerable thing at all. It just turns me on, plus it's a good thing to watch with a new partner because seeing how he touches himself gives me clues about how to touch him too. 

I've never thought of jizz in the face as rude. I'm not sure why other women find it rude, distasteful, or degrading. It just seems like a natural part of love making to me. What's degrading about that? Plus the reasons I've been given by the women I know who do find it degrading just don't make sense to me. I'm not sure how porno jizz is worse than real life jizz when it's still cum, but that's just me. And I know this might sound kinda fucked up but, I've actually wondered how many women would object to it if it tasted like candy, and didn't sting when it gets in your eyes. 

...I could see how bukkake might be degrading to people tho. I think if I had a vanilla boyfriend who was obsessed with bukkake, I might be a little put off.


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (Mar 27, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> In this regard, pornography recreates the act of sexual appraisal that takes place in the real world, where a man may look at a woman he finds attractive and be aroused by her. In most pornography, this dynamic is recreated from a male POV--that is, of a man as sexual being directing his eye at a woman as sexual being. Men who consume pornography are engaging in a recreation of the act of appraising a woman sexually.


I would classify the appeal of porn to men at it's most basic into two categories: The fantasy of being the virile, well-endowed male in the video doing the fucking or being able to live out some fantasy vicariously through the visual medium of the act. To wit, I may prefer to picture myself as Peter North screwing the hot brunette as opposed to Ron Jeremy, but in another video I may just be getting off on the idea of a skinny girl having sex with a really big guy (or gal).

Also, and I come back to this time and time again: Yes, porn is made by men for men for the most part, but men in the video are at the end of the day reduced to a cock and a cumshot. The women are center stage, be they goddesses or seminal targets. People gape at the paltry amount of money and lack of royalties that women get in the videos for various scenes, but most of the men are paid significantly less in every instance, unless they are the Brandon Irons or Rocco Siffredi's owning the video company. The traditional stunt cock is just that in every situation. If you want a video that really focuses on the guy, it's called gay porn.



> To ask a man to imagine what it might feel like to have his SO look at porn does not get to the gist of the problem of sexual jealousies that may arise when a man in a relationship invests his sexual energy in the image of a woman who's not his SO. A man looking at porn is (most often though not always) inhabiting a role in which he is a male in relationship to the image of the woman in the photo.


 I wouldn't say that always. If I am picturing myself as the guy fucking this hot lady, the thing that's going to turn me off like a light is when he throws the c-word around and (for the love of fuck why?) spitting in her face/mouth, etc.. So much of the porn these days that sells is light years more misogynistic than it was 20 years ago, that I can barely watch it. View a Rocco Siffredi film from the mid-90s as opposed to say, what he puts out today. You can see how someone progressively shits in his cereal and his abuse of the women becomes more and more prevalent. And he's a lightweight compared to the Max Hardcores out there who are really making what I consider to be rape porn (although, given his current prison sentence, hopefully serving as a deterrent to that).

I keep coming back to the lists: Why does the average guy look at porn?

I don't have a sex life, so I get it through porn.
I do have a sex life, it's very fulfilling, and the lady and I use it as a foreplay/idea aid (surprisingly, some porn can be instructive)
I do have a sex life, just not enough, and it becomes a masturbatory aid since I can't fuck her 5 times a day.
I do or do not have a sex life, but my mental kinks are so far beyond vanilla that the only way I can truly get off is seeing a woman's gaping asshole. It's how I roll... :blush:
I fucking hate women, so any chance I get to see a guy use and abuse them like the skanky, disease-infested whores they are (just like Nikki Boreants who cheated on me 5 times in college and gave me genital warts) is the only thing that gives me wood.
I find such cinéma vérité classics as "Little White Chicks, Big, Black Monster Dicks - Part 10" to be intellectually enlightening and a surprising representation of racial and sexual relations in modern times. That and those chicks can really take it deep.
You almost have to take a Zen look at it: Sometimes there is no specific reason other than men are visual creatures and we are evolutionarily predisposed to the quickie sex phenomenon.



> Pornography is not made _for_ women, IOW. Though women find ways of engaging with it and enjoying it, a woman (who's not a lesbian or bisexual) can't enjoy pornography as the recreation of the real-world act of appraising women as sexual beings and being aroused by them. That role and that power is always given to men in pornography. And this is where sexual jealousies may arise.


Which is why so often good stories are necessary to set a tone. As one person indicated, porn made for women BY women is much more story-driven; women need a coda to the act other than the cumshot/orgasm. One blog I read for a while was a woman who worked at an adult video store on Chicago. She would chuckle at how so many videos would come back un-rewound, the tape ending exactly after the cumshot scene. The guy would stop there, having blown his load, and decided that was the end. Women want the _dénouement_.

I do watch lesbian porn frequently, because there is an actual lead in, confrontation, climax and closure to everything. One of the sexiest films I ever saw (and dammit if I can't remember the name of it) involved two blondes, roommates. One was uncertain of her sexuality and one night getting up for a drink she chanced to look in at her supposedly straight roommate masturbating. This kept up for a while, these chance peeks, and eventually after an illness where her unsuspecting roomie took care of her, she confessed her love and a very tender, loving and hot scene commenced. You get the ending where they live happily ever after as well.

I would also say that the tolerance of porn depends heavily on the woman, ergo it's subjective. Some women do enjoy watching porn in the same flavor as men do. I had a girlfriend many years ago who was very much of a mindset that sex shouldn't have to suffer during her monthly. Some rather wild backdoor sex was had at one point, but in another instance where I offered to pop in a few different styles of porn while we played, this amazingly intelligent and kinky woman could do nothing but critique it. Nothing kills a boner more than your paramour calling out the various questionable lesions on a porn actresses genitals.



sugarmoore said:


> wow this tread grew fast! and those are your words not mine ^ i dont feel that way at all. i just think that men and woman are different when it comes to masterbation, i had boyfriends who wanted me to give up my sex toys because they felt threatened, and i have girlfriends who dont allow the men in there life any pornography for the same reasons. my point is why give up your paysite membership just cause your dating somone? you are still going to masterbate. if things get serious address it then. im sure i did "offend" some people. sex and masterbation is a touchy issue...for some


Every woman I was intimate with knew my pornological background (as collector, reviewer and in some cases, loaner), so I was always very, VERY careful not to make it even remotely a part of our sex life unless she requested it. I found out very quickly that when the sex life was good, porn wasn't necessary. The men who have to have the porn with their sex are being disingenuous and disrespectful to their partners, and at some point a decision has to be made because his mate is clearly not in his mind during the act. As sugarmoore says, some toys are threatening to a man just as porn is seen as threatening to a woman, because it implies to a degree that _honey, you just aren't enough for me_.

Getting back on the thread topic, the issue to me of one's porn subscriptions has to do with the level of sexual dissonance; if your partner is an athletic, fit woman of 120 lbs. and 36B breasts and your subscriptions all point to women with 40F cups and over and a minimum of 300 lbs., there are discussions to be had because clearly what you fantasize about is not what you live with. In that vein, if your lady subscribes to sites that feature men with endowments that put Blue Whales to shame, it may be a problem. It all comes down to what you see as fantasy ONLY and what you fantasize as eventually having. The man may think and fantasize about his SSBBW busty dreamgirl but still love his hardbody wife; the wife may be perfectly happy with her hubby's size but may find tripod boys immensely hot in her mind. So often our minds do not synch up with what our bodies want.



olwen said:


> Hardcore porn can be good, but I find I'm often struck wondering who thought the ultra mega close ups of penetration would really be hot. I find them kinda boring and distracting.


 To a man who has never seen, screwed or tasted a real one in his life, sometimes the anatomy lesson is the closest he's going to get. Sad but often true. Some guys just find vaginas fascinating in all aspects, whether we're seeing it get piped from afar or scrutinized up close with a speculum and a fiberop camera. There's a documentary from the BBC on 21st Century Sex that features a camera _inside the vagina_, with the invading Dune sandworm ejaculating little Muad'Dibs everywhere. Is it educational or some form of niche porn where the guy pictures he's the Atom stuck inside his wife's hoo-hah and finds out to his dismay that the Flash truly can be in two places at once?

Realize too that the porn company produces what the market desires. In the 80s anal sex was the forbidden pleasure, and it became boxcover selling propaganda. Now you have to advertise a boxful of assholes in order to get the jaded consumer to bat an eye. Max Hardcore sold like mad because sadly, there's a lot of women-hating assholes out there just aching to jerk off to a grudgefuck (which eponymously became a series in itself). Facials were all the rage, then when that got boring, some idiot went to Japan and brought back facial bukakke, then vaginal bukakke, then anal bukakke, then the "Jenna Does The State of Rhode Island - A Gang Bang in Three Acts"...you get the picture. Oddly enough, internal cumshots are all the rage now because, by golly, men actually do like to see the semen go where it's supposed to. That spun off every KKK member's nightmare, "I Got Impregnated By Two Black Men" series (with some young white girl wearing a shocked expression while sandwiched between two brothers), then the "I Fucked Your Mom" series, "I Fucked You To Get At Your Mom," "I Fucked You, Your Mom and Your Mom's Best Friend's Nephew's Cousin's Former Roommate" to cash in on the recent MILF/Cougar phenomenon. It's almost like a twisted pastiche of Family Guy and South Park. A bunch of manatees bop around balls underwater with various sexual acts written on them, then the writers piece together what would constitute a truly heinous video series.



olwen said:


> I've never thought of jizz in the face as rude. I'm not sure why other women find it rude, distasteful, or degrading. It just seems like a natural part of love making to me. What's degrading about that? Plus the reasons I've been given by the women I know who do find it degrading just don't make sense to me. I'm not sure how porno jizz is worse than real life jizz when it's still cum, but that's just me. And I know this might sound kinda fucked up but, I've actually wondered how many women would object to it if it tasted like candy, and didn't sting when it gets in your eyes.


 That's actually a Ron White joke: His wife came up with a fix to all the world's sexual problems - a drug that makes semen taste like chocolate.

I am one of those people who have chanced to never encounter a woman who found facials anywhere erotic in the least. Facials to me were always (and will always be) the stuff of porn legend, because while I find certain aspects of it kinky, I would never bestow the eventual load on the same face that kisses our kids at bedtime (to borrow a quote from Tony Soprano).


----------



## mergirl (Mar 27, 2009)

olwen said:


> I'm definitely not thinking about it being a vulnerable thing at all. It just turns me on, plus it's a good thing to watch with a new partner because seeing how he touches himself gives me clues about how to touch him too.
> 
> I've never thought of jizz in the face as rude. I'm not sure why other women find it rude, distasteful, or degrading. It just seems like a natural part of love making to me. What's degrading about that? Plus the reasons I've been given by the women I know who do find it degrading just don't make sense to me. I'm not sure how porno jizz is worse than real life jizz when it's still cum, but that's just me. And I know this might sound kinda fucked up but, I've actually wondered how many women would object to it if it tasted like candy, and didn't sting when it gets in your eyes.
> 
> ...I could see how bukkake might be degrading to people tho. I think if I had a vanilla boyfriend who was obsessed with bukkake, I might be a little put off.


I was talking about watching men masturbate in pornography.. though i guess you might be able to learn from that too. Im not really sure what 'normal' lovemaking is Olwen. For me though, it wouldnt include someone withdrawing thier cock just so that they could spunk all over my face. I'm sure it will bring some women pleasure though.. I think the fact i dind it degrading is because i saw a porno where a woman was getting gang fucked and the guys were just wanking into her face. It didnt seem like she particularaly enjoyed it nor that she was getting any pleasure from the experience. The only way i could see this particular activity being pleasurable would be in a sub/Dom relationship. I would still find it degrading for the guy if a woman squatted over him and ejaculated on his face, pissed on his face, shat on his face. Hmmmm.. its all natural though.. cant argue with you there!!


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Mar 28, 2009)

Life is too short to waste watching vanilla porn. That's all I have to say about it.......


----------



## olwen (Mar 28, 2009)

mergirl said:


> I was talking about watching men masturbate in pornography.. though i guess you might be able to learn from that too. Im not really sure what 'normal' lovemaking is Olwen. For me though, it wouldnt include someone withdrawing thier cock just so that they could spunk all over my face. I'm sure it will bring some women pleasure though.. I think the fact i dind it degrading is because i saw a porno where a woman was getting gang fucked and the guys were just wanking into her face. It didnt seem like she particularaly enjoyed it nor that she was getting any pleasure from the experience. The only way i could see this particular activity being pleasurable would be in a sub/Dom relationship. I would still find it degrading for the guy if a woman squatted over him and ejaculated on his face, pissed on his face, shat on his face. Hmmmm.. its all natural though.. cant argue with you there!!



Normal lovemaking is whatever people do in the course of lovemaking. Just whatever comes naturally I guess. 

The guy doesn't always withdraw just to come on your face. He could cum in your mouth and the shock of it makes you pull away and it gets in your face. That happened to me when I was younger, now I know what signs to look for when a guy is about to come, (he won't always be verbal about it and some guys just don't make a lot of noise in general) but back then I didn't and that scenario happened quite a bit. LOL. 

Can you really only see a gang bang scenario being pleasurable in a D/s relationship? I know D/s people who would never share - ever. I don't think it's that out of the ordinary for women to have wild fantasies like that - or to act on them. You should read My Secret Garden by Nancy Friday if you haven't already. 

I just don't see why cum in and of itself is seen as a humiliating, degrading, disgusting thing.


----------



## mergirl (Mar 28, 2009)

olwen said:


> Normal lovemaking is whatever people do in the course of lovemaking. Just whatever comes naturally I guess.
> 
> The guy doesn't always withdraw just to come on your face. He could cum in your mouth and the shock of it makes you pull away and it gets in your face. That happened to me when I was younger, now I know what signs to look for when a guy is about to come, (he won't always be verbal about it and some guys just don't make a lot of noise in general) but back then I didn't and that scenario happened quite a bit. LOL.
> 
> ...


I read secret garden when i was about 15 and a few times since. its interesting and sexy. I was talking about when in porno's the guy withdraws and comes over the womans face.. Not about real life where some cum accidentally happens on your hair. I wasnt talking about a gang situation only being pleasurable in a sub/dom relationship either.. i was talking about spunking on someones face/pissing or shitting on someone. yeah.. i think in order to enjoy getting this done to you you would have to be submissive..and in the case of shit and piss either have a fetish for this or be doing it to please another because that in turn pleases you. 
I dont think cum in itself is degrading, humiliating or disgusting either.. do you know anyone who actually thinks it is?
In a porno, where the woman is fucked up on drugs a guy fucking her and then withdrawing specifically to spunk all over her face while she pretends to enjoy it.. yeah..to me that seemed pretty degrading and humiliating!


----------



## mossystate (Mar 28, 2009)

I won't go too much into my feelings on this...but...if you think about it...the face has traditionally been a place on someone's body, that is ' off limits ', in terms of letting loose things like anger. It is not going to be unusual that many women are very not only turned off by a man ejaculating on her in that manner....but also find it to be a very agressive and demeaning act. I don't care if a woman truly enjoys it ( and it is not a result of a harping campaign from a man ), but I think it is pretty easy to understand why many women feel the way they do about it.


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (Mar 28, 2009)

olwen said:


> Can you really only see a gang bang scenario being pleasurable in a D/s relationship? I know D/s people who would never share - ever. I don't think it's that out of the ordinary for women to have wild fantasies like that - or to act on them. You should read My Secret Garden by Nancy Friday if you haven't already.


 I would recommend any guy read her series; it's an amazing insight into what women fantasize about, from women who are your age all the way up to what grandma used to fantasize about if grandpa was off to war.



> I just don't see why cum in and of itself is seen as a humiliating, degrading, disgusting thing.


 I think the way it has been presented in porn since time out of mind is the arrow and the woman as the target. She's to be marked, coated, humiliated, submissive, what have you. If she's trying to be a very naughty girl, only the sluttiest of girls will take it on the face I think is the intent.

I guess the thing is that whatever interest you have, porn will find a way to overload you with it and make it seem trivial, hence why men who grow up watching porn think it's normal, but most women find it very disgusting. I guess by the same token, present it to a man that way; I'm going to squirt a big dollop of Jergen's hand cream all over your face. It will smell salty and maybe even like sour milk. It may get in your ear, your hair, your nose or eyes (and if it does, it will burn with the heat of a thousand suns). If you take it all in your mouth, you better swallow it whole and hope you don't gag on it. Oh yeah, the whole time no matter what, you need to look like you really, really enjoy it and if necessary, ask for more. I doubt you could get a guy to go along with it.

Some of the oral cumshot videos end up being a contest over which girl can hold the most (by the most guys in many cases). Internal shots are again to me the most erotic, but again there are ways that porn can turn it into just another form of angle shot.


----------



## olwen (Mar 28, 2009)

mergirl said:


> I read secret garden when i was about 15 and a few times since. its interesting and sexy. I was talking about when in porno's the guy withdraws and comes over the womans face.. Not about real life where some cum accidentally happens on your hair. I wasnt talking about a gang situation only being pleasurable in a sub/dom relationship either.. i was talking about spunking on someones face/pissing or shitting on someone. yeah.. i think in order to enjoy getting this done to you you would have to be submissive..and in the case of shit and piss either have a fetish for this or be doing it to please another because that in turn pleases you.
> I dont think cum in itself is degrading, humiliating or disgusting either.. do you know anyone who actually thinks it is?
> In a porno, where the woman is fucked up on drugs a guy fucking her and then withdrawing specifically to spunk all over her face while she pretends to enjoy it.. yeah..to me that seemed pretty degrading and humiliating!



First, I know a few women who are completely disgusted by male cum. They don't want it anywhere near their bodies, especially their faces, but they do like sex. 

I'm afraid I'm a bit  about what we're talking about and I'm not sure why. It could just be that my feelings about porn get in the way: I just see it all as pure fantasy for the viewer, and just a job for the actress, so....I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around what we're even talking about right now.  I know that probably seems a little odd coming from me, but right now I'm genuinely confused as to what we're talking about, and I'm not sure why. 



mossystate said:


> I won't go too much into my feelings on this...but...if you think about it...the face has traditionally been a place on someone's body, that is ' off limits ', in terms of letting loose things like anger. It is not going to be unusual that many women are very not only turned off by a man ejaculating on her in that manner....but also find it to be a very agressive and demeaning act. I don't care if a woman truly enjoys it ( and it is not a result of a harping campaign from a man ), but I think it is pretty easy to understand why many women feel the way they do about it.



.....Is that why then? I honestly have never thought of the face as being "off limits" seems quite the opposite to me. People just go for the face when committing acts of violence, but a punch is not the same as a cum shot, and I think here you're equating the two.... I just don't understand how cumming on the face is an act of anger, aggression, humiliations, ect. Spitting yes, cum no. None of this makes sense to me, and if what you say is the reason, I still don't understand it. This only makes sense to me if a woman follows the Andrea Dworkin school of thought and believes all heterosexual sex to be an act of aggression and if a man thinks of himself as an evil interloper at all times. 

Dworkin sucks. 



Admiral_Snackbar said:


> I would recommend any guy read her series; it's an amazing insight into what women fantasize about, from women who are your age all the way up to what grandma used to fantasize about if grandpa was off to war.
> 
> * I think the way it has been presented in porn since time out of mind is the arrow and the woman as the target. She's to be marked, coated, humiliated, submissive, what have you. If she's trying to be a very naughty girl, only the sluttiest of girls will take it on the face I think is the intent.*
> 
> ...



I understand about wanting to humiliate and degrade someone, but, with cum? That's just not humiliating to me. I admit tho, sexual humiliation is a concept I have always had trouble with. Not the getting off on it, but the what counts as humiliation parts. That I could never figure out and I feel like everyone knows something I don't. 

I think I'm totally out of my element all of a sudden and this is something I just don't understand.....I'll have to give it some thought. Anyone want to PM me with some more insights, please feel free.


----------



## NoWayOut (Mar 28, 2009)

Ella Bella said:


> True. I guess I just dont get what the big deal about porn is.
> Anything can be damaging to a relationship, if there are secrets or shame attatched to it.



So true, excellent post.


----------



## mossystate (Mar 28, 2009)

olwen said:


> .....Is that why then? I honestly have never thought of the face as being "off limits" seems quite the opposite to me. People just go for the face when committing acts of violence, but a punch is not the same as a cum shot, and I think here you're equating the two.... I just don't understand how cumming on the face is an act of anger, aggression, humiliations, ect. Spitting yes, cum no. None of this makes sense to me, and if what you say is the reason, I still don't understand it. This only makes sense to me if a woman follows the Andrea Dworkin school of thought and believes all heterosexual sex to be an act of aggression and if a man thinks of himself as an evil interloper at all times.
> Dworkin sucks.



I should have said that, when someone goes after the face, it is usually thought of as being especially aggressive. You like it...go for it. I will never see the action of dousing a face like that as anything but degrading. But, I have a voice, and if I were to run into a man who was into it...I would say...nope. As for movies that feature this...especially with groups...don't you step outside the " hey, it's a fantasy "...and wonder why it is usually shown as a scene where some chicks face is loaded as much as possible? That does not seem even a weeeeee bit an act of aggression? Saying that it is just a fantasy is to believe there are no reasons for actions, beyond feeling good. As for Dworkin..eh..she was out there and also a brilliant woman who sure as fuck made people think. Lots of her stuff was also taken out of context about a million times..but, some things, like I said...out there....but very thought provoking, at least for those not afraid.


----------



## olwen (Mar 28, 2009)

mossystate said:


> I should have said that, when someone goes after the face, it is usually thought of as being especially aggressive. You like it...go for it. I will never see the action of dousing a face like that as anything but degrading. But, I have a voice, and if I were to run into a man who was into it...I would say...nope. As for movies that feature this...especially with groups...don't you step outside the " hey, it's a fantasy "...and wonder why it is usually shown as a scene where some chicks face is loaded as much as possible? That does not seem even a weeeeee bit an act of aggression? Saying that it is just a fantasy is to believe there are no reasons for actions, beyond feeling good. As for Dworkin..eh..she was out there and also a brilliant woman who sure as fuck made people think. Lots of her stuff was also taken out of context about a million times..but, some things, like I said...out there....but very thought provoking, at least for those not afraid.



I can honestly say, I never asked myself that question about cum shots. It just is what it is. Plus, to me sexual aggression is about forcing yourself on someone. The girl would have to be held down against her will for me to see obvious aggression. I'm just going to have to take everybody's word for it. But just so I'm clear, it's the presence of cum on the face (from lots of men, not just one) only that makes it aggressive for some, yes? Is it still seen as aggression if it goes anywhere else?


----------



## mergirl (Mar 29, 2009)

olwen said:


> First, I know a few women who are completely disgusted by male cum. They don't want it anywhere near their bodies, especially their faces, but they do like sex.
> 
> I'm afraid I'm a bit  about what we're talking about and I'm not sure why. It could just be that my feelings about porn get in the way: I just see it all as pure fantasy for the viewer, and just a job for the actress, so....I'm having trouble wrapping my brain around what we're even talking about right now.  I know that probably seems a little odd coming from me, but right now I'm genuinely confused as to what we're talking about, and I'm not sure why.
> 
> ...




This is what we were talking about. I said that i personally think, in porno's when a man withdraws his cock and wanks over a womans face it is degrading. You disagreed. This is what we are talking about. I'm not some prudish person..in real life if any woman enjoys getting a guys beans blown all over her face then fair enough. I'm talking about pornography. You see some drugged up 'actress' getting fucked by a couple of guys'..her tits are as fake as the pleasure she is trying desperately to convay, They stop fucking her and wank over her face. She is lying there, her face covered in cum. I felt (now others may disagree) that this act, the act of wanking over someones face,in pornography, is degrading. It is shot to be this way. It is shot so that you think the woman is just a spunk bucket, a sperm receptical.
This is what we were talking about.
Then, when you dont understand why i think this, you patronise me by assuming i know nothing about womans fantasy in general and ask me to read nancy fridays 'secret garden'. I have a copy of all of her books actually. In secret garden there is a 'fantasy' which involves a woman going into another womans house and getting fucked by the womans dog. I try not to base much of my ideals of the average womans sexual fantasies by this book, so in have no idea why you suggested i read this?? Did you think it would open my mind? My mind is very open and still i find pornography where the womans face is drenched in cum that has just been wanked over her as degrading. This is how i feel. Others may think the woman is a feminist hero or a role model for young people. Personally, i only feel a slight awkward sadness for the woman.


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (Mar 29, 2009)

mergirl said:


> This is what we were talking about. I said that i personally think, in porno's when a man withdraws his cock and wanks over a womans face it is degrading. You disagreed. This is what we are talking about. I'm not some prudish person..in real life if any woman enjoys getting a guys beans blown all over her face then fair enough. I'm talking about pornography. You see some drugged up 'actress' getting fucked by a couple of guys'..her tits are as fake as the pleasure she is trying desperately to convay, They stop fucking her and wank over her face. She is lying there, her face covered in cum. I felt (now others may disagree) that this act, the act of wanking over someones face,in pornography, is degrading. It is shot to be this way. It is shot so that you think the woman is just a spunk bucket, a sperm receptical.


 I would venture to say this image of the 'coked out' actress has gone by the wayside. While Jenna Jameson has truly screwed herself up with plastic surgery, at the top of her game she was THE talent to work with, and eventually helped pave the way for many actresses to take charge and produce their own films. I'm not saying she didn't pay her dues to get there, but the idea of this Linda Lovelace-esque victim who had a gun to her head forcing her to do these things isn't the norm anymore, although I do realize there are recovery and support groups for former adult actresses out there.

There are instances from the early days of porn when many of these women were not prepared for what was going on, who were overwhelmed with the lifestyle that in many cases they doped themselves up. It's no different than any other mainstream actor or musician with a drug habit. Today more often than not the girl knows exactly what she is getting into and it's HER decision (if not her boyfriend/hubby's as well) to get into porn. One of the naughtiest actresses out there for a while, a trained ballerina who went by the name Chloe, actually credits porn for getting her OUT of drug addiction. 

I don't disagree with you on the issue of the facial; no matter how willing the woman is it will always be a visual depiction of male dominance and some women can and do get off on that fact--to each their own, I say. The ability of facial videos to sell like hotcakes obviously keeps it at the forefront of video production. Even if said actress is servicing a virtual mountain of men atop a sex throne, at the end of the day she still has to wipe their spoo off her face or wash her hair of it. Aside from the germphobic issues of getting body fluids near the eyes, it's one of those acts reserved exclusively for the naughty side. No one ever says, "I love you baby, now close your eyes and let me splatter you with my cock butter."


----------



## olwen (Mar 29, 2009)

mergirl said:


> This is what we were talking about. I said that i personally think, in porno's when a man withdraws his cock and wanks over a womans face it is degrading. You disagreed. This is what we are talking about. I'm not some prudish person..in real life if any woman enjoys getting a guys beans blown all over her face then fair enough. I'm talking about pornography. You see some drugged up 'actress' getting fucked by a couple of guys'..her tits are as fake as the pleasure she is trying desperately to convay, They stop fucking her and wank over her face. She is lying there, her face covered in cum. I felt (now others may disagree) that this act, the act of wanking over someones face,in pornography, is degrading. It is shot to be this way. It is shot so that you think the woman is just a spunk bucket, a sperm receptical.
> This is what we were talking about.
> Then, when you dont understand why i think this, you patronise me by assuming i know nothing about womans fantasy in general and ask me to read nancy fridays 'secret garden'. I have a copy of all of her books actually. In secret garden there is a 'fantasy' which involves a woman going into another womans house and getting fucked by the womans dog. I try not to base much of my ideals of the average womans sexual fantasies by this book, so in have no idea why you suggested i read this?? Did you think it would open my mind? My mind is very open and still i find pornography where the womans face is drenched in cum that has just been wanked over her as degrading. This is how i feel. Others may think the woman is a feminist hero or a role model for young people. Personally, i only feel a slight awkward sadness for the woman.



Okay. It wasn't my intent to be patronizing, and I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I was genuinely confused. I wasn't sure if we were talking about fantasy or reality. I think I confused me. Thanks for clearing that up. It's degrading in porn to you and many others. My next question then is what do you think an average woman's fantasy is, or is this impossible to determine do you think?


----------



## mergirl (Mar 30, 2009)

olwen said:


> Okay. It wasn't my intent to be patronizing, and I'm sorry if it seemed that way. I was genuinely confused. I wasn't sure if we were talking about fantasy or reality. I think I confused me. Thanks for clearing that up. It's degrading in porn to you and many others. My next question then is what do you think an average woman's fantasy is, or is this impossible to determine do you think?


Everyone has different sexual fantasies. Fanasy is subjective, so in that respect its like a snowflake, in that each person's sexual fantasies are different. From studies i have read and from people i have talked to, generally womans fantasies tend to be more elaborate and male fantasies seem to be athstetic or focused on one situation but as for the actual fantasy itself they are all different even if it is in small details. I dont think there is such a thing as an 'average woman' therefore i think its impossible to determine and 'average womans' fantasy.


----------



## olwen (Mar 30, 2009)

mergirl said:


> Everyone has different sexual fantasies. Fanasy is subjective, so in that respect its like a snowflake, in that each person's sexual fantasies are different. From studies i have read and from people i have talked to, generally womans fantasies tend to be more elaborate and male fantasies seem to be athstetic or focused on one situation but as for the actual fantasy itself they are all different even if it is in small details. I dont think there is such a thing as an 'average woman' therefore i think its impossible to determine and 'average womans' fantasy.



What exactly do you mean by more elaborate and more aesthetic? Does this mean women need more details and men are focused on the way the people in the fantasies look? 

I guess too that if studies indicate women's sexuality tends to be more fluid then it makes sense for a common woman's fantasy to be harder to pin down.


----------



## Fascinita (Mar 30, 2009)

One word: vikings.


----------



## olwen (Mar 30, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> One word: vikings.



I see your Vikings and raise you a lumberjack. LOL


----------



## mergirl (Mar 31, 2009)

olwen said:


> What exactly do you mean by more elaborate and more aesthetic? Does this mean women need more details and men are focused on the way the people in the fantasies look?
> 
> I guess too that if studies indicate women's sexuality tends to be more fluid then it makes sense for a common woman's fantasy to be harder to pin down.


More elaborate meaning-with a storyline, longer runing and with characters etc. athstetic meaning-visually focused.


----------



## olwen (Mar 31, 2009)

mergirl said:


> More elaborate meaning-with a storyline, longer runing and with characters etc. athstetic meaning-visually focused.



I have to wonder how much of that is biological and how much is cultural for both sexes.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Mar 31, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> One word: vikings.



I'd do 'em................

They have big horns........:batting: :bow:


----------



## Suze (Mar 31, 2009)

Green Eyed Fairy said:


> I'd do 'em................
> 
> They have big horns........:batting: :bow:


imma viking now do me :batting::blush::wubu::kiss2:


i got horns in the front


----------



## Admiral_Snackbar (Mar 31, 2009)

I see your Viking and lumberjack and raise you a busty, chunky Rosie the Riveter. At least that woman can drill and screw


----------

