 |
|  |
 |
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000 time: 23:18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
Actually, I think I can see some evidence for Boddington's viewpoint here. This does not mean that my intellectual inclination tends in any way towards agreeing with Boddington's argument (I think it's disgusting, decadent, and offensive to all heterological people). Just call me intellectually curious 
When I was at public school in Britain, it was very trendy for a girl to pretend she was bisexual. Part of this rested on the fact that there were disproportionately few girls at that public school. Part of this also rested on a curious phenomenon I have noticed - that men often find lesbian women alluring, but that not so many women find the idea of gay men alluring. Add the two up and a girl often pretended to bisexuality, knowing that it would raise her popularity stock with the boys.
Of course, this was only popular during the childish high school years. In my experience it tailed off in my university years, but the northen location of my uni might have been to blame for this. (The north of Britain doesn't have a particularly progressive view towards homosexuality... "are y'caalin uz a fookin' pooftah?!? Reet - ootside - noow!!".)
I have also tried Boddington's lager with a female friend but I didn't enjoy it after the first time and I think I'll stick to bitter. |
I forgive you for your infatuation with Boddington's ideas.
But seriously though -- what makes you think straight women would not enjoy watching two gay men having sex anymore than straight men would enjoy watching two lesbians having sex??
It's only because of double standards in media entertainment that more x-rated movies show straight men watching two women have sex. You will never see the male-dominated entertainment industry giving straight women their fair share of what THEY would enjoy watching.
Same with breasts and cocks. Movies more freely show breasts in r-rated and x-rated movies. But they rarely, if ever show cocks. Why? Because the male-dominated entertainment industry imposes that double standard.
But this is thread-jacking. Give your comments to mine if you want to, on this, but then after that, we need to get back onto the original topic. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Alinestra Covelia
|
 |
I sense the dodgy presence of Bing - a presence I've not felt since...
Feb 2000 time: 00:18
|
|
Sure thing.
First of all, this is a phenomenon that I have observed amongst my friends. The guys like the idea of two women having sex, and the girls don't particularly like the idea of two guys having sex.
I don't know why this is, and I don't pretend to comment on the "rightness" or "wrongness" of such a situation. I merely mention what I see. (Oh, all right. With a fair bit of bewilderment too. )
I agree with you about movies and nudity. There's a strange feeling that you can show more of a man's body before it becomes "adult" material (you can show a man stripped to the waist and it will still be family friendly - not so with a woman). However, once it becomes "adult" material, all of the woman's body becomes viewable, whereas still relatively few movies will show all the man's body.
I don't think this is particularly through sexual tastes of the viewership. I think this is more to do with visibility. Most adult females, breasts aside, don't have any visible sexual organs even in the buff (unless you get gynaecologically close... mind that damn camera! close). There are exceptions but these are usually quite brave specimens of womanhood who possess no small degree of razorblade proficiency.
However, adult males have very visible organs whilst nude, even if not in a state of arousal. If you watch a movie such as Schindler's List, where the context of nudity is largely non sexual (I'm thinking to that bit where the Jewish refugees are stripped and registered by the Nazi concentration camp guards), you will probably see an equal weighting as far as gender nudity is concerned.
Once the element becomes sexually charged, you cannot show a male body without it being either A) Pornographic (although whatever that means is up to your definition), or B) Strangely unexcited (in which case it's somewhat unsuited to the context).
< /red herring >
Hang on, I need to say something meaningful. Okay...
Boddington's nonchalant response, that admitting something whilst pissed is not an admission at all, is not entirely correct.
I have known very fervent classic homophobes (by classic I mean people so frightened by the possibility of their own homosexuality that they attack the same in others) who, unable to admit their sexuality openly during sobriety, needed the freedom of inebriation in order to admit their true preferences.
Sometimes very true things are spoken whilst drunk, especially if it's something that the speaker feels he or she cannot normally admit to. Eg I need a few stiff ones before I'll admit to liking Quake III. Except I don't. Not a bit. Not even curious.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18. Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|