Dead
Bob Eld
more, sad!
suzee
> This is deadest group on the Usenet. I guess people don't care about sex any
> more, sad!
You think maybe the time of year has something to do with it? There's a
lot less posts on just about all groups.
sue
Kat
> This is deadest group on the Usenet. I guess people don't care about sex any
> more, sad!
Maybe some of us are having sex rather then sitting here writing about
it? It's not just here the whole net seems a little uninteresting this
week probably because American's are too busy eating turkey and
shopping this week.
Jana
I had chicken today. Sex was yesterday.
Moving in with bf on Thursday. And who knows if I will ever have time
for SSG after that :)
Gawd, my fingers tingle when I touch his skin.
Norton
>This is deadest group on the Usenet. I guess people don't care about sex any
>more, sad!
There's 16 post on the group right now. This is not
a high-volume group, never has been.
--
--- Norton
Norton
And, the way we talk about sex isn't what most what to hear
about sex. This isn't a stories group nor is it a "dating"
group.
--
--- Norton
Norton
Isn't that great? I'd bet he gets tingles too.
--
--- Norton
Kat
> And, the way we talk about sex isn't what most what to hear
> about sex. This isn't a stories group nor is it a "dating"
> group.
Nope that is why personal blogs exist.
toramjero
Most people do not live a life that is interesting enough to be worth
a personal blog.
(I said that because your message prompted me to have a look at yours,
and it is different. Completely alien to anything I could experience,
but interesting nevertheless.)
Obsex: a non standard vision of sexuality helps to make one's blog
interesting.
Tom Allen
> On Nov 30, 4:36 am, Kat <ki...@gothkat.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 6:03 pm, Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And, the way we talk about sex isn't what most what to hear
>>> about sex. This isn't a stories group nor is it a "dating"
>>> group.
>> Nope that is why personal blogs exist.
>
> Most people do not live a life that is interesting enough to be worth
> a personal blog.
Really? I find that cynical. I think that most people actually do have
interesting lives - they are just typical or average (that's the "most"
part).
> (I said that because your message prompted me to have a look at yours,
> and it is different. Completely alien to anything I could experience,
> but interesting nevertheless.)
And this prompted me to check, too.
Now, that's more interesting than average :-)
> Obsex: a non standard vision of sexuality helps to make one's blog
> interesting.
Or a regular vision - just well described.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
toramjero
> toramjero wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 4:36 am, Kat <ki...@gothkat.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 29, 6:03 pm, Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >>> And, the way we talk about sex isn't what most what to hear
> >>> about sex. This isn't a stories group nor is it a "dating"
> >>> group.
> >> Nope that is why personal blogs exist.
>
> > Most people do not live a life that is interesting enough to be worth
> > a personal blog.
>
> Really? I find that cynical. I think that most people actually do have
> interesting lives - they are just typical or average (that's the "most"
> part).
>
I meant interesting for others to read in a blog. As an example: were
I to write a blog similar to Kat's, it would be boring as hell. I
don't meet new partners, I never have. I don't experiment much beyond
the standard positions, and I don't practice anything like BDSM,
etc... It would just be a long list of "didn't have sex today" and
"had sex today in standard position nr. A or B" and nobody is
interested in reading that.
> > (I said that because your message prompted me to have a look at yours,
> > and it is different. Completely alien to anything I could experience,
> > but interesting nevertheless.)
>
> And this prompted me to check, too.
>
> Now, that's more interesting than average :-)
>
Now, do you understand what I meant?
> > Obsex: a non standard vision of sexuality helps to make one's blog
> > interesting.
>
> Or a regular vision - just well described.
>
I don't think so.
> --
> Tom Allenhttp://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
darklily
> This is deadest group on the Usenet. I guess people don't care about sex any
> more, sad!
I've not been around for multiple reasons.
One does have to do with sex and relationships. Had a huge blow up
with the DH about 2 weeks ago and have been trying to work things out.
It has been really difficult.
Affecting the ability to patch things up has been a week long visit
from parents/in-laws and added stress from work. No, really...my MIL
left her purse in a restuarant and it had all her medication in it.
She is *very* dependent on it. It didn't get shipped to us till the
endof the week. I haven't even had the chance to tell the DH about her
having a break down one day when she was here alone with me and one of
the kids.
Also affecting things has been relatively constant contact/visits/
phone calls/problems from the DH's (and sort of my) girlfriend(D). We
finally met her husband this weekend and apparently he got miffed
later on after they left over some joking around (involved ice down
the DH's back...long story...D hurt her back a month and I was getting
an ice pack for her).
The DH's boss has been out of town as well...so the DH has been in
charge. Much added stress/responsibility. The DH doesn't like
administrative responsibilities and he's been fighting going down that
path for some time now.
Our youngest came down with a cold and has been in our bed on several
nights. That makes things difficult. Last night the MIL set off the
house alarm. This morning she slipped and fell and hurt her wrist. We
spent alot of time making our feast this week, and spent quite a bit
of time looking at cool stuff. I saw exhibits on both the first
emperor of China and on King Tut/ancient Egypt. I saw a few pieces of
art on loan from the Louvre. Then I had to rush DS#1 to a doctor's
appointment.
I've actually had a fair bit of sex the past couple of weeks and it's
run the gammut from being tied up myself to being begged for sex. D
even cornered me last weekend while I was getting ready to go out with
the DH, while the family was downstairs.
Nope, now bored with sex...just going through alot of crazy stuff of
late.
Darklily
suzee
You should check out Tom's blog sometime. Some of it is fictionalized a
little, I think, though somewhat ordinary in most ways. It's the writing
styles of blog writers that can make them interesting regardless of content.
sue
Tom Allen
> On Nov 30, 12:57 pm, Tom Allen <taomlinS...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> toramjero wrote:
>>> On Nov 30, 4:36 am, Kat <ki...@gothkat.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 29, 6:03 pm, Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>> And, the way we talk about sex isn't what most what to hear
>>>>> about sex. This isn't a stories group nor is it a "dating"
>>>>> group.
>>>> Nope that is why personal blogs exist.
>>> Most people do not live a life that is interesting enough to be worth
>>> a personal blog.
>> Really? I find that cynical. I think that most people actually do have
>> interesting lives - they are just typical or average (that's the "most"
>> part).
>>
>
> I meant interesting for others to read in a blog. As an example: were
> I to write a blog similar to Kat's, it would be boring as hell. I
> don't meet new partners, I never have. I don't experiment much beyond
> the standard positions, and I don't practice anything like BDSM,
> etc... It would just be a long list of "didn't have sex today" and
> "had sex today in standard position nr. A or B" and nobody is
> interested in reading that.
I think that you miss my point. Most people have lives that are average
- that, of course, is a statistical reality. If they weren't "most" then
it wouldn't be "average."
That said, most people do have interesting lives simply because they are
not us. We all eat breakfast, but some of us throw some Pop-Tarts into
the toaster oven, and others make omelets. Whether or not we prefer to
read about their activities does not make them any more or less
interesting (or boring) - it just means that we, ourselves, are not
interested.
However...
Some people have the ability to express themselves in ways that make the
story of their lives more interesting to others. I hate to say this, but
sometimes the media *is* the message, or rather, the manipulation of the
media enhances the message. I read blogs in which the people seem to be
having sex every other day in all sorts of places, but dang - they make
it sound so boring. Yet, these same people have hundreds of regular
readers, so *some* people find their styles interesting. The problem
isn't them, it's me. Other people manage to write about the most mundane
aspects of their lives, but do so with insight and introspection that
makes them worth reading. Yet, I've seen people complain that their
posts are too wordy and don't have enough sexy parts.
To each according to taste, eh?
--
Tom Allen
toramjero
>
> "I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
> carrier."
(answering to suzee at the same time)
I have checked your blog and it is interesting and well written
indeed. But what makes it interesting is less your life than your
reflections, while indeed Kat's blog is more of the other sort (not
that Kat is not able of good thinking, she seems a rather bright woman
to me). But reflections are only legitimate if they are rooted in
experience, and I don't have that.
So, if you like I can correct my observation: most people do not live
a life that is interesting enough to be worth a personal blog. Of
those, some have a high enough capacity of introspection and analysis
that they can still write an interesting blog.
suzee
It depends on the reader's interest as well. I don't generally go
searching blogs to read, but will read a couple by people I `know' from
the net and email, like Tom's and another person though she stopped all
internet activity last year. And sometimes blogs on specific crafts for
ideas and such. But comments about what happened to them today and
reflections on their personal lives..? That's more like reading
someone's diary, and if people want to publish it, that's fine, I don't
need to read it.
sue
Kat
> I have checked your blog and it is interesting and well written
> indeed. But what makes it interesting is less your life than your
> reflections, while indeed Kat's blog is more of the other sort (not
> that Kat is not able of good thinking, she seems a rather bright woman
> to me). But reflections are only legitimate if they are rooted in
> experience, and I don't have that.
For my own part I'm trying to strike a balance between the two
although my most recent post was rushed out and didn't really come
through the way I wanted.
Unfortunately I need to be somewhat paranoid about keeping my identity
at work separate from this aspect of my life which limits choice of
topic to some extent since I can't write about work or any perspective
on life in general that I share with anyone meat space beyond
particularly generic experiences.
In terms of what I read I tend to read a little of everything but the
ones I enjoy the most are the blogs that aren't afraid to be sexual
but aren't focused upon it and it's more about the different
viewpoints people have and the way they express themselves.
This is largely my first attempt at any sort of writing so it's more
of a learning experience writing about my own life then anything else.
toramjero
> On Nov 30, 1:42 pm, toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have checked your blog and it is interesting and well written
> > indeed. But what makes it interesting is less your life than your
> > reflections, while indeed Kat's blog is more of the other sort (not
> > that Kat is not able of good thinking, she seems a rather bright woman
> > to me). But reflections are only legitimate if they are rooted in
> > experience, and I don't have that.
>
> For my own part I'm trying to strike a balance between the two
> although my most recent post was rushed out and didn't really come
> through the way I wanted.
>
> Unfortunately I need to be somewhat paranoid about keeping my identity
> at work separate from this aspect of my life which limits choice of
> topic to some extent since I can't write about work or any perspective
> on life in general that I share with anyone meat space beyond
> particularly generic experiences.
>
> In terms of what I read I tend to read a little of everything but the
> ones I enjoy the most are the blogs that aren't afraid to be sexual
> but aren't focused upon it and it's more about the different
> viewpoints people have and the way they express themselves.
>
I think that the blogs that are sexual, or any site that is sexual
actually, are the most popular on the Internet because most people
sexual life is rather bland. So they have a somewhat unhealthy
fascination for stories about sex they will never do. When I read
about sharing a shower with a stranger in a camping, I thought that it
never happened to me (as it probably never happened to 99.999% percent
of the male population) and that, were I to make such a suggestion as
a male, I would probably end up at the next police station for sexual
harassment. Or at the very least, be expelled from the campground and
face difficult explanations with my wife.
In the end, I think that reading this kind of stories only fuels
frustration, so I try to avoid them usually.
Kat
> It depends on the reader's interest as well. I don't generally go
> searching blogs to read, but will read a couple by people I `know' from
> the net and email, like Tom's and another person though she stopped all
> internet activity last year. And sometimes blogs on specific crafts for
> ideas and such.
I read a few topical blogs mostly to keep up with industry news. I
don't have the knowledge to write something similar though.
> But comments about what happened to them today and
> reflections on their personal lives..? That's more like reading
> someone's diary, and if people want to publish it, that's fine, I don't
> need to read it.
I've never been able to see the point of a journal but there is just
enough of an exhibitionist thrill in opening it up to those interested
that I've stuck with it for now. I honestly don't understand why
people read though but... Who am I to argue? I'm just always surprised
when I see the number of hits.
Tom Allen
> On Nov 30, 3:09 pm, suzee <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>> But comments about what happened to them today and
>> reflections on their personal lives..? That's more like reading
>> someone's diary, and if people want to publish it, that's fine, I don't
>> need to read it.
Oh, I agree. I tend to skip over accounts of people's issues with their
children, and people who write with scathing negativism about their
partners turn me off. If you're that unhappy, then leave or get therapy.
Venting works up to a point, then it's just mean and belittling.
I use an RSS reader which makes it easier to skim the blogs that have
new posts, and I admit that some of my favorites have slumps, so I skip
them for weeks at a time.
> I've never been able to see the point of a journal but there is just
> enough of an exhibitionist thrill in opening it up to those interested
> that I've stuck with it for now. I honestly don't understand why
> people read though but... Who am I to argue? I'm just always surprised
> when I see the number of hits.
:laughs:
Yeah, I've had the same reaction: Who he hell keeps coming back to this,
anyway?
Some people manage to keep their blogs interesting by combining a
variety of subjects, including , but not limited to, sex and sexuality.
Those are my faves, especially if they can write well and be somewhat
entertaining.
Sometimes I follow certain blogs because they are like a journal, and an
interesting story is unfolding. At least, I find it interesting -
obviously some people don't.
Lately I've been including thoughts on sexuality as it relates to modern
culture, which leads me to explore issues in aging and sexuality. And
I've got a whole side thing going about health and my goal to lose 15
more pounds and get buffed enough to become a middle-aged fetish model.
Hey, we've all gotta have a dream, right?
--
Tom Allen
Kat
> Oh, I agree. I tend to skip over accounts of people's issues with their
> children, and people who write with scathing negativism about their
> partners turn me off. If you're that unhappy, then leave or get therapy.
> Venting works up to a point, then it's just mean and belittling.
I skip over relationship stuff since otherwise I tend to speak my
mind.
> I use an RSS reader which makes it easier to skim the blogs that have
> new posts, and I admit that some of my favorites have slumps, so I skip
> them for weeks at a time.
I'm addicted to Google Reader myself as I can read from my iPod Touch
as well as either of my computers.
> :laughs:
> Yeah, I've had the same reaction: Who he hell keeps coming back to this,
> anyway?
Something tells me I am happier not knowing, at least some of the
time.
> Some people manage to keep their blogs interesting by combining a
> variety of subjects, including , but not limited to, sex and sexuality.
> Those are my faves, especially if they can write well and be somewhat
> entertaining.
>
> Sometimes I follow certain blogs because they are like a journal, and an
> interesting story is unfolding. At least, I find it interesting -
> obviously some people don't.
I really can't figure out how to define what interests me and what
doesn't so I think it really just comes down to writing style more
then anything else. A sense of humor is mandatory but anything from a
slapstick style to a dry subtle type works for me.
Speaking of which the CATCHPA for this post is "subwlnore" with the L
and N overlapping just a little.
> Lately I've been including thoughts on sexuality as it relates to modern
> culture, which leads me to explore issues in aging and sexuality. And
> I've got a whole side thing going about health and my goal to lose 15
> more pounds and get buffed enough to become a middle-aged fetish model.
>
> Hey, we've all gotta have a dream, right?
There's no point living without 'em and besides that would probably be
hot.
Norton
>On Nov 30, 4:36 am, Kat <ki...@gothkat.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 6:03 pm, Norton <nor...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> > And, the way we talk about sex isn't what most what to hear
>> > about sex. This isn't a stories group nor is it a "dating"
>> > group.
>>
>> Nope that is why personal blogs exist.
>Most people do not live a life that is interesting enough to be worth
>a personal blog.
Oh my! ;-)
I've read a fair number on line that are not at all interesting.
They should listen to you.
>(I said that because your message prompted me to have a look at yours,
>and it is different. Completely alien to anything I could experience,
>but interesting nevertheless.)
>Obsex: a non standard vision of sexuality helps to make one's blog
>interesting.
--
--- Norton
Tom Allen
> On Nov 30, 5:29 pm, Tom Allen <taomlinS...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Oh, I agree. I tend to skip over accounts of people's issues with their
>> children, and people who write with scathing negativism about their
>> partners turn me off. If you're that unhappy, then leave or get therapy.
>> Venting works up to a point, then it's just mean and belittling.
>
> I skip over relationship stuff since otherwise I tend to speak my
> mind.
Well, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing.
>
>> I use an RSS reader which makes it easier to skim the blogs that have
>> new posts, and I admit that some of my favorites have slumps, so I skip
>> them for weeks at a time.
>
> I'm addicted to Google Reader myself as I can read from my iPod Touch
> as well as either of my computers.
Oooh - I didn't know about this.
>> :laughs:
>> Yeah, I've had the same reaction: Who he hell keeps coming back to this,
>> anyway?
>
> Something tells me I am happier not knowing, at least some of the
> time.
My wife has intimated that they must all be perverts. I asked that if
they're reading my blog, then what does that make me?
>> Some people manage to keep their blogs interesting by combining a
>> variety of subjects, including , but not limited to, sex and sexuality.
>> Those are my faves, especially if they can write well and be somewhat
>> entertaining.
>>
>> Sometimes I follow certain blogs because they are like a journal, and an
>> interesting story is unfolding. At least, I find it interesting -
>> obviously some people don't.
>
> I really can't figure out how to define what interests me and what
> doesn't so I think it really just comes down to writing style more
> then anything else. A sense of humor is mandatory but anything from a
> slapstick style to a dry subtle type works for me.
That must be the "entertaining" factor that I mentioned. A sense of
humor is better than pages of dreary "I hate my life" prose.
>> Lately I've been including thoughts on sexuality as it relates to modern
>> culture, which leads me to explore issues in aging and sexuality. And
>> I've got a whole side thing going about health and my goal to lose 15
>> more pounds and get buffed enough to become a middle-aged fetish model.
>>
>> Hey, we've all gotta have a dream, right?
>
> There's no point living without 'em
What, fetish models?
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
suzee
> Kat wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 5:29 pm, Tom Allen <taomlinS...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Oh, I agree. I tend to skip over accounts of people's issues with their
>>> children, and people who write with scathing negativism about their
>>> partners turn me off. If you're that unhappy, then leave or get therapy.
>>> Venting works up to a point, then it's just mean and belittling.
>>
>> I skip over relationship stuff since otherwise I tend to speak my
>> mind.
>
> Well, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing.
>
>>
>>> I use an RSS reader which makes it easier to skim the blogs that have
>>> new posts, and I admit that some of my favorites have slumps, so I skip
>>> them for weeks at a time.
>>
>> I'm addicted to Google Reader myself as I can read from my iPod Touch
>> as well as either of my computers.
>
> Oooh - I didn't know about this.
I have your blog in Google reader.
>>> :laughs:
>>> Yeah, I've had the same reaction: Who he hell keeps coming back to this,
>>> anyway?
>>
>> Something tells me I am happier not knowing, at least some of the
>> time.
>
> My wife has intimated that they must all be perverts. I asked that if
> they're reading my blog, then what does that make me?
A familiar pervert rather than a pervert who's a stranger.
sue
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> I meant interesting for others to read in a blog. As an example: were
> I to write a blog similar to Kat's, it would be boring as hell. I
> don't meet new partners, I never have. I don't experiment much beyond
> the standard positions, and I don't practice anything like BDSM,
> etc... It would just be a long list of "didn't have sex today" and
> "had sex today in standard position nr. A or B" and nobody is
> interested in reading that.
You're focusing on a sex-specific blog. I technically have a blog about
sex attached to my NN account, but I hardly ever use it. I post in my
regular blog (about everything that's not sex or music) and my music
blog much more regularly.
toramjero
Yes, but then this is a post in s.s.g. isn't it?
Tom Allen
SSG is not a blog. This is one of many groups specifically set up for
others to discuss sexuality. In fact, we rarely discuss the actual
mechanics here, we tend to focus on the other aspects.
Except for GoldenMan, who is happy to explain how to slap her around to
loosen her up, and slam de meat home.
Blogs, though, are a different animal. They are generally a single-user
medium, and the discussion is limited to comments on a particular post.
--
Tom Allen
http://tom-allen.livejournal.com/
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
toramjero
> toramjero wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 9:46 pm, Irfon-Kim Ahmad <ir...@ambienautica.com> wrote:
> >> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>> I meant interesting for others to read in a blog. As an example: were
> >>> I to write a blog similar to Kat's, it would be boring as hell. I
> >>> don't meet new partners, I never have. I don't experiment much beyond
> >>> the standard positions, and I don't practice anything like BDSM,
> >>> etc... It would just be a long list of "didn't have sex today" and
> >>> "had sex today in standard position nr. A or B" and nobody is
> >>> interested in reading that.
> >> You're focusing on a sex-specific blog. I technically have a blog about
> >> sex attached to my NN account, but I hardly ever use it. I post in my
> >> regular blog (about everything that's not sex or music) and my music
> >> blog much more regularly.
>
> > Yes, but then this is a post in s.s.g. isn't it?
>
> SSG is not a blog. This is one of many groups specifically set up for
> others to discuss sexuality. In fact, we rarely discuss the actual
> mechanics here, we tend to focus on the other aspects.
>
I know that s.s.g. is not a blog. I meant: I focus on SEXUAL blogs in
this thread, because a blog on classical music would be off topic ON
S.S.G. I could write a blog on some non-sex subjects, maybe. I don't
have enough to say about sexuality.
> Except for GoldenMan, who is happy to explain how to slap her around to
> loosen her up, and slam de meat home.
>
> Blogs, though, are a different animal. They are generally a single-user
> medium, and the discussion is limited to comments on a particular post.
>
> --
> Tom Allenhttp://tom-allen.livejournal.com/http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/
darklily
> Kat wrote:
> > On Nov 30, 3:09 pm, suzee <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
> >> But comments about what happened to them today and
> >> reflections on their personal lives..? That's more like reading
> >> someone's diary, and if people want to publish it, that's fine, I don't
> >> need to read it.
>
> Oh, I agree. I tend to skip over accounts of people's issues with their
> children, and people who write with scathing negativism about their
> partners turn me off. If you're that unhappy, then leave or get therapy.
> Venting works up to a point, then it's just mean and belittling.
Hehehheh. I am so guilty about posting about my kids in my journal.
It's not so much that I think everyone is interested in hearing about
them. Some of it (for me) is that there are a few people that read my
journal who are (or were) genuinely interested in that stuff and the
other (more important part) does have to do with self-reflection or
making an account of events so I can try to see a pattern later.
There's loads of stuff that I write that isn't viewable as well.
>
> I use an RSS reader which makes it easier to skim the blogs that have
> new posts, and I admit that some of my favorites have slumps, so I skip
> them for weeks at a time.
>
> > I've never been able to see the point of a journal but there is just
> > enough of an exhibitionist thrill in opening it up to those interested
> > that I've stuck with it for now. I honestly don't understand why
> > people read though but... Who am I to argue? I'm just always surprised
> > when I see the number of hits.
>
> :laughs:
> Yeah, I've had the same reaction: Who he hell keeps coming back to this,
> anyway?
>
> Some people manage to keep their blogs interesting by combining a
> variety of subjects, including , but not limited to, sex and sexuality.
> Those are my faves, especially if they can write well and be somewhat
> entertaining.
>
> Sometimes I follow certain blogs because they are like a journal, and an
> interesting story is unfolding. At least, I find it interesting -
> obviously some people don't.
Hopefully I'm in this category. Well, at least I throw in a nude-y pic
once in a while to keep things interesting.
>
> Lately I've been including thoughts on sexuality as it relates to modern
> culture, which leads me to explore issues in aging and sexuality. And
> I've got a whole side thing going about health and my goal to lose 15
> more pounds and get buffed enough to become a middle-aged fetish model.
>
> Hey, we've all gotta have a dream, right?
>
Ahh...the secrets out then. That explains alot. ;-)
Darklily
Tom Allen
> On Nov 30, 7:29 pm, Tom Allen <taomlinS...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Kat wrote:
>>> On Nov 30, 3:09 pm, suzee <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>> But comments about what happened to them today and
>>>> reflections on their personal lives..? That's more like reading
>>>> someone's diary, and if people want to publish it, that's fine, I don't
>>>> need to read it.
>> Oh, I agree. I tend to skip over accounts of people's issues with their
>> children, and people who write with scathing negativism about their
>> partners turn me off. If you're that unhappy, then leave or get therapy.
>> Venting works up to a point, then it's just mean and belittling.
>
>
> Hehehheh. I am so guilty about posting about my kids in my journal.
It's nothing to feel guilty about, of course. Maybe it's just 'cos I'm a
guy - if you had posts about, oh, I dunno, guns and power tools, then
I'd probably read those.
I skip over posts about baking, crafty things, knitting, and similar
topics, too.
> It's not so much that I think everyone is interested in hearing about
> them. Some of it (for me) is that there are a few people that read my
> journal who are (or were) genuinely interested in that stuff and the
> other (more important part) does have to do with self-reflection or
> making an account of events so I can try to see a pattern later.
Right.
> There's loads of stuff that I write that isn't viewable as well.
I haven't seen any of thos... oh.
>
>> I use an RSS reader which makes it easier to skim the blogs that have
>> new posts, and I admit that some of my favorites have slumps, so I skip
>> them for weeks at a time.
>>
>>> I've never been able to see the point of a journal but there is just
>>> enough of an exhibitionist thrill in opening it up to those interested
>>> that I've stuck with it for now. I honestly don't understand why
>>> people read though but... Who am I to argue? I'm just always surprised
>>> when I see the number of hits.
>> :laughs:
>> Yeah, I've had the same reaction: Who he hell keeps coming back to this,
>> anyway?
>>
>> Some people manage to keep their blogs interesting by combining a
>> variety of subjects, including , but not limited to, sex and sexuality.
>> Those are my faves, especially if they can write well and be somewhat
>> entertaining.
>>
>> Sometimes I follow certain blogs because they are like a journal, and an
>> interesting story is unfolding. At least, I find it interesting -
>> obviously some people don't.
>
> Hopefully I'm in this category. Well, at least I throw in a nude-y pic
> once in a while to keep things interesting.
:-)
Me too. I mean, what the hell - after I posted pics of my piercing a
couple of years ago, I just went to hell in a handbasket with that.
>> Lately I've been including thoughts on sexuality as it relates to modern
>> culture, which leads me to explore issues in aging and sexuality. And
>> I've got a whole side thing going about health and my goal to lose 15
>> more pounds and get buffed enough to become a middle-aged fetish model.
>>
>> Hey, we've all gotta have a dream, right?
>>
>
> Ahh...the secrets out then. That explains alot. ;-)
What - you thought I was spending all this time getting fit just for my
health?
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
toramjero
THAT is a sure way to drive traffic to your blog!
...if you are a woman, that is. ;)
Tom Allen
> On Dec 2, 1:17 pm, darklily <darkli...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 7:29 pm, Tom Allen <taomlinS...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> Sometimes I follow certain blogs because they are like a journal, and an
>>> interesting story is unfolding. At least, I find it interesting -
>>> obviously some people don't.
>> Hopefully I'm in this category. Well, at least I throw in a nude-y pic
>> once in a while to keep things interesting.
>>
>
> THAT is a sure way to drive traffic to your blog!
>
> ....if you are a woman, that is. ;)
Oh, it works the other way around, too. You'd be surprised at how many
more hits I get on weeks when I put up a similar nude-ish pic of myself.
I'm pretty sure that most of the hits are even from women.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
toramjero
> toramjero wrote:
> > On Dec 2, 1:17 pm, darklily <darkli...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 30, 7:29 pm, Tom Allen <taomlinS...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>> Sometimes I follow certain blogs because they are like a journal, and an
> >>> interesting story is unfolding. At least, I find it interesting -
> >>> obviously some people don't.
> >> Hopefully I'm in this category. Well, at least I throw in a nude-y pic
> >> once in a while to keep things interesting.
>
> > THAT is a sure way to drive traffic to your blog!
>
> > ....if you are a woman, that is. ;)
>
> Oh, it works the other way around, too. You'd be surprised at how many
> more hits I get on weeks when I put up a similar nude-ish pic of myself.
>
> I'm pretty sure that most of the hits are even from women.
>
Of course, they all want to see "before" and "after" pictures to see
if YOUR diet works.
Tom Allen
> On Dec 2, 8:49 pm, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> toramjero wrote:
>>> On Dec 2, 1:17 pm, darklily <darkli...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 30, 7:29 pm, Tom Allen <taomlinS...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> Sometimes I follow certain blogs because they are like a journal, and an
>>>>> interesting story is unfolding. At least, I find it interesting -
>>>>> obviously some people don't.
>>>> Hopefully I'm in this category. Well, at least I throw in a nude-y pic
>>>> once in a while to keep things interesting.
>>> THAT is a sure way to drive traffic to your blog!
>>> ....if you are a woman, that is. ;)
>> Oh, it works the other way around, too. You'd be surprised at how many
>> more hits I get on weeks when I put up a similar nude-ish pic of myself.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure that most of the hits are even from women.
>>
>
>
> Of course, they all want to see "before" and "after" pictures to see
> if YOUR diet works.
Umm... I don't really have that much in the way of "before" pics.
But then, we all know that women don't care to look at half naked guys,
right?
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> On Dec 2, 1:17�pm, darklily <darkli...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hopefully I'm in this category. Well, at least I throw in a nude-y pic
>> once in a while to keep things interesting.
>>
>
> THAT is a sure way to drive traffic to your blog!
>
> ...if you are a woman, that is. ;)
It works for men, too! (I got a good number of my regular readers that
way.)
Tom Allen
A lot of men look at your pictures, too?
suzee
> toramjero wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 8:49 pm, Tom Allen <taomli...@SPAMsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> toramjero wrote:
>>>> On Dec 2, 1:17 pm, darklily <darkli...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 30, 7:29 pm, Tom Allen <taomlinS...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Sometimes I follow certain blogs because they are like a journal,
>>>>>> and an
>>>>>> interesting story is unfolding. At least, I find it interesting -
>>>>>> obviously some people don't.
>>>>> Hopefully I'm in this category. Well, at least I throw in a nude-y pic
>>>>> once in a while to keep things interesting.
>>>> THAT is a sure way to drive traffic to your blog!
>>>> ....if you are a woman, that is. ;)
>>> Oh, it works the other way around, too. You'd be surprised at how many
>>> more hits I get on weeks when I put up a similar nude-ish pic of myself.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure that most of the hits are even from women.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Of course, they all want to see "before" and "after" pictures to see
>> if YOUR diet works.
>
> Umm... I don't really have that much in the way of "before" pics.
>
> But then, we all know that women don't care to look at half naked guys,
> right?
On what planet?
sue
toramjero
You publish naked pictures of yourself on your blog?
Anyway. It would seem to make sense that naked pictures of men would
attract female readers, but if it is so:
-why are there many more internet sites with female than male
pictures?
-why are there many magazines featuring scantily clad women (like
"playboy") and so few featuring male models? The only one I know is
"playgirl", which is announced to stop next month:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/04/paidcontent/main4320229.shtml
Playboy's circulation is more than three million copies in the United
States and 4.5 million worldwide. One would think that pictures of
female models sell much better than their male counterpart.
Jana
I just half look.
> sue
>
Jana
Jana
Oh, but it is much more thrilling for me to see someone I know naked
than a total stranger. Total strangers do almost nothing for me.
Jana
toramjero
Then I would say that we have to get to know each other.
> Jana
Tom Allen
:snerk:
Jana
Oh, I already feel as if I know you from these discussions here. Nekkid
pix, please!
Jana
darklily
> On Nov 30, 1:42 pm, toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have checked your blog and it is interesting and well written
> > indeed. But what makes it interesting is less your life than your
> > reflections, while indeed Kat's blog is more of the other sort (not
> > that Kat is not able of good thinking, she seems a rather bright woman
> > to me). But reflections are only legitimate if they are rooted in
> > experience, and I don't have that.
>
> For my own part I'm trying to strike a balance between the two
> although my most recent post was rushed out and didn't really come
> through the way I wanted.
>
> Unfortunately I need to be somewhat paranoid about keeping my identity
> at work separate from this aspect of my life which limits choice of
> topic to some extent since I can't write about work or any perspective
> on life in general that I share with anyone meat space beyond
> particularly generic experiences.
I'm in this boat with you, but it's more because of my husband's work
than mine. In fact, I recently started seeing someone who's a friend
of two of my work colleagues with the colleagues' knowledge and
there's been no fallout. That wouldn't be the case where my husband
works. There is the potential for losing his job. I almost never post
things that relate to the work that either of us do, which is a shame
becasue we have interesting occupations.
Darklily
darklily
Same here. For the same reason, anonymous sex doesn't do anything for
me.
Darklily
suzee
Yep, this is one of the main differences in male and female sexuality.
In general, men can more easily get aroused looking at a picture of a
woman they don't know or a stranger they pass by on the street, whereas
women need more of a familiarity with a person to get aroused by the
thought of or looking at that person nude. Which doesn't mean we don't
admire pictures of nekkid or near nekkid men...
sue
toramjero
Ahah! Got you. ;)
toramjero
It doesn't quite add up. How can you be uninterested by pictures of
strangers and admire them in the same paragraph?
Tom Allen
They can enjoy half naked pics of men that they *do* know. Or they can
enjoy, say, some of the eye candy of advertising and marketing pics,
which often have half naked men in interesting positions. It's not that
they are strangers, but the pics themselves tell a story to which women
(and men) can relate.
For example, some of those Dolce & Gabanna ads are rather hot, and one
can easily imagine some kinds of sexual/sensual fantasies by looking at
them. This is different from, say, looking at full frontal shots of some
guy on Craig's List or Yahoo 360, who is maybe standing in his den.
For that matter, it's similar with looking at movie or tv stars - one
has already developed some "familiarity" with them, simply form exposure
to various shows, plus magazine articles, interviews, etc.
None of this applies to Jana, of course, who has a collection of
anonymous phone cam pics of various undressed men - but it might apply
to a lot of other women.
suzee
You missed a key word there - aroused, as in sexually. Admiring how a
man looks isn't the same as being aroused by a naked picture of a man.
sue
toramjero
> toramjero wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 5:34 pm, suzee <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
> >> Yep, this is one of the main differences in male and female sexuality.
> >> In general, men can more easily get aroused looking at a picture of a
> >> woman they don't know or a stranger they pass by on the street, whereas
> >> women need more of a familiarity with a person to get aroused by the
> >> thought of or looking at that person nude. Which doesn't mean we don't
> >> admire pictures of nekkid or near nekkid men...
>
> >> sue
>
> > It doesn't quite add up. How can you be uninterested by pictures of
> > strangers and admire them in the same paragraph?
>
> They can enjoy half naked pics of men that they *do* know. Or they can
> enjoy, say, some of the eye candy of advertising and marketing pics,
> which often have half naked men in interesting positions. It's not that
> they are strangers, but the pics themselves tell a story to which women
> (and men) can relate.
>
I would have imagined that a magazine like Playgirl would have
published exactly this kind of tasty, racy pictures of interesting men
in interesting positions. Yet, Playgirl went "poof!" just this month.
Of course, I have never actually been able to check on Playgirl
pictures myself. No, not for that reason: it went away where I live
*years* ago...
But, if by trying to sell, for a modest price, pictures of the best
looking men on this planet put in interesting poses by the most
talented photographs on this planet you go bankrupt, I have the
naivete to think that it might, you know just maybe might, mean
something.
> For example, some of those Dolce & Gabanna ads are rather hot, and one
> can easily imagine some kinds of sexual/sensual fantasies by looking at
> them. This is different from, say, looking at full frontal shots of some
> guy on Craig's List or Yahoo 360, who is maybe standing in his den.
>
> For that matter, it's similar with looking at movie or tv stars - one
> has already developed some "familiarity" with them, simply form exposure
> to various shows, plus magazine articles, interviews, etc.
>
> None of this applies to Jana, of course, who has a collection of
> anonymous phone cam pics of various undressed men
Yes, I had figured that out already. ;)
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> Irfon-Kim Ahmad wrote:
>> toramjero <tora...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> On Dec 2, 1:17 pm, darklily <darkli...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hopefully I'm in this category. Well, at least I throw in a nude-y pic
>>>> once in a while to keep things interesting.
>>>>
>>> THAT is a sure way to drive traffic to your blog!
>>>
>>> ...if you are a woman, that is. ;)
>>
>> It works for men, too! (I got a good number of my regular readers that
>> way.)
>
> A lot of men look at your pictures, too?
*hehe* Both women and men. :P
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> On Dec 3, 3:26 am, Irfon-Kim Ahmad <ir...@ambienautica.com> wrote:
>> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > On Dec 2, 1:17 pm, darklily <darkli...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Hopefully I'm in this category. Well, at least I throw in a nude-y pic
>> >> once in a while to keep things interesting.
>>
>> > THAT is a sure way to drive traffic to your blog!
>>
>> > ...if you are a woman, that is. ;)
>>
>> It works for men, too! (I got a good number of my regular readers that
>> way.)
>
> You publish naked pictures of yourself on your blog?
Yes, although it's a little more complex than that. I have a music
blog, where there's no nudity at all, but that's the only blog that I
have that runs on traditional blog software. I have a NewbieNudes
account, which has a blog function, but that's more a matter of
attaching blog posts to your nude pictures than the other way around.
My blog, in the sense people mean that, is a livejournal account. I do
post naked pictures of myself using it. However, livejournal has
"communities". I don't tend to post naked pictures of myself to my main
"about me" type blog. I post them to communities. However, I do post
them from my regular account, so people who see the pictures can click
through to my blog, and I've garnered a lot of readers that way --
people who saw pictures of me, were curious, clicked through to my
regular blog, and added me to their friends list.
> Anyway. It would seem to make sense that naked pictures of men would
> attract female readers, but if it is so:
I didn't actually specify female readers. I *have* garnered a number of
female readers that way, but also a number of male readers. If I had to
guess, I'd say about even ones.
> -why are there many more internet sites with female than male
> pictures?
Because I'm talking about whether it works for men or not, not whether
it works *as well* for men. I probably would never garner as much
interest as a woman making similar posts, but I garner some interest --
enough to say that it works. I'm not sure I really understand the
comptetive aspect of this -- what does it matter if there are *more*
sites with female porn than male porn, as long as there are some of both
and/or people who want to see some of both?
> -why are there many magazines featuring scantily clad women (like
> "playboy") and so few featuring male models? The only one I know is
> "playgirl", which is announced to stop next month:
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/08/04/paidcontent/main4320229.shtml
>
> Playboy's circulation is more than three million copies in the United
> States and 4.5 million worldwide. One would think that pictures of
> female models sell much better than their male counterpart.
Nobody's arguing that they don't. All I said was that posting nude
photos as a way of garnering interest on your blog also works for men.
Whether it would work better for women is thoroughly irrelevant.
Also, remember that there are a lot of variables here. It's possible
that women enjoy nude photos of men, for example, but that they're less
willing to pay money for them. It's possible that fewer women are in
situations where they *can* purchase male porn -- it's more likely to be
illegal where they are, they're more likely to have parents or spouses
who wouldn't understand or allow them to or where being caught with it
would be more likely to put them in danger, it's more likely to be
something that they don't feel is socially acceptable.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
Oddly, I know a lot more women who don't even care who is in the photo
than men. What I mean to say there is that for many more women I know
than men, all that matters is what is *happening* in the photo, not who
is in it. Like, my wife, for instance, doesn't even care what the
people look like, whether they're attractive, etc. What's important to
her is what activities are occurring. And I've heard lots of other
women concur with this. Whereas to me it's much more important that I
find the people in the photo attractive and much less important what
they're doing. (Relatedly, she's also much more interested in video
than photos. I mostly prefer photos, although the one thing that I
really like about video is when you get to hear the people talk, since I
like hearing people's voices.)
darklily
> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 3, 3:26 am, Irfon-Kim Ahmad <ir...@ambienautica.com> wrote:
> >> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Dec 2, 1:17 pm, darklily <darkli...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Hopefully I'm in this category. Well, at least I throw in a nude-y pic
> >> >> once in a while to keep things interesting.
>
> >> > THAT is a sure way to drive traffic to your blog!
>
> >> > ...if you are a woman, that is. ;)
>
> >> It works for men, too! (I got a good number of my regular readers that
> >> way.)
>
> > You publish naked pictures of yourself on your blog?
>
> Yes, although it's a little more complex than that. I have a music
> blog, where there's no nudity at all, but that's the only blog that I
> have that runs on traditional blog software. I have a NewbieNudes
> account, which has a blog function, but that's more a matter of
> attaching blog posts to your nude pictures than the other way around.
> My blog, in the sense people mean that, is a livejournal account.
Mine is there too. Mind if look you up there and read yours?
Darklily
suzee
That makes some sense too. If a naked guy is just sitting or standing in
a picture, it's not so interesting, but if he's doing some sexual, that
would put out the idea that maybe it's something I'd like and get
aroused by. But for many guys, I think a nude woman just posing, on a
chair or with her legs spread is arousing for them.
sue
toramjero
There is quite often a story told in the picture designed for men too.
The woman may wear clothes that are traditionally associated with sex,
be in an environment giving clues on the story or, as in the case of
the woman spreading her legs, giving out sexual clues by her pose.
Cause, Frankly, I don't know about Tom, but women I cross in the
street do not get naked and spread their legs for me. If one were
doing that, I would think that it were a quite obvious clue... ;)
toramjero
OK. I stand corrected. Posting nudes on one's blog is a sure way to
increase traffic, both for men and women.
Can you give some details as to what happens on livejournal or
NewbieNudes? Do you just gain "friends" interested in, say, discussing
polyamory? I don't quite understand how those social sites work.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
Sure, if you like. I'm epi_lj on there. I don't post anything about
sex at all in my own account there, though, by and large, but if you
like dorky photoshop images about Canadian politics and contents about
board games, be my guest!
Tom Allen
> Irfon-Kim Ahmad wrote:
>> Oddly, I know a lot more women who don't even care who is in the photo
>> than men. What I mean to say there is that for many more women I know
>> than men, all that matters is what is *happening* in the photo, not
>> who is in it. Like, my wife, for instance, doesn't even care what the
>> people look like, whether they're attractive, etc. What's important
>> to her is what activities are occurring. And I've heard lots of other
>> women concur with this. Whereas to me it's much more important that I
>> find the people in the photo attractive and much less important what
>> they're doing. (Relatedly, she's also much more interested in video
>> than photos. I mostly prefer photos, although the one thing that I
>> really like about video is when you get to hear the people talk, since
>> I like hearing people's voices.)
>
> That makes some sense too. If a naked guy is just sitting or standing in
> a picture, it's not so interesting, but if he's doing some sexual, that
> would put out the idea that maybe it's something I'd like and get
> aroused by. But for many guys, I think a nude woman just posing, on a
> chair or with her legs spread is arousing for them.
That makes sense to me, too. And it seems to explain why some guys think
it's cool to send shots of themselves with the camera focused on their
engorged tonker, and no face or any other context - it's essentially the
"beaver shot" in reverse.
Heh - I'm still remembering a story from Serene in which a guy sent her
such pics, and then wrote "Naturally, I can't send you a picture of my
face."
--
Tom Allen (who actually doesn't care for "beaver shots."
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
NewbieNudes is a nude photo site. You can go browse it and get a pretty
decent idea of what it's about. When you gain "friends" there, their
primary interest is in seeing more nude photos of you. It has a blog
feature, though, and if your friends post to their blog, you get a
notification (just as you do if they post new pictures, etc.). Because
of the theme of their site, mostly people post sexual content to their
blogs -- stories about sexual adventures, erotic fantasies, requests for
what people want to see in future photos, whatever.
Livejournal is a social blogging and community site. You have your own
personal blog, where you can post anything you want. Most people post
day to day things -- whatever's on their mind. This week's posts for me
included things like talking about my eBook reader being broken and
trying to get it repaired, commentary on current politics in Canada, an
observation about a weird license plate, some links to interesting sites
on the web, the winner and solution announcements for a contest I was
running about board games, etc. So if people add you to their friends
list, it generally means that they're interested in you specifically --
in reading what you write about everyday things. Now, some people write
on specific topics and maintain separate journals for specific topics.
My wife, for example, has a separate journal to talk about sex. A lot
of my friends maintain separate journals where they post creative
writing projects. However, a lot of people just put all that stuff in
their main journal. There's sort of a halfway solution as well, where
you can create one journal but with "filters" for various topics.
In addition, there are communities you can join that are about specific
topics. So, for example, if you wanted to talk about polyamory, you
could join the polyamory community. You don't have to add everyone from
the polyamory community to your friends list -- you just post to and
read the community itself. You'd only add them to your friends list if
you wanted to read about them and their lives specifically.
toramjero
I still don't get it. Pardon me if I insist, but I am really trying to
understand.
NewbieNudes: I had a look, I I don't really understand the motivation.
Is it so interesting for you, or US and Canadian citizens in general
to just see nude pictures of strangers? I mean: I do appreciate
tasteful photography (of women and men, actually, but then I remember
some of my courses about classical paintings), but I can't really
imagine myself seeing a picture of a person naked, and posting to see
the other side of her(him), etc... And I can't really imagine myself
posting similar pictures: do people feel flattered when they are asked
for more pictures? Is this what this is about?
Livejournal: I am not really sure I understand it right. At the
moment, I see it as an equivalent of Usenet, except that the groups
are organized by person, and not by subjects (except for the
communities). Is that about how it works?
Norton
>On Dec 2, 3:46 am, Tom Allen <taomlinS...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> toramjero wrote:
>> >> toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> >>> I to write a blog similar to Kat's, it would be boring as hell. I
>> >>> don't meet new partners, I never have. I don't experiment much beyond
>> >>> the standard positions, and I don't practice anything like BDSM,
>> >>> etc... It would just be a long list of "didn't have sex today" and
>> >>> "had sex today in standard position nr. A or B" and nobody is
>> >>> interested in reading that.
>> >> You're focusing on a sex-specific blog. I technically have a blog about
>> >> sex attached to my NN account, but I hardly ever use it. I post in my
>> >> regular blog (about everything that's not sex or music) and my music
>> >> blog much more regularly.
>>
>> > Yes, but then this is a post in s.s.g. isn't it?
>>
>> SSG is not a blog. This is one of many groups specifically set up for
>> others to discuss sexuality. In fact, we rarely discuss the actual
>> mechanics here, we tend to focus on the other aspects.
>>
>I know that s.s.g. is not a blog. I meant: I focus on SEXUAL blogs in
>this thread, because a blog on classical music would be off topic ON
>S.S.G. I could write a blog on some non-sex subjects, maybe. I don't
>have enough to say about sexuality.
One could write about classical music (not a blog, but a posting)
here in SSG. If, for instance, it was about classical music
and seduction it would certainly be on topic.
--
--- Norton
Norton
>On Nov 30, 7:29 pm, Tom Allen <taomlinS...@MEsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> > On Nov 30, 3:09 pm, suzee <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>> >> But comments about what happened to them today and
>> >> reflections on their personal lives..? That's more like reading
>> >> someone's diary, and if people want to publish it, that's fine, I don't
>> >> need to read it.
>>
>> Oh, I agree. I tend to skip over accounts of people's issues with their
>> children, and people who write with scathing negativism about their
>> partners turn me off. If you're that unhappy, then leave or get therapy.
>> Venting works up to a point, then it's just mean and belittling.
>Hehehheh. I am so guilty about posting about my kids in my journal.
>It's not so much that I think everyone is interested in hearing about
>them. Some of it (for me) is that there are a few people that read my
>journal who are (or were) genuinely interested in that stuff and the
>other (more important part) does have to do with self-reflection or
>making an account of events so I can try to see a pattern later.
>There's loads of stuff that I write that isn't viewable as well.
But when you write about things such as your children, you
make yourself more human and more real. I find such details
interesting in blogs.
--
--- Norton
Norton
Norton has similar problems.
--
--- Norton
Lusus Naturae
>If, for instance, it was about classical music
>and seduction it would certainly be on topic.
Of if it was about J. S. Bach's two wives and twenty children and the
number of organs he wore out.
--
Lusus Naturae
Elizabeth
Or that cute story about the child who wrote about J. S. keeping a
spinster in the attic.
Norton
But at least they were serial wives.
Bach himself seems to have been both creative and procreative.
--
--- Norton
Norton
Bad bad bad... ;-)
--
--- Norton
Tom Allen
Ouch - that one almost hurt.
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself... I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
I don't think that enjoying looking at nude photos of people or watching
nude videos of people is peculiar to the U.S. or Canada. Don't they
sell porn (magazines and videos) around the world? Certainly a good
number of the people on NewbieNudes are not from the U.S. or Canada --
a lot are from Europe, smaller numbers from elsewhere, but it's somewhat
limited in its accessibility to people who don't speak English, I
suppose.
I'm not sure how to explain it further if you can't see anything
interesting about looking at photos or videos of people naked or having
sex.
So yeah, the appeal is basically that people like looking at photos of
people naked or watching people having sex. And then some people have
an exhibitionist streak in them and like posting pictures of themselves
in similar contexts. So someone came up with the bright idea that
if you could just get these two groups of people (who are sometimes the
same people) together, then you could provide a service that would allow
people to post said pictures or videos and view said pictures or videos
and satisfy everyone without having to provide the content yourself.
Everybody wins!
> Livejournal: I am not really sure I understand it right. At the
> moment, I see it as an equivalent of Usenet, except that the groups
> are organized by person, and not by subjects (except for the
> communities). Is that about how it works?
It's not really like USENET at all. There are seemingly small
differences in how USENET and LJ work that have a large impact on how
they get used. For example, LJ's comment notifications make it easy to
have lengthy discussions with a particular person, almost like e-mail,
but it's lack of any way to see new follow-ups to all the posts you read
before in an easy fashion makes it bad for building the sense of a big
group discussion. So it's better for developing (many) one-to-one
friendships and keeping in touch with those people directly than in
developing a *group* out of those many individual relationships. Also,
the content people post tends to be more personal than what you would
post on USENET.
toramjero
It depends on local legislation, but yes, porn is sold all around the
world.
> Certainly a good
> number of the people on NewbieNudes are not from the U.S. or Canada --
> a lot are from Europe, smaller numbers from elsewhere, but it's somewhat
> limited in its accessibility to people who don't speak English, I
> suppose.
>
> I'm not sure how to explain it further if you can't see anything
> interesting about looking at photos or videos of people naked or having
> sex.
>
I can see the interest in look at photos or videos of people naked or
having sex. I can even see the interest in looking at such pictures
made in an amateurish way (as opposed to professionally made pictures
of people of exceptional beauty). But I can't see myself asking anyone
for pictures. I don't have the two-ways experience. Maybe I should
try.
In the other direction, I can't really imagine myself posting nudes,
but there are many more pictures of men than women anyway so mine are
not needed. I can't imagine a woman watching a picture I would post
and wanting to contact me. Neither can I imagine posting pictures or
videos of myself and a woman, but this is probably mainly because I
can't imagine a woman being interested of posting pictures of her. My
wife certainly would not do that. I even have difficulties to imagine
a woman posting -how can I say?- professionally made pictures of her
in an attractive pose (say something soft core, in the style of
playboy or similar and not necessarily nude). I have the impression
that most of the women I know do not welcome the attention of random
men, and it seems to me that attracting attention is the main point of
those pictures. I may be wrong on those points, I am just telling my
feelings.
> So yeah, the appeal is basically that people like looking at photos of
> people naked or watching people having sex. And then some people have
> an exhibitionist streak in them and like posting pictures of themselves
> in similar contexts.
Yes, this is the part I miss. I keep imagining that if I posted
pictures women would be offended (because they would be if I tried to
to something similar in my normal social context). And I keep
imagining that women do not want to post pictures of themselves,
because they find it offensive if men are attracted by their body (as
opposed to be attracted by their personality).
> So someone came up with the bright idea that
> if you could just get these two groups of people (who are sometimes the
> same people) together, then you could provide a service that would allow
> people to post said pictures or videos and view said pictures or videos
> and satisfy everyone without having to provide the content yourself.
> Everybody wins!
>
> > Livejournal: I am not really sure I understand it right. At the
> > moment, I see it as an equivalent of Usenet, except that the groups
> > are organized by person, and not by subjects (except for the
> > communities). Is that about how it works?
>
> It's not really like USENET at all. There are seemingly small
> differences in how USENET and LJ work that have a large impact on how
> they get used. For example, LJ's comment notifications make it easy to
> have lengthy discussions with a particular person, almost like e-mail,
> but it's lack of any way to see new follow-ups to all the posts you read
> before in an easy fashion makes it bad for building the sense of a big
> group discussion. So it's better for developing (many) one-to-one
> friendships and keeping in touch with those people directly than in
> developing a *group* out of those many individual relationships. Also,
> the content people post tends to be more personal than what you would
> post on USENET.
Do people, in average, use this site in view of real life meetings? Or
do they use it mainly as a ways to fulfill fantasies (say, exchanging
stories or role playing)? Or do they use it to exchange advices and
views of different people on their practices?
toramjero
I am not sure that what I have written above is understandable, but I
can summarize it in two sentences.
1: Most women I know do not like to watch titillating pictures of men.
The results range between offended and ridicule. So I don't see the
point of publishing some.
2: Most women I know do not want to attract men sexually. When I
suggested to my wife to dress in a more appealling manner, for
example, she refused and explained me that she dressed in this way so
as to not attract the attention of men. All married women that I know
but one dress conservatively, I suppose for the same reason. Unmarried
women sometimes dress in an attractive manner, but they also often
complain about raising unwanted male attention. Therefore, I cannot
imagine any reason why a woman would post pictures of herself.
Apparently, there is a tiny minority of women who act differently.
Enough to make such sites live. I did not realise that.
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> On Dec 9, 5:16 am, Irfon-Kim Ahmad <ir...@ambienautica.com> wrote:
>
>> Certainly a good
>> number of the people on NewbieNudes are not from the U.S. or Canada --
>> a lot are from Europe, smaller numbers from elsewhere, but it's somewhat
>> limited in its accessibility to people who don't speak English, I
>> suppose.
>>
>> I'm not sure how to explain it further if you can't see anything
>> interesting about looking at photos or videos of people naked or having
>> sex.
>>
>
> I can see the interest in look at photos or videos of people naked or
> having sex. I can even see the interest in looking at such pictures
> made in an amateurish way (as opposed to professionally made pictures
> of people of exceptional beauty).
It's worth noting that "beauty" isn't an absolute, and many people find
the people who they can see represented in amateur photography online to
be much more beautiful than the people they can readily find photos of
in professional publications.
> But I can't see myself asking anyone
> for pictures. I don't have the two-ways experience. Maybe I should
> try.
It's worth a shot. Most of my comments that I leave for people on NN
are not requests. I'll usually request things if the person asks for
requests. Once in a while, though, I will put in requests, tied in with
compliments. Normally I just leave compliments for people. I mean, if
someone posts a lovely photo of themselves, it's nice to be able to tell
them, "Wow, that's a gorgeous photo!" or, "Wow, you're gorgeous!" When
posting photos of yourself, it's also nice to hear that sort of thing.
Some people leave more crude comments detailing things they'd like to
do, and some people really enjoy those comments, but it's not my style
to leave them. (I don't usually mind when I get them in return, though
-- I just take them as an indication that the person liked the photos.)
> In the other direction, I can't really imagine myself posting nudes,
> but there are many more pictures of men than women anyway so mine are
> not needed.
Are there? I don't have the statistics handy, but I would have thought
there would be more pictures of women than men on NN. If there aren't,
it's certainly at least close. There's not a strong majority of
pictures of men that I've noticed.
> I can't imagine a woman watching a picture I would post
> and wanting to contact me.
Why not?
> Neither can I imagine posting pictures or
> videos of myself and a woman, but this is probably mainly because I
> can't imagine a woman being interested of posting pictures of her.
Given the number of women who post to the site, there are clearly lots
and lots of women who are interested in doing so.
> My
> wife certainly would not do that. I even have difficulties to imagine
> a woman posting -how can I say?- professionally made pictures of her
> in an attractive pose (say something soft core, in the style of
> playboy or similar and not necessarily nude). I have the impression
> that most of the women I know do not welcome the attention of random
> men, and it seems to me that attracting attention is the main point of
> those pictures. I may be wrong on those points, I am just telling my
> feelings.
The thing to remember is that on a site like that, you've already
selected for people who *do* enjoy those activities. You're not walking
up to a member of the general public and saying, "Wow, you are
gorgeous," which might be rude if they don't know you or aren't in a
context where your opinion is being sought. On NN, though, people are
posting their photos explicitly for random strangers on the net to enjoy
and comment on, so you're in a situation where you have permission to
comment and where you know the people posting want those comments. It's
more like if someone came up to you and said, "This is a new hairstyle
-- how does it look?" That might be a strange experience, granted, but
if you then said, "It looks lovely," they're not going to be offended
that you, a stranger, gave an opinion, because they sought that opinion.
>> So yeah, the appeal is basically that people like looking at photos of
>> people naked or watching people having sex. And then some people have
>> an exhibitionist streak in them and like posting pictures of themselves
>> in similar contexts.
>
> Yes, this is the part I miss. I keep imagining that if I posted
> pictures women would be offended (because they would be if I tried to
> to something similar in my normal social context).
NN is not a normal social context. If I gave a naked photo of myself to
a co-worker out of the blue, I'd get fired (and rightly so). But NN is
a situation where the people are going specifically to look at nude
photos of people, so if you posted photos of yourself, they would
definitely not be offended (although you'd have to be prepared for
getting comments from both women and men rather than just women).
> And I keep
> imagining that women do not want to post pictures of themselves,
> because they find it offensive if men are attracted by their body (as
> opposed to be attracted by their personality).
Again, it's a restricted social context, where the people who post their
photos there specifically want people to appreciate their bodies. As
such, it's not rude to do so. (That said, I know very few people of
either gender who don't want the people they get involved with at least
to be attracted to them physically as well as emotionally and
intellectually. Most people want the whole package -- to connect as
people, to connect emotionally but also to connect physically. That's
why people who put photos on their personal ads get far better
response.)
>> > Livejournal: I am not really sure I understand it right. At the
>> > moment, I see it as an equivalent of Usenet, except that the groups
>> > are organized by person, and not by subjects (except for the
>> > communities). Is that about how it works?
>>
>> It's not really like USENET at all. There are seemingly small
>> differences in how USENET and LJ work that have a large impact on how
>> they get used. For example, LJ's comment notifications make it easy to
>> have lengthy discussions with a particular person, almost like e-mail,
>> but it's lack of any way to see new follow-ups to all the posts you read
>> before in an easy fashion makes it bad for building the sense of a big
>> group discussion. So it's better for developing (many) one-to-one
>> friendships and keeping in touch with those people directly than in
>> developing a *group* out of those many individual relationships. Also,
>> the content people post tends to be more personal than what you would
>> post on USENET.
>
> Do people, in average, use this site in view of real life meetings? Or
> do they use it mainly as a ways to fulfill fantasies (say, exchanging
> stories or role playing)? Or do they use it to exchange advices and
> views of different people on their practices?
People use it for all kinds of things, but for the most part people use
it for itself -- as a social community. It's not really a means to
achieve anything other than what it itself is and does -- conversation
with other people whose conversational company you enjoy. Some people
use it to keep in touch with people they don't see regularly, some
people use it for advice, some people use it to play role playing games
or tell stories, but these are all no more prevalent than people doing
these things in real life and are not the point of the thing,
ultimately.
Tom Allen
> 1: Most women I know do not like to watch titillating pictures of men.
> The results range between offended and ridicule. So I don't see the
> point of publishing some.
You don't see the point of doing so because of the women you know
locally? But that's fine - the women that you know locally probably
would not be looking anyway.
Here's another perspective, though. Are you sure that the women you know
don't want to see pics of men? Don't they read magazines? Watch movies?
Follow TV shows? Keep up with entertainment news and gossip?
Women that claim to not be interested in looking at pictures of men, but
who swoon dreamily over Brad Pitt or George Clooney are doing just that
- it's only a matter of degree.
> 2: Most women I know do not want to attract men sexually. When I
> suggested to my wife to dress in a more appealling manner, for
> example, she refused and explained me that she dressed in this way so
> as to not attract the attention of men. All married women that I know
> but one dress conservatively, I suppose for the same reason. Unmarried
> women sometimes dress in an attractive manner, but they also often
> complain about raising unwanted male attention. Therefore, I cannot
> imagine any reason why a woman would post pictures of herself.
Won't your wife dress attractively just to appear attractive to you?
And do you try to appear attractive to her?
> Apparently, there is a tiny minority of women who act differently.
> Enough to make such sites live. I did not realise that.
You've never seen "Girls Gone Wild" videos, have you?
--
Tom Allen
http://vanillaedge.wordpress.com/
"I don't have multiple orgasms, myself. I am, however, known to be a
carrier."
suzee
> On Dec 9, 5:16 am, Irfon-Kim Ahmad <ir...@ambienautica.com> wrote:
>> So yeah, the appeal is basically that people like looking at photos of
>> people naked or watching people having sex. And then some people have
>> an exhibitionist streak in them and like posting pictures of themselves
>> in similar contexts.
>
> Yes, this is the part I miss. I keep imagining that if I posted
> pictures women would be offended (because they would be if I tried to
> to something similar in my normal social context). And I keep
> imagining that women do not want to post pictures of themselves,
> because they find it offensive if men are attracted by their body (as
> opposed to be attracted by their personality).
It's different posting pictures on a site where that's the purpose, and
people are free to go there or not, than if you just offered pictures to
anyone at random. So women go there to look at pictures and aren't
offended because they're seeking them. Much different than approaching
women in public.
sue
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
> I am not sure that what I have written above is understandable, but I
> can summarize it in two sentences.
>
> 1: Most women I know do not like to watch titillating pictures of men.
> The results range between offended and ridicule. So I don't see the
> point of publishing some.
I think that there are still cultural taboos in place about this sort of
thing in many cultures, but I do think that by and large your sample set
is misrepresentative of the whole. While *nude* photos of men and male
porn might still be taboo in a lot of conservative society, it's widely
acknowledged among much of society that women enjoy these things.
However, titillating pictures of men are much more widely acknowledged
to be exciting to women -- they just may or may not be nude. As Tom
pointed out, women have been swooning over gorgeous male movie stars,
singers, etc., for ages. And I think that even in social mileus where
it might be frowned upon for women to express an open interest in male
nudes, it's still more common than would openly be spoken of for women
to enjoy them, or to enjoy very scantily clad men. Nice looking men in
underwear commercials are often spoken of by females appreciatively, for
example, in milieus where outright porn might be frowned upon.
> 2: Most women I know do not want to attract men sexually. When I
> suggested to my wife to dress in a more appealling manner, for
> example, she refused and explained me that she dressed in this way so
> as to not attract the attention of men. All married women that I know
> but one dress conservatively, I suppose for the same reason. Unmarried
> women sometimes dress in an attractive manner, but they also often
> complain about raising unwanted male attention. Therefore, I cannot
> imagine any reason why a woman would post pictures of herself.
Again, I think that you're making invalid conclusions from a too-small
or too-skewed sample set. First, it's fairly obvious that many --
probably a majority -- of women want to attract at least some men
sexually at least some of the time. This is a seriously heteronormative
way to approach the conversation, though, because of those who never
want to attract a man sexually, many of them want to attract at least
some women sexually at least some of the time. I think that the vast
majority of women (like the vast majority of men) want to attract
someone (of their gender of choice) sexually at least some of the time.
I think there's a lot here, though, that needs to be discussed about
context. I mean, you give examples like women not appreciating it if
you walk up to them in the street and start complimenting them
physically. But that's the wrong context. However, in the right
context, then I think the majority of women would like to be sexually
attractive to at least some people.
I'm not trying to claim that almost all women would post naked photos of
themselves on the internet. That indeed is probably a tiny minority.
(It's also a tiny minority of men, I think.) However, generalizing from
that outward to an overall attitude about wanting to be sexually
appealing is not going to result in valid observations.
Also, in the example that you give about your wife dressing more sexy,
essentially, first of all, few people want to hear, "You look frumpy."
Also, even if people would appreciate being sexually attractive to the
right person, they may not want to be sexually attractive to everyone in
general, nor might they want to alter their clothing or base significant
components of their behaviour on that.
On the other hand, there is the multi-trillion dollar beauty industry to
consider, which is largely predicated on the idea of a very narrow,
heteronormative, traditional view of beauty that is constructed to make
women appealing to men. Not all people who buy the products are doing
so for that reason, of course. But I think the existence and form of
the industry is certainly indicative of something. (And yes, I do think
that it's a sexist industry and that the messages it sends to the effect
of that women are there for the pleaure of men are deeply sexist, so
please don't take this as an endorsement.)
> Apparently, there is a tiny minority of women who act differently.
> Enough to make such sites live. I did not realise that.
While the women who post to those sites are indeed a minority, I don't
think that the observations you make above reflect the much wider range
of people's attitudes about sexuality and attractiveness.
(Also, even minorities are enough to create substantial communities in a
world with several billion people in it.)
toramjero
Irfon-Kim Ahmad wrote:
> toramjero <tora...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 5:16�am, Irfon-Kim Ahmad <ir...@ambienautica.com> wrote:
> >
> >>�Certainly a good
> >> number of the people on NewbieNudes are not from the U.S. or Canada --
> >> a lot are from Europe, smaller numbers from elsewhere, but it's somewhat
> >> limited in its accessibility to people who don't speak English, I
> >> suppose. �
> >>
> >> I'm not sure how to explain it further if you can't see anything
> >> interesting about looking at photos or videos of people naked or having
> >> sex. �
> >>
> >
> > I can see the interest in look at photos or videos of people naked or
> > having sex. I can even see the interest in looking at such pictures
> > made in an amateurish way (as opposed to professionally made pictures
> > of people of exceptional beauty).
>
> It's worth noting that "beauty" isn't an absolute, and many people find
> the people who they can see represented in amateur photography online to
> be much more beautiful than the people they can readily find photos of
> in professional publications.
>
Yes, of course. I said that I could understand the appeal in that.
> > But I can't see myself asking anyone
> > for pictures. I don't have the two-ways experience. Maybe I should
> > try.
>
> It's worth a shot. Most of my comments that I leave for people on NN
> are not requests. I'll usually request things if the person asks for
> requests. Once in a while, though, I will put in requests, tied in with
> compliments. Normally I just leave compliments for people. I mean, if
> someone posts a lovely photo of themselves, it's nice to be able to tell
> them, "Wow, that's a gorgeous photo!" or, "Wow, you're gorgeous!" When
> posting photos of yourself, it's also nice to hear that sort of thing.
> Some people leave more crude comments detailing things they'd like to
> do, and some people really enjoy those comments, but it's not my style
> to leave them. (I don't usually mind when I get them in return, though
> -- I just take them as an indication that the person liked the photos.)
>
> > In the other direction, I can't really imagine myself posting nudes,
> > but there are many more pictures of men than women anyway so mine are
> > not needed.
>
> Are there? I don't have the statistics handy, but I would have thought
> there would be more pictures of women than men on NN. If there aren't,
> it's certainly at least close. There's not a strong majority of
> pictures of men that I've noticed.
>
I have only had a quick glance at the site, I have not counted the
pictures. But I believe your observation since you are a regular user.
> > I can't imagine a woman watching a picture I would post
> > and wanting to contact me.
>
> Why not?
Because it never happened to me that a woman contacted me out of the
blue to make compliments or comments.
You are right, of course and so is Suzee who posted a similar comment.
Nobody is going to be offended, I can understand that on an
intellectual plane.
Thank you for your time and your explications. I think that I have a
clearer view now.
toramjero
> toramjero wrote:
>
> > 1: Most women I know do not like to watch titillating pictures of men.
> > The results range between offended and ridicule. So I don't see the
> > point of publishing some.
>
> You don't see the point of doing so because of the women you know
> locally? But that's fine - the women that you know locally probably
> would not be looking anyway.
>
> Here's another perspective, though. Are you sure that the women you know
> don't want to see pics of men? Don't they read magazines? Watch movies?
> Follow TV shows? Keep up with entertainment news and gossip?
>
No, I don't think that they do any of that very often. At least they
do not talk about it.
> Women that claim to not be interested in looking at pictures of men, but
> who swoon dreamily over Brad Pitt or George Clooney are doing just that
> - it's only a matter of degree.
>
I don't know any woman of my age who swoons over an actor. Young
girls, sometimes.
>
> > 2: Most women I know do not want to attract men sexually. When I
> > suggested to my wife to dress in a more appealling manner, for
> > example, she refused and explained me that she dressed in this way so
> > as to not attract the attention of men. All married women that I know
> > but one dress conservatively, I suppose for the same reason. Unmarried
> > women sometimes dress in an attractive manner, but they also often
> > complain about raising unwanted male attention. Therefore, I cannot
> > imagine any reason why a woman would post pictures of herself.
>
> Won't your wife dress attractively just to appear attractive to you?
Actually, no. She refused to do that in public. She said that she
would do it at home, but it never happened.
> And do you try to appear attractive to her?
>
Yes, I do.
>
> > Apparently, there is a tiny minority of women who act differently.
> > Enough to make such sites live. I did not realise that.
>
>
> You've never seen "Girls Gone Wild" videos, have you?
>
No I haven't. But if it is a video, isn't it a fiction? I mean: with
this title, I suppose that it is some kind of explicit movie. There
are plenty of explicit movies who stage fantasies as if they really
happened.
toramjero
Irfon-Kim Ahmad wrote:
> toramjero <tora...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am not sure that what I have written above is understandable, but I
> > can summarize it in two sentences.
> >
> > 1: Most women I know do not like to watch titillating pictures of men.
> > The results range between offended and ridicule. So I don't see the
> > point of publishing some.
>
> I think that there are still cultural taboos in place about this sort of
> thing in many cultures, but I do think that by and large your sample set
> is misrepresentative of the whole. While *nude* photos of men and male
> porn might still be taboo in a lot of conservative society, it's widely
> acknowledged among much of society that women enjoy these things.
> However, titillating pictures of men are much more widely acknowledged
> to be exciting to women -- they just may or may not be nude. As Tom
> pointed out, women have been swooning over gorgeous male movie stars,
> singers, etc., for ages. And I think that even in social mileus where
> it might be frowned upon for women to express an open interest in male
> nudes, it's still more common than would openly be spoken of for women
> to enjoy them, or to enjoy very scantily clad men. Nice looking men in
> underwear commercials are often spoken of by females appreciatively, for
> example, in milieus where outright porn might be frowned upon.
>
Yes, my sample is not representative, I perfectly agree on that. It is
just that this has been my experience and that it explains my feelings
of amazement about the NewbieNudes web site.
I never heard any woman comment on male underwear commercials, BTW. I
have heard some speaking negatively of female underwear commercials.
> > 2: Most women I know do not want to attract men sexually. When I
> > suggested to my wife to dress in a more appealling manner, for
> > example, she refused and explained me that she dressed in this way so
> > as to not attract the attention of men. All married women that I know
> > but one dress conservatively, I suppose for the same reason. Unmarried
> > women sometimes dress in an attractive manner, but they also often
> > complain about raising unwanted male attention. Therefore, I cannot
> > imagine any reason why a woman would post pictures of herself.
>
> Again, I think that you're making invalid conclusions from a too-small
I am not drawing conclusions but just explaining my feelings.
> or too-skewed sample set. First, it's fairly obvious that many --
> probably a majority -- of women want to attract at least some men
> sexually at least some of the time. This is a seriously heteronormative
> way to approach the conversation, though, because of those who never
> want to attract a man sexually, many of them want to attract at least
> some women sexually at least some of the time. I think that the vast
> majority of women (like the vast majority of men) want to attract
> someone (of their gender of choice) sexually at least some of the time.
>
We don't seem to talk about the same thing. They want to attract men
some of the time, but not for their physical abilities. They find that
rude.
> I think there's a lot here, though, that needs to be discussed about
> context. I mean, you give examples like women not appreciating it if
> you walk up to them in the street and start complimenting them
> physically. But that's the wrong context.
I don't walk up to women in the street. And I did not talk about
compliments, but about being sexually attracted. Sure, the woman I
know will appreciate if I make a compliment on their dress or
hairstyle, as long as this compliment is -how could I say?- whithout
intent. What they complain about is men being sexually interested,
just because they saw them (what would also be the case with a
photograph, because it only transmits visual information).
> However, in the right
> context, then I think the majority of women would like to be sexually
> attractive to at least some people.
>
> I'm not trying to claim that almost all women would post naked photos of
> themselves on the internet. That indeed is probably a tiny minority.
> (It's also a tiny minority of men, I think.) However, generalizing from
> that outward to an overall attitude about wanting to be sexually
> appealing is not going to result in valid observations.
>
> Also, in the example that you give about your wife dressing more sexy,
> essentially, first of all, few people want to hear, "You look frumpy."
That doesn't happen either.
> Also, even if people would appreciate being sexually attractive to the
> right person, they may not want to be sexually attractive to everyone in
> general, nor might they want to alter their clothing or base significant
> components of their behaviour on that.
>
> On the other hand, there is the multi-trillion dollar beauty industry to
> consider, which is largely predicated on the idea of a very narrow,
> heteronormative, traditional view of beauty that is constructed to make
> women appealing to men. Not all people who buy the products are doing
> so for that reason, of course. But I think the existence and form of
> the industry is certainly indicative of something.
That is interesting. Some of that industry conveys the message in
their adverts that the female customer will be more attractive to men
indeed. But a sizable portion of that industry conveys a different
message: self pleasure, more comfortable, wellness, self
gratification, etc... If there are diverse messages, there are
probably different customers.
suzee
> Tom Allen wrote:
>> You've never seen "Girls Gone Wild" videos, have you?
>>
>
> No I haven't. But if it is a video, isn't it a fiction? I mean: with
> this title, I suppose that it is some kind of explicit movie. There
> are plenty of explicit movies who stage fantasies as if they really
> happened.
No it's not fiction. I haven't seen it but have heard about it. It's a
video of real life events.
sue
suzee
> Yes, my sample is not representative, I perfectly agree on that. It is
> just that this has been my experience and that it explains my feelings
> of amazement about the NewbieNudes web site.
>
> I never heard any woman comment on male underwear commercials, BTW. I
> have heard some speaking negatively of female underwear commercials.
If I may ask, what country/culture do you live in? It seems a lot more
conservative than we're familiar with.
sue
toramjero
How would you know? Mantra films, the company behind the "Girls gone
wild" franchise, has Wikipedia listing about half a page of lawsuits
they lost. Do you trust them to represent the truth when they say that
the series are not staged?
Anyway: I am pretty sure that there are some girls going wild
sometimes on this planet, this is not the point. The point is that a
porn movie is rarely an evidence of anything real.
That is the surprising part. I live in south Germany. It is not
supposed to be conservative. Compared to the US, for example, brothels
are legal, nudism is practiced in the city parks and you can watch
softcore erotic on mainstream TV late at night. And I do not pretend
that the whole of south Germany is conservative, there are a few sex
clubs in the city (far less than in Berlin, however), plenty of people
party at night, homosexuality is accepted in the open (even
specialized sex shops have displays of their wares). Obviously these
business cannot survive on people similar to the ones I know alone, so
other type of people must exist.
I think it must be related to how I meet people. I meet most of them
through work, and most of them are engineers or their wives (and I do
not say that they are all as I describe, I am not always familiar
enough with the or their wife to draw any conclusion). The ones I do
not meet through work, I know from the school of my children. At work,
I think that the employees doing clerical work (who are female in
majority and much younger than the engineers) have a different take on
men or sexuality than the one I discussed here. For example, they
dress differently. But I don't know any of them enough, they do not
seem interested in talking to me beyond work related matter.
suzee
> On Dec 9, 5:55 pm, suzee <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>> toramjero wrote:
>>> Tom Allen wrote:
>>>> You've never seen "Girls Gone Wild" videos, have you?
>>> No I haven't. But if it is a video, isn't it a fiction? I mean: with
>>> this title, I suppose that it is some kind of explicit movie. There
>>> are plenty of explicit movies who stage fantasies as if they really
>>> happened.
>> No it's not fiction. I haven't seen it but have heard about it. It's a
>> video of real life events.
>>
>> sue
>
> How would you know? Mantra films, the company behind the "Girls gone
> wild" franchise, has Wikipedia listing about half a page of lawsuits
> they lost. Do you trust them to represent the truth when they say that
> the series are not staged?
>
> Anyway: I am pretty sure that there are some girls going wild
> sometimes on this planet, this is not the point. The point is that a
> porn movie is rarely an evidence of anything real.
I thought it was an amateur video take of college girls on spring break
in Florida. Maybe there's another that is.
Oh engineers.... Yes, they're not known for cutting loose and being
adventuresome.
sue
toramjero
May I kindly remind you that stereotypes are not a good idea on ssg? I
am an engineer as well. ;)
suzee
I just wanted to add...
There are many regions of the US that are just as conservative as your
area of Germany and the people you meet. They're actually more in the
majority than those who post in this group.
sue
toramjero
Well... that is what I always said. Now, the interesting question is
why is the other group a minority? Sex is supposed to be pleasurable.
(I don't really expect an answer to that question)
Tom Allen
> On Dec 9, 5:55 pm, suzee <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>> If I may ask, what country/culture do you live in? It seems a lot more
>> conservative than we're familiar with.
>>
>> sue
>
> That is the surprising part. I live in south Germany. It is not
> supposed to be conservative. Compared to the US, for example, brothels
> are legal, nudism is practiced in the city parks and you can watch
> softcore erotic on mainstream TV late at night. And I do not pretend
> that the whole of south Germany is conservative, there are a few sex
> clubs in the city (far less than in Berlin, however), plenty of people
> party at night, homosexuality is accepted in the open (even
> specialized sex shops have displays of their wares). Obviously these
> business cannot survive on people similar to the ones I know alone, so
> other type of people must exist.
Hey, that reminds me - where's Delila been?
darklily
>
> - Show quoted text -
Norton is welcome to read about such things in my LJ then. ;-)
There's a lovely bit about an overflowing toilet this week. Apparently
water and alarm systems *don't get along*.
Darklily
darklily
> toramjero wrote:
> > On Dec 9, 5:55 pm, suzee <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
> >> If I may ask, what country/culture do you live in? It seems a lot more
> >> conservative than we're familiar with.
>
> >> sue
>
> > That is the surprising part. I live in south Germany. It is not
> > supposed to be conservative. Compared to the US, for example, brothels
> > are legal, nudism is practiced in the city parks and you can watch
> > softcore erotic on mainstream TV late at night. And I do not pretend
> > that the whole of south Germany is conservative, there are a few sex
> > clubs in the city (far less than in Berlin, however), plenty of people
> > party at night, homosexuality is accepted in the open (even
> > specialized sex shops have displays of their wares). Obviously these
> > business cannot survive on people similar to the ones I know alone, so
> > other type of people must exist.
>
> Hey, that reminds me - where's Delila been?
>
> --
I don't know if I ever mentioned that my (German) mother was quite
sexually repressed. I suppose she ws an improvement over her own
mom...I at least got a small talk to prepare me as I was entering
puberty...she didn't. Her first period came as quite a surprise to
her.
Darklily
darklily
I think I'm speechless.
No, really.
I have to agree with something that Suzee said downpost...that context
is important...but really, I just can't get my head around somebody
*not* wanting to be attractive.
I have a wardrobe that includes everything from twin-sets to vinyl. I
don't dress provocatively when I am working (on project sites), but I
still get..umm...attention (ranging from cat-calls and honking car
horns to being approached nicely or asked out by people I am talking
to about the project). Since I am usually alone, some of those forms
of attention can scare the hell out of me. That's generally the sort
of attention women don't want.
But not wanting any male attention? I am having a difficult time
fathoming that. I can't imagine anybody *wanting* to be a wallflower.
Darklily
suzee
Many of the conservative majority find sex pleasurable too. They just
don't think it's appropriate to talk about it like us hedonists do.
sue
suzee
> toramjero wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 5:55 pm, suzee <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>>> If I may ask, what country/culture do you live in? It seems a lot more
>>> conservative than we're familiar with.
>>>
>>> sue
>>
>> That is the surprising part. I live in south Germany. It is not
>> supposed to be conservative. Compared to the US, for example, brothels
>> are legal, nudism is practiced in the city parks and you can watch
>> softcore erotic on mainstream TV late at night. And I do not pretend
>> that the whole of south Germany is conservative, there are a few sex
>> clubs in the city (far less than in Berlin, however), plenty of people
>> party at night, homosexuality is accepted in the open (even
>> specialized sex shops have displays of their wares). Obviously these
>> business cannot survive on people similar to the ones I know alone, so
>> other type of people must exist.
>
> Hey, that reminds me - where's Delila been?
In her last coupla posts I think she mentioned have connection problems
or something along thost lines, so maybe it got to be more trouble than
it was worth to try and post.
sue
toramjero
> I think I'm speechless.
>
> No, really.
>
> I have to agree with something that Suzee said downpost...that context
> is important...but really, I just can't get my head around somebody
> *not* wanting to be attractive.
>
> I have a wardrobe that includes everything from twin-sets to vinyl. I
> don't dress provocatively when I am working (on project sites), but I
> still get..umm...attention (ranging from cat-calls and honking car
> horns to being approached nicely or asked out by people I am talking
> to about the project). Since I am usually alone, some of those forms
> of attention can scare the hell out of me. That's generally the sort
> of attention women don't want.
>
> But not wanting any male attention? I am having a difficult time
> fathoming that. I can't imagine anybody *wanting* to be a wallflower.
>
>
Being a wallflower has its advantages. It's safer. You can go about
your business without being interrupted. I should say that I am
probably very much a wallflower myself, although I don't make any
conscious efforts for it. It is a bit like having invisibility powers.
What are the advantages of attracting the attention of men you are not
interested in, if I may ask?
This discussion is quite interesting. The most surprising part is when
I realized that the women I know don't they read magazines, watch
movies, follow TV shows, keep up with entertainment news and gossip or
swoon over actors. I mean I EXPECTED differences as far as sexuality
is concerned, but the differences make themselves obvious in
activities where society does not give a negative message.
toramjero
> On Dec 10, 1:34 am, darklily <darkli...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I think I'm speechless.
>
> > No, really.
>
> > I have to agree with something that Suzee said downpost...that context
> > is important...but really, I just can't get my head around somebody
> > *not* wanting to be attractive.
>
> > I have a wardrobe that includes everything from twin-sets to vinyl. I
> > don't dress provocatively when I am working (on project sites), but I
> > still get..umm...attention (ranging from cat-calls and honking car
> > horns to being approached nicely or asked out by people I am talking
> > to about the project). Since I am usually alone, some of those forms
> > of attention can scare the hell out of me. That's generally the sort
> > of attention women don't want.
>
> > But not wanting any male attention? I am having a difficult time
> > fathoming that. I can't imagine anybody *wanting* to be a wallflower.
>
> Being a wallflower has its advantages. It's safer. You can go about
> your business without being interrupted. I should say that I am
> probably very much a wallflower myself, although I don't make any
> conscious efforts for it. It is a bit like having invisibility powers.
>
Your idea about wanting or not wanting attention made me think. One
characteristic that me, my wife and probably most of the people I know
have in common is our education (in the sense of "how we were raised"
and not "scholarship"). We all have had a kind of "calvinistic-
masochist" education, which became prevalent in middle classes around
the end of the 19th century and, under a slightly modified form, still
exists today.
Now please bear with me, because this is relatively complex to
explain. It is not about sex or sexual behavior. Actually, the "slight
modified form" I was referring to and which began around the 70s is,
in surface, relatively sex positive. But the core of the education did
not change. And that core says that YOU, the receiver of the
education, are not worthy of attention. Unless you are perfect.
The message is that you are not above others. You are not supposed to
raise above others. If others follow your lead, it is a
responsibility, not a pride. Any success belongs to the group, any
failure is your sole and entire fault as a leader. If you do something
special, you should not make it obvious. If other people notice it,
you should make clear that it is of no significance, of little value
and that anyone could do the same. As a child, I was given those
stories which tell that if you do a good deed, you should not seek to
impress others with it. You should hope that it is not noticed,
because only unnoticed gifts are real gifts and of real value. If you
seek something in exchange, like attention, it is not a real gift. I
was told the story of the Dutch child who plugged the leaking dam with
his finger, then with his hand, etc... (If you don't know the story,
let just say that he was a hero for it, saved the city, etc...) and at
the end of the story he goes back to his family without pride, because
what he had done everyone should do it. In the most extreme,
calvinistic form the message is that you should spend all your life as
a saint, and then you go to hell because you were not modest enough.
You did not act truly selflessly. Pride is a capital sin.
For girls, the message extends into the sexual realm, even for the
more sex positive version of this education. Women should dress
modestly. Women should not stir the attraction of men. Anything bad
that happens if they do is, at least partially, their fault (I
hesitated to write this paragraph, because first, there is the obvious
problem of rape and responsibility which I do not want to discuss
here, and second, because of this problem, the message has become
quite confused and inconsistent. But this was more or less what the
message was when I was a child. It has probably evolved today.)
As a consequence, I find attention unsettling. I do not seek it, for
example I would not buy clothes which make one very visible. Female
attention is even worse, probably because the few times it happened in
my lifetime ended in pain and frustration. If I am part of a group and
chosen as a leader, I find that more of a problem than something
desirable. The same happens to my wife, she told me that the place she
seeks is counselor of the leader, she wants to organize things from
the shadow.
Now, I realize that your education is probably different. If, as
happens, a girl is raised by hera mother who enjoys dressing her as a
princess to show her around her friends, I would imagine that
attention becomes something enjoyable. Keep in mind that, where I was
raised there was also no equivalent of proms or school balls or, for
the boys, no equivalent of school baseball matches, and that the idea
of "affirmative action" ("I you want really hard, you can", please
look in wikipedia if you don't understand what I am talking about) is
not very widespread.
darklily
> On Dec 10, 1:34 am, darklily <darkli...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I think I'm speechless.
>
> > No, really.
>
> > I have to agree with something that Suzee said downpost...that context
> > is important...but really, I just can't get my head around somebody
> > *not* wanting to be attractive.
>
> > I have a wardrobe that includes everything from twin-sets to vinyl. I
> > don't dress provocatively when I am working (on project sites), but I
> > still get..umm...attention (ranging from cat-calls and honking car
> > horns to being approached nicely or asked out by people I am talking
> > to about the project). Since I am usually alone, some of those forms
> > of attention can scare the hell out of me. That's generally the sort
> > of attention women don't want.
>
> > But not wanting any male attention? I am having a difficult time
> > fathoming that. I can't imagine anybody *wanting* to be a wallflower.
>
> Being a wallflower has its advantages. It's safer. You can go about
> your business without being interrupted. I should say that I am
> probably very much a wallflower myself, although I don't make any
> conscious efforts for it. It is a bit like having invisibility powers.
I can understand that perspective, although I personally found it
annoying to be discounted when I did have something to say (I was a
social wallflower on Midddle and High School).
> What are the advantages of attracting the attention of men you are not
> interested in, if I may ask?
That is a complicated question. For myself, it's just nice little
boost to see someone take notice...nobody (myself or the man involved)
takes a smile or light flirtation seriously. There *are* some women
who do try to use their appearance to get things from people. I'm not
one of them, although I think there have been a few men who have
offered to do things for me...I'm usually oblivious about it until I
mention something to my husband about it later.
> This discussion is quite interesting. The most surprising part is when
> I realized that the women I know don't they read magazines, watch
> movies, follow TV shows, keep up with entertainment news and gossip or
> swoon over actors. I mean I EXPECTED differences as far as sexuality
> is concerned, but the differences make themselves obvious in
> activities where society does not give a negative message.- Hide quoted text -
Well, I rarely buy magazines and don't watch entertainment news or
swoon over actors either (although there are a few I will admit are
hot). I follow a few shows and occassionally see a movie (usually my
husband drags me to them). The only channel I know the number for is a
home improvement channel (and vaguely the news channels).
Darklily
darklily
My education has some similarities, believe it or not. My mother was
German -born (Koenisgberg) and I lived in Wiesbaden for a total of
seven years (I left when I was 12). I was a tomboy myself, usually
wandering around on abandoned properties and climbing trees, getting
into adventures. Were there no soccer or fasching clubs where you
lived? I think I recall that you said you grew up/live in southern
Germany. How much do you think the Catholic presence in the south
versus the Lutheran north might have had an effect in what we've been
discussing?
Darklily
toramjero
> On Dec 10, 4:11 am, toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 8:46 am, toramjero <toramj...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > interested in, if I may ask?
>
> boost to see someone take notice...nobody (myself or the man involved)
> takes a smile or light flirtation seriously. There *are* some women
> who do try to use their appearance to get things from people. I'm not
> one of them, although I think there have been a few men who have
> offered to do things for me...I'm usually oblivious about it until I
> mention something to my husband about it later.
"Little boost" is clear enough. This was what I was thinking about. I
did not imply that you tried to get things from people.
Of course, for myself and for my wife, because our education has
imprinted that attention is bad, we don't get an ego boost, we get
anxiety. Which in turns explain that we tried to go unnoticed. I
should probably try to change that.
I live in southern Germany, but I did not grow up there and my parents
were old-fashioned and repressed by the local standards anyway. This
being said, yes the catholic and the lutheran have slightly different
variation of the basic "calvinistic-masochist" education. To put it in
a nutshell: I think that the catholic are more repressed about sex,
but can get their sins forgiven more easily.
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>This is deadest group on the Usenet.
Not even in the same zip code.
--
"Every single religion that has a monotheistic god
winds up persecuting someone else."
-Philip Pullman
-denny-
(not as curmudgeonly as I useta be)
christina
> Bob Eld <nsmontas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >This is deadest group on the Usenet. I guess people don't care about sex any
> >more, sad!
>
> There's 16 post on the group right now. This is not
> a high-volume group, never has been.
>
> --
> --- Norton
I beg to differ. The regulars here are very good at responding to
issues, but don't generate much new stuff themselves. I stopped
posting regularly in March 2006. If you have a look at the group stats
on Google http://groups.google.com.au/group/soc.sexuality.general/about?hl=en
you'll see there was a big change in the traffic after that. A month
or so before I had started the longest thread ever on ssg (at that
time), over 600 posts I think. It wasn't primarily me though. Jacques
Michel generated a huge amount of discussion, and he stopped posting
at about the same time. He admitted to Aspergers, and was attempting
to come to terms with love and sex. I'm a TS woman attempting to come
to terms with sexuality and relationships generally. JM stopped
posting because he was starting therapy and didn't consider it
appropriate to continue with 'outside' discussion at the same time. I
stopped posting because I decided that sexual relationships just
weren't worth the trouble. Take a couple of people with significant
issues and a lot of persistence to deal with them out of the equation
and the result was pretty inevitable.