Saturday, July 31, 2004
When was it decided that couples had to be clones?
It used to be that men and women were expected to be totally different in every way, from the activities that filled their days to the clothes they wore to the personality traits that were considered admirable in them. For all that we can argue that women were oppressed in those days, this system worked pretty well, because opposites attract... and people who are just like us aren't mysterious enough, and thus not exciting enough, to engender long-term romantic feelings in us, which is part of why we've become so terrible at forming relationships that last.
We've done a complete 180 from the times when we effortlessly hooked up with marital partners before we left our early 20's and were pretty satisfied; in those days, if you felt any twinge of attraction and got along ok, boom, you were set for life... and biology made sure that the spouses, who'd always be a little mysterious to each other, would stay solidly together. Nowadays, the first thing we ask ourselves after "is this prospective partner attractive?" is "what do we have in common?" and if the answer is "not much," we use that as a reason to ignore the qualities the person possesses that actually count for something, and go looking for some worthless person who likes to play tennis as often as we do (or whatever)... and then we wonder why we can't keep the fire burning with whoever we choose. What on Earth does liking the same food or music have to do with whether you're compatible for a long-term relationship? What does liking the same colors and movies have to do with how honest and decent the other person is? I know we WANT to believe that the things we like translate to certain personality traits, and it would be convenient if it was so, but the sad reality is that people of ALL sorts like every kind of food, music, movies, art, etc imaginable, so finding someone who likes what you like does NOT mean that you've found someone with the same personality as you, much less a GOOD person... and that someone with the same personality as you is the last thing you should want in any case.
It's not just that someone just like you would bore you silly, it's that someone just like you won't show you new things, or challenge you, or stimulate you to grow... and that will lead to stagnation, which is relationship death. Plus, it's no secret that people with our same flaws drive us crazy; even worse, people with our same flaws tend to reinforce what's worst in us, such that 2 people who are sloppy will live in a pigpen, 2 people who are bad with $ will live in eternal debt, and so forth.
Still not convinced? Think you'll only feel safe with someone that has everything in common with you? Ask yourself this; what happens when you change, when they change, as you both inevitably will, and suddenly you're NOT the same any more? Neither of you feels safe, and you both go off looking for someone who matches who you are at that point... and the cycle continues.
My husband and I have virtually nothing in common in ANY area, and, after nearly a decade together, we're still as lively as we were the day we met; do you know any other couples that can say that? Trust me, look for someone who has VALUES that match yours, and let the rest go; you'll spend alot of time picking up their messes and such, if MY marriage is any example, lol, but at least it'll be the same person's mess until death do you part.
We've done a complete 180 from the times when we effortlessly hooked up with marital partners before we left our early 20's and were pretty satisfied; in those days, if you felt any twinge of attraction and got along ok, boom, you were set for life... and biology made sure that the spouses, who'd always be a little mysterious to each other, would stay solidly together. Nowadays, the first thing we ask ourselves after "is this prospective partner attractive?" is "what do we have in common?" and if the answer is "not much," we use that as a reason to ignore the qualities the person possesses that actually count for something, and go looking for some worthless person who likes to play tennis as often as we do (or whatever)... and then we wonder why we can't keep the fire burning with whoever we choose. What on Earth does liking the same food or music have to do with whether you're compatible for a long-term relationship? What does liking the same colors and movies have to do with how honest and decent the other person is? I know we WANT to believe that the things we like translate to certain personality traits, and it would be convenient if it was so, but the sad reality is that people of ALL sorts like every kind of food, music, movies, art, etc imaginable, so finding someone who likes what you like does NOT mean that you've found someone with the same personality as you, much less a GOOD person... and that someone with the same personality as you is the last thing you should want in any case.
It's not just that someone just like you would bore you silly, it's that someone just like you won't show you new things, or challenge you, or stimulate you to grow... and that will lead to stagnation, which is relationship death. Plus, it's no secret that people with our same flaws drive us crazy; even worse, people with our same flaws tend to reinforce what's worst in us, such that 2 people who are sloppy will live in a pigpen, 2 people who are bad with $ will live in eternal debt, and so forth.
Still not convinced? Think you'll only feel safe with someone that has everything in common with you? Ask yourself this; what happens when you change, when they change, as you both inevitably will, and suddenly you're NOT the same any more? Neither of you feels safe, and you both go off looking for someone who matches who you are at that point... and the cycle continues.
My husband and I have virtually nothing in common in ANY area, and, after nearly a decade together, we're still as lively as we were the day we met; do you know any other couples that can say that? Trust me, look for someone who has VALUES that match yours, and let the rest go; you'll spend alot of time picking up their messes and such, if MY marriage is any example, lol, but at least it'll be the same person's mess until death do you part.
Friday, July 30, 2004
Screwed by the food police
Do you think that those who scream for "healthier" foods to be made available are always working for our benefit? It seems as if they should be, but consider:
It's getting hard to find a decent milkshake anymore, because, in order to reduce fat and calories to acceptable levels as dictated by the food police, fast food chains have in large part caved in and are now making shakes that are mostly air or corn syrup... or, in the case of Foster's Freeze, some sort of gross synthetic stuff that leaves unbroken bubbles in the cup WEEKS later, and doesn't ever go bad (I only WISH I was joking). Jack in the Box and, weirdly, Arby's, still have good shakes, but I resent not being able to get real shakes in all the traditional places because a bunch of busybodies think they're fighting obesity by foisting low-fat shakes on everyone, and have insisted that the icky shakes REPLACE the good ones, rather than just being added as an option.
Because so many people have been suckered by the low-carb nonsense into thinking that that's the path to thinness, all sorts of goofy low-carb fast food options, like burgers wrapped in lettuce instead of soft, lovely buns, have appeared, which isn't really a problem because the good stuff is still available, but the next step has been taken, and Round Table, makers of the finest pizza in the country, has switched to a thinner crust with about a third fewer carbs; note that I didn't say that this had been added as an option-they have REPLACED their excellent crust with this distinctly less appealing one.
Kids are getting royally screwed by the push to make tasty food "healthy"; the fast food chains are increasingly offering the "choice" of milk and/or juice instead of soda, and fruit instead of fries, with their kids' meals... which means, not that kids will have more choices, since no child would choose milk and fruit over soda and FRIES, but that the entire point of going to get fast food will be ruined for some kids, because their parents will jump on the idea of replacing the treats with the same boring food the kids get at home. I'm grateful beyond words that these things weren't being offered when *I* was a kid, because my parents would have been the first in line to turn the special treat of going for fast food into a battle, stress, and the bitter disappointment of not actually being allowed to have anything tasty to eat while those all around me were happily slurping up fries, and my heart breaks for the kids who'll be suffering just that fate.
Another psycho idea is the production of favorite cereals, like Frosted Flakes, with reduced sugar; we all know that no child who ever lived paused in their cereal consumption to whine "but this is too sweeeeeeeeeeeet-I wish there was a kind with less sugar," so this new twist is aimed at parents, allowing them to get something that their kids will like far less, or not at all, but which they'll be forced to eat in order to let the parents feel like they've taken bold action to enhance the health of their kids.
I remember when they arm-twisted all the fast food places to stop including beef lard in the mixture their fries were made in, although the flavor was dependent on the beef lard and so was far less delicious with it removed; all the above seems every bit as insane. I'm tireder than I can say of having my food choices controlled; there's something truly surreal about living in a wealthy country with endless choices for everything, but not be able to get real fries and a real shake anymore. What's next, nonfat cheese and soy bacon on my burgers?
It's getting hard to find a decent milkshake anymore, because, in order to reduce fat and calories to acceptable levels as dictated by the food police, fast food chains have in large part caved in and are now making shakes that are mostly air or corn syrup... or, in the case of Foster's Freeze, some sort of gross synthetic stuff that leaves unbroken bubbles in the cup WEEKS later, and doesn't ever go bad (I only WISH I was joking). Jack in the Box and, weirdly, Arby's, still have good shakes, but I resent not being able to get real shakes in all the traditional places because a bunch of busybodies think they're fighting obesity by foisting low-fat shakes on everyone, and have insisted that the icky shakes REPLACE the good ones, rather than just being added as an option.
Because so many people have been suckered by the low-carb nonsense into thinking that that's the path to thinness, all sorts of goofy low-carb fast food options, like burgers wrapped in lettuce instead of soft, lovely buns, have appeared, which isn't really a problem because the good stuff is still available, but the next step has been taken, and Round Table, makers of the finest pizza in the country, has switched to a thinner crust with about a third fewer carbs; note that I didn't say that this had been added as an option-they have REPLACED their excellent crust with this distinctly less appealing one.
Kids are getting royally screwed by the push to make tasty food "healthy"; the fast food chains are increasingly offering the "choice" of milk and/or juice instead of soda, and fruit instead of fries, with their kids' meals... which means, not that kids will have more choices, since no child would choose milk and fruit over soda and FRIES, but that the entire point of going to get fast food will be ruined for some kids, because their parents will jump on the idea of replacing the treats with the same boring food the kids get at home. I'm grateful beyond words that these things weren't being offered when *I* was a kid, because my parents would have been the first in line to turn the special treat of going for fast food into a battle, stress, and the bitter disappointment of not actually being allowed to have anything tasty to eat while those all around me were happily slurping up fries, and my heart breaks for the kids who'll be suffering just that fate.
Another psycho idea is the production of favorite cereals, like Frosted Flakes, with reduced sugar; we all know that no child who ever lived paused in their cereal consumption to whine "but this is too sweeeeeeeeeeeet-I wish there was a kind with less sugar," so this new twist is aimed at parents, allowing them to get something that their kids will like far less, or not at all, but which they'll be forced to eat in order to let the parents feel like they've taken bold action to enhance the health of their kids.
I remember when they arm-twisted all the fast food places to stop including beef lard in the mixture their fries were made in, although the flavor was dependent on the beef lard and so was far less delicious with it removed; all the above seems every bit as insane. I'm tireder than I can say of having my food choices controlled; there's something truly surreal about living in a wealthy country with endless choices for everything, but not be able to get real fries and a real shake anymore. What's next, nonfat cheese and soy bacon on my burgers?
Thursday, July 29, 2004
10,000 hits!!
I'm happy to announce that my little corner of the universe has surpassed 10,000 hits; I'm pleased and touched that a blog with no comments, no pictures, no news, no porn, no games, no tech stuff, nothing but my lengthy rants on usually oddball topics, has managed to be visited so many times in its first 7 months. To all of you who take time from your lives to visit me, and especially any of you who send others to take a look around; THANK YOU!! :-)
Nearly as amazing to me as the # of hits I've gotten is the geographic composition of my visitors; although I've only had geo-tracking for a couple of months, I've already recorded hits from over SIXTY countries: United States, Canada, Singapore, United Kingdom, Australia, India, Netherlands, Brazil, Spain, Philippines, Korea (Republic of), Germany, Japan, Malaysia New Zealand, France, Norway, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Taiwan (Province of China), Mexico, Sweden, Italy, Ireland, Finland, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong, Denmark, Israel, Lithuania, Switzerland, Russian Federation, Chile, Thailand, Yugoslavia, Indonesia, Trinidad and Tobago, South Africa, Greece, Uruguay, Slovakia, Oman, Qatar, Poland, Morocco, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Croatia, Peru, Jordan, Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Georgia, Venezuela, Ghana, Argentina, Pakistan, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Puerto Rico, Romania, Egypt, and Sri Lanka (this list is in the order it appears on my tracking page, and does NOT reflect any preferences on my part for some countries over others-ALL are welcome here). I'm astounded, and humbled, to discover that Americans make up only 56% of my visitors; I don't suffer from excessive modesty, but I'd have never thought that so many people from other cultures would find the ramblings of a manic American to be of interest.
From my encounters on other blogs with people who visit here, I know that some folks still wonder why I don't have comments, a posted email address, or personal info on my blog; if you want the detailed answers, see my entry of March 1... the short answers are that I don't want to invest the time to have debates here, or the emotional energy to deal with that small % of prospective commentors or emailers who'd be belligerent, and that I need to be able to be anonymous in order to post openly without worrying about a loved one finding my blog and freaking out.
I can't tell you how many times I've wished there was a safe way for me to communicate with my "regulars," whoever you are, see what you like the most here, what keeps you coming back, and find out who you are, what sorts of lives you live... because, in a weird way, you're closer to me than anyone in my real life (except my husband, who DOES read along), and naturally I'd enjoy feeling close to YOU.
Until I can find a way to make that work, I hope that my efforts to inform, to present new perspectives, to suggest new ideas, and to entertain you, continue to make this blog a place worth coming to. Again, thank you!! :-)
Nearly as amazing to me as the # of hits I've gotten is the geographic composition of my visitors; although I've only had geo-tracking for a couple of months, I've already recorded hits from over SIXTY countries: United States, Canada, Singapore, United Kingdom, Australia, India, Netherlands, Brazil, Spain, Philippines, Korea (Republic of), Germany, Japan, Malaysia New Zealand, France, Norway, Belgium, Austria, Portugal, Taiwan (Province of China), Mexico, Sweden, Italy, Ireland, Finland, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong, Denmark, Israel, Lithuania, Switzerland, Russian Federation, Chile, Thailand, Yugoslavia, Indonesia, Trinidad and Tobago, South Africa, Greece, Uruguay, Slovakia, Oman, Qatar, Poland, Morocco, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Croatia, Peru, Jordan, Azerbaijan, Czech Republic, Georgia, Venezuela, Ghana, Argentina, Pakistan, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Cyprus, Puerto Rico, Romania, Egypt, and Sri Lanka (this list is in the order it appears on my tracking page, and does NOT reflect any preferences on my part for some countries over others-ALL are welcome here). I'm astounded, and humbled, to discover that Americans make up only 56% of my visitors; I don't suffer from excessive modesty, but I'd have never thought that so many people from other cultures would find the ramblings of a manic American to be of interest.
From my encounters on other blogs with people who visit here, I know that some folks still wonder why I don't have comments, a posted email address, or personal info on my blog; if you want the detailed answers, see my entry of March 1... the short answers are that I don't want to invest the time to have debates here, or the emotional energy to deal with that small % of prospective commentors or emailers who'd be belligerent, and that I need to be able to be anonymous in order to post openly without worrying about a loved one finding my blog and freaking out.
I can't tell you how many times I've wished there was a safe way for me to communicate with my "regulars," whoever you are, see what you like the most here, what keeps you coming back, and find out who you are, what sorts of lives you live... because, in a weird way, you're closer to me than anyone in my real life (except my husband, who DOES read along), and naturally I'd enjoy feeling close to YOU.
Until I can find a way to make that work, I hope that my efforts to inform, to present new perspectives, to suggest new ideas, and to entertain you, continue to make this blog a place worth coming to. Again, thank you!! :-)
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
Fortuitous psychic event
I was replying to an email tonight from a guy I recently met online, one who shares my interest in 80's metal, and was working my way down the list of bands we'd been talking about; I was somewhat disappointed to see that, although he was familiar with some of the more obscure bands I liked, he'd never even heard of the one that was the most obscure and also my favorite. I was typing "Unfortunately, they only made one album, so" when I froze, and had the urge to look them up with some vague idea of verifying... I'm not entirely sure, and looking back I can't pin it down-I just HAD to look them up. Because the band's name is an actual word, I had to add another search term, and, although one of the bandmember's names would have made the most sense, I found myself typing in "CD" instead... and, you guessed it, discovered that the band, which as far as I knew had disbanded after touring briefly for their album many years ago, has released a CD of new material AND a live CD in the past few years, just not in America. In a daze of disbelief, I sifted through music-selling sites until I found one that had both CD's at a decent price and ordered them.
There was no reason whatsoever for me to have any urge to look these guys up; I'd have never guessed in a million years that they'd ever play music together again. And why didn't I use the obvious secondary search term, the name of the band member who was the central figure of the band because he'd made a name for himself elsewhere? As it turns out, he's not in the band any more-surprise, surprise.
So, what happened here? I was thinking about this band's musical output and, with that "receptor" activated in my mind, info about them slipped in "under the radar" and guided me to CD's that I'd never have known about otherwise, and that I'm ecstatic about getting. Every thought, feeling or action has the potential, via the workings of karma, to create an attraction to related "stuff," and, if you pay attention and go along with any urges you get, however odd they may seem, you'll be glad you did... because it generally leads to you getting or learning something.
There was no reason whatsoever for me to have any urge to look these guys up; I'd have never guessed in a million years that they'd ever play music together again. And why didn't I use the obvious secondary search term, the name of the band member who was the central figure of the band because he'd made a name for himself elsewhere? As it turns out, he's not in the band any more-surprise, surprise.
So, what happened here? I was thinking about this band's musical output and, with that "receptor" activated in my mind, info about them slipped in "under the radar" and guided me to CD's that I'd never have known about otherwise, and that I'm ecstatic about getting. Every thought, feeling or action has the potential, via the workings of karma, to create an attraction to related "stuff," and, if you pay attention and go along with any urges you get, however odd they may seem, you'll be glad you did... because it generally leads to you getting or learning something.
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
A useful trick
I was watching "Courage Under Fire" tonight, and, while Dazzling Denzel was questioning a hostile witness to the events the movie circles around, he told the guy that they were all done, and I just KNEW that he was going to do a 180 and hit the guy with another line of questioning... and he DID. This wasn't a psychic flash on my part, it was the expression of my subconscious realization that this exact technique has appeared in MANY movies, cop shows, even a Stephen King book; I figured there was something to this, so I thought about it for a while.
Why's this questioning method shown all the time? It has to make sense to us that it would work for the plotlines to be believable, so there has to be some underlying psychology going on: If you're being questioned about something that you don't want to reveal info on, you'll be tense, guarded, and rather unhappy, worrying that you'll let something slip. When you're told that the questioning is over, and you realize that you succeeded, that you didn't spill any secrets, you'll heave a big sigh of relief, relax... and drop your guard. If, right at that moment, the questioner hits you with the big question that was being held in reserve, there's a good chance that you'll blurt out the truth before you can rebuild your protective wall; we've all said things without conscious volition when we were caught offguard, even when it wasn't a situation with this sort of emotional intensity.
So, it makes sense, but does it work in real life, or is it just a fictional creation, like the idea that hot women will go for short, dorky guys? I'll try to find a way to test it and see; my husband will be quaking in his boots, lol.
Why's this questioning method shown all the time? It has to make sense to us that it would work for the plotlines to be believable, so there has to be some underlying psychology going on: If you're being questioned about something that you don't want to reveal info on, you'll be tense, guarded, and rather unhappy, worrying that you'll let something slip. When you're told that the questioning is over, and you realize that you succeeded, that you didn't spill any secrets, you'll heave a big sigh of relief, relax... and drop your guard. If, right at that moment, the questioner hits you with the big question that was being held in reserve, there's a good chance that you'll blurt out the truth before you can rebuild your protective wall; we've all said things without conscious volition when we were caught offguard, even when it wasn't a situation with this sort of emotional intensity.
So, it makes sense, but does it work in real life, or is it just a fictional creation, like the idea that hot women will go for short, dorky guys? I'll try to find a way to test it and see; my husband will be quaking in his boots, lol.
Monday, July 26, 2004
Joel Osteen
If you'd told me even a few months ago that I'd be watching a TV minister, much less watching with avid interest, I'd have laughed, but I've gotten very caught up in watching Joel Osteen preaching (he comes on on the Family channel late Sunday nights); the version of Christianity that he espouses, and the way he speaks, are captivating.
Don't worry, I'm not being lured away from the study of karma to become born-again or some such thing, but I enjoy any intelligent and eloquent speaker, and this guy has a style that I think would appeal to a broader cross-section of the population than most, and he's obviously actually THOUGHT about spiritual matters, which is a rarity in any religion. He uses humor effectively to get his points across, he has a solid grasp of psychology, and of how spirituality can benefit people (as opposed to scaring or oppressing or confusing them), and, contrary to what one hears from most religious leaders, he talks about not judging people, about accepting them and trying to understand and care about them... which actually bears some resemblance to the message Christ supposedly tried to pass along.
One of the more striking examples of how he's seeing the deeper truth is in a story he tells about seeing a TV preacher with long hair and a generally wild appearance, and that, while his first reaction was "He can't be a real preacher," he thought about it and saw that that man was preaching in the way that seemed right to him, and that that way would appeal to some people who couldn't be reached by a conventional clean-cut preacher... and thus that ALL paths to spiritual truth have value and have the potential for good.
Which is of course what *I* always say.
I'd love to be able to talk to him one day, and see what he thinks about karma. In the meantime, I feel strongly drawn to him, and will keep watching him do his thing. If you can't see him on TV in your area (his shows are seen in over 100 countries, so chances are you CAN catch him), or just want to learn more about him, his site is here:
http://www.joelosteen.com/
Don't worry, I'm not being lured away from the study of karma to become born-again or some such thing, but I enjoy any intelligent and eloquent speaker, and this guy has a style that I think would appeal to a broader cross-section of the population than most, and he's obviously actually THOUGHT about spiritual matters, which is a rarity in any religion. He uses humor effectively to get his points across, he has a solid grasp of psychology, and of how spirituality can benefit people (as opposed to scaring or oppressing or confusing them), and, contrary to what one hears from most religious leaders, he talks about not judging people, about accepting them and trying to understand and care about them... which actually bears some resemblance to the message Christ supposedly tried to pass along.
One of the more striking examples of how he's seeing the deeper truth is in a story he tells about seeing a TV preacher with long hair and a generally wild appearance, and that, while his first reaction was "He can't be a real preacher," he thought about it and saw that that man was preaching in the way that seemed right to him, and that that way would appeal to some people who couldn't be reached by a conventional clean-cut preacher... and thus that ALL paths to spiritual truth have value and have the potential for good.
Which is of course what *I* always say.
I'd love to be able to talk to him one day, and see what he thinks about karma. In the meantime, I feel strongly drawn to him, and will keep watching him do his thing. If you can't see him on TV in your area (his shows are seen in over 100 countries, so chances are you CAN catch him), or just want to learn more about him, his site is here:
http://www.joelosteen.com/
Sunday, July 25, 2004
Why is porn so UNerotic?
I suppose it seems that way to me, and women in general, because nearly all porn is made for men; straight porn, so-called lesbian porn, and gay male porn, are all designed to appeal to what men find stimulating, which basically means jumping right to the most graphic images, descriptions or actions in order to lead to the quickest possible orgasm. Yes, I know there's a tiny % of straight porn allegedly made for female consumption, but it doesn't really look any different, probably because the main consumers of it is gay men (in the case of Playgirl magazine) and straight men, NOT women. There IS some lesbian porn that's actually made by and for lesbians, and this seems to be the main exception to the non-erotic rule; no surprise there, but it's sadly a RARE exception among all the porn out there.
I understand WHY porn is geared towards men-that's where the $ is. Would women be bigger porn consumers if there was quality porn for women available? No one seems to care enough to find out, with easy $ to be made the traditional way. For stories and movies to be erotic, they'd have to be more expensive, and thus with lower profit margins; they'd have to be longer, have plots, dialogue other than oooh's and aaah's, and a visual sense geared to something other than... what men want to look at.
Which is what? Gigantic boobs, usually fake (gay men don't care about them, obviously, but straight men love them enough to make up the difference). Extreme closeups of genitals/orifices. Tight shots of the insertions and piston-and-cylinder type action. And, of course, "the money shot." I can't think of anything LESS erotic than this sort of thing. The preference for surreally perfect bodies, with no body hair and with overall tans, is pretty grim too. Eroticism is NOT made up of this stuff; there's supposed to be some subtlety involved, some surprise, some "personalness" to images and ideas to make them erotic rather than just graphically sexual.
What IS erotic? From what I've read and heard, most women look at it pretty much as I do, which would be:
Seeing entire bodies (rather than just the "dirty parts"), which should be reasonably fit, but natural, rather than gym-bunny-ish, have some semblance of their natural hair where adults have it (I LOVE a hairy chest, and prefer genitals that don't look prepubescent), and don't have tanned skins that one supposes would feel like leather. The person's face should be showing most of the time, both to personalize the body (which otherwise could belong to anyone) and to show emotion and personality; this is probably the most important element for visual eroticism. Some degree of good looks is nice, as that's what gets the juices going, but someone who looks like the cute UPS guy is FAR better than someone who looks like an animated mannequin; chiseled perfection is boring.
In a photo, I like to see the man relaxed and smiling, not tense and posing; bonus points if it looks like he was caught candidly while eating his Wheaties, or something equally innocuous... as if we're getting a forbidden glimpse through a cutie's window as opposed to a photo of a model. In a movie, the man should look and act like he's in love with the woman, because that's what it takes for a man to be tuned into the woman's needs enough to have a shot at giving her what she wants; she should also seem to love HIM, of course, so that she'll look like she's really into it (as opposed to the fake proclamations of desire that are porn staples). There's a bonus to all this pseudo-love; people in love tend to automatically engage in the sort of varied all-body touching that's a big part of eroticism, and to portray a couple in love believably, these things would have to be included. The pace of the sex should be slow, showing savoring of each separate act, rather than the standard pornographic rush to the heavy-duty stuff. Orgasms should be portrayed like orgasms, as oppose to Olympic yodeling events, and afterwards the couple should act like they care about each other, rather than lighting up or, just as bad, fading to black. Written porn should follow along these same lines, but also take advantage of the medium to delve into the thoughts and feelings of the participants; the more human they seem, the greater eroticism they can generate, even though they're just words on a page.
I'm sure that some women will read the above and think, "Oh no, not ME, I prefer the closeups and the fast and furious action"; to you I say... how much porn have you looked at recently, much less collected and/or spent $ on? If little or none, how erotic can you actually be finding what you claim to like? To those men who might be shaking their heads in disbelief or rolling their eyes in dismay, keep in mind that most women view the porn YOU like with the same feelings. And to those men who are thinking of using this info to provide something stimulating for the women in their lives; you're worth your weight in gold.
I understand WHY porn is geared towards men-that's where the $ is. Would women be bigger porn consumers if there was quality porn for women available? No one seems to care enough to find out, with easy $ to be made the traditional way. For stories and movies to be erotic, they'd have to be more expensive, and thus with lower profit margins; they'd have to be longer, have plots, dialogue other than oooh's and aaah's, and a visual sense geared to something other than... what men want to look at.
Which is what? Gigantic boobs, usually fake (gay men don't care about them, obviously, but straight men love them enough to make up the difference). Extreme closeups of genitals/orifices. Tight shots of the insertions and piston-and-cylinder type action. And, of course, "the money shot." I can't think of anything LESS erotic than this sort of thing. The preference for surreally perfect bodies, with no body hair and with overall tans, is pretty grim too. Eroticism is NOT made up of this stuff; there's supposed to be some subtlety involved, some surprise, some "personalness" to images and ideas to make them erotic rather than just graphically sexual.
What IS erotic? From what I've read and heard, most women look at it pretty much as I do, which would be:
Seeing entire bodies (rather than just the "dirty parts"), which should be reasonably fit, but natural, rather than gym-bunny-ish, have some semblance of their natural hair where adults have it (I LOVE a hairy chest, and prefer genitals that don't look prepubescent), and don't have tanned skins that one supposes would feel like leather. The person's face should be showing most of the time, both to personalize the body (which otherwise could belong to anyone) and to show emotion and personality; this is probably the most important element for visual eroticism. Some degree of good looks is nice, as that's what gets the juices going, but someone who looks like the cute UPS guy is FAR better than someone who looks like an animated mannequin; chiseled perfection is boring.
In a photo, I like to see the man relaxed and smiling, not tense and posing; bonus points if it looks like he was caught candidly while eating his Wheaties, or something equally innocuous... as if we're getting a forbidden glimpse through a cutie's window as opposed to a photo of a model. In a movie, the man should look and act like he's in love with the woman, because that's what it takes for a man to be tuned into the woman's needs enough to have a shot at giving her what she wants; she should also seem to love HIM, of course, so that she'll look like she's really into it (as opposed to the fake proclamations of desire that are porn staples). There's a bonus to all this pseudo-love; people in love tend to automatically engage in the sort of varied all-body touching that's a big part of eroticism, and to portray a couple in love believably, these things would have to be included. The pace of the sex should be slow, showing savoring of each separate act, rather than the standard pornographic rush to the heavy-duty stuff. Orgasms should be portrayed like orgasms, as oppose to Olympic yodeling events, and afterwards the couple should act like they care about each other, rather than lighting up or, just as bad, fading to black. Written porn should follow along these same lines, but also take advantage of the medium to delve into the thoughts and feelings of the participants; the more human they seem, the greater eroticism they can generate, even though they're just words on a page.
I'm sure that some women will read the above and think, "Oh no, not ME, I prefer the closeups and the fast and furious action"; to you I say... how much porn have you looked at recently, much less collected and/or spent $ on? If little or none, how erotic can you actually be finding what you claim to like? To those men who might be shaking their heads in disbelief or rolling their eyes in dismay, keep in mind that most women view the porn YOU like with the same feelings. And to those men who are thinking of using this info to provide something stimulating for the women in their lives; you're worth your weight in gold.
