When he asked her on her point of view on the "real se-x vs. por-n se-x" debate, she said our collective conception of "normal se-x" leaves out a lot of se-xual preferences that "normal" individuals have:As a result of a variety of the perceived anonymity on the Internet, and the capability to interact with people all across the world -- oh and the search indexes -- it's pretty obvious now that this notion of “normal s-ex," that is a couple making love in a handful of not really very articulately specified positions, to completion, and by completion I mean the eja-culation of a man; I believe among the serious problems with this concept is that it doesn't consider lesbians.
Or it doesn't consider two individuals who have vaginas, who like sleeping with women, but who're not lesbians. Because etc and so forth. It's this very concrete, narrow notion of s-ex -- it's not the type of se-x that many people are interested in having. And I'm sure you can find those who do like their s-ex , for lack of a better word vanilla. That's great and that's wonderful, and they like things simple, I suppose would be a simple method to explain it? And that's great for them. But additionally, there are most of these other people...
Needless to say, se-x in po-rnography is performance -- a performance meant to generate revenue and titillate customers -- therefore it is inevitably different from the experiences most individuals have within their non-commercial bedrooms. But making sweeping generalizations in what p-orn looks like and what "real" se-x looks like may obscure many desires and preferences individuals have in both worlds.
No comments:
Post a Comment