![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 15 to 39 of 49. Go back in thread:
Posted by Gnepig on December 2, 2004, at 17:27:59
In reply to Re: ask him, posted by sunny10 on December 2, 2004, at 12:09:39
I don't think I can properly answer your question. I guess we are a weaker sex at times and act like dogs.This isn't a daily or weekly thing for me. I don't want to seem like a sexual deviant because I appreciate a woman's body, but I plan on looking ( and so does my wife)and not touching until I'm blind or dead.I also live on the beach.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2004, at 0:51:53
In reply to Re: ask him, posted by Gnepig on December 2, 2004, at 17:27:59
For being so bold as to reply :-)
Having never looked at any particular magazines I wouldn't like to comment on their 'tastefulness' or otherwise... I have heard some people try to say they read playboy for the articles! But then having never read an article...
Any other guys out there wanna join in this conversation?
Posted by Gnepig on December 3, 2004, at 10:07:11
In reply to Thanks » Gnepig, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2004, at 0:51:53
I was just going to ask for other male input on this subject. I don't read many articles, although they are informative and not always about sex,before my wife comes home. She doesn't approve of male magazines, so I respect that and only have a couple of old editions I keep for reference. Getting back to the original question, it is easier to find artistic female nudity on the web and have no evidence to be found later by my lovely wife. Again once or twice a month doesen't make me a bad husband, only when it gets in the way of our relationship.
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on December 3, 2004, at 12:39:16
In reply to Re: other male input!, posted by Gnepig on December 3, 2004, at 10:07:11
Well, I'll jump in here now. My husband views pornography and I have no problem with it. Men and women are different. AS mentioned above, men are very visual. I also think that men in general like to be sexually stimulated more than women. So if my husband looks at movies or pictures when I'm not around, I have no problem with it. If I'm not there to take care of his needs, I see no problem with his "taking matters into his own hands" as it were.
And perhaps I may be the only woman here who likes pornography, but I do. Maybe that makes me more tolerant of his liking pornography?
I don't feel disrespected or anything by his liking pornography. I just think it's human nature and I accept it as such. No other deeper motivation than that.
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on December 3, 2004, at 12:45:10
In reply to Re: ask him, posted by Gnepig on December 2, 2004, at 17:27:59
It certainly doesn't seem like deviancy to me to look but don't touch! It is natural! I am married but flirt mildly all the time. Doesn't even matter the sex of the person. I look all the time. I appreciate. FOr me this is natural. My husband does the same. We are humans and just because we're married doesn't mean we stop appreciating others.
Posted by vwoolf on December 3, 2004, at 13:13:08
In reply to human nature, posted by Miss Honeychurch on December 3, 2004, at 12:39:16
I also enjoy porn. In fact, I think that fantasy (which is often portrayed in porn websites, films and magazines) has a very large role to play in sexuality. But it can be just fantasy and have nothing to do with reality. I know that I would NEVER carry out most of my fantasies which are very humiliating and violent. And I may not always want to share my fantasies with my sexual partner - sometimes I do and sometimes I don't. I find it difficult to imagine that my husband always fantasises about just me, while I know that my harem is much vaster than just him. It feels unfair to insist on monogamous thoughts.
Posted by sunny10 on December 3, 2004, at 13:58:26
In reply to Re: other male input!, posted by Gnepig on December 3, 2004, at 10:07:11
I would say that anytime anyone has to do things behind their partner's back there is a trust issue which should not exist in a respectful, adult relationship.
An the "old editions" kept for future reference? That's even playing favorites to someone who is not us!
Amazing...
But if she knows you do this, and she's okay with it, then go for it!
Posted by sunny10 on December 3, 2004, at 14:13:32
In reply to human nature, posted by Miss Honeychurch on December 3, 2004, at 12:39:16
The funny thing is, I am happy to indulge in that stuff WITH my SO... It's when people hide their proclivities, and lying about it to "protect" themselves that it is the same as cheating..
Again, my point is only that it is a trust issue. If there is no hiding going on, I have no issue with porn ! But, I suppose I've made it aboudantly clear (sorry) that I have a problem with people who lie- even by omission!!!
Posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2004, at 16:54:22
In reply to Re: human nature, posted by sunny10 on December 3, 2004, at 14:13:32
I should perhaps say that I don't judge others for this. I do see how people can use this stuff to enhance their relationship - it is just that it is not to my taste.
Infact it was brought to my attention just how many females out there do like it when I tutored a course on 'social and moral philosophy' and pornography came up as a topic.
I guess here my liberalism turns into conservativism really.
I do fantasise, but I don't buy pictures to oggle. I appreciate, but once again, I don't oggle. People are people not sex objects in my opinion. But then maybe this is because I act out more of my fantasies than the average person...
Interesting discussion peoples :-)
Posted by Gnepig on December 3, 2004, at 19:28:24
In reply to Re: human nature, posted by alexandra_k on December 3, 2004, at 16:54:22
Alex, I don't know who you are responding to, but I just want to clarify my perspective. Oogling was never mentioned as to a degree of enjoying nude photography. (not to be confused with pornography). The gist of the topic was viewing pornography. There might be a good discussion on where it does become pornography. Also, to the others, if your SO condemes the act of looking at nudity(even between each other) how can you protect your own enjoyment without being chastised?
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on December 3, 2004, at 22:30:42
In reply to Re: human nature, posted by vwoolf on December 3, 2004, at 13:13:08
I totally agree with you. I would also never act on any of my fantasies as they are somewhat violent and humiliating as well. Glad I am not the only one!
Posted by vwoolf on December 4, 2004, at 10:26:17
In reply to Re: human nature » vwoolf, posted by Miss Honeychurch on December 3, 2004, at 22:30:42
I'm glad we can share this. Have you ever spoken to your T about your fantasies? I did last week, and she gave me a very intellgent explanation for why I have these fantasies, but as usually happens when I am feeling threatened, I have managed to forget her argument. It was something about needing to compensate to myself for the humiliation I have been through. But that's not quite it.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2004, at 10:36:31
In reply to Re: human nature, posted by Gnepig on December 3, 2004, at 19:28:24
> Alex, I don't know who you are responding to, but I just want to clarify my perspective. Oogling was never mentioned as to a degree of enjoying nude photography.
Oh, sorry I certaintly did not mean to 'accuse' you of oggling. I never got that from your posts - that one wasn't directed to you. Actually it wasn't addressed to any poster here and I do apologise for the phrase.
>(not to be confused with pornography).
Yeah. I have no problem with nude works of art. I do think that there is a fuzzy line between art and porn, but I guess I would put the sort of 'explicit' stuff we have talked about, and sexual acts at the pornography end of the spectrum... Maybe the difference also is a function of what ones purpose is in looking at the 'art'. Appreciation of form may be different to using it as a munster aid (if you get me). Not that I think that there is anything wrong with this as a matter of principle, it is just that it is not to my taste. If my partner liked to do this then I suppose that I would just want them to be discrete about it - in just the way that it sounds like you are.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2004, at 10:51:03
In reply to Re: human nature » Gnepig, posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2004, at 10:36:31
Hmm. I haven't acted out all of my fantisies, but I have acted out a fair few of them...
I know what you mean when you talk about forgetting arguments for stuff that is hard. I do that too :-)
I feel quite disgusted when I think of some of the things that I have done. I had to learn that fansasies are different from realities in the sense that sometimes we do not actually want that reality even though we think we do... I had to learn this the hard way.
I struggle a lot between wanting sex to be an act of intimacy betwen two people who love each other... and acknowledgement of its primitive power and animalistic side... and treating people as objects... and I don't know what is 'right' and probably here there isn't a 'right' there is just a way I would like it to be (for me) and I don't know if that is unrealistic or what...
I don't mind that people fantasise...
But I worry about where the people are at where they exhibit themselves for the camera. I wonder what could lead them to do such a thing. What kind of lives they have led. What kind of abuses they have suffered. And I think that there is something a bit sick and voyeristic about it all (talking clear cases of porn here).At this point someone always brings up some case or other of the happy child with the lovely life and the liberal attitude and how that porn star considers herself to be a movie star...
But as in cases of people who turn to prostitution I think that such cases are more the exception than the general rule.
I disapprove of people using prostitutes on those same grounds. But I surely would rather people used them than raped if they must act out. I just think that the whole situation is sad. And I feel a bit sick when I think about it all. And I think that I would so very much like it to be something different, somehting better than that.
But then I suppose that my abuse history influences my attitudes on this quite significantly.
I guess it would just kind of go some of the way towards restoring my faith in males to hear that not all of them consider pornography (and prostitution) to be acceptable. And it would restore it even more if any could genuinely say that (in terms of the realities) they don't get off on seeing women as such objects.
But maybe it is just a natural response...
And a natural thing to like...
Posted by lostforwards on December 4, 2004, at 21:04:21
In reply to fantisies..., posted by alexandra_k on December 4, 2004, at 10:51:03
Animalistic isn't a bad thing. I think the very nature of love, not just sex, is "primitive". Have you ever seen two mice groom each other? That's love. I know it's anthropomorphic for me to make that statement, but I'm not trying to be a scientist. Sex is a part of love, one can come before the other. I don't see anything ugly about animals acting on their instincts. To me love is intinctual. It's not something that grew out of the victorian era, or appeared after the agricultural revolution. Love was with us, innately since the begining of time.
I'm not sure what the prevalance of abuse is among animals. I know there's killing for food. I 'm not sure if anyone can provide me evidence of killing for sport.
Human beings have managed to divert their sexual energy and do all sorts of heinous things including abuse and in every way pathologize each other.
Personally, I get off on women who are smiling or at least enjoying themselves. Negative vibes give me a bad feeling. I couldn't watch porn where a woman was suffering or anybody was suffering against their will.
Abuse just isn't natural. Sex, love, and the human body minus all of our fabrications about what's right and wrong, is.
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on December 5, 2004, at 10:33:56
In reply to Re: human nature » Miss Honeychurch, posted by vwoolf on December 4, 2004, at 10:26:17
We have NEVER discussed sex. It never comes up. I would be more than happy to share these fantasies with him if he asked however.
Posted by vwoolf on December 5, 2004, at 13:35:13
In reply to Re: human nature » vwoolf, posted by Miss Honeychurch on December 5, 2004, at 10:33:56
Gosh, I talk about it all the time. I often wonder if I'm bothering my T with it, because it keeps coming up. She says it's because I was traumatically sexualized as a child that it has taken on such an important role in my life. I know that I think of everyone in sexual terms, but then I thought everyone did that. It seems I was wrong.
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on December 6, 2004, at 15:58:53
In reply to confused about porn?, posted by Bent on November 24, 2004, at 17:34:47
I wish we had more male input here. I appreciate Gnepig's honesty. Maybe men just don't come to the relationship board?
Posted by Gnepig on December 6, 2004, at 17:49:38
In reply to Re: confused about porn?, posted by Miss Honeychurch on December 6, 2004, at 15:58:53
Thanks for beleiving me. I'm sorry you can't be honest and open with your SO. I empathize with you because my wife thinks I'm sick and demented if I think of anything else besides her. I have my fantasises, but I keep them to myself.
Posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 2:50:08
In reply to the moral animal., posted by lostforwards on December 4, 2004, at 21:04:21
> Sex is a part of love, one can come before the other.
But we have managed to divorce one from the other entirely when we are getting off on pictures of women who we don't know anything about.
Animals do this (divorce sex from love). People do too (prostitution, the oldest profession). I just think that we are able to transcend (or at least restrain) our 'animal urges' and I think that in this case it is to do with minimising harm to others.
>I don't see anything ugly about animals acting on their instincts.
I remember being quite horrified to watch some variety of monkey on the discovery channel a while back. There was one male and a whole bunch of females. Three other males came in, killed the male, killed the females children, and raped the females. Perhaps that is anthropomorphic but there was no mistaking the expression of grief.
But then that is what soldiers do when invading (sorry, 'assisting') foreign lands - no? So that is animalistic, but is that acceptable?
> Personally, I get off on women who are smiling or at least enjoying themselves. Negative vibes give me a bad feeling. I couldn't watch porn where a woman was suffering or anybody was suffering against their will.Have you ever smiled for the camera when you weren't happy? Would you do it for x amount of dollars? What if your kid was sick and you didn't have health insurance? What might you do then? My point isn't that ALL people who pose naked and / or engage in sex acts for the camera have this kind of situation going on. My point is how do you know that that isn't happening for the women you are looking at?
It divorces sex from love
It says that sex is mere recreation
It turns the actors into objects
Not people
Not with their own needs
Desires
Dislikes
Opinions
It is dehumanisingI think it displays the worst of us
The fact that it is an acceptable part of society (sorta)
The fact that prostitution is the oldest profession and that there is pretty much nothing that people can do to get rid of it properly
That the internet exists becasue of the money the porn companies make off of it (or maybe thats just a rumour?)Just MHO. I realise that most will disagree with me
Posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 2:53:15
In reply to Re: confused about porn? » Miss Honeychurch, posted by Gnepig on December 6, 2004, at 17:49:38
> Thanks for beleiving me. I'm sorry you can't be honest and open with your SO. I empathize with you because my wife thinks I'm sick and demented if I think of anything else besides her. I have my fantasises, but I keep them to myself.
I don't think that fantasies are bad.
In the way that we can do whatever we want in a lucid dream and not be held morally accountable we can fantasise about whatever and we are not morally accountable because we aren't hurting anyone.Of course if fantasising more results in increased urges there may be a problem...
Fantasies can hurt realities...
But I fantasise all the time and I reckon thats ok...But I would never discuss any of that with a clinician. Nope, nope, nope, thats way too personal :-)
Posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 10:14:27
In reply to Re: the moral animal., posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 2:50:08
I think if people were allowed to walk around naked porn wouldn't exist.
Posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 10:22:32
In reply to Re: the moral animal., posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 2:50:08
>Three other males came in, killed the male, killed the females children, and raped the females. Perhaps that is anthropomorphic but there was no mistaking the expression of grief
I wasn't aware of that fact. My argument crumbles here. good point. I wouldn't seperate humans from animals, whatever the case. I still stand by my point that love isn't something you learn.
When I look at porn, I'd rather think that ther person made the choice of working in that profession. At least, at the lowest level, if they were choosing between working as a janitor or working in porn, that they decided to work in porn.
If your kid is sick, you SHOULD have health insurance. The issue is unrelated. Health care should be free. It's horrible to have to be struggling to make money for things like that. Whether it be porn or working in McDonalds.
Bottom line IMHO: Making money by selling your sex isn't wrong.
Posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 10:41:16
In reply to Re: the moral animal., posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 10:14:27
Actually, in some places they're not strict about porn in public. When I was in Quebec, this was when I 16?, there were nude posters, at least as far as showing breasts, out in the open. I remember walking down a street and seeing one of these.
Right now in ontario, you can see live porn while taking a stroll. Women are allowed to walk around topless. I don't think if I saw a women topless that it would lead me to see her as any less of a person. Her body parts that she's supposed to keep hidden from view are just as much a part of her as her legs and her face and her arms.
If you see a man jogging down the streets topless, does that make you see him as less of a man? ( personally I used to feel uncomfortable with them around ). I mean, you don't know him, but seeing his body and not knowing him doesn't imply that you'll stop caring about who people are.
What if you saw lots of people half-naked or completely naked throughout the day? I don't think it would make you see people as less than what they are.
Posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 11:09:38
In reply to Re: the moral animal., posted by lostforwards on December 7, 2004, at 10:22:32
On second thought.. I just saw an ad online for one of those dating sites... I think doing it for money ( whatever that money might be for ), as with a lot of things, corrupts it.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Relationships | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.