A word from our sponsors...
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
Why is it that most of the active zoo's we see here or any other beasty site are almost always white? I don't have anything against that or anything, I'm just making a harmless observation.Even on the amateur non-commercial sites you rarely see minorities taking part in bestiality.I personally would love to see a beautiful black woman being pounded by a large horny dog
Most of the woman i see in commercial vids are latin girls, thje are not white
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
I would say that its more of a socio economic thing
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
QUOTE (gpk @ Sep 16 2008, 01:48 AM) I would say that its more of a socio economic thing How so exactly?
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
QUOTE (Furious_George @ Sep 16 2008, 01:44 AM) Why is it that most of the active zoo's we see here or any other beasty site are almost always white?Even on the amateur non-commercial sites you rarely see minorities taking part in bestiality. Short answer? Your mileage may vary!You ask an interesting question. As for your initial point, I don't agree. Even among white women there is representation from a variety of locations - Australia, Eastern Europe, Russia, Britain, Ireland, and the US. That said, I see a LOT of minorities (particularly asian and latino women) taking part. I've also seen a variety of what I think are indian / middle-eastern women. I suppose it depends on what you define as "minority". Considering China and India, whites may be the minority...So... it doesn't sound like you're talking about "minorities", but specifically black women. Yes? It's okay if you are - I just want to be clear on the topic.While the number of black women with animals on video is limited, it doesn't seem to be disproportionately so. Let's think about it. If there is a racial component to the breakdown of the videos, you also need to consider the demographics of members (particularly for the home-made section) as well as the number of households with internet access.As for the US, I think 70% of households have internet connectivity. Of the 30% without, there is a much larger number of african-american households, not counting cellular internet access. I could be accurate and work real numbers, but let's be sloppy. If we assume the US population is 10% african-american, and if we assume 70% of those households don't have internet access, they would reflect only 3% (10% - 7% did I do that right?) of the people that could be reflected in home-made videos.With that in mind, they might be even more reluctant to post anything because it would seem to stand out more and make them feel more visible than the rest of us would. So you'd be looking at a number significantly less than 3%.While I'm basing this on some reasonable numbers, let's be honest - I'm making stuff up!! The bottom line is this ... unless you get a grant to study this issue, we just don't know. And if you do get a grant, I want to be on your research team!! As for the "socio-economic" comment, I think that comment presumes that women who need quick cash are more likely to shoot videos for money. While that may be true for some, I think we have a rather large number of members that can personally attest to different motives. And perhaps they will?
QUOTE (Furious_George @ Sep 16 2008, 01:44 AM) I personally would love to see a beautiful black woman being pounded by a large horny dog Who wouldn't? Sounds like a good post for the Requests section!!
There is no space in the forum profile for race but I do know that we have quiet a few African and African American members here, And yes there aren't many that post their videos or photos but I do know that there has been several black women post their home made beast photos in the female home made beast section..As for an answer to your question I have none.. Seems like a personal option to me..
I'm going to allow this thread - and not just because I think I have something valid to add it's not racist - and it BETTER not become racist and there IS validity to the question and existing situation...I disagree with ALL that has been proposed as to reasons - I don't think that blacks and other minorities are any more poverty stricken then the rest of the population - black money is certainly there - the clothes - the cars - and they do not lack anything concerning intellegence concerning electronics - they are probably even more prolific with gadgets like ipods phones and all that jazz - I'm sure that doesnt end with handheld devices and they have pcs and laptops like everyone else - my opinion is that it's LOCATION - blacks are MUCH more concentrated in cities and high populous areas - they dont have horses in thier condos and apartments nor do they have large scale dawgz in most cases - the ENVIROMENT doesnt support it... thus the curiosity isnt peeked? ALSO beastiality isnt the only fetish in which blacks are less visible - there is almost nothing that doesnt capture my twisted attention - and wether you are talking about zoo - piss - fisting - bondage - leather - whatever flavor it might be - there is always a very small core of blacks - a significant minority - certainly it has nothing to do with money - then why? dunno - MAYBE it has to do with prior treatment - most fetishes have something to do with degradation even if the participants dont feel that way - taking a pissload is NOT degrading to me - but Im sure outsiders see it as VERY degrading... see my point? good conversation - moved to zoo
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
I'm sure there are plenty zoos (as well as beasties and the people whose interest is only fetish) from all races. Seen such a variety in commercial stuff, as well as amateur. Seems they are mostly non-blacks, and as southy said this is most likely due to location and access to animals. Many blacks do however have big (or medium-sized) dogs, but I still don't see them often in videos/pictures, so maybe those ones just aren't interested. Some may also be interested but keeping quiet about it or afraid of standing out among the white blonds and latina girls.I have seen some pictures and videos with black girls. Always nice to see more.edit: removed something irrelevant.
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
Thanks, Southy--- Makes a lot of sense........
QUOTE (southflorida @ Sep 16 2008, 11:25 AM) I'm going to allow this thread - and not just because I think I have something valid to add it's not racist - and it BETTER not become racist and there IS validity to the question and existing situation...I disagree with ALL that has been proposed as to reasons - I don't think that blacks and other minorities are any more poverty stricken then the rest of the population - black money is certainly there - the clothes - the cars - and they do not lack anything concerning intellegence concerning electronics - they are probably even more prolific with gadgets like ipods phones and all that jazz - I'm sure that doesnt end with handheld devices and they have pcs and laptops like everyone else - my opinion is that it's LOCATION - blacks are MUCH more concentrated in cities and high populous areas - they dont have horses in thier condos and apartments nor do they have large scale dawgz in most cases - the ENVIROMENT doesnt support it... thus the curiosity isnt peeked? ALSO beastiality isnt the only fetish in which blacks are less visible - there is almost nothing that doesnt capture my twisted attention - and wether you are talking about zoo - piss - fisting - bondage - leather - whatever flavor it might be - there is always a very small core of blacks - a significant minority - certainly it has nothing to do with money - then why? dunno - MAYBE it has to do with prior treatment - most fetishes have something to do with degradation even if the participants dont feel that way - taking a pissload is NOT degrading to me - but Im sure outsiders see it as VERY degrading... see my point? good conversation - moved to zoo I suppose that makes some sense. Thanks for your insight!
That's a very interesting observation cohort, the numbers may not be 100% accurate but I'm sure they are not that far off.
It is more common to see a "white or almost female with animals" dark skinned girls need a lot more light before you can see much of their anottomy, but having said all that there a lot of lower grade videos where the people will do anything for the almighty dollar or what ever their local currency is. Just take a good look at some of the crap that comes out of Brazil and other third world country's.
Cohort's overall point is valid, in that, statistically, in comparison with the pink and/or tanned people of the world (come on, none of us is really 'white') African-Americans would constitute a very small sample. Consider also, that this sample is even further diminished by ownership or access to pets, inclination to sexual activity with them, and compulsion or otherwise to admit to, or share the experience.Southy eludes to the psychology of fetish engagement and implies that a minority with a history of cultural and social degradation might be disinclined to engage in activities that objectively, could be perceived as 'degrading' acts. This is an interesting possibility. In the politics of race, the majority ethnicity rarely confronts its own 'race' or 'otherness' in its existence and positioning in the society. Minorities do. Race is a bigger issue in the lives of people who experience this difference, and a factor I suspect, that could well preclude inclination to identify with any further marginalizing behaviours or practices.I thank FG for the question and Southy for allowing it and agree that it is a valid one. However, in my opinion, the last line diminishes the integrity of the inquiry.While mindful that FG is expressing a personal desire, I would ask him to consider how such a statement might appear to a black woman. If it was me, I would take offence at the statement's inherent objectification and seeming implication that my presence on this forum would only be appreciated as some sort of racial and sexual novelty, arranged and displayed for the pleasure of a predominantly white, male audience. Hardly conducive, I would imagine, to inclining me towards participation. Still, I'm sure that no offence was intended.
Even though I am caucasian, I am a minority where I originally came from as I am half cossack. This is on my PASSPORT. I have been involved in both the BDSM life and now (for the better part of a year) in zoophilia and I have several girlfriends of Afro-American, Latina and Oriental ethnicities who are as involved in these aspects as my Lady and I are. Our big problem is the need to maintain a discretion for our 'outside' lives. I hope I said this right. Just for being a lesbian and getting caught I have done time in prison (at home in Russia) and can easily lose my job which I love no end. (I am a teacher.) My g/fs have equal reasons for not posting or whatever also.-Lena
QUOTE (ju-lissa @ Sep 17 2008, 06:04 AM)While mindful that FG is expressing a personal desire, I would ask him to consider how such a statement might appear to a black woman. If it was me, I would take offence at the statement's inherent objectification and seeming implication that my presence on this forum would only be appreciated as some sort of racial and sexual novelty, arranged and displayed for the pleasure of a predominantly white, male audience. Hardly conducive, I would imagine, to inclining me towards participation. Still, I'm sure that no offence was intended. I certainly didn't mean any offense and my apologies if I caused any, like I said I was simply making an observation.
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
I know I've often wondered the same thing, why so many brazilians women in bestility vids/pics. I had always attributed it to poverty, didn't know it was also legal here, and hadn't taken into account a freer outlook on sexuality.
I pretty much assumed it was because some countries are way less likely to slam you into a room with striped sunlight for certain things, and more videos come from there........
QUOTE (Furious_George @ Sep 17 2008, 06:37 AM) I certainly didn't mean any offense and my apologies if I caused any, like I said I was simply making an observation. No worries, FG. I don't think anyone actually found it offensive. Ju-lissa was simply speculating that someone, somewhere, *might* find it offensive. For that to happen, they would have to misinterpret your whole post. While that's entirely possible, there is a risk that practically anything can be viewed as offensive if the reader places just the right emphasis on just the wrong word.Heck, even the presumption that a black woman would view your remark differently than *anyone else* is something that could be offensive. Hmmm. As could the sentence I just wrote. As could any subsequent reply!! Oh no, oh no!!Kidding aside, there's some non-zero risk, so it's something to be aware of. After all, this *potential* is one reason why these discussions are sometimes pulled from the forum. (Truly racist comments have appeared in the past and the mods have dealt with it very swiftly.) IMHO, Southie's support for the thread says something nice about the perceived maturity of the discussion so far. Or let's be honest, that's just how I WANT to interpret things. In life, what ultimately matters most is true intent and that intent as expressed and interpreted. On the forum, what matters most is keeping harmony. Personally, I see no harm in admitting you'd like to see more multicultural porn. Your preceding question was interesting and worthy of discussion. Perhaps even more so since we all seem to agree we don't have an answer!!It would be nice to have a forum that "looks like" the world at large, including all sorts of people. Understanding what attracts (or turn away) people from different cultural backgrounds might be the key to making that happen. And I'm not just saying that because it means more porn. :ange:More sweet, sweet porn. Precious, sweet porn! Some days, I'd like to see porn while I'm driving in traffic. I like to bring it on my player while I'm flying in planes. I'd really like to see porn played during some of the boring meetings I have to attend. No, I should DEMAND it at those meetings. We'll all file into the darkened room and take our places and the film (yes, it should be a film) will be installed on the projector. In the dark, the technician will have to fumble around for a bit. That will only raise the tension in the room. And then the hummm of the motor and the whirr of the strip as it settles in and the first few check frames flash upon the screen....and when that doesn't happen, I'll just have to close my eyes and imagine it.Oh. Oh that's right. Oh there's the good stuff. YEAH!!! (yay porn) What were we talking about?
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
QUOTE (neandernitz @ Sep 17 2008, 04:55 PM) I pretty much assumed it was because some countries are way less likely to slam you into a room with striped sunlight for certain things, and more videos come from there........ That, too.
QUOTE (cohort @ Sep 17 2008, 11:30 PM) It would be nice to have a forum that "looks like" the world at large, including all sorts of people. Understanding what attracts (or turn away) people from different cultural backgrounds might be the key to making that happen. And I'm not just saying that because it means more porn. :ange: lol I agree.
Just wanted to thank everybody who took the time to respond and who offered their deep insightful thoughts, greatly appreciated!
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
as a person of darker brown persuasion I've noticed this too but frankly I put it off to the fact that "whites" and asain people are the majority. Not to mention like ju-lissa said I think black people tend to shy away from things that would be seen as degrading (at least in a public forum. I've met many other people of color into bdsm, zoophilia, and other "degrading" fetishes that would never think of expressing it in public.) I also think that in general "african- americans" and I do mean americans, are a lot more private in their kinks than your average "white" american.Before I start rambling I'll cut myself off by saying I like this topic. It's something I've thought about often in the past and hope to do my small bit in rectifying the problem eventually.
I am bi-racial (half black)....to be perfectly honest, I have never really gave much thought to this...I suppose i'm not one to pay much attention to "color" though.Interesting topic...enjoyed reading the responses.
QUOTE (cohort @ Sep 18 2008, 08:30 AM)No worries, FG. I don't think anyone actually found it offensive. Ju-lissa was simply speculating that someone, somewhere, *might* find it offensive. For that to happen, they would have to misinterpret your whole post. While that's entirely possible, there is a risk that practically anything can be viewed as offensive if the reader places just the right emphasis on just the wrong word.Actually Co, what I did, was ask F-G to consider the perspective of his object.He did, and offered a courteous apology in reply, for which I thank him.To outline my own interpretive paradigm, I am a woman of non-english speaking background (a minority in my country) who has worked a lot with people of the same. This is an exercise I've used in group situations where there have been issues of race and/or sexism. The 'subject' is asked to consider the 'object's' perspective; to walk in their shoes. This often gives expression of assumptions which can then be identified as such. In my experience though, most reasonable people, those of good 'intent', end up ascribing feelings and emotions to the 'object' that they, themselves, would feel, and in the process, the object becomes humanized; a human being. In terms of group dynamic, this is a wonderful, sometimes emotional moment of 'harmonious' release, a commonality found and a difference celebrated. (It may be interesting to note that the objectifier need not originally consider the object with derision or hatred. Indeed, what they see as love, lust or desire, amongst other things, can work just the same.)Now, personally, I was offended by the expression of the statement. In terms of the objectification of the woman with whom I identified. Contextually, the addition of the racial signifier was problematic and thus gave rise to my stated opinion that it diminished the integrity of an otherwise, valid enquiry. There is no rancour or lingering animosity in this towards F-G, in fact I applaud his bravery in broaching a sensitive and complex subject. I offer only a heads-up perhaps, that there is nothing 'mere' about semantics in a textual world. Finally, I'll just add my own thanks especially to the women who have contributed to this discussion. I'm sure the boys appreciate the break from nasty old ju-lissa.
There is also a cultural background to consider, as South Florida stated, there is the geographical location of the people, but you should consider that there are negroid (that is the ethnic group's name according to my biology books, no offense intended) persons in Mexico (a real minority, since they are in the million or less number), France, Holland, Brazil, Cuba, and of course Africa, (hence Afro-American isn't applicable).Now, if you do a similar search, you will find that there are things you won't see a person from an ethnic group do, or do less than the norm, like finding a Nubian slave for a white master on a SM practice, or a Jewish domme in an SS suit, or a latino in a religious oriented fetish (one of the few things that people respects here south of rio grande is religion).So, if zoo is percieved as degrading, people will not engage on it publicly, if they have a historic trauma of being degraded, if it is openly condemned in their background, or else.
Please help keep this site free by visiting our site sponsors - click on the banned below and have a look at their sites.
I've found also that support and the desire to be publicized is also another thing to consider. I believe that somewhere there was a poll on the site asking about whether or not someone would willingly want to be in a zoo movie or picture etc with or without their face showing and I don't remember the exact number to the poll since I'm writing this without doing my research (naughty naughty) however I think that amongst those who answered it at the time a high number of them didn't necessarily want to be in a movie. they just like to partake within their own personal lives or just enjoy a good scene. Now that being said you also have to count the fact that not a large number of "black women" are either a- unwilling to be in the movie or picture session b- are geographically or demographically unable to acquire the means to put themselves out there.I personally am not a woman however I am indeed black and I know I've often wondered why this seems to be the case. So thanks for bringing the topic up
I've noticed that too, not just with beast but with porn across the board.Maybe it's just a larger number of people willing to actually do something and be photographed or videoed?
QUOTE (ju-lissa @ Sep 18 2008, 01:23 PM) Now, personally, I was offended by the expression of the statement. In terms of the objectification of the woman with whom I identified. This is really interesting to me, and if you don't mind, I'd like to explore this.You're not mean, julissa... and if your prior status as a language minority has left you offended by something that was said to someone else - then it would be really good to understand where you're coming from.Plus... I think the topic is inherently valuable. Likewise, if MissDane and StrangeDesire would like to jump in, I'd love to hear more of their perspective. After all, they've got the skin tone that got us started. Personally, I think negative reactions were automatically triggered by the thread title and the economic status inquiry. Once you say "I don't mean to sound (insert anything here)", that's immediately where people's minds go. Introducing economic status jumps right into class issues and you've got race and class and.... "sexy" has left the building at that point. "I don't mean to be sexist... but aren't women pretty?" You just can't salvage a comment once you start it off on the wrong foot.But okay, you said the last line was the offensive one, and so that's what I really want to understand. He wanted to see a "beautiful black woman" (his words) having sex with a dog. Granted - on any other site, the notion of bestiality would be a presumed insult. But not here.As I type this, "Hardcore Farm Fucking" is hovering at the top of the page... so some level of graphic language and kink-acceptance is presumed. "Yay, porn!" But anyway, that leaves me wondering if you were offended because of what he wanted to see (maybe, but I presume not), the words he used to express those feelings... or the fact that he chose to express those feelings publicly (again, I hope not).So it comes down to just the words... but not the intent or the context? I'd like to appreciate your take on the "objectification". While there are some (many) on the forum here who desire objectification, there are some (also many) who do not. Knowing the difference is very important. But when someone isn't addressing anyone specifically... I think the thread simply belongs in requests, and that's the end of it. The requests section is really worth a browse, by the way. The creativity is impressive. The only two I haven't seen are: Hey, I want to see a one-legged guy screwing a donkey. Well *I* want to see five emu having their way with a bound woman. etc, etc... If we take these in the same spirit as this thread, are they just as offensive?http://www.beastforum.com/index.php?showtopic=134538http://www.beastforum.com/index.php?showtopic=99257http://www.beastforum.com/index.php?showtopic=119102"Yay, porn!" A big thank you to everyone for indulging me again.
QUOTE (StrangeDesire @ Sep 18 2008, 02:46 AM) I think black people tend to shy away from things that would be seen as degrading (at least in a public forum. I've met many other people of color into bdsm, zoophilia, and other "degrading" fetishes that would never think of expressing it in public.) I also think that in general "african- americans" and I do mean americans, are a lot more private in their kinks than your average "white" american.Before I start rambling I'll cut myself off by saying I.... Please don't cut yourself off. Why do you think things are this way? A black (neither African nor American) friend of mine said that even though he wasn't from this culture, he always felt like he was on display. ... that he was both responsible for and affected by the perception of an entire race of people. I'd like to say I'm exaggerating, but I'm not.He said that anytime something bad was in the press about someone else, he felt it. And anytime he experienced success or failure, he felt like the champion or the shame of everyone else. If that wasn't interesting enough, his son is about 30 years younger and experienced none of these feelings at all.We both felt that it was a cultural/generational thing, and as stereotypes begin to shift and fade, the gut reaction that everyone is responsible for everyone else's reputation is also going to fade. While I don't know if anyone else in the world feels that way, if they did, that might also explain a reluctance to admit to or display uncommon behavior such as kinks in public. I'm definitely not going to raise that question outside the forum. But what do you think?
You know I never really gave much thought into the whole "degrading" notion of it now that ju-lissa brings it up. Given the rough history [SPAM] in general, regardless of which country, have often gone through in the past (and sadly still existing in some parts of the world) I can see and understand how someone from a particular group may be reluctant to participate in something they may consider "degrading".And dr Kaninov brings up a good point also regarding that.
This is a great thread Furious_George, I wondered some of the same things All I know is the look is priceless when you see that first glimpse of a horses penis whether your Black, White, Latino or whatever lol
QUOTE (bootylover @ Sep 19 2008, 05:20 AM) All I know is the look is priceless when you see that first glimpse of a horses penis whether your Black, White, Latino or whatever lol Got that right!
Cohort said: This is really interesting to me, and if you don't mind, I'd like to explore this.Ju-lissa: Okay, I'll indulge.Cohort: You're not mean, julissa... and if your prior status as a language minority has left you offended by something that was said to someone else - then it would be really good to understand where you're coming from.Ju-lissa: Lest anyone else be confused or make assumptions of my ethnicity, the term 'non-english speaking background' refers to a diverse group of people of differing cultural and ethnic origins, in relation to the host majority. The attainment of the majority language does not alter that 'status'. I am a woman from an ethnic and cultural minority, always have been, always will be. Does that give me a different perspective on ethnic minority issues from say, an anglo-saxon male in an anglo-saxon majority? Of course it does. As does my gender, education, study in the field and work in the sector.Can someone be offended by something said to someone else, that is to say, not specifically directed at them? Yes again, and for any number of reasons and not only what was said, who said it and to whom. Expressions of concepts can offend. For instance militarist nationalism, religious fundamentalism...More relevantly, the statement was made in a public arena. It was said to all of us.Cohort: Plus... I think the topic is inherently valuable. heart.gifLikewise, if MissDane and StrangeDesire would like to jump in, I'd love to hear more of their perspective. After all, they've got the skin tone that got us started. wub.gif Ju-lissa: Personally, I'd love to hear more from them too, as I would love to hear more from Iratnik and especially any black women. Cohort might also like, as a number of us already has, to outline his own interpretive paradigm.The 'skin tone' however that got us started was actually white.Cohort: Personally, I think negative reactions were automatically triggered by the thread title and the economic status inquiry. Once you say "I don't mean to sound (insert anything here)", that's immediately where people's minds go. Introducing economic status jumps right into class issues and you've got race and class and.... "sexy" has left the building at that point. sad.gif"I don't mean to be sexist... but aren't women pretty?" blink.gif You just can't salvage a comment once you start it off on the wrong foot.Ju-lissa: Have any of the reactions really been 'negative'? Negative to what? Why the value judgement and creation of the dichotomy? Otherwise, I agree it's a terrible opening gambit, reminiscent of the old "I'm not homophobic, but..." or one I've heard more times than I can count "I've got nothing against lesbians...but why do you hate men?" As to socio-economics, let’s not be coy about it, exploitation occurs in the porn industry throughout the world. If a woman chooses to engage, is the proposition unreasonable that her socio-economic status may have been a factor in her decision? No. Nor is the supposition that in some parts of the world certain cultural ethnicities may be over-represented in the lower socio-economic strata. Cohort: But okay, you said the last line was the offensive one, and so that's what I really want to understand. He wanted to see a "beautiful black woman" (his words) having sex with a dog. Granted - on any other site, the notion of bestiality would be a presumed insult. But not here.Ju-lissa: Selective quote. What he actually said, in entirety, was..."Why is it that most of the active zoo's we see here or any other beasty site are almost always white? I don't have anything against that or anything, I'm just making a harmless observation.Even on the amateur non-commercial sites you rarely see minorities taking part in bestiality.I personally would love to see a beautiful black woman being pounded by a large horny dog"Okay, first sentence = valid inquiry.Next statement = he has no problem with white people doing it.Second paragraph = a proposition, the veracity of which has been challengedLast = the expression of a desire (the only 'feeling', by the way, of His) to see a beautiful (He attributes that quality) racially identified, gender specified 'other' (in relation to Him) being 'pounded' (like meat or a pavement could be) by a large (imbuement of power from the viewer) horny (attributed potency, again from the viewer) dog.Can you see the inherent imbalance here? The male contrives the situation for the fulfilment of his desire. Is 'she' recognized as anything but an object within it? He, it is implied, has the sentience to experience love; the dog has the sentience to experience sexual arousal. 'She' just gets "pounded".Is it that hard to understand, given the interpretive paradigm that I outlined in an earlier post why I, as a woman, might object to that representation? That I might identify with the woman? I daresay if I was a man I might well identify with the viewer. Cohort: As I type this, "Hardcore Farm Fucking" is hovering at the top of the page... so some level of graphic language and kink-acceptance is presumed. smile.gif "Yay, porn!" unsure.gifBut anyway, that leaves me wondering if you were offended because of what he wanted to see (maybe, but I presume not), the words he used to express those feelings... or the fact that he chose to express those feelings publicly (again, I hope not).So it comes down to just the words... but not the intent or the context? eusa_think.gifJu-lissa: Firstly I will state, as I have elsewhere on this forum, as have others, that I do not like the banner. Beaker responded that it was not a permanent addition and I, and other people expressed our gladness.As to the second paragraph of this selection: no; yes; and no, with the caveat that the only feeling (singular) he expressed, as I stated above, was his desire. If he had expressed that desire the way you have chosen to paraphrase or revise what he has said in multiple posts, like for instance "I would like to see more multi-racial porn" or even "I would love to see a beautiful black woman having sex with a large horny dog", I personally would not have cared.Even in the second example, 'having', owning or possessing anything, engaging with, makes her sentient rather than just an unfeeling object. She becomes capable of taking an action (having sex), rather than the object of another’s action (pounded).It does come down to semantics and a point I made in an earlier post that there is nothing 'mere' about it. Context is all-important, as I alluded to in the sentence following your partial quote, which I now offer in full:"Now, personally, I was offended by the expression of the statement. In terms of the objectification of the woman with whom I identified. Contextually, the addition of the racial signifier was problematic and thus gave rise to my stated opinion that it diminished the integrity of an otherwise, valid enquiry."For clarification: expression of the statement = way the statement was expressed (syntax, choice of words)problematic=gives rise to assumptions.We've dealt with intent on earlier posts. There was none.Cohort: I'd like to appreciate your take on the "objectification". While there are some (many) on the forum here who desire objectification, there are some (also many) who do not. Knowing the difference is very important. But when someone isn't addressing anyone specifically... I think the thread simply belongs in requests, and that's the end of it. The requests section is really worth a browse, by the way. The creativity is impressive. The only two I haven't seen are: Hey, I want to see a one-legged guy screwing a donkey. Well *I* want to see five emu having their way with a bound woman. etc, etc... wink.gifIf we take these in the same spirit as this thread, are they just as offensive?http://www.beastforum.com/index.php?showtopic=134538http://www.beastforum.com/index.php?showtopic=99257http://www.beastforum.com/index.php?showtopic=119102Ju-lissa: I think you’re confusing the term. We’re not talking about people who desire to be treated as an object, or even be seen as one. Simple thing is, that is their choice. Rather, objectification in the semiotic sense is the process in which a subject, the viewer, in constructing and externalising an object, creates a particular power relationship over it. The object has no choice, as I’ve said, no ‘sentience’ (capacity to feel/experience) no humanity and is assumed to exist solely for the purpose of the viewer.I accept that these are not easy concepts either to grasp or to explain.As to the subject of what's offensive or to whom, it depends on the person. We all get offended and for any number of reasons. I'm offended when someone stands on my shoe in a queue. I'm offended when after carefully choosing my words, I construe someone misrepresenting them. Most of the time it's a fleeting emotion. I can be offended by what I perceive as attacks on my person, beliefs, politics, sexual persuasion... As one grows older, one hears them all, and in truth I generally just roll my eyes, and think here we go again. As I won’t be around to continue this discussion, I’ll wish all, luck with further exploration of the subject. A big thank you to everyone for indulging me again. biggrin.gif wub.gif wub.gif
I'm sorry that you are stepping out, but as nuance is layered upon nuance, I think we've probably exceeded what can be accomplished at this point in time.To me, it seems that the source of your offense has shifted from "the last line" of his post, to a host of other interpretational issues... some of those are unique to you, some are presumed to exist with others, and as you say, ultimately "It does come down to semantics".I think you've done a superb job of analyzing your reaction to his post. And was his request awkwardly worded? Sure. And with that awkwardness in mind, perhaps I should apologize for my own posts... for in pressing some of these questions it is clear that you (and perhaps others) have become annoyed with this discussion. That certainly wasn't my intent. Perhaps I should say more on that?You've made the point a few times that you are "a woman from an ethnic and cultural minority, always have been, always will be. Does that give me a different perspective on ethnic minority issues ... Of course it does." ....and part of me is concluding that this instance is largely a gender issue. I rarely have a reason to mention that I'm a man from an ethnic and cultural minority, but mention it now since I have yet been unable to take offense from the movie that FG says he would like to see. Would I consider that perspective be relevant if I had a dark skin tone? Without question. Since I don't, I didn't dare to presume my cultural minority status meant anything at all in this discussion. Does it excuse me if I have "stepped on your toes" or "caused you to roll your eyes"? Again, no. So I apologize for that.My concern, and the only reason I bothered to voice an opinion, is that we have to allow a few awkward moments in order to begin a conversation. Otherwise, we risk extracting apologies, and shutting down conversation. I deal with a lot of cross-cultural interaction every day. When we choose to over-correct, the result is a lack of communication and subsequent misunderstanding. I think that your responses and carefully-worded explanations have done some good in preventing that from happening. I think others will now feel more comfortable expressing (and explaining) dislike in the future.And.... I really don't think I have anything more to add to this thread (if I had anything to add at all) Again, I thank you for your patience and "indulgences".
QUOTE Can you see the inherent imbalance here? The male contrives the situation for the fulfilment of his desire. Is 'she' recognized as anything but an object within it? He, it is implied, has the sentience to experience love; the dog has the sentience to experience sexual arousal. 'She' just gets "pounded".It is porn though, pretty much all involved are objectified... regardless what genders and what species are involved. For example, lets say instead of what he said, it was something like, "I personally would love to see a beautiful black dane being pounded by a guy with a huge cock". I could easily say I take offense to guys always being portrayed as some sex crazed lusting beast. There is objectification all the time when talking about porn, but it isn't really one-sided.
Perhaps I was a bit too blunt with how I worded this post, but ju-lissa if you are under the impression that I somehow see a woman or anyone else as little more than a sexual object then you are sadly mistaking. Sometimes when we read the writings of others we interpret their meaning differently than what the author intended.
Cohort, thank you, but no apologies are necessary. It was a spirited and worthy exchange (though it might be just us thinking it. ) The truth is, I'm heading away in a couple of days and someone has left me with the packing for two and organization of all the visas etc., so the preparation of any more semiotic analysis has to give way to other ponderables like how many pairs of knickers we should take. *********************************** Yes Gryph , you could take offence though I'd suggest that context, how and where the statement appeared in relation to others, could well strengthen your argument when explaining your reaction. And as a matter of interest, the 'object' in your example is the Dane.( Good Goddess, the woman can't help herself.)*********************************** Comfy knickers or sexy knickers? *********************************** Furious_George, I'm always glad to hear that a person respects women. When I was framing my response to Cohort's, I was mindful of your connection to the subject and careful, I thought, to address the statements 'as published', as propositions under semiotic analysis. Cohort's inquiries were addressed to me personally which is why I framed my theoretical and subjective analysis in dialogue form. However, on reflection, I can easily see where you might feel unfairly focussed upon and I apologize for my insensitivity. (Blame Cohort ) So a big yes to your last statement, mea culpa. (Actually authorial intent is a fascinating avenue of inquiry. In terms of creative writing, Shakespeare's plays have been interpreted in so many ways that dear old Will could never have imagined, let alone intended; just as all sorts of subtleties and meaning are lost to us as modern audiences of someone like Tolstoy. Ah, stuff em, serve the old codgers right.*********************************** And on that note, having offended lovers of the classics everywhere, I'll return to my packing. No, stuff it. I just won't take any knickers.
Well my interpretation is a bit different then what you described earlier. When I think of the dane (or woman) being "pounded", I dont think she is merely the "object of another's action". The word "pounded", just describes the type of sex. I would see her involved, encouraging, and enjoying herself... certainly not an unfeeling object. The male gets the same basic feelings, yes he is the "giver" and they are engauging in rough sex, but they are both being portrayed in a way that focuses purely on the act and enjoyment of sex.However, I can see how without actually saying the female was horny, one could fill in something else... lack of enjoyment, submission, etc. The example I gave actually doesn't describe the male as horny... it is just assumed because why else would he be having sex, pounding? "Horny", is added in by default for guys... I guess I add it in for females as well.Oh, and while we are on this topic, id say take the sexy knickers.
Okay, I just couldn't resist putting my 2 cents in.After giving it some thought I've hit upon a reason why you may not see too many Aboriginal Australians or Torres Straight Islanders in the pornography world in general and the beast section in particular. Partly, I believe that the problem is socio-economic - unfortunately it is a reality that aboriginals in Australia are generally in the lower socio-economic brackets, and therefore their access is limited.The other contributing factor I believe may be causing the issue is cultural. Some aboriginal [SPAM] (keep in mind there is upwards of 400 different nations) believe that images of deceased people, and even speaking their name, can prevent the deceased from reaching the afterlife/rest peacefully etc. etc. This is shown in main stream society with warnings being posted on most TV programs which feature aboriginals as "please be advised that the following ... may contain images of people who have passed on. Viewer discretion is advised." It is also shown when the government regularly recalls promotional material like posters and pamphlets which show images of the deceased when they are informed that the person has died.Therefore, in my thinking, this cultural idea/belief/taboo of showing images of the dead may have crossed over on to the internet and porn, because really - how can you recall porn from the internet?I hope this made sense and didn't come off as racist or judgemental, I'm simply trying to convey very broard ideas into a few short paragraphs.
I've just read this thread for the 1st time ...................................................................................................... ......................................................................................................................................................................................................and my head hurts!!!!
Recently I remembered watching a while ago some porn industry Oscars, they awarded the success (commercial) of films, and there a negroid (again biology book, no racist assumptions intended) actress stated she was very happy because interracial sub genre was the fastest growing specialty, and on her point of view, that meant people were finding other races sexy. Which brings us to the point, is this sexual objectification or is this the beginning of tolerance?It all depends on the light you see things with I think.
Thanks, b p , didn't know that. Another perspective....
Last modified on May 20th, 2012 | Zoodestiny.com | © 2003-2005 - All Rights Reserved