This sort of thing makes me angry
Spam letter received this morning: "You would never have to travel south if you had a bigger shaft."
The title intrigued me. Having a bigger dick would mean that I wouldn't have to travel south? But what is it about having a small dick that makes me have to go anywhere; any why south specifically?
I'm a little slow in the mornings I guess.
So I opened the letter to see if there was any sort of clarification.
The message read: "Want to please your woman with your penis not your tongue? Then head for your dream and try our enlargement program today to amaze your girlfriend in a few months."
Now of course porn and sex ads are both full of stereotypes and sexism, and to a certain extent you have to just turn off the critical part of your brain when you get in the porn mood because otherwise you'll soon go crazy.
But even so, sometimes the blatant stupidity and sexism and narrow-mindedness of some of this stuff is just outrageous.
So this ad equates having a small penis -- something that in and of itself apparently means you are not capable of being especially attractive as a sexual being -- with having to engage in sexual activities that are distasteful or disinteresting to you'; apparently you don't have anything 'better' to offer, so you have to do what you can to please women or you won't get laid at all.
Any sexual satisfaction experienced by lesbians is, apparently, entirely illusory, or at best only the result of their not knowing how good things could really be if only they had a big dick inside of them.
This ad just strikes me as part and parcel with that last one I posted for the Fleshlight, wherein they equated having to deal with another person as a 'hassle', which could be avoided by just fucking their particular brand of sex toy. In both of these ads the point seems to be that getting real women (hetero-normativity abounds throughout porn . . . at least when it comes to men. Women on the other hand are some kind of prudish freaks if they aren't unabashedly bisexual) to do the things you want them to is just a chore on one end of the self-confidence scale, or an act of total desperation on the other.
And what bothers me is not that someone would think this way -- there is room for all kinds of thought in the world -- but that enough people seem to think this way that someone actually crafts national advertising campaigns with an eye towards targeting this sort of thinker.
I'd like to please 'my' woman with my penis, certainly. But I'd also like to please her with my tongue too, and my fingers . . . or toes, or any other part of my body we could figure out a way to use for that purpose.
I hate to be didactic here, but you can't have sex with someone without having a relationship with that person. Sex IS a way of relating, and while it may be the only way you're relating to that person at that moment, it's still relating, and that means the two, or three, or four, or more of you have a relationship. Relationships can be difficult and exasperating and annoying, but they aren't avoidable unless you just want to spend all of your time alone on a desert island somewhere.
So it just makes me angry that anyone would promote the idea that sex should just be something that someone else does in order to please you, and that anything that may be required of you in return is a 'hassle' or something that you'd gladly not have to do if you could avoid it.
ahhh . . . I'm just ranting here and I'm not articulating my thoughts very clearly, but I'm just disturbed.
Oh well.
The title intrigued me. Having a bigger dick would mean that I wouldn't have to travel south? But what is it about having a small dick that makes me have to go anywhere; any why south specifically?
I'm a little slow in the mornings I guess.
So I opened the letter to see if there was any sort of clarification.
The message read: "Want to please your woman with your penis not your tongue? Then head for your dream and try our enlargement program today to amaze your girlfriend in a few months."
Now of course porn and sex ads are both full of stereotypes and sexism, and to a certain extent you have to just turn off the critical part of your brain when you get in the porn mood because otherwise you'll soon go crazy.
But even so, sometimes the blatant stupidity and sexism and narrow-mindedness of some of this stuff is just outrageous.
So this ad equates having a small penis -- something that in and of itself apparently means you are not capable of being especially attractive as a sexual being -- with having to engage in sexual activities that are distasteful or disinteresting to you'; apparently you don't have anything 'better' to offer, so you have to do what you can to please women or you won't get laid at all.
Any sexual satisfaction experienced by lesbians is, apparently, entirely illusory, or at best only the result of their not knowing how good things could really be if only they had a big dick inside of them.
This ad just strikes me as part and parcel with that last one I posted for the Fleshlight, wherein they equated having to deal with another person as a 'hassle', which could be avoided by just fucking their particular brand of sex toy. In both of these ads the point seems to be that getting real women (hetero-normativity abounds throughout porn . . . at least when it comes to men. Women on the other hand are some kind of prudish freaks if they aren't unabashedly bisexual) to do the things you want them to is just a chore on one end of the self-confidence scale, or an act of total desperation on the other.
And what bothers me is not that someone would think this way -- there is room for all kinds of thought in the world -- but that enough people seem to think this way that someone actually crafts national advertising campaigns with an eye towards targeting this sort of thinker.
I'd like to please 'my' woman with my penis, certainly. But I'd also like to please her with my tongue too, and my fingers . . . or toes, or any other part of my body we could figure out a way to use for that purpose.
I hate to be didactic here, but you can't have sex with someone without having a relationship with that person. Sex IS a way of relating, and while it may be the only way you're relating to that person at that moment, it's still relating, and that means the two, or three, or four, or more of you have a relationship. Relationships can be difficult and exasperating and annoying, but they aren't avoidable unless you just want to spend all of your time alone on a desert island somewhere.
So it just makes me angry that anyone would promote the idea that sex should just be something that someone else does in order to please you, and that anything that may be required of you in return is a 'hassle' or something that you'd gladly not have to do if you could avoid it.
ahhh . . . I'm just ranting here and I'm not articulating my thoughts very clearly, but I'm just disturbed.
Oh well.