. . . . . entries for 26.9.09 . . . . .
I also don't get how any affiliation with this flatters Anscombe - not in that Shivani was wrong, necessarily, but holy cow, that radio host is a jerk. Transparently, utterly, and abrasively. I personally find Anscombe to be quite a lot less offensive, generally speaking; for their own sakes, they ought not seek allies in characters like that host.
The first amendment discussion, especially, was terrible. No, the first amendment does not "require" porn films to be screened on college campuses - but to withhold state or federal funding from a school because it screens graphic material does seem to violate that text to me. To railroad one's opponent does one no favors amongst the thinking undecided set - though I guess that's a small set, all things considered.
I took a (surprisingly graphic, though I guess it shouldn't have been any great shock) look at the website of the "enemy" speaker's employer, Digital Playground, and it sure as hell does not look like it was designed "by women, for women." The graphic design clearly caters to men (black and red? a charging racehorse? come on), and sexually overcharged men at that - serious sensory overload on all fronts. So she was being pretty disingenuous, I think.
Man, the porn industry. If I think about it too much, I confess it makes me somewhat ill. There's an infidelity to it, an objectification and lack of art and feeling to it, that I would rather not incorporate into my conception of any person's psyche. Not that I've never touched it myself - better to admit to that, as I skulk aloud. Suffice it to say I haven't made a habit of that sort of morbidly curious behavior.
I'd like to have fMRI maps, I suppose, of where the "masturbating to porn" neuron fire ends and the "making love to one's partner" fire begins. It would be a tremendous relief to me if they were very far removed from one another, almost completely discrete; I would fear less, for myself or any woman, the prospect of comparison - of being seen through the same lens as some stage-lit, made-up professional with her legs open for the camera. She is not whole there, on the screen. I hope those who have seen her do not also eviscerate the people they're with, reducing them to surfaces and textures without feeling or content.
I don't think I do, which at least gives me hope that others don't, either. That, my social psych reading informs me, is quite the leap of cognition: to believe that others think and feel just as intelligently and empathetically as one's self - and to realize, also, that one's self isn't extraordinarily intelligent or empathetic in the first place. We're all operating on similar equipment. If we give ourselves the benefit of knowing our inner workings, then others assuredly deserve the benefit of the doubt.
It's a shame that my social psych reading can't tell my deeper brain structures that. My cortex gets it, but whatever turns my stomach doesn't.
http://blog.robbiecooper.org/2009/05/17/the-neuroscience-of-porn/
Btw, finding this (and figuring out what this whole university porn screening scandal was) was made very difficult by rule 34 - couldn't google "fmri porn", couldn't google "university of maryland porn", etc... I had to be more creative with my search queries.
I guess there's no way to do a controlled study involving commitment or "love," but . . . arrrrgh.
But I still feel kind of sick to my stomach and likely to cry.
come home?
.:people:.
{ting}
she looks like the real thing
{mari}
out and about
[kelsey]
THIS IS AMERICA
{yianni}
stop being depressed
{alisa}
other
[shannon]
close and far
{frank}
islands where no islands should go
[cassie]
eating knowledge
{colin}
my dm
[emily]
shoulder to the wheel
[brian]
nostalgic for fantasy
[nicole]
industry insider
{elle}
angry enviro
[matt]
never heard of miyazaki
[pirate dan]
are you reading this?
[olga]
distracted
[messiah dan]
messiah/believer
{max}
approach focus
[natalie]
wait a minute
[susan]
solitude
{greg}
manbeargreg
.:past:.
April 2002
May 2002
June 2002
July 2002
August 2002
September 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002
January 2003
February 2003
March 2003
April 2003
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
November 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
June 2012
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
.:skin:.
turtles! turtles! by araglas
(heavily modified by yours truly)