Pervasively across all cultures whether we accept it or not , not only is the penis 'demonised' but it is a subset of the inbuilt bias we have around males. ... So if wanting to un-demonise the penis there's a lot more work to be done.
Changes over the last generation or two can be welcomed for many reasons, but I believe that the idea of loving your neighbor as yourself includes all your neighbors and all your self. Can we look at how people exercise power as potentially both "empowerment" or "toxic sexuality" despite their gender? Can we look at sexuality as a gift for both penis and vagina holders? Can we check our white, cisgender and other culturally dominant privileges at the door and recognize we have so much to learn from the outsiders and pioneers who not only challenge us but show us vitality and transformed frameworks for new realities?
Maybe it's not about undemonizing the penis in general, but humbly requesting to be undemonized ourself as individuals and men while also reflecting how we've thrown our weight and penises around enough historically to need to undemonize a lot of our world views.
Its erotic when a woman masturbates, and its disgusting when a man does - Sharon Stone masturbated in the bath tub in the movie "Shiver". This was considered erotic and artistic; can't say any movie scene where a man masturbates is considered anything but porn...Theres Something about Mary, American pie, just two films with guys wanking, there are many more. Just because you only remember one scene does not mean its a universal fact.
A gentle correction -- the movie mentioned with Sharon Stone is "Sliver" and it is a thriller by my weak recollection of it. I bring this up for the people here who may want to see Sharon Stone getting happy and they may get frustrated looking for a movie called "Shiver". If you look up the movie "Tremors" for masturbatory content you will be thwarted as well.
The other two movies brought up here that depict guys getting off are comedies, even though not everyone would consider them funny. I happen to love "There's Something About Mary" but my lady thought it was ridiculous when I brought it home for her to watch. "American Pie" seems so sophomoric and all I've seen of it are the trailers and I'll never waste my time there. And now how many sequels are there to "Pie"? I'd love a sequel to "Mary" because I feel that the Farelly brothers are unmatched in brotherly farce production.
I feel like a director can get away with more risque content when the themes are less farcical. It would be refreshing to see a serious masculine self-love scene but I'm not sure how a director could get an actor to pull it off without it turning sleazy. Yes, I meant to do that. Trying to picture a guy in a tub surrounded by candles and mood music as the camera zooms in on his face and he contorts into orgasmic bliss just isn't going to work. Can any here remember a movie where such a scene was attempted and it didn't turn into something weird?
We would all get along better if comments about someone's memory were put in the suggestion box with a little more sensitivity, regardless of whether that memory is focused on fingering or the movie director's thematic intent.
The post below contradicts itself halfway through, or is this more being half-sarcastic and I'm not catching it?
It's pointing out the contradiction of their beliefs. Christians do believe the human body (including the penis) is the ultimate creation. That belief is well supported in the Bible. The Bible goes on to say the human body is good, fearfully and wonderful made, and the temple of the Set-apart Spirit. Christians believe this as well.
But they turn around (away from scripture) and say that the human body is the cause of lust -- the Bible says lust comes from within -- not from something you see. It's you; not what you see.
They say, the human body is shameful and obscene (must be kept covered).
They frequently quote the passage that says to be modestly dressed -- pretending that it means to be well-covered. That passage sets modesty in opposition to wearing fancy clothing, fancy jewelry, and having fancy hairdos. Nude, would be as modest as someone could get.
All Christians
When discussing human experience, it is essentially never correct to use the word, 'All,' in a literal sense. When talking about humans, there are almost always exceptions. Thus, when someone says, 'All,' in reference to human experience, it's proper to interpret that as meaning most or the vast majority.
Although there are Christians who are nudists, the vast majority of Christians see the human body as being shameful and obscene and the primary cause of lust, even though the Bible, itself, contradicts that view of the human body.
Amazing how well you cut straight to the point and completely dismantle these mind boggling perspectivesYou do realise this website is possibly the most visible form of toxic masculinity. Have you considered the reason why no women post on this site, have you consider why there are a fewer women interested in naturism in general?The cock waving brigade often cite that they are the new nudism and old nudism is dying. Thats toxic masculinity, they want their rights to supersede everyone elses.The only way to combat that and stop the negative bias is to call it out where you can.
I feel like a director can get away with more risque content when the themes are less farcical. It would be refreshing to see a serious masculine self-love scene but I'm not sure how a director could get an actor to pull it off without it turning sleazy. Yes, I meant to do that. Trying to picture a guy in a tub surrounded by candles and mood music as the camera zooms in on his face and he contorts into orgasmic bliss just isn't going to work. Can any here remember a movie where such a scene was attempted and it didn't turn into something weird?
Not with the tub and candles but I thought Fast Times at Ridgemont High pulled it off pretty well. That scene even had the mood music.
You say that regarding the penis, that in the Bible, "There is an entire book about joys and pleasures of extra-marital oral sex." I have to challenge that. I assume that you are referring to the Song of Solomon. 2:3, 4:16 and 5:1 may refer to oral sex, but there is no suggestion that this activity is extra-marital.
The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry puts it this way:
The book, Song of Solomon, is a love poem between a husband and wifethe book definitely encourages a husband and wife to enjoy the sexual pleasures of one another. It is in this beautiful book that two Scriptures appear which may shed light on the issue of oral sex
Notice in Song 2:3 that it says, . . . and his fruit was sweet to my taste. Obviously this involves very intimate experience. Tasting one another can have a wide variety of applications. It appears that this is a veiled way of alluding to oral sex. Furthermore, if we look at Song 7:8 we read, I said, I will climb the palm tree. I will take hold of its fruit stalks. Oh, may your breasts be like clusters of the vine. Apparently, fondling of the breasts is meant here. If such enjoyment of the body is intended and since tasting (which involves the mouth) is part of that expression, it would seem safe to say that oral sex is permissible.
As always on this site for some the talk about body parts always devolves into sex. And you wonder why others react to your approach they way they do
Amazing how its more than likely they the men talking about sex are the ones not getting any.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!