I happened to be in a bar, in Seoul, with my very good friend Tristan, and his lovely girlfriend Danielle, who, very kindly, had bought him a copy of this year’s ‘Sports Illustrated - Swimsuit Edition’, an item he vowed to treasure until his dying day - and he meant it – he even kept the cellophane wrapper, whilst telling of previous editions he lovingly owns and enjoys.
The girls inside were, of course, fantastically beautiful, gorgeously photographed and wearing very little. I swear bikinis are getting smaller, which from my point of view is no bad thing.
However, the point of my article today is not to drool over bikini-clad women, though the thought is tempting, it about hardcore pornography vs. suggestive photography, like that in Tristan’s magazine. When I say hardcore, I mean explicit, and when I say explicit, I mean naked, with NOTHING left to the imagination.
Before I go any further into what could be an embarrassing diatribe, I’d like to point out one thing. Every single male I know has looked at pornography. I have never, ever, met a guy who, when the conversation turned that way, has denied ever looking at pictures or videos of people having sex. In short, guys anyway, have all done it, and will continue to do it.
The internet now makes it even easier to view nakedness, and I must say, I’m quite happy about that. Going into a shop as an awkward young adult to buy a jazz mag was nothing short of painful.
My entire point here is this - Tristan thinks that the ‘Sports Illustrated’s Swimsuit Edition’ is the very epitome of eroticism. I disagree, I have to say that I would much prefer to watch very, very naked Russian lesbians having at it, than look at girls in bikinis in a magazine, however pleasant that may be. Nakedness, to me anyway, is far more erotic than bikinis.
He has vowed to comment on this article, so Tristan, over to you – defend thyself.
When I was a young lad growing up in Toronto, each year my elementary school would hold a fundraiser via students selling magazine subscriptions. Every year my parents would agree to buy me a years subscription to 'Sports Illustrated.' A fantastic publication with expert insight and remarkable photography on a wide variety of professional and amateur sports in North America (although in my opinion they could cover Hockey more thoroughly). Once a year the magazine published a 'swimsuit edition' featuring the world's top models posed in very little coverings on exotic beaches all over the world. No embarrassing adventures into adult shops, the magazine came right to my door. Simply put the publication is NOT pornography, it is eroticism. Stimulation is completely objective. Sexuality, while very culturally guided, is still based on personal emotion and self satisfaction. I think Paul is misusing the word eroticism and confusing the function of mediums and their effect on the human sensorium.
ReplyDeleteFirst let's tackle the meaning of eroticism. Paul claims that I revere the 'swimsuit edition' as the epitome of eroticism, in many ways I do. Erotica, from the greek 'Eros' - 'desire' is define as sexual literature or imagery 'without open visualization of genital interaction.' Pornography, which Paul obviously fancies over eroticism, is defined as, 'the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick and intense emotional reaction.' This difference separates Eroticism from commercial pornography. I enjoy internet video pornography like any other person does, although usually obscene in it's depravity, it functions in the intended manner just as the definition states, a quick and intense emotional reaction. Erotica, on the other hand has an aspiration of 'high art', imagery intended to induce imagination, thought and opinion. As useful as watching 'Russian Incest 9' on spankwire.com might be on a lonely night, you can't even begin to compare it to the enduring classic image of the human form. Just a few weeks back Paul himself asked me if I'd like to go the Seoul's Rodin exhibit. Is 'The Thinker' considered eroticism? A chiseled naked man in a position that invokes thought.
A great Canadian thinker once said 'The Medium is the Message.' The idea here is that each medium produces a different message or effect on the human senses. You don't look at the painting the same way that you read a book, and you don't watch 'Nippon Sluts' the same way you look at an erotic photograph. Internet and print are very different mediums, they produce very different effects. To me eroticism is about sexual imagination and creating personally arousing situations in your mind. Explicit pornography like 'Forced Lactation 9' doesn't allow this, it creates the situation for you, naked people doing the pee-in-vag-ee. Porno is the lazy man's eroticism.
Pornography is just fine with me, but don't knock my completely objective image of what eroticism is. KFC taste great, but Chicken Cordon Bleu is better. I will continue to watch web porno for what it is, and I will continue to enjoy the 'Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition' for what it is in my opinion, the epitome of eroticism.
Tristan, Sports Illustrated carries little cultural value or significance to UK people. The sports it covers are rarely of interest to us, both because they are not major sports in the UK, and because they occur thousands of miles away. Even the publication itself is little-known. I appreciate this magazine, and its contents, are dear to your heart, and whilst I don’t have a periodical that has nostalgic or sentimental status for me, I do have sports TV shows, and radio shows, that I deeply love, having listened to or watched them for years and years. The BBC’s long-running flagship football shows ‘Match of the Day’ and ‘Football Focus’ for example, are ones I always try to watch, and would feel offended and hurt were they attacked by ‘outsiders’, or somehow taken away.
ReplyDeleteI feel you must take on board, when comparing explicitness to suggestiveness, or nakedness to part-nakedness, as we are here, the part that nostalgia and sentiment play in your object you’ve chosen to use as your yardstick. I have no axe to grind with Sports Illustrated, nor its contents, I know little about either if I’m honest, but the fact for me remains the same, and I apologise to any women reading this, I don’t mean to reduce you all to objects of sexual desire…the fact remains that I would still, on any given day, rather look at a completely naked woman, than a partially clothed one, whether that were photographs, or in the flesh, if I needed or wanted to be aroused. Erotica and pornography serve one purpose – sexual arousal. If I’m alone (sorry Mum) then it’s full on nudity for me every time. If I’m not alone, then I need no artificial stimuli, though it’s sometimes fun of course!
There are no other times when I would like to be sexually aroused – I’m either masturbating alone (again, sorry Mum), or having sex, and quite frankly, that’s how it is. I am not going to be turned on, in public, by calendar girls in bikinis. I enjoy looking at them, and I, like every other male, would try to imagine what they might look like beneath that bikini. It’s what we’re programmed to do, love us or loathe us for it, but I would not even bother to try and use such materials for real sexual arousal, whether that was (cough) self-solo-sex or the real deal.
The medium is indeed the message. The message of 'Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition' is fun, enjoyment, eye-candy, beauty, call it what you like. And indeed the girls are sexy, there’s no question. But if scantily clad girls were all it took for complete sexual arousal in males, we would all need very baggy trousers around summertime, just to walk down the street.
'Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition' is also not some kind of cordon bleu of sex compared to pornography being a fast-food-esque poorer cousin. Pornography (and nudity) is real erotica, it literally is the real meat on the bone, as opposed to just looking at the menu. Of course the less-than-subtle irony here is that REAL sex is real, and pornography is, to use the same analogy, merely ‘looking at the menu’. Erotica of the non-nude variety is in the imagination of the beholder. Some find cars erotic, others find animals erotic. I’m comfortable with my imagination, and I genuinely enjoyed looking at your 'Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition', but when I need stimulation, I need nudity. Sex IS nudity. Indeed it’s more than nudity, it’s literally being inside someone else. 'Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition' is far removed this. It’s beautiful, but it’s clothed women, no matter how few those clothes are.
A final word from me on this, before everyone thinks I’m some kind of porn peddler – REAL sex cannot be replaced, either by pornography or anything else, and women are not considered by me to be mere objects of physical desire – these writings are an extension of a bar discussion really, between Tristan and myself, as to why I think (and he disagrees) that ‘proper’ pornography is better than, say, 'Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition’, especially for certain ‘things’!
Some very indepth analysis offered and profound viewpoints expressed of which both have their merits.
ReplyDeleteI think pornography is a mainstay in every man's life and as Paul correctly pointed out for any heterosexual man to deny interest besides being a whopping big lie is also denying himself the world of fantasy and fetish. We bring those fantasies and fetishes into our everyday lives while just walking around town, spotting a girl you fancy and mentally undressing her. I don't find calender girls a turn on to be honest mostly because the poses are so fake! your girl next door who is showing a bit of leg or thigh on the subway..(there is also an upskirt festival going on this summer too on the seoul subway, it stimulates the mind and then you have to think of baseball or margaret thatcher!
The brain is the biggest sexual organ and so we all have our own differing levels of sexual stimulation . i guess its whatever takes your fancy..so in truth you don't really need either a porn video or sports illustrated...just tune into your brain waves for the finest sexual adventure.