h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Fair's fair FB, point taken!

I was not feeling well last night, and went to bed early. As a result I had a lot of time around 2.00am for miscellanious thinking.

Regarding whether or not the use of the word 'Pornography' is accurate in this context: I think that the author wins either way. Either it is accurate, in which case why change it, or it is an oxymoron, in which case it has a certain wit, and why change it.

I have to say that I agree with FM about the pernicious evil of glossy magazines. Neil Innes puts it deftly:

I'm the urban spaceman, as a lover second to none,
It's a lot of fun
I never let my friends down, I've never made a boob
I'm a glossy magazine, an advert on the tube
I'm the urban spaceman, baby, here comes the twist
I don't exist.

On the subject of the robustly male heterosexual point of view in this piece: The practical instructions would hold good whatever the sexuality of you and your partner/s. With female self-image we are right into the core of sexual politics, and this is a subject that it would be extremely disturbing to see written about other than from experience; and FM clearly knows exactly what he is talking about here.

On the subject of commercial pornography and exploitation - I just wish that Lilithcookie was here to disturb us all out of our complacancies.

Ben

Amen to that, and thanks

Just to keep the thread running (which it has without my help quite well!):

I agree that the title is accurate. Sorry Bels, you know I agree with you on just about everything else.

The issue might be the connotation of the word pornography, as a terrible blight on society that enslaves women around the world. And surely, as well described in the article, that is not the case here.

I haven't reread the piece in a while, but I noticed the first person reference as well. FB - it's a little arbitrary grammatical rule that exists here, IMHO. The edited guide tries to read like a clever encyclopedia. There would never be a reference to someone in the first person in an encyclopedia (mind you, there would be no reference to home-made porno either, not in any encyclopedia that's tried to sell itself at MY DOORWAY at any rate).

But first person references are forbidden (unless it is the product of someone being quoted in an article). The discussion about who's the author, editor, subeditor, reader, diety, etc etc etc is just symmantic.

Friar, late for work . . .

"I haven't reread the piece in a while, but I noticed the first person reference as well."

If you do reread the piece, and indeed if you read the backlog, you'll notice the first-person reference was removed almost immediately it was mentioned (it was a hangover from when this entry was a piece of knocked off amusement rather than a suggestion for the EG). The debate about "author" vs. "editor" was just that - nothing to do with the rules, I've got no problem with them.

"Knocked off amusement" eh?



B

Yerss....

Just trying to convey that this entry was essentially just written out at a sitting. I didn't sweat over it. The *research*, on the other hand...

Friar, that's just fine with me. I'd really worry about someone who agreed with *all* my crazy ideas.

As it happens, I'm travelling to your country tomorrow. I just hope this won't stop me getting through Immigration .

no worries Bels, I'll call my people. . .

I liked this - I agree this will be a popular article . Witty, amusing and comprehensive enough that I can't think of any additions to make to it.

For many though I think it will be just wishful thinking (like the glossy magazines) - I don't know any women who would be keen to involve themselves in the scenarios one might contemplate - maybe I'm just too shy to ask them

"For many though I think it will be just wishful thinking"

I hope not.

"I don't know any women who would be keen to involve themselves in the scenarios one might contemplate"

You don't *think* you do. I think I'd be prepared to bet actual money that at least one woman you know already has...

And besides, surely the biggest hurdle is getting jiggy in the first place, once you've managed that on a regular basis introducing a camcorder should be relatively easy to sell?

" - maybe I'm just too shy to ask them"

Now you're talking. Assuming you
(1) own a camcorder
(2) have a reasonably regular partner
(3) trust her and have her trust....

then ask. The worst that can happen is she says "no".

Actually, the worst that can happen is she leaves you for suggesting it, tells everyone you know that you're a dirty voyeuristic pervert and then sets up an internet site with pictures of you above your address with the word "PERV" in bright red letters across your forehead. But that hardly ever happens.

Hardly ever?
You are probably right about the willingness of some women I already know, but identifying them does carry a certain risk with it as you mention at the end of your reply.

I think I'll let "I dare not" wait upon "I would" like the poor cat i' the adage. The potential upside of the gamble in asking is not worth the cost of failure.

Though hang on a minute that's the advantage of h2g2 - I could let her read your article ("for a laugh" ) and glean from her reaction whether she would be amenable to the suggestion! No face lost there.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained... Faint-heart never filmed fair lady.

B

Where a will is, there's a wahay! But can I beard the lion in her lair? None but the brave...

Excellent Entry. I don't see any problem with the term 'pornography'. I think that 'porn' sounds a lot more convincing than 'sex video'.

I am just a bit uncomfortable with the 'heterosexual male perspective' thing, maybe this can be defused by adding a second disclaimer-ish type of sentence to the first disclaimer explaining that the text was written from a 'male heterosexual' perspective and that all of this can perfectly be transposed to any other situation / combination / configuration / fill-in-the-blank?

HELL

I agree with the second disclaimer, but at the same time I feel that it might be overkill. The author does a good job of referring to 'partner' instead of husband or wife, so I doubt that it would be a MAJOR problem.