[ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality?

[spike at rainier66.com]

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of SR Ballard
Subject: [ExI] [exl] Effect of National Geographic on Sexuality?




>...Now I always heard jokes, growing up, about how before the internet people used to buy the National Geographic magazine. And I thought it was just a joke. But it was mentioned on list a little while ago, but less as a joke and more as a fact.

>...Did this legitimately happen? 

Two terms you used didn't apply: men and buy.  I suspect plenty of us who were gazing with lust at Miss July 1957 were about age 12 at the time, and we didn't buy the magazines, we found them in the bound periodicals at the public library (NG stopped doing nudes with the March 1963 edition (which is why if you find a collection of bound NatGeos, the binding is in perfect condition from 1964 onwards but the 1957 edition is a tattered ruin.)  A grown man has money, so he would buy Playboy (for the articles of course.)  But Playboy wasn't available in our library or anywhere else if one is age 12 with no money in 1973.

>...And if it’s as widespread as the joke suggests, what effect do you think it had on the sexuality on the generation (2 generations?) of men who purchased these magazines?  Do you think it lead to an interest in inter-cultural marriage? Or a dehumanization of the cultures featured? Or something else? Or no real difference at all?

Hard to say.  Even now with all the free ogleworthies available online, any style any anything you can think of is out there somewhere (if you know where, do let me know.)  I don't see that it causes any kind of dehumanization.  I don't see the truth in the argument of fifty-something wives who complain she has to compete with 19 yr old athletes.  I don't see how a video image competes with her.  I don't worry that my bride has access to video of men with way more and better stuff than I have.  Shrugs.

Interesting aside: if roboharlots get good enough, we might have the opposite problem: humanization.  Humans will be competing with literal sex machines, and this time it won't be just men.  Reasoning: plenty of married people whose sense of morality would not permit visiting a harlot might have to think about it before deciding the same ethos applies to copulating with a robot.  Is that adultery?  I am ready to argue it isn't.  It's more...emmm... technology... evaluation.  Engineers do this kind of thing always.  

But I digress.

>...Are there studies done about it like we have studies of the effects of HD steaming internet porn?

It would be interesting because the theories on the impact of free porn are contradictory.  One camp claims it distracts people (well, men) and anther claims it allows people (well men) to put things into perspective.  Once one realizes that these video beauties are fun to look at but none of them are likely to be suitable long term life partners, it would cause people (men) to look beyond the chiseled abs and the tight buns.

These gazeworthies are still fun to look at of course, but in the long run, we embrace our long term mates (I still do.)  My bride and I are approaching our 35th anniversary as the festival of Thanksgiving approaches, which is always an easy holiday for me, for I know I have plenty for which to be deeply and profoundly grateful: I know I am living my dream.  I don't see that anything is lost from that by an occasional gaze on the internet at the athletic bods and tight buns.

SR what's your take on that please?

spike