response 23 of 32:

Jan 12 06:10 UTC 2002

resp:20, resp:21  Interesting site-- at least, more realistic.

response 25 of 32:

Jan 13 13:57 UTC 2002

something like that, but it's not purely voyeurism, either.  I mean, 
you've noticed there *is* the option to meet, and then, that reminds 
me more of how people typically meet over the Internet, except the 
picture is presented right up front, first.

I'm sure we're on the same wavelength-- you understand what I mean?

response 27 of 32:

Jan 14 15:59 UTC 2002

you mean like impressing room.com?

response 29 of 32:

Jan 14 19:18 UTC 2002

ohh, the wannabies
i should put mine up at geekornot.com:)

response 31 of 32:

Jan 25 13:52 UTC 2002

I've mulled over the issue once again, and think I understand my own 
stance more clearly.

First of all, I think it's possible to have dependence/addiction in 
this area, so it is possible for consumptors to be therefore harmed.  
Before someone responds to this right away, consider that nicotine and 
alcohol are much more socially acceptable, but still carry addictive 
risk for some people, especially the former.  I'll say that for 
cannabis, too.

What is defined as erotica, I think, tends to be media where 
connections to any real people are obscured, untraceable, or 
simply 'coincidental,' as the general film industry puts it in legal 
terms.  It's much more abstract and surreal.

However, my ideal is still internal in focus; I think I'm happier when 
I don't focus on external sources.  In other words, I have enjoyed 
self-made erotica where Julie and I were more or less the only 
subjects, and I remember that we usually felt awkward when there were 
other characters.  I think that's probably the extent of it; we both 
have had problems with being too involved in anything that was too 
external.  So I'd say that imagination and fantasy is *very* good, but 
it doesn't hurt to keep it focused on a working relationship as much 
as possible.

(I suppose views on autoeroticism could be considered here, but no 
comment at the moment.)

To tighten the conversational thread back what was currently 
discussed, I don't think voyeurism is really all that healthy, because 
it is such partial gratification, and subjects aren't necesarily 
willing, but more especially, they aren't participating.  I think real-
time hooching, cruising, or whatever *is* healthy, as long as both 
parties feel gratified and enriched.  If a smile, wolf whistle, cat 
call, or whatever makes both parties' days, then it's good.  But I 
think it's easier to control outside of cyberspace.

I will admit that webcams and amateur party phone sex lines might 
provide gratification for both parties involved.  I remember calling a 
gay party line once, with Julie's permission, and well, we eventually 
just got into each other, and we giggled at the response we were 
getting from the guys that were actually interested in what we were 
supposedly doing.  Gays for pay, I guess, that were refreshed by the 
change of pace.  My view has changed that I wouldn't do that now, but, 
for the moment, it seemed all were getting something.

My point is that I see now that relationship parameters are helpful 
when considering whether or not to consume such media.  My observation 
is that it usually declines (on the whole) for both men and women when 
they are involved in a gratifying, satisfying relationship.  If it is 
still consumed, it is usually used as a part of it, not 
independently.  Again, I tend to espouse a more internal focus.