CG Breasts
A friend and I were talking about the “validity” of CG “porn”. By that I mean the use of computer graphics to depict sexually suggestive or even explicit imagery. In all of his righteous indignation, he swore it off as stupid, as ridiculous, and as something for people “who can’t get real girls”. Could not the same argument be made against pornography in general? Oh, why watch two other people have sex, when you can do it on your own? Well, gee…perhaps because not everyone has carte blanche access to sex at all times of the day? Maybe they’re watching it to masturbate? I don’t even have to argue this point, I’m sure, since I think as a society we’ve past the point where pornography is taboo, and most people – at least the honest ones – can acknowledge the practicality of self-satisfaction.
Anyway, so the crux of my argument was that whether it be a real or CG depiction of sexual material, the purpose is the same. It is not the actual physical breast that turns a person on, because what is it really, other than a fat-filled sack of flesh intended to nurture offspring? Is it really the fleshy folds of a woman’s labia that turns a guy on? I would say no. Sexual desire and the fulfillment of that desire occurs on an abstract and deeply internal level. There is no rationalization behind it. It’s not as if you look at pornography and think “My, I just love the way that penis is parting those labia. And the angle of insertion? Magnificent!” That’s ridiculous. It’s more subconscious than that.
Watching pornography stimulates that abstract feeling. Provided that the material is not something that forces a person to remain in or return to “full consciousness”, e.g. by depicting something that challenges one’s values or generally catalyzes rational thought, there is huge range of things (varying by individual) that could spark that response. So what difference does it really make if the depiction of sexual activity is computer generated or real? A few years ago, the difference would’ve been that the technology did not allow for a realistic enough images to activate a sexual trigger. Now, however, when computer generated characters are photorealistic, such that in some cases only a close examination can identify it as being fake, they are just as valid for entertainment purposes as real people. This includes sexual stimulation.
When someone watches a pornographic film, are they really replacing the actors with themselves in their imagination? I don’t think so. For one thing, rational thought is probably at its lowest, and it would probably take a strong amount of concentration to displace the images right in front of you with an imaginary scenario. Perhaps if a person closed their eyes, it’d be easier to pull off, but then, what’s the point of having the film playing anymore? My point in this is that if I were to watch a fully realized CG porno, it does not mean that I am imagining myself having sex with a computer graphic, and thus a loser because I should imagine myself having sex with a REAL woman instead. What’s the difference? If it’s all in my imagination anyway, does the impetus for sexual stimulation even matter? It’s all abstract, and occurs on a level far beneath normal consciousness.
So, for anyone to argue that “CG Porn” (something which as far as I know doesn’t even exist yet) or cartoon porn, or whatever other kind of “fake” sexual material you want to mention, is any less “valid” than its real-life counterparts is just plain absurd. The most that can be said by any one person is that the material doesn’t trigger that response for them, but that does not change the validity of the material in general.