gun porn and the response to gun control

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

from penigma:

(warning; while not hard core porn, the images on the content on penigma are possibly NOT suitable for an office computer)

The urban dictionary refers to gun porn as the fetish images of guns lit like porn models (no gender or orientation specified), or as exaggerated gore and violence in the portrayal of guns. The way I'm using the term here it is the connection between guns and the sexuality of guys who aren't getting any - or not what they want, and their desire for firearms to make them feel manly and powerful, and therefore appealing to women who want them with guns but not without them.

Statistics show that fewer people are owning guns, with more of those few owning more guns than previously. Similarly statistics show that more conservatives/ Republicans and Tea Partiers own guns, while there has been a marked decline in gun ownership among liberals / Democrats from earlier years.

I would point out that these images demonstrate a sexual objectivizing of women, and note that it has been the right that has been the most pro-rape, anti-women in their various culture war legislation AGAINST women. There appears to be a clear pattern of attempting to dominate and subordinate women from the right under the guise of traditional values, reducing variously the legal support for women to be paid equally, and attempting to take away women's rights to control their reproductive health decisions.

(Please note where there is no copyrighted indication or origination information, attribution is included in the photos)

Here is an example of what is wrong with the gun nuts, including apparent sexual gratification from guns and a relationship to them that strongly implies they are classic fetish objects.

Wikipedia defines sexual fetish as:

Sexual fetishism, or erotic fetishism, is the sexual arousal a person receives from a physical object, or from a specific situation. The object or situation of interest is called the fetish; the person who has a fetish for that object/situation is a fetishist. A sexual fetish may be regarded as an enhancing element to a romantic/sexual relationship "achieved in ordinary ways (e.g. having the partner wear a particular garment)" or as a mental disorder/disorder of sexual preference if it causes significant psychosocial distress for the person or has detrimental effects on important areas of their life.

This suggests a more accurate explanation of at least some of the pro-gunners at having their sex toys regulated or restricted, and certainly justifies the skepticism that the desire for guns is only the oh-so-heroic duty to defend their helpless loved one. There is clearly an alternate aspect to the appeal of guns, and that attraction and relationship in turn is very much a part of the response to gun control that is emotional rather than entirely logical.

read the rest :
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2013/01/gun-porn.html

[iiibbb]

1. what percentage would you suggest pro-gunners have a fetish relationship with their weapons

Have you ever seen a pinups in for lack of a better word, blue collar shops, for tools, cars, motorcycles, etc. etc. lawnmowers, etc. etc.

You name it I've seen a lot of products in shots with scantily clad women.


It has nothing to do with guns. The people into "gun porn" are into virtually any porn.


Here are pics... you know I can find harder core than this.

[iiibbb]

4. pinups3

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1ece_1s4bkU/TCvqcQMbgKI/AAAAAAAAJKI/YLak-h4eA1M/s1600/miss+september+x-ray+pin+up.jpg



?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1245290739380

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

9. I'm sure you can find plenty of pin up posters, calendars, post cards etc.

While those are selling something, typically, a good or a service, that provided that kind of image -- most often calendars in my experience - they are distinctive for being sales promotions that use sexuality.

The photos I'm talking about are not selling a specific product or service; they are by the photographers own identification fetish photos. I didn't create the attribution of fetish photos; he did.

This appears rather to be catering to a very real fantasy that correlates sex and guns and male body parts.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRVpF1u0NeKzAnbFdMVPNl-X_M3AvT1MKRpLu6AZFXfz7GkWG2WZw

and there are clearly similar images that are portraying men as representing themselves as sexually appealing (although it is not clear to me if they are trying to appeal to another guy or to a woman from the photo - I can't imagine either gender to be turned on)

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQlrn6ZY4ePNLc6b3KjeA_tUHCgD5EuXafsDKre5C1zJDJ1R4gMPg

There is a clear subculture that addresses guns as fetish objects; people who have a fetish relationship to a person, body part or object have a very different psychological relationship to the fetish object than other people do.

Both involve sex or sexuality; but fetishism and advertizing are not the same thing.

I'm not sure how one can quantify this kind of fetish relationship among gun owners, but it appears from a very casual and superficial search to be more extensive than I had anticipated, and to be very connected to attitudes towards women beyond just selling tractor tires or beer or some brand of 10w30 oil.

[gejohnston]

11. I think it is complete nonsense

and pop psychology. This reminds me of a common propaganda technique anti gunners generally use.

Name calling: This techniques consists of attaching a negative label to a person or a thing. People engage in this type of behavior when they are trying to avoid supporting their own opinion with facts. Rather than explain what they believe in, they prefer to try to tear their opponent down.

http://academic.cuesta.edu/acasupp/as/404.htm

If gun control advocates have to stoop this low, that shows they lack legitimate arguments.

Name Calling:

Name calling occurs often in politics and wartime scenarios, but very seldom in advertising. It is another of the seven main techniques designated by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. It is the use of derogatory language or words that carry a negative connotation when describing an enemy. The propaganda attempts to arouse prejudice among the public by labeling the target something that the public dislikes. Often, name calling is employed using sarcasm and ridicule, and shows up often in political cartoons or writings. When examining name calling propaganda, we should attempt to separate our feelings about the name and our feelings about the actual idea or proposal.

Pinpointing the Enemy:

Pinpointing the enemy is used extremely often during wartime, and also in political campaigns and debates. This is an attempt to simplify a complex situation by presenting one specific group or person as the enemy. Although there may be other factors involved the subject is urged to simply view the situation in terms of clear-cut right and wrong. When coming in contact with this technique, the subject should attempt to consider all other factors tied into the situation. As with almost all propaganda techniques, the subject should attempt to find more information on the topic. An informed person is much less susceptible to this sort of propaganda.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

13. and this reminds me of a tactic used by the pro-gunners

which is to make factually inaccurate accusations of others.

I didn't come up with the term gun porn; and I didn't christen this particular photographer with being a gun fetish photographer - he did.

So unless you are trying to claim he was tearing himself down when he made his reputation for fetish photography with guns, dating back well into the prior decade, including frequent discussion on the old DU, you have another epic fail gejohnston.

Next time do your homework.

I have no particular objection to sexuality, or to guns, or to people who happen to be fetishists necessarily so long as it doesn't represent something that is dangerous or contrary to public safety.

I think some of this content, under gun porn, and gun fetishism, crosses both those lines.

Which is a very legitimate argument.

[gejohnston]

16. I don't think so

How is it inaccurate? How is it remotely relevant?

So unless you are trying to claim he was tearing himself down when he made his reputation for fetish photography with guns, dating back well into the prior decade, including frequent discussion on the old DU, you have another epic fail gejohnston.

the only person I have seen claiming isn't known for honesty nor civil discourse. I have to see actual evidence. Gun porn generally refers to any photo of a gun. What was the other epic fail? Proving to you that gun suicide doesn't equal suicide?

I have no particular objection to sexuality, or to guns, or to people who happen to be fetishists necessarily so long as it doesn't represent something that is dangerous or contrary to public safety.

in who's mind?

I think some of this content, under gun porn, and gun fetishism, crosses both those lines.

pop psychology of something that doesn't actually exist. Fetishism implies being sexually stimulated by a gun, and is used as I described. Epic fail on your part.

Which is a very legitimate argument.

you would show how it would affect public safety. The mass shooters recently were not "gun nuts" any more than the average gangbanger is.

[iiibbb]

19. Gun fetish and gun porn aren't the same

Most gun porn doesn't have womenz in it.

http://www.reddit.com/r/gunporn


I think you are overstating the issue. There is gun porn, there are gun fetishists. A lot of people have observed gun fetishist stuff and don't get a lot out of it beyond girl + gun ... I don't think it hits fantasy levels for a lot of people.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

39. You make an excellent point and I agree with you to some extent

What distinguishes the difference between a normal porn response and a fetish response is inherent in that response itself and the dependency and somewhat frantic nature if you will, of that relationship to an object.

I would encourage you to look further at fetish relationships; they can be relatively subtle, but there are distinctions.

One of them is that a fetish object leads the fetishist to believe they have unreasonable and unrealistic powers or abilities that in fact they lack, with or without their fetish object. The other is the level of dependency, which is similar in some ways to addiction, but different than others.

It is a fascinating topic, those distinctions, apart from the gun component.

I think you might agree that there are quite a few guys with guns who believe themselves to be far more capable with their weapons than they really are, and who simultaneously demonstrate an awkward intensity on the subject of their weapons?

Stephen Colbert does an excellent parody of that with his revolver - what does he call it? Precious? And he gives his gun a female gender identity.

But yes, for some guys this is just another form of looking at naked or semi-naked women, in other words just more porn. But I would argue that it is more than that, and is part of a larger spectrum of attitudes and emotions, rather than an absolute either /or quality. I would argue to you that there are multiple boundaries to be crossed to be full blown fetishism, but that there are even more people who have fetish aspects to their relationship to guns, but have that quality to a more moderate or minor degree.

Thanks for making such an astute observation.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

40. Is it name calling when someone labels himself?

You seem to miss that this photographer Oleg Volk lists fetish photography as one of his areas of specialization
or that he has produced an extensive body of work - as in multiple images over a period of years - that meets this criteria.

Therefore it is a legitimate characteristic to identify and this is a legitimate discussion. Your point appears to be invalid on a number of counts, but most fundamentally on it being something one person does to another, rather than to one's self.

This appears to be an unwarranted criticism on your part, and demonstrates poor comprehension and reasoning in this regard.

[gejohnston]

41. it is name calling

when you try to paint defenders of a civil liberty you don't like as sexual deviants. It is what your post seems to be about. In doing so you are trying to use a comedy skit and the work of a photographer as evidence. As such, it is certainly warranted criticism.

People shoot each other in the US for mostly "business" reasons, having nothing to do with sexual gratification.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

43. and when you try to paint all gun owners as 'defenders of civil liberty' as such you what you accuse

First of all, you are the person who brings up sexual deviants.

I don't particularly believe Oleg Volk is a sexual deviant, although he may be given the quantity of work he appears to have produced in that genre.

Not all fetishes are sexual, which is your first error.
Not all or even most gun owners are defenders of civil liberty either; that is pure propaganda.

People do NOT usually shoot each other in the U.S. for 'business reasons'; they overwhelmingly shoot in an emotional response, as in suicides and murder suicides.

Further, you are wrong again, which you are chronically, in stating I claim that shooting people is for sexual gratification.

I would point out for some people shooting IS sexually gratifying; a case in point would be Ted Nugent claiming he gets a hard on every time he shoots and kills an animal.

But what I asserted was that ownership, not shooting people, involved a fetish relationship between owner and gun. No where did I say otherwise, and nowhere did I use a comedy skit AT ALL.

That fetish may or may not be strongly sexual. It could be all out sexual, as in being essential to arousal and ejaculation, or it could be more subtly so, as in being essential to someone feeling strong and confident and powerful, as a necessary object to have to approach the opposite (or same) sex for either physical or romantic involvement. But that is equally true of an object being a fetish object if it does the same thing for non-sexual situations - like being able to work up the courage to demand a raise from an unsympathetic boss at work when carrying if you are less confident when not carrying, or even just owning versus not owning a firearm. There is an element of not only excitement (sometimes arousal, but not always) but of dependency on the object for confidence or a sense of power.

You are way to hung up on the stigmatizing of sexual deviance here, and missing the point entirely. Maybe this will help you:
from wikipedia, on the evolution of the word and concept of fetish:

The word fetish derives from the French fétiche, which comes from the Portuguese feitiço ("spell&quot , which in turn derives from the Latin facticius (“artificial”) and facere ("to make&quot . A fetish is an object believed to have supernatural powers, or in particular, a man-made object that has power over others. Essentially, fetishism is the attribution of inherent value or powers to an object.

I hope that clarifies your understanding, because so far you're completely missing the discussion.

[gejohnston]

46. what is your point?

People do NOT usually shoot each other in the U.S. for 'business reasons'; they overwhelmingly shoot in an emotional response, as in suicides and murder suicides.

when I say "each other" it doesn't include suicides. The majority are criminals shooting each other. Murder suicides get the ink, but they are not the majority.

I would point out for some people shooting IS sexually gratifying; a case in point would be Ted Nugent claiming he gets a hard on every time he shoots and kills an animal.

I don't believe anything Ted Nugent says, but he would be one out of very few.

But what I asserted was that ownership, not shooting people, involved a fetish relationship between owner and gun. No where did I say otherwise, and nowhere did I use a comedy skit AT ALL.

Then what was the point behind mentioning Steve Colbert?

Actually, I'm right most of the time. I do have a hard time seeing the point of your post and how it is relevant to public policy or much of anything else. So, what is your point?

You are way to hung up on the stigmatizing of sexual deviance here, and missing the point entirely. Maybe this will help you

I totally understand the concept. I just fail to see how it is relevant to gun policy other than an attempt at name calling. Otherwise, it would seem more appropriate in a larger discussion about porn or fetishes in the Lounge or over a couple of pitchers of beer.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

48. Provide proof

when I say "each other" it doesn't include suicides. The majority are criminals shooting each other. Murder suicides get the ink, but they are not the majority.

I can find nothing substantiating that claim; it is your wish not fact.

Colbert has a gun which is an ongoing character in satire; he is not Kit or sketch humor, nor did I post any of his work here. If you are familiar with the gun character, then you know what kind of relationship exists; if you don't then it would not carry the meaning.

To the extent that someone is a gun fetishist - and I would argue many more are than you concede, to one degree or another - then their response to gun control is not the same as other gun owners, or none owners, and is not rational.

You cannot fairly categorize gun owners as civil liberty defenders; there are plenty of people who are defenders of civil liberties who don't have guns and who favor gun control. And there are plenty of gun owners who by advocating insurrection are traitors, not defenders of any liberty. There are too many gun owners who are the problem, not a solution. Some of those are gun fetishists who have delusions about what they can accomplish with a firearm, especially in a crisis that are implausible at best, and completely delusional at worst.

[gejohnston]

49. you just proved my point

it is indeed "name calling"

[iiibbb]

15. I've got news for you

people fetishise anything. Go to deviantart

boots
cars
video games
poop
tools

etc.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Rule 34

[iiibbb]

18. I've never heard of that term, but that is awesome.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

26. yes they do; thank you for making my point

people fetishise guns, often.

When someone has a fetish regarding an object, that person becomes irrational about them.

Therefore anyone who fetishises guns is by definition of fetishism, irrational about guns.

[iiibbb]

27. often? I agree with everything except that word

and guns are not unique.

What proportion of gun owners are sexually aroused by this porn to the point that guns are a required element for arousal?

Fetishists require the fetish elements or it's no dice. Can't be a significant population. Need more data than the thought exercise you present

I can look at any porn and be aroused by the woman... and she may have a gun... but the excitement is exclusively going to have something to do with her manner of dress... the gun is superfluous... Not a required for arousal.. Not a fetish.

Another guy could observe a woman committing fellatio on a handgun... but it might be her mouth or lips... the gun is superfluous. The gun is not required for arousal. Not a fetish.


Your thesis is biased to oversample because you seem to be saying that any arousal when there is a gun in the picture is gun fetishism. Which isn't true because people may be responding to any number of elements.


But you're probably right... a true gun fetishist would probably be irrational about them in some way... unless they were masochistic too... then they would need the gun, and the punishment for liking it.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

42. Not so, particularly if you look at the assorted definitions of gun porn I provided

In many instances of 'gun porn' and gun fetish photography, no women are included at all.

Rather as the definitions I included indicate, what is gun porn and gun fetish photography is often images where guns are lit and posed in ways which do not include women (or men, for the gay or bi audience) but rather where firearms are treated in the image exactly the same way women are treated in porn.

Images of a gun being used in fellatio, in the context of the definition of gun porn I provided by definition makes the gun as important or more important, not superfluous to the effect of the image.

This can be accomplished artistically in a variety of ways, involving everything from lighting and perspective to contrast, focus, and other factors. Some of these factors are obvious, others are much more subtle even acting on our subconscious in how they work.

So with respect, having approached these images from that background and understanding, of how these work on different viewers, I would disagree with your criticism.

Let me give you an example, from my journalism rather than my art or psych education; when you look at a print newspaper - those who still do - those who do the layout for the front page know in advance when deciding to put what where on the page, that a reader nearly always looks first at the center space above the fold more or less right below the banner, and then goes consistently to the upper right hand corner column before either reading that or moving around the page. They know where the overwhelming number of readers will look in sequence, and place content accordingly. Be sure that is true in marketing, in making and critiquing art work hanging in museums, etc. (No, not that eyes move in the same pattern as newspapers in each one, but rather how each category of work is viewed in the context of eye movement.)

When you start viewing these images in the context of deconstructing them and analyzing them, you begin to see significant and substantive differences in the work, the intent, and how they are intended to influence and effect the viewer.

I think that addresses your concern about elements - another excellent point you raise. Very insightful of you!

[iiibbb]

2. pinups

http://www.gstatic.com/hostedimg/b96c3af6b09c2ba6_landing

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

12. and yet.......

I don't see anything here that resembles performing fellatio on a lethal weapon - essentially the same pose one would use to commit suicide with a gun, or anything like the content that was referenced in prior DU discussions, that involved shoving a gun into or against a woman's genitalia, which could also presumably be lethal, OR anything resembling BDSM, like a gun fetish photo displaying a woman who was being used/abused by nipple torture.

Not quite the same thing at all.

That the photographer is trying to deny his prior work is particularly interesting, as is his odd copyright which offers free use to those who promote responsible gun ownership, but denying use to those who are pro-gun control.

However, he is not able to deny parody fair use.......which makes the whole thing even more interesting.

It will be interesting to see if he continues to deny his past fetish /kink gun photography or not.

[iiibbb]

22. I could find worse, but I'm not that into it

[holdencaufield]

31. I think you're seeing ...

... what you WANT to see.

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

[Eleanors38]

33. Struck me that way as well. Behind all that academic-sounding detachment is a fascination...

with the subject, on the one hand, and a desire to (you know) getta little closer to the subject "at hand." Controllers do seem fascinated with porno, compensation, things sticking out, things f-Flopping, HARDENING, THINGS LOLLING... ahem... all in the name of scientific inquiry, of course. Yes, that.

[iiibbb]

3. pinups2

[Eleanors38]

34. She's goin' after that "Ridgid" pipe. Some women might like that!

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

44. you've wandered a bit off topic

But there are some aspects to the discussion that are more entertaining than others.

I am assuming that looking for pin up art, however much it differs from fetish images, was amusing for most of you.

[Eleanors38]

50. "...for most of you" seems to say it all, thank you.

[Eleanors38]

51. "for most of you" summons it up. How's the weather where you're at?

[iiibbb]

5. police pin ups

not to mention Animae ... sci fi.... heavy metal music...

[Glassunion]

6. Gorn Porn

[GreenStormCloud]

7. Don't forget these classic pin-ups

OMG. Sex sells. What an original discovery - not.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

10. All linked to selling a product, which is NOT the same as fetish photography

Sex sells.

This guy isn't selling anything, other than the photos themselves.

The difference is important.

So while I''m sure you had a lot of fun finding old pin-up style adverts.......doesn't change that there is a whole separate non-advert world that focuses on gun porn and gun fetish object photography.

And NO, I couldn't show the hardest core things here either from those images, sites, etc.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. OK. I can easily find pin-ups of any subject you want.

Cars and guns together (Well, toy guns)


Airplanes


Cats
?6

Clouds
?1344191207

[Eleanors38]

35. Great... cat.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

37. yes, but gun porn and fetish porn have distinct differences form mere pin up pix

That is because the nature of the relationship to the fetish object is different from the pin up response.

Look - this guy HIMSELF - identifies at least some of his work as FETISH oriented.
He clearly produces gun-related BDSM, which fits in that category, featuring naked women both firing guns, and then on all fours in handcuffs, under the caption 'keeping her on her toes' -- and those are not his most hard core photos.

THAT differs significantly from anything you've posted here, as does an image of a woman for example, shoving the barrel of a hand gun into her vagina while masturbating.

Do you really NOT see the difference? There is one.

[holdencaufield]

32. So ... guns aren't sold?

I wish I had known that before -- mine were expensive

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

38. so you don't believe in honesty?

When guns are used in adverts to sell guns, the gun manufacturer makes sure to have their name featured prominently, or alternatively a legal logo that is their trademark, and in some instances the same from a retailer.

So therefore while this photography promotes generic gun porn, it does not rise to the definition of gun adverts.

Therefore while guns are sold, of course, as well as given as gifts and traded, these photos are not about selling guns.

But if you don't understand that, perhaps you were overcharged for your guns too, because of not understanding the difference.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

8. Interesting that while Oleg Volk has had a reputation for fetish photography,

Last edited Thu Jan 31, 2013, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)

notably including discussions about it here on DU, dating back to at least 2006, on the old version of DU, he is now trying on the penigma post comments to deny he had ever engaged in these photos.

Those old DU posts were particularly insightful, mentioning things like women photographed during nipple torture. Apparently he has now moved to 'friends only', as distinct from not having done that kind of work.

It seems Oleg is trying to distance himself from this, and that his reputation is well documented here. How lovely that these archives exist. I wouldn't be surprised if his sexual photos beyond a point are inappropriate to getting more serious commercial work.

That would be the only explanation that makes sense to me for his trying to deny doing it. But I don't claim to have thought of every possible explanation.

[gejohnston]

14. I have only seen one person making the claim

about Volk. The individual has been long TSed and his/her claims I generally doubt. Going through his site I can't find evidence of nipple torture nor any evidence of "friends only".
In other words, I think iverglas was full of shit.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

20. yet Volk himself presents images which are clearly bdsm

I suggest you look at the sites where fetish photography is described by Volk himself as one of his specialties.

And here is another example, although tame enough for this forum that is clearly by Volk,
in series with other photos of an unclothed woman, presumably the same woman, variously with guns and with handcuffs? Usually being voluntarily locked in handcuffs is considered a form of bondage play.

http://65.55.237.107/att/GetInline.aspx?messageid=c2ab8522-6b29-11e2-bbd0-001e0bcb3590&attindex=3&cp=-1&attdepth=3&imgsrc=cid%3apart4.08050104.03090408%40hotmail.com&cid=6bbb487a0dba423e&shared=1&blob=M3xvbmhlcnRvZXMuanBnfGltYWdlL2pwZWc_3d&hm__login=limerance4u&hm__domain=hotmail.com&ip=10.15.144.8&d=d6297&mf=0&hm__ts=Wed%2c%2030%20Jan%202013%2023%3a05%3a31%20GMT&st=limerance4u&hm__ha=01_81650900eeeccda20f099cbec6336e2b5f2afaee6fa112b97640a9453647d246&oneredir=1

So it would seem to be you who is factually inaccurate, sir.

[gejohnston]

21. it consists of two words

"bad request"

How is it "clearly by Volk"?

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

23. the link I posted, to a series of photos of a naked woman, alternately with firearms and handcuffs

clearly has in the lower right hand corner olegvolk.
try this link instead:
.html

He himself lists among his specialties fetish phtography.

I'm sorry you're not better at research or navigating the internet, but that doesn't make what others write incorrect or invalid.

I suggest you research Mr. Volk in greater depth; so far your research is epic failure, and frankly defending someone for no other reason than you perceive him to be pro-gun, where you seem quite willing to trash or disregard someone who holds a different position than your own.

You have failed to make your case. Period.

[gejohnston]

25. there is no link

or at least one that works with my browser and Linux.
I didn't see anything on his site about fetish photography. If he did, so what?

It isn't my job to do someone else's homework. I perceive him as a photographer who wants to sell a product. I wasn't trying to make a case. Mostly, I was trying to figure out what yours was and how it is relevant to policy discussions.
I do like some of his propaganda posters though.

[petronius]

28. I think you might want to consider the degree to which confirmation bias is affecting

your conclusions. You've found some gun porn, and from it extrapolated that sexual fetishism plays a meaningful role in opposition to more gun control, to support the conclusion that (at least some) response to gun control is irrationally (and somewhat kinkily) emotional rather than logical. When in fact you have no reason to conclude that gun porn or gun fetishism is really all that common among gun people in general, or that people who do like gun porn don't have unrelated and logical reasons to dislike expanded gun control.

By the same logic, one could spend some time perusing furry websites and develop some pretty bizarre insinuations about people with big collections of Beanie Babies. All your post really boils down to is a suggestion that gun-folk are vaguely pervy...

[iiibbb]

29. I am vaguely pervy (at least by Pat Robertson rules) , but for reasons having

nothing to do with the gun elements; same composition with any substitute from the gun would illicit the same response

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

45. Well, some are kind of pervy

but given the various statements I've seen from some pro-gunners that are clearly demonstrating attachments to their firearms that they don't have to other 'tools', despite the ''it's just a tool" argument, the point stands.

It does not presume that every person who has that kind of relationship to their firearm(s) has one that is equally intense.

But some clearly are.

The larger definition of gun porn is the portrayal of guns that is similar to erotic porn, OR the exaggeration of guns and gun violence.
I didn't include the latter, but that by itself suggests when a gun owner is also drawn to exaggerated gore in gun violence a difference in the relationship between fetishist and fetish object.

You appear to be trying to deny fetish relationships without understanding or defining them adequately simply because the concept makes you uncomfortable.

When people become hysterical at the possibility of losing their fetish object, it is different from other kinds of loss or separation.

You have not disproved my contention so far.

The difference is that people who collect beanie babies or dress up as stuffed animals don't kill anyone or threaten insurrection if they can't wear their costumes everywhere.

[petronius]

47. If you think I was "trying to deny fetish relationships" then you missed the

point of my post entirely, and you're equally mistaken if you think you've made a contention that anyone needs to try and disprove.

All you've done so far is:

1. Observe the existence of what you describe as gun porn,
2. hypothesize that this gun porn represents a sexual fetishization of guns*, and
3. conclude/suggest that this fetishization is a meaningful explanation for some opposition to expanded gun control.

However, you have provided no evidence other than your own guesswork to support the claim that this fetishization is anything other than trivial, or that it's a significant explanation for policy opinions where it does exist. (That's where my comment about confirmation bias comes in.) So I'm sorry, but you've yet to make a relevant point or contention - although you've done a good job of concealing that lack-of-a-point in a flood of words and vague insults.

(* If all you wanted to say was that some people sexually fetishize guns, then I'll grant you that - I'm sure people fetishize far more things than either of us can imagine. But since you chose to post this in a forum where we discuss policy rather than kink, I have to assume that you're claiming that this fetishization is non-trivial. Otherwise, what's the relevance?)

[iiibbb]

30. fish

I invite you to do a google image search titled "fish porn" and see some of the stuff that pops up... I'm seeing a lot of aquatic life getting stuck in places that I don't think I'll post here.

you felt that fellatio with a gun, or guns in other orifices was unique


I don't think so.

[Eleanors38]

36. Well, that's what reading H.P. Lovecraft will do to you.

[Eleanors38]

52. On reflection, I appreciate this thread. It was fun.