I guess it's like working on a car. I am not mechanically inclined to fix my car at all. It just does not interest me. I have no problem with laying down good money to have someone do it for me, because I'm just not interested.
But my cousin can fix cars, install dishwashers, build things, etc. He's driven by it. He buys tools and works on keeping his workshop up to date, clean and ready to build his next project.
The difference between us? One is liable to get sucked into a home improvement show, another is not.
I think the problem with pornography is a lot like this. It might not bug you. It might not push you to do deviant, strange, things for who knows why.
But the statistics show that it does affect those people who have problems with sexual addiction, or rape, or pedophelia, or incest, or sexually abusing their children.
Anyway, this isn't a thread to say we should outlaw porn, but more of a thread to acknowledge that porn does indeed harm society, even if it doesn't harm you. Or not.
Whatcha think?
[ April 06, 2004, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Trogdor the Burninator ]
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I'm a Christian. Impure thoughts are bad.
From Jesus's Sermon on the Mount: "You have heard it said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell." -Matthew 5:27-29
Since porn is about lust, Jesus seems to think it's bad. I'm with Him.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I think that it's not a good enough reason to make something illegal. Countless things are considered legal in this country even though harmful, immoral, or illegal acts could be instigated by them. Smoking, prescription medications, video games, television, driving, alcohol, fast food restaurants. Each have their cost. But what's the worth of living if the government makes all those decisions for you?
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
quote: Smoking, prescription medications, video games, television, driving, alcohol, fast food restaurants.
But these don't lead to sexually deviant behavior.
For some people, porn leads them to sexually deviant behavior.
Should we curtial the triggers that cause sexually deviant behavior, or should we throw them in jail after they have harmed someone?
As you can see, I'm reasoning through this as I go.
[ April 06, 2004, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: Trogdor the Burninator ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Ah so you're just curious about _sexual_ deviance from any other kind of deviance?
Well I simply have to disagree that it's any worse than any other sort by involving Sex.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Porn doesn't make you a rapist or a killer, it just makes you a loser.
Or chapped. Depending how you see it.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I don't really see how pornography harms society if it is used responsibly. Meaning, if an adult male looks at porn by himself (or with a spouse, I guess) there is no harm. I he makes it accessible to his children, then there is a problem.
I'd also argue that if a married man looks at porn, he should discuss it with his wife. If the wife has a problem with it, don't do it.
The argument that sex offenders view porn and therefore porn is bad is just plain false. That's like saying that it's warm in June because it's June as opposed to because of the temperature. Placing the blame on porn takes the blame off of the sex offender. Further, because a sex offender was exposed to porn from an early age also doesn't mean the porn is even a remote cause of the act; maybe the offender had poor examples of how to treat people.
I'm sure my arguments have some flaws Posted by Cow-Eating Man (Member # 4491) on :
*waits to see how sexually deviant behavior vs. cancer plays out*
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
A quick disclaimer: At differnt points in history, our laws have been interpreted with varying degrees of harshness. However, if I egg someone on to commit a crime, I can be charged as an accomplice. I don't see porn as any different.
If porn is shown to encourage perverts to commit crimes, than the porn is an accomplice to that crime. So does the porn encourage deviant criminal behaviour? I don't feel qualified to even hazard a guess on that question. But it's a good question.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
quote: The argument that sex offenders view porn and therefore porn is bad is just plain false. That's like saying that it's warm in June because it's June as opposed to because of the temperature. Placing the blame on porn takes the blame off of the sex offender. Further, because a sex offender was exposed to porn from an early age also doesn't mean the porn is even a remote cause of the act; maybe the offender had poor examples of how to treat people.
And I go with what the statistics say.
quote: Among the child molesters incited, the study reported that 53 percent of them deliberately used the stimuli of pornography as they prepared to offend. i
i W. L. Marshall, "The Use of Sexually Explicit Stimuli by Rapists, Child Molesters, and Nonoffenders," The Journal of Sex Research 25, no.2 (May 1988): 267-88.
quote:The habitual consumption of pornography can result in a diminished satisfaction with mild forms of pornography and a correspondingly strong desire for more deviant and violent material.ii
ii See H.J. Eysenck, "Robustness of Experimental Support for the General Theory of Desensitization," in Neil M. Malamuth and Edward Donnerstein, eds., Pornography and Sexual Aggression (Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, 1984), 314. D. Zillmann, "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography," in Pornography: Research Advances and Policy Considerations, eds. D. Zillman and J. Bryant (Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1989), 129.
quote: In a study of convicted child molesters, 77 percent of those who molested boys and 87 percent of those who molested girls admitted to the habitual use of pornography in the commission of their crimes.iii
iii Take Action Manual (Washington, D.C.: Enough is Enough, 1995-96), 9.
quote: Research has shown that "males who are exposed to a great deal of erotica before the age of 14 are more sexually active and engage in more varied sexual behaviors as adults than is true for males not so exposed."vi One study reveals that among 932 sex addicts, 90 percent of the men and 77 percent of the women reported that pornography was significant to their addiction.vii
vi K.E. Davis and G.N. Braucht, Exposure to Pornography, Character and Sexual Deviance, Technical Reports of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography (1970), 7.
vii Patrick Carnes, Don't Call It Love: Recovery from Sexual Addictions (New York: Bantam, 1991).
quote: Children often imitate what they've seen, read, or heard. Studies suggest that exposure to pornography can prompt kids to act out sexually against younger, smaller, and more vulnerable children. Experts in the field of childhood sexual abuse report that any premature sexual activity in children always suggests two possible stimulants: experience and exposure. This means that the sexually deviant child may have been molested or simply exposed to sexuality through pornography.viii
Sorry Chungwa. I've seen too much of the harms of porn to say that porn is ok if used responsibly, again, you might be able to use it responsibly, but there many others who do some serious harm based on what they may have thought was harmless before.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:So does the porn encourage deviant criminal behaviour?
If anything, I'm even less qualified than you are to answer, but I'll give it a shot.
My answer: it depends (I know I hate it when people say that). If the porn is depicting violant behavior, then it is. If it simply a nude picture and someone looks at it and feels the desire to commit a criminal act, then that person is to blame, not the porn. But the problem is it would be really a huge task for the government to go through porn archives and pick out pictures *they* deem encourage ciminal behavior.
Another thing that must be considered is intent. This is going to sound really flimsy. Anyway, think about how offensive some Mel Brooks movies would be if the intent wasn't humour, it would be hate propaganda. Again, though, this is really a flimsy argument, how can you enforce something on the basis of intent?
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I did read the article you posted My point is that those statistics really don't matter. The blame still is with the offenders.
Say, for example, that a man committed a sexual assault and it was found that he looked at porn often when he was young (14 or so). No one is arguing the porn made him do it, they are saying that it was a factor in his decision. But what if, as the article claims, people who are mor likely to commit sexual offenses are also more likely to view porn? Maybe the two are related (just not directly), but I just can't believe that the porn is a major contributing factor to the decision to view porn.
I didn't say that very well. I guess I'm trying to say that someone inclined to commit a sexual assault may also be inclined to view porn. But the two actions are still very separate. Just like someone inclined to commit a sexual assault may also be inclined to read war books.
It's kind of like the video games cause school violence argument. School crimes have been going on long before Quake was around, only until the media started discussing the situation was it an issue.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: If it is simply a nude picture and someone looks at it and feels the desire to commit a criminal act, then that person is to blame, not the porn.
Actually, it's not porn unless there is a sex act depicted. In the case of child porn, an adult touching the child with any part of their body or the child touching themselves in a sexual manner is enough to make it porn.
Basically, if looking at Michaelangelo's David makes you want to go out and rape people, you're just really weird and nothing society does can stop you. But if Hardcore XXX makes you want to violate someone in the manner that was depicted, it could be argued that that was the point. If porn makers are encouraging rape, doesn't that make them accessories to the crime?
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
quote:if Hardcore XXX makes you want to violate someone in the manner that was depicted, it could be argued that that was the point. If porn makers are encouraging rape, doesn't that make them accessories to the crime?
Yes, it would, if the makers are encouraging rape. If the porn is of two people having sex (both, presumably willingly) and someone views it and then commits a crime, I do not think it would be any different from your sculpture example.
If someone views two people having sex (again, both willingly) and then has a desire to commit rape, that person has a problem and needs help. The solution to the problem is not to get rid of the porn (as it's unlikely doing that would relieve the person's desire to rape someone).
Edit: I think it's obvious that child porn is a whole different matter. ANY manner depicting naked children is harmful. Though I would argue it is not harmful because it may or may not encourage others to commit similar acts, but because it is harmful to the child involved in the picture. *cough* I hope that statement doesn't come back to smack me later, though I'm seriously considering not posting it.
[ April 06, 2004, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Chungwa ]
Posted by BookWyrm (Member # 2192) on :
Hmmmm.... fat people go to the local Burger King/McDonalds/Hardees 5,6,7 times a week. And we know obesity is harmful to society as a whole in the costs. Should those be outlawed? Stores have products out on the shelves. People Steal. If the stores had everything locked up then people couldn't steal. But every thief goes to a store. Maybe we chould outlaw stores since they cause thievery. Everyone has hands. People use their hands to kill other people. Maybe we should outlaw hamds so people won't kill each other? Every killer has hands you know. See how rediculous the argument is that Porn causes sexual deviance?
Posted by Lara (Member # 132) on :
I had to take a class in Mass Media Law a few years ago, and I wrote a paper on the dilemma of regulating the internet, so I had to read through a lot of cases that dealt with things like this. I think the bottom line is, the Supreme Court doesn't like to pre-regulate anything, they just pull it after the fact if it's too obcene, and then their definition of "obscene" is really vague.
This case from 1973, it's called Miller vs. California, was the one my prof said was definitive on the issue. Justice Berger said,
quote: "This much has been categorically settled by the Court, that obscene material is unprotected by the First Ammendment."
And then the definition of obscenity is:
quote:The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
I agree with Trogdor on the principle of the thing, though.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
There are lots of other forms of art that I think have negative social consequences. Like Bill O'Reilly's books.
The Miller v. California decision was silly, and will one day be overturned.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Hmmmm.... fat people go to the local Burger King/McDonalds/Hardees 5,6,7 times a week. And we know obesity is harmful to society as a whole in the costs. Should those be outlawed? Stores have products out on the shelves. People Steal. If the stores had everything locked up then people couldn't steal. But every thief goes to a store. Maybe we chould outlaw stores since they cause thievery. Everyone has hands. People use their hands to kill other people. Maybe we should outlaw hamds so people won't kill each other? Every killer has hands you know. See how rediculous the argument is that Porn causes sexual deviance?
All of those analogies are flawed. If people develop an addiction to Burger King and then need increasingly greasier food to satisfy their craving and then commit criminal acts because of their craving, then you've got a good analogy.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
The problem with pornography, the way I see it, is not the nudity or depiction of sexual activity itself. It's the incredible level of misogyny that permeates most of it. Alot of pornography, hardcore or otherwise, is openly hostile towards women. It is not rare even in so-called "soft" porn to see women being forced into sumbission, or called by extremely degrading terms.
So, sorry, I really don't think that pornography itself is not to blame for the actions of sex criminals. I just don't buy that.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Porn has nothing to do with it, even though the research proves it?
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
What about my last statement?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Pat, he said that he doesn't think that pornography is not to blame, not that he thinks pornography is not to blame.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Oops. I misunderstood. My bad. sorry.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
In general, I find most people are frighteningly naive.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Hehehe... I guess I must have worded my last sentence wrong. I was agreeing with you, not disagreeing. I said that I think that pornography IS to blame, BECAUSE it is misogynistic.
Sorry about the confusion. Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
HEY GIRL! WHERE YOU BEEN?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
It wasn't worded wrong, digging holes. It was just a double negative (making a positve), and those can be hard to follow sometimes.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
holes -- -- I smelled fresh meat and swooped in. Sorry.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
No problem. I'll try to not use double negatives in the future. It's true they can be confusing.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
I believe the correct wording is "I won't use no double negatives."
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Kayla? I axed you a question, yo.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Well, you know, here, there. I bought a new Game Boy Advance SP and two of the Spyro games for it. See, it was too dark on the regular Game Boy Advance for my old eyes to actually be able to play Harvest Moon, so I wanted the GBA/SP so I could see what I was doing, and as long as I was getting the GBA/SP, I might as well get the Spyro games, because I have all the other ones for Playstation, PS2 and GameCube. I'm a Spyro freak. And my husband might need gall bladder surgery and my cholesterol is too low. Where have you been?
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Dallin just got a Game Boy sp and the two Spyro games for his birthday not two weeks ago. I play them when I get spare moment.
Good to see you around.
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
Then I'm definitely naive. Maybe I'm just in a snarky mood tonight but this
quote:It's naive to say that Pornography does not harm women, kids and men
seems to be such a rhetorically blanket statement that you're inviting disagreement. It is obvious that you think that, on the whole, pornography has an extremely negative impact on society.
I will state, as a given, that porn is harmful to children. Done. It's not geared towards kids, shouldn't involve kids, and should't be shown to most kids, much like alcohol, tobacco, blah, blah.
Is it harmful to women ? I'm still on the fence about this. It probably, currently, has a negative impact on women in society as a whole. I've read plenty of sexual abuse statistics claiming it does. My problem is, how do you define pornography ? Everyone immediately thinks of super-hardcore orgy fests where women are nothing but meat. Are marital sexual help tapes also condiered porn ? Is Playboy ? A popular argument against Playboy and other adult magazines is that they take advantage of/objectify women...but magazines everywhere objectify women. Does Maxim take advantage of women ? Does Cosmo objectify women ? How about literature ? Penthouse forums ? "Romance" novels ? It all depends on how you define it.
Is it harmful to men? All else balanced, I say no. In a small percentage, it may encourage deviant sexual behavior. In a slightly larger percentage, it may impede healthy the ability to form healthy relationships with women. Given on both points....but when taken as a whole, that a) most men masturbate and b) better than half admit to watching porn, it doesn't look like much harm is caused at all. I'll even put forward the comical benefits that viewing porn reduces stress and can be viewed as a form of exercise, much like sex. And since it seems semi-relevant, made headlines today, and is scientific, I'll posit that viewing porn can help prevent cancer.
Note: I realize that this argument has probably come up in the forum before. If any Hatrack vets disagree with anything I've said but don't feel like rehashing old bits, feel free to mail me a link to your old arguments
[ April 06, 2004, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: Zamphyr ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
How does your cholesterol get too low? I guess if you knew that it wouldn't be hard to fix.
quote:sexually deviant behavior vs. cancer
Let's see, most folks don't harm someone else when they get cancer. Though most children do learn how to eat from their parents. And I would disagree with Jon Boy's statement that bad eating habits don't result in "tolerance". Witness supersized meals and 64 oz. Big Gulps. But I don't think it's worth it to take kids out of homes just because the parents are morbidly obese.
But I kind of agree with King Benjamin that it is impossible to enumerate all the ways there are to sin. The only way to endure to the end is to focus on doing what's right, not avoiding what's wrong.
P.S. Zam, I'll be happy to read your post if you put some paragraph breaks in it. Otherwise I'll just assume you disagree with Trog. Though the link did catch my eye. Why is porn necessary to increase the lymphatic circulation to the groin?
[ April 06, 2004, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I don't see that your link proves anything of the sort. All it demonstrates is that pornography is bad for kids (assuming you share basic assumptions).
The correlation between pornography and sex crimes is only one side of the picture. To prove anything, you'd have to be able, at least, to give numbers describing what portion of adults who view pornography do not committ any crimes. Otherwise, all you've got is correlation, not causality. (Can you tell I teach statistics?)
In fact, it's logical to assume that these deviant adults seek out pornography because of their sexual issues, not that the pornography causes these issues. To return to the fast food analogy, fast food doesn't cause people to be gluttonous. Plenty of people can eat it in moderation. But obese people may be more inclined to seek it out. Studies that look only at obese people would likely find that there is, in fact, a correlation between these people and fast food, but it is incorrect to presume that the fast food is responsible for their behavior.
The only statements there which do seem to speak to causality are those that refer to the exposure of children to pornography, because they compare exposed children to those that were not exposed. Which makes a pretty good argument for keeping porn out of the hands of kids. It doesn't follow that porn is inherently dangerous to adults.
quote: All of those analogies are flawed. If people develop an addiction to Burger King and then need increasingly greasier food to satisfy their craving and then commit criminal acts because of their craving, then you've got a good analogy.
I don't think it's flawed. The first part of your statement ("If people develop an addiction to Burger King and then need increasingly greasier food to satisfy their craving . . . ") pretty much is what happens to people addicted to fast food. The absurd conclusion of this statement doesn't happen simply because these people can find a legal outlet for their craving. People "addicted" to rape or to sex with children can find no such outlet.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: Then I'm definitely naive.
Like I said, in general, I find most people are frighteningly naive.
Patrick, it is a freak of genetics. It runs in my family, though I've raised it from 97 to the mid 140s. Only 6% of people have cholesterol lower than 160, so there hasn't been much emphasis on how to raise it. When they were studying the effects of lowering cholesterol, though, they noticed that beyond a certain point, there was no decrease in death. What changed was the method of death. Cardiac death went down, but suicide, violent death, and death from cancer and hemorrhagic stroke increased. They also posit that low cholesterol might be responsible for depression, anxiety and aggression. The idea is interesting when you look at post partum depression. During pregnancy, cholesterol actually goes up to around 300, then drops after. If cholesterol is the catalyst for serotonin reception, then the high level during pregnancy would explain the "glow" pregnant women have and the depression when it drops suddenly.
Also, only 20% of your cholesterol is controlled by the food you eat. The rest of it is produced by your liver, which is also what is supposed to get rid of it. Malfunctioning livers are the cause of the problem, either eating too much or not enough, or producing too much or not enough. So, if I could figure out what the hell was wrong with my liver, and all, you know. My liver has always been screwed up, though.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Also, Dallin has good taste in video games. Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
It sucks when you're liver is screwed up. Ever thought about donating it?
I guess I'm naive, too.
You see, I work with men who have problems with porn. It has destroyed their marriages. It has alienated their children. It has ruined their lives. Mormon men who were living normal lives, except that they were so terribly addicted to pornography that they couldn't stop -- even to save their jobs. Multiple guys, all over the Western United States who get sucked into the false world of pornography, get fired from their jobs, their families, their children because of porn.
C'mon Icky. Those statistics aren't just for kids. Read them again. They state that grown up sexual deviants use pornography before they molest., or rape.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I addressed those statements. There is no comparison to how many non-deviant men also use pornography, so all you have is a correlation, not causality. It's hardly suprising that pedophiles use pornography, but it's a long way from establishing that pornography contributes to the incidence of child molestation.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I say that looking at porn doesn't make you a total loser/sex freak/rapist/killer/clown making pancakes. I'd say that's really more of a symptom. I bet the statistics also support violent or molested childhoods, too, and I think that steps should probably be taken against that before we start shooting down porn.
If people aren't screwed up one way, they'll find another. Whores, further rape, assault, you name it, their bizarre psychological flaws go far deeper than girl on girl action.
[ April 06, 2004, 11:16 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Psst, Pat, I was agreeing with your original statement.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:I bet the statistics also support violent or molested childhoods, too
Another good example of a frequently misunderstood statistic (albeit a different one, because causation is demonstrated here--but it's a good example of statistics which only look at one side of a dynamic). Statistics show that a very significant percent of molesters are more likely to have been molested themselves--I don't recall the exact number, but let us say, hypothetically, that it's a majority. And so I have seen it argued in a parenting class that adults who were victims of molestation should not be allowed to adopt, because the majority of them go on to molest children, right? Except, that this is not true. The majority of molesters may have been molested, but the majority of victims do not go on to molest. This person was misapplying the statistic.
[ April 06, 2004, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: lcarus ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think foods and porn are both in a market driven "survival of the fittest" race to increase consumption. They don't really know or care whether the foods kill people of the porn results in crime.
But like viruses, they can only be so harmful to the "host" if they are to propogate. That is, the flu can spread because it makes people feel really yucky but leaves most of them alive. Ebola is a really effective killer, but because it causes such worrying symptoms (like bleeding from the eyes) it has a lower opportunity to be spread to a new host. Hmmm. Where's that syphyllis link?
Anyway, I think the market ultimately moderates for these things. If everyone who sees a film winds up in prison/unemployed, the word of mouth advertising is going to be somewhat limited. If the only people who are addicted to Oreos make you want to spontaneously start doing sit ups, they may lose their appeal. But then, it hasn't worked for cigarrettes.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
What I was saying was that a significant number of molesters were probably molested as children. What you were saying was that not all molested people grow up to molest, right?
[ April 06, 2004, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I think it was a side comment, Book, not that you were necessarily making the incorrect correlation*.
* Correlation or Causation in this case? I don't want to think about it enough to get it right.
[ April 06, 2004, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Right Book. I'm not arguing with you, just using that issue as an example.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Okay. It's just that this quote
quote:This person was misapplying the statistic.
confused me.
So, I guess I still stand by the idea of stopping child molestation is a much better idea than getting rid of porn, which is just a catalyst that can easily be replaced. Real life has enough naughtiness in it to fuel a few wackos.
[ April 06, 2004, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Heh, my cholesterol has been pinned at 150-155 for years. I'm a genetic anomaly!
-Bok
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
The person in my parenting class. Sorry for being unclear.
(I wouldn't call you "this person"; I'd call you Book! )
[ April 06, 2004, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: lcarus ]
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Pornography contributes to the incidence of child molestation.
The National Coalition For Children's Justice (Ken Wooden) Between 1981 and 1985, child sexual abuse rose by 175%. Child molestation cases in the home in 1986 were 216,216.
* National Center of Child Abuse and Neglect, Children's Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Study of National Incidence and Prevalence of Child Abuse and Neglect (1988) (NIS-2) There were 138,000 children abused sexually in 1986, and another 17,000 in danger and at risk of being sexually abused.
* U.S. Department of Justice, Network News, Fall Edition (1985) "One in three females and one in ten males will be sexually molested before the age of 18. Four million child molesters reside in this country."
* Abel (1985) A study of 411 non-incarcerated sex offenders (sexual deviants or paraphiliacs) showed that sex offenders attempted an average of 581 sex offenses each, completed an average of 533 offenses, and victimized 336 people each over a 12 year period. This included pedophiles (child molesters).
* Abel, et al (1987) "The frequency of self reported crimes" (for the non-incarcerated sex offenders they studied) "was vastly greater than the number of crimes for which they had been arrested. The ratio of arrest to commission of the more violent crimes such as rape and child molestation was approximately 1:30.
* Report of the U.S. Congress Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on Child Pornography and Pedophilia (1986) "No single characteristic of pedophilia is more pervasive than the obsession with child pornography. The fascination of pedophiles with child pornography and child abuse has been documented in many studies and has been established by hundreds of sexually explicit materials involving children.
"Detective William Dworin of the Los Angeles Police Department estimates that of the 700 child molesters in whose arrest he has participated during the last ten years, more than half had child pornography in their possession. About 80 percent owned either child or adult pornography.
Child pornography plays a central role in child molestations by pedophiles, serving to justify their conduct, assist them in seducing their victims, and provide a means to blackmail the children they have molested in order to prevent exposure.
* Abel (1986) He studied 240 child molesters (pedophiles). They averaged 30 (homosexual or same-sex) to 60 (heterosexual) victims before being caught. The typical child molester will sexually abuse 380 children in a lifetime.
* Carter et al (1984) The Los Angeles Police Department reported that most child molesters were themselves molested as children. They tend to seek out victims of the age they were when first molested. One study reported that 57% of molesters studied had been victims of child molestation themselves.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Pat has a hypothesis that porn causes sexual crime. If this is true, then we would expect to see an increase in sexual crime along with an increase in the consumption of porn. These links show that either sex crims either have remained basically flat, or by and large declined over the last few years.
I didn't post links that showed that consumption of porn use in the US that show its use has been skyrocketing. If this is a source of disagreement, I'll dig some up.
Pat, you are using what I think is referred to as a dysfunctional population. That is, you are basing your reasoning on the fact that sexual 'deviants' watched porn before they were arrested. So, therefore, porn causes sexual deviance and crimes.
I hope my links help to at least make everyone reconsider that your premise might be false. That for the general population of people, porn does not result in sexual deviance.
Porn is basically just watching people have sex. Yes, there is some funky crap out there. But by and large, it's just camera friendly sex geared towards men.
I am willing to concede that porn can be addicting and that's it's not good for some people. I, personally, would never want porn in a relationship since I am way insecure and I have someone antiquated ideas of fidelity. However, I disagree that porn must usually equal perversion or that it must be a problem. I think my links at least support this idea inasmuch as it relates to sexual crimes.
I hate getting into discussions about porn. Like certain other people with regard to other topics, I am leary of this one because I have, for varios reasons, a tendency to get pissed off when discussing it. So, I'm going to try and stay out of this thread.
I know it sucks when people post things and run, but I did want to at least give some evidence to the contrary of what you posted since I didn't see anyone else doing that.
Again, my basic stance on this is that the state should just let people sort this stuff out for themselves if they are adults!
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka Though the link did catch my eye. Why is porn necessary to increase the lymphatic circulation to the groin?
Not necessary, but definitely helpful if a wife or girlfriend isn't around
For a more light-hearted look at this serious subject:
I don't know how they do it but the Daily Show always seems timely with its bits. Tonight- Warning Kids away from Porn. They had 2 Christian youth ministers on who use puppets to explain and warn kids away from porn. The Christian web site - http://www.xxxchurch.com
After a brief visit to the site, I'm not sure if I like it or not but its good to see them taking a down to earth view of the subject. I did like the JUST FOR... sections under the No To the Bunny heading on the side menu. From the Just For Men section
quote: Fact #1
Women are beautiful because that's the way God made them. We are naturally attracted to them... He did not craft the woman's body so we could pay $3.95 a month to look at naughty pictures. There is so much more to God's plan.
Can you tell I'm bored tonight ?
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Yeah, what he said.
(In reference to Saxon)
[ April 06, 2004, 11:51 PM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
I'm on deadline, so I can't post much.
I'm not trying to argue that all people who look at porn will turn into deviants.
I am only trying to say that it's silly to say that, in general, porn doesn't harm women, kids or men.
That's all.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
By the way, I know I mentioned it, but just to make it clear, I do not endorse porn as being 'healthy', either. It's best to get gratification from 'real' life as much as possible. I can agree that porn is not conducive to focusing, and adjusting, on the real world.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Cool. I don't disagree with what you're saying, then. And I agree with your general attitude on porn in many ways.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
And we're saying that it's not a particularly interesting or new statement.
"It's naive to say that Cigarettes do not harm women, kids, and men."
Well, gosh. That's just as true. But what do we do about it? That statement doesn't have anything to do with a solution, which is why people aren't really worrying themselves about your thread title.
What some people would say is, "Not all pornography harms women, kids, and men." In fact, not all cigarettes cause harm to women, kids, and men. There is a small but distinct amount of cigarette smoking from which the body will take no damage (something along the lines of one or two cigarettes a week).
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Pat, we seem to be failing to communicate here. The vast majority of the statements in your link, including those which you quote, do not in any way address the issue. Of the ones that do make some statement about both pornography and sexual crime, virtually all focus on statistics about known perpetrators, which, as I've been saying, do not prove causality because they only look at half of the issue. The single reference I found to a study of the effects of pornography on nonperpetrators--Zillmann, Dolf (1982)--exposed participants to "massive" doses of pornography, as they described it.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote: I'm not trying to argue that all people who look at porn will turn into deviants.
I am only trying to say that it's silly to say that, in general, porn doesn't harm women, kids or men.
That's all.
To establish this, you need to establish that it leads to crimes that would not otherwise have been committed. Which means you need to show more than just a correlation.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I think it's also naive to say supporting President Bush's reelection does not harm kids, women, and men. In fact, many things harm other things, directly or indirectly.
The question is, how much does it harm things, and would it be right to legislate it, or unfair?
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
quote: To establish this, you need to establish that it leads to crimes that would not otherwise have been committed. Which means you need to show more than just a correlation.
Joe, I understand your need from your statistics standpoint that the argument follow logical lines that are supported by generally accepted hypothesis and all that.
I read many of these studies as saying that the minds of children are being tainted with this stuff at an early age and then are becoming damaged participants later. Am I off on this?
If these kids who turned into deviants didn't have the porn in their lives early on, they wouldn't depend on it to perpetrate their crimes.
[ April 07, 2004, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Trogdor the Burninator ]
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote:The question is, how much does it harm things, and would it be right to legislate it, or unfair?
I think that the question is even simpler. Does the harm outweigh the good?
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Man, who would've thought that a discussion about porn and rape would've gotten so impolite...
Oh, I can't fight back the tears....
[ April 07, 2004, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
And Trog? Nice reading into things.
I tell you that your initial statement is fine, but the follow-through is where the disagreement lies. And you would rather ignore me because you sense some sort of underlying tone that I don't intend it to have.
But either way, I'm going to sleep. So I'll check back tomorrow.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:I read many of these studies as saying that the minds of children are being tainted with this stuff at an early age and then are becoming damaged participants later. Am I off on this?
I don't think you are off on this. (Actually, I believe I'd already granted this point.) This sounds like a good argument/call for responsible parenting. And as a society, we should also try to limit the exposure of children to pornography, by limiting its accessibility. (At least, that's my knee-jerk reaction.)
Frankly, I think that there are a lot of other messages in the media that are damaging to children, and it's a shame that we don't make them less readily available to children, and that we tolerate their being marketed toward children. Most of this responsibility should fall on parents, but I would tend to agree that we as a society are not helping parents out.
EDITED to clarify that I was agreeing with you on this point, in case it was not clear.
[ April 07, 2004, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: lcarus ]
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
You're right, I overreacted, and I'm sorry.
I've edited my post to reflect it. Sorry.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Thanks. I don't intend to sound condescending, or however it sounded. It's just some sort of conversational stream-of-consciousness method I tend to use.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote: I think that the question is even simpler. Does the harm outweigh the good?
I don't think it's that simple. Would you say this is a good basis for, say, deciding our laws?
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Dang you, Joe.
You're right, of course. Those statistics I've been using don't back up what I'm trying to say. And I'm not sure I'll be able to find stats to back up what I'm trying to say, either. So, I retire back to fluff.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
That'd be a shame, because I find semi-serious conversations with you to be among the most interesting.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Then let me illuminate what it is, exactly, that I'm trying to say.
First off -- what I'm not trying to say: That all men, women and children exposed to porn become deviants or any corollary therein.
I'm not arguing for it's elimination, because it's a pie in the sky solution.
I'm not saying that porn should be banned by the government, even though, I do feel it should be herded back into the netherlands of American society where it's not as readily available as it is today, but that's a subject for another thread that I will not start.
What I am saying.....
We know that porn harms kids in horrible ways. No arguments there.
We know that porn harms women in its depictions, and that deviants use it to act out crimes against women. So, again, I'm sure we'll find not much in the way of disagreement here, either. I was merely arguing that the existence of porn can indirectly harm women.
With men, I'm going sheerely on personal experience which probably is influenced by friendships I keep, which are generally white, conservative and Mormon, with a sprinkling of outliers here and there.
My personal experience is that the act of secretly looking at porn, combined with a desire to keeping it hidden, yet becoming extremely addicted to it nonetheless harms any man who values his family. I guess a corollary of this would be to not get addicted to porn in the first place.
Maybe I should have started this thread with this post, eh?
Now you know why I restrict myself to the fluff.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Trogdor said: I am only trying to say that it's silly to say that, in general, porn doesn't harm women, kids or men.
That's all.
"In general" is a very large assumption. Maybe the majority of the people you have contact with who view porn also have other problems with their life, or maybe the access to porn has caused trouble. But you're not dealing with a representative sample by any means. The only people who seek help about their porn problems are those who believe they have porn problems. Since a huge number of people that view pornography don't have an uncontrollable addiction to it, you're not going to see them.
Also, I bet you that the consumption of alcohol has a vastly higher impact on the occurrance of sex crimes. I bet that if you looked at all sex crimes, a huge number MORE perpetrators would have drank alcohol beforehand versus the number of people who viewed pornography beforehand. Is drinking the crime? It certainly impairs judgement more than pornography does.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Well, as a college student, I am generally surrounded by people who spend a lot of their time looking at porn, and I'd say that even through it all, they're pretty decent and intelligent people.
I think the most certain and undeniable statement about porn you can make is that: Men are dumb.
Or, at the very least, veeeery simple.
[ April 07, 2004, 01:47 AM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote: My personal experience is that the act of secretly looking at porn, combined with a desire to keeping it hidden, yet becoming extremely addicted to it nonetheless harms any man who values his family. I guess a corollary of this would be to not get addicted to porn in the first place.
This sparks a thought in my mind: Is porn more damaging to men who feel guilty about it than to men that feel it is natural and healthy? Thoughts?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:I'm not arguing for it's elimination, because it's a pie in the sky solution.
I also don't think elimination of pornography would BE a solution at all. Eradication of porn certainly wouldn't eliminate or reduce human fascination with sexuality, and it wouldn't eliminate sex crimes.
I'm not even sure you could argue that it would reduce sex crimes, because the causality for sex crimes is so complicated. Perhaps many people who wouldn't find .. um.. release in pornography would be driven to illegal actions.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: Is porn more damaging to men who feel guilty about it than to men that feel it is natural and healthy? Thoughts?
Good question. Could you replace the word "Porn" with any product? One could argue that alcohol is more damaging to men who feel guilty about it than to those who feel it is okay to drink. I guess what is the long-term effect or harm that comes from feeling guilty would be a question to ask?
fil
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
We know that porn harms kids in horrible ways. No arguments there.
Sure there are. I confess I skimmed over parts of this thread, so forgive me if I missed this: have you defined "porn" in your examples yet? An awful lot of kids found their dad's magazines and movies without turning out to be deviants. An awful lot of kids can tell the difference between exaggerated fantasy and real life. And, sadly, an awful lot of them can't. I submit that sexual images per se are not immediately damaging to children. I can accept that sexual images of a violent type, or abusive type, or images depicting kinks that aren't readily explained can be damaging, and I can see where children exposed to sexual images might try to emulate them earlier than is good for them. But I don't accept that the sight of porn atuomatically ruins a kid for life.
We know that porn harms women in its depictions, and that deviants use it to act out crimes against women.
No, actually, we don't. Some porn is created by women, for women. Some is created for couples. Some is created by ordinary people for their own enjoyment or to sell as "amateur" tapes and images. Some is done with a sense of style, humor and affection (granted, not much, but some). I'll concede that deviants may use it to act out crimes, but why isn't that the deviant's fault? Would they be perfectly normal if porn didn't exist?
My personal experience is that the act of secretly looking at porn, combined with a desire to keeping it hidden, yet becoming extremely addicted to it nonetheless harms any man who values his family.
Fair enough. My personal experience is that the act of sharing your erotic interests with your spouse and discovering his or her own, adding it as an occasional spice to your relationship, can heighten and strengthen your physical bond. Hiding anything from your spouse is a bad sign for your relationship. Answer: Don't do it, or don't hide it.
It's naive to say that Pornography harms women, children and men. It's not naive to say that some women, children and men have been harmed by pornography. There's a difference.
[ April 07, 2004, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Threads started by Storm keep me from getting work done during the day. Threads started by Pat keep me from getting to bed on time at night. Pat, you're creeping on Stormy's territory--I'm not sure he'll be okay with that.
-o-
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is porn more damaging to men who feel guilty about it than to men that feel it is natural and healthy? Thoughts? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good question. Could you replace the word "Porn" with any product? One could argue that alcohol is more damaging to men who feel guilty about it than to those who feel it is okay to drink. I guess what is the long-term effect or harm that comes from feeling guilty would be a question to ask?
To the first question, I would say probably so. I wouldn't agree with applying the thought to alcohol. There aren't a lot of people who experience extreme guilt over moderate to slight amounts of alcohol, as opposed to porn. The people who experience guilt over alcohol are typically consumers of large quantities, which, like consuming mass quantities of porn, we can probably agree has adverse effects quite apart from any psychological guilt suffered.
(The only way to know for sure would be to look at people from religions where alcohol is completely forbidden, who yet drink amounts that anyone else would consider miniscule, and see if they have unhealthy psychological effects from the guilt alone. If so, that would seem to say more about the prohibition than about the vice being prohibited.)
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
I left the church for a number of years and I never felt guilt over the miniscule amounts of alcohol I drank (or the one or two times I got so drunk I passed out--I wanted to experience the full effects of alcohol). It didn't harm me physically or psychologically.
But I agree, is social pressure more damaging then most vices? I tend to think so. It is the reaction to our actions, imo, that causes more harm then our actions themselves, unless of course we are talking about abuse.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:It is the reaction to our actions, imo, that causes more harm then our actions themselves
Alexa, I completely disagree. Reactions from society do affect a person, and heaven knows that lack of support and approval even when someone is doing something that can't be approved of is devastating, but there are actions have consequences of their own, for better or for worse. Society's reaction is another wrinkle and can exacerbate the situation, but it isn't the sole source of consequences.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
She didn't say it was the sole source. She said it caused more problems. And that's debatable too, of course, but it starts us on the road to realizing that there are two factors to consider, and evaluating how much of our issues each is responsible for.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm a little bothered by the double standard here and in American culture at large. I don't have any specific evidence Pat, but I'm willing to put at least a small bet that you'd be one of the first people to react sarcastically to a criminal blaming his bad environment for his behavior, and yet you're bending over backwards to make porn this all-consuming influence that can take good people and turn them bad. I object to that kind of magical thinking. The "good" Mormons you know who developed a porn addiction most likely had problems with interpersonal relations and with sex before they really got into porn. There's little doubt that getting heavily into porn intensified these problems, but porn was not the primary cause of their problems. They would have existed, albiet in a less intense form, if these men never saw any porn or even an R rated movie
America has a big hangup with sex and it expresses itself in unhealthy attitudes from both sides of the sexual spectrum. Both repression and over-emphasis or permissiveness are bad ways to approach the situation. However, just like their are unhealthy ways to be (greatly simplifying) pro and anti sex, there are also healthy ways to be either.
I don't know, it seems to me that sometimes I'm the only person who sees things in certain ways. For example, I am very concered about the state of American families. I consider this one of the most important things we have to focus on in order to have a heathy society. The thing is, I see almost no connection between, say, sexual deviance or homosexual marriage and the state of the family. And, I've yet to see an even logical argument that this is the case. Instead, you get a lot of magical, symbolic thinking. If you accept that people having sex in "strange" ways somehow magically causes immorality, than these arguements make sense to you, but I really haven't seen any real logic behind them.
Likewise, the whole Janet Jackson thing seems crazy to me and a manifestation of an underlying psychological hangup about sex. Somehow, magically, seeing a breast is going to turn people into thieves and murderers. Don't get me wrong, I understand about the problems and desacralization that comes from marketing sex the way that our country does 24/7, but this one specific incident doesn't desrve anywhere near the shocked approbabtion that it got.
Especially from the "Who will think of the children?" crowd. You ask a developmental psychologist what's the biggest negative influence on children from the media and it's never going to be sex. There just isn't anywhere the evidence to support this claim. It's always going to be the glorification of violence. So, from that perspective, it's a little strange for people to complain, "I was watching a TV spectacle that glorifies violence and supports a culture of celebrity worship with my six year old, and now I'm outraged because they might have seen a breast." It's like complaining that you didn't get the vegetarian meal that you asked for when your plane is about to crash.
These sexual hangups are a big problem in America, but the solution isn't more repression. Like all types of repression, that just gets rid of the concsiousness of the problem, not the motivating problem itself. People need to come to terms with the fact that sexual urges are a part of human experience and that they don't have to be these overwhelming forces that, unless we block all stimulating circumstances and opportunities of expressing them, force us to do things. In large part it is this alienated attitude towards sex that leads exactly to the things that the people who hold it decry so strongly. And this needs to come from both sides. People need to recognize that people can maturely choose to have or to not have sex and that the healthiness of this attitude comes from the way that it is held and not which side they choose.
[ April 07, 2004, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I don't think we even need to involve crime statistics in the discussion at all.
Someone asked earlier - Is Maxim magazine degrading to women? Is Cosmo? Are harlequin romance novels?
Yes, yes, and yes. The problem isn't what is or isn't depicted. The problem is the objectification of human beings as sexual objects. And it's everywhere. I just passed a movie poster for "The Big Bounce" that showed all of the stars - the 3 or 4 male stars fully dressed and the female star in a bikini. This attitude is totally prevalent in our society. Female actors have to be drop-dead gorgeous. Swimsuit models have to be tan, hairless, and busty. Attractiveness of females is always based on sexual attractiveness and the more flesh we see of our favorite celebrities, the more we like them.
It's hard to be taken serious as a woman in this society. I want people to talk to me because of my personality, my thoughts, and my words. I don't want people I'm dealing with on a professional basis to be evaluating me physically or comparing me to their favorite scantily clad actresses.
I've been in situations conversing with male friends when they've brought up pornographic habits or attractions, and I wanted to bolt out of the room. I went to dinner with a group of men and they chose to go to Hooters. I sat outside in the car. I refuse to be included in situations like that where people are turned into objects.
Pat's experience with men who've ruined their families with pornography is far more compelling and true than any conjectures you can make about statistics and causation. Pornography is degrading. It ruins families. It devalues women. Arguing that women enjoy and take part in it is only showing that women can be degenerate too.
The problems our society has today with broken families, abuse, and heartbreak come directly from our attitudes towards sex and the devaluation of what is essentially a sacred thing.
Argue semantics with me all you want, but I'm going to trust in the evidence I've seen in people's lives. People who live chaste and modest lives are happier and their families better off than people who engage in sexually deviant and explicit lifestyles.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Annie, I'll repeat, the men Pat referenced had some big problems before they wre exposed to porn. They would have had big problems if they had never been exposed to porn. This is exactly why the difference between casuation and correlation is so important here. The assumption you and Pat are making is that the root cause of these problems is that they were exposed to porn. This is obviously not true or else everyone who was exposed to porn would act the same as they did. I think that this attitude betrays magical thinking.
As for the larger social implications, I am totally on-board about being against the objectification of people. A big part of my objection, however, is that it seems to me that people focus almost entirely on the sexual related angle of this and thus do a really bad job of handling the problem. Just like preventing two committed men or women from getting married is not going to stop child abuse, getting rid of porn is not going to stop objectification, although, as it is a contributing cause to the development of objectification, it might lessen it.
When people focus on sex as opposed to the wider issue, they seem in large part to be working out their own problems with sex. Not suprisingly, this leads to a very poor performance when actually trying to solve a particular problem, as opposed to relieve psychological tensions by projecting tem somehwere else.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Arguing that women enjoy and take part in it is only showing that women can be degenerate too.
My wife will appreciate that, I'll pass it along.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Some of the most depressed and self-destructive people I know are "chaste", in that they have major problems with sex and with interpersonal intimacy and thus have never even kissed someone. Some of the most well-adjusted people I know are gay and/or sexually active. The people in the first group have a relatviely uncomplicated attitude towards both sex and people, while those in the second have a much more complex attitude.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Squicky, you're saying the only people affected by porn are those with big problems?
That were not apparent any other way. That's very convenient - porn causes deletorious consequences, and it isn't it, it's the people themselves. There were no adverse effects before, but now there are.
First, you are making some INCREDIBLE, wish-ful thinking assumptions about those affected by porn that you cannot know, and secondly, if the presense of a catalyst causes a reaction that would not happen without that catalyst, the catalyst bears some responsibility.
What if half the population was allergic to bee stings, and bees were regularly pumped into public squares. You're suggesting that since the bee stings wouldn't be fatal without that allergy, it isn't the bees that are causing the deaths.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:Pat's experience with men who've ruined their families with pornography is far more compelling and true than any conjectures you can make about statistics and causation.
My point was neither academic nor semantic. Pat's anecdotal experience is simply not evidence of what you say it is. And people who go around throwing words like degenerate at other people never quite understand why, later, other people come along and call then narrow-minded, bigoted, ignorant, and so forth.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ick, setting aside the porn for a moment, are you saying that degenerate does not exist? That nothing is?
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Kat, the original assertion here was Pat's. All Squick is pointing out is the lack of evidence to back up this assertion. Now you want to turn it around and say that there is not enough evidence to prove the assertion false. Fair enough, but the lack of evidence against a statement is not, in and of itself, evidence for the statement.
And, um, yeah, I would agree that the only people who develop problems with porn are people who already had unhealthy issues with sex.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
On what basis?
Unless you consider developing a problem with porn to be the proof that there was something unhealthy.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, I never denied that the exposure to porn and the subsequent addiction led to an intensification of what was already there. Pornography can act both as a semi-catalyst and as a factor that contributes to the development of these problems in the first place. However, it's a not a magic thing that causes things to appear that aren't already there. Unless you're willing to accept that, like in your bee sting example, porn addiction is a purely biological process.
I'm not primarily concerned with defending porn here, but rather criticizing the magical attitude that people seem to be taking towards sex. I totally agree that there are problems with porn. It's just that I'm unwilling to accept that porn is in fact the root of these problems or that sexual aspects of problems have an existence completely separate from all the other aspects.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Maybe the porn users had problems with sex, or maybe they became habituated to self-gratification through TV, food, or internet other than Hatrack. Okay, so maybe this isn't the healthiest thing for me to spend my morning doing.
quote:Not necessary, but definitely helpful if a wife or girlfriend isn't around
Dude, is your imagination broke? Can't think of anything except beef stew?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
How pervasive does something have to be before it changes from a freak imperfection to something is just one of the challenges of life?
*nods* Okay.
[ April 07, 2004, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
No, Kat, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that when one throws words like that around in a forum, one forgets that there are real people on the receiving end of those words. I'm saying that it's not all academic. Just like, I'm sure, you would not say that bigotry does not exist, that there is no such thing, but you would not want to be personally painted that way by somebody with a too-wide brush.
I've met Chris and Tere. If they fit your definition of degenerate, your definition is wrong.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat, The basis is that, if you don't accept a magical interpretation of sex, then there is no evidence to support that idea. It goes against everything else we know about non-biologically based psychological problems.
Can you come up with an explanation as to why what you're saying should be so that doesn't rely on "Well, obviously sex is the root cause of problems." as one of it's assumptions?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Okay, so you're trying to remind everyone that real people post here. That's fine.
Although I would love to see that lecture directed at Lalo every once in a while.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:what you're saying
What I'm saying?
I haven't said what I think about porn and sex and that whole frequin' drama yet.
If you are asking (and thank you *curtseys*), let me think for a minute and I'll post it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To back Icky up on the degenerate thing, I'm oging to argue (as I always do) that degeneration doesn't exist intrinsically in acts themselves, but rather in the attitudes that people bring to these acts. Some things it's pretty darn impossible to approach without degenerate motivations and that will lead to an intensification of these motivations, but I'd argue that a list of these things doesn't correlate all that well with a list of things that many people label as "degenerate". Also, I think that nearly all actions, even some of our most lauded ones, can be degenerate if someone approaches them that way.
It's when you label something without understanding it, where you use your own perspective as sole judge, that you earn the label of bigot. As I've said before, it's entirely possible to be against things like gay marriage without being a bigot, but the way that many people hold their beliefs against these things are in fact bigoted.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
quote: And, um, yeah, I would agree that the only people who develop problems with porn are people who already had unhealthy issues with sex.
And I would state that a obvious extension of the previous 'unrelated' studies I posted is that porn since porn is interesting, more readily available, a secret habit and pretty darn addictive that it can turn someone who has healthy issues with sex into someone who has unhealthy issues about sex.
Let's say a young boy stumbles into his father's hidden bookmarks one day which are chock full of soft porn. The initial reaction is to get away. But that image is there forever now, able to be acessed whenever he wants. It may start to fade, and to compensate for this, he goes back to the bookmark folder to look at that again.
Then a pop-up add entices him into another site, a little nastier yet a little more intriguing. He figures out that when he combines this with masturbation, he gets a thrill he's never had before, and it gets worse from there.
Anyway, Do I have empirical evidence that states that this happens? Not yet. I am in the middle of finishing three research papers right now and can't spare that much time to go out and research this.
But I guess I believe that even though I have established causality and not something else is irrelevant.
I've seen it happen to normal people like me in high school, during my mission, to friends, neighbors, family and people who live down the street.
Anyway, before the stones start coming my way again, I'd like to see studies that prove the opposite of what I'm saying. I'd genuinely be interested to see if that happens.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:where you use your own perspective as sole judge
Those who are uncomfortable with other people's perspectives don't last long on Hatrack. Considering the plurality of opinions is often cited as one of the benefits of Hatrack, labeling someone as a bigot is akin to saying "You don't belong here."
I'd love to see all this defensiveness directed against those are actively trying to make someone feel like they don't belong here as well.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I believe porn is addictive, but that word gets tossed around a bit. There are folks with addictive tendencies and there are substances described as addictive (Klonipin, heroin). Folks with addictive tendencies can get addicted to really ridiculous stuff. Whereas not all addictive substances trap everyone.
In Care of the Soul Dr. Peck claimed that only a small percent of the G.I.s who used heroin in Vietnam remained addicted after they returned to the States Edit: Pot is considered not addictive, unless you are a person who has addictive tendencies. So if porn were a drug, where on that scale would it fall?
Chris, why would your wife need porn when there are Johnny Depp films? (though I suffer from incomplete information on this score- I think you referred to Johnny Depp being in a porn film once).
[ April 07, 2004, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
I also am choosing to not use this thread as saying person A is bad because he looks at porn -- that is very counterproductive, and I really don't feel that way at all.
I am arguing that there is some real significant bad that comes from the existence of pornography in this world.
Perhaps I'm not doing too great a job at it, but that's what caused me to start this thread.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And I'm not trying to say that porn is a boon to mankind. I'm trying to argue that by fostering magical attitudes towards sex and treating it as both much more important and separate from other issues, you are actually doing a disservice to making society healthier.
I don't think anyone here is going to argue that saying that porn can lead to problems is wrong. We've been taking exception to the way you've been trying to make your case.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
I know. Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
quote: that by fostering magical attitudes towards sex and treating it as both much more important and separate from other issues, you are actually doing a disservice to making society healthier.
Can you explain what you mean by this statement, Squick? Especially the 'magical' part of it?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:And I would state that a obvious extension of the previous 'unrelated' studies I posted is that porn since porn is interesting, more readily available, a secret habit and pretty darn addictive that it can turn someone who has healthy issues with sex into someone who has unhealthy issues about sex.
Let's say a young boy stumbles into his father's hidden bookmarks one day which are chock full of soft porn. The initial reaction is to get away. But that image is there forever now, able to be acessed whenever he wants. It may start to fade, and to compensate for this, he goes back to the bookmark folder to look at that again.
Then a pop-up add entices him into another site, a little nastier yet a little more intriguing. He figures out that when he combines this with masturbation, he gets a thrill he's never had before, and it gets worse from there.
I'd agree that that progression of events probably does happen.
Your questionable premise, however, is that anything you've described above is unhealthy or bad.
----
Furthermore, EVERYTHING probably causes problems in some way or another, directly or indirectly. Marriages can harm people, the birth of babies can harm people, the winning of the lottery can harm people. The fact that something harms people does not prove it is bad.
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
I think I should contribute that my roomate loooooves porn, more than anyone I know, but he'a also the one most faithful to his girlfriend. Seriously, he goes home about every weekend to see her, and that's quite a jaunt from Austin to Houston. He's also the most sensible person I know.
I know that's just one example, but it's still an example, nonetheless, and one that represents most men, I think. We just likey the naked ladies.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Pat, do you feel that you have had stones thrown at you in this thread? Do you feel that I have done this? I thought I was debating politely with you, and I'm sorry if you don't see it that way. Perhaps I should go find some fluff threads to stick to.
So far, Mr. Squicky is summing up my beliefs pretty perfectly. I'm not trying to defend porn per se. I don't actually derive enjoyment from porn myself.
Kat, the first person to label someone a bigot over the homosexuality issue was actually not Lalo or Leto, and I questioned it at the time, and concluded in a post that I disagreed with the blanket charge of bigotry. I know that you take a lot of undeserved crap, but that doesn't really have any direct bearing on my objection to Annie's statement.
[ April 07, 2004, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: lcarus ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Magical thinking is a complicated subject. It's sort of a way of looking at causation based on things because of what they are instead of what they do. It's like engaging in superstitious thinking. Depsite there being no logical relation between things, you link them anyway.
In many cases, magical thinking takes the form of unproven assumptions that people are then resistant to objectively examine.
In the field of religion, rituals are considered magic if they are seen as conferring power based on their intrinsic nature versus a symbolic significance. If say an object or a series of words or whatever is seen as having intrinsic supernatural powers, this is a case of magical thinking.
In this case, what I'm objecting to is the idea that sex acts as a sort of extrinsic demonic influence. That is, it can effect changes in people completely against their will instead of building on things that are already inside them. I think that this attitude is especially ironic, because, as I noted, many of the people who hold it also tend to express a strong belief in non-determinism in other areas, such as having no sympathy towards people who claim that their bad environment caused them to do bad things.
I'm also objecting to people using sex as a magic symbol for all types of immorality. It's like holding up preventing "deviant" sexual acts as going to somehow fix the problems that American society and families have. People are not focusing in on sex because they have any logical reason for thinking that it is the root of these things, but instead because they regard it as a magical source of immorality (I think largely because they are projecting their own hangups with sex). To apply it specifically, I think that treating a porn addiction as fundamentally different from all other types of non-biological addictive behavior is a good example of this.
To me, depersonalization is a huge problem with American society, but I think that it arises from our overemphasis on extreme individualism, among other things, and not because sex is magically corrupting our minds. As part of this, sexual depersonalization is just an aspect of the larger syndrome of depersonalization that leads to things like road rage and such.
edit: I'm not sure how clear I making magical thinking. I was trying to be economical. I can explain at greater length if people don't understand.
[ April 07, 2004, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
No Joe, I don't believe people are throwing stones. We might have trouble communicating and I get really stressed out when I don't present an argument in the best possible way.
You, Squick, Tres, Suneun have all been very polite about this, no worries.
I just want to make sure this isn't a thread to bash those who look at porn. I said over and over again at the beginning that it isn't my contention that porn is bad for everyone.
My contention is that existence of porn can lead to bad results.
I do, however, get a little depressed when people dismiss me as a back water Mormon hick who is backwards politically and therefore doesn't have an opinion that matters in the grand scheme of things. I have felt like some people, not you, feel this way about me.
To be honest, that doesn't even bother too much.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Cool, I'm a degenerate poster child!
And thanks, Ic... I think...
Truth to tell, my wife would probably prefer Depp movies over any porn I could think of, at that. And he didn't do a porn movie (that I know of) but he did appear naked in a stupid-teen-sex-type movie called "Private Resort" that was at least as poorly done as any porn movie I've ever seen.
Let's see, a statement of opinion is due, I think.
I do not think porn, by itself, is dangerous or bad. I do think that a great deal of porn manages to objectify the man and woman, in that the woman is reduced to merely a sex object, receptacle, or target, while the man is reduced to a pistoning machine and often just a set of anonymous genitalia. I also think a significant amount of porn is erotic and beautiful, stimulating and fun. It goes without saying that I only watch that type I also think that drawing a line between the two is impossible, as it would change for everyone. I think that anyone who gets all their ideas about intrapersonal relationships from porn is going to have a skewed and possibly anti-social attitude, in much the same way as a person who learned all about relationships solely from sitcoms, Harlequin romance novels or grade-B horror movies. I do not believe that explicit images of sexual behavior should be readily available to kids in this society, as the sex-laced atmosphere in which they're growing up makes the message twisted and confusing. I do believe that explicit images of sexual behavior should be readily available to an adult who desires them. I believe that some adults can not and should not be exposed to pornography because of their anti-social reactions. I do not believe that all pornography should (or could) be outlawed because of those adults.
Finally, I believe that the very best way to combat the evils of pornography is education and example. Work to create and maintain a solid, loving relationship with your spouse or SO. Your kids should know what a good relationship is because they've seen it all their lives. Talk to them about men and women and make sure they know the importance or respect and commitment. Teach them about sex and the joys and the responsibilities, and make sure they know that there is no sex without consequences. Make sure they know that there hasn't been a porn movie ever made (not even the ones with alternate camera angles) that can approach the experience of knowing another person loves you.
I'll have to dig around for the link, but a few years ago there was an excellent column by a man who walked in on his son surfing a porn site. He didn't freak, he didn't yell, instead he sat down with his son and they went over the site together. He asked his son if he thought the woman on the site he was looking at was representative of all women, and if he thought she respected herself. He asked if his son thought she would make a good girlfriend. He talked to his son about objectifying people, and about separating fantasy from reality. They talked about appreciating beauty without sacrificing human contact, and the difference between sexual fantasies and what was likely to happen in a real relationship. They got into a discussion over sexual urges and how to express them (or not). Ultimately they ended up making fun of the site together. Rather than a potentially embarassing and psychologically damaging incident that added shame to his son's attitudes towards sex and caused an uncomfortable rift between them, it became a bonding moment where he found an unparalled opportunity to help guide his son's attitude towards pornography and women in general. I grant you this is an unlikely option for the majority of fathers, many of whom don't have these things figured out themselves yet, but it impressed me as a great option besides "yell at him" and "ignore it."
[ April 07, 2004, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Pat, I find you to be one of the most universally respected posters. If anybody dismisses your opinions, they are in a vanishingly small minority.
As far as finding concrete evidence on either side of this issue . . . I suspect it will be hard specifically because so few studies focus on healthy adults and their habits. Typically, they start with people with issues and work backward from there. To prove either side of the question, we need to know about the porn habits of people with a healthy view of sexuality, women, and family life. And all we seem to have on that is anecdotal evidence (and unscientific polls carried out by popular magazines, I suppose.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ick: Okay.
<O/T> I've thought about why I get a lot of crap, and I think it's a matter of posting a lot, being stubborn, and the mix of bravado and vulnerability. Posting a lot and being stubborn means I'm almost guaranteed to say something to offend, the bravado can create a wish to bring me down, and the vulnerability means it may be possible.
I hate it, personally, but in order for the crap to stop, either human nature has to change or else I'd have to change one of those aspects of posting. I don't see that happening. My options are to either retire to avoid it, or else to hit back when it happens. I LOVE being defended (it's both shocking and touching to me), but I understand it...could be a full-time job. (Heh) As a result, I'm more prolific and a great deal less open than I would be otherwise.
[ April 07, 2004, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Well put, Chris. (What, you preferred having your wife called degenerate??)
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
MrSquiky has touched on this...
I would like to see if we can find a meaningful definition of porn. I see a variety of porn from Hardcore porn sites to appealing to the sex drive in advertisements. What constitutes porn? what type of porn are we talking about?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Trapper: Klinger's not a pervert! Margaret: How do you know? Trapper: Because I'm one, and he's never at the meetings!
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
How about this characterization: 1)Most addictive behavior is harmful. 2)Male primates as a whole are generally easily visually stimulated and primate sexual cues tend to be visual in nature. 3)The nature of humans as primates means that pornography is often effective in stimulating arousal. 4) The widespread availibility of pornography ensures that a greater number of humans who are predisposed toward addictive behavior will come in contact with pornography. 5) Therefore the widespread availibility of pornography ensures that more people will engage in harmful beahvior.
The only fault I can see in this chain of logic is if one takes exception to my first statement. If that is the case then I wonder if there are examples of addictiive behavior which is not harmful.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I'm sorry if my post was worded in a way that made me call your wife degenerate. I promise that is not what I intended.
Degenerate was probably an unwise word to use because of its Nazi connotations.
I firmly believe in the worth of human beings, even those who engage in activities that I see as detrimental.
However, I firmly stand behind my convictions that certain behaviors are bad. That does not make people who engage in them bad people, but the actions and the ideas that give birth to them are bad. I do not apologize for that.
I'm idealistic in nature, and don't even intend to address the political ramifications surrounding this issue. I'm not going to pass a law that outlaws your personal preferences, but I do reserve the right to tell you that things are bad. I am not doing this because I hate or fear certain people. I am doing this because everything I have experienced and learned has lead me to the firm belief that seeing others as anything other than brothers and sisters who deserve to be treated with the utmost respect leads to sorrow and pain and social conflict.
I am arguing that the attitudes that allow not only pornography but any objectification of other human beings as sexual objects (I never said that sex was mystical or magical - I said it was sacred) are harmful to our society. I am allowed to say this.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Thanks Ick.
I now leave this thread to Jacare's keeping.
I'll be watching from a distance as I write my paper feverishly.
Carry on.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Annie: no worries, I was laughing when I posted it. Please do not think you've offended me in any way, and I hope I haven't caused offense myself. You are more than allowed to say what you like, you are expected to, at least here.
My preferences stem from my belief that sex is not sacred, not inherently. I think sex can be sacred, and that a strong sexual relationship is a powerful element of a lasting relationship. I also think it can be a fun way to while away the afternoon. Or a playful ending to a romantic evening. Or something to take the edge off with a friend. Or it can be a passionate reaffirmation of everything you feel for your one true love. Or any of those, at different times, even with the same person.
Because I feel that way, I don't see pornography as inherently harmful. Because you feel otherwise, your own beliefs are a natural outgrowth, and I certainly can't see anything wrong with that.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Sorry, I'm back..
Chris, it seems as if you're equating sex and porn to be the same thing. I think this might be one of those barriers to communication we're experiencing.
It's my opinion that porn depicts a wacked out version of sex that is for the most part, false.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually in the last post I was responding to a specific comment made in Annie's post.
Porn is sex fiction, nothing more or less. Good porn (IMO) depicts fun and loving sex, and also also shows more of the lives, thoughts, and feelings of the people involved and makes me care about them as more than just sexual creatures. Bad porn (again, IMO) treats sex as dirty/violent/nasty/pseudo-rape with impersonal partners. Sex is the key defining aspect of porn. Otherwise it's another genre with a heavy erotic element.
I also think part of the commnications problem is that you can look at some of the crap you get in your e-mail (Hot Young Lesbian Virgins Who Want You!) and say, "That's porn, it's disgusting, therefore all porn is disgusting." Or you can watch, say, a Femme Productions video (created by a female writer/director, who picks real-life couples whenever she can and avoids all the tacky cliches, invasive camera angles and bad soundtracks), see the beauty of people loving each other, and say, "That's porn. That's pretty cool."
The attempt is often made to separate "pornography" from "erotica," but as has often been stated the only real difference is the lighting. "Pornography" refers to any fictional media where sex is the main subject. That's an awfully big area to be hanging blanket statements on.
[ April 07, 2004, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote: The nature of humans as primates means that pornography is often effective in stimulating arousal.
In this logic chain, I see this as a breaking point. While it might be true that pornography is often effective in stimulating arousal, it isn't the only thing that does.
For that to lead to
quote:Therefore the widespread availibility of pornography ensures that more people will engage in harmful beahvior.
seems a bit of a stretch. Men and women's clothing serves multiple purposes. Yes, it is mostly to cover us up and keep us warm or comfortable but plenty of clothing is created to make a person more pleasing to the eye. In some outfits, this means accentuating certain parts of the anatomy that some might find attractive. Also, the way we cut our hair, wear makeup, etc. is usually done to be pleasing to the eye. Why do this if not to "arouse" some part of the person looking at you?
If you accept that most people are trying to make themselves physically attractive to those around them, how would that effect your reasoning?
fil
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Most of the opinion on this thread likely derives from each person's attitudes about sex and how society views sex vs how it should view sex. I think that widespread pornography is merely symptomatic of a larger and more important societal trend concerning all human relationships in general. If all pornography was as Chris describes the type he likes then possibly it wouldn't be very harmful. However, if my e-mail box (and hollywood, and the video store) is any indication, that is not the most common variety.
I can see at least three societal trends of which widespread pornography is symptomatic:
1) The "me" generation. There seems to be a widespread trend of contemplating one's own naval (or other parts in this case). "What about my feelings" and "I'm the victim here" seem to be very widespread attitude. The litigiousness of our society is another symptom of the attitude that can be summed up as: I will do whatever it takes to satisfy my needs/appetites/ desires, even if it hurts someone else. Pornography is a reflection of this in that it provides the sensual satisfaction of a desire for sex without any of the need for a relationship. It essentially reduces sex to satisfaction of appetite. I think it is obvious how this could lead to unhealthy relationships if this attitude persists. In fact, isn't this the very attitude of all "casual sex", one night stands etc?
2)The loss of general human relationships. This is the result of several contributing factors. In its essence, this is the observation that many, perhaps most, Americans don't know who their neighbors are, their extended relations etc. Direct human contact relationships are substituted by things like this bulletin board, online dating services etc. Pornography is a reflection of this trend in that no relationship is required for "sex". For the stereotypical porn addict this means that rather than caring for grooming and learning manners and developing an actual relationship, download some movie files or pictures and have a relationship with yourself. The pictures or movies don't care if you have no social grace.
3)A change in general attitude about marriage and families. This is of course related to the other two trends, but the basic idea is that in a society which considers it perfectly OK to have premarital sex, live together before marriage etc. masturbation and pornography obviously lose their stigma.
I think that the above trends are all generally harmful to both society and individuals and that pornography as both a symptonm and a reinforcing agent is also generally harmful.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
fil- you skipped a step there.
quote:3)The nature of humans as primates means that pornography is often effective in stimulating arousal. 4) The widespread availibility of pornography ensures that a greater number of humans who are predisposed toward addictive behavior will come in contact with pornography. 5) Therefore the widespread availibility of pornography ensures that more people will engage in harmful behavior.
Step 4 is an important link. This does, of course relate to how we dress as well. Dressing to be attractive, accentuating certain anatomical features etc. to a greater or lesser extent is indeed aimed at the same goal of sexual stimulation. To feed an addiction with say, preoccupation with cleavage would however require either developing a relationship with someone willing to dress to satisfy this addiction or prolonged periods spent in places where this addiction could be satisfied such as the beach. Either way if it reaches the level of addiction I would consider it unhealthy.
Keep in mind that generally those who dress with the goal of sexual stimulation in mind are broadcasting to a wide range of people something they almost certainly intend for only a select audience. There are consequences o this sort of thing which many times no doubt are other than the desired result.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"It's my opinion that porn depicts a wacked out version of sex that is for the most part, false."
Depends on the quality of the porn, of course.
Seriously, Pat, you're starting from the assumption that porn is bad and attempting to "prove" it by pointing out statistics that say, "See? Bad people enjoy porn."
Bad people also, in overwhelming numbers, own shirts.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If...
Before shirts = normal, happy lives and After shirts = self-destructive choices.
Then...
there's a problem with shirts.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Seriously, Pat, you're starting from the assumption that porn is bad and attempting to "prove" it by pointing out statistics that say, "See? Bad people enjoy porn."
Bad people also, in overwhelming numbers, own shirts.
This is the scientifc method: Collect data, hypothesize a theory, test the theory.
Pat has seen that porn has harmed people he knows. He hypothesizes that porn is a factor in causing bad behavior. He has cited evidence which supports that hypothesis.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Before shirts = normal, happy lives and After shirts = self-destructive choices."
The thing is, there's been no study that demonstrates that people slip into unhappiness as a consequence of porn. At best, we find that unhappy people are more likely to view porn than unhappy people -- which is, at best, one-way correlation.
Jacare, Pat's working from anecdotal evidence -- which is easily countered by all those hundreds of thousands of people whose lives are not destroyed by porn -- and quoting studies that show correlation.
It's like saying that because I know some white people who are jerks, and citing a study showing that most jerks in America are white people, that being white turns people into jerks.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Pat has seen that porn has harmed people he knows. He hypothesizes that porn is a factor in causing bad behavior. He has cited evidence which supports that hypothesis.
Chris has seen that many of the people he knows enjoy porn of some variety, from the occasional risque story to making their own web site. Chris has seen that some of them have relationship problems, some of them do not. Chris does not see any causal effect. Chris suspects that porn can offer justification for deviant behavior in someone with other problems. Chris has never heard of anyone who was well-balanced and happy before being abruptly twisted by exposure to porn, although he has known people with pretty weird attitudes towards other people and sex who also collect porn. Chris sees no evidence that porn has ever caused anything, whether it be deviant behavior or carpel tunnel. Chris declares that people are responsible for their own actions, no matter what their influences are.
[ April 07, 2004, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:If...
Before shirts = normal, happy lives and After shirts = self-destructive choices.
Then...
there's a problem with shirts.
1) Not if you have no statistics on how many good/healthy/happy people also happen to own shirts.
2) We don't know that they had normal, hapy lives before. I rather doubt it, in fact.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
We wonder why Chris switched to third person.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Chris wonders why Icarus has changed to the royal "we."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What studies? The studies is thrown around like there is final evidence for their view by both sides. Saying studies support with a thorough examination of all of the above doesn't do anything except invoke amorphous outside evidence to counter Pat's definite experiences.
The plural of anecdote is not data, but why dismiss the anecdotes?
--o--
I believe that those who are looking at porn often begin unhappy. And that looking at porn makes someone who WAS unhappy even more unhappy, and often exacerbates the problems for the unhappiness in the first place. The greatest source of unhappiness or unhappiness of a person is the quality of their interpersonal relationships, and I haven't seen anyone even argue that porn improves real human relationships.
---
quote:I rather doubt it, in fact.
Why? Because they started looking at porn, so they couldn't have? It's a circular argument.
[ April 07, 2004, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Jacare, Pat's working from anecdotal evidence -- which is easily countered by all those hundreds of thousands of people whose lives are not destroyed by porn -- and quoting studies that show correlation.
It's like saying that because I know some white people who are jerks, and citing a study showing that most jerks in America are white people, that being white turns people into jerks.
Rather than pick at the imperfect analogy why I don't I ask this:
When human subjects are involved in a behavioral study how can anything beyond correlation be shown?
Chris- of course anecdotal evidence is always dismissable and easily countered by another anecdote. I happen to agree that everyone is responsible for their own actions. Nonetheless I still think that pornography is generally unhealthy and can foster bad behavior.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:The studies is thrown around like there is final evidence for their view by both sides.
Actually, I specifically said it would be impossible to prove either perspective given the studies we were all seeing, because they all began with unhealthy men.
-o-
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I rather doubt it, in fact. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why? Because they started looking at porn, so they couldn't have? It's a circular argument.
Um, look at your own preceding paragraph.
(And I'm not saying that all men who look at porn are unhappy (though you did); I'm just speculating that the vast majority of those who are unhappy after looking at the porn were unhappy before.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's my belief, and that's based on experience with those I know that did use porn. Are you basing your opinion on mine?
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
Edit: Whoops...double...how did that happen?
fil
[ April 07, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: fil ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
katherina - if you could include the modifier "some" I'd have no problem with anything you posted. When you make blanket statements that I know don't apply to every instance, then I have to take issue.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:When human subjects are involved in a behavioral study how can anything beyond correlation be shown?
Actuality, causality can be strongly suggested by showing correlations that work in the direction of causality, and balancing for every other variable you are able to think of. Though this means that studies of humans have to have huge sample sizes to show anything meaningful. While this is certainly not impossible, psychological, educational, and other "soft science" journals are often filled with "case studies," or statistics from 16 people, or wide-scale statistics that simply do not address the relationship that they claim to address. So yeah, most of this research is of little worth, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to ever have any reasonable certainty on causality.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*nods* Okay. Which statements do you object to?
--katharina (there are no e's in katharina - one poster at a time )
[ April 07, 2004, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Jacare - I'd need to know how you're defining "ponography." You've seen my definition, and some small idea of how I would start classifying different versions. Do you believe that any representation of erotic love is harmful, or only certain types? Depending on how you define harmful pornography, I might agree with you.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I have no knowledge at all about how many people who use porn are or are not happy. If you want to say that most of them are not happy, I am willing to stipulate to that. My belief is that those who are unhappy after using porn generally were already unhappy before.
Posted by ? (Member # 2319) on :
When I was in High School I took Law Enforcement and a cop taught it. One day he got really serious and warned us to stay away from porn at all costs. He said that every major crime that he saw started first with an addiction to porn. Whether it was drug, theft, or (obviously) rape related. He couln't think of one case where porn didn't have something to do with it.
?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:My belief is that those who are unhappy after using porn generally were already unhappy before.
1. Why do you believe that? 2. Since happiness isn't a binary state, anything that exacerbates and compounds unhappiness is not neutral.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Actuality, causality can be strongly suggested by showing correlations that work in the direction of causality, and balancing for every other variable you are able to think of. Though this means that studies of humans have to have huge sample sizes to show anything meaningful. While this is certainly not impossible, psychological, educational, and other "soft science" journals are often filled with "case studies," or statistics from 16 people, or wide-scale statistics that simply do not address the relationship that they claim to address. So yeah, most of this research is of little worth, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to ever have any reasonable certainty on causality.
Again, can causality be proven with humans? No way, at least not without breaking some serious ethical rules.
As far as the soft-sciences go- there is a good reason to take many of those "recent findings" which discover that this prevalent societal issue or that bit of controversial legislation is psychologically supported with a grain of salt.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Jacare - I'd need to know how you're defining "ponography." You've seen my definition, and some small idea of how I would start classifying different versions. Do you believe that any representation of erotic love is harmful, or only certain types? Depending on how you define harmful pornography, I might agree with you.
Trying to pin me down, eh? I guess I'd probably say that anything classified by folks as "hard" pornography is harmful. Bestiality, rape, and anything that has zooming in on genitalia falls on that side of things.
The fuzzy line comes into play between things like "David" and say the playboy centerfold. One is clearly pornography and the other is not. The intent is the difference and obviously intent cannot be legislated.
To be honest I haven't yet thought of a definition I am comfortable with.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
katherina - (and I usually answer one post at a time too, otherwise it just gets too confusing ) Now I'm looking back and wondering if I read your post wrong or if it got changed in your last edit. Your comment about people looking at porn being unhappy seemed more absolute the first time I read it, and if I misunderstood I apologize.
I will comment on this, however: "I haven't seen anyone even argue that porn improves real human relationships." Okay, watch closely:
Porn can be used to improve relationships. Note I still avoid implying inherent qualities. Porn doesn't "do" anything.
Porn can be used in sex education. Porn can be used by individuals who are not currently in relationships as a comforting practice. Porn can be used by people in relationships to discover each other's interests, or to learn new methods of pleasure they might not have thought of on their own, or just as entertainment. Porn can be used by people in relationships who cannot engage in sexual relations for some reason, i.e. long distance separation, medical ailments, etc.
However, I must stress that I don't advocate any of that unless such content is "safe, sane and consensual," I think using porn as a substitute for human interaction is personally crippling, and I think any person in a relationship who hides their stash from their partner is riding the line of adultery.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
To me, it is pornography if it is intended to titilate. By that definition, I consider Victoria's Secret ads to be pornographic.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Jacare - some suggestions.
Pornography is sex fiction. Pornography is any media intentionally designed to arouse. Pornography is any media which depicts sexual contact. Pornography is any media which depicts explicit sexual contact.
Note - I'm trying to come up with definitions that can be easily applied, and it's still pretty tough. I'm also not starting out with "pornography is bad, so which sexually-explicit media is bad enough to be considered pornography? Hmm..." Instead I'd rather come up with a generic definition and then subdivide.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Chris: I only changed my sig in the last edit. I didn't change any of the content concerning this topic.
I think we are much closer to agreeing than it first appeared. The scenarios you described are...well, at least in the popular culture references and in my (albeit limited) experience with those who used porn, the rare exception.
And...(with love)
katharina. katharina. There are no e's in katharina. *sings* There are no e's in kathari-eena... (sung to the tune from American Tale.)
[ April 07, 2004, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: Jacare - some suggestions.
Pornography is sex fiction. Pornography is any media intentionally designed to arouse. Pornography is any media which depicts sexual contact. Pornography is any media which depicts explicit sexual contact.
Note - I'm trying to come up with definitions that can be easily applied, and it's still pretty tough. I'm also not starting out with "pornography is bad, so which sexually-explicit media is bad enough to be considered pornography? Hmm..." Instead I'd rather come up with a generic definition and then subdivide.
See, I don't really like any of those definitions. The "sexually explicit" one maybe comes close, but then there is the whole argument about what is sexually explicit material. It just moves the fight to a new battleground. What I am thinking about is a definition that a law could be written around.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
katharina - agh! My sincere apologies. You may misspell my name as you wish. I can suggest some doozies if you like
Jacare - But you're establishing a fight I have no interest in, so I can't really help you there. Try this: how would you word a law banning rap songs that glorify cop-killing and bitch-smacking, without banning pop music entirely? Figure that out and you'll be closer to where my line is.
I do wish you luck, though. The courts have ben trying for many generations now and they still haven't gotten much past "I know it when I see it."
[ April 07, 2004, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Oh, Chris, I'm so glad you are in the world.
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
By those definitions, half of CT's posts would be illegal.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Patrick, Jacare, and the rest:
I understand your distaste with porn. I don't encourage pornography or consider it art in any fashion. It's a medium that caters to the unrealistic, and actually paints people—both men and women—in a fantasy that simply doesn't exist. Trust me, I've known porn actors and dated strippers, and there is absolutely nothing extraordinary or even interesting about the porn industry. If anything, they go through ridiculous amounts of trouble to create the illusion, made even more difficult because the only people who do anything in the industry are people who are too incompetent or untalented at the profession of making film, print, or acting/modeling.
I'm not arguing your fight against porn, I'm arguing against your "definitive" proof.
Otherwise, I could use this and this to say that Christians, and Christian Protestants in particular, are more likely to get divorced, thus Christianity is bad, and it's naive to say Christianity does not harm families.
The `rackers here wouldn't let me use the post-hoc argument then, why is it all of the sudden okay to use now? Oh, I get it... because it's arguing against something more people will find palatable to argue against.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
Dont sit there and argue semantics with each other about what porn is.
YOU KNOW WHAT PORN IS Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: a law banning rap songs that glorify cop-killing and bitch-smacking
what about ho-slappin? that's not at all the same as bitch-smacking and i feel as though it should likewise be dealt with in it's own seperate amendable bi-law.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Thanks.
I've said all I want to say on this matter. Other people can play ball now.
[ April 07, 2004, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: Trogdor the Burninator ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
That's real convenient, Pat.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
John it's not you, it's not even this debate. I graduate with a master's degree in three weeks despite having massive amounts of research left on my main project. I'm woefully behind, even though I've taken several days off to catch up.
In order to fully commit myself to this discussion that I started, I would have to commit a large amount of my mental faculties to it, and I can't right now.
Despite that, I'm tired. Very tired. And I still have to work for six hours tonight.
I really need a break from everything, not just this thread. I hope you don't take offense.
Pat
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Of course not, buddy. The thing is, most everyone else has a different posting schedule.
Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
I know. I'm just a big stick in the mud. If it makes you feel any better, I don't really have a comeback to your post, either, so I guess it is a semi-cop out..
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
That's okay, I really don't feel like arguing against it anyway. Posted by Trogdor the Burninator (Member # 4894) on :
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: I'm not arguing your fight against porn, I'm arguing against your "definitive" proof.
Otherwise, I could use this and this to say that Christians, and Christian Protestants in particular, are more likely to get divorced, thus Christianity is bad, and it's naive to say Christianity does not harm families.
The `rackers here wouldn't let me use the post-hoc argument then, why is it all of the sudden okay to use now? Oh, I get it... because it's arguing against something more people will find palatable to argue against.
The proof is by no means definitive. In fact, I made the argument a short time ago that nothing more than correlation can ever be shown for human behavioral studies.
As a matter of fact, I would say that the data you presented does indeed show correlation between divorce rate and born-again christian religions, although I would like to know more about the statistics used in arriving at the numbers they cite- did they include other variables beyond religion and divorce rate such as education level and income level? This is certainly an ancillary point, but there are certainly other factors at work in the bible belt than just the religion aspect. Of course the same argument applies for Patrick's data: did they include other factors in their study or not?
At any rate you will note that my argument does not rely on any studies of questionable statistical significance. If you like please feel free to attack my position based on the five logical steps I posted earlier.
And, just for the sake of disputing your broad generalization of christianity drawn from one segment of christianity: link Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:By those definitions, half of CT's posts would be illegal.
My darling, I am wounded to the core. I had no idea you thought me so indelicate.
*swoons at the very thought of indecency
As a general piece of advice on this topic, remember that one is likely to get a very skewed idea of how pornography affects people if one only talks to those who have problems with it. Just as interviewing disgruntled former members would give you a warped picture of the Church of LDS, so would interviewing only those who have bad experiences with porn. But then, that likely reflects more on what the individual brought to the experience than on the church or the porn.
Unfortunately, liking porn is pretty heavily stigmatized in the US. So trying to find out porn's true full impact (across healthy and unhealthy persons and relationships) would be like trying to find out about the LDS Church's impact by asking around town during the times when LDS members were actively persecuted, e.g., by being driven out of the greater community. Not unsuprisingly, those that were willing to give out information would be much safer if they spoke disparagingly.*
Not that LDS = porn, of course. It's merely a matter of how the context can skew the data being collected, and a reminder of things to keep in mind while puzzling through a messy topic.
(*And so I boldly declare yet again: I love porn. And I'm happily married and a contributing member of society, more or less. A bit dorkish, though, but that's to be expected. )
[ April 08, 2004, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I'm going to have to dig up a solid reference to this, but I had read "Reefer Madness : Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market" by Eric Schlosser, and he raises two interesting issues (among others) regarding pornography and sex-crimes.
First: he claims that the American demand for pornography is in part driven by its "forbidden fruit" aspect--and that in countries where is it not restricted (the Netherlands, I believe, were mentioned), sure, there's a brief upsurge in its popularity when its decriminalized/destigmatized, but then the popularity wanes, and actually sinks reasonably below its initial numbers. True, the Netherlands don't/didn't have the same Puritanical history that the US has, but the point should be noted (again--assuming that there are other sources besides Schlosser to find this to be true).
Last: He also claims that a majority of sex offenders were not brought up in households full of pornographic material. In fact, he claims the opposite is true--that many sex offenders were brought up in overly strict households. Pornography came later.
Both these points seem to point towards (among other things) a difficulty in discussing pornography--or, more fairly, sex and sexual relationships--as an important marker in a person's (and a country's) attitude towards pornography, sexual material, and relationships between men and women (and, now, as we know, between men and men, and between women and women).
And that last paragraph seems to point towards my difficulty in avoiding parentheses in any discussion!
--Steve
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
I find parentheses to be very pornographic.
It's why I stay out of hug threads.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
{/}
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Just a small tangent rant...
Everyone loves to refer to the US as "puritanical"... do you honestly think we have any sort of puritan influence left? The Netherlands was, in fact, every bit as puritanical as the US - in addition to being a haven for persecuted religious groups such as puritans, quakers, and jansenists, the population was largely calvinist and about as morally stark as you can get. This was, of course, in the 17th century - the same time period in which the US was home to the puritans. Today, the Netherlands is known as one of the most morally permissible countries. The reasons for this are probably related to its democratic and capitalistic ideals, which have totally overrun any lingering "puritanical" influence. Can not the United States have undergone similar change with similar secular and democratic influences throughout the centuries? Anyone who thinks the United States is in any way largely "puritanical" needs to spend some time in an islamic or devoutly catholic country. I assure you, we are not the prudes we should be.
This rant has nothing to do with the discussion at large. You may now return to your regularly scheduled porn thread.
Posted by The Digital Man (Member # 6427) on :
because the word "puritanical" has come to mean "those who oppress others sexually."
this may be a bit prideful of me, but it seems to me that there is a LOT of unhealthy attitude towards sex in both directions... we nonsensically wallow in it and suppress it out of fear simultaneously.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:In fact, I made the argument a short time ago that nothing more than correlation can ever be shown for human behavioral studies.
*sigh* You really don't have any idea about what I do, do you? For anyone who knows a little bit about social scientific research, that's an absurd statement. You may as well say that medical studies can't show anything more than correlation. I wouldn't accuse you of lying Jacare, because I'm pretty sure you have little to no knowledge about what you were talking about. You weren't lying, but you sure don't seem to have a lot of intellectual integrity. Why not just say that social scientists just make everything up? It would be just about as accurate as what you did say.
Theoretically, experiments are the only direct way to demonstrate causuality. However, in both psychological and medical research, experiments are often impossible due to ethical and/or practical concerns. In an experiment, you have to have control over all significant independent variables and often this just isn't the case.
That leaves us with surveying populations and using inferential statistical analysis to tease out likely causality. This is a standard and acceptable for determining causuality in both psychological cases and when looking at posibile causes of a disease.
I have only a passing acquaintence with the literature on porn addiction, but I know a bit more about the addictive personality, so I'll use that as my example for how this was isolated. You start out with a cross-sectional (one time observation, wide subject pool) studies of populations that have people who are suffering from addictions. You use this data to determine in what ways addicted people differ from the non-addicted people. Next, you use cohort (multiple observations over an extended period of time) studies of non-addicted people to study those who, over time, develop addictions. You use this data to determine what the differences are between those people who didn't develop addictions and those that did. Through this information, if it has high significance and low unaccounted for variation, you can say a lot about causality even without direct manipulations such as what you can do in an experiment.
One of the big concepts here that Pat and other people weren't accounting for is variation. That is if comparable segments of your addicted population and your non-addicted population were exposed in equal amounts to the same variable (say, looking at porn), then this variable doesn't discriminate between the comparable groups at all and doesn't account for any of the variation between them. It's a common flaw to look at this sort of thing from only one side (e.g. guy exposed to porn becomes porn addict) without looking at the other side (e.g. other guy exposed doesn't become porn addict). In fact, more than a few times, social scientists have found a relation opposite to the expected one, such as if (and that's a big if) in this case more people who were exposed to high levels of porn didn't develop an addiction than those who did, this would suggest that exposure to high levels of porn acutally decreases the possiblilty that someone would develop an addiction.
All of this knowledge is one of the first things taught when talking about social scientific research. It's also readily available to anyone who's at all interested in the subject. I think that it's fair to say that someone who doesn't know it, most likely doesn't know much of anything about social scientific research and is in no position to say much of anything with any authority about it. So it sort of pisses me off when people do. I work hard for my knowledge. If you want to spout off ignorant BS, don't expect me to respect you for it.
Posted by The Digital Man (Member # 6427) on :
quote:Why not just say that social scientists just make everything up?
they don't?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Puritanical doesn't mean having influences directly descended from the Puritans, annie. Its entered the language as a more generic word, the same as hookers and so many other words. Just because it meant one thing a long time ago doesn't mean it means that today.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"That leaves us with surveying populations and using inferential statistical analysis to tease out likely causality. This is a standard and acceptable for determining causuality"
Squick, doesn't this basically translate -- once you strip it of the excessive ego -- to "we social scientists agree that, if you control for enough variation, correlation can be said to equate to causality closely enough for government work?"
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: *sigh* You really don't have any idea about what I do, do you? For anyone who knows a little bit about social scientific research, that's an absurd statement.
Oooh... shall we compare credentials? A titanic battle of authoritarian assertions?
quote: You may as well say that medical studies can't show anything more than correlation.
Medical studies do not rely solely on subjective data. There is organic chemistry and biology involved which can provide objective evidence.
quote: I wouldn't accuse you of lying Jacare, because I'm pretty sure you have little to no knowledge about what you were talking about. You weren't lying, but you sure don't seem to have a lot of intellectual integrity.
What do we call someone without intellectual integrity? A liar! So you are accusing me of lying when I make this assertion:
quote: In fact, I made the argument a short time ago that nothing more than correlation can ever be shown for human behavioral studies.
And then in the same breath you say:
quote:Theoretically, experiments are the only direct way to demonstrate causuality. However, in both psychological and medical research, experiments are often impossible due to ethical and/or practical concerns. In an experiment, you have to have control over all significant independent variables and often this just isn't the case.
which is exactly the same thing. In a scientific experiment in an area such as chemistry one can control most important variables. In a human behavioral experiment one can control only a very limited set of variables. Ethically human subjects can only be made to jump through so many hoops, but even if ethics were ignored completely the very fact of setting up a controlled experiemnt negates to some extent the applicability of the results to conclusions drawn in real life settings.
quote: One of the big concepts here that Pat and other people weren't accounting for is variation. That is if comparable segments of your addicted population and your non-addicted population were exposed in equal amounts to the same variable (say, looking at porn), then this variable doesn't discriminate between the comparable groups at all and doesn't account for any of the variation between them.
In this example the dependent variable is exposure to porn and the independent is the response to stimulus. However, the assumption that "exposure to porn" is a single equivalent variable already introduces a vast array of variability (ie what kind, how often etc) which cannot be controlled. If a controlled experiment is designed in which everyone is showed the same pictures then the applicability of the findings become dependent on the exact type of porn shown as well as the degree to which the group of subjects studied represents the wider population. If the study is done via survey then there is the huge confounding factor of truthfulness and degree of accuracy. These factors mean that inferring casuality is a fool's errand. Only correlation can be shown. Further, the conclusion you draw from your hypothetical situation is pure speculation. You said:
quote: It's a common flaw to look at this sort of thing from only one side (e.g. guy exposed to porn becomes porn addict) without looking at the other side (e.g. other guy exposed doesn't become porn addict). In fact, more than a few times, social scientists have found a relation opposite to the expected one, such as if (and that's a big if) in this case more people who were exposed to high levels of porn didn't develop an addiction than those who did, this would suggest that exposure to high levels of porn acutally decreases the possiblilty that someone would develop an addiction.
The only conclusion you could possibly draw from such a situation is that some people are not interested in porn when exposed to high levels. Perhaps the amount or type of porn actually has a negative feedback effect with over exposure leading to disgust and disinterest while weaker levels may have been more interesting.
quote: I think that it's fair to say that someone who doesn't know it, most likely doesn't know much of anything about social scientific research and is in no position to say much of anything with any authority about it. So it sort of pisses me off when people do. I work hard for my knowledge. If you want to spout off ignorant BS, don't expect me to respect you for it.
What pisses you off is when people don't bow down to the sort of authoritarian stance you are so fond of taking. An advanced degree doesn't mean a bloody thing when drawing subjective conclusions about subjective data taken in uncontrolled and uncontrollable studies. That is why the social sciences are called the soft sciences.
[ April 08, 2004, 04:00 PM: Message edited by: Jacare Sorridente ]
Posted by Slash the Berzerker (Member # 556) on :
OOoooh!
I love to watch two heavyweights landing body blows.
Though, I think I would have to give that round to Jacare. Sorry, Squick. That 'soft sciences' shot was a killer.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I have a lot of stuff I am going to say here, but I'm certain I will only be shot down for providing anecdotes.
the divorce rate among fire fighter's is very high. At hubby's current station, there is no one that has not been divorced.
Before I go further let me point out I am not trying to say pornography caused those divorces. I am not saying that. Okay? I just brought up the stat because it's indicative that this is a population that statistically has troubled marriages. (and no surprise, considering the schedule)
Pornography is readily available at the fire stations. It's available in both print format and video. In my husband's experience it's hard to get away from. One station he worked in had six televisions, and on certain shifts every one of the six would be tuned in to a pornographic channel or DVD or video.
The only place he could go where it wasn't being shown was the kitchen or the bathroom, and of course in the bathroom there were magazines. He joked once that there were two stalls, one had a stack of penthouse and the other had a Bible on the back of the toilet and he said he was the only person in recent memory that could remember changing the toilet paper in the Bible stall.
Now, my husband and I have a wonderful relationship and we can talk openly about many things. I was honored that he came to me and told me that this was going on - he didn't want there to be any secrecy, because keeping things secret often increases their hold over you. We have talked about how pervasive it was, how tempting it was, and how he sometimes felt he couldn't even control his own reactions. He recognized that he didn't like the fact that he found himself thinking about the things he'd seen, and he made a personal decision that he would not allow porn to be a part of his life. I supported him and we began to pray earnestly about it. Soon, he received a transfer to another station (he didn't ask for it) and found himself working with some fellow Christians in a place where the fight over the TV always revolved around sporting events, not which x-rated movie to see. We think the transfer was an answer to prayer, because he was having a hard time being comfortable in a place where he really could not get away from it. In the other station he couldn't even go get something out of his locker without seeing the TV, and like he said even when he kept his eyes lowered he could still hear things. Even the bedroom wasn't "safe", there are no walls that separate sleeping spaces.
I can't tell you what harm was done to families from the porn shown in that station, I don't know. I know it was harmful to him, if only that it really put a strain on him because it affected his relationships with other fireman, and I hated seeing him go through that. It didn't harm our marriage and I'm convinced one reason is because he was open and honest with me from the very start, the very day he first went there he came home and told me that porn was everywhere, so I never felt there was a secret being kept from me.
This is an anecdote, which you are free to dismiss, but I don't dismiss it. One firefighter who worked at that same station is dead now. He commmitted suicide after being charged with sexually molesting his 13 year old stepson. He left behind several letters, and in one he described how he began watching porn at the station, and soon found that it wasn't enough, he required more hardcore stuff to keep him stimulated. He moved beyond to the internet, then to prostitutes, and then to his stepson. He said he killed himself because he knew he could never stop.
The porn didn't molest that boy. The man was sick, and who knows why or how that happened. But I refuse to believe the porn didn't have any effect whatsoever.
*shrug* I guess I'm not saying anything new and not adding to the discussion except to bring in another anecdote no one will pay attention to. But, I wanted to at least share my thoughts - I think it has the potential to be incredibly harmful and I think that it's too easily available to children.
Example - I went to google image search and typed in "mermaid picture" trying to get some clipart of a little mermaid type cartoon (not the Disney one itself, but one similar) so I could digitize it and emroider it on a dress for my niece. I was shocked at the images that appeared on my screen.
Are we doing enough to keep it from kids if a child can go looking for a picture of a mermaid to print and color and gets subjected to pornographic images?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Belle - while we've been on opposing sides of these types of discussions before, I for one still want to hear your experiences. While I still maintain that porn does not "cause" anything, I do believe it can influence (as you suggest). To believe that media cannot influence is to suggest that media cannot inspire, and I don't believe that either.
And I definitely agree that access should be much more limited than it is now. A few years back my younger son was complaining about never getting mail, so I figured I'd sign him up for some toy catalogs. You know what you get when you go to Yahoo and type in "toy catalog"?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: I love to watch two heavyweights landing body blows.
Can there be mud?
*claps excitedly*
[ April 08, 2004, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by The Digital Man (Member # 6427) on :
*finds it ironic that Psi is anti-porn, but apparently pro-mudwrestling*
edit: your wish is my command, m'lady.
[ April 08, 2004, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: The Digital Man ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Only for me.
(And get rid of that edit. I knew you were teasing.)
[ April 08, 2004, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by The Digital Man (Member # 6427) on :
are you saying that you are the only one that gets to watch mudwrestling, or that mudwrestling is ok as long as you are participating?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Well, both, I guess. Depends on who I'm wrestling with, and if there's a mirror or a camcorder.
[ April 08, 2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by The Digital Man (Member # 6427) on :
*has mirror and camcorder*
who's got the mud?
sorry for getting all silly here, especially after Belle's heartfelt post (which struck me so much that I called Mama Squirrel "Belle" in another thread) but I just felt the need to lighten up all of a sudden.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Gah, I missed Belle's post. Now I feel bad. I was posting when she was.
I'm glad your husband is so committed, Belle. It feels like there's someone out there who wouldn't think that my hubby is weird for all the things he does to avoid seeing porn or explicit things.
Posted by celia60 (Member # 2039) on :
quote: I assure you, we are not the prudes we should be.
I am laughing so hard right now I'm having trouble breathing.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Jacare:
quote:The proof is by no means definitive. In fact, I made the argument a short time ago that nothing more than correlation can ever be shown for human behavioral studies.
That's really all I was saying: using the correlation as definitive proof is the real naivete. It's that kind of correlation in an argument that make for insulting assumptions about things—like being black automagically makes you prone to criminal behavior because the majority of inmates are black—based on too few facts and some "leap" conclusions.
quote:As a matter of fact, I would say that the data you presented does indeed show correlation between divorce rate and born-again christian religions, although I would like to know more about the statistics used in arriving at the numbers they cite- did they include other variables beyond religion and divorce rate such as education level and income level? This is certainly an ancillary point, but there are certainly other factors at work in the bible belt than just the religion aspect. Of course the same argument applies for Patrick's data: did they include other factors in their study or not?
I know that in one of the links, financial status and other factors were mentioned as definite contributors, and that religion is a "maybe" that not all experts wanted to touch (though some made some guesses). The point I was making was not that Christianity is bad, it's that trying to lay blame to only one factor is misleading, especially when that one factor may be a symptom and not a cause. There's no proof that porn is a cause and not a symptom.
quote:And, just for the sake of disputing your broad generalization of christianity drawn from one segment of christianity: link
And notice the difference between temple marriages and legal marriages. That's very telling, both in defense and offense of the idea. See my point?
It goes down to the "power / corruption" argument, which I don't agree with. It's not that power makes one corrupt, but that power is almost exclusively sought by those who are corruptable. The same could be applied to pornography: porn doesn't make one a sexual deviant or criminal, but it is most attractive overall to those who have those propensities. Not that everyone who likes it is a tentative criminal, no more than every person in power is inherently corrupt(able). It plays a more meaningful role as a symptom, not a cause, and that symptom is not exclusive to criminal behavior or sexual deviance. The problem is in such an idea being acceptable (though it would certainly mitigate the use of "it's not my fault! The devil made me do it!" defenses).
Annie:
quote:Just a small tangent rant...
Everyone loves to refer to the US as "puritanical"... do you honestly think we have any sort of puritan influence left?
Considering the Puritans allowed for premarital sex (actually condoned it in some towns), and had some ideas concerning sexuality that would seem racy by today's standards, I'd say the entire use of the term "puritanical" is a misnomer, at best.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
What racy ideas would those be? I'm curious.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
For one, shotgun weddings—where the bride was already pregnant—were not looked upon with disdain. In fact, the majority of marriages were with a pregnant bride.
Posted by Kamisaki (Member # 6309) on :
Huh. I never knew that.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Don't get it wrong: they didn't go around willy-nilly humping each other. In fact, sexual relations and their faith were intrinsically tied. Prostitution was abhorrent, as was what could be called a "slut" (male or female) by today's standards. However, the idea that Puritan = sexually repressed prude is a total mischaracterization.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I'd be interested in seeing the sources for that.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Read a book covering their habits. I can give you textbooks to look for. I don't have any links. You can google it if you want. I'm sure you could find just as many links saying the opposite, as well. The more I learn, the less I find the internet a reliable source for information, especially when it comes to history.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Let me give you something to go on, though: Look for Anne Hutchence, who was someone who was excommunicated, but not because of her "free love" teachings. She was excommunicated because she would not defer to the male leaders of the towns. There were many women who did as she, teaching young women to be better lovers to their men, and sometimes "grooming" young inexperienced men. I'm positive some hits on Hutchence will yield some other names of women who were not excommunicated, specifically because they deferred to the town leaders.
Also, note that the most accurate characterization of Puritanism is not in their sexual mores, but in their isolationist politics. They had great successes, but they were so isolationist that the influx of immigrants to the lands wound up in their own towns becoming outmatched by the newer towns, or immigrants moving in and driving the Puritans out. Most people who came from Western Europe, who were either part of the Anglican or Catholic church, found the Puritan ideals to be unpalatable, mostly because the parts which were liberal were not compatible with the parts of liberal European society (i.e.—Puritans did not abide masturbation, prostitution, or nonchelant meaningless relations).
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
googled Anne Hutchenance and puritan together and didn't come up with anything. Anne Hutchenance alone was mostly genealogy stuff
Once again CT
(I'll watch porn with you any time, )
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: For one, shotgun weddings—where the bride was already pregnant—were not looked upon with disdain. In fact, the majority of marriages were with a pregnant bride.
Wait, I don't see how a shotgun wedding is condoning premarital sex, especially when the other choice was forcing the bride to raise the child alone. It seems like they were trying to make the groom take responsibility for what they saw as a sin.
[ April 09, 2004, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
<resists temptation to start hatrack porncon>
Been thinking about Belle's post. I'm not sure if this has been suggested already (I haven't read the entire thread), but doesn't it make more sense that the causality is the other way around?
Isn't it more likely that people who have societally unacceptable sexual desires, and particularly those with illegal ones, would turn to pornography in search of greater stimulation without crossing moral or legal lines by acting out? Then, when this fails, they actually become the people we talk about in these statistics.
Doesn't that make more sense?
Isn't it more likely that a serial killer would enjoy a violent video game that simulates being a serial killer than that such a game would influence someone who had no desire to do that into doing it?
In short, shouldn't we be viewing *abuse* of pornography as the symptom, not the cause, here?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I think it's both. Certainly intense use of porn can signal a deeper problem. I also think that a person with very mild addiction can become worse when encouraged by the porn to seek out more and more.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Don't forget, there's also the interesting idea that porn isn't bad in and of itself, but because some parts of society label it bad and, thefore, it's consumption as 'bad', this causes the person viewing it as seeing themselves as 'bad'. A kind of 'objectification'! OMG!
Of course, you know, our objectificationists are freedom fighters, yours are terrorists. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
that's what I'm saying, though, Psi.
I don't see how the porn encourages someone to seek more and more.
I can see how someone might go after more and more intense pornography as they discover it out there, but that's because the less intense porn isn't satisfying to them... not because the porn somehow leads them to it. The only way that would happen is if the titillation of doing something "wrong" is the attraction... and, if that's the case, the defect is with the person, not the porn.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
PSI, I didn't say that shotgun weddings was condoning premarital sex, but the fact that the marriages weren't forced and that there were "teachers" of love (in the physical sense) is an indication that premarital sex was not frowned upon. More in-depth reading of the Puritan lifestyle will show you where they encouraged young love, including physical love. Like I said, however, they didn't endorse rampant sex between everyone. I'm not going to go into all of the history lessons on the Puritan lifestyle, because it's totally off-topic and is better found by visiting your local library.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jim, your theory does not fit with the experiences of the man that Belle described.
As to if someone would need harder and harder things to get a titillation high, everything from reality shows trends to the height of roller coasters answer that question.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Jim-Me -- I have to say that I find your explanation *less* likely.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:As to if someone would need harder and harder things to get a titillation high, everything from reality shows trends to the height of roller coasters answer that question.
katharina, I do not know enough about how other people's private relationships work to be speaking with authority about them. I want to be clear about that, especially in such a delicate matter. I can, however, just speak for myself.
For me, reading erotica is no more compulsive in that sense than is just having sex, or eating a great indulgent meal, or reading an Orson Scott Card novel, or any other of the pleasures which lie within the boundaries I've proscribed myself. Just as "just having sex" doesn't become "not enough" merely by the repitition, no do the others.
On the other hand, should I want to become frenzied by something purely for the sake of enjoyment, I make it forbidden in my mind. I'm currently involved in just such a relationship with the "Who is John Galt?" bumper sticker on my neighbor's car. (I'm not being facetious, BTW, and I'm not trying to make fun. This is a confession. ) The depth and obsessiveness of my brooding about how unkind it would be to deface it, how cruel and yet how sweet. It would be Bad,and those times I want to be Bad, I dwell on the possibilities.
However, I do know that I probably won't give in, and if I should, I would give him another copy to replace it, along with a note of apology and explanation. Anonymously, though.
There isn't something about erotica itself that has magical powers, at least for me. Instead, I use it as a tool to find out more about myself and -- in sharing -- more about my husband instead. He loves me to be happy, and he loves to have me figure out what makes me happy at various times in my life. This is all in the context of a very clearly defined priority of caring for one another and maintaining the exclusivity of our intimacies.
Actually, probably sharing as much as I have would make him uncomfortable, so let me just but out for awhile. We do both feel pretty strongly about the importance of examined sexuality (of whatever sort, deliberate celibacy included) in the leading of a mentally and physically healthy life.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Hey, <shrug> if you guys don't get it or agree, that's fine.
I particularly find the roller coasters a poor comparison... or a good one if you like:
What we are talking about is like saying that roller coasters are bad because they lead people to have thrill issues and do dangerous and illegal things like free-climbing in cities or playing chicken.
While it's obvious that people who enjoy playing chicken would probably also enjoy roller coasters, it would be silly to say that riding roller coasters causes chicken matches, though I bet if you surveyed a hundred people caught playing chicken as to what their favorite amusement park ride is, I bet they'd all be thrill rides.
Edit to add thanks to CT and Belle for sharing so deeply from their personal experiences.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
That'd be a shame, because I find semi-serious conversations with you to be among the most interesting.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
CT