quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I'm not trying to silence any opinions, ct.
Fair enough. I didn't mean to single anyone out -- it was a generic and general hope.
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: But .. what are these groups proposing as an 'alternative' to prostitution? Do they just mean abolition?
I think so. I'm not sure what the avowed stance (if any) on pornography is for these groups, though. This certainly could reflect my lack of interprative ability. I didn't spend very much time looking -- they may well be vocally neutral or even supportive, for all I know.
quote:Thanks for doing all that research into the article, by the by.
You are welcome! Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm curious: Annie, Katie, you've both met my wife. What about the way I treat her does it make it obvious that I view porn?
For one, you try to put quarters in her when you want sex Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I didn't read too deeply into the article, but from what I did, it seemed like they lump pornography and prostitution into one big group. There are ways in which they are similar, but those ways do not necessarily translate into the same behavior patterns.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you. I talked about how it conflated the two things on page three. I also talked about the crappy control group. Glad to see other people picked up on the same thing.
In any case:
"Anal sex is a perfect example. What's wrong with it? Well, how about the fact that it's painful and unpleasant for the woman?"
Um... I'm speechless here. The self-admitted virgin is telling me what other women feel about sex, when I have encountered, from certain women, pressure to give it to them. (I'm not naming names.) To which I responded with resistance, and to which resistance they responded with annoyance.
I mean, seriously, it's not my thing either. But I don't go around stating that all men hate it because it's icky to get that sort of stuff on your penis.
Because we know that's not how all men think. It's also demonstrably false that anal sex is only given by a woman because of a desire to please a man, due to having more difficulty with sexual pleasure.
Perhaps, in this regard, I should listen to the women I know who've actually had it, and not the virgin.
(Btw, I'm happy you're a virgin! More power to you! I am as well, though I am not as old as you. There's nothing wrong with being a virgin, and there's nothing wrong with disliking anal. However, when it comes to matters of sex, why should I believe you over the people who actually have it?)
You may dismiss it as anecdotes. But you're just baldly stating things as though they are facts, without actually stating facts to back yourself up. How do you know that that is why women do anal sex? How do you know that some women don't simply... you know, like it on their own?
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Samp, you're not helping.
Well, even though I haven't cared much beyond to make a joke about it, what do you think about the notion that viewing porn makes men observably 'pornified,' to the extent that they view women as a vending machine for sex?
I just like the imagery. The pseudopsychology behind it, not so much. But at least it offers some humor.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clearly if someone feels that strongly against pornography, it is very smart for them to find a partner who does not use pornography.
As CT pointed out, life is a wonderful and varied experience. Blanket statements about subjective experiences don't hold well to reality.
I won't judge you for finding pornography terrible if you won't judge me for not finding pornography terrible.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
In any case, I do agree with you, dabbler. There's nothing wrong with her not liking porn. Her personal opinion is perfectly valid, as is her dislike of bondage and desire not to have homosexual sex and all the rest.
But it is a problem when she decides her personal preferences are something to apply to all people. Unfortunately, she's done that.
But it would be nice if she does turn out to recognize the difference. I hope that ends up happening. That's what I mean when I say good luck. I'm not being snide, I'm serious.
On a semi-related note, has anyone here heard of the blog Eve Bit First? I stumbled across it yesterday while thinking about this thread, by strange coincidence, and figured if anyone had heard of it? If anyone knows what I'm talking about, I'd like to discuss more about it somewhere, because wow, that was a crazy ride, and I'm glad to be out of that person's head.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have said what I want to say and don't want to continue in the discussion any more. Mostly because last time I discussed this with Tom, he really hurt my feelings.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: Annie and Aerin: I may disagree with your stances on pornography and masturbation, but I certainly appreciate your view. In fact, I find it laudable. Your choice to focus your lives on strong intimate relationships based on emotion and compatibility of interests and belief is a healthy approach. I'm also willing to concede that there exists a risk that those who engage in masturbation or consume pornography are more likely to have an unhealthy and unrealistic perspective on their sexual partners (whether men or women). I think it's fair to say that some people have problems distinguishing between fantasy and reality. Because pornography and masturbation rely on fantasy, those who consume porn and have trouble with the distinction can definitely have an unhealthy perspective.
But my belief is that we should be responsible for our choices. As a consumer of erotica, I recognize that I need to accept the consequences of that choice. Part of that responsibility, in my mind, means that I accept the fact that people will judge me poorly. I have no problem with you thinking less of me.
But I would argue that the conception that pornography and masturbation have a causal link to unhealthy perceptions of sexual partners is misguided. The problem is people who have trouble distinguishing between fantasy and reality. If a person already has that problem, then reinforcing their misconceptions with more, possibly depraved, fantasy can be harmful. But I would contend that this problem isn't unique to consumers of erotica. I believe that those who don't consume erotica can have the same problem, holding unhealthy expectations on their partners based upon an ideal fantasy and not the reality of the person. A man doesn't have to consume erotica to mistakenly believe that woman's purpose is to serve man--whether through labor, child-rearing, or sex.
I believe in relationships based upon mutual trust, honesty, emotional connection, and compatibility of beliefs. I'm also opposed to casual sex as a personal lifestyle choice because of my beliefs in relationships. I try to keep a distinction between fantasy and reality, but I accept the consequences of consuming that fantasy.
Edit for clarity.
I'll have more to say later, but I just wanted to take a moment to say that this is a great post and I agree with every single word.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anne: I'm sorry you feel the need to withdraw from the conversation, for while I disagree with you, I still honor you as a person for feeling the way you do.
Much of what I wanted to say was already said...possibly in a better way then I would have managed...but here is a point that didn't get really deep into. That porn is a slippery slope leading to more and worse things. I can be, just as marijuana can be gate way drug. When I was singled I looked at a lot of porn, and smoked a lot of weed. I no longer do either of those things. When I did, I liked to took at happy naked women who seem inviting and interested in sex. I despised violent or disrespectful acts, heck, I didn't even like to look at sex...because it wasn't the sex I was interested in, it was the woman. Just like weed, I never liked anything harder, I was happy with what I liked, and for the reasons I liked it. No slope at all.
I no longer look at any porn what so who ever. My wife has a strong preference about that. And I'm fine with it that way, not because she is the "owner of my penis" but because it makes her feel bad about herself and I care about her feelings.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Do erogames and ero/ecchi manga count as porn?
quote: 6. Sex while wearing costumes or engaging in sexual roleplay
posted
I'm sad that Annie is leaving this discussion.
I believe that others have touched on the points I want to make but I think they bear some emphasis.
Before that, though, let me say that I think Annie and Aerin have expressed some valid opinions and identified some truly harmful effects of porn viewing. I'm even willing to say this: porn is harmful.
However, I would also say that processed food is harmful. Or that UV rays are harmful.
The problem is the generalization.
I really appreciate those who have pointed out that people are often different from each other in ways that don't come down to better or worse. These differences exist even in such powerful - and let's be honest, potentially dangerous too - matters like sexuality. And wow, what an imprecise label "sexuality" is. I don't know how better to encapsulate all the elements of society and the psyche that I'm referring to, though.
I think the things I want to talk about are the following. 1. Men who buy sex, and why they distort the discussion. 2. The problem with treating all pornography the same. 3. The feedback loop of cultural horror of porn.
So, 1. While I don't think it's universal or inevitable, paying for sex correlates strongly, I think, with a few different tendencies:
- Inability or perceived inability to get sex without paying for it. This is very self explanatory.
- Shame about sexual desires. To explain why I think this: when one is ashamed of ones behavior, one tries to hide it from others. However, when that behavior definitionally includes another person, completely hiding it from others is not possible. A partial solution to this is to make the encounter as anonymous as possible. Another factor is that someone who accepts payment for sex is pretty much the least likely person to openly judge someone for their sexual desires.
- Impulse control problems.
The latter two items are almost always inherent in the pattern of behavior known as "sexual addiction." Part of that pattern of behavior, as with other addictions, is the eventual need to escalate the use of the drug (analogue). In this case the drug is some form of sexual behavior.
All this adds up to an important fact: if you look at buyers of sex, you are biasing your selection toward sexual addiction. People with that problem do indeed escalate from things like porn viewing to other, often riskier behaviors. Those behaviors can be quite harmful. It's also quite likely for someone who fits this description to be less aroused/interested by 'regular' sex than the average Joe.
As many thousands of people have learned the hard way, compulsive sexual behavior can be harmful. I think there is nothing wrong about recognizing this, and examining why it occurs and how to prevent it.
But it's also important to realize that pornography does not create this problem. Not alone, anyway. Family dysfunction, mood disorders, and even (I believe) early lessons about the acceptability of sexual feelings contribute to the problem.
I think there are many parallels to compulsive eating. Food (like sexual behavior) is a necessary part of life. Food (like sex) can be a source of pleasure as well as shame. And people can develop a pathological relationship to it. People sometimes make themselves miserable and even send themselves to an early grave because of overeating, and this hurts their families.
But I wouldn't say that food is the problem, even though certain processed foods and insidious cultural messages about food probably do more harm than good.
This leads me to (2).
Not all porn is alike. When you consider only people with compulsive behavior problems, you might often find the pattern that you can start soft and then go to the harder stuff, and then the weird stuff, and then the violent stuff, and then, perhaps, the stuff that would get you arrested. That's the nature of an escalating need for ever-stronger arousal. But when you broaden your lens, you will find varied tastes that do not follow this pattern of escalation.
"Porn" may include people in a committed relationship turning a camera on while they have sex. Loving, mutually fun and satisfying, intimate sex. With a camera on. Then they might share that with someone else (or anyone else) for reasons that might include amusement or curiosity, as well as being aroused by the idea. It often involves people who are getting paid, of course. And then it also includes, sometimes, violent or exploitative acts. It can include rape on tape. It's a fairly wide spectrum, in fact.
When I say that I can agree that porn is harmful, it's because it's a broad category.
The participants in its production are all different, and some of them may benefit, while others may be harmed. This is not completely different from any other broad category of human activity. It is SOMEWHAT different, in that sexual acts are likely to stir powerful emotions, and sometimes those emotions are exploited, or ignored in a way that hurts. Sometimes the actors are playing out traumas from their early life in a way that worsens the damage. Sometimes people get physically hurt/abused. But not always. It's not fair to judge all such activity by the worst of it.
Then the viewers. Some of them are on a bad path of compulsive behavior and end up harming themselves by viewing it. Others don't. MOST viewers don't.
Some kinds of porn are abhorrent to pretty much everybody. Other kinds are kind of distasteful to the majority of porn viewers but that's about it. The category includes a huge variety of acts, business models (or the lack thereof), explicitness (or lack of it), etc.
It's important to remember that not every porn viewer is at all likely to end up pursuing material at the worst end of the category.
So (3).
Unfortunately - and it really does bother me on multiple levels - being horrified by porn - as in the whole category - probably increases the overall harm that porn does.
Some of those levels of being bothered: - Porn can do real harm in some situations. It's not wrong to be saddened by this, and to recognize the harm being done, and try to stop it. It's a wonderful motivation. Trying to stop that harm is a good thing. So it makes me sad that doing so (in certain common ways) may actually hurt instead of help. It isn't just.
- The lessons that attend cultural horror of porn attach shame to the act of viewing it, and instruct the viewer that they are starting down a road to depravity. We've seen that argument in this thread, and it's common elsewhere. Much was made of Ted Bundy's confession that he started with porn, but it's not even REMOTELY fair to teach an adolescent that he's in danger of becoming a mass rapist/murderer because he indulges in looking at a Playboy magazine. It isn't true, for one thing. Porn doesn't create psychopaths. But even the less strong version: porn will lead you into sexual depravity. This is only true when it becomes a part of a compulsive pattern of behavior. But when you convince someone that viewing (soft or relatively innocuous) porn is tantamount to any degree of deviant behavior, they might believe it. This might actually erode their inclination to restrain their behavior once they slip.
But I should try to explain my assertion rather than my botherment.
One thing to keep in mind is that one form of family dysfunction that might contribute to sexual compulsion is the lesson that sexual behavior is deeply shameful. Since people largely can't help having sexual desire, and finding some pleasure in it, attaching a sense of shame to that can, apparently, contribute to a person eventually relating to sexual behavior as a drug. The shame intensifies the experience. It contributes to obsession. (One way in which it might do this is causing a person to 'resist' temptation for a long time - and that extended period of arousal where they are fighting off the urge to do anything about it may compound the chemical reward they experience from the whole thing.)
Strong reactions to porn, sometimes, teach that lesson. It might not be intended, but it happens.
Another aspect is family stability. While I cannot say that someone, who got married to someone with the tacit or explicit understanding that porn was absolutely unacceptable, is unjustified in breaking off the relationship if that trust is betrayed, I also recognize that many people tolerate or even approve of porn use by their partner. So it is not - at least not outside certain cultural contexts - inevitable that porn should cause a marriage or committed relationship to falter. And (as eloquently stated by CT) I have to trust those who protest their happiness in relationships that happen to involve porn use. Their evaluation of their own happiness is the most important (which is also why I can't argue with people who feel betrayed by porn use).
However, what I can do is turn a critical eye to the culture that set up that person to feel that way. Does it admit nuance, or does it take an absolutist stance? If the latter, I feel it guides people into unnecessarily harsh reactions, or unreasonably strict rules for themselves. I think any hard-and-fast rule about "this is the way people should be" is likely to run afoul at some point. At the present, in the modern Western world, "porn use is always harmful and any porn user should be ashamed" is both a common view and one that is wrong, and contributes to the harm by being wrong.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think it would be significantly better to examine how and why porn is harmful, which necessarily requires recognizing when it is NOT harmful, and address the harm only. And remember that too-strong condemnation - unfairly to everyone - may contribute to pathological sexual behavior.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mostly agree with scifibum, and the areas in which I'm not sure I agree aren't really disagreement so much as "I have no opinion here because I don't know the actual facts involved."
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're also not even just talking about porn. Remember my list. The "this is the way people should be" goes far beyond that, and into a wide gamut, leaving 'appropriate' and 'healthy' sex bound into an extremely narrow approximation of what is allowed.
The pattern in what gets rejected as unhealthy and unallowable turns porn into a fairly mundane, middle of the pack 'aberration' in a long list of things which has been guided into that aforementioned absolutist stance. There are people who go so far as to insist that not even positions besides missionary are a healthy expression of sexuality. There's a wide range of justifications made for it (whether doggy style is 'demeaning to the woman' or woman on top is 'not the intended position for the female').
The same critical review of the weakness of that claims made to straightjacket 'healthy sex' to one position alone apply as vigorously here, whether we're talking about whether it's porn that's unhealthy, or daring to have sex when you're gay, or being transgendered or cisgendered and still having a sex life, or having sex outside of marriage, or having anal sex in any circumstances whether or not it's enjoyed by both parties. I have no problem labeling an irrational view an irrational view.
So let's look at porn as the villain, and the men who got labeled Lessers.
quote:Myth #3: Viewing pornography changes the way men view women.
There have been a lot of claims made around this myth, most of them unsubstantiated. For the most part this is because of poor research design in questionnaire-based and market 'research' studies, and inappropriate interpretation of results by the media in academic studies. However, no matter how poor and flimsy the results, it's an assumption that gets a lot of attention. And time and again, journalists reporting on these studies fail to ask the most basic questions about the integrity of the data.
quote:The overall flavour of McKee's work can be summed up this: In seeking to understand how negative attitudes towards women are generated in society we should start by asking what issues might be most important, rather than beginning from the assumption that pornography is the major cause of such attitudes.
Another example is Simon Lajeunesse, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Montreal who studies the impact of pornography on the sexuality of men, and how it shapes their perception of women.
In a prospective study Lajeunesse found most of the men questioned sought out porn by the age of 10, when they become sexually curious. He also found they quickly discarded what they didn't like and things they find offensive. As adults, they looked for content that was compatible with their sex preferences.
Lajeunesse‘s subjects reported that they supported gender equality, but also that they felt victimized by criticism of pornography. "Pornography hasn't changed their perception of women or their relationship which they all want as harmonious and fulfilling as possible,” says Lajeunesse. “Those who could not live out their fantasy in real life with their partner simply set aside the fantasy. The fantasy is broken in the real world and men don't want their partner to look like a porn star."
There's a similar message in a 2000 publication by Malamuth et al. [pdf] The paper considers whether there is a causal link between adults who view pornography and sexual aggression. What the Malamuth study found, though was interesting. While some people who viewed pornography had violent beliefs towards women, the conclusion did not claim pornography was the cause: “We suggest that the way relatively aggressive men interpret and react to the same pornography may differ from that of nonaggressive men.” In other words, the pump is already primed in some people. But for nonaggressive men, the same imagery did not incite negative thoughts.
In other words, there is not a direct correlation between porn and negative beliefs in most men.
On Newsnight, I mentioned the point Lajeunesse makes so well that while a certain kind of erotica - say, your stereotype Barbie-style look that was so popular in American porn of the 80s - may appeal to men at certain ages, that's hardly what they expect from women. Most men, by the time they're old enough to be dating women, soon figure out that what's in Playboy is not actually what real women are like. And for the most part they prefer real women. So why does that stereotyped image persist? Perhaps for the same reason that women are sold a fantasy of a domesticable bad boy who will sweep them off their feet so they can live happily ever after. It's a long-established, two-dimensional shorthand (and if you don't like it, for heaven's sake, stop going to Jennifer Aniston films already). Just because unrealistic expectations of dating and mating are peddled on every flat surface around us to both sexes doesn't automatically mean that the majority of people actually think those fantasies are true.
(And as Lajeunesse comments, “If pornography had the impact that many claim it has, you would just have to show heterosexual films to a homosexual to change his sexual orientation.")
In another study, an economist found the introduction of internet access in US states corresponded with a decrease in rape (and no effect on other violent crimes). A 10 percent increase in online access corresponded with a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. Areas that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And the effects remain even when taking into account differences in alcohol use, law enforcement, income, employment, and population density.
quote:Overall, the takeaway points are these:
- It's difficult to tease out the effects of society as a whole and its influence on how men see women, from any effect porn may have. Until now, few studies have tried to address this in their design and analysis,
- Asking if someone is concerned about an issue is not the same thing as there being perceptible effects from that issue,
- As I mentioned on Newsnight, women are not the only people whose images are manipulated by commercialised culture, and
- Data regarding rape and violent crime in general do not show correlations with increased availability of erotic entertainment.
I'm also going to single this out and bold it.
quote:In seeking to understand how negative attitudes towards women are generated in society we should start by asking what issues might be most important, rather than beginning from the assumption that pornography is the major cause of such attitudes.
The only things we've really picked out about the social effects of porn on society are not negative. Specifically, it's been shown that the increased availability of porn tends to reduce rape. Neither legalizing porn nor having a burgeoning societal acceptance and consumption of porn has ever come with the endemic and provably porn-caused increases in various problematic relations between the sexes that would allow you to make even a quarter of the frankly stunning and derogatory assessments of porn's effects, or the assured derogatory state of the men (in particular) that view it. The same statements come coupled with an easily borne suspicion that there's an extreme willingness to project bias and cherrypick supporting arguments and sources in favor of this crusade.
The same thing has been done in a bit of an emblematic fervor towards video games. Like porn, it was a Scourge! A bad thing with bad effects. Evil filth! In the same way we could be sure that porn made men look at women like vending machines that owed them sex, moral crusaders the country over were certain that violent video games would make kids look at their schools like shooting galleries. In the same ways that porn invariably leads people down a slope of objectifying women in harmful ways, playing video games was a slope that would drive people to aggression and an increased probability of acting out violently.
The evidence for these overwhelmingly assured statements never came. The pronouncements of the video game scourge hardly cared to be bothered by the shakiness of the evidence, or the complete lack of thereof.
Eventually, you reach a point where continuing to stick it out in favor of the ideal is, as I said, a personal projection. An irrational bias. We've had that established here. Annie's assertions are wrong, and it deserves to be said. Partly because, as scifibum noted, the puritanical crusade of shame foisted upon porn seems more readily capable of creating negative attitudes and dysfunction towards sex and sexuality ... than the porn itself. The ultimate irony, and among the best reasons to fight against those puritanical attitudes in the first place and dispel a lot of the unfair stigmatization of porn use whenever and wherever it comes up.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Eventually, you reach a point where continuing to stick it out in favor of the ideal is, as I said, a personal projection. An irrational bias. We've had that established here. Annie's assertions are wrong, and it deserves to be said. Partly because, as scifibum noted, the puritanical crusade of shame foisted upon porn seems more readily capable of creating negative attitudes and dysfunction towards sex and sexuality ... than the porn itself. The ultimate irony, and among the best reasons to fight against those puritanical attitudes in the first place and dispel a lot of the unfair stigmatization of porn use whenever and wherever it comes up.
That's where you lose me. You demand that we fight against the puritanical attitudes which have unfairly stigmatized porn use. I recognize that erotica is not for everyone, and while I might not agree with the reasons as to why they reject pornography I don't feel compelled to fight with people over it. Are you suggesting that the harms associated with depriving a person of pornography can only be solved by the consumption of pornography? The standards presented here by Annie and Aerin, in my mind, aren't a form of sexual repression. It's not that sex and sexuality are immoral, it's that objectifying a person into naught more than a sex toy is wrong. And I concede that porn does objectify sex as a product. My objection to this argument against the consumption of erotica is that this doesn't have a causal link to people objectifying their partners--as the studies you linked show.
So my question is why do we have to fight against the perspectives of others on this issue? I would hope that while folks like Annie and Aerin don't agree with my position, they won't actively campaign against me just because we have a disagreement. My stance doesn't harm them, just as I believe their stance doesn't harm me nor anyone else (in a way that can't be easily solved). To be a pretentious codpiece, I'll quote JFK as I think he put it best, "Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs, rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others."
I disagree with Annie and Aerin. There's no way they'll convince me that erotica has a causal connection to objectification of others outside the realm of porn. Just as I will never convince them that porn doesn't do this. Their stance is that relationships should be built on emotional connection, mutual trust, honesty, and compatibility. That's healthy. And just because I'm not compatible with them, it doesn't mean I'm going to decry them as unhealthy until we all think the same way.
posted
Vadon: While I agree with your call to tolerance, I also see the point that Samp is trying to make. Annie and Aerin are claiming that everyone who views porn, or enjoys non "standard sex" is harmed by it". That it degrades your humanity. It sure can have that effect on people with other issues, but it is akin to saying that anyone who eats chocolate will get an eating disorder.
It is this shaming and damning which causes the real damage.
I'm pretty sure if Annie and Aerin's message was "be careful when it comes to sex and porn and fantasy because they are powerful and can be misused and cause problems" that no one would bat an eye lash.
But their message at it's heart is one of condemnation. Read your JFK quote again and apply it to Annie and Aerin's message.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So my question is why do we have to fight against the perspectives of others on this issue?
Nobody has to respond to misinformation if they don't want to. I just find it greatly preferable. Especially when that misinformation comes coupled with degrading others and rendering judgment upon them. And since I do see benefit in trying to foster a world which is much more equipped to abandon counterproductive mores and intolerant, ill-informed views on sex and sexuality, I would desire wherever it is relevant to tackle any attempt to perpetuate irrational attitudes to any of these aspects. It matters little about whether it's solely about the porn, or if we're including the whole bundle — anal sex, spanking, roleplay, power exchange, bondage, transgendered/cisgendered, whatever.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wolf, your point is well taken. And I will agree that Annie and Aerin's message is, at its nature, condemning. Particularly when it was said that all one has to do to tell which men look at porn is to look at how they treat their wives. It is a character attack, and by that nature intolerant. I should readjust my position given this point.
That being said, I still don't think that just because their stance inherently condemns those who consume erotica that we should be obligated to condemn them. I say this because I don't think that I have been damaged by them thinking less of me.
To clarify through levity. I watch My Little Pony, prefer showtunes to metal, rarely drink, don't smoke, and take Batman over all other superheroes any day. I'm condemned or thought less of by my friends, family, and others all the time over certain aspects of my life or the choices I make. Whether they question my masculinity for liking My Little Pony and showtunes, think me a prude for not liking drinking or smoking, or think I'm a fool for being a Batman fan the truth is, I'm not going to please everybody. And that's okay with me. Someone thinking less of me, or damning me doesn't actually affect me. I feel no need to respond with a damning or shaming in return.
I guess in short, intolerance doesn't justify intolerance. I'm okay with someone disliking me for the choices I make or the beliefs I hold, I can't please everyone. I'm not okay with being told I need to "fix" someone else's beliefs just because they're wrong.
ETA: To Samp, thank you for the clarification. I understand where you're coming from, even though this is a subject I don't personally believe needs such attention I have certainly fought hard to correct harmful misinformed positions in other situations.
Actually, as I recall, I debated against Stone_Wolf here on the death penalty. I guess I'm just a bit more selective on my priorities.
quote: I watch My Little Pony, prefer showtunes to metal, rarely drink, don't smoke, and take Batman over all other superheroes any day.
I want to call you a deviant but I don't know for sure yet if I wouldn't pick batman over other superheroes.
quote:ETA: To Samp, thank you for the clarification. I understand where you're coming from, even though this is a subject I don't personally believe needs such attention I have certainly fought hard to correct harmful misinformed positions in other situations.
Yeah, I guess it's worth noting that the issue of porn in particular exists in a world already well beyond the issue of whether porn wins or loses. It wins, it'll continue to be ubiquitous. For better or for worth, we learn to live with. (which is another important part of managing knowledge on porn and psychology: if we're swatting at large, fictional effects of porn, we're ill-equipped to clearly identify and manage the actual dysfunctional porn use that individuals can fall into, which is pretty important!). You'd sooner manage to do away with prostitution, and that one's going the route of legalization also.
The Pornopocalypse in the Czech republic was probably the last real test or stand for pornography before it became an essentially uncontainable thing — pornography went from being prohibited under a strict ban on ANY sexually explicit materials to being completely decriminalized in 1989. The political groups most opposed to pornography predicted a deleterious social effect, got the opposite (a drastic reduction in sex crimes which persisted across 18 years of study). Eyes were on that one, for sure.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My only real issue with porn and porn watching is in young adults and children.
Your first exposure to sexual ideas, and what's okay and what's not and more importantly - what you think everyone else is doing - can be quite influential. There is also probably more likelihood of young people watching whatever their friends have found on the internet, no matter how weird or violent.
And a lot of boys will grow up thinking that's what sex is - that's what they will, or should be doing, and a lot of girls will think that's what they will or should be providing - and it takes away a little bit of choice in the situation.
I remember seeing a doctor on TV show a room full of teenage school boys who watched porn a nice, normal, non-labiaplasty vagina with a normal amount of hair on it. And they just screamed 'Ew! Disgusting!' - that's not normal at all. And a lot of these boy either were having or would soon have sex. What were they going to expect from their fifteen-year-old girlfriends?
But there's nothing anyone can really do about it.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Vadon...While I agree with the idea that intolerance doesn't justify intolerance, I don't think Samp (or myself) are being intolerant. We are disagreeing and explaining our views and pointing out that the belief which is disputed is harmful. Unlike Annie and Aerin, I don't think that condemnation is a part of it.
But it brings up an interesting question. Where is the line between polite and useful disagreement and intolerance?
Oh yes, and Bella: I do think it is harmful for young people to see hardcore porn. While some of the issues you are describing can still be present with still nude pictures of the opposite gender, I have a lot less problem with young folk seeking out examples of nudity then sex acts.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those of you who saw my previous lecture at TED University know that I date younger men. Predominantly men in their twenties. When I date younger men, I have sex with younger men. And when I have sex with younger men, I encounter, very directly and personally, the real ramifications of the creeping ubiquity of hardcore pornography in our culture.
In an era where hardcore porn is more freely and widely available via the Internet than ever before, and where kids are therefore accessing it at an earlier and earlier age than ever before, there is now an entire generation growing up that believes that what you see in hardcore porn is the way that you have sex.
And this is exacerbated by the fact that we live in a culture of Puritanism and double standards, where people believe that a teen abstinence campaign will actually work, where parents are too embarrassed to talk to their children about sex, and where schools and colleges are vilified if they try and make up the educational gap. And so hardcore porn has become, by default, the sex education of today.
quote:This is not about ‘this is good’ or ‘this is bad.’ Because sex is an area of human experience that embraces the widest possible range of activities. Secondly, Make Love Not Porn is not anti-porn. I’m a big fan of hardcore porn; I watch it regularly myself. But hardcore porn as an industry is predominantly funded by men, managed by men, driven by men, directed by men and targeted at men. And so hardcore porn tends to have one worldview. Hardcore porn goes, ‘This is the way sex is.’ And I just want to say, ‘Not necessarily.’
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Vadon...While I agree with the idea that intolerance doesn't justify intolerance, I don't think Samp (or myself) are being intolerant. We are disagreeing and explaining our views and pointing out that the belief which is disputed is harmful. Unlike Annie and Aerin, I don't think that condemnation is a part of it.
Edited Post for Clarity.
I forgot to quote the question I'm answering, but to answer your question on where the line is.
I believe that Annie and Aerin's view that porn will cause people to objectify others is wrong. I further believe that using this view to condemn those who watch pornography is--by the definition JFK was giving--intolerant. We can disagree with this position without being intolerant, of course. My problem is that there seems to be an attempt to do more than objecting to the false premises of their argument. Instead we're throwing in the position that those who hold the view that pornography is immoral are actually harming others due to the harm to sexual health and an increased risk in prostate cancer. I believe that is it disingenuous to associate this harm with what Annie and Aerin have said. I don't think they're encouraging sexual repression. I believe that they are sex-positive under differing circumstances, granting that their definition of sex-positive differs from its traditional use.
So in short, saying that Annie and Aerin are wrong in their belief that pornography naturally forces objectification in others is fine. I have an issue with taking their position and tying the harms to it, because I don't believe that the consumption of pornography is the only solution to the harms outlined. I think that's where we cross the line because tying false harms to beliefs is intolerant of those beliefs.
quote:Those of you who saw my previous lecture at TED University know that I date younger men. Predominantly men in their twenties. When I date younger men, I have sex with younger men. And when I have sex with younger men, I encounter, very directly and personally, the real ramifications of the creeping ubiquity of hardcore pornography in our culture.
In an era where hardcore porn is more freely and widely available via the Internet than ever before, and where kids are therefore accessing it at an earlier and earlier age than ever before, there is now an entire generation growing up that believes that what you see in hardcore porn is the way that you have sex.
In other words, "I've noticed that the 20-year-olds I date today (who are turned on by 50-year-olds) are noticeably kinkier than the 20-year-olds I dated 10 years ago (who were turned on by 40-year-olds). I blame pornography!"
Or in other, other words, "I hate it when I'm having sex with someone young enough to be my child (which is the only way that I can become aroused), and they turn out to have strange sexual fetishes. Conclusion: Internet porn tainted my boy-meat!"
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just so everyone knows, sex positive has more than just a 'traditional definition.' It's a distinct movement and a culture.
For clarity, this is sex-positive:
quote: Sex positivity is "an attitude towards human sexuality that regards all consensual sexual activities as fundamentally healthy and pleasurable, and encourages sexual pleasure and experimentation. The sex-positive movement is a social and philosophical movement that advocates these attitudes. The sex-positive movement advocates sex education and safer sex as part of its campaign." The movement makes no moral distinctions among types of consensual sexual activities, regarding these choices as matters of personal preference.
When you're "sex-positive," it means being sex positive. Not "monogamous sex only while married only between two partners only in the 'right' hole only without any elements of kinky fetish, bondage, s/m, D/s, or otherwise 'unacceptable' elements of sex and without birth control and strictly with the ultimate goal of procreation-positive."
To put it more simply, if your moral views on sex concern themselves with which types of consensual sexual acts people 'should' be having versus which ones are morally unacceptable, you're not sex-positive.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In other words, "I've noticed that the 20-year-olds I date today (who are turned on by 50-year-olds) are noticeably kinkier than the 20-year-olds I dated 10 years ago (who were turned on by 40-year-olds). I blame pornography!"
Or in other, other words, "I hate it when I'm having sex with someone young enough to be my child (which is the only way that I can become aroused), and they turn out to have strange sexual fetishes. Conclusion: Internet porn tainted my boy-meat!"
I don't actually think that's an accurate conclusion from a reading of the quote from her, Speed. Without watching the TED lecture, it sounds like she's saying that hardcore porn actually narrows the knowledge of what sex is. Not that it's too kinky for her.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Speed: In other words, "I've noticed that the 20-year-olds I date today (who are turned on by 50-year-olds) are noticeably kinkier than the 20-year-olds I dated 10 years ago (who were turned on by 40-year-olds). I blame pornography!"
Or in other, other words, "I hate it when I'm having sex with someone young enough to be my child (which is the only way that I can become aroused), and they turn out to have strange sexual fetishes. Conclusion: Internet porn tainted my boy-meat!"
I'm not going to really stand behind her interpretation wholly, but there are elements of mainstream porn which infect a lot of people's attitudes towards sex, and not infrequently this does lead to one or both partners feeling compelled to fill a role taught to them by porn's various money-shot style tropes.
It's not nearly as negatively prevalent than some would assume — most kids do just fine working out what they like between themselves and their early partners, and many will report, even, that the variety of available, ahem, 'material,' made them less apprehensive and more comfortable with sex in general, but there's always going to be those who are trying to "perform" and the end result is not functional for both parties' enjoyment.
A motion to make sure young people understand pretty clearly and deliberately that you shouldn't be patterning your expectations for yourself (nor your partner) on what you got into the habit of seeing on pornhub or redtube when you were 14. Even less specifically, understanding the importance of frank and open discussion about sex and sexuality, both from parents and from educators. All good ideas, in my opinion.
Besides, she's not talking about this in terms of what's impeding what SHE expects of her lovers. She's worried that it's diminishing the range of things that younger people interpret sex as. Which is a very important observation and concern.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dabbler: I don't actually think that's an accurate conclusion from a reading of the quote from her, Speed. Without watching the TED lecture, it sounds like she's saying that hardcore porn actually narrows the knowledge of what sex is. Not that it's too kinky for her.
Disclaimer: I mainly posted my response because I thought her quote was funny, rather than to poke holes in the logic.
Nevertheless, if her point is that her partners have a narrow understanding of sex, maybe it has more to do with them having 30 fewer years experience than she does, and less to do with the porno. Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Speed's post was funny...but I tend to disagree with the point he wasn't trying to make.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
She obviously never picked up Heinleins works ^_^
IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting discussion. Annie, while I disagree that you can generalize at all from your personal experiences, I am sorry that you had such a bad experience with that particular guy. If celibacy is working for you, that is great. It is important to know what are priorities in life and in relationships.
Most of what I would have liked to have written was already covered by CT, but I do have one small addition. It is not important that Annie respond, if she has moved on from the conversation.
In one of Annie's posts she writes:
quote:Well, the crux of my argument is that for a woman, sexual satisfaction is different than it is for a man. Recent research (and this is the part I'm still trying to find the source for - I read it a few years ago) suggest that women's orgasms are a lot more related to intimacy and emotional closeness than they are to physical factors. This is why many women will engage in sexual acts that aren't pleasant to them - because to them the approval and love of their partner is a lot more important to their psychological bond than physical enjoyment.
But a relationship suffers when it's based on mutual masturbation rather than sex. This is what fantasies, pornography, and "alternative" sexual practices are all about. It's not "What can I do to make my partner happy," it's "what can I talk my partner into doing for me.
To me those two paragraphs are contradictory. "What I can I do to make my partner happy" is, in my experience, inextricably linked to "what feels good to me" for both me and the majority of my partners. I know this is not always the case - I am a fortunate woman. What they do to please me and my response to that causes physical pleasure for them and what I do to cause physical pleasure for them triggers a physical response in me. It is an "upward spiral", I guess. Physical acts that, in a vacuum, might be neutral or even awkward or uncomfortable can be, in the context of lovemaking, quite pleasurable. Not every act for every one, of course, and partners should communicate what works, but more than one might suspect.
This is, I think, a key to physical intimacy.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have the same 'upward spiral.' My primary concern is the enjoyment of who I am with. Without it, I'm not having fun. It's why my own (as described) 'alternative' sexual practices are absolutely "What can I do to make my partner happy." And it's the same with them. And that's why it works, and why my own sex life is such an overwhelmingly positive experience.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By your definition Samp...I'm sex positive...but more accurately, I'm a Libertarian, which is more like "I don't give a crap what you do as long as you don't harm anyone, and you shouldn't care what I do either, as long as I don't harm anyone either."
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To me those two paragraphs are contradictory. "What I can I do to make my partner happy" is, in my experience, inextricably linked to "what feels good to me" for both me and the majority of my partners.
Yes, this. But also--part of why my partners are my partners, as opposed to well-loved platonic friends, is because at least some of the same practices make us mutually happy. Why would I want to put myself in a situation where I had to constantly talk my partner into doing things when there's plenty of people out there who share my interests? To put it on the most basic level, I'm not going to pursue a straight woman and try to convince her to experiment with bixseuality; it would just be painful and frustrating for both of us. And why bother, when there are plenty of lesbians and bi women out there?
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course. Picking the right partner(s) is important. My point is not that every one will like every act but that the "response to the response" part of the sexual equation was missing from the descriptions of sexual negotiations. For me, good sex isn't, "I will do this for you" or "you will do this for me" but "I will do this for you which is for me..." and vice versa.
Does that make sense?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Of course. Picking the right partner(s) is important. My point is not that every one will like every act but that the "response to the response" part of the sexual equation was missing from the descriptions of sexual negotiations. For me, good sex isn't, "I will do this for you" or "you will do this for me" but "I will do this for you which is for me..." and vice versa.
Does that make sense?
Oh, yes, I agree with you entirely and didn't mean to imply otherwise. The second part of my comment was responding more to Annie's remark about "alternate" sexual practices being about "what can I talk my partner into doing for me," which seemed to me to be ignoring the fact that if someone is into something, there's almost certainly someone else out there thrilled by the exact same thing for whom no convincing will be required.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that is why there are often such surprising levels of disconnect when people discuss sex here (and I assume most places where such discussions take place). That is, because people and their experiences are so diverse and varied wrt sex and sexual practices and with very little broad discussion in our culture about what people actually do, sex discussion devolves into "I have found it to be true that x" and "In my experience, your experience is deviant and sad." Then comes, "In my experience, your experience if full of Y."
Porn bothers me, generally, for two reasons. One, in the mass-produced "porn industry" porn I've seen, I generally do not believe the women are enjoying themselves. Just in what I've seen, mind, they look posed and stoned and seem to be pretending to enjoy acts that appear to be deliberately avoiding their erogenous zones. It makes sense that this sort of porn might lead the young and impressionable into some wrong ideas about how to please real people. To sum up, industrial porn a) doesn't look like fun to me and b) is arguably rife with exploitation. Also, the men tend to be ugly, except in gay porn. (I have less of a problem with gay porn, actually, because it's a little easier to tell whether the participants are enjoying themselves.)
The second issue I have with industrial porn is that, like, they do the same three things in every video, with slight and uninteresting variations. It's boring. Significantly more boring than having actual sex with my Beloved, who is generally present, interested and knows how to please me. So, what is the point in watching?
Now when friends recommend a video or a director, I find that *that* porn is entirely different and altogether more enjoyable. I've found some female porn directors who have made stuff I found appealing, for example. Things that pretty much erased my previous objections to "porn."
So. All "porn" is not created equal, to me. I'm also a fairly live-and-let-live kind of person. It amuses me when I see people in sex discussions take the tack, "My kink is awesome and life-affirming, but yours is just weird and can't possibly be healthy."
For example, while I am uncomfortable with the idea that some people like to be hurt (cut, burned or otherwise made bloody) and don't think I could be in a relationship with someone who wanted to hurt me or to be hurt, I accept that it might well be possible for a healthy sex life to include such things. I've written (and sold) erotica catering to tastes I don't share, partly because I found it challenging to write in a sexy way about things I don't find at all sexy.
Which is a long-winded way of saying that the world is a wide, wild place, with room in it for a lot of things to be fun and healthy. Most sexual behaviors are only deviant, healthy or fun, when our thinking makes it so.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Olivet: Which is a long-winded way of saying that the world is a wide, wild place, with room in it for a lot of things to be fun and healthy. Most sexual behaviors are only deviant, healthy or fun, when our thinking makes it so.
This. Very much this.
Also...where might curious minds find this erotica that you have written? Is it publicly available?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, one thing is, for sure. I made it publicly available when the anthology released the rights back to me. But that one is a gay BDSM abduction/captivity story. I really didn't know what I was doing, being pretty far out of that particular loop myself, but it must have hit the target because it was one of two stories in the anthology mentioned favorably in reviews. If you want to read it, PM me on Facebook or Sake and I'll send you a link. (But it's totally fine not to.) I'll do some digging and see if I have anything else out and about on the WWW.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yay! I find that I "enjoy" reading about people doing things that I don't enjoy in practice. I think that ties in to the whole "aroused by response" thing as well. I will PM.
You write so well in your posts, I can't help but imagine that your fiction writing is pretty nifty as well.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that one is a gay BDSM abduction/captivity story.
The training of O(livet)
quote: To sum up, industrial porn a) doesn't look like fun to me and b) is arguably rife with exploitation.
It's usually not fun. Not terrible, unless there's strict deadlines or you're working with scumbag operations, but .. it's definitely work. I've watched it get made and both performers need lots of downtime and hydration and at least some reliance on porn angles to make sure everything's, uh, on display in realtime. Porn also went through this sort of peak stonedface, and then people's tastes (or, at least, their consumption) changed, because videos where the actors are obviously not having fun don't do it for them anymore.
One particular pornstar, who I will refer to by stage name — Lily Thai — said that her success has come pretty largely because she doesn't just look good, she legitimately enjoys her work, and she can, uh, authentically demonstrate that on stage. You don't have to do that many takes when the reactions you're normally supposed to be imitating aren't imitations, and the end product is better for all involved, and people seek it out once they're tired of inauthenticity. That's a trend I kind of want to encourage, wherever possible.
I have another friend who departed from our lovely state and ended up living in Australia with her french boyfriend! And she got a job being a spokesperson and assistant for a branch of the porn company Feck, which runs, among other things, ifeelmyself. If you're knowledgeable about female porn directors and actually, legitimately positive directions in porn, you've probably heard about it, but when she started talking about how her job is run and what direction they're trying to take visual eroticism, I thought ... man, given that exploration of porn is pretty much guaranteed for kids living anywhere on the grid, I'd sure hope their first explorations are, well, of that. Not the skeevy grindfests they'd more likely find.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I didn't mean to single anyone out -- it was a generic and general hope.![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Yay! I find that I "enjoy" reading about people doing things that I don't enjoy in practice. I think that ties in to the whole "aroused by response" thing as well. I will PM.
