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.
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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 ?
Posts: 349 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cool. I don't disagree with what you're saying, then. And I agree with your general attitude on porn in many ways.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That'd be a shame, because I find semi-serious conversations with you to be among the most interesting.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1481 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ]
Posts: 2258 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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 ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ick, setting aside the porn for a moment, are you saying that degenerate does not exist? That nothing is?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Unless you consider developing a problem with porn to be the proof that there was something unhealthy.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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. ![[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)
