And you've spoken out against a lot more than pornography and masturbation.
Did I ever speak out against sex? I think sex is a very good thing. I think you should get married and have a lot of sex.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did I ever speak out against sex? I think sex is a very good thing. I think you should get married and have a lot of sex.
You've spoken out against couples having mutually respectful discussions about what turns them on sexually. Sex is more than just copulation.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Nothing in that study convinces me that you should masturbate or you're going to get cancer.
However, this is also a benefit to getting married and loving your wife.
For the sake of argument: what if I'm butt ugly and can't find a wife?
That happens. I know quite a few people who aren't married and are still committed to living a celibate lifestyle. They manage just fine. Maybe they have a 33% higher risk of prostate cancer. (What is that risk, anyway? Still rather small, I'm guessing) But living a life without being addicted to sexual fantasies is actually very psychologically healthy.
I can say this, because I am a 30-year-old virgin who decided at one point to start living a life without sexual fantasies and I am much, much happier.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Did I ever speak out against sex? I think sex is a very good thing. I think you should get married and have a lot of sex.
You've spoken out against couples having mutually respectful discussions about what turns them on sexually. Sex is more than just copulation.
No I didn't. Read my comments again carefully. I explained how fantasies derived from pornography are different from wanting to try a new position.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:No I didn't. Read my comments again carefully. I explained how fantasies derived from pornography are different from wanting to try a new position.
Lots of fantasies have nothing to do with the woman being submissive, fearful, an unreal creature, shamed, or humiliated. For instance, a flight attendant and a passenger deciding to sneak into an airplane bathroom to have sex because they're attracted to each other. That's a sexual fantasy, and one you can find in pornography, but it does not meet any of your criteria.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States among men, and this disease is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in American males. --from eMedicine
posted
Also, because you've mentioned that you're religious: why would God design people so that the (according to you) psychologically healthiest sexual behavior is less physically healthy than the alternative?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still don't think that any of these arguments are convincing me that pornography and masturbation are good things. It's all an effort to excuse damaging things on the basis of a small number of them being innocuous and OK.
Is that really how it is? Do people really watch pornography of flight attendants and passengers who love each other a lot? Is that where people stop? Is that where you stop?
I'm trying to paint a picture of a life that doesn't include these things; a life where sex is something great that you wait for and that draws you closer to your spouse. It's actually a very good life. I can attest to that. I have family and friends who can attest to that. There are other Hatrackers here who can attest to that. When you reject the view that pornography and other sexual abberations are inevitable or part of what sex is supposed to be, you can live a happy and loving existence.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Also, because you've mentioned that you're religious: why would God design people so that the (according to you) psychologically healthiest sexual behavior is less physically healthy than the alternative?
God designed people and taught them to get married because that is the healthiest behavior. Lifelong celibacy, while it ends up being some people's lot, is not His plan for most of us.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You've said a lot of stuff in response to me, Annie, but none of it tackles the core issue with your approach to sex, porn, masturbation, and elements of fantasy in a sex life. Your premise is to establish certain things as universal, when they're hardly universal at all. Your position on anal sex is a perfect example. You only need to find a healthy quantity of women who will tell you that you are wrong, you have no right to assert otherwise, and you are not to speak for them when you tell them that, since they are women, they don't enjoy anal sex, and it is 'painful and unpleasant for them,' full stop. That blows apart your absolutist premise on anal sex. Same issue with pornography. Same issue with fantasy elements in sexuality, which can and absolutely are part of many people's healthy sexuality, between one or multiple partners. Same issue with how you asserted that sex is supposed to be a two-person interaction (again, full stop). There exists healthy, wonderful sex with multiple partners that many people engage in that can't be fairly or rationally viewed through your lens.
Which makes me curious, Annie, when you describe yourself as 'sex positive,' (which I'm pretty positive you are not), which of these kinds of consentual sexual acts do you reject as being capable of being acceptable and healthy? Tell me which of these numbers are, in your view, not something that you can allow can be healthy.
1. Sex outside of marriage
2. Sex with multiple partners
3. Sex with a member of your own gender
4. Sex with a transgendered person, with or without sex change operation
5. Sex while watching porn
6. Sex while wearing costumes or engaging in sexual roleplay
7. Roleplay involving rape fantasy
8. Sex while watching pornography
9. Participating or otherwise making a career in pornography
10. Bondage
11. submission/dominance, and other forms of power exchange
12. Sadomasochism, including spanking
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Annie: It's all an effort to excuse damaging things on the basis of a small number of them being innocuous and OK.
From my point of view, it isn't about making excuses but about how to make sense of the world and the best ways to live in it. I'm pretty sure that my good choices aren't going to line up exactly with anyone else's in some ways, and I'm okay with that.
But in thinking for myself about how to make good choices for me and, in a professional capacity, about how to help others make good choices for themselves, it's important to me to rely on more than just theory. I can theorize that something isn't pleasurable, but I have to let other people's reality resist my preconceptions about it.
That is, when not only one but several people tell me that something which doesn't do anything for me sexually (or even is unpleasant to me) is pleasurable to them -- and they continue to choose it, and they are perfectly healthy, stable, and happy -- then I have to accept that for some other people, at least, this may be a pleasurable thing. Maybe even a healthy thing, in the right context.
I cannot privilege my theories about the world and what is possible in it over other people's lived experiences. I just cannot do that. It's the same as with things like the incidence rate of particular types of cancer. Just assuming what I theorize to be true must actually be true isn't enough.
quote:Is that really how it is? Do people really watch pornography of flight attendants and passengers who love each other a lot? Is that where people stop? Is that where you stop?
I can tell you that I have enjoyed pornography/erotica for more than 30 years, and I do not and have not had any inclination to pursue any words or images that are not about mutually happy and healthy people.
quote:I'm trying to paint a picture of a life that doesn't include these things; a life where sex is something great that you wait for and that draws you closer to your spouse. It's actually a very good life. I can attest to that. I have family and friends who can attest to that. There are other Hatrackers here who can attest to that. When you reject the view that pornography and other sexual abberations are inevitable or part of what sex is supposed to be, you can live a happy and loving existence.
I think that's great! Great for you and great for a lot of other people.
I also think lived experiences of other people speak to the fact that other choices may well be better for them. I don't find this mutually exclusionary.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's all an effort to excuse damaging things on the basis of a small number of them being innocuous and OK.
Yes, *that's* what these arguments are about. I want to harm people. CT wants to harm people (I'm having a hard time saying that one with a straight face). All the people who talk about their healthy, happy, long term relationships that happen to involve masturbation, fantasies, and/or porn are out to harm people, or are at best just teetering on the precipice before a descent into "violence and hatred".
Or maybe there are ways to work through those things in healthy matters, that adults manage to navigate, especially when not culturally inculcated to view masturbation and pornography as a gateway to evil, perhaps leading people who find themselves drawn to masturbation or pornography to actually *use* them as gateways to evil.
And I find it amusing that the negatives you assign to S&M assume the guy would be the dominant and initiating one Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam - I don't find any of those acceptable. I was trying to redefine the term sex-positive. I am aware of its usage but totally disagree that any of those things are ultimately positive for anyone involved.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
Annie, you have a lot of people talking with you all at once. I am saying the things that are important to me, but I [want] explictly to let you off the hook for responding to them.
There is a lot on your plate, and even if I am responding specifically to something you wrote, I don't do so with the expectation that you are obliged to reply back. Just to be clear.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And Fugu, I'm not implying that you're consciously trying to hurt people. I'm arguing that a lot of the damage done by these things hurts people without them realizing what they're doing. That's certainly my experience in relationships with pornography users and as the child of a pornography user. It re-wires the brain. It makes people unaware and insensitive to the needs and emotions of others. It changes the view of what people find sexually attractive. It desensitizes people to the nuances of human emotion.
One of my good friends said once "You don't have to tell me which guys use pornography. I can tell by the way they treat their wives."
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sam - I don't find any of those acceptable. I was trying to redefine the term sex-positive. I am aware of its usage but totally disagree that any of those things are ultimately positive for anyone involved.
quote:6. Sex while wearing costumes or engaging in sexual roleplay
You're going back to objecting to the flight attendant/passenger scenario? (Which certainly does exist and is a happy part of many people's sex lives; it's one of the more common sexual fantasy tropes, which is why I used it as an example. It does not happen to be one of mine, at least not as more than a passing humor).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Annie, you have a lot of people talking with you all at once. I am saying the things that are important to me, but I [want] explictly to let you off the hook for responding to them.
There is a lot on your plate, and even if I am responding specifically to something you wrote, I don't do so with the expectationt hat you are obliged to reply back. Just to be clear.
Thank you. I tend to get overwhelmed in these discussions and I'm afraid it makes it look like I can't handle the opposition to my arguments or that I'm giving up. Sometimes I just have to let some of them go.
Although I do wish sometimes that those who agreed with me (and I know they're here) would step up and say something. But I definitely don't want to drag people into long drawn-out conversations that they know from experience will never end Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sam - I don't find any of those acceptable. I was trying to redefine the term sex-positive. I am aware of its usage but totally disagree that any of those things are ultimately positive for anyone involved.
quote:6. Sex while wearing costumes or engaging in sexual roleplay
You're going back to objecting to the flight attendant/passenger scenario? (Which certainly does exist and is a happy part of many people's sex lives; it's one of the more common sexual fantasy tropes, which is why I used it as an example. It does not happen to be one of mine, at least not as more than a passing humor).
OK, fine. I don't object to the costumes. But I don't think it's something worth spending a lot of time defending. I don't really know any people who object to it.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I don't see how you wanting to dress up in a costume justifies the existence of pornography.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Annie: [Pornography] re-wires the brain. It makes people unaware and insensitive to the needs and emotions of others. It changes the view of what people find sexually attractive. It desensitizes people to the nuances of human emotion.
One of my good friends said once "You don't have to tell me which guys use pornography. I can tell by the way they treat their wives."
(*grin
There is no man in the world -- or woman, for that matter -- I would exchange my husband with. I have never met someone so honorable, trustworthy, and gentle with the tenderest parts of my body and psyche. He is strong, he is passionate, he is sharp as a tack, and I trust him with my soul.
He wooed me to marriage by writing me erotica. We still share this with each other, both what we find that we like and what we create ourselves, separately or together.
We now share both an office and a home. For the last 6 months or so, we've been together almost continuously. I wake first and bring him breakfast in bed, and then with sit with the cats and plan the day. At the office we work on facing desks, have lunch together, go for a walk, go back to work, and then we break at 4 for a snack and to discuss the mystery we are writing together.
Home. Dinner. Nightfall. Another long walk and discussion. Bed together.
Unfortunately, I am likely to be working in a separate office doing different things after we move soon. But he'll still be my best friend, my lover, and my husband.)
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And Fugu, I'm not implying that you're consciously trying to hurt people. I'm arguing that a lot of the damage done by these things hurts people without them realizing what they're doing. That's certainly my experience in relationships with pornography users and as the child of a pornography user. It re-wires the brain. It makes people unaware and insensitive to the needs and emotions of others. It changes the view of what people find sexually attractive. It desensitizes people to the nuances of human emotion.
One of my good friends said once "You don't have to tell me which guys use pornography. I can tell by the way they treat their wives."
That you can even say this with a straight face shows me how much you toss your critical thinking skills out the window on this issue.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Annie: Thank you. I tend to get overwhelmed in these discussions and I'm afraid it makes it look like I can't handle the opposition to my arguments or that I'm giving up. Sometimes I just have to let some of them go.
I know!
You and I are both passionate women, and we both feel passionately about this topic in particular. I am totally cool with sharing the room with another passionate woman, even if we are facing different directions. I am glad you are here.
quote:Although I do wish sometimes that those who agreed with me (and I know they're here) would step up and say something. But I definitely don't want to drag people into long drawn-out conversations that they know from experience will never end
Long, drawn-out conversations that never end? Here?
quote:And Fugu, I'm not implying that you're consciously trying to hurt people. I'm arguing that a lot of the damage done by these things hurts people without them realizing what they're doing. That's certainly my experience in relationships with pornography users and as the child of a pornography user. It re-wires the brain. It makes people unaware and insensitive to the needs and emotions of others. It changes the view of what people find sexually attractive. It desensitizes people to the nuances of human emotion.
One of my good friends said once "You don't have to tell me which guys use pornography. I can tell by the way they treat their wives."
That you can even say this with a straight face shows me how much you toss your critical thinking skills out the window on this issue.
That you can ignore the huge world of truly terrible things that pornography depicts and espouses shows me how much you compartmentalize this issue to justify it to yourself.
There's no scope in any of this. You're relying on the postmodern tendency to highlight the rare and the marginal and losing sight of the huge context.
If pornography is one big huge slippery slope with your dearly beloved role playing scenario at the top, what percentage of it is the approach that is violent and humiliating to women? I say stay away from the whole damn slope.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Annie: Sam - I don't find any of those acceptable.
Then just say you don't find any of them acceptable. Don't try to prop up your individual view on what people enjoy by asserting them in capriciously presumptive ways. To pick one of multiple examples, by telling other women (plenty of whom enjoy anal sex) that anal sex isn't (or 'shouldn't be,' for whatever tortured reasoning) enjoyable for them.
You are speaking of your own apprehensions and projections related to sex, nothing more. They expose a strange way that you psychologically apprehend sexual relationships, and in what ways you engage in absolutist declaration of things as inherently unhealthy. You try to prop them up as more than that. I don't know if it's essentially something you are stuck doing irrationally, or if it might be possible for others here to point out the flaws in your presentation/reasoning and create some change in your presentation, but there you go.
quote: It re-wires the brain. It makes people unaware and insensitive to the needs and emotions of others. It changes the view of what people find sexually attractive. It desensitizes people to the nuances of human emotion.
This, likewise, is all something you're going to have a hard time justifying as more than a matter of prejudice and projection on your part.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And in addition, to the critical thinking claim: critical thinking is the ability to analyze your own thinking and to question assumptions.
I live in a society where all of these things I fight against are commonplace. When I talk about it, I get multiple vehement views to the contrary. I have had to work very hard to develop the arguments I've developed against pornography, because as much as I read religious views of why it's wrong or, on the other extreme, sex-positive feminist views of why it's wrong, none of them have encapsulated what I want to say. I have done a LOT of reflective thought on this issue. I have questioned every single assumption there is.
You can argue against every single point I make, but don't you dare paint me as blind, unquestioning and complacent. Because I am anything but.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Annie: Sam - I don't find any of those acceptable.
Then just say you don't find any of them acceptable. Don't try to prop up your individual view on what people enjoy by asserting them in capriciously presumptive ways. To pick one of multiple examples, by telling other women (plenty of whom enjoy anal sex) that anal sex isn't (or 'shouldn't be,' for whatever tortured reasoning) enjoyable for them.
You are speaking of your own apprehensions and projections related to sex, nothing more. They expose a strange way that you psychologically apprehend sexual relationships, and in what ways you engage in absolutist declaration of things as inherently unhealthy. You try to prop them up as more than that. I don't know if it's essentially something you are stuck doing irrationally, or if it might be possible for others here to point out the flaws in your presentation/reasoning and create some change in your presentation, but there you go.
quote: It re-wires the brain. It makes people unaware and insensitive to the needs and emotions of others. It changes the view of what people find sexually attractive. It desensitizes people to the nuances of human emotion.
This, likewise, is all something you're going to have a hard time justifying as more than a matter of prejudice and projection on your part.
You call it projection, I call it experience with the real world.
And I'm hardly alone. Did you read the Newsweek article I linked to? That's an awful lot of projection going on.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
I will go read the Newsweek article. My primary question going in is "what is the comparison group?" (That's my primary question going in for any claims-based article about physiological or psychological harms/benefits, by the way.)
If the conversation continues later and focuses on the article, I'll try to speak to that point. Meanwhile, it will be an interesting read.
quote:One of my good friends said once "You don't have to tell me which guys use pornography. I can tell by the way they treat their wives."
Outside of regions like Utah, I'm afraid a more accurate statement would be, "You don't have to tell me which guys use porn. They all do*."
*statistically speaking
It is interesting hearing your views on this. I don't think there's nothing right in what you say. I have some friends who are into stupid stuff like Captain Stabbin' and the Bang Bus, and it does lead them to what I would consider rather gross habits.
That's not to say that there's anything morally wrong with really kinky sex. I just don't find it aesthetically pleasing the way that I like the kind of sex that I'm into. It's like how I don't think Piss Jesus is a beautiful work of art. I don't think people who like Piss Jesus are morally bad in any way. But they're making a sort of aesthetic mistake.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That you can ignore the huge world of truly terrible things that pornography depicts and espouses shows me how much you compartmentalize this issue to justify it to yourself.
There's no scope in any of this. You're relying on the postmodern tendency to highlight the rare and the marginal and losing sight of the huge context.
If pornography is one big huge slippery slope with your dearly beloved role playing scenario at the top, what percentage of it is the approach that is violent and humiliating to women? I say stay away from the whole damn slope.
Given that there's a lot of evidence that pornography isn't going away, and a decent bit of correlational evidence that villainizing pornography makes the effects on relationships more harmful, it seems the best available recourse may well be to encourage more positive engagement with the parts of pornography that don't have the characteristics you hate, not the course you're supporting
As for it being the rare and marginal, I know numerous people who view erotic and pornographic material of many types (including ones you view as inherently violent and hateful) as couples and have healthy, happy, nonviolent, nonhateful relationships. I haven't been trying to argue for things I view as 'rare and marginal' at all. You're the one taking selection biased experiences within a community that villainizes pornography and generalizing it far beyond, not to mention relying on a study that smooshes together prostitution with viewing pornography to condemn pornography, before we even get to using as evidence the assumption that anyone who treats his wife badly is viewing porn and anyone who you don't know views porn who treats his wife well must not be viewing porn because you know of some cases where they both occur.
I'm sorry if I sound frustrated. As I'm sure you know, this can be a very frustrating topic. Thank you for continuing to discuss. I hope it's overall positive.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Annie: You call it projection, I call it experience with the real world.
You could use the same thing to justify pretty much any view, no matter how nominally irrational. This is hardly indicative of thinking critically where I think you aren't. So, too, is the "I'm hardly alone" part.
To wit, I have experience with the real world as well. In terms of sexual matters and the psychology of sexuality and gender, plenty of experience, and quite a bit of education. And between the two of us, I'm not constructing facile, broad-stroke arguments based on our supposed knowledge of these affairs, such as to define anal sex as something that 'women do not enjoy.'
Even with the attempted caveat you put next to it, you're really just inviting others to point out how your position appears remarkably weaker and subjective (as well as psychologically eye-raising) than you assert it is. Which is why it's very important that you not try to sell your argument by, for instance, the act of presuming on the part of groups.. You say "You can argue against every single point I make, but don't you dare paint me as blind, unquestioning and complacent." where here you're taking multiple groups, be they gay, or viewers of porn, or women who enjoy anal sex, or people who enjoy sex outside of marriage, or people like me who enjoy multiple forms of non-traditional sexuality, and you are asserting fairly ugly things about them — far worse than to call them blind or unquestioning — and tossing out a whole assembly of pseudopsychological claims about what kind of 'harm' they are 'intending' to do or how they are otherwise 'aberrant' and aren't doing sex 'the way they're supposed to be doing' (read: "the way Annie thinks they should have to do it"). If we aren't to dare calling you those things, who are you to dare to render those judgments in the first place?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if anyone has explicitly addressed this (I'm fairly sure most viewed it as nonsense and dismissed it as unworthy of comment), but while I suppose it's *possible* Annie may turn into the Ron Lambert of pornography and sexuality discussions, I'd be very surprised since there hasn't been any evidence of that kind of style before.
Put another way, that was a pretty cheap, unwarranted shot. She may not change her mind to align with many folks around here, but I wasn't aware that mere disagreement earned that kind of judgment.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
And I can absolutely tell which guys are pornified. They are the ones who treat women like they owe him something. To the assertion that that's most/almost all guys, my answer: no kidding. A huge contributor to my feminism is the way so many men treat women like sex vending machines. It's gross.
Thankfully, it isn't all men. The better sort don't.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a whole host of cultural elements that might cause men to treat women like 'sex vending machines' but now its all about being pornified? This kind of porn phobia is a great way to conceal and help the more complex causes of bad male attitudes towards women.
Tell me aerin, is it impossible to be someone who watches porn and still treat and think of women as respectfully as someone who doesn't? Does watching porn automatically make you think of them as 'owing' you sex?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am absolutely thrilled that the men who shrilly defend porn are hostile to me. Because while that is tacky and rude, the alternative is much more disgusting.
Being rude to me and to Annie is hardly persuasive that men who love porn still treat women with respect.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CT: I will go read the Newsweek article. My primary question going in is "what is the comparison group?" (That's my primary question going in for any claims-based article about physiological or psychological harms/benefits, by the way.)
The article is based on a paper presented at a conference and "released exclusively to Newsweek," not published in any peer-reviewed format. There is no indication that I find on first pass as to whether it has or will be submitted to any academic journals.
The men (both groups) were selected by response to newspaper and online ads offering money ($45) for interviews, and then "matched in terms of age, ethnicity, and education level." I did not see documentation of which newspapers or online services ran the ads, though I could have skimmed over it.
About one quarter of the men initially selected for the study and identified as sex-buyers were unable to be matched to controls. The study authors acknowledge it was challenging to "[obtain] sufficient numbers of non-sex buyers who we could match by age, ethnicity and educational level to the many sex buyers who wanted to participate in the study."
This problem was addressed by changing to a more "loose" [their word] definition of non-sex buyer and by having the project coordinator (a person affiliated with HAF -- see below) "[manage] a complex database which made it possible to obtain the necessary matches for the study." I did not see any details about the formation of this database or how it was used by the project coordinator, nor did I read that the cross-matching was validated or even checked by any additional parties, though I may have missed that information in my skim.
The study was funded by the two groups below; no other funding sources were listed.
quote:1. Hunt Alternatives Fund: "Hunt Alternative Fund's Demand Abolition Project focuses on eliminating men's assumption of the right to prostitution which would thereby eliminate the institution of prostitution." (Acknowledgements)
2. Prostitution Research & Education (PRE): "a U.S. non-governmental non-profit organization which has since 1995 researched and documented the harms resulting from prostitution and trafficking and advocated for alternatives to prostitution." (Acknowledgements)
---
There are multiple challenging issues for reliability in this study.
I do not believe that this study could be accepted for publication in a reputable academic journal. That is not to say that the study authors are being disingenuous or inappropriate; I am of the impression that the study was not designed to be one submitted for academic review.
That is fine as far as it goes; much of what is printed in Newsweek is far less rigorous! But that's a low bar.
My problem with this set-up is that the setup of the study is so flawed in nature as to make it inappropriate to draw scientific conclusions from it. I dislike that it seems to be presented as if it were analyzable, when I cannot see how it would be -- and that, I think, is why it is unpublishable in the academic sense. I don't know much about the conference at which it was presented, but I would have been interested in hearing the subsequent discussion about it, including any questions posed to the presentors. Unfortunately, I don't see that information available online.
I get thorny about seeing good science presented in misleading ways in mass media. I think I may be even thornier about seeing non-science science presented in misleading ways.
[Now Newsweek is on my nongifting list, for realz this time.]
quote:Originally posted by Aerin: I am absolutely thrilled that the men who shrilly defend porn are hostile to me.
Now, wait a second. This is where it gets even more interesting, I wager. There's been no 'shrill' defense of porn, despite the fact that the argument presented here is essentially an open denigration of those who watch it. You basically just now equated them to being lesser men.
I mean, I'm glad you're thrilled that you view the response as 'hostile,' and hopefully you aren't surprised...Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: ... the argument presented here is essentially an open denigration of those who watch it. You basically just now equated them to being lesser men.
*delicately
A group which notably includes my husband.
In contrast, I am actually quite keen on the man, myself.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: She may not change her mind to align with many folks around here, but I wasn't aware that mere disagreement earned that kind of judgment.
I'll go on record as being pro-Annie, all the time. We may disagree, but I am all in favour of Annie herself and thrilled as can be that she is posting again! Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not afraid, and calling me irrationally afraid is wrong, insulting, and hostile. It is an attempt to discredit.
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's all opinion, right? I think porn is immoral on both sexual morality grounds and on treatment of women grounds. I do think men who don't engage with it are better than those who do.
act better, maybe. You are not bad, it's your behavior. Whatever the phrase. But I don't think it is a neutral, "do whatever" thing.
But I am not going to associate with your husband, so what does my opinion matter?
Posts: 232 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm not afraid, and calling me irrationally afraid is wrong, insulting, and hostile. It is an attempt to discredit.
Calling men who watch porn automatically 'lesser men' is also wrong, insulting, and hostile. It is also an attempt to discredit. The way it is justified with bad psychology means that at some point it becomes indicative of irrationality, as can be seen in this thread. But you still didn't answer my question.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
PS: I was serious when I stated my reason for responding re: my husband as a member of the group noted above.
In addition, though, I do think Aerin's opinions matter. I am glad to read them here, too, and I hope it is possible to continue sharing dissenting opinions in a way that doesn't silence voices from any perspective. That includes the guys posting above, as well.
(I often don't get what I hope for, but I am still going to hope for good things. This is just one of many.)
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not trying to silence any opinions, ct. I think I'm being appropriately responsive to poor forms of discrimination and bias, and presumptions like where aerin said 'being rude to me and annie is hardly persuasive that men who love porn still treat women with respect'. It presumes that I watch porn, and that I am a man who was responding with full knowledge of aerins gender as female.
So if we want respectful dialogue, aerin, let's note those presumptions and judgments.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
You know, I know I was also just talking about the issue of projections and presumptions, and, well, a response wherein you, mister parks, are presumed, essentially, to be a representative of Men Who Watch Porn (heretofore referred to as 'the Lessers') in the way you responded?
Neutrally, not for the sake of conflict, I'm going to say that it fits pretty surprisingly well into my own theories on the nature of the projection and presumption at work, in the framework of a mind pretty much fixatively revulsed by porn and its supposed (though not substantiated) effect on people's psychology.
That aside,
quote:
quote:1. Hunt Alternatives Fund: "Hunt Alternative Fund's Demand Abolition Project focuses on eliminating men's assumption of the right to prostitution which would thereby eliminate the institution of prostitution." (Acknowledgements)
2. Prostitution Research & Education (PRE): "a U.S. non-governmental non-profit organization which has since 1995 researched and documented the harms resulting from prostitution and trafficking and advocated for alternatives to prostitution." (Acknowledgements)
---
There are multiple challenging issues for reliability in this study.
CT - multiple challenging issues. Yikes, no kidding! But .. what are these groups proposing as an 'alternative' to prostitution? Do they just mean abolition?
Thanks for doing all that research into the article, by the by.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
I will freely admit to viewing pornography.
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
