Thread: Utah and Porn Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030100
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
A news story tells me that the state of Utah (in the U.S.) has declared that pornography is a public health hazard.
Is this reasonable? Is it an overreach? If you regard pornography as a problem, is this a reasonable approach? Will it backfire in some fashion?
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
That's why they export it to Las Vegas, Nevada, and enjoy the profits.
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on
:
A social hazard. A psychological and emotional developmental hazard. In those senses, it could well ultimately be a health hazard.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
As I understood, the two bits of legislation are this Resolution, which declares porn a public health hazard, but has no real effects - it's just the state saying "Porn - it's bad mmmkay."
and HB155, a bill requiring computer service techs and the like to report child porn if they encounter it.
The latter seems pretty reasonable and non-controversial. I suspect the former is unlikely to alter the amount of porn consumed within Utah.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
A recent study said that certain postal codes in Utah are number one in online porn subscriptions
They aren't attacking the underlying cause which is membership in the Church of Latter Day Saints. You got told that the founders of your church got to have all the wives they wanted of any age and you can't and people turn to other solutions.
Meanwhile, there's a petition drive to stop Brigham University does honor code investigation on students who file rape and assault charges
[fixed links as best I could]
[ 23. April 2016, 06:03: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
A recent study said that certain postal codes in Utah are number one in online porn subscriptions
They aren't attacking the underlying cause which is membership in the Church of Latter Day Saints. You got told that the founders of your church got to have all the wives they wanted of any age and you can't and people turn to other solutions.
Sounds like a weird excuse for looking at porn.
The Bible is full of people we're meant to admire who had several wives or concubines. What about the Prophet Mohammed with his polygamy - has that turned Muslims today into keen users of porn?
Utah may have a particular problem, but the polygamy of the founder of the Mormons can't be the reason....
[ 23. April 2016, 10:09: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I think what he's talking about is supply and demand. The number of boys born is very slightly more than the number of girls. Boys are more fragile and fewer of them survive to adulthood, so that by the time everybody's ready to breed the numbers are about equal. Every pot has its lid.
Now: the Prophet or whoever's the head of your LDS schism group cops five, or ten, or twenty of those girls. This leaves the equivalent number of young men with zip. They either must go un-mated, or seek outside their group for girls. This in fact often happens; young men are pushed out of the group for one reason or another and are forced to move away. If they stay, porn may be the best outlet.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
There might (or might not) be a broader framework for the wording. There is a current push among a number of countries (including at a UN 3-day meeting this week) to change the "war of drugs" (Nixon's political campaign to target and jail his political opponents the anti-war protesters the pro-civil rights blacks by making a criminal offense out of using a substance Nixon's own blue ribbon committee declared harmless); the proposed new approach is to declare using not a criminal offense but a public health concern, so users will not be punished with long prison sentences, but providers will still be regarded as criminals.
The Utah wording is parallel in to the wording proposed these past several months in international drug use discussions of backing down from criminalizing the small user even while continuing to oppose the large providers.
This way individual users can seek help to change and get unaddicted without fear or being arrested for being addicted.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Now: the Prophet or whoever's the head of your LDS schism group cops five, or ten, or twenty of those girls.
I understood that membership in polygamous LDS schism groups was very much a minority thing, even in Utah. So I don't think you can blame any state-wide effect on polygamy - there just isn't enough of it to make a statistical difference.
The only place that polygamy is currently even accepted in enough numbers to make a difference is in Muslim societies; I have no idea whether polygamy is actually prevalent enough to matter there.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
The Utah wording is parallel in to the wording proposed these past several months in international drug use discussions of backing down from criminalizing the small user even while continuing to oppose the large providers.
This way individual users can seek help to change and get unaddicted without fear or being arrested for being addicted.
A difference would be, though, that with porn, there doesn't seem to be much chance of going after the larger providers, the way they still can with drug lords in situations where possession is legalized, decriminalized, or dead-letter.
I know there have been a few successful prosecutions of non-child porn in the US, mostly targetting the extreme gonzo variety, but other than that, the industry seems to chug along largely unhindered by state sanction.
I also don't think you'll see the "mental-health model" take root among porn users, the way it has among substance addicts. Granted, this is mostly anecdotal, but I've known quite a few people who indulge in porn, and I don't think I've ever heard one of them cop to having a psychological problem. Whereas I've known a lot of people who will acknowledge that they are in need of help for their drug and alcohol problems.
Possibly this is because porn dependency, while it might wreck your sexual or romantic life, usually doesn't push you to the point of staggering down the street screaming your head off before puking up your guts all over the sidewalk. Whereas booze...
[ 23. April 2016, 18:38: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
There was a major article in the last weeks issue of Time Magazine about porn and how young men are saying that they are suffering adverse effects such as erectile disfunction as a result of over use of porn from an early age. These men say they now find it impossible to have normal sex without the stimulation of porn.
I can't link to the article because it's only available online to subscribers. (I read it in the print edition here at work)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
A difference would be, though, that with porn, there doesn't seem to be much chance of going after the larger providers, the way they still can with drug lords in situations where possession is legalized, decriminalized, or dead-letter.
Would you prefer tobacco as an analogy? It is legal for adults to buy and use tobacco products, but many governments have had successful public health campaigns against smoking.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
One may amass statistics about the damage tobacco causes -- cancer cases, secondary smoke issues, and so on. Where are the equivalent stats about porn?
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
Would you be happy if your daughter was a porn star rather than a US army soldier ?
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
One may amass statistics about the damage tobacco causes -- cancer cases, secondary smoke issues, and so on. Where are the equivalent stats about porn?
How are you going to collect them?
Casting my mind back, the earliest POV I remember was that pornography "depraved morals" or some such formulation, which was what was cited in prosecutions at least. But that changed. The prevailing POV then became that it did no harm - though certain forms of porn such as pedophile subjects remained illegal.
And then various studies were done, and a rather unexpected finding seemed to emerge that taken broadly, access to porn seemed to depress very slightly the incidence of sexual violence. But yet time and again, when perpetrators of sexual violence are caught, they turn out to have staggeringly huge collections of porn.
All the above being my understanding - I don't follow the research so there may be newer data, etc. However, I would suggest there are at least indications of a problem in how you collect data. Like any data gathering exercise, you need to make sure your sample is representative of the population you propose to draw inferences about. There seems to be at least the early indications that the entire population is non-homogeneous in this respect. For an obvious start, do women react in the same way as men? And maybe there is a small subsection of the male population that reacts differently to the majority, and may genuinely be the ones who are "depraved" by it, whatever that means.
And does the problem of diminished arousal with a real sexual partner affect all males equally? I have no idea - I've never seen it examined. It certainly isn't entirely unexpected to discover that satiety of stimulation is possible.
But the overall point is, I think, that you may very well not be able to draw sweeping views about the entire population, even if you just restrict it to males alone. Just as with sexual orientations, you can't assume one descriptor covers all.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
A reasonably comprehensive survey of the crusade against porn over time in the US.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
This is informative reading also. (referenced in Brenda's link)
Warning: some potentially work-unfriendly large-point text.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Having watched decades of the Mormon politicians of the Utah Church/State opine on homosexuality and pseudo scientific statements about homosexuals it's obvious they are wrong and ignorant.
They should shut up instead of trying to impose their religious beliefs on others in the guise of fake science.
[ 24. April 2016, 02:54: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
A difference would be, though, that with porn, there doesn't seem to be much chance of going after the larger providers, the way they still can with drug lords in situations where possession is legalized, decriminalized, or dead-letter.
Would you prefer tobacco as an analogy? It is legal for adults to buy and use tobacco products, but many governments have had successful public health campaigns against smoking.
I think a government camapaign against pornography would be a little more complicated to implement than the one we've had against smoking, and with less effective results.
First off, everyone knows what tobacco is. But there is much less consesnus about what constitutes porn, especially when it's counterposed to things like erotica etc.
So, for example, if these government anti-porn ads feature some creepy old man slobbering over typical hardcore commerical porn on the internet, you can expect the comments sections of on-line media to be full of stuff like...
"How come the government is warning us about old men who look at porn, but I can walk into my local publically-funded art gallery and see a display of 'transgressive lesbian erotica' that's just as explicit?"
And how does the government respond to that? "Well, it's different when it's done by feminist scholars with MFAs who write treatises on lesbian erotica, than when it's done by sleazy photographers just trying to make a buck"? That's gonna strike most people as special pleading.
And that's just one example of the concepttual complications such a campaign would run into.
Secondly, the harms of pornography are somewhat more nebulous than those of tobacco. "Tobacco gave me lung cancer" is a lot more clear-cut than "Pornography ruined my sex life".
Nicolemr mentioned the Time article about guys whose sex lives have been negatively impacted by porn, and while I don't doubt for a sec that those stories are true, I think a lot of people, upon hearing them, are going to think "Well, I'm sure there were other factors involved, it's not like everyone who looks at porn ends up with erectile dysfunction."
TL/DR: Both the definition of pornography, and the harms associated with it, are too vague for an anti-porn campaign to be as effective as that against tobacco.
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Would you be happy if your daughter was a porn star rather than a US army soldier ?
I would be equally unhappy in both cases.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
My daughter is a US Army soldier. She got in through ROTC, where she was one of the top cadets of her year. The US government sank a fantastic sum into her education and training (the value, she calculated, of a Blackhawk helicopter). She is a female of terrifying competence both physically and mentally.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Would you be happy if your daughter was a porn star rather than a US army soldier ?
I would be equally unhappy in both cases.
I think for a general readership, the question could be taken as "Would you be happy if your daughter was a porn star rather than [whatever non-porn job your daughter is doing now]?"
As I think I've said before when this topic has come up, the "Golden Rule" objection is the one remaining snag to my giving pornography a ethically clean bill-of-health. I'm pretty sure I would be unhappy if I heard that a female relative was involved in the industry, even if I knew she was doing it voluntarily.
[ 25. April 2016, 03:53: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
My daughter is a US Army soldier. She got in through ROTC, where she was one of the top cadets of her year. The US government sank a fantastic sum into her education and training (the value, she calculated, of a Blackhawk helicopter). She is a female of terrifying competence both physically and mentally.
Which you presumably prefer to her working in porn ?
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
How would you define pornography that distinguishes it from erotica? I can't think of one but it seems to me there ought to be one.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
An, um, quick and dirty response to this question can be found in the following linked article
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201104/ what-distinguishes-erotica-pornography
(Note, I have broken the link in accordance with Ship custom because it nonetheless contains possibly NSFW imagery).
In movie terms, the distinction has been made that erotica becomes porn when you fast forward to get to the relevant, um, parts.
[ 25. April 2016, 09:40: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I think the moral issue is that porn encourages objectification of others, rather than relationship. I guess you can argue that military training may encourage objectification of others as enemies (rather than satisfiers of our desires) so I can see why folks might have scruples about membership of the porn industry or the military or both, seeing that each is potentially corrupting of affection for others. Personally, I think the corrupting effect is much stronger in the porn industry, both on consumers and participants. I agree with jacobsen in her use of the term "social hazard".
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
I wouldn't quibble with those observations, B62. But in terms of the link that Eutychus posts, can we just say that the distinguishing feature of erotica is that it primarily arouses the aesthetic sensibilities, rather than the carnal (if I read him correctly, that is)? It looks to me as if you can simply shift something from one category to another by adding or deleting some mark*. Is that really it?
Whilst I would be happy to grant that erotica may well have an aesthetic dimension lacking in pornography, it just sounds a bit too much like theory looking for an application to me.
Try this:-
"I submit to the court that this work, which admittedly is profusely illustrated with pictures of children in sexual poses with adults, is a celebration of the culture of ancient Greece, and invites our appreciation of the undoubted cultural contribution that such activity contributed to the works of Socrates, Plato etc."
* in the sense of text, lines etc. etc. to cover applicability to different media
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
My daughter would never work in porn. It would negatively impact her plan for World Domination. Not to worry -- once her dark wing overshadows this planet, I'll mention the porn problem to her and she can fix it. I'll also get her to standardize ebook platforms and fix the music download industry.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Barnabas wrote:
quote:
I think the moral issue is that porn encourages objectification of others, rather than relationship.
So, then a People magazine cover declaring some Hollywood hunk The Sexiest Man Alive is porn, because no one swooning over the guy's cute face and hot bod is actually gonna have a relationship with him?
I guess someone could call my bluff here, and say "Why, yes, Stetson, that is indeed pornography". But let's be honest: Sexiest Man Alive covers are not what any anti-porn crusaders, be they Christian or feminist, are concerned about.
Honest Ron wrote:
quote:
can we just say that the distinguishing feature of erotica is that it primarily arouses the aesthetic sensibilities, rather than the carnal
Though it could be argued that a talented pornographer appeals to the carnal instincts, in an aesthetically gifted manner.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
And there's a long long history of displaying pictures or statues of nekkid women (or cute naked boys) while insisting that they are Historic or from Ovid or my tutelary goddess. That dates all the way back to classical times. What do you want, of course my deity Venus is depicted starkers, that's the way she rolls!
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Stetson wrote: quote:
So, then a People magazine cover declaring some Hollywood hunk The Sexiest Man Alive is porn, because no one swooning over the guy's cute face and hot bod is actually gonna have a relationship with him?
I guess someone could call my bluff here, and say "Why, yes, Stetson, that is indeed pornography". But let's be honest: Sexiest Man Alive covers are not what any anti-porn crusaders, be they Christian or feminist, are concerned about.
Why yes, Stetson, that is indeed pornography.
Just because campaigners may not be after it, if it fits the description, then that's what it is.
(Though to be serious, no I don't think it is pornography, but the point about any stable definition sweeping in new, hitherto uncovered areas is a real issue. Indeed, it may help us focus our attention on matters we have not adequately considered hitherto.)
Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
How would you define pornography that distinguishes it from erotica? I can't think of one but it seems to me there ought to be one.
Isn't this another of those irregular verbs?
I appreciate erotica
You enjoy pornography
He gets his kicks from smut
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
My daughter is a US Army soldier. She got in through ROTC, where she was one of the top cadets of her year. The US government sank a fantastic sum into her education and training (the value, she calculated, of a Blackhawk helicopter). She is a female of terrifying competence both physically and mentally.
Which you presumably prefer to her working in porn ?
Is war is the ultimate snuff porn?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Not to worry -- once her dark wing overshadows this planet... I'll also get her to... fix the music download industry.
Your daughter is planning to come to power in 1999?
quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
How would you define pornography that distinguishes it from erotica? I can't think of one but it seems to me there ought to be one.
Isn't this another of those irregular verbs?
I appreciate erotica
You enjoy pornography
He gets his kicks from smut
I totally agree the definition/criteria is going to be impossibly subjective, individualistic and overly-rationalized. That will make and has made attempts to criminalize it quite difficult and inevitably hypocritical. The charges may be exaggerated for ideological reasons. That doesn't, however, change the reality that porn does have some apparently, if imperfectly measured, negative impact on the real world. And as much as it makes us smirk and roll our eyes at more puritanical folk, I think there's some real need for a conversation about how to address that.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
An, um, quick and dirty response to this question can be found in the following linked article
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201104/ what-distinguishes-erotica-pornography
Though the article is not without merit, it is mired in pretension. That he delineates between "fine" art and "commercial" art betrays a very subjective approach.
I think it is correct to say that the purpose of porn is direct stimulation and immediate, erm, satisfaction.
But to pretend that "fine art" "sensuality" does not share the underlying motive of titillation is ridiculous.
Much of what we consider pornographic is subjective to changing cultural conditions.
Images from early playboy are indistinguishable from images hanging in contemporary fine art galleries.
Not saying porn is wonderful or art, just that the lines drawn between sensual and pornographic are artificial in their placement. It would be better depicted in a Venn diagram with a broad, and mobile, overlap.
Back to the OP more directly:
Porn is an objective problem where it overlaps violence, abuse and exploitation.
It is more subjective and conditional where it contacts fixation, addiction and harm to relationships
As far as objectification and relationships, ISTM there are far more dangers inherent in romantic films, everyday advertising and regular telly. One need never see a minute of a porn film or one image in a smut rag to have damaging misinformation on sex, relationships, healthy body image, etc.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
Just an anecdote (non-porn related) about Utah:
Mrs. Eluia and I were in St. George (a town in the southern part of the state) on vacation and decided to make a trip to the local liquor store. Liquor stores in Utah are state-run. We found the store, which was sort of hidden behind another building, and it turned out to be closed because there was a primary election that day. Not even the general election, a primary. Any excuse to close the liquor stores (and with politics in the US being what it is, you really want a drink on election day!). That's Utah for ya.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
That's Utah for ya.
I remember bars, if not liquor stores, being closed on election day in Canada, as late as the early 1980s. I think the law has been loosened up since then.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Stetson wrote: quote:
So, then a People magazine cover declaring some Hollywood hunk The Sexiest Man Alive is porn, because no one swooning over the guy's cute face and hot bod is actually gonna have a relationship with him?
I guess someone could call my bluff here, and say "Why, yes, Stetson, that is indeed pornography". But let's be honest: Sexiest Man Alive covers are not what any anti-porn crusaders, be they Christian or feminist, are concerned about.
Why yes, Stetson, that is indeed pornography.
Just because campaigners may not be after it, if it fits the description, then that's what it is.
(Though to be serious, no I don't think it is pornography, but the point about any stable definition sweeping in new, hitherto uncovered areas is a real issue. Indeed, it may help us focus our attention on matters we have not adequately considered hitherto.)
Point taken, if we really are just talking about the defintion of porn, separate from any application of the definition by real-world activists.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
My daughter is a US Army soldier. She got in through ROTC, where she was one of the top cadets of her year. The US government sank a fantastic sum into her education and training (the value, she calculated, of a Blackhawk helicopter). She is a female of terrifying competence both physically and mentally.
Which you presumably prefer to her working in porn ?
Is war is the ultimate snuff porn?
Have you ever actually known anyone who was sexually excited by war, or by killing people? I would imagine the number of such people to be fairly low.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Misses the point, which is the comparison of accepted military violence, and, sexual pornography which is accepted sexual violence. Freud's ideas aside, I don't think the participants in either pornography or war are particularly sexually excited.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
My daughter is a US Army soldier. She got in through ROTC, where she was one of the top cadets of her year. The US government sank a fantastic sum into her education and training (the value, she calculated, of a Blackhawk helicopter). She is a female of terrifying competence both physically and mentally.
Which you presumably prefer to her working in porn ?
Is war is the ultimate snuff porn?
Have you ever actually known anyone who was sexually excited by war, or by killing people? I would imagine the number of such people to be fairly low.
There was a news item about 15+ years ago about an American judge who ejaculated when he issued death sentences. He was outed by a former clerk. A sticky situation, I admit.
K.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
lilBuddha wrote:
quote:
As far as objectification and relationships, ISTM there are far more dangers inherent in romantic films, everyday advertising and regular telly. One need never see a minute of a porn film or one image in a smut rag to have damaging misinformation on sex, relationships, healthy body image, etc.
This is a very good point, and illustrates the difficulties that are present in trying to research these areas, let alone, trying to find solutions.
I mean, that attempting to assess popular culture in terms of its objectification of both men and women, and of bodies, relationships, and so on, as you say, is very difficult. For one thing, it is subject to personal bias - for example, one person might find Prince's performances to be lewd, another, that they are brilliant and electrifying.
I remember that Kenneth Clarke, in his book 'The Nude' tried to distinguish the erotic and porn, and got tied up in knots, pardon the pun. A lot of Victorian art seems to lie uneasily on the border between the two, as presumably, wealthy patrons liked a naked girl or two around the house, but with plenty of artistic pretension.
This is a famous example, a magnificent painting in many respects, but with a hint of voyeurism, maybe; certainly, many people feel uneasy about it:
http://tinyurl.com/jfhx9o9
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
We used to think porn was sleazy cinemas in Soho and titilation or light entertainment was Carry On films.
Whereas these days someone who takes example from Sid James and slaps a female bottom is likely to be on a sexual assault charge. Conversely anyone can surf some pretty full on porn any time of the day on a smart phone without causing undue alarm.
I would say the Venn diagram which attempts divide harmless erotica and harmful porn isn't only mobile but in a constant state of flux.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, the shifts in taste are staggering really. Still thinking about paintings, 'Olympia' by Manet, caused a sensation, not just because it was a nude, but a nude prostitute. Eventually, the French govt bought the painting!
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Have you ever actually known anyone who was sexually excited by war, or by killing people? I would imagine the number of such people to be fairly low.
Well, but when they get to be, say, vice-president of the United States, the repercussions can be significant beyond their numbers...
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
Re Utah and polygamy - polygamy is actually illegal in Utah, even polygamous cohabiting (and of course, polygamy is no longer endorsed by the LDS). This is due to the FLDS and the child/incestuous/abusive polygamous marriages amongst them. For that reason, most of the FLDS now live in Texas and I think Nevada too. Certainly the infamous Warren Jeffs and his clan are based in Texas.
I think for mainstream Mormons in Utah, it's much more to do with the squeaky clean lifestyle Mormons are expected to lead - and high birth rates and the highest rate of antidepressant use amongst women in the US, which when combined can easily lead to a low sex drive in women. So men turn to porn.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
I'm a little sceptical of your chain of reasoning Pomona. People turn to porn in other places too and some people who take antidepressants still have sex. Many people lead happy lives where sex is a periodic activity in balance with other meaningful activities.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
sexual pornography which is accepted sexual violence.
Is some pornography sexual violence? Yes. Is all pornography sexual violence? No. Though IMO the majority of porn is negative towards women, much is not sexual violence.
quote:
I don't think the participants in either pornography <snip> are particularly sexually excited.
Both porn and sexual excitement can be complicated, you think wrong.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As far as objectification and relationships, ISTM there are far more dangers inherent in romantic films, everyday advertising and regular telly. One need never see a minute of a porn film or one image in a smut rag to have damaging misinformation on sex, relationships, healthy body image, etc.
Far more? I think you could argue analogous dangers and if so, I'd agree with you. I have been known to get cross with the famous Ali MacGraw line from "Love Story" (Love means never having to say you're sorry).
But where does "far more" come from?
What I think we would agree on is that education and good example are preferable to legislation, when it comes to dealing with the problems of objectification and its consequences for our attitudes towards others.
Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Would you be happy if your daughter was a porn star rather than a US army soldier ?
If its an either/or question I would be much happier with the former.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Originally posted by Barnabas 62:
quote:
But where does "far more" come from?
How often does the average person watch porn vs how often are they exposed to adverts, films, etc?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by Barnabas 62:
quote:
But where does "far more" come from?
How often does the average person watch porn vs how often are they exposed to adverts, films, etc?
I have no idea. But I don't see how that is at all relevant, unless I'm totally missing something. The question was in response to your statement comparing romantic films v. porn-- a comparison not of the frequency of exposure, but of the damage they cause to relationships:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As far as objectification and relationships, ISTM there are far more dangers inherent in romantic films, everyday advertising and regular telly. One need never see a minute of a porn film or one image in a smut rag to have damaging misinformation on sex, relationships, healthy body image, etc.
I think your point is well taken that over-romanticized notions of relationships inherent in many films and even ads is a real problem, and possibly more ubiquitous than porn. But like Barnabas, I'm dubious that one could say they are "far more" dangerous than porn. I'm open to correction though if you've got some sort of study or measurement to support the claim.
By way of analogy, I'm pretty sure in the US that usage of marijuana is far more widespread than usage of crack cocaine. But I would never say that weed is "far more dangerous" than crack.
[ 26. April 2016, 14:56: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
(tangent)
Meanwhile, this shades-of-gray inspired meme appeared in my facebook feed:
quote:
"I've been a very bad girl" she said, biting her lip. "I need to be punished."
"Very well" he said, and installed Windows 10 on her laptop.
(end tangent)
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
If that Time article that I couldn't link to is anything to go by, some young men are looking at porn much more than at anything else.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
By way of analogy, I'm pretty sure in the US that usage of marijuana is far more widespread than usage of crack cocaine. But I would never say that weed is "far more dangerous" than crack.
This is not an apt analogy, at least not in the way you appear to think.
Still, if you would wish to use that line or reasoning, it would be more analogous to use alcohol than weed. Even then it is a strained comparison.
I think comparing porn to crack is a bit OTT.
But let us pretend it isn't. How many people does crack kill or affect each year? Compare that to how many people die from alcohol, how many people abuse or are abused because of alcohol, how many birth defects, difficult relationships, etc. So the effect of one potential for abuse is higher than another based on a single use, the prevalence factor is important. And, just like alcohol, notions of romance, adverts and the like are considered normal and part of our cultures. Porn, though growing in mainstream viewing, isn't there yet.
Porn potentially damages relationships, in this we agree. It is about expectation and fantasy v. reality. It is a self-centered, singular focus with no need to consider others.And, for the record, I am not a proponent of pornography.
My point is that our societies have more prevalent sources of harm to relationships. And I would add that there is a slightly puritanical bias in many people's opinions of porn.
ETA: Shades of Grey! A more fucked up depiction of relationship than many a fuck film. And, no, not because of the BDSM.
[ 26. April 2016, 16:11: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Re Utah and polygamy - polygamy is actually illegal in Utah, even polygamous cohabiting (and of course, polygamy is no longer endorsed by the LDS). This is due to the FLDS and the child/incestuous/abusive polygamous marriages amongst them. For that reason, most of the FLDS now live in Texas and I think Nevada too. Certainly the infamous Warren Jeffs and his clan are based in Texas.
Actually I'm pretty sure that the reason Warren Jeffs is "based in Texas" is because he's serving a sentence of life plus twenty years at the Louis C. Powledge Unit of the Texas prison system.
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
(tangent)
Meanwhile, this shades-of-gray inspired meme appeared in my facebook feed:
quote:
"I've been a very bad girl" she said, biting her lip. "I need to be punished."
"Very well" he said, and installed Windows 10 on her laptop.
(end tangent)
Now THAT is sadistic!
Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Actually I'm pretty sure that the reason Warren Jeffs is "based in Texas" is because he's serving a sentence of life plus twenty years at the Louis C. Powledge Unit of the Texas prison system.
Before being sent to prison, Warren Jeffs moved most of his cult to the Yearning for Zion Ranch in Texas when the Arizona and Utah officials were going after the Hilldale/Colorado City community. YFZ was also shut down.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Porn potentially damages relationships, in this we agree. It is about expectation and fantasy v. reality. It is a self-centered, singular focus with no need to consider others.And, for the record, I am not a proponent of pornography.
My point is that our societies have more prevalent sources of harm to relationships. And I would add that there is a slightly puritanical bias in many people's opinions of porn.
I'm with cliffdweller. I don't know any research work to support the "more prevalent" view.
A lot of my views on pornography (certainly that involving women participants) were developed after reading the feminist critique. Many feminists argued that it was inherently exploitative of women and I thought they made a good case. I'm not sure whether you'd regard the anti-porn feminists as puritanical.
I know there are diversities of views amongst feminists these days and it has become a divisive issue. But I still side with the anti-voices.
[ 26. April 2016, 18:04: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
Originally posted by Al Eluia:
That's Utah for ya.
I remember bars, if not liquor stores, being closed on election day in Canada, as late as the early 1980s. I think the law has been loosened up since then.
Many of the Lower 48 (especially in the South) have 'blue laws' relating to the sale of alcohol. Fr'instance, when I lived in KY all liquor stores and bars were closed every election day during the hours the polls were open. (Also alcohol could not be sold on Sunday until after IIRC 1 pm.)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm with cliffdweller. I don't know any research work to support the "more prevalent" view.
I'm not aware of any research directly comparing the two, but there is plenty on the harm of romantic movies, and advertising. I'd wager that you do not watch porn, but you have seen romcoms that present an unrealistic image of relationships and adverts that promote unrealistic body images, especially for women.
quote:
A lot of my views on pornography (certainly that involving women participants) were developed after reading the feminist critique. Many feminists argued that it was inherently exploitative of women and I thought they made a good case. I'm not sure whether you'd regard the anti-porn feminists as puritanical.
Feminists are a varied group, and so is porn. Most porn ever produced has been exploitative of women, I would agree. But porn is sex, so to say it is inherently exploitative would be to make the argument that sex is inherently exploitative. And there is feminist porn.
If anything is inherent in porn, it is that, no matter how much care is taken, the focus is too narrow. The presentation will always be unrealistic, even when care is taken to cause no other harm.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
LilBuddha wrote quote:
But porn is sex, so to say it is inherently exploitative would be to make the argument that sex is inherently exploitative.
er, no. Your syllogism doesn't work. For that argument to work, either sex would have to be identical to porn, or sex would have to be a subset of porn. But it isn't. It's the other way around. Porn is an exploitative subset of sex. That doesn't mean other aspects of sex need be exploitative.
(I know you are not making the case, but just in case someone believes it).
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
also - quote:
And there is feminist porn.
That's a pretty good article IMHO. However - is it discussing porn? There are numerous examples of couples enjoying each other's physical relationship in the arts in pretty well every context. It just occurs to me that what the writer is describing may actually be the sought-after distinction between porn and erotica.
In passing, I'm not convinced that just using the measure of "exploitation" on its own is much use. What sort of exploitation are we talking about? Financial? Moral? What exactly? I certaintly agree that it is a useful measure of what pornography may involve, but there are many levels of exploitation of different groups to consider in there. To make sense it needs refining. In terms of generalities I think objectification is a much safer ground for criticism.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I'd wager that you do not watch porn, but you have seen romcoms that present an unrealistic image of relationships and adverts that promote unrealistic body images, especially for women.
You'd win. (Unless you count "Game of Thrones" as near-porn - which some do). But I'm not much into romcoms, prefer drama with more grit (e.g. The "A" Word, the excellent BBC drama on autism). Also, I am basically protected against adverts ever since reading Vance Packard. And watch recordings so I can skip through adverts, just in case.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
By way of analogy, I'm pretty sure in the US that usage of marijuana is far more widespread than usage of crack cocaine. But I would never say that weed is "far more dangerous" than crack.
This is not an apt analogy, at least not in the way you appear to think.
Still, if you would wish to use that line or reasoning, it would be more analogous to use alcohol than weed. Even then it is a strained comparison.
I think comparing porn to crack is a bit OTT.
...
My point is that our societies have more prevalent sources of harm to relationships.
You seem to be missing my point. My point wasn't that porn is like crack. My point was about the relationship between the two items (the old SAT analogies thing: romantic movies are to porn as weed is to crack). My point was that it seems misleading/ inaccurate to describe something as "far more dangerous" simply because it is more prevalent. It may affect more people, but not to the same degree.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[qb]
ETA: Shades of Grey! A more fucked up depiction of relationship than many a fuck film. And, no, not because of the BDSM.
Agreed, but again, that's missing the point of the joke.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
In terms of generalities I think objectification is a much safer ground for criticism.
Objectification doesn't need porn, our culture has objectification very much built into it.
And porn = objectification/exploitation is a subjective statement. It certainly has done, but does it need to? Laws have been used to subjugate women, does this mean that subjugation of women is inherent in law?
And how does porn objectify women more than adverts, film, telly and the like?
Porn is more direct, but I don't think it is doing anything different.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You'd win.
And this is my point regarding prevalence. Though I am certain you are in many ways a special and unique person, in this you are not.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And I would add that there is a slightly puritanical bias in many people's opinions of porn.
As I said before, I think this is undoubtedly true. Our definitions are inevitably subjective and self-serving and hypocritical. All of this complicates any legislative attempts to limit/control porn-- as history has shown. But that doesn't change the core issues, it just makes them more difficult to effectively address. The fact that there is clearly "puritanical bias" at play may blind us to real issues. And the same puritanical bias tends to get played out in ideological stances that limit real, objective research that would help to answer questions about the real prevalence and impact of porn on individuals, relationships, or society as a whole.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
My point was that it seems misleading/ inaccurate to describe something as "far more dangerous" simply because it is more prevalent. It may affect more people, but not to the same degree.
no, I got your point. I don't think it is accurate. how is porn worse than the distorted notion of relationships caused by romance films? Those present a distorted view of the entire process, including sex.
But forget the drug comparisons
Porn is problematic largely because our society is fucked up to begin with. If women were viewed as people instead of objects and if relationships were viewed in a realistic fashion, porn would reflect that.
Now, one could argue that such a narrow focus on sex is difficult to avoid objectification of sex, then you have a strike against it. But the same argument can be made against romantic films.
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
On a lighter note, the mention of feminist porn above reminded me of the book Porn for Women. It's pictures of handsome men vacuuming, cooking, listening, etc.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Also, I am basically protected against adverts ever since reading Vance Packard. And watch recordings so I can skip through adverts, just in case.
To your first point, there is a reasonable amount of research to the effect that knowing how adverts work doesn't make one more immune to their effects.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
My point was that it seems misleading/ inaccurate to describe something as "far more dangerous" simply because it is more prevalent. It may affect more people, but not to the same degree.
no, I got your point. I don't think it is accurate. how is porn worse than the distorted notion of relationships caused by romance films? Those present a distorted view of the entire process, including sex.
But forget the drug comparisons
You're moving the goalposts. Your original post was clearly stating that romantic films are "far more dangerous" than porn precisely because they are more prevalent. Now you're suggesting they are more dangerous because of their impact on the entire relationship, not just the sexual aspect. That may or may not be true-- but it is different from your original point to which I responded. (and to which the drug analogy was significant not, again, as a comparison between porn and crack, but as a comparison between the relationship between romantic movies & porn.
To your current point, I'm somewhat dubious, but don't know of any real objective research on the impact of either romantic movies or porn on relationships, much less one that attempts to quantify one over against the other. If you're privvy to some research that does, I'd be interested to see it.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Porn is problematic largely because our society is fucked up to begin with. If women were viewed as people instead of objects and if relationships were viewed in a realistic fashion, porn would reflect that.
Probably so. And your observation that that objectification is due in large part to romantic movies, etc. is well taken (although I think the true blame is probably broader: the individualism/ consumerism of society as a whole). But the point is, we're dealing with porn in the society we already live in-- not some ideal of a different society where relationships are viewed more realistically.
Most likely any real attempt to address these issues will need to be multi-faceted-- getting at individualism/ consumerism in general, and over-romanticizing/ objectifying relationships more specifically. But I suspect porn will still be a significant part of the equation that needs to be addressed, if only for the way it both reflects and exasperates/ magnifies the effect of those other underlying issues.
[ 26. April 2016, 21:33: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Yes. Before there was porn, there were romantic movies, demeaning people and polluting minds. And before them, there were romantic novels. Bronte was famously accused of coarsening her readers. And before that, all novels clearly caused problems -- remember Austen complaining of this in Northanger Abbey? And before that, drama was the obvious trouble-maker -- Plato was not going to allow it, in his idea city. And you will recall that writing down poetry was going to be the death of the form, nobody remembers stuff any more to recite.
So what are you going to do? We have been having this argument for at least a couple millennia. We can't ever go back. We have to go on.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Also, I am basically protected against adverts ever since reading Vance Packard. And watch recordings so I can skip through adverts, just in case.
To your first point, there is a reasonable amount of research to the effect that knowing how adverts work doesn't make one more immune to their effects.
Oh sure; I guess they have some effect, even when you know you're being got at. Subliminal means subliminal. But knowing you are being got at is the first step along the road which leads to "We won't get fooled again" (thanks again to the Who for a happy reminder).
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
This discussion has moved on a bit since I was here yesterday. But can I just go back to this:-
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
In terms of generalities I think objectification is a much safer ground for criticism.
Objectification doesn't need porn, our culture has objectification very much built into it.
And porn = objectification/exploitation is a subjective statement. It certainly has done, but does it need to? Laws have been used to subjugate women, does this mean that subjugation of women is inherent in law?
And how does porn objectify women more than adverts, film, telly and the like?
Porn is more direct, but I don't think it is doing anything different.
Completely agree with you about your first point. But I was making the point that porn may actually need objectification to be porn, i.e. the point is the other way around to what you are critiquing. It's simply an idea I'm trying to explore; I'm not particularly wedded to it. Worth a look, though, I think.
Re subjectivity - yes, but that's because the unstable definition of porn means that we shall all have subjectivity implicit in our discourse about it - you and me both. But if it were entirely subjective, no sensible exchange of views would be possible, and it does appear to me that despite disagreements, meaningful dialogue is taking place here. So partial subjectivity, yes, but it's in every POV here.
On the final point about porn vs. other objectifications of women, I'm not sure I can add anything to the discussion you are having with cliffdweller on the subject. Porn's of a different type both contextually and proportionately within its domaine. Are objectifications all commensurate? How would you propose to measure that? etc.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
But I was making the point that porn may actually need objectification to be porn, i.e. the point is the other way around to what you are critiquing. It's simply an idea I'm trying to explore; I'm not particularly wedded to it. Worth a look, though, I think.
Porn is objectification. It has to be the objectification of sex. It does not have to exploit anyone or objectify any gender/group over another.
But I would posit that the vast majority of sex scenes in mainstream cinema are objectification of sex as well. The difference is the level of explicitness.
The question is what is the effect of such objectification. ISTM, the occasional wank to a blue movie, or watching a bit with your SO to spice things up, isn't a problem. The problem is when it negatively affects your relationships.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, separating objectification from explicitness is useful.
I think with regard to objectification, one doesn't know where to start, since arguably our consumerist society objectifies many things, including people, talent, beauty, art, sex, and so on.
Relations between people turn into relations between things - and this can be seen generically in modern society.
As to whether this damages relationships, I would think so, but I don't know how you measure this, or rectify it. I suppose consciousness raising is one tool in the struggle against it.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The question is what is the effect of such objectification. ISTM, the occasional wank to a blue movie, or watching a bit with your SO to spice things up, isn't a problem. The problem is when it negatively affects your relationships.
And this is where I start to agree with you. I'd assume that your point is that in terms of the impact of objectification on culture, there are things that have much more of an impact than porn.
Upthread I saw cliffdweller's opinion that yes 'of course' porn has to be dealt with as part of a panapoly of measures that deal with a whole bunch of things in culture. The problem is that I don't actually see this happening. Porn is obviously an easy target as it is less socially acceptable, and the 'icky' factor stops any discussion of the relative demerits of various other things.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Challenging objectification in modern society is a very radical project, isn't it? It's easier to focus on porn, and express disapproval, thus bypassing the wholesale fetishism at the heart of consumerism. This is too radical for many people.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Challenging objectification in modern society is a very radical project, isn't it?
Sure is. It's at the heart of good news for the poor, release for captives, recovery of sight for those who have been blinded. People before things. And a determined opposition to anything which turns people into things.
I wear my heart on my sleeve at this point.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
You have to objectify something before you can commoditize it. So yes, I agree. However:-
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
But I was making the point that porn may actually need objectification to be porn, i.e. the point is the other way around to what you are critiquing. It's simply an idea I'm trying to explore; I'm not particularly wedded to it. Worth a look, though, I think.
Porn is objectification. It has to be the objectification of sex. It does not have to exploit anyone or objectify any gender/group over another.
But I would posit that the vast majority of sex scenes in mainstream cinema are objectification of sex as well. The difference is the level of explicitness.
The question is what is the effect of such objectification. ISTM, the occasional wank to a blue movie, or watching a bit with your SO to spice things up, isn't a problem. The problem is when it negatively affects your relationships.
I'm not sure this makes sense. "Sex" as an abstract noun can be objectified and commoditized, certainly. But that's not what people usually mean when they talk about when they speak of it in this context. They mean "sex" as in sexual acts. That's not an abstract noun. It's a concrete one. A concrete noun is already a thing - you can't objectify something that is already a thing. (Though you can certainly commoditize it). Sex as an abstract concept is not what people mean when they discuss sex in the context of porn. It's what biologists are talking about, but their definition is different and far more restrictive.
So that's not what I meant. I was referring to to the objectifying of the personal, not the abstract. And I'm pretty sure that's what most people mean when they refer to the objectification of women by porn - that they are destroyed as persons. (So are the men of course, but in a different way and it's minor by comparison).
Let me put this another way - the thesis I want to examine is that porn involves the erasure of the personal to replace it with an object that acts as a placeholder for the whole class that object. If putative "porn" doesn't do that, it isn't porn. The whole idea of damage needs that to be true. Doesn't imply it's thereby acceptable etc. The thesis doesn't require sex as an abstract concept to be objectified, though it may well be also.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Just to clarify. In that last post "the whole idea of damage" refers to damage consequent on the objectification of women. There are no doubt other possible forms of damage.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
So that's not what I meant. I was referring to to the objectifying of the personal, not the abstract. And I'm pretty sure that's what most people mean when they refer to the objectification of women by porn - that they are destroyed as persons. (So are the men of course, but in a different way and it's minor by comparison).
Watching a mainstream film is objectifying the actors in exactly the same way. Porn has been more demeaning because of the way we view sex, not because there is any objective difference.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Sure, objectification is everywhere, some entirely harmless. But I think there is an objective difference in that porn is predicated on sexual arousal. That alone makes it different.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Sure, objectification is everywhere, some entirely harmless. But I think there is an objective difference in that porn is predicated on sexual arousal. That alone makes it different.
Different, yes. But the common accusation is that porn is inherently worse.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Double post to link an apropos article.
How many porn images will your children see on the way to school this week and how many like these?
Article.
Yeah, porn is such a bigger problem. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Sure, objectification is everywhere, some entirely harmless. But I think there is an objective difference in that porn is predicated on sexual arousal. That alone makes it different.
Different, yes. But the common accusation is that porn is inherently worse.
OK - but it's not my point. Indeed I pointed out earlier that its effects can be variable, including sometimes positive.
(totally agree with your second post)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, separating objectification from explicitness is useful.
I think with regard to objectification, one doesn't know where to start, since arguably our consumerist society objectifies many things, including people, talent, beauty, art, sex, and so on.
Relations between people turn into relations between things - and this can be seen generically in modern society.
As to whether this damages relationships, I would think so, but I don't know how you measure this, or rectify it. I suppose consciousness raising is one tool in the struggle against it.
The inability to measure something is problematic mostly in terms of trying to create systems and standards. Which is why we're spending a lot of time talking about defining porn (vs erotica or romance novels or whatever) and/or measuring it's damage relative to some other objectifying thing/habit. But that's mostly relevant if we're talking about legislating something.
But if we're talking about spiritual formation/ transformation, it's not so important that we be able to measure it or even define it-- at least not so precisely. Much of the work that we do in spiritual formation is of this sort-- things that are important, but not easily definable and therefore not easily measurable. Indeed, often attempts at making such things "measurable" end up being objectifying in and of themselves (running around counting how many nipples are revealed).
But if we see the objectification that happens in porn in precisely the way we're moving here-- as part and parcel of the overall objectification that seems to be part of our "sin nature"-- the problem with us/ the brokenness of the world-- then we're going to look at it somewhat differently. Indeed, the more we talk about it, the more I'm thinking that "objectification"-- in all it's many facets/forms that we've mentioned-- may in fact be close to the definition of "sin nature" itself-- our tendency to see others as functions/ objects/ to fulfill our needs-- whether that's an actor in a video or a cashier in the checkout line there to provide a service-- rather than seeing each human as an image of God.
So then, if we talk about it in that broader context, "rectifying it" really comes down to our view of the process of sanctification. I'm in the Wesleyan camp that would see that process as both our work and God's. There are things we can do-- spiritual disciplines even-- that will help to shape our hearts in ways that help us see others as children of God and not objects to consume (again, in the broader sense than just sexual). And I think there are things that are done by the Spirit that transforms our hearts. The two are intertwined and interrelate-- as we grow in one we grow in the other. Self-awareness as noted above is probably key-- so is prayer.
imho.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
IMO, if you are speaking about legislation and you bring God into it, you have lost the argument.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
agreed
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
It is extremely difficult to remove the objectification of women from the porn industry. I believe that Iceland has tried to improve the situation by creating a law whereby no one can benefit from another persons nudity.
K.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
It is extremely difficult to remove the objectification of women from the porn industry.
Sort of depends on what you mean. All porn is objectification. So removing it is impossible. If you mean where women are treated as people, where their needs are met in a real and equal way*, then it would be fairly easy. Would it sell, though? Given that men are the primary audience and that most, being truly indoctrinated by our culture of objectification, do not recognise the inequities even should they care.
*This is not a standard generally met in real life, so...
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
It is extremely difficult to remove the objectification of women from the porn industry.
Sort of depends on what you mean. All porn is objectification. So removing it is impossible. If you mean where women are treated as people, where their needs are met in a real and equal way*, then it would be fairly easy. Would it sell, though? Given that men are the primary audience and that most, being truly indoctrinated by our culture of objectification, do not recognise the inequities even should they care.
*This is not a standard generally met in real life, so...
I don't know. I'm curious now to see what's happened with this idea in Iceland. If porn largely dies once others cannot benefit from your nudity, it strongly suggests an answer to the questions of exploitation. In a basic sense, I have no problem with people selling videos of themselves having sex—but I raise objections to exploitation. Anyone have their, er, finger in the pulse of Icelandic porn?
K.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
It is extremely difficult to remove the objectification of women from the porn industry. I believe that Iceland has tried to improve the situation by creating a law whereby no one can benefit from another persons nudity.
I assume you mean financially here. Because many people derive benefit from their sexual partners being nude. (Tastes may differ. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Void where prohibited.)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Anyone have their, er, finger in the pulse of Icelandic porn?
Unless Iceland is a major exception, they are viewing porn online regardless. Places that are restrictive sexually and conservative in general tend to consume more porn. Given that Iceland has been headed in a conservative direction...
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0