Thread: Purgatory: Internet Porn Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000898
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
This is a spin-off from the masturbation thread.
There have been innumerable articles on the prevalence of porn-viewing (and even alleged porn-addiction) amongst Christians, both clergy and laity.
If, as the old saying goes, ninety per cent of men admit to masturbating and the other ten per cent are lying, then could the same could be said about porn-watching?
What is wrong with porn?
I believe that it is wrong (eg degradation of women, affectless sex) but could only articulate my objections up to a certain point.
For example, I know that cartoon porn showing loving respectful interaction would be wrong, but I’m not sure I could explain why.
Next, is porn addictive, or is this just a cop-out?
There has been a steady stream of claims that it is, and that it alters the brain in some way.
On the face of it the case seems persuasive, but most of us are in no position to assess it, so it would be interesting to hear the opinions of Shipmates with some sort of physiological, bio-chemical, neurological or whatever expertise.
And assuming we believe it to be wrong, what is the best way of dealing with it?
In evangelical circles, at least, there has been a lot of emphasis on men’s accountability groups as a useful strategy.
I could be easily tempted to look at porn, but don’t, because my son looks after my computer, and I would be embarrassed to have him find dodgy material on it next time he works on it.
That might not sound very spiritual or theological, but could be regarded as providential!
Finally, I have been assuming that this is primarily a male issue, but I could be assuming wrong.
[ 01. December 2012, 10:51: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Some very interesting points there. I was involved in the feminist movement in the 80s (I am a bloke also), and the movement was torn apart by the anti-porn debates.
One thing that struck me, articulated very well at the time by Linda Williams in her book 'Hard Core' was that nobody had a clue what porn was about. Well, correction, some people were very certain that they knew what porn was about, but others disagreed quite strongly.
At the time, feminism was half in love with psychoanalysis, and analytic discussions of porn stressed its fantasy nature, and hence, the difficulty of saying what it meant.
I still feel confused over all this. But being confused is probably about right.
I'm not sure about 'wrong'. Is affectless sex wrong? Dunno. Is wanking wrong? The analysts in the movement (there were some) used to say that there were two problems with it - those who couldn't, and those who couldn't stop. Rather pragmatic! Sorry, I realize this isn't a wanking thread, but one thing leads to another!
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Leaving aside po-facedness, I think it's reasonable to look at a couple of objective dangers or porn.
1. It encourages us to covet. As the great theologian Hannibal Lecter pointed out (in "Silence of the Lambs") coveting is about what you see and haven't got and want for yourself. So it's that kind of temptation.
2. It encourages us to objectify other people. Objectifying reduces somebody else to a kind of commodity, and gives us the idea that sexual relationships are a form of consumption, rather like a meal. I reckon that's doubly demeaning.
I'm not sure if men's desires are more likely than women's to be triggered visually. I've heard it argued that there is a kind of gender difference there.
I think pornography may be addictive for some folks. But if it is, it must be acting as some kind of ongoing compensation for an ongoing "lack". I guess we are set up for all forms of covetousness if we have a sense that "something is missing".
I give it a wide berth.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Finally, I have been assuming that this is primarily a male issue, but I could be assuming wrong.
50 shades of Grey?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I'm not sure that E L James encourages wanking amongst women. Her 'novels'' appeal is perhaps more the old story of a powerful yet damaged man being 'saved' by the love of a good woman. It's Jane Eyre with spanking.
[ 21. August 2012, 09:14: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Somebody could make a tasteless joke here, along the lines of 'not waving but drowning', so:
'not wanking, just spanking'.
But should we be making a moral discrimination here?
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
However, there is a lot of porn/erotica (porn for nice people) written both by and for women.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, again I remember in the 80s, this caused some consternation amongst anti-porn feminists. What, women are making/watching the damn stuff?
Solutions ranged from defining that as not-porn, since it was for nice cuddly warm women, not nasty men, with their objectifying tendencies, to attacking the women who did make/watch porn, to moving on to the next part of the agenda, chairperson, please.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Sorry to keep going on about the 80s, but the debates were intense.
The other thing I remember vividly was the huge number of unsupported assertions that flew about. Porn is obviously about X, or Y, or Z.
So you would ask: how do you know this? Well, how do you?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
However, there is a lot of porn/erotica (porn for nice people) written both by and for women.
Anais Nin springs to mind in my loins, as it were.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
A common criticism of porn is that it encourages objectification.
Here is an unsupported assertion. OK, where is the evidence for that?
Second, where is the argument that objectification of a sexual nature is always wrong? Maybe some part of the sex act involves that, and it is OK?
You know, I just like my wife's body sometimes. She has nice tits, etc.
Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on
:
Another common criticism is that of power imbalance. Yes there are porn actresses and actors who will talk about how empowered they are but, as with any form of sex work, there are those who have very little power. Also we are aware of the toll of addiction and mental illness among porn actresses and actors. There is of course the trap of false expectation in that porn offers unrealistic images of both women and men. I am no prude, yet at the end of the day to reduce a human being to nothing more than a photo spread or a movie clip to get me off seems a bit sad and grubby.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
I've got no interest in porn, because it all seems fake to me, degrades all of us to mere wild animals and is usually in one way or another exploitative.
I'm not a complete saint, of course, and my temptation is more likely glamour and mild erotica. But I know that just because it isn't explicit doesn't make it right.
Every day we all have to wrestle with sin, and the worst thing we can do is try to kid ourselves that what we are doing is not technically a sin and try to justify ourselves.
quote:
from 1662 Prayer Book
...the Scripture moveth us in sundry places to acknowledge and confess our manifold sins and wickedness; and that we should not disassemble nor cloke them before the face of Almighty God our Heavenly Father; but confess them with an humble, lowly, penitent and obedient heart; to the end that we may obtain forgiveness of the same, by his infinite goodness and mercy...
[ 21. August 2012, 10:21: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
However, there is a lot of porn/erotica (porn for nice people) written both by and for women.
Anais Nin springs to mind in my loins, as it were.
I was in a prayer meeting once at which an old man asked God (with what efficacy I am unable to say) to prevent any "warming of the loins" as a result of the interaction of young people of both sexes in the church youth group.
[ 21. August 2012, 10:23: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
You know, Kaplan, I wasn't around in Brethren or conservative (non-charismatic) circles for very long but I certainly miss the way those guys spoke and prayed ...
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yet warming of the loins is healthy, isn't it? Of course, it depends on how you use that warming, but the warming in itself is OK. And, it's fun.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
Warming can lead to over-heating, which ultimately leads to an unpleasant cold dampness and an awkwardness in social situations.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You know, Kaplan, I wasn't around in Brethren or conservative (non-charismatic) circles for very long but I certainly miss the way those guys spoke and prayed ...
"Laid to one side on his bed of sickness while having to carry on with just a few sisters."
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I can give anecdote, which we all know is not data, about the objectification that comes from porn.
One of the teenage boys I was working this year watched a lot of porn and his attitudes to women was very much regarding them as sex objects. He would stare at the girl in his group and come out with comments like "nice tits" and a whole lot more without any realisation that this was totally inappropriate. There were other issues around his home situation, but he isn't the only teenager I've seen with this attitude and porn addiction.
Chatting to this lad (I spent a lot of time working with him one to one as he wasn't capable of working appropriately in a mixed group) he said the link in his mind was the porn he'd been watching before he came in.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, sure, I can give anecdotes about people who use porn for great fun and laughter, but so what?
This is what I mean by unsupported assertions. For some reason, the porn debates are riddled with it. I knew someone who used porn, and he was horrible to his wife! Ooh, that is really powerful evidence.
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yet warming of the loins is healthy, isn't it? Of course, it depends on how you use that warming, but the warming in itself is OK. And, it's fun.
Plus sperm are very sensitive to increases in temperature, so it's a handy form of contraception. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
Its all unsupported because nobody professionally is going to admit they watch/read this stuff.
But the anecdotal evidence about what free internet porn is doing to young male expectations of women is rather strong.
Porn is killing sex, it seems.
Waiting for proof isn't going to help.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
But the anecdotal evidence about what free internet porn is doing to young male expectations of women is rather strong.
OK you've made an assertion. It doesn't sound like an unreasonable assertion. I'm willing to be convinced by a good theory. Don't leave us in suspense give us the actual argument for this.
Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on
:
I believe porn can be addictive, in the same way that many things can. Shopping, eating certain foods (or just eating in general), and many other things are, or can be, addictive.
I'm uncertain about this next point. But I seem to remember reading once that eating a piece of chocolate or buying something new at the store releases serotonin and/or dopamine (I'm fuzzy on which), which is the happiness buzz we feel. Porn can do the same thing. And that buzz is addictive.
But even without the buzz (and even if I'm completely out in left field on it), porn is addictive, in part, because it is easy. There is no commitment to another person. There is no question about the other person's needs. There is porn to suit any fantasy or fetish or kink. It is also instant; I have merely to open a new tab and a few keystrokes or clicks later I'm viewing porn.
I'm sure there's much more to it than that. But that's a start.
Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on
:
Og, why might porn be "killing sex"? Isn't it more likely to lead to folk having increased sex?
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Kaplan Corday: I believe that it is wrong (eg degradation of women, affectless sex) but could only articulate my objections up to a certain point.
Within my objections, I also include some concerns about the men and women who are photographed/filmed for porn. I haven't studied this much, but I'm not convinced that this is 100% voluntary.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
But the anecdotal evidence about what free internet porn is doing to young male expectations of women is rather strong.
OK you've made an assertion. It doesn't sound like an unreasonable assertion. I'm willing to be convinced by a good theory. Don't leave us in suspense give us the actual argument for this.
If you want evidence for another kind of argument, there is at least one psychologist who believes that the reason porn is harmful is not because of male expectations, but rather because it can become a form of addiction arousal:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/23/health/living-well/demise-of-guys/index.html
There's a certain amount of correlation rather than causation going on with some of his arguments, but if we strip out all the emotive arguments about a 'demise' then essentially its the same as the arguments that Nicholas Carr and others have been making.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't think people make unsupported assertions about porn because they don't want to admit to seeing it. After all, if they did admit to it, and described its effect on them, that would just another anecdote. Since my wife and I began using porn, our sexual antics have increased by 37%! Yay!
I think it's just because it's a nice fat juicy topic, which every man and his dog loves to pontificate about.
I'm not decrying that either. I think pontificating is rather like porn, it's fun, it makes you want more, and so on.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yet warming of the loins is healthy, isn't it? Of course, it depends on how you use that warming, but the warming in itself is OK. And, it's fun.
Plus sperm are very sensitive to increases in temperature, so it's a handy form of contraception.
You can get arrested for coming in handy in that context.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
... degrades all of us to mere wild animals ,,,
Bzzzt. Wrong. In point of fact, humans are almost unique in the animal kingdom in that we have sex when conception is unlikely or impossible. Unlike nearly all animals, we have sex all the fucking time. Animals usually have sex only during the breeding season. Animals don't generally sit around all day watching other pairs doing it and wanking. Animals don't paw-paint pictures or tell stories about last year's rut.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I can give anecdote, which we all know is not data, about the objectification that comes from porn.
One of the teenage boys I was working this year watched a lot of porn and his attitudes to women was very much regarding them as sex objects. He would stare at the girl in his group and come out with comments like "nice tits" and a whole lot more without any realisation that this was totally inappropriate. There were other issues around his home situation, but he isn't the only teenager I've seen with this attitude and porn addiction.
Chatting to this lad (I spent a lot of time working with him one to one as he wasn't capable of working appropriately in a mixed group) he said the link in his mind was the porn he'd been watching before he came in.
Degrading to women? It looks like it was the boy who was degraded to me.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's also a bit odd to talk of being 'degraded' to a wild animal, isn't it? I find wild animals rather magnificent really, not degraded at all.
Oh I get it, it's a Christian thing, wild animals equals unbridled lust, equals sin, equals you're fucked. Well, maybe you're not fucked!
But as the last but one poster kindly pointed out, wild animals don't have unbridled lust at all.
Ah, I'm old now, but I still remember it!
"but once in special,
In thin array after a pleasant guise,
When her loose gown from her shoulders did fall,
And she me caught in her arms long and small;
Therewithall sweetly did me kiss
And softly said, “Dear heart, how like you this?"
[ 21. August 2012, 15:30: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
It's the link pornography may well have to carrying out behaviour that troubles me. Hence anti-child pornography laws; at least there the authorities are making a link. Why would porn not be thought linked to other sexual behaviour? I do know that physicians deal with many more oral/throat infections of sexually transmitted diseases, and also disruption to anal tissues, which are at least partly attributable to pornography having raised the frequency of oral and anal sexual behaviour, with oral being pretty much ubiquitous now, when it was a low frequency.
Pornography would also seem to suggest that coitus interruptus (ejaculation outside of the vagina) has increased also, though I've not seen stats to show if this translates to sexual behaviour in the general population. This point leads me to one of the major problems. It certainly seems like ejaculating on a woman's face is degrading. I'm also troubled by terms like "MILF" which I understand means "mother I'd like to f---", "friends with benefits", BBW (which I think means "big butt women"), and other such terms, which seem to remove the human from the depiction.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's also a bit odd to talk of being 'degraded' to a wild animal, isn't it? I find wild animals rather magnificent really, not degraded at all.
They are! But you missed the point entirely. I wasn't talking about wild animals being degraded, I was talking about humans degrading themselves by trying to imitate them.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
BBW (which I think means "big butt women")
I believe it can also refer to the specific ethnic makeup of an interracial threesome.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
Point of clarification on "BBW" - in the contexts I've seen it, it was actually moderately affirmative, in that it was "Big Beautiful Women". Only moderately affirmative, because it was still in the context of flogging images to blokes to crack one off to.
Also, I'm aware these things can change. I still have to do a double-take every time one of the yoof at church posts "FTW!" on Facebook. When I was growing up, it certainly didn't mean "for the win" ...
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Is erotic writing different morally speaking to filmed/animated pornography? The former is widespread amongst women, both reading and writing it (see fanfiction - 50 Shades Of Grey was originally Twilight fanfiction after all) and used to be extremely common amongst men before film was invented. Even Shakespeare had his filthy moments.
Interestingly, John Donne (a 17th Century poet of whom I am very fond) seems to go between erotic and religious poetry, with apparently no problem.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Point of clarification on "BBW" - in the contexts I've seen it, it was actually moderately affirmative, in that it was "Big Beautiful Women". Only moderately affirmative, because it was still in the context of flogging images to blokes to crack one off to.
Also, I'm aware these things can change. I still have to do a double-take every time one of the yoof at church posts "FTW!" on Facebook. When I was growing up, it certainly didn't mean "for the win" ...
The BBW thing is interesting. I'm a (self-identifying) fat woman involved in fat activism and generally places that identify as for BBW tend to be like you describe, and have nothing to do with the politics of empowering women.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's also a bit odd to talk of being 'degraded' to a wild animal, isn't it? I find wild animals rather magnificent really, not degraded at all.
They are! But you missed the point entirely. I wasn't talking about wild animals being degraded, I was talking about humans degrading themselves by trying to imitate them.
Well, young man, when I am betaken with wild lust, which unfortunately, with advancing years, is less than of yore, I am not trying to imitate anyone, thank you kindly. I have my own wild lust as a kind of splendid plenitude. And the wife, she say, oh, well on, or in fact, sometimes she says, well 'ard.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
quote:
Pornography would also seem to suggest that coitus interruptus (ejaculation outside of the vagina) has increased also, though I've not seen stats to show if this translates to sexual behaviour in the general population.
Illustrative of many of the points on this thread - there are many assertions, but little evidence!
quote:
It certainly seems like ejaculating on a woman's face is degrading.
What about doing so on a man's face? All of the above discussion seems to avoid any discussion of gay porn. Is that degrading to men? Is it degrading to women?
Surely it is also entirely subjective as to what is and isn't degrading. If we're talking about private sexual behaviour between consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes then what counts as degrading? What might be degrading to one person would not be to another. What about bondage/SM? [Another post]
I feel another of the those irregular verbs coming along.
Posted by Matariki (# 14380) on
:
iamchristianhearmeroar, I last saw straight porn when it was passed around furtively at school when I was 14. I have seen gay porn rather more recently than that and yes I think it can be as exploitative of its actors.
What has changed of course since I was 14 (some 32 years ago) and now is the proliferation of porn via the internet and how anyone can put their own image or the image of a sexual partner out there for the world to admire and get off on. Whether this is exploitative is perhaps a lesser question than is this wise. Generally not I would have thought.
[ 21. August 2012, 17:43: Message edited by: Matariki ]
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
If I put my image online it might put people off porn.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Yes, again I remember in the 80s, this caused some consternation amongst anti-porn feminists. What, women are making/watching the damn stuff?
Solutions ranged from defining that as not-porn, since it was for nice cuddly warm women, not nasty men, with their objectifying tendencies, to attacking the women who did make/watch porn, to moving on to the next part of the agenda, chairperson, please.
From what I've seen, current feminism tends to just sort of wish the problem away with euphemistic phrases meant to obscure the issue.
I recall one discussion where someone pointed out the greater tolerance for, if not interest in, pOrn among women in the last twenty or so years. The feminist in the debate replied with "Well, yes, the discussion about p0rnogrpahy has changed". Which, as far as I can tell, is just an avasive way of saying "We couldn't even convince women of our position".
I came of age politically at a time when opposition to pornography was considered de rigeur in left-wing and feminist circles, and have pretty clear memories of the ideological shift, which took place some time in the early to mid 90s. This corresponded with Madonna's Sex book and the appearance of Camille Paglia on the public stage(though most left-wingers would be loath to admit any influence from the latter figure).
I think the internet put the final nail in the coffin, by placing the opportunity to view the stuff within easier reach then ever before. You can't really criticize something that you yourself have looked at for recreational purposes(as opposed to just checking to see how bad it is), and the internet made it apparent that the only reason more people WEREN'T looking at p0rn was that they lacked easy and discrete access.
I used to read a lot of femininst anti-p0rn writing from the 70s/80s, and one impression I got was that the feminist analysis was driven to a large degree by a reaction against the behaviour of left-wing men in the post-60s counterculture, who were seen as using the rehtoric of sexual liberation as a cover for harassing behaviour.
Robin Morgan's 1970 essay Goodbye To All That, an angry missive against New Left men and their values. Morgan wrote a sequel in 2008, attacking Obama supporters and praising Hillary Clinton. Which I suppose might indicate something about where the politics of that particular stream of feminism have gone.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
I haven't reviewed the literature in a few years, but if something major and new had come out, I suspect it would have been all over the media. In spite of diligent efforts, about the only negative effect that has been convincingly linked to pornography is that, in the case of men who are already predisposed to higher than average sexual aggression, it seems to increase sexual aggression slightly but significantly. This does not seem to lead to higher levels of sexual violence overall, since in pretty much all societies where porn becomes more available, sexual violence decreases at the same time.
From this article by Dr. Marty Klein:
quote:
The plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”
But people who believe that America is loaded with victims of porn have no data. All they have is anecdotes...
There has never been a validated scientific study showing that adults who use porn are more likely to engage in antisocial behavior than adults who don’t use porn...
In America’s thousands of professional publications and scientific proceedings, there is no peer-reviewed data showing that access to sexual imagery harms kids...
And so on--the article is not a scientific review, it's more of a polemic, but Klein is a serious professional sex therapist who knows his stuff.
Objecting to porn on moral grounds is fine, but quite distinct from claiming it's harmful--the evidence for the latter is negligible.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
This is a spin-off from the masturbation thread.
What is wrong with porn?
Next, is porn addictive, or is this just a cop-out?
I could be easily tempted to look at porn .
Just picking out a few points .
The thing that is wrong with porn is that it decentralizes love . Providing one is aware of that there isn't anything inherently wrong with it IMO.
Viewing it can be addictive , like many other activities, so it's simply a case of *user beware*.
As for Christians becoming addicted to porn, I've heard it said that Christian worship can sometimes lead to increased sexual energy. So again we need to be aware of our vulnerable condition.
I too could easily be tempted to view porn . The voice in the head says 'it could be healthy' . I counter it with the view that it is in some way wrong , even though I can't readily say why this is so.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
Sex-positive feminism is actually largely in favour of porn, it just objects to the current mainstream porn industry. In favour of female-made porn which shows female fantasies etc.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm not sure that E L James encourages wanking amongst women. Her 'novels'' appeal is perhaps more the old story of a powerful yet damaged man being 'saved' by the love of a good woman. It's Jane Eyre with spanking.
Erm, you might want to check with a few of your friends (of both genders) but a lot of people would find "Jane Eyre with spanking" eminently wankable-to.
Ahem.
I've said this before (though it was several name-change amnesties ago) but I'm slightly suspicious of the claim that porn is addictive. I think it probably is for some people. However my personal experience is that it seemed addictive when I believed that it was wrong. When I was a GLE I definitely felt I had a problem with porn and that it was "addictive" to me. When I ceased to be so, and I could indulge whenever I felt like it, it suddenly seemed less of an issue and though I did look at it occasionally it no longer felt like it was such a compulsion. So was I really addicted or was I just reacting against a restriction?
That said, I've seen credible reports that it's genuinely addictive for others, but I wanted to add my anecdata-point.
Also I can't pretend that most porn isn't problematic, to say the least, in its production. Exploitation of vulnerable individuals etc. That I mainly indulge in the written word means I get to dodge this issue but I do still feel it, I assure you.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
Long gone are the days when a dirty old man in a raincoat used to shuffle out of the newsagents with magazines (such as "Mayfair") concealed in a brown paper bag!
It reminds me of a sketch from the Two Ronnies, where the newsagent offered to put the man's books in a bag, which had emblazoned on it in large letters "Porno Filth!" ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
...but does that count as "porn" in today's climate?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
...but does that count as "porn" in today's climate?
Are you asking if Mayfair counts as p0rn? From what I recall of it in its glory days(it was the best p0rn mag, imho), yes, I'd certainly say so. Not on the highly explict or kinky end of the spectrum, but then, neither are Playboy or Penthouse.
quote:
It reminds me of a sketch from the Two Ronnies, where the newsagent offered to put the man's books in a bag, which had emblazoned on it in large letters "Porno Filth!"
"How much for this copy of Orgasm?"
(Assuming this is the right scene. It's blocked on You Tube, and I'm not signed up. This played on prime-time TV when I was a kid, but today's youth apparently need to be protected from seeing it on the internet.)
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
I don't think it was the two Ronnies - it was "Not the Nine O'Clock News" - I couldn't find it on youtube, but obviously I didn't spend too much time searching!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
A propos of nothing, Stetson, why do you write 'p0rn'?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
I've found it! Check clip at around 01:18
The Best of Not the Nine O'Clock News episode 13
...featuring a very young Rowan Atkinson.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's also a bit odd to talk of being 'degraded' to a wild animal, isn't it? I find wild animals rather magnificent really, not degraded at all.
They are! But you missed the point entirely. I wasn't talking about wild animals being degraded, I was talking about humans degrading themselves by trying to imitate them.
It seems you too have missed a point entirely. Animals don't generally engage in recreational sex. Your repeated association of wild animals and sexual activity is a lousy metaphor. If humans were to imitate animals, they would only have sex around the time of ovulation, and never after menopause.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
[QB] It's also a bit odd to talk of being 'degraded' to a wild animal, isn't it? I find wild animals rather magnificent really, not degraded at all.
Oh I get it, it's a Christian thing, wild animals equals unbridled lust, equals sin, equals you're fucked. Well, maybe you're not fucked!
Well, this was supposed to be a christian forum after all...
quote:
But as the last but one poster kindly pointed out, wild animals don't have unbridled lust at all.
Not really true... animals have sex when they feel like it, whenever, wherever, and that´s pretty much "unbridled" by human standards.
Us humans have our social conventions which say we cannot have sex in public, not with strangers, not with your own mother or sister... all of which are very natural among animals.
And there´s also the case for animal homossexuality, one of the examples where conception is clearly impossible.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It seems you too have missed a point entirely. Animals don't generally engage in recreational sex. Your repeated association of wild animals and sexual activity is a lousy metaphor. If humans were to imitate animals, they would only have sex around the time of ovulation, and never after menopause.
I don't think I have. Most people whose lives revolve around porn won't know anything about this. So it is a poor representation of how they percieve the wild animal kingdom (and therefore themselves) to be. Such people wouldn't be interested about the realities of wildlife as it really is.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
Have you folks not heard of Bonobos ?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
A propos of nothing, Stetson, why do you write 'p0rn'?
He's misspelling pr0n...
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I don't think it was the two Ronnies - it was "Not the Nine O'Clock News" - I couldn't find it on youtube, but obviously I didn't spend too much time searching!
Sorry, my link wasn't to the skit you mentioned. It was a Woody Allen scene from Bananas, where he's buying p0rn at a corner store. Your reference to the British skit just reminded me of it.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Og, why might porn be "killing sex"? Isn't it more likely to lead to folk having increased sex?
Apparently, it is killing good sex because young male expectations are focused upon a certain type of experience; i.e. quick masturbatory inducing fantasies.
If women don't match up to those fantasies, then the guys are put off.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
A propos of nothing, Stetson, why do you write 'p0rn'?
He's misspelling pr0n...
Yes, on some boards, possibly not the Ship, it's traditional to do so either to evade language-filters, or(I think) prevent banner ads and spammers from being attracted to the correctly-spelled word. I just sort of fell into the habit.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
Masturbation is all well and good.
A complete focus on what gets guys off is not, and that is what internet porn is doing.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Sorry, my link wasn't to the skit you mentioned. It was a Woody Allen scene from Bananas, where he's buying p0rn at a corner store. Your reference to the British skit just reminded me of it.
No need for apologies - the two clips are quite similar.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Soror Magna wrote:
quote:
It seems you too have missed a point entirely. Animals don't generally engage in recreational sex.
Well, while I am not an expert on animal-psychology, my guess would be that, when they engage in sex, they are, in their own minds, doing it for recreational purposes. I don't know if animals are aware that sex will result in procreation.
For me, the big distinction that pOrn highlights between animals and humans is the latter's capacity for fetish and fantasy. You don't normally see animals dressing up in sexy costumes, or telling each other stories about wildly exaggerated sexual encounters.
And yes, I realize I've probably misused the word "festish" there. I meant something like "external trappings added onto the basic physical experience".
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It seems you too have missed a point entirely. Animals don't generally engage in recreational sex. Your repeated association of wild animals and sexual activity is a lousy metaphor. If humans were to imitate animals, they would only have sex around the time of ovulation, and never after menopause.
I don't think I have. Most people whose lives revolve around porn won't know anything about this. So it is a poor representation of how they percieve the wild animal kingdom (and therefore themselves) to be. Such people wouldn't be interested about the realities of wildlife as it really is.
For most people who use porn, their lives do not revolve around it - and even if they did, I'm not sure how it affects their knowledge of biology. Since even most domestic animals only have sex when it would lead to reproduction (cats coming into heat and all that), most people have some idea about that. In any case, that wasn't the point - the point is that pornography would seem to be uniquely human, and so it cannot render its users animal-like. There are animals who participate in purely recreational sex (dolphins and bonobos for instance) but they are few, and they certainly don't recreate it in books or films for others to use.
Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on
:
quote:
Most people whose lives revolve around porn won't know anything about this.
Er, how on earth can you know that?! Why on earth should someone's use of porn have anything to do with their knowledge of biology? Simply because someone engages in what is deemed (by some) to be a vice says nothing about their intelligence or lack of it.
quote:
Such people wouldn't be interested about the realities of wildlife as it really is.
"Such people" - what people are those then? Again, this is wild conjecture surely...
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
But this is where discussions of porn often seem to end up, with unsupported assertions, wild conjectures and colourful anecdotes.
Thus: 'people whose lives revolve around porn'. Who are these people? Where are they? How do you know them?
I suppose it's inevitable. Porn is exciting and titillating to some people, therefore it produces excitable gossip.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But this is where discussions of porn often seem to end up, with unsupported assertions, "wild" conjectures and colourful anecdotes...
I'm sure that wasn't intentional! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It seems you too have missed a point entirely. Animals don't generally engage in recreational sex. Your repeated association of wild animals and sexual activity is a lousy metaphor. If humans were to imitate animals, they would only have sex around the time of ovulation, and never after menopause.
I don't think I have. Most people whose lives revolve around porn won't know anything about this. So it is a poor representation of how they percieve the wild animal kingdom (and therefore themselves) to be. Such people wouldn't be interested about the realities of wildlife as it really is.
For most people who use porn, their lives do not revolve around it - and even if they did, I'm not sure how it affects their knowledge of biology. Since even most domestic animals only have sex when it would lead to reproduction (cats coming into heat and all that), most people have some idea about that. In any case, that wasn't the point - the point is that pornography would seem to be uniquely human, and so it cannot render its users animal-like. There are animals who participate in purely recreational sex (dolphins and bonobos for instance) but they are few, and they certainly don't recreate it in books or films for others to use.
When someone commits a particulary nasty violent act, people would call him an "animal" wouldn't they? But they are not saying that they hate animals, it is just a perceived image.
Whether "animal" can be justified when talking about porn, well you can question it, but that is the sense I meant it. To me, it means not becoming anything, but losing any virtues which distinguish humans from other animals.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
That said, I've seen credible reports that it's genuinely addictive for others, but I wanted to add my anecdata-point.
I suspect porn is a good deal less addictive or damaging than alcohol.
quote:
Also I can't pretend that most porn isn't problematic, to say the least, in its production. Exploitation of vulnerable individuals etc.
I expect technology will soon create computer-generated porn that doesn't require filming of any real person and thus avoid this issue.
I now have the rather odd image of Kryten and Lady Penelope committing some lewd act, but I hope you see my point.
But there is another issue:
quote:
That I mainly indulge in the written word means I get to dodge this issue but I do still feel it, I assure you.
Written porn/erotica can objectify people just as much as the visual stuff, or so it seems to me. But is this really a problem. Objectification takes place in all sorts of contexts. Porn seems to get singled out for a particularly hard time.
I suspect that porn is still treated with suspicion because male sexuality is still considered dirty (unlike female sexuality).
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I now have the rather odd image of Kryten and Lady Penelope committing some lewd act, but I hope you see my point.
Rule 34 dude!
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Og, why might porn be "killing sex"? Isn't it more likely to lead to folk having increased sex?
Apparently, it is killing good sex because young male expectations are focused upon a certain type of experience; i.e. quick masturbatory inducing fantasies.
If women don't match up to those fantasies, then the guys are put off.
And your evidence for this is.......
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
It seems you too have missed a point entirely. Animals don't generally engage in recreational sex. Your repeated association of wild animals and sexual activity is a lousy metaphor. If humans were to imitate animals, they would only have sex around the time of ovulation, and never after menopause.
I don't think I have. Most people whose lives revolve around porn won't know anything about this. So it is a poor representation of how they percieve the wild animal kingdom (and therefore themselves) to be. Such people wouldn't be interested about the realities of wildlife as it really is.
For most people who use porn, their lives do not revolve around it - and even if they did, I'm not sure how it affects their knowledge of biology. Since even most domestic animals only have sex when it would lead to reproduction (cats coming into heat and all that), most people have some idea about that. In any case, that wasn't the point - the point is that pornography would seem to be uniquely human, and so it cannot render its users animal-like. There are animals who participate in purely recreational sex (dolphins and bonobos for instance) but they are few, and they certainly don't recreate it in books or films for others to use.
When someone commits a particulary nasty violent act, people would call him an "animal" wouldn't they? But they are not saying that they hate animals, it is just a perceived image.
Whether "animal" can be justified when talking about porn, well you can question it, but that is the sense I meant it. To me, it means not becoming anything, but losing any virtues which distinguish humans from other animals.
Is the odd spot of masturbating really a nasty violent act or in any other way animalistic? Because other than a few primates and the ever-randy dolphins, masturbation and fantasizing in general (and porn is basically fantasy on film) would seem to distinguish humans from most animals. I don't see how it can make humans lose virtues that distinguish them from animals, when the very act is uniquely human in the first place - unless you've seen a dog with a copy of Playboy recently.
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
That said, I've seen credible reports that it's genuinely addictive for others, but I wanted to add my anecdata-point.
I suspect porn is a good deal less addictive or damaging than alcohol.
quote:
Also I can't pretend that most porn isn't problematic, to say the least, in its production. Exploitation of vulnerable individuals etc.
I expect technology will soon create computer-generated porn that doesn't require filming of any real person and thus avoid this issue.
I now have the rather odd image of Kryten and Lady Penelope committing some lewd act, but I hope you see my point.
But there is another issue:
quote:
That I mainly indulge in the written word means I get to dodge this issue but I do still feel it, I assure you.
Written porn/erotica can objectify people just as much as the visual stuff, or so it seems to me. But is this really a problem. Objectification takes place in all sorts of contexts. Porn seems to get singled out for a particularly hard time.
I suspect that porn is still treated with suspicion because male sexuality is still considered dirty (unlike female sexuality).
Erotic art and cartoons have been around for millennia and often without using any real life person as a model.
And rather than dirty, female sexuality (until very recently and even then in limited ways) has just been seen as non-existent.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Evidently I've read some of the same articles Og has because I'm in complete agreement with him. One particular piece I read last year, which of course I can't find now, said that:
Internet porn use is now named in 56% of divorce cases.
The average age of boys who first view porn on the internet is 11.
The tendency is to look at more and more bizaar porn as the viewer gets bored with what was once titilating -- from Victoria's Secret ads, to nudes, to sex acts, to younger women, to bestiality, to very young girls. The definition of "taboo," and the extra excitement that goes with it, keeps moving downward.
Men rate their own wives as much less attractive after viewing porn.
Young men who "grow up" with porn have odd expectaions of what to do or expect the first time they have sex with a real girl -- one young woman was surprised to be painfully spanked on the first date.
One young man said that after dating real girls for a while he found that he much preferred staying home with his large internet portfolio of videos. The porn models were more attractive, came in endless variety and did and said the things he wanted to see and hear. Sex with real girls was awkward and boring by comparison.
Worst is probably the damage to marriages when wives are spending their evenings alone while their husbands are in the den, sharing the intimacy that should be strengthening their marriage with fantasy women on the net.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Evidently I've read some of the same articles Og has because I'm in complete agreement with him. One particular piece I read last year, which of course I can't find now, said that:
Internet porn use is now named in 56% of divorce cases.
The average age of boys who first view porn on the internet is 11.
The tendency is to look at more and more bizaar porn as the viewer gets bored with what was once titilating -- from Victoria's Secret ads, to nudes, to sex acts, to younger women, to bestiality, to very young girls. The definition of "taboo," and the extra excitement that goes with it, keeps moving downward.
Men rate their own wives as much less attractive after viewing porn.
Young men who "grow up" with porn have odd expectaions of what to do or expect the first time they have sex with a real girl -- one young woman was surprised to be painfully spanked on the first date.
One young man said that after dating real girls for a while he found that he much preferred staying home with his large internet portfolio of videos. The porn models were more attractive, came in endless variety and did and said the things he wanted to see and hear. Sex with real girls was awkward and boring by comparison.
Worst is probably the damage to marriages when wives are spending their evenings alone while their husbands are in the den, sharing the intimacy that should be strengthening their marriage with fantasy women on the net.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Very good post Twilight
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The average age of boys who first view porn on the internet is 11.
The tendency is to look at more and more bizaar porn as the viewer gets bored with what was once titilating -- from Victoria's Secret ads, to nudes, to sex acts, to younger women, to bestiality, to very young girls. The definition of "taboo," and the extra excitement that goes with it, keeps moving downward.
It is this part that worries me the most. Horrifying though it is, I think we all know it's true if we are honest.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The average age of boys who first view porn on the internet is 11.
The tendency is to look at more and more bizaar porn as the viewer gets bored with what was once titilating -- from Victoria's Secret ads, to nudes, to sex acts, to younger women, to bestiality, to very young girls. The definition of "taboo," and the extra excitement that goes with it, keeps moving downward.
It is this part that worries me the most. Horrifying though it is, I think we all know it's true if we are honest.
I don't. It's the kind of unsupported claim that I'd really like to see substantiated or withdrawn.
Again, using myself as an example, when I was a GLE I worried because I'd heard and believed that there was this slippery slope and that I might be on it. I was genuinely scared that my desire to look at naked ladies could some day become a habit for bestiality and child porn. Guess what? That NEVER HAPPENED.
I'll cop to objectification, exploitation and a whole host of other problematic issues about porn but I really need to see some data before I'll believe that this road from underwear catalogues to extreme (and illegal) porn really exists.
(btw I fixed your mis-attribution.)
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
I don't. It's the kind of unsupported claim that I'd really like to see substantiated or withdrawn.
Again, using myself as an example, when I was a GLE I worried because I'd heard and believed that there was this slippery slope and that I might be on it. I was genuinely scared that my desire to look at naked ladies could some day become a habit for bestiality and child porn. Guess what? That NEVER HAPPENED.
I'll cop to objectification, exploitation and a whole host of other problematic issues about porn but I really need to see some data before I'll believe that this road from underwear catalogues to extreme (and illegal) porn really exists.
(btw I fixed your mis-attribution.)
Thanks for editing my last post Late Paul - I tried to do it myself, but was too late.
The "slippery slope" will probably affect some more than others and in different ways - let's face it, there is more than one kind of "extreme" porn.
The thing is that, while you're waiting for this unsupported claim to be substantiated or withdrawn, there is a high chance others are unwittingly being damaged.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The thing is that, while you're waiting for this unsupported claim to be substantiated or withdrawn, there is a high chance others are unwittingly being damaged.
And unsubstantiated "facts" such as this are damaging others.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Evidently I've read some of the same articles Og has because I'm in complete agreement with him. One particular piece I read last year, which of course I can't find now, said that:
's ok. Even without seeing the original, I can rip it apart:
quote:
Internet porn use is now named in 56% of divorce cases.
The advent of no-fault divorce means that it is no longer necessary to have any specific "grounds" other than not wanting to be married. So however this number was calculated, it can't possibly include divorces in the many places that have no-fault divorce. It probably doesn't include religious divorces or annulments. In order to calculate this number, one would have to review a certain number of divorce filings in a particular jurisdiction. "Now" actually has to mean "over a certain period" - e.g. divorces from 2001 to 2010. So, how many divorces did they look at, where, and over what period of time, and can this be generalized to other places? There are also plenty of divorces where the stated reason is something like "differences with no possibility of reconciliation", which doesn't say anything about whether porn was or was not a reason. Were those excluded or counted as "no porn" divorces? However this number was arrived at, at best it applies to a very specific sub-set of divorces. At worst it's meaningless.
quote:
The average age of boys who first view porn on the internet is 11.
WHOAH. DOUBLE WHOAH. So, who is going out and asking 11-year old boys "when did you first watch porn on the internet?" Did some polling organization phone 1,000 households and ask the parents when their boys started watching porn? Were surveys handed out in public schools? What about girls watching porn?
quote:
The tendency is to look at more and more bizaar porn as the viewer gets bored with what was once titilating -- from Victoria's Secret ads, to nudes, to sex acts, to younger women, to bestiality, to very young girls. The definition of "taboo," and the extra excitement that goes with it, keeps moving downward.
So, a longitudinal study. How many subjects? How were they selected, and was there a control group? How long were they followed? How was the type of porn classified? Were all the subjects provided with a particular set and sequence of materials, or did they buy their own? Did they all follow the same sequence, did they all progress all the way to little girls, did some skip some types or go back?
quote:
Men rate their own wives as much less attractive after viewing porn.
How did they rate other men's wives? ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
@ Mark Betts: The animal metaphor is lousy because animal behaviour is "natural" and good, except for when humans think it's bad. And humans should behave according to natural law, like animals, except when they shouldn't. Worms are hermaphroditic. Spiders eat their mates after sex. Amphibians and fish leave their eggs lying around any old where to be fertilized by the first male that comes along. Birds mate for life AND cheat. Humans make and watch porn, using whatever technology is available. So can we just leave the animals out of it?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
@ Suror Magna
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
There have been innumerable articles...
the old saying goes...
I’m not sure I could explain why...
There has been a steady stream of claims...
most of us are in no position to assess it...
I seem to remember reading once...
though I've not seen stats to show...
One particular piece I read last year, which of course I can't find now...
Well I don't know about anyone else but I'm convinced.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Soror Magna wrote:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The average age of boys who first view porn on the internet is 11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WHOAH. DOUBLE WHOAH. So, who is going out and asking 11-year old boys "when did you first watch porn on the internet?" Did some polling organization phone 1,000 households and ask the parents when their boys started watching porn? Were surveys handed out in public schools? What about girls watching porn?
There has actually been some credible, peer-reviewed work done on this, including by acadmeics at my old university.
A study
Apparently, they did in fact survey teenagers between the ages of 13 and 14. Not certain how, but since the study describes them as "from 17 urban and rural schools", I'm guessing they went into the schools to give the surveys(I recall one similar survey in middle school, though not as I recall on the topic of p0rn).
That article doesn't say what age the kids started viewing p0rn, but 11 doesn't strike me as inplausibly low at all. I think by that age I had seen p0rnographic material, back in the magazine era, and the same would be true for most of my male friends.
What harm, if any, it did us is another question. I think the researchers make some valid recommendations, regardless of where you stand on the issue.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
George Spigot: quote:
Well I don't know about anyone else but I'm convinced.
At least I read some articles written by psychologists who were studying the subject and who have more general information, covering larger groups of people, than just the odd, "I do it and I'm okay."
Where are your links to scientific studies backing your opinion?
[ 22. August 2012, 17:17: Message edited by: Twilight ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Well I don't know about anyone else but I'm convinced.
At least I read some articles written by psychologists who were studying the subject and who have more general information, covering larger groups of people, than just the odd, "I do it and I'm okay."
Where are your links to scientific studies backing your opinion? [/QB]
He doesn't need them because he hasn;t expressed an opinion. Just been skeptical about the "studies" backing up yours. A skepticism I'd share, from a purely scientific point of view.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
Ken beat me to it but just to confirm, it's not that I currently hold an opposing opinion it's more that all the claims that are not being backed up very well are making me twitch.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
One thing that there is some evidence for is the noticeable increase in cosmetic surgery on female genitals - they are not entirely sure why the rapid increase, but one of the reasons that is suggested is internet porn
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Sorry. I thought we were just discussing what we thought or what we had read or what our own experience was about the issue.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Here's a CNN spot that mentions some of the same things I had read but it's still not the actual studies. I almost never read scinetific studies so I imagine this was just an article in Utne reader or possibly Scientific American, magazines we have around the house.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The tendency is to look at more and more bizaar porn as the viewer gets bored with what was once titilating -- from Victoria's Secret ads, to nudes, to sex acts, to younger women, to bestiality, to very young girls. The definition of "taboo," and the extra excitement that goes with it, keeps moving downward.
I don't think that everyone who learns to drive a car is at risk of developing a deviant interest in Ford Anglias or Austin Allegros. So I'm sure you can understand why a good many people, myself included, are skeptical of your claim.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
This theory that porn is going to cause young men to not want to have sex with actual young women reminds me of the Texan Minister in the 60's who preached that because young men were wearing long hair the human race was going to become exctinct because men and women wouldn't be able to find each other.
It's funny to watch all these busy posters on this site talk about the addiction to porn. Chat boards obviously don't cause people to stay in their den instead of spending quality time with their spouse, but I do think it's all downhill since the invention of the novel.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I think the request for evidence and studies is very reasonable.
Since this article is from Wkipedia, the usual health warnings apply, but it contains references to various studies, plus some interesting more general discussion on the definition of addiction.
Wiki article
I appreciate that my early post re encouragement to covet etc is an assertion. My view that covetousness is bad for people is moral judgment. The word "encourage" was carefully chosen. It recognises that there is nothing inevitable involved in viewing pornography.
I suppose my choices in the matter are based on a personal view that for me some temptations are better avoided than tested. I've never been one to generalise about my own strengths and weaknesses.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
One thing that there is some evidence for is the noticeable increase in cosmetic surgery on female genitals - they are not entirely sure why the rapid increase, but one of the reasons that is suggested is internet porn
Would you say this is worse than liposuction or a new nose? If so why?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
I might just add that maybe the term "addiction" is unhelpful. It would be better to talk of it as "habitual". We can debate scientific studies and surveys for the next 100 years without coming to a conclusion, but it won't stop the degeneration and damage to society which is (arguably) taking place all the time.
We need to take note that it at least might be harmful.
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Point of clarification on "BBW" - in the contexts I've seen it, it was actually moderately affirmative, in that it was "Big Beautiful Women". Only moderately affirmative, because it was still in the context of flogging images to blokes to crack one off to.
Also, I'm aware these things can change. I still have to do a double-take every time one of the yoof at church posts "FTW!" on Facebook.
When I was growing up, it certainly didn't mean "for the win" ...
The BBW thing is interesting. I'm a (self-identifying) fat woman involved in fat activism and generally places that identify as for BBW tend to be like you describe, and have nothing to do with the politics of empowering women.
Ah yes, but are you beautiful??
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Men rate their own wives as much less attractive after viewing porn.
I rated my family as less intelligent after I had done a degree.
I rated my friends as less funny after I had been to see a stand-up comedian.
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I expect technology will soon create computer-generated porn that doesn't require filming of any real person and thus avoid this issue.
I think instead, technology will soon develop so that ordinary people will be able to cheaply and easily film porn themselves and then share it with other people, thus avoiding the need for porn companies to potentially exploit actors.
Oh wait, this has started happening already.
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
I really need to see some data before I'll believe that this road from underwear catalogues to extreme (and illegal) porn really exists.
Not even specifically-underwear catalogues ... I can remember as a 12-year old happening upon the lingerie section of the perfectly respectable 'Kays' Catalogue ... Some tasty 'stuff' in there, I can tell you ...
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
What Glokenspiel said. Some of those images remain imprinted on my 'art.
And yet I can assure Twilight that I haven't been in the least bit tempted towards the sort of rake's progress she describes.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
I don't doubt the underwear catalogue phenomenon exists, I doubt the slippery slope from it to utter depravity.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
We need to take note that it at least might be harmful.
It might be but so might crossing the road on my way to work this morning. What I believe is harmful - because I've experienced this harm personally - is the effect on naive minds of overly harsh scare-mongering about pretty ordinary sexual feelings.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
One thing that there is some evidence for is the noticeable increase in cosmetic surgery on female genitals - they are not entirely sure why the rapid increase, but one of the reasons that is suggested is internet porn
Would you say this is worse than liposuction or a new nose? If so why?
The articles say that it is worse than nose surgery, certainly, because there's no research into the damage done or the understanding of what is normal. Nose surgery has had a lot of research and work done for medical reasons and people are likely to have some discussions about their psychological state before they just get a nose job unless there is structural damage or medical reasons for the surgery.
Liposuction doesn't have the best reputation in the press, but it was really difficult to find any research but what I did find suggests that it doesn't actually work in the long term - a year later belly fat has returned and thigh fat is returning.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
It might be but so might crossing the road on my way to work this morning. What I believe is harmful - because I've experienced this harm personally - is the effect on naive minds of overly harsh scare-mongering about pretty ordinary sexual feelings.
This wants repeating. Not necessarily in order to negate anything that others are saying, but just - it needs to be taken into account.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Would you say this is worse than liposuction or a new nose? If so why?
I don't know - but many, many women have stitches in the area after childbirth. Personally I find reasons for any unnecessary surgery completely confusing.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I wrote a post up thread containing lots of things I remembered from an article I had read. I thought those things might add interest to the discussion. I believed I had made it clear that this was someone elses article and not mine but people are quoting lines from it under my name as though I wrote them and was 100% on board with all of them. Please note: The name of the article is "Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality," and was wrtten by Gail Dines, not me.
Some of her points rang true for me. I do think it can't be good for very young boys to have all their first encounters with sex through raw porn sites.
I don't know if Dines says anything about porn as addictive, it isn't in my post, I just don't remember, but I've never bought into the idea of non-chemical addictions very much.
The slide into harder core porn over time does sound possible to me, simply because we tend to become inured to many things over time. Movies, for example, have become far more violent over my lifetime. In any case, she is only talking about the effects on some people so personal anecdotes of how it didn't effect oneself don't make her wrong.
In any case, I brought up the points she made to add possible talking points to the conversation, not because I believed them all or because I intended to back them with empirical evidence. She may do that in her book, I don't know.
-----------------
Anyway. Thats what Gail Dines thinks. Here's what I think. Jesus seemed to believe lust was a bad thing. Most of us lust anyway. It slips up on us at work, on the street, at the park, over and over, all we can do is try not to let it wreck our relationships or take over our lives -- but sitting down to the computer and going to a porn site, is intentional, pre-meditated lust and that doesn't seem like a beneficial thing to me.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Father Guido Sarducci puts it all in perspective.
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Anyway. Thats what Gail Dines thinks. Here's what I think. Jesus seemed to believe lust was a bad thing. Most of us lust anyway. It slips up on us at work, on the street, at the park ...
If you were thinking of the same bible passage as I am now thinking of, then that probably requires another thread altogether (I have a feeling that it already has been a thread (??)) Briefly, I've always taken it to be more about hypocrisy than lust, as such.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Matthew 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
I suppose it could be about hypocrisy if someone is bragging about obeying the commandment against adultery while lusting in his heart. I think the main message of the whole chapter is that we should try to take all of the commandments a step further than just the mimimum requirement. Whatever other points Jesus was trying to make, it seems clear to me that he is comparing lust with adultery and doesn't think either one is a good thing. YMMV
Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Point of clarification on "BBW" - in the contexts I've seen it, it was actually moderately affirmative, in that it was "Big Beautiful Women". Only moderately affirmative, because it was still in the context of flogging images to blokes to crack one off to.
Also, I'm aware these things can change. I still have to do a double-take every time one of the yoof at church posts "FTW!" on Facebook.
When I was growing up, it certainly didn't mean "for the win" ...
The BBW thing is interesting. I'm a (self-identifying) fat woman involved in fat activism and generally places that identify as for BBW tend to be like you describe, and have nothing to do with the politics of empowering women.
Ah yes, but are you beautiful??
Yes. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Its weird how unsupported opinion becomes respectable if five minutes on Google can find a web page written by someone with the same opinions.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Lots of people find big women beautiful.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Lots of people find big women beautiful.
And there are porn sites catering to them.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Lots of people find big women beautiful.
And there are porn sites catering to them.
Oh, I'm quite sure there would be!
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
Looks like third-wave, "pro-sex" feminism isn't catching on everywhere...
UK Women's Group Plans 50 Shades Of Grey Book Burning
Mind you, I don't exactly know if this group qualifies as feminist, or just a new variation on Disgusted In Tunbridge Wells. They talk about "sexism and misogyny"(typically feminist concerns), but the whole book-burning thing reminds me of this.
In any case, I'll always defend the right to burn books, as long as they're you're the OWNER of the books. Still, though, the optics are really bad on that one. As I once heard a Chirstian stand-up comic observe about bonfires against Harry Potter: "If Hitler did it, maybe go in the other direction".
Posted by Levavi (# 14371) on
:
Apologies, really, for the interruption here, as I largely agree with what the majority of posters have said about porn (exploitation, cheapening, etc.). But let's just be clear that this is not necessarily an issue of men exploiting women (though I'm not sure that anyone has said that, explicitly). What about those of us that are gay? (It's a little unfortunate that a discussion of the wrongs of porn leads me to feel left out, but I frequently feel called to remind the majority that there is a minority of us who are not attracted to the opposite sex.)
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ecumaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
I expect technology will soon create computer-generated porn that doesn't require filming of any real person and thus avoid this issue.
I think instead, technology will soon develop so that ordinary people will be able to cheaply and easily film porn themselves and then share it with other people, thus avoiding the need for porn companies to potentially exploit actors.
Oh wait, this has started happening already.
But ordinary people are not so interesting to watch as professional actors. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
This forum seem to have come to some type of consesus that any sex between consenting adults that doesn´t hurt or damage anyone else cannot be wrong. Therefore, porn can only be wrong if the actors are being exploited or its going to have bad psychological consequences of the viewers.
So what if the actors are not being exploited, in fact they´re getting paid to do what many others dream of, or what if there are no damaging consequences of porn on your mental or physical health?
We seem to completely leave behind the idea of "illicit sexual relations"... what if some things were wrong in themselves, regardless of having bad consequences on your health or being consensual...
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Page 3 is porn, but it doesn't involve sexual relations.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Page 3 is porn, but it doesn't involve sexual relations.
Exactly, so somewhere or other a line needs to be drawn between what is acceptable and what is not. But I feel at present the bar has been set far too low and needs to be raised a bit.
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Matthew 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
I suppose it could be about hypocrisy if someone is bragging about obeying the commandment against adultery while lusting in his heart. I think the main message of the whole chapter is that we should try to take all of the commandments a step further than just the mimimum requirement. Whatever other points Jesus was trying to make, it seems clear to me that he is comparing lust with adultery and doesn't think either one is a good thing. YMMV
Well of course, this can only be conjecture, on both our parts, since Jesus had a nasty habit of
either responding to something in an entirely unexpected way, or merely throwing another, rather cryptic, question back (and that's without even touching issues of mis-reporting, mis-translation etc). So I can only say that what you take to be the main message ('going a step further') is precisely what I thought Jesus was criticising the Pharisees and Saducees for ... and why? - because it lead to hypocrisy. Witness the automatic tut-tutting among many people in settled relationships, whenever they are referring to someone who has cheated on their partners - as if that shows the tut-tutters to be of stronger moral fibre. Still, as I say, that's just my take.
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
...what if some things were wrong in themselves, regardless of having bad consequences on your health or being consensual...
Any plausible examples???
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Page 3 is porn, but it doesn't involve sexual relations.
Bill Hicks did a good routine about porn's formal definition: ' a creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire' ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcefX9TPlkY
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Page 3 is porn, but it doesn't involve sexual relations.
Exactly, so somewhere or other a line needs to be drawn between what is acceptable and what is not. But I feel at present the bar has been set far too low and needs to be raised a bit.
Back to the good ol' days of the top shelf, eh??
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Levavi:
Apologies, really, for the interruption here, as I largely agree with what the majority of posters have said about porn (exploitation, cheapening, etc ...
Thing is, I'm not sure I agree with even that - My gut feeling is that there are hundreds and hundreds of jobs out there which are far more unpleasant/ depressing/ arduous/ dead-end/ low-grade, AND which pay a lot less, to boot. How come you never hear a fuss being kicked up about those kind of jobs? Toilet cleaner, anyone? Where's the dignity or reward in that?
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
But ordinary people are not so interesting to watch as professional actors.
Oh, I dunno. In some circumstances, give me enthusiastic amateurs over pros any day (production values notwithstanding)
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Page 3 is porn, but it doesn't involve sexual relations.
Exactly, so somewhere or other a line needs to be drawn between what is acceptable and what is not. But I feel at present the bar has been set far too low and needs to be raised a bit.
Back to the good ol' days of the top shelf, eh??
Sure, yes - it would be an improvement wouldn't it? But I don't quite get what you mean - that sort of magazine still is on the top shelf, the problem is more extreme forms of porn which get transmitted through other types of media.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
...Toilet cleaner, anyone? Where's the dignity or reward in that?
Yes please! I'd do that any day, over being involved in some nasty, seedy aspect of the porn "industry".
At least I could walk down the high street with my head held high.
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Page 3 is porn, but it doesn't involve sexual relations.
Exactly, so somewhere or other a line needs to be drawn between what is acceptable and what is not. But I feel at present the bar has been set far too low and needs to be raised a bit.
Back to the good ol' days of the top shelf, eh??
Sure, yes - it would be an improvement wouldn't it? But I don't quite get what you mean - that sort of magazine still is on the top shelf, the problem is more extreme forms of porn which get transmitted through other types of media.
Well there's something to be said for what you advocate there, yes ... although nigh on impossible in practice to put the genie back in the bottle, of course ...
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
...Toilet cleaner, anyone? Where's the dignity or reward in that?
Yes please! I'd do that any day, over being involved in some nasty, seedy aspect of the porn "industry".
At least I could walk down the high street with my head held high.
Not so with me. I might not shout from the rooftops about being in such an industry, I grant you, but at least I'd be getting some good times out of it ... And I'd be way too 'proud' (take that positively or negatively) for anyone I know to see me stuck in a whole range of crummy jobs for any length of time.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
Well there's something to be said for what you advocate there, yes ... although nigh on impossible in practice to put the genie back in the bottle, of course ...
I'm not so sure about that. The UK and USA are going in with all guns blazing to crack down on copyright violations. Why can't they do the same with porn?
Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on
:
I wonder if some of our unease with porn is related to the subconscious dishonesty involved?
I am sexually aroused as I imagine that the porn actor might have sex with me. However, this possibility is (usually) impossible - and I also know this to be the case. Therefore, the lust for the unattainable fantasy is a cognitive dissonance at a fundamental level.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm not so sure about that. The UK and USA are going in with all guns blazing to crack down on copyright violations. Why can't they do the same with porn?
Well, copyright violation is a crime. Making porn isn't, unless there's another crime committed in making it. Neither is watching it. How do you propose to criminalize making pornography? How do you propose to get around niggling details like freedom of the press and freedom of speech and a right to privacy?
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
What people who are demanding academic literature on current internet porn use are not quite getting is the state of flux in the industry.
The most recent change in how porn is viewed on the internet only happened in the last 3 years - the death of porn on demand with the rise and centralization of free aggregate sites. In essence, porn is dealing with what music is dealing with - how to make money when everything is free. Or, maybe more accurately a parallel, how to make money as video providers in the world of Youtube.
Expecting an academic understanding of the affect of this shift in viewing arrangements is like expecting people to be able to do an academic study on the affect of Pinterest on shopping patterns.
Its not going to happen - academics don't move that fast.
In the meantime, and yes this is anecdotal, there are people in counseling positions in high schools and universities indicating changes in how young men are dealing with women - not more rape just different expectations.
Porn always moves as fast as technology - and certainly faster then academia.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
Apologies for the double post:
I also wonder if people are discounting anecdotal evidence based on the subject at hand rather then a rigorous application of the need for academic work to prove a viewpoint.
Social workers and community workers use anecdotal evidence all the time to garner support for issues when there isn't the money or opportunity to study.
e.g. The well known phrase in my town - the farther you live away from the rich neighbourhoods, the more likely you are to have your LD diagnosed in jail. Used many many times by me and others to beat the drums for more LD support in poor neighbourhoods. Any real evidence? Nope, as nobody has the money to prove it.
Should we, for lack of academic evidence, just discount that unproven need?
How come anecdotal evidence is good when discussing the need to deal with poverty issues but bad when its discussing sexuality?
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
You're implying that there hasn't been extensive systematic study of porn and its effects. But the fact is there have been hundreds of studies over the past several decades, which have pretty consistently failed to find any general negative effects. This doesn't mean that no one has ever been harmed by exposure to porn (and I'm not talking about harm within the industry itself). It just means that harmful effects are so rare or so small that they aren't measurable in a large random sample. The anecdotal evidence may be useful in helping to identify the particular subset of people who are vulnerable to some harmful effect, and possibly to design studies to better understand them, but it doesn't alter the fact that they are the exception rather than the norm.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
No, I'm implying nothing of the sort. Please do not put words in my mouth. Just because somebody disagrees with you on the currant affects, please do not assume they are a Luddite.
With technology, the affects of porn changes.
And there has been a big change lately.
And THAT very recent and unstudiable change is what is driving the anecdotally changing behaviour among some men.
Just because porn usage has been relatively benign does not mean changes to how it is brought to people can not affect the "benignness".
If studies come out in a few years indicating the availability of porn for free on computers, laptops and phones, accessible anywhere including in public spaces like libraries, coffee houses,walking down the street and on public transit is not affecting male behaviour ...........great.
Until then, this former community worker will stick with trying to understand affects using anecdotal evidence.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
@og. What is an LD?
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Well, copyright violation is a crime. Making porn isn't, unless there's another crime committed in making it. Neither is watching it. How do you propose to criminalize making pornography? How do you propose to get around niggling details like freedom of the press and freedom of speech and a right to privacy?
That's not true in the UK - copyright violation is a civil offence, not a criminal one. Additionally until very recently a lot of pornography was illegal in the UK, either to make or to distribute, and "extreme" pornography still is. I seem to recall that there have been prosecutions for some forms of pornography in the US as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore (reading after eating not advised)
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Well, copyright violation is a crime. Making porn isn't, unless there's another crime committed in making it. Neither is watching it. How do you propose to criminalize making pornography? How do you propose to get around niggling details like freedom of the press and freedom of speech and a right to privacy?
That's not true in the UK - copyright violation is a civil offence, not a criminal one. Additionally until very recently a lot of pornography was illegal in the UK, either to make or to distribute, and "extreme" pornography still is. I seem to recall that there have been prosecutions for some forms of pornography in the US as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore (reading after eating not advised)
Well, even a stubborn old libertarian like me wouldn't argue that HE was a good thing! Hey - gives us a 'base-level' to work from ...
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Well, copyright violation is a crime. Making porn isn't, unless there's another crime committed in making it. Neither is watching it. How do you propose to criminalize making pornography? How do you propose to get around niggling details like freedom of the press and freedom of speech and a right to privacy?
That's not true in the UK - copyright violation is a civil offence, not a criminal one. Additionally until very recently a lot of pornography was illegal in the UK, either to make or to distribute, and "extreme" pornography still is. I seem to recall that there have been prosecutions for some forms of pornography in the US as well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore (reading after eating not advised)
FWIW intentional (as opposed to inadvertant) copyright infringement is a crime in most places and it would be very surprising if the UK was an exception.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore (reading after eating not advised)
Tsk tsk. P0rn always heads to the lowest common denominator of creativity, doesn't it. The guy produces hardcore, so he names himself(drumroll...) Hardcore.
In mainstream film, a director wouldn't get away with calling himself Bob Romantic Comedy, for example.
[ 25. August 2012, 22:46: Message edited by: Stetson ]
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
FWIW intentional (as opposed to inadvertant) copyright infringement is a crime in most places and it would be very surprising if the UK was an exception.
I've just done a little more reading. In general what I've said is true, but there is a criminal offence involved if there is deliberate large scale commercial exploitation using that breach of copyright. Basically file sharing is a civil matter, knowingly flogging knock-off DVDs is a criminal matter. In the context of the discussion at hand it is the former that is significant.
[ 26. August 2012, 05:41: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Hardcore (reading after eating not advised)
Tsk tsk. P0rn always heads to the lowest common denominator of creativity, doesn't it. The guy produces hardcore, so he names himself(drumroll...) Hardcore.
In mainstream film, a director wouldn't get away with calling himself Bob Romantic Comedy, for example.
I imagine the reason is that wankers with money to spend are likely to google "Hardcore" and find his name. Directors of romantic comedy don't rely on that kind of, erm, traffic.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Qoheleth.:
I wonder if some of our unease with porn is related to the subconscious dishonesty involved?
I am sexually aroused as I imagine that the porn actor might have sex with me. However, this possibility is (usually) impossible - and I also know this to be the case. Therefore, the lust for the unattainable fantasy is a cognitive dissonance at a fundamental level.
No-one should be surprised if certain types of porn arouse them - that's the whole intention of it - but just because it makes you feel good, and maybe you've even indulged from time-to-time, doesn't make it right or healthy.
You have to remove yourself from the argument to form an objective opinion about what it is doing to people.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
@og. What is an LD?
I think he means Learning Difficulties.
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You have to remove yourself from the argument to form an objective opinion about what it is doing to people.
Dream on! How many non-smokers have you met who are opposed to anti-smoking laws; how many smokers have you met who are in favour of anti-smoking laws??
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
With technology, the affects of porn changes.
And there has been a big change lately.
And THAT very recent and unstudiable change is what is driving the anecdotally changing behaviour among some men.
The problem for your argument is that the "recent changes" as devastating as they are for the economics of the traditional porn industry, aren't a fundamental change they're a step change. Porn has been widely and easily available for a long time. Aggregation sites widen that but it's not the paradigm shift that say the internet itself was (or probably more significantly the introduction of the home video recorder). We're not living in a brave new world the like of which has never been seen before, we're seeing the continuation of the same trend that's been going on for years. So the earlier research still applies IMHO.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Matthew 5:27 "You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
I suppose it could be about hypocrisy if someone is bragging about obeying the commandment against adultery while lusting in his heart. I think the main message of the whole chapter is that we should try to take all of the commandments a step further than just the mimimum requirement. Whatever other points Jesus was trying to make, it seems clear to me that he is comparing lust with adultery and doesn't think either one is a good thing. YMMV
Well of course, this can only be conjecture, on both our parts, since Jesus had a nasty habit of
either responding to something in an entirely unexpected way, or merely throwing another, rather cryptic, question back (and that's without even touching issues of mis-reporting, mis-translation etc). So I can only say that what you take to be the main message ('going a step further') is precisely what I thought Jesus was criticising the Pharisees and Saducees for ... and why? - because it lead to hypocrisy. Witness the automatic tut-tutting among many people in settled relationships, whenever they are referring to someone who has cheated on their partners - as if that shows the tut-tutters to be of stronger moral fibre. Still, as I say, that's just my take.
I've been pondering this for two days now!
So. Jesus was saying:
(1)"You people who criticize adulterers are just as bad as they are if you've ever lusted?" Another variation on the splinter in the eye thing.
(2) "You've gone too far if you're worried about lusting." Being too scrupulous.
(3) "Adultery is only as bad as lusting which isn't very."
(4) "Thou shalt not commit adultery or lust after women -- As if!" The Jesus is just kidding view.
I know I sound facetious but I'm really confused about this now. Sorry if this should be in Kerygmania.
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
No, you're over-thinking this!
Adultery bad.
Adultery plus hypocrisy worse.
Adultery caused by excessive lust plus the (apparent) opportunity to get away with it. Not an infrequent occurence ...
This lust something that most people feel on a regular basis. Good chance that they would have acted on it if they could have got away with it. 'Smoke and mirrors' thrown over that by voicing disappoval of others.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You have to remove yourself from the argument to form an objective opinion about what it is doing to people.
Dream on! How many non-smokers have you met who are opposed to anti-smoking laws; how many smokers have you met who are in favour of anti-smoking laws??
You can count me as one smoker who has no problem whatsoever with indoor areas being legally designated as smoke-free zones. I see no reason why other people should have to endure my habit, and prefer to smoke outdoors anyway.
I do think it's getting a bit silly when they start banning smoking in public spaces like parks, etc, since the health effects of that smoke must be minute compared to everything else that's in the air. I think those kind of regulations are more about social-engineering, ie. encouraging people to quit, rather than protecting health.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
This lust something that most people feel on a regular basis. Good chance that they would have acted on it if they could have got away with it.
If you're saying what you look to be saying, it's crap. It's quite possible -- and I imagine millions of people do it every day -- to see someone good looking and think, "va va voom" and let the mind drift, but not be at all interested in actually transferring that into action, even if they could get away with it.
Posted by glockenspiel (# 13645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
This lust something that most people feel on a regular basis. Good chance that they would have acted on it if they could have got away with it.
If you're saying what you look to be saying, it's crap. It's quite possible -- and I imagine millions of people do it every day -- to see someone good looking and think, "va va voom" and let the mind drift, but not be at all interested in actually transferring that into action, even if they could get away with it.
Well, looks like I'll have to take your word for that, then! Or maybe you move in more refined circles than me (which seems entirely possible). But I know it to be true of a number of tut-tutter acquaintances - and that's what created the connection in my mind in the first place.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by glockenspiel:
This lust something that most people feel on a regular basis. Good chance that they would have acted on it if they could have got away with it.
If you're saying what you look to be saying, it's crap. It's quite possible -- and I imagine millions of people do it every day -- to see someone good looking and think, "va va voom" and let the mind drift, but not be at all interested in actually transferring that into action, even if they could get away with it.
Total tangent from someone who hasn't entirely been following the thread: a major benefit of being homosexual is that you can SAY the equivalent of "va va voom" to your partner and find out if they were thinking the same thing.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
This chap seems to have found a solution.
Jesus is more pleasurable than pornography
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
This chap seems to have found a solution.
Jesus is more pleasurable than pornography
Mark Betts [[ LIKED ]] this.
I did browse through the article, and it seemed good to me. I liked the guy's honesty and humility, that he's not somehow morally superior to the rest of us.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's quite possible -- and I imagine millions of people do it every day -- to see someone good looking and think, "va va voom" and let the mind drift, but not be at all interested in actually transferring that into action, even if they could get away with it.
Total tangent but...
I've had interesting "She looks a bit of all right" type conversations with a lesbian colleague.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I suspect that very little is going to be done about restricting porn, except in relation to computer controls, where some kind of blocks are already in place, or at least, potentially in place.
I suppose we just live in permissive times, where many people may disapprove of porn, and of other things, but are reluctant to approve actual censorship.
Generally, I think the move away from censorship, for example, in the theatre or in print, has been good, and I would also be reluctant to go into reverse gear.
I suppose a standard liberal view is that porn is not all that wonderful, but is not also all that bad. This actually sounds a bit wet!
Of course, it's possible that some kind of counter-movement may occur, a kind of Mary Whitehouse renaissance. I would not rule this out.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
On the other hand, speaking as the father of two young children, it irritates me that they will forever be one wrong click away from porn every time they use the Internet.
I recall a previous discussion on the Ship concerning a girl who googled "pussy makeover". The general response was that she could have found the information she wanted by searching for some other term, or alternatively, filters should have been installed. Frankly, that was not only glib but it completely missed the point. The Internet is just about the only place where the onus is on parents to keep their children away from inappropriate material. It is unfortunate that this should be so.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, it's possible that some kind of counter-movement may occur, a kind of Mary Whitehouse renaissance. I would not rule this out.
I doubt that will ever happen. There has been a sea-change in attitudes to sex. Quite simply, whereas previously it was regarded as in some sense unclean, now it is just a (rather enjoyable) bodily function, albeit it one normally expressed within committed relationships.
Porn use really just follows on from that. It has gone from being indecent, to something that is simply human. Quite simply (to use a common scenario), where is the harm in a bored, lonely single man using a pictures of naked women to get himself off? Is it true that he'll be unable to relate to women because of this, or feel impelled to move onto more extreme images? For the overwhelming majority, the answer will be No.
There's probably more actual and potential harm in a bottle of alcoholic drink.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
FWIW intentional (as opposed to inadvertant) copyright infringement is a crime in most places and it would be very surprising if the UK was an exception.
I've just done a little more reading. In general what I've said is true, but there is a criminal offence involved if there is deliberate large scale commercial exploitation using that breach of copyright. Basically file sharing is a civil matter, knowingly flogging knock-off DVDs is a criminal matter. In the context of the discussion at hand it is the former that is significant.
True, practically speaking. The normal situation is that any copying of material known to be under copyright is criminal. However, the authorities are (in general) unlikely to be interested unless the copying is generating signficant revenue.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
This chap seems to have found a solution.
Jesus is more pleasurable than pornography
He is a self-repressed homosexual so I don't think much wisdom can come from that source.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Serious question - is it possible for men to wank and get the physical pleasure of orgasm without the visuals (imagined or real)?
I know it is for (some) women - thus making life much simpler. No visualising other people = no guilt.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
He is a self-repressed homosexual so I don't think much wisdom can come from that source.
Is he gay? Even if he is, I don't see why we shouldn't respect his wisdom for what it is.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Is he gay? Even if he is, I don't see why we shouldn't respect his wisdom for what it is.
Do you think it's wisdom? Can someone who's constantly "smacked with a crashing avalanche of guilt and confusion as soon as I shut my laptop. It ends the same way every time I give in---with me confused, doubtful, fearful and depressed"
impart much wisdom?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, it's possible that some kind of counter-movement may occur, a kind of Mary Whitehouse renaissance. I would not rule this out.
I doubt that will ever happen. There has been a sea-change in attitudes to sex. Quite simply, whereas previously it was regarded as in some sense unclean, now it is just a (rather enjoyable) bodily function, albeit it one normally expressed within committed relationships.
Porn use really just follows on from that. It has gone from being indecent, to something that is simply human. Quite simply (to use a common scenario), where is the harm in a bored, lonely single man using a pictures of naked women to get himself off? Is it true that he'll be unable to relate to women because of this, or feel impelled to move onto more extreme images? For the overwhelming majority, the answer will be No.
There's probably more actual and potential harm in a bottle of alcoholic drink.
I agree with nearly all of that. Well, OK, all of it. I think there are problems to do with the women (and men) who are models for porn, (exploitation and so on), but the actual imagery of porn does not seem to me to be a big deal.
I think we have seen a reduction in guilt over sex in the last 50 years. I suppose some people confuse guilt with morality.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
He is a self-repressed homosexual so I don't think much wisdom can come from that source.
Is he gay? Even if he is, I don't see why we shouldn't respect his wisdom for what it is.
What Boogie said.
His website/blog is all about the Holy Spirit saves him from homosexuality (he isn't 'gay', he is homosexual. 'Gay' is a term generally reserved to happy, well-adjusted, out and proud types and for those on the journey towards such.
He is on a journey of repression through unaffirmative religion.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Is he gay? Even if he is, I don't see why we shouldn't respect his wisdom for what it is.
Do you think it's wisdom? Can someone who's constantly "smacked with a crashing avalanche of guilt and confusion as soon as I shut my laptop. It ends the same way every time I give in---with me confused, doubtful, fearful and depressed"
impart much wisdom?
I'm not saying we should be crippled and overcome by guilt all the time, but for a christian to believe they should have no sense of guilt or shame, and therefore be able to do as they please would be... er... very unwise.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm not saying we should be crippled and overcome by guilt all the time ...
No, but this bloke is. He needs to deal with the behaviour which causes him such guilt and distress. Or, better still, go to the roots of his distress - which seems to be in a repressive religion.
I see no wisdom in doing neither.
Of course we need to feel guilt when we have harmed others - and put right, to the best of our ability, what we have done wrong. But that's not what we are discussing here.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's an interesting line of discussion, as it is deconstructing the idea that porn should elicit guilt and shame, at least for the Christian.
Is this correct? Maybe not. Maybe it's the guilt and shame which are the problem, not the porn.
But all of this seems quite fluid and unclear to me, as we are negotiating between different types of morality, I suppose.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Was listening to CBC radio and caught a piece about human sex worker trafficking. It occurred to me to ask: how many of the internet pornography images are of young women who've been offered 'a better life' only to be raped as their intro to the world of "sex work", brutalized and traumatized as apparently the trafficker-pimps do as a matter of course, kept under close guard and forced to have sex for the one-handed internet surfing pleasure of unthinking people who like having impersonal imagined sex with their left hands?
The discussion on the radio made me consider that disclaimers about consent, agreed to appear, legality of images and other such things escapes completely the actual issues for the young women involved. How many of the women are from eastern Europe, Asia, and other places with no connections, can't speak the language, make a naive agreement and are sold for serial rape, kept in the "business" by deep fear and threats of violence, and are the subject of these videos and photographs? There's definitely a moral and ethical issue beyond the viewer that has yet to be discussed in this thread.
[ 31. August 2012, 02:20: Message edited by: no prophet ]
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Originally posted by Cod:
quote:
On the other hand, speaking as the father of two young children, it irritates me that they will forever be one wrong click away from porn every time they use the Internet.
Last month our church had copies of a petition against online pornography, which church members were encouraged to sign. It stated that "one in three 10 year olds have stumbled on pornography online." My teens (18 and 16) remarked that neither of them had ever "stumbled on" pornography, though both use their computers extensively. They've both "stumbled on" inappropriate images (eg my daughter, googling for materials for a Girl Guide Thinking Day service came across a website selling "uniforms" for "naughty girls") but actual pornography - no. They both said that if they wanted to view porn, they'd be perfectly capable of accessing it, but they were both sceptical about it being "stumbled on."
It occurred to me that I've never "stumbled on" porn either. (Inappropriate images, yes, porn, no) Is it really that easy to "stumble on"?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Was listening to CBC radio and caught a piece about human sex worker trafficking. It occurred to me to ask: how many of the internet pornography images are of young women who've been offered 'a better life' only to be raped as their intro to the world of "sex work", brutalized and traumatized as apparently the trafficker-pimps do as a matter of course, kept under close guard and forced to have sex for the one-handed internet surfing pleasure of unthinking people who like having impersonal imagined sex with their left hands?
The discussion on the radio made me consider that disclaimers about consent, agreed to appear, legality of images and other such things escapes completely the actual issues for the young women involved. How many of the women are from eastern Europe, Asia, and other places with no connections, can't speak the language, make a naive agreement and are sold for serial rape, kept in the "business" by deep fear and threats of violence, and are the subject of these videos and photographs? There's definitely a moral and ethical issue beyond the viewer that has yet to be discussed in this thread.
Good point.
We might differ over the morality and effects of watching porn, but this is an issue on which we can all agree.
I fear that we men have an infinite capacity for self-deception in this area.
If a girl is performing a sex act online with a big beam on her face, then it's: "Look at that! Wow, what a good-time chick! She loves it! She's probably doing it for nothing because she enjoys it so much, and she'd jump at the chance of doing the same thing with me".
The idea that her beguiling nymphomaniac smile is attributable to her having been threatened with a beating if she does not portray sufficient enthusiasm in front of the camera is something that we would rather not think about.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I can't believe this has only just occurred to you no prophet. Plus I and others have raised this on porn threads on the ship more times than I care to remember.
It is my primary objection to photographic and filmed porn - someone has to do that and they are unlikely to be involved because they had loads of other better choices.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
North East Quine wrote:
quote:
Is it really that easy to "stumble on"?
Not easy, but not impossible, particularly these days. 10+ years ago then yes, you could stumble upon stuff, because a lot of the salacious sites used deceptive tactics to try and hook people in, and you'd have the nightmare of endless spawning pop-ups etc. if you inadvertently clicked on the wrong thing.
Since then, though, a number of things have happened:
- search engines tend to default to a "safe" search
- browsers have integrated pop-up protection, as does most common AV/security software
- the porn sites themselves wised up to the fact that their behaviour was just pissing people off, and that's bad for business. I loosely know someone who was (probably still is) involved in such things, and in many ways it's a remarkably strong self-policing community in that regard. They have to balance peddling the flesh with not pissing off too many people too much and thus getting unwanted attention
So in the current climate I'd venture to suggest that in the general case you will only "stumble across" porn if:
a) you have a very, very loose definition of what counts as porn
b) you actively take steps to facilitate it
c) you click on an obfuscated link sent by a friend without realising what it is you're about to see (and for youngster this is probably most likely)
I do know a few adults who've genuinely come unstuck when Googling "watersports" etc. but that was pre "Safe Search".
Otherwise, in 15+ years of dealing with this stuff professionally and privately for friends I can count on the fingers of one hand the genuine "stumblings". The vast majority of incidents were quite deliberate.
The one mitigation is that it's quite easy to go looking for some mild titillation and rapidly find yourself presented with significantly more extreme material than you ever intended to see. That's not exactly stumbling upon it though, more blundering into it naively.
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
Thanks, snags. My teens were very sceptical about the petition, which read
quote:
“We are deeply concerned about the impact of
online pornography on our children. Studies show that the single largest group of
internet pornography consumers are children ages 12-17; 81% of 14-16 year olds
regularly access explicit photographs and footage on their home computers; and
one in three 10 year olds have stumbled upon pornography online. In order to
preserve the innocence of our children and to protect them from material that could
cause physical, mental or moral harm we are calling on the Government to make it
compulsory for Internet Service Providers to block pornography at source so that
pornography can only be accessed by an adult exercising an active choice.”
We have a fairly elderly congregation and lots of shocked old ladies signing the petition, but my internet-savvy 18 year old felt that whoever had produced the petition had an agenda, and that pornography is already accessed only by active choice. From what you say, I gather you would agree with my son?
Does anyoner know which study produced the one-in-three 10 year olds figure?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's quite possible -- and I imagine millions of people do it every day -- to see someone good looking and think, "va va voom" and let the mind drift, but not be at all interested in actually transferring that into action, even if they could get away with it.
Also, everyone who has had a relationship in which they decided to wait - whether that's until marriage, or a second date, or whatever - knows that it is possible to feel sexual attraction, even intense attraction, even combined with falling in love, and still choose not to have sex.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Serious question - is it possible for men to wank and get the physical pleasure of orgasm without the visuals (imagined or real)?
It's possible for most men to have an orgasm without it even waking them up. Orgasms aren't that special. They are (or can be) a purely physical response, with no necessary link to any visual or fantasised imagery.
But, if I can trust my own experience, fantasising is pretty much the whole point of self-stimulation. I could masturbate without using my imagination, but I wouldn't bother - I'd get more purely physical pleasure from a nice mug of hot chocolate. Not masturbating (and I don't) is easy compared to not having sexual fantasies (which I do). It seems to me that the important thing is to sort out what kinds of sexual thoughts one considers to be immoral or shameful or unhelpful, and why, and avoid those. For me, that excludes just about everything that would normally be described as pornography.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Yes, I have realized now that the phrase 'Studies show that ...' in relation to porn, and indeed, many other things, should be treated with extreme caution.
Certainly, if presented with such a preamble, one should demand that the studies are linked to, that they are serious professional studies, not anecdotal, not unsupported assertions, and not something cobbled together in the Daily Mail, all of which, unfortunately continue to dog the discussion of porn.
On the other hand, I think there is a place for anecdote and gossip. Why not? But probably we should not think of basing actual legislation on it.
Posted by barrea (# 3211) on
:
You may think me extreme but I think that all porn sites,should be banned, also a ban on filthy langauge on TV. I get fed up of turning quite interesting prigrammes off because of the bad words used especially after the wAtershed. Bring back censorship.YES
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
[ quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
It occurred to me that I've never "stumbled on" porn either. (Inappropriate images, yes, porn, no) Is it really that easy to "stumble on"? [/QB]
My son, then six years old (almost) has. He was searching for online sports games, and on one of the (many) websites that hosts such things, found a number of games in the "Meet and Fuck" series which appeared (from the thumb-nail sketches) to involve cartoon depictions of sexual activity. I suppose you could call that ‘porn' (I'm not sure I would, at least, not unqualified, as it seems to me that drawing racy pictures isn't really equivalent to getting real people to perform sex acts for the gratification of others).
This was not a genre of game I had previously been aware of, and I was quite surprised to see these openly available on a website with entirely non-adult games. Most games sites don't appear to have anything like that.
I wasn't particularly disturbed by it. My boy, being six, had no interest whatever in games in which not a single piece of sports equipment seemed to be in use, and made no objection when I closed the offending site and logged on to one I knew better. But even if he had seen and paid attention to a cartoon willy, I doubt he would have been traumatised.
I've seen the petition you refer to (not at my church, though) and declined to sign it on freedom grounds. It would be, in practice, a restriction on what people can view online to have an ‘opt-in' standard for viewing porn. For example, there are three adults in my house, only two of us related to one another. I don't particularly want my wife to look at porn, but if she chooses to, I don't see why she should be obliged to advertise the fact to me* by enabling our home internet connection. And, of course, it is absolutely none of my business what the other adult resident chooses to view on her computer.
(*and any of our friends who ever use our computer and wonder whether we have opted in, which some of them probably would)
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
prigrammes
Love the neologism.
"Prigramme" : noun, a media broadcast which satisfies barrea's censorship test of appropriate content.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
You may think me extreme but I think that all porn sites,should be banned, also a ban on filthy langauge on TV. I get fed up of turning quite interesting prigrammes off because of the bad words used especially after the wAtershed. Bring back censorship.YES
I don't think that's particularly extreme. I would resist it, as I have a great fear and horror of being told by someone else as to what I am permitted to read, watch, say, and so on. Of course, context is all, so there is an argument for restrictions in certain areas.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
North East Quine, let's just say I'd want to see some references and detail before signing up
Thinking back to my childhood, most of my (male) peers had seen the odd "girlie mag" by the time we were in low double figures (i.e. about the time you start to get interested in the idea). And that was in a world where unless you could nick your dad or big brother's copy you had to resort to finding them lying discarded in the bushes. So it wouldn't surprise me to learn that a lot of young-ish boys go looking at filth on t'Internet, as it's a lot easier to satisfy your prurient curiosity.
I would still take the "stumble upon" bit skeptically, though, overall. And in many (not all, c.f. Eliab) cases where it does happen, would suspect that the stumbling would be through other avoidable causes/side effects rather than porn being out there waiting to mug the unsuspecting.
All of that said ... I do fundamentally believe that porn/the porn industry (at least in so far as visual/live action stuff) is an essentially unhealthy thing. I also believe it will always be with us, for obvious reasons :/
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Thanks, snags. My teens were very sceptical about the petition, which read
quote:
“We are deeply concerned about the impact of
online pornography on our children. Studies show that the single largest group of
internet pornography consumers are children ages 12-17; 81% of 14-16 year olds
regularly access explicit photographs and footage on their home computers; and
one in three 10 year olds have stumbled upon pornography online. In order to
preserve the innocence of our children and to protect them from material that could
cause physical, mental or moral harm we are calling on the Government to make it
compulsory for Internet Service Providers to block pornography at source so that
pornography can only be accessed by an adult exercising an active choice.”
We have a fairly elderly congregation and lots of shocked old ladies signing the petition, but my internet-savvy 18 year old felt that whoever had produced the petition had an agenda, and that pornography is already accessed only by active choice. From what you say, I gather you would agree with my son?
Does anyoner know which study produced the one-in-three 10 year olds figure?
I stumble on porn on the google images site all the time. I once typed the keyword, "dogs," and got graphic pictures of women having sex with dogs. I was shocked, but then I'm an old lady and not a savvy 18 year old. As for having an agenda, of course they do, seldom is a petition started without an agenda behind it. However if you follow the money, it would cetainly seem like there would be more of a financial agenda invested in showing porn than in not showing it.
I would sign that petition. I'm much more concerned with the freedom of little kids to safely surf the net than the freedom of some man to watch porn without his wife's knowledge.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
Twilight, do you have "Safe Search" set to "Off", "Moderate" or "Strict"?
Even with it "off" here, "dogs" produces, well, dogs. "Dogs f***ing" (without the stars) produces some decidedly tasteless results on "Off", fairly tasteless on "Moderate" and utterly pure on "Strict".
It's not that it can't happen, it's just that it's not that hard to set things so as to minimise/all but eradicate it.
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I stumble on porn on the google images site all the time. I once typed the keyword, "dogs," and got graphic pictures of women having sex with dogs.
Just tried that. (on my work PC no less) There was nothing pornagraphic in the results. The most "adult" images were a couple of cheerleaders posing with a pet dog and a poster for the movie "Resevoir Dogs". This was with safesearch set to Moderate.
It sounds like you've got safesearch off. Under the search box, to the right you should see a box for "safesearch" choose "moderate" or "strict" and you shouldn't have this problem in future.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm much more concerned with the freedom of little kids to safely surf the net than the freedom of some man to watch porn without his wife's knowledge.
It's not about "little kids". Little kids, primary school age and below, don't care about porn. They won't do more than have a bit of a giggle at pictures of people in the nude, nor do I think that any but the most extreme stuff is going to do them much harm. They're more likely to be upset by a mainstream news prigramme, frankly.
It's adolescents that are the primary target of this censorship. That's the audience that are most likely to have their viewing desires frustrated by the restriction. There is, of course, an argument that this is a group that is forming its ideas of what sexual relations are about, and whose attitudes might be affected most by porn, and to a certain extent I share that. I'm going to be much more concerned with what my kids might find online when they are in their teens than I am now. But it is a complete misrepresentation of the issues to say this is about little kids' "freedom". It is about controlling what adults and (especially) adolescents can view.
(Also - why did you reverse the genders of the parties from my example? Is it because what I was actually talking about, namely that a porn-disapproving man like me should not be able to regulate what the women in his household choose to view, wouldn't have had quite the same rhetorical effect?)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
Just tried that. (on my work PC no less) There was nothing pornagraphic in the results. The most "adult" images were a couple of cheerleaders posing with a pet dog and a poster for the movie "Resevoir Dogs". This was with safesearch set to Moderate. .
Yep. I just did that too. Hundreds of pictures of dogs. There was a David Bowie album cover over a hundred pictures in, and a couple of Reservoir Dogs film posters. After over three hundred pictures one of a quite attractive young woman, fully clothed, standing next to a dog. And that's with the search set to "moderate", not "strict".
With safe search "off" I get pretty much the same pictures with the addition of a couple of others.. A dog with a bottle of beer on the first page. A dog biting a man on the second. A very large great Dane sitting on a fully clothed woman's lap on a sofa - I suppose you could get some sort of sexual fantasy out of that if you were that way inclined. A couple of pictures of dogs with erect penises - which you can see any day in a public park if you want to. The most human flesh on display (other than the Bowie album cover) was one picture of two young women wearing bikinis or maybe some sort of underwear sitting on a sofa with a dog in between them. Nothing pornographic at all. You could see more human anatomy watching the Olympics on TV.
Out of more than a thousand pictures, almost all of, well, dogs. Mostly quite cute and fluffy ones, but some more ordinary looking ones. I suppose it might be quite arousing for someone who fancied dogs. But not for the average teenager.
I think you'd have to try a lot harder thatn that to be shocked.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I can't believe this has only just occurred to you no prophet. Plus I and others have raised this on porn threads on the ship more times than I care to remember.
It is my primary objection to photographic and filmed porn - someone has to do that and they are unlikely to be involved because they had loads of other better choices.
It hadn't been raised on this thread, and I was not really attending to it. So your incredulity is appropriate. Of course it has occurred to me, but the CBC radio piece with actual interviews with women really hammered it into my consciousness last evening. There's knowing and then there's really paying attention. My failure is with the latter and I take the criticism as completely justified.
Posted by Bob Two-Owls (# 9680) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
Just tried that. (on my work PC no less) There was nothing pornagraphic in the results...
Doesn't Google tailor the results towards your own previous searches and your location? Google in the US will throw up very different sites to Google in the UK and if you have clicked on a few "adult" sites by accident in the past then they may me added into what is considered acceptable without the safesearch filter. We had problems with a PC in the office that had been brought in by a former member of staff and abandoned. Deleting all the internet history and cookies stopped it throwing up porn during searches once we figured out what was wrong.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bob Two-Owls:
We had problems with a PC in the office that had been brought in by a former member of staff and abandoned. Deleting all the internet history and cookies stopped it throwing up porn during searches once we figured out what was wrong.
That's why sensible people use different browsers for work, rest, and play. And why they default to having cookies turned off and only turn them on for sites they know, trust, and intend to re-use. And why they use web browsers with "private browsing" turned on. And why they regularly delete their entire browsing history and cache. And why they use different usernames and passwords for different online activities (including "anonymous" if they are ever so foolish as to try to post on 4chan). And why pop-ups are turned off, firewalls are turned on, spam is never replied to, and if they are looking at anything they suspect of being dodgy they turn off scripting as well. And why they never use PayPal at all, and never are reluctant to use a credit card onine (really only for paying people they have heard of and have a street address for and never for porn or anything even a little dodgy) and why they never sign up or register for any porn site even if it claims to be free, and why they never look at anything dodgy with an iphone or similar. And why they regularly and frequently go over their computers with anti-virus and anti-adware and anti-trojan programs. And so on and on and on....
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Late Paul:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I stumble on porn on the google images site all the time. I once typed the keyword, "dogs," and got graphic pictures of women having sex with dogs.
Just tried that. (on my work PC no less) There was nothing pornagraphic in the results. The most "adult" images were a couple of cheerleaders posing with a pet dog and a poster for the movie "Resevoir Dogs". This was with safesearch set to Moderate.
It sounds like you've got safesearch off. Under the search box, to the right you should see a box for "safesearch" choose "moderate" or "strict" and you shouldn't have this problem in future.
I just tried that too. Pages of really cute dogs (awwwww). Safesearch OFF, and I was logged in to my google account, from which I regularly search for actual porn, so you would think that if there was any tailoring of results, then it would push the porn further up. But nope, couldn't replicate your result there, sorry.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Twilight, do you have "Safe Search" set to "Off", "Moderate" or "Strict"?
Even with it "off" here, "dogs" produces, well, dogs. "Dogs f***ing" (without the stars) produces some decidedly tasteless results on "Off", fairly tasteless on "Moderate" and utterly pure on "Strict".
It's not that it can't happen, it's just that it's not that hard to set things so as to minimise/all but eradicate it.
I nearly always have mine set to "strict." The other day I googled images of some actress or something to see if I recognized her (and if she was cute, I'll be honest) and got nothing but nudie shots. I checked to be sure, and I was in fact on strict. As an experiment I put it onto "off" and the results were indistinguishable.
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm not saying we should be crippled and overcome by guilt all the time, but for a christian to believe they should have no sense of guilt or shame, and therefore be able to do as they please would be... er... very unwise. [/QUOTE]
Guilt and shame are not the only driving forces. There's reason, empathy, knowledge of cause and effect, pride in doing what you believe is right, humanity. We don't desend to doing anything we please because of a lack of guilt and shame. At least I don't.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I'm not saying we should be crippled and overcome by guilt all the time, but for a christian to believe they should have no sense of guilt or shame, and therefore be able to do as they please would be... er... very unwise.
Guilt and shame are not the only driving forces. There's reason, empathy, knowledge of cause and effect, pride in doing what you believe is right, humanity. We don't desend to doing anything we please because of a lack of guilt and shame. At least I don't. [/QUOTE]
Good point. It seems that some Christians see shame and guilt as the actual forces which hold us back from a kind of moral anarchy. If I didn't feel guilty and ashamed, I would do what I want.
I suppose in relation to porn, therefore, this view would argue that not feeling shame and guilt over porn is itself, well, wrong.
This makes me feel dizzy, as it is such a negative view of humans.
I suppose it is loosely classed as 'repressive religion', or fear-based religion? Thank goodness that it is diminishing.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
A further point which I forgot to make is that it may well be shame and guilt which make people behave badly. In other words, if you feel unloved, worthless, devalued, and so on, you are more likely to not care about others, and treat them badly.
I think Freud says somewhere that criminals are not guilty because they are criminal, but criminal because they feel guilty.
Rather a controversial point, but it is a useful corrective to arguing that shame and guilt are actually in part foundations of morality.
There is also an issue about the 'internal goods' involved in being virtuous, but hang on, this is going wildly off-topic, although oddly, I feel no shame or guilt.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
It's OK mousethief, we know Josephine might read this thread too.
In contrast, I normally run Google with safe search set to off, and rarely see anything untoward unless I use a phrase which is deliberately suspect. No system is 100% perfect, but I can count on the fingers one one foot the times I've had filth back from a search engine when it hasn't been self-evidently likely from the search term/settings.
So, anyway, this actress, was she cute?
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on
:
Sorry for the tangent but I just wanted to add that from early 2001 to very recently I had always asumed that mousethief was a woman.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Twilight, do you have "Safe Search" set to "Off", "Moderate" or "Strict"?
Even with it "off" here, "dogs" produces, well, dogs. "Dogs f***ing" (without the stars) produces some decidedly tasteless results on "Off", fairly tasteless on "Moderate" and utterly pure on "Strict".
It's not that it can't happen, it's just that it's not that hard to set things so as to minimise/all but eradicate it.
I nearly always have mine set to "strict." The other day I googled images of some actress or something to see if I recognized her (and if she was cute, I'll be honest) and got nothing but nudie shots. I checked to be sure, and I was in fact on strict. As an experiment I put it onto "off" and the results were indistinguishable.
That happens to me a lot because I watch old 40's movies and then Google on the actresses to see whatever happened to them. It seems every Lana Turner or Ava Garner has a porn star named after them.
I never dreamed my dog story would result in so many people working so hard to prove me a liar. I did say, "I once Googled on dogs," etc. It was years ago,so don't expect the same result today.
As for Ken's complicated plan to keep my internet safe. That sort of thing only works if you are the only person using the computer. Whether you're talking about eleven year old kids, teens, or somebody's wife, not everyone has total control of their computer. Everything you learn to set your teenager can learn to unset.
I would sign that petition without a bit of worry over people telling me what to read or write. Porn isn't allowed on my TV and I haven't felt like I've lost any essential freedoms over it. Our freedom of speech was designed to ensure that we could say what we wanted to about religion and politics, it was never meant to force us to read/see things we don't want. People who simply must have porn can still get it, just not on such a shared medium.
One thing I really dispute is that ten year-old kids stumbling on hard core porn are just going to "giggle and move on." I think they find it disturbing and that it stays with them.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
One thing I really dispute is that ten year-old kids stumbling on hard core porn are just going to "giggle and move on." I think they find it disturbing and that it stays with them.
Really?
I remember the porn that did the rounds of my school when I was 11-13. Some of it (people having sex with animals) was pretty gross, and got passed around for shock value, curiosity, and the excitement of possessing contraband. "Giggle and move on" is exactly what the normal reaction to it was. I was unusual in not wanting to look at it at all, but I didn't know anyone who was disturbed by it.
Do I want my children to see such material? No, of course I don't. It is clearly not appropriate for children and as a parent I should not expose them to it. That does not mean that I should run around as if the sky were falling, and the only thing to keep it up were to control what everyone in the whole country is allowed to look at unless they specifically select their ISP's Masturbation Package.
I think we as adults owerestimate how significant sex is from a child's perspective. As an example, I remember, at about age 10-11 (pre secondary school anyway) reading John Norman's Gor books. I didn't think, even then, that they were especially well written, but some of the images - the Tarn cavalry, the city states with their home stones, the deadly tribes of the wagon people, the sinister priest-kings - stayed with me. I was aware that in the society described, many women were slaves, and most slaves were women, but that made very little impression, and didn't seem very important.
I re-read one of the books for ideas for a D&D campaign some years later, and realised that it was essentially bondage porn. The whole female submission thing is what the author most wants to say. But I missed that, as a pre-adolescent, not because it wasn't there, or I couldn't understand, but because I didn't care. The (obnoxious) sexual dynamics were just padding between the (to me) interesting "strange new world" bits and fight scenes. It would be impossible for an adult to read books like that without a reaction to the sexual elements - but that is a child's natural reading.
Young children are naturally insulated against pornography. I'm not saying that they should be allowed free access to it, or that they cannot be damaged by abusive exposure, but I also don't think the risk of great harm resulting from accidentally viewing some tasteless images on the internet is one that's worth losing much sleep over. Turn on your parental controls, keep the PC in the living room, and you can supervise perfectly well without telling anyone else what they are allowed to look at.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
Twilight,I wasn't trying to prove you a liar, more demonstrate that in the here and now you can do a lot without special good to avoid accidental exposure (as it were). Legislating now, based on how things used to be, is not wise.
As for youngsters, the best control isn't a systems one, which will never be totally effective. It's to have the family computer in a 'public' space, and to make it clear that they can talk about anything disturbing and won't be in trouble.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Twilight wrote:
Our freedom of speech was designed to ensure that we could say what we wanted to about religion and politics, it was never meant to force us to read/see things we don't want. People who simply must have porn can still get it, just not on such a shared medium.
I'm not sure where you get the idea of being forced to read something? It conjures up bizarre images of people actually chained to a book or a screen.
Anyway, in relation to the UK, I would dispute your definition of free speech. One of the key landmarks in the recent history of free speech was the Lady Chatterley trial, which permitted the sale of that famous novel by Lawrence.
Of course, there were those who said that Lady Chatterley was filth, porn, and so on, because it described sex explicitly, and used four-letter words, but thankfully this was refuted.
I have no doubt that some people were genuinely shocked and horrified by this novel, and I would think that some still are, but should this mean therefore that it should be banned? I would say no.
Of course, as kids, we all knew where the sexy bits were in the novel, and those pages were well-thumbed - I seem to remember that page 217 was a corker - but I don't think that constitutes an argument against its publication.
Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on
:
quote:
Last month our church had copies of a petition against online pornography, which church members were encouraged to sign.
I hope they remove the rude bits from Song of Solomon while they're at it ! My Calvanistic church parents caused problems by removing me from sex education because of nude images. When I reached puberty I spent a few weeks worrying what the hell was going on. But for some mates with porn mags I wouldn't have known anything about sex. The Samaritans were I believe set up after a girl committed suicide when her periods started, and didn't know what was happening to her.
How well would the church deal with sex education ? Some denominations are stuck in the old gnostic heresy sex=bad celebacy=spiritual and obsessed with nudity and sexual sin. I think at New Frontiers porn was the 'sin' most often mentioned. Good to control the flock with accountability to a spiritual 'father'. Total crap theologically of course. The only verse they have from Matthew is IMO wrongly translated and isn't about general sexual attraction and lust at all. Its about the process of taking another's spouse, just as anger may lead to murder (and adultery in Jesus' day was defined in a polygamous society totally different to the way we now define it, which is often forgotten by most modern Christians)!
IMO some parts of the church have done much more harm to people's sexuality than porn due to being overly prudish and mistakenly thinking they had any justification in scripture for doing so. Generations of Christians have had false guilt inflicted on them for masturbation, lust, and their sexuality. I find that Roman and Greek artwork from the 1st century is every bit as pornographic as most images on the internet and yet it was a non issue for the early church. Not one single petition or rant from St Paul about it.
I sometimes wonder if these churches would prefer it if we all got our genitals chopped off. Then we'd be super spiritual wouldn't we
Posted by Late Paul (# 37) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I never dreamed my dog story would result in so many people working so hard to prove me a liar.
I for one didn't do it to prove you a liar I did it because I was genuinely surprised because I never stumble over porn unless I go looking for it. I also did it because I thought it was possible you didn't know about safesearch or had it turned off, and before explaining that I wanted to just check that it really would make a difference. (Too many years in Tech Support, I always check something before telling someone "do this")
quote:
I did say, "I once Googled on dogs," etc. It was years ago,so don't expect the same result today.
So if you don't expect that result today is it still relevant to a discussion taking place today? In context your remarks seem to be trying to add weight to the idea that we need to remove pornography from the internet so that children can't accidentally stumble across it.
Things like safesearch are the result of companies working hard to provide tools to prevent this kind of accidental exposure. I would suggest that next time an innocent search brings up porn you contact Google and let them know. I'm sure they'll be happy to fix it. (This explains how)
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I never dreamed my dog story would result in so many people working so hard to prove me a liar.
I wasn't trying to prove you a liar either. I guess I was perhaps trying to prove that your point was irrelevant?
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
quote:
Last month our church had copies of a petition against online pornography, which church members were encouraged to sign.
I hope they remove the rude bits from Song of Solomon while they're at it ! My Calvanistic church parents caused problems by removing me from sex education because of nude images...
How well would the church deal with sex education ?
No problems with sex ed! In fact a few years ago, on the Sunday closest to World Aids Day, the theme of the sermon was parental responsibility to provide good sex ed. The children present (over 8s) were told that if there was anything they wanted to know about sex, they should ask their parents over that day's Sunday lunch. And our teen youth group have done a full and frank Bible Study on Song of Solomon in Bible Study.
So the context of my congregation being urged to sign this petition is not sexual prudery. I think it's more a case of people not being very internet-savvy and just accepting the petition at face value - that 10 years routinely "stumble on" porn.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
quote:
Last month our church had copies of a petition against online pornography, which church members were encouraged to sign.
I hope they remove the rude bits from Song of Solomon while they're at it ! ...
The OT has a number of passages which, if filmed, would most definitely be very violent porn. How about Judges 19? ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
And our teen youth group have done a full and frank Bible Study on Song of Solomon in Bible Study.
Teaching them to take 100s of concubines, like Solomon did?
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
A few years ago, I googled "forest watch bc" and got quite a few webcam sites. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I just tried it today and the top result was the correct company listing in a directory. OTOH, a friend recently sent me a NSFW link, and when I clicked it, the first page that came up was a warning that it was explicit content and a "Do you still wish to navigate to the website?" option.
Anyway, I do have another question. Even if we all agreed on what porn was, and if we succeeded in banning it, what about this? Or this? But wait, there's more.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Serious question - is it possible for men to wank and get the physical pleasure of orgasm without the visuals (imagined or real)?
Yes it is . But I would say it does require an general *feeling* of intimacy that doesn't have to have any real focus.
I think visuals are something of a short-cut . A bit like alcohol at a party in order to ensure a good time.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Serious question - is it possible for men to wank and get the physical pleasure of orgasm without the visuals (imagined or real)?
Yes it is . But I would say it does require an general *feeling* of intimacy that doesn't have to have any real focus.
I think visuals are something of a short-cut. A bit like alcohol at a party in order to ensure a good time.
So use of porn is maybe a bit ... lazy?
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
Follow-up to my post above: the gentlemen's underwear site I linked to subsequently appeared in a paid ad on two other non-underwear sites I visited.
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Follow-up to my post above: the gentlemen's underwear site I linked to subsequently appeared in a paid ad on two other non-underwear sites I visited.
Yes, ads do that nowadays. If you visit for example, m&s or argos etc., their ads will show up on other sites that you visit afterwards, for several days. It will also remember what sorts of products you were browsing for too, and bring those up more frequently.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I think visuals are something of a short-cut. A bit like alcohol at a party in order to ensure a good time.
So use of porn is maybe a bit ... lazy?
One way of describing it I suppose . Indulgence/enhancement would be another.
I know having the IT awash with porn is something of a worry , and the effect of it on minors is as yet unknown .
However I suspect any moves to ban it would be about as successful as banning alcohol was in 1920's America .
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Yes, but does The Song of Solomon cause this problem?
Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on
:
aww, bless - I blame them E numbers
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I can't believe this has only just occurred to you no prophet. Plus I and others have raised this on porn threads on the ship more times than I care to remember.
It is my primary objection to photographic and filmed porn - someone has to do that and they are unlikely to be involved because they had loads of other better choices.
I imagine this point has not been discussed in this thread because everyone agrees that it is wrong to produce porn through exploitation, and therefore wrong to use such porn.
However, I don't think this means that porn is ipso facto wrong. To show that you have to prove, e.g.:
- making porn is by its nature exploitative (ie, by people who would have preferred not to do it)
- any tolerance of non-exploitative porn necessarily results in the production of exploitative porn.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So use of porn is maybe a bit ... lazy?
Well yes, if you have a partner whom you ought at least to be trying to satisfy between the sheets.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
adultery in Jesus' day was defined in a polygamous society totally different to the way we now define it
How polygamous was society (especially Jewish society) in Jesus' day?
quote:
I sometimes wonder if these churches would prefer it if we all got our genitals chopped off.
They might try to justify it on the basis of Galatians 5:12.
Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on
:
Teaching them to take 100s of concubines, like Solomon did?
Yes and not only that but he is one of the only people to get TWO personal visits from the Lord, and offered the choice of what gift he would like ! Most churches would have excommunicated him !
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Kaplan Corday, this is an interesting, apparently-well-footnoted site regarding polygamy in Second Temple Judaism. It says that polygamy existed, particularly among the Jewish aristocracy and in cases of levirite marriage, and was "countenanced" by the school of Shammai, but condemned by Hillel and Qumran.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Well yes, if you have a partner whom you ought at least to be trying to satisfy between the sheets.
The very reason I don't do porn.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Josephus says that Herod had several wives and concubines, as well as a catamite, in terms which suggest that this was normal and expected at the time.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Kaplan Corday, this is an interesting, apparently-well-footnoted site regarding polygamy in Second Temple Judaism. It says that polygamy existed, particularly among the Jewish aristocracy and in cases of levirite marriage, and was "countenanced" by the school of Shammai, but condemned by Hillel and Qumran.
I was aware of polygamy among the Herods, but assumed that they were sui generis party animals, whom nearly all Jews regarded as heterodox Edomites.
It was interesting to read of residual polygamy amongst some Jewish groups, of which I was unaware.
Having said that, I would still maintain that Arminan's reference to the "polygamous society" of Jesus' day is exaggerated and misleading.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
I read an essay by an Orthodox rabbi (I think it was in the early '80s) in which he said that polygamy (and concubinage) was still permissible under Jewish law (though he made it clear he wasn't advocating it).
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
A friend of mine used to be a porn actress. She was born in Germany, had a pretty crappy childhood, moved to the US in her late teens to be an au pair, ended up working as a porn actress and later, as a prostitute (being involved in both these activities is not uncommon). Decided she wanted out in her early twenties, became a Christian and is now back in Europe working with an organisation that helps young women who want to leave the sex industry.
My friend is obviously only one person but in some ways I think she is probably quite a good example - not coerced as such, but certainly vulnerable. I think being able to associate the effects of the industry with an actual person I know has definitely changed the way I think about pornography.
The thing that she describes as one of the most destructive aspects of the porn industry is one that no one has mentioned so far. Obviously anecdotal, but she says one of the biggest problems for people she has known involved in the industry is that it screws up your ability to form healthy relationships. Because however liberated we may claim to be in our attitudes towards sex and pornography, the truth is very, very few people can handle being in a long term relationship with someone who has sex with other people for money.
Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on
:
I believe the Romans tried to ban polygamy in the 4th century, but gave an exception for Jews. This suggests that at least some Jews were still polygamous. It may not have been that widespread but it certainly hadn't died out. Jesus said nothing to condemn them at all, nor did Paul (which incidentally was Martin Luther's view).
We also have Paul's advice that the leader of a church must be a 'one woman man', which although somewhat ambiguous in Greek, suggests a non polygamous man. By implication some of the early Christians may have been polygamists.
Of course a great deal of the Bible was penned by polygamous Jews. It was not considered sin in the old testament, and in the case of a widow who had a brother in law, he was required to marry her even if he already had a wife. If he refused, he was to be shamed in front of the elders !
I just get pissed of by Conservative Evo's who simply ignore the bits of the bible on sex that don't fit easily into their belief system. 'Don't lust, sex only in monogamous marriage or God hates you, and be anti gay' is pretty much the standard attitude portrayed by so much of the charismatic church. The Bible isn't so clear cut.
How about threesomes in the Old Testament ? Two or more women and one man - they can all jump into bed together and no sin offering is required as long as they are all married. No prohibition on lesbianism in the OT either. Bet that doesn't get mentioned much in many church services.
I do believe one man one woman for life is God's ideal, but its interesting that when God had the chance to legislate for this in the law, he didn't, probably because he knew many people wouldn't live up to it.
Its even been suggested that Jesus' parable of the seven virgins was of a rich king coming for multiple brides. I have no idea if this was so, although it does make a 'type' for a single king and many members of the church !
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Yes, but does The Song of Solomon cause this problem?
Interesting testimonal from the guy who suffered erectile dysfunction from p0rn use, but then kicked the habit, and is now impressed with how "HUGE" and "ENOROMUS" and "ROCK HARD"(all-caps in the original) his erections get.
Which may very well be true. But it's quite a switch from the previous generation of feminist-influenced p0rn criticism, which, while perhaps not outright demonizing male sexuality, certainly did not go out of its way to celebrate the virtues of HUGE ENORMOUS ROCK HARD penises.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Because however liberated we may claim to be in our attitudes towards sex and pornography, the truth is very, very few people can handle being in a long term relationship with someone who has sex with other people for money.
Highlighting that perfectly ridiculous male ideology of peeking at porn, playing around with loose women and then, as if by magic, finding a virgin pure to marry.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Within my objections, I also include some concerns about the men and women who are photographed/filmed for porn. I haven't studied this much, but I'm not convinced that this is 100% voluntary.
It certainly was for me...
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
As an example, I remember, at about age 10-11 (pre secondary school anyway) reading John Norman's Gor books. I didn't think, even then, that they were especially well written
Have you seen Houseplants of Gor, by the way? "You dare not water me!" cried the spider plant. "You will be watered," said Borin...
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Have you seen Houseplants of Gor, by the way? "You dare not water me!" cried the spider plant. "You will be watered," said Borin...
Oh yes. Very funny, and captures Norman's style uncannily well.
To clarify, it is not the bondage/domination elements per se that I find obnoxious in the Gor books, but the protagonist's explicit belief that all women are natural slaves and can be expected to accept and enjoy treatment which is non-consensual and abusive.
However, I am aware that the books are a fantasy, not a political manifesto. I think that it would be possible to enjoy the sexual/fantasy element (if such is your kink)without endorsing the protagonist's views in real life, and it is certainly possible to so enjoy the sci-fi/fantasy elements in that way, because as a child, I did. And that has had (as far as I can tell) absolutely no effect on my attitude to women or to sexual relationships*.
Which is to say, I wouldn't want my son to read the Gor books until he knows enough about girls to be aware that some of them are not, in fact, crying out to be enslaved by a dominant man; even though I am quite certain that I read them myself at such an age without any harmful effects whatever. I think I'd have exactly the same attitude to visual porn - I'd discourage it, but I'm not scared of it.
(*I will, though, confess that having read The Stainless Steel Rat books (such of them as were then written) around the same time, Angelina diGriz will always be my ideal woman.)
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Oh, I remember Tarl Cabot being given statistics for D&D in an issue of Dragon Magazine years ago, along with other characters from novels and the like.
Never read Stainless Steel Rat (I think Harry Harrison passed recently, sad to tell you). Though this is arguably getting further away from the topic of porn...
Posted by ecumaniac (# 376) on
:
I find Gorean folk a lot like Christians....
Many of the Goreans that I've met on the interwebz are obnoxious turds, but in general, the ones I've met in real life are lovely, decent and honourable people. It's like the weirdness found in the books have been ironed out by the daily reality of trying to live up to the ideals and virtues of their Gorean philosophy.
Oh yeah, and a lot of them were utterly sexist, but very polite about it.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Never read Stainless Steel Rat
Do. Great fun. And about 50,000 times better written than any of John Norman's trash.
And yes, Harry Harrison died a few weeks ago. Nice bloke.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Oh, I've managed to avoid reading John Norman (though the parodies are fun) thus far. And yes, I even know some Goreans who find the majority of other Goreans annoying at best as well. They tend to be like, well, the obsessed live-like-a-Klingon Star Trek fans of the BDSM world.
I managed to get through a sizable amount of a truly ghastly Gor movie once (which also managed to leave out all of the master-slavey stuff, thus rendering the entire enterprise completely pointless; also, home stones are magical artifacts! Yikes). I could not convince my Gorean friend/family member to watch it at all...
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Oh, and OH MY GOD the crossover between a certain type of Gorean lifestyler and a certain type of Christian that I have encountered--again, online, not in person--is... awkward. There's a sort of sub-sub-subculture which takes elements of the "husband/father headship of the household" notion and combines them with, well, Gor. Not that there need be anything wrong with that in and of itself (hmmm, what would Paul's Epistle to the Goreans be like, exactly? Since everyone, male and female, would be a (has to go look up the word) kajirus or kajira to God, but also the men would all have to deal with the idea that they have to see Christ as the Bridegroom...), but it seems to usually drift into the "Woot! I'm the man, so I get to do whatever I want, and God approves!" mindset.
Er, Gor in this sense has nothing at all to do with this toy I had as a child, by the way.
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on
:
Oh, we should probably get back to the topic of porn, shouldn't we? ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Oh, I remember Tarl Cabot being given statistics for D&D in an issue of Dragon Magazine years ago, along with other characters from novels and the like.
I didn't know that (I was a White Dwarf and Imagine reader, rather than Dragon) but it doesn't surprise me. The books were sold, and, in many cases, read as mainstream fantasy/sci-fi, not erotica.
It strikes me that there must have been thousands of nerdy kids 20+ years ago whose first experience of erotic fiction was reading John Norman. I can think of at least three of us in my close friendship group. I don't think it had any affect at all on our attitudes to sex. In my case, I didn't even realise that it was erotic fiction at the time.
I'm sure it is possible to create abusive and sexist attitudes in a child's mind by conditioning them to view abusive and sexist material as if it were normal, but that takes more than occassional exposure to inappropriate material. I'm really not much more worried about my children stumbling upon internet porn than I am about them, say, asking me what the condom machine in the Gents is for. It might, at worst, make me address some issue or have some conversation somewhat earlier than I'd have chosen, but it's well within the limits of parental competence to deal with.
We live in a media rich world, and we are a highly sexualised species. It is unrealistic to think that children will not see sexual images frequently, and pornography occasionally, whatever we do to try to control that. Giving them good positive education seems to me much more important that worrying about censorship.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0