No more porn

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

Radical_Initiator
Just Cool Enough for School
Posts: 1374
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 10:39 pm UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby Radical_Initiator » Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:20 pm UTC

induction wrote:Not sure how much any of this matters. Just clarifying.


IMO, very little. I don't know the specifics of the relationship, but if he's a controlling and sadistic type, it is not hard to imagine he threatened her into performing in the film (possibly at gunpoint, when others weren't looking). And I don't think it particularly matters whether the result of that coercion is sex with Traynor or sex with someone else on film because Traynor demands it - it's still rape. So yes, "gun to my head the entire time" may be somewhat metaphorical or hyperbolic, but "When you see the movie Deep Throat, you are watching me being raped", I am entirely inclined to take at face value.
I looked out across the river today …

induction
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:00 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby induction » Wed Aug 08, 2012 5:56 pm UTC

I thought it worth mentioning, just because otherwise one could get the impression that the other actors and the director were all willfully raping her, which appears not to be the case. I'm loath to label these people as rapists.

Also, the line of reasoning about royalties appears not to be useful.

But I agree, this information is not game-changing by any means.

MarkSmash
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:16 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby MarkSmash » Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:47 pm UTC

Tinman42 wrote:I haven't been on the forums for a while, but something is happening at my college right now that I thought would be a good discussion topic. Not to mention, I may be arguing in front of our student council and would like to see what people here have to say in order to strengthen my argument.

If there is already a similar thread, please let me know.

Every year, my school movie theater (run by students) hosts an "end of the year porno". [Opponents]claim that it has negative effects on the school and community.

Some other possibly relevant facts about the school and neighborhood
-This is the biggest event in the school theater all year
-we have had 2 sexual assault reports in our city in the last couple months
-Starting this summer we are implementing a tobacco free campus policy

I think it is ridiculous to get rid of the event. I have done some research on the effects of pornography and it seems foolish to say that it has negative effects in this kind of environment.

please let me know what you think, I'd like to be ready in case I get/have to argue this.
Thanks


Going back to the OP, is there anything wrong with the student movie theatre showing an end-of-year porno?

User avatar
Leia
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:56 pm UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby Leia » Wed Oct 31, 2012 1:50 pm UTC

The proliferation of Porn into the multimillion dollar industry it is today is a feature of capitalism, true porn existed before capitalism but; think about the type of people that consume this crap. Lonely men that have no way of relating to real people, isolated and frustrated by their under-developed social skills they seek base level satisfaction that is degrading to women but also to them.

When human conscious is rises above materialism it will drop porn like an unwanted garment. This will happen when individuals feel empowered to make decisions for themselves. Check out Ram Dass on the subject, he's far out people.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby sigsfried » Fri Nov 02, 2012 2:03 pm UTC

Lonely men that have no way of relating to real people, isolated and frustrated by their under-developed social skills they seek base level satisfaction that is degrading to women but also to them.


I doubt it. Also there does seem to be a double standard here because that attitude is certainly common. Is the difference between porn and erotica so great that the above is true but nobody describes those who read fifty shades as Lonely women that have no way of relating to real people, isolated and frustrated by their under-developed social skills they seek base level satisfaction ...

Bsob
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:44 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby Bsob » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:41 pm UTC

Leia wrote:The proliferation of Porn into the multimillion dollar industry it is today is a feature of capitalism, true porn existed before capitalism but; think about the type of people that consume this crap. Lonely men that have no way of relating to real people, isolated and frustrated by their under-developed social skills they seek base level satisfaction that is degrading to women but also to them.

When human conscious is rises above materialism it will drop porn like an unwanted garment. This will happen when individuals feel empowered to make decisions for themselves. Check out Ram Dass on the subject, he's far out people.


We'll drop porn when

A: we get sex robots.
Or
B: everyone in the human race in chemically castrated.

P.S. women watch porn too.

DSenette
Posts: 2418
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:08 pm UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby DSenette » Fri Nov 02, 2012 8:47 pm UTC

Bsob wrote:
Leia wrote:The proliferation of Porn into the multimillion dollar industry it is today is a feature of capitalism, true porn existed before capitalism but; think about the type of people that consume this crap. Lonely men that have no way of relating to real people, isolated and frustrated by their under-developed social skills they seek base level satisfaction that is degrading to women but also to them.

When human conscious is rises above materialism it will drop porn like an unwanted garment. This will happen when individuals feel empowered to make decisions for themselves. Check out Ram Dass on the subject, he's far out people.


We'll drop porn when

A: we get sex robots.
Or
B: everyone in the human race in chemically castrated.

P.S. women watch porn too.

some of them even watch porn with their S.O.s which completely negates the whole "isolated" and lonely.
The Righteous Hand Of Retribution
"The evaporation of 4 million who believe this crap would leave the world an instantly better place." ~Andre Codresu (re: "the Rapture")

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: No more porn

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:04 pm UTC

Leia wrote:The proliferation of Porn into the multimillion dollar industry it is today is a feature of capitalism, true porn existed before capitalism but; think about the type of people that consume this crap. Lonely men that have no way of relating to real people, isolated and frustrated by their under-developed social skills they seek base level satisfaction that is degrading to women but also to them.

When human conscious is rises above materialism it will drop porn like an unwanted garment. This will happen when individuals feel empowered to make decisions for themselves. Check out Ram Dass on the subject, he's far out people.
We had pornography in the Victorian age. It's actually a pretty cool subject.

Really, the proliferation of pornography into a multimillion dollar industry probably has a lot more to owe to women's liberation and sex-positivism movements than anything. However you feel about pornography, it's clear that it flourishes during periods of repression and open-ness; the only difference is the latter allows it to do its business through legitimate channels.
Bsob wrote:P.S. women watch porn too.
Yeah, and I think there are really only one of two legitimate ways to deal with pornography on a moral scale: You either oppose it because it demeans people or you accept it because people want it.

'Pornography demeans women' always troubled me, because it's really just part of the issue--if you think pornography is demeaning, then it demeans everyone involved. Gay pornography is demeaning to gays; straight pornography is demeaning to straights. Pornography involving women demeans women, and pornography involving men demeans men. If you say things like 'pornography demeans women', that implies that pornography would be suddenly okay if women weren't in it. And is that what people who say 'pornography demeans women' actually believe?

I can understand someone thinking pornography is demeaning in its entirety--I certainly can sympathize with people wanting no part in it (either to participate or consume). But I also suspect that the reason we think pornography is such a big deal is really only because we assume it's a big deal. It's demeaning because we've decided it's demeaning. But there are people in the porn industry who say they don't find it demeaning, and I'm comfortable believing them.

In some ways I can't help but think of the pornography industry as a response to a society incapable of being mature about sex. I suspect (though I cannot prove!) that if we were less neurotic about sex, we wouldn't think of pornography as demeaning--but I also suspect that we wouldn't need pornography in the first place.

Part of me sees pornography as a glitch that emerges from a culture trying to forge a sexual identity without being responsible and open about sex.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: No more porn

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Nov 02, 2012 9:58 pm UTC

Leia wrote:The proliferation of Porn into the multimillion dollar industry it is today is a feature of capitalism, true porn existed before capitalism but; think about the type of people that consume this crap. Lonely men that have no way of relating to real people, isolated and frustrated by their under-developed social skills they seek base level satisfaction that is degrading to women but also to them.

When human conscious is rises above materialism it will drop porn like an unwanted garment. This will happen when individuals feel empowered to make decisions for themselves. Check out Ram Dass on the subject, he's far out people.

AHAHAHAHAHA AHa ha. ahaha.. heh.. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Oh man...

No.

Your statement, as I read it, amounts to 'When people rise above wanting things, they'll stop experiencing sexual desire' which is... Man, sorry, I'm starting to laugh at you again...
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10015
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: No more porn

Postby addams » Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:33 am UTC

Is it right and good for the University to show a public and wildly popular porn film as an end of school year event.

(Shrug.) I was taken to films that embarassed me.
We know that the humans respond to erotic visual stimuli.

Sex is a sort of personal thing. A film that is just ' good dirty fun' to one group may be jst 'boring' to the rest.

Rocky Horror is an example.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby Shivahn » Sat Nov 03, 2012 12:41 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I suspect (though I cannot prove!) that if we were less neurotic about sex, we wouldn't think of pornography as demeaning--but I also suspect that we wouldn't need pornography in the first place.

Part of me sees pornography as a glitch that emerges from a culture trying to forge a sexual identity without being responsible and open about sex.


It probably would have a slightly lower demand, but, as someone in a long distance relationship, I am pretty sure it demand wouldn't drop to zero :P

I mean unless everyone were poly? But even then.

Plus besides the erotic aspect (though I suspect my need for this WOULD die out if we were less weird about sex), there are other reasons than arousal to watch porn. I love seeing people enjoying themselves, and being totally into it.

But part of that is a direct response to how that isn't how sex is viewed in our society. If it were healthy, I would probably not feel so awesome when I see it being healthy.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10015
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: No more porn

Postby addams » Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:08 am UTC

Healthy? Yep. People having fun is healthy.
Watching people have fun is fun, too.
Well; It's danm near inspirational.

What you and fifty of your closest friends do is great.

The Irish poet wrote, "Don't do unto others as you would have them do to you;You may not share the same tastes."

Uniersity students are on a wonderful hormonal rocket ride. Intelegent, adventursome,clumbsy, beautiful, and ready to take on the world; Not all, but many.

Full on BDSM may frighten some. Enless mindless in and out will bore others.

Half homosexual? Half poly? The other half straight with whips?

Porn is here to stay. How many individual are you attempting to please?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Shivahn
Posts: 2200
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:17 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby Shivahn » Sat Nov 03, 2012 3:05 am UTC

addams wrote:Half homosexual? Half poly? The other half straight with whips?


I'm not half poly: I have been over this already!

I am like 10% poly. Maybe 15%.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10015
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: No more porn

Postby addams » Sat Nov 03, 2012 9:06 am UTC

Shivahn wrote:
addams wrote:Half homosexual? Half poly? The other half straight with whips?


I'm not half poly: I have been over this already!

I am like 10% poly. Maybe 15%.


Lucky you. So many posibilities, so little time.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 07, 2012 9:18 am UTC

Leia wrote:The proliferation of Porn into the multimillion dollar industry it is today is a feature of capitalism, true porn existed before capitalism but; think about the type of people that consume this crap. Lonely men that have no way of relating to real people, isolated and frustrated by their under-developed social skills they seek base level satisfaction that is degrading to women but also to them.

When human conscious is rises above materialism it will drop porn like an unwanted garment. This will happen when individuals feel empowered to make decisions for themselves. Check out Ram Dass on the subject, he's far out people.


Really? Because I find the attitude of this post to be far more representative of the kind of socially inept person who would resort to silly solutions in order to avoid confronting said deficiency. Also, not all porn features women, so try to hold off on passing judgement on the medium as a whole.

I feel really sad for the person who is so helplessly self-deluded so as to think that any male partner does not consume porn. Even married males in fulfilling relationships still consume it, because for the most part it is not meant to be a substitute or compete with actual sexual relations.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby sigsfried » Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:24 am UTC


I feel really sad for the person who is so helplessly self-deluded so as to think that any male partner does not consume porn. Even married males in fulfilling relationships still consume it, because for the most part it is not meant to be a substitute or compete with actual sexual relations.


I objected to Leia's comment but I think this is just as objectionable. The idea that all men consume porn is simply not true. I should know.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: No more porn

Postby Azrael » Wed Nov 07, 2012 1:25 pm UTC

sigsfried wrote:I objected to Leia's comment but I think this is just as objectionable.

He may have been overly broad, but being lumped into a generalization that "people do this normal people thing" is objectionable? As objectionable as being insulted and stigmatized for doing that thing that normal people do?

I guess that makes sense if you hold the attitude that consuming porn is bad or wrong.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26547
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:47 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Your statement, as I read it, amounts to 'When people rise above wanting things, they'll stop experiencing sexual desire' which is... Man, sorry, I'm starting to laugh at you again...
Well, I mean, it is technically true at least, right? Not terribly useful, of course, since it'll never happen, but at least not exactly false either. In that way, it is better than the "only socially inept people incapable of real relationships watch porn" trope.

sigsfried wrote:The idea that all men consume porn is simply not true. I should know.
Perhaps, but most men certainly do consume it, at least occasionally. So it remains a bit self-delusional to just assume that *your* partner isn't "like that", unless you base it on something much more reliable than, "Of course I don't look at porn, Honey."
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: No more porn

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Nov 07, 2012 2:55 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Well, I mean, it is technically true at least, right? Not terribly useful, of course, since it'll never happen, but at least not exactly false either. In that way, it is better than the "only socially inept people incapable of real relationships watch porn" trope.

Yeah, I mean, it's technically true like the statement 'If I didn't need to drink water, water wouldn't be so refreshing when I was thirsty' is true. I.e., it's a fairly irrelevant stance. You know what else would 'elevate us above our desire to watch porn'? If humans didn't reproduce sexually. Boom, problem solved.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: No more porn

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:08 pm UTC

Shivahn wrote:It probably would have a slightly lower demand, but, as someone in a long distance relationship, I am pretty sure it demand wouldn't drop to zero :P

I mean unless everyone were poly? But even then.

Plus besides the erotic aspect (though I suspect my need for this WOULD die out if we were less weird about sex), there are other reasons than arousal to watch porn. I love seeing people enjoying themselves, and being totally into it.

But part of that is a direct response to how that isn't how sex is viewed in our society. If it were healthy, I would probably not feel so awesome when I see it being healthy.
That, and (I should have clarified) pornography is pornography because it's perceived as demeaning; we call 'non-demeaning pornography' romance, or eroticism, or 'erotic romance', or some other term that sounds less like an old-timey Victorian contraption ("JULES! HEAR HEAR! COME JOIN ME ON MY DIRIGIBLE AND WATCH THE LATEST SNUB OF PORNOGRAPHY ON MY STERNOGROGRAPH!") . I think that in a society that treats sex as a healthy, fun activity that consenting adults do together--nothing particularly special about it--we'd see a fundamental shift in what pornography is.

But there'd definitely still be pictures of naked people doing fun things with other naked people on the internet.

Bsob
Posts: 119
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:44 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby Bsob » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:14 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
Shivahn wrote:It probably would have a slightly lower demand, but, as someone in a long distance relationship, I am pretty sure it demand wouldn't drop to zero :P

I mean unless everyone were poly? But even then.

Plus besides the erotic aspect (though I suspect my need for this WOULD die out if we were less weird about sex), there are other reasons than arousal to watch porn. I love seeing people enjoying themselves, and being totally into it.

But part of that is a direct response to how that isn't how sex is viewed in our society. If it were healthy, I would probably not feel so awesome when I see it being healthy.
That, and (I should have clarified) pornography is pornography because it's perceived as demeaning; we call 'non-demeaning pornography' romance, or eroticism, or 'erotic romance', or some other term that sounds less like an old-timey Victorian contraption ("JULES! HEAR HEAR! COME JOIN ME ON MY DIRIGIBLE AND WATCH THE LATEST SNUB OF PORNOGRAPHY ON MY STERNOGROGRAPH!") . I think that in a society that treats sex as a healthy, fun activity that consenting adults do together--nothing particularly special about it--we'd see a fundamental shift in what pornography is.

But there'd definitely still be pictures of naked people doing fun things with other naked people on the internet.


I'm not sure your definition holds. I don't think there is anything about pornography that is inherently demeaning, nor have i ever seen a definition before that requires something to be demeaning in order to be pornography. We certainly have many euphemisms for porn, but I don't think that stops porn from being porn.

I heard a comedian give a good definition of porn, which is any media that stops being interesting after an orgasm.

I think the statement "being health is better than not being healthy" holds, but i don't think there is anything unhealthy about porn (in general).

induction
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:00 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby induction » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:29 pm UTC

Bsob wrote:I'm not sure your definition holds. I don't think there is anything about pornography that is inherently demeaning, nor have i ever seen a definition before that requires something to be demeaning in order to be pornography.

The Online Etymology Dictionary wrote:pornography (n.) 1857, "description of prostitutes," from Fr. pornographie, from Gk. pornographos "(one) writing of prostitutes," from porne "prostitute," originally "bought, purchased" (with an original notion, probably of "female slave sold for prostitution"), related to pernanai "to sell," from PIE root *per- "to traffic in, to sell" (cf. L. pretium "price," Lith. perku "I buy") + graphein "to write" (see -graphy). Originally used of classical art and writing; application to modern examples began 1880s. Main modern meaning "salacious writing or pictures" represents a slight shift from the etymology, though classical depictions of prostitution usually had this quality.


Admittedly, the modern definition does not emphasize prostitution or sex slavery (which count as demeaning to a lot of people), and is closer to the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter, but the etymology of the word itself does imply that it is something fairly demeaning. I also admit that this post is fairly pedantic and has little bearing on the larger issue. So sue me.

I agree that the consumption of pornography is not inherently demeaning or unhealthy.

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby sigsfried » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:35 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
sigsfried wrote:I objected to Leia's comment but I think this is just as objectionable.

He may have been overly broad, but being lumped into a generalization that "people do this normal people thing" is objectionable? As objectionable as being insulted and stigmatized for doing that thing that normal people do?

I guess that makes sense if you hold the attitude that consuming porn is bad or wrong.


Which I don't, but why only men. Most people consume porn, and there seems to be at least some evidence that the response to porn in women is as great if not greater than in men.

The problem I have with the attitude that "all men consume porn" is in part that any statement that starts "all X" I don't like, and partly that I think it plays into an attitude that mens' sexuality is something men have no control over, so will all lie to partners to avoid admitting it, and of course that attitude is the start of the road down to entitlement to sex and rape culture.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26547
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:44 pm UTC

Who said "all men" other than you?

Bsob wrote:I'm not sure your definition holds. I don't think there is anything about pornography that is inherently demeaning, nor have i ever seen a definition before that requires something to be demeaning in order to be pornography. We certainly have many euphemisms for porn, but I don't think that stops porn from being porn.
The definitions put forth by pretty much any anti-porn advocate tend to describe it as inherently demeaning. And I think most people think of porn as inherently obscene, which is often legally defined to include the fact that obscene material has no redeeming artistic merit. Stuff that does have such redeeming qualities, according to most anti-porn folks, simply doesn't count as "true" pornography.

Which of course leads to rather a lot of circularity when they go on to argue that pornography is demeaning, but there you go.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby sigsfried » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:47 pm UTC

Who said "all men" other than you?
Leia: Lucrece
Lucrece wrote:I feel really sad for the person who is so helplessly self-deluded so as to think that any male partner does not consume porn.


Well I do accept a distinction between male and man but I think man is a subset of male.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: No more porn

Postby sam_i_am » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:49 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Who said "all men" other than you?


Lucrece did.

Lucrece wrote:I feel really sad for the person who is so helplessly self-deluded so as to think that any male partner does not consume porn. Even married males in fulfilling relationships still consume it, because for the most part it is not meant to be a substitute or compete with actual sexual relations.


now of course, "all men" wasn't the exact words used, but what Lucrece said, and "all men consume porn" are logically equivalent.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26547
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:50 pm UTC

There are ways to parse that sentence other than "all men consume porn".
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: No more porn

Postby sam_i_am » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:52 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Who said "all men" other than you?

Bsob wrote:I'm not sure your definition holds. I don't think there is anything about pornography that is inherently demeaning, nor have i ever seen a definition before that requires something to be demeaning in order to be pornography. We certainly have many euphemisms for porn, but I don't think that stops porn from being porn.
The definitions put forth by pretty much any anti-porn advocate tend to describe it as inherently demeaning. And I think most people think of porn as inherently obscene, which is often legally defined to include the fact that obscene material has no redeeming artistic merit. Stuff that does have such redeeming qualities, according to most anti-porn folks, simply doesn't count as "true" pornography.

Which of course leads to rather a lot of circularity when they go on to argue that pornography is demeaning, but there you go.



Why does porn need any additional "redeeming qualities" to be considered art? If people enjoy looking at it. for whatever reason. That's "Art" enough for me.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: No more porn

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Nov 07, 2012 4:53 pm UTC

Bsob wrote:I'm not sure your definition holds. I don't think there is anything about pornography that is inherently demeaning, nor have i ever seen a definition before that requires something to be demeaning in order to be pornography.
I don't find pornography inherently demeaning either, but I think that it is perceived as demeaning--and I think if people didn't perceive pornography as demeaning, it would be something else. I think part of its definition relies on the mistaken assumption that it is inherently demeaning, which is part of why I think that once we stop treating sex as demeaning, we'll stop deriding things as 'pornographic'.

I am definitely not opposed to pornography. I am mostly just opposed to the idea of someone describing any sexual activity between two or more consenting adults as 'demeaning'--particularly if the adults in question don't describe it as demeaning themselves.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby leady » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:19 pm UTC

not all is, and arguably none of it is at the point of production. However I think that clearly some is deliberately intended to be in the eyes of the beholder.

Chen
Posts: 5489
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: No more porn

Postby Chen » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:49 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:There are ways to parse that sentence other than "all men consume porn".


Well it very strong implies any men in relationships consume porn. I guess it doesn't make any statements about men who are not in relationships though, so you're correct in that aspect.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26547
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:53 pm UTC

No, it implies that enough men in relationships (and as you say, says nothing about single guys) consume porn for it to be silly to assume otherwise.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: No more porn

Postby sam_i_am » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:53 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:There are ways to parse that sentence other than "all men consume porn".


Then by all means, parse that sentence in a way that does not imply that all men consume porn.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26547
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: No more porn

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:55 pm UTC

Read both of the posts above yours.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: No more porn

Postby Azrael » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:18 pm UTC

sigsfried wrote:Which I don't, but why only men. Most people consume porn, and there seems to be at least some evidence that the response to porn in women is as great if not greater than in men.

The problem I have with the attitude that "all men consume porn" is in part that any statement that starts "all X" I don't like...

Ok, fine. But that's really not what he said. Nor is a participant's response level relevant to the discussion. Consumption is the issue, because the assertion was that any given male is likely a consumer of porn.

Most statistics I find suggested that porn consumption is roughly 30% women. So men are more than twice as likely to be consumers than women. Combine that with about an 86% male use rate in the last year (69% use rate with some regularity) and his initial assertion is not that unreasonable: Any given male is very likely a consumer of porn. Any given female is not.

Furthermore, he was referenced 'only men' because of the situation he raised -- the (allegedly) common female mistake assuming that her male partner doesn't consume porn. Despite support from the preceding statistical analysis, you can still call this a trope. But there is no reverse counterpart, no frequently made opposite error. There is no (allegedly) commonly occurring (erroneous) assumption made by men about their female partners porn habits.

What his wording somewhat impolitic? Yeah. But again, you're taking equal offense to a maybe slightly overly-broad and impolite, but mostly statistically sound, generalization as you did to someone who said that 86% of men are [fill in the blank shitty stereotype].


http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/01/27/a ... phy-right/
http://www.familysafemedia.com/pornogra ... stics.html

sigsfried
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 10:28 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby sigsfried » Wed Nov 07, 2012 7:46 pm UTC

I still think it reads more like at the least the overwhelming majority (in the 95% plus range), rather than around 70%. Yes men are more likely to consume porn than not, but to say anyone who thinks there male partner doesn't consume porn is hopelessly deluded is unreasonable.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10015
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: No more porn

Postby addams » Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:14 am UTC

This was a thread about a very public event.

What you and your fifty best friends do is up to you. But; Who picks the one film of the year.

Crap. I think I am with the school.

It is, just, too hard to choose a film. Consenting adults is an important standard.(-
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
hawkinsssable
Promoted
Posts: 216
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 7:46 am UTC

Re: No more porn

Postby hawkinsssable » Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:24 am UTC

I am mostly just opposed to the idea of someone describing any sexual activity between two or more consenting adults as 'demeaning'--particularly if the adults in question don't describe it as demeaning themselves.


I just want to throw out a much-too-long quote from this great article from a usually mediocre writer that seems pretty relevant to Great Hippo's 'degrading porn' vs 'nondegrading nonporn' distinction and other comments on watching people enjoy sex being a decent past-time. The quote is a discussion of 2 different studies of pornography, one which found the majority of best-selling porn films are sex-positive, and the other that they were violent and degrading:

Cordelia Fine wrote:In striking contrast, when Ana Bridges and colleagues conducted an analysis of the content of 50 popular pornographic movies (according to sales and rental lists) in a similar period in the US, they found that nearly 90% of scenes contained physical aggression. Spanking and gagging with visible obstruction of breathing were the most popular, both featuring in approximately one-third of scenes. One in seven scenes featured open-hand slapping; one in ten hair-pulling; and, in about one scene in 15, in that sexual manoeuvre known as ‘choking’ that forms such an essential part of the erotic repertoire, one character would place “his or her hands around another character’s throat with applied pressure”. Almost half of the scenes showed verbal aggression in the form of name-calling, using words such as ‘bitch’ or ‘slut’. As these labels hint, women were the recipients of almost all (94%) acts of aggression.

The first key to understanding how one study detects 45 times more violence than the other is to know that, in the porn subgenre of ‘gonzo’ (the most lucrative for the industry), the expression of sexual pleasure is highly eccentric. The men’s enthusiasm, even while being stimulated from an advanced yoga position, rarely seems to extend beyond the groin region – which just seems like plain bad manners. By contrast, while many of the sexual acts might be pleasurable for the women, their valiant performances when this seems less than plausible – the young woman who, quickly recovering from being gagged by a penis, barely skips a beat before recommencing her orgasmic moans – are nothing short of heroic.

The second key lies in what is described in The Porn Report as a “common sense” definition of violence. On the grounds that there’s something a bit awry with a definition that classes a mutually enjoyable bout of spanking as ‘violent’, only actions responded to with displeasure were classed as such. On this definition, almost all (95%) of the acts defined as ‘violent’ by Bridges would have been defined as ‘non-violent’ by McKee, because the recipient expressed no displeasure at being, say, gagged by a penis, choked, slapped or called a whore.

While McKee presents his decision to take women’s unreciprocated ecstasy at face value as making “explicit the issue of consent in relation to violence”, Bridges and colleagues describe it as “a rendering of aggressive acts as invisible”. At the very least, it seems strange not to even report acts that would normally be considered aggressive. Suppose a trend ripped through the world for ‘comedy’ videos in which black actors were hired to laugh delightedly while white actors called them ‘nigger’ and slapped them. We’d probably be surprised if a researcher, gathering facts to address public concerns about the possible effects of this genre on racial attitudes and relationships, coded those acts non-violent on the grounds that a good time was being had by all.

...

Tyler points out that, bizarrely, the pornographers are among the more open to admitting that mainstream porn has become increasingly violent and degrading. Tyler quotes an editor of Adult Video News (the main American trade publication for the industry), who quite freely describes the changes since the mid 1990s as raising the bar for “nasty”. Tyler’s analysis of the publication’s movie reviews in 2005 (reserved for films thought likely to sell well) found that this kind of material was often described in approving terms. One review, for example, included descriptions of double penetration, double anal and a finale in which “Nicki spoons cum from Julie’s ass to her mouth” before cheerfully concluding: “Now, that’s pornography!”


Speaking from experience, truly sex-positive pornography is very, very hard to find. It's out there, but I don't think it's too generalised a generalisation to say that "pornography is demeaning to women!" if you define demeaning in terms of things like "privileging male pleasure over female" or even "portraying degradation and women's sexual displeasure as conducive to males' sexual pleasure." So sure - pornography might not be intrinsically demeaning, but I think it's fair enough to talk about 'pornography' without adding the caveat of "except for that 1% that dignifies both male and female sexual pleasure and is performed by actors who are actually happy about participating in the production."

I also think it's completely fair for the school to ban pornography without adding the caveat of "except that 1% that (etc.)"
Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7213
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: No more porn

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:27 pm UTC

hawkinsssable wrote:Speaking from experience, truly sex-positive pornography is very, very hard to find. It's out there, but I don't think it's too generalised a generalisation to say that "pornography is demeaning to women!" if you define demeaning in terms of things like "privileging male pleasure over female" or even "portraying degradation and women's sexual displeasure as conducive to males' sexual pleasure." So sure - pornography might not be intrinsically demeaning, but I think it's fair enough to talk about 'pornography' without adding the caveat of "except for that 1% that dignifies both male and female sexual pleasure and is performed by actors who are actually happy about participating in the production."

I also think it's completely fair for the school to ban pornography without adding the caveat of "except that 1% that (etc.)"
My problem is more with the language than anything.

I think what you are saying--and what the above passage describes--are very important bits of information. I think it is very useful to say things like 'We have noticed that the vast majority of pornography privileges male pleasure over female', or 'the vast majority of pornography portrays degradation and women's sexual displeasure as conducive to male sexual pleasure'. Those are things that are illustrative of deep problems with sex and society, and the fact that this is the majority of pornography that we consume troubles me, because it strongly suggests we are not a very sexually healthy culture.

But that being said, to describe pornography as demeaning to women carries an implication I don't like--that all women find valuing male sexual pleasure over female sexual pleasure demeaning--that all women find sexual degradation and sexual displeasure demeaning. I realize that seems like a trifling point, but one thing I have learned is that the world is full of strange kink--and so long as that kink is performed between consenting adults, no end is ever served by telling any of them that they've demeaned themselves (unless that happens to be their kink!).

This is the notion I want to get out: If people enjoy themselves during sex, that means it was sex-positive. If everyone involved wants sex, and everyone involved gets what they want, it is impossible to describe this as anything beyond a 'sex-positive experience'. You can't do it. Because when you describe it as anything else, you are telling people how they should feel about their sex. And that's a power I don't want; that's a power I don't think anyone should want.

I can completely understand finding pornography to be demeaning to yourself. I can certainly understand finding its implications to be deeply troubling (I know I do). But one thing I can't do: I can't say it's demeaning to women. Because that implies I know what women find demeaning--and I genuinely don't.

I'm much more comfortable with 'demeaning to everyone' (which implies society), or perhaps 'demeaning to the sexual identity of women', or 'demeaning to the sexual pleasure of women', because those are more specific, and carry less troubling implications (to me). I'm even very comfortable with 'pornography portrays women as objects to demean and/or degrade'.

I'm just not comfortable telling women they've been demeaned.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10015
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: No more porn

Postby addams » Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:47 pm UTC

O.K. Fine.

What film will be played?

(Sometimes I wonder, "When the fuck am I?")

The base common people have the privlages of Gods most seem to lack depth of understanding.

How about good manners? Control yourself in Public. I know its hard. (Tee Hee. Pun.)

Sex is fun. Not all fun is the same.

You like BSDEMT? Fine. I'll have the pasta.

Danm it! All sex is kinky. Some is kinkier.

Consenting Adults must be the rule. There are plenty to go around.

People get paid for that. What a sweet life.

I have seen some stuff. I saw a show in Omsterdom. It was sweet. O. K. There toward the end...Umm. I was getting embarassed. I am an Adult. Still.

So, funny.

My sweet friends were with me. I held one in my arms and buried myself in his hair.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests