No more porn

[Ben-oni]

It should be noted that other "Process addictions" also include shopping, video games and sex.

it's pretty much an alternative term for "psychologically addictive" which is basically a synonym for "enjoyable". You do something, you enjoy it so you do it more.

Read the linked material before dismissing next time.

These addictions correspond to physical and chemical changes in the brain. Believe as you will, but the degree of addiction can be measured empirically. The relevant studies are cited.

And yes, obesity is a serious problem for people who can't control their eating compulsions: they are literally addicted to food. That's why studying these things is interesting; while we need food and sex for survival (as individuals or as a species), what happens when the natural urges become obsessions?

To try an analogy, is watching a porno more akin to pigging out on cake, or more like taking an opiate? Perhaps it depends on who you are, but the evidence suggests it's a lot like soaking your brain in some seriously powerful drugs. While one enjoys a movie with it's fast pace, witty dialogue, and mind-blowing explosions, the "enjoyment" of porn is vastly different. In the latter case, it's the release of hormones and chemical transmitters that accounts for the experience. Take that away and all you have is a lame story with shallow characters. If there was even a story to begin with. If not for the drugs, why would anyone put up with that?

[HungryHobo]

These addictions correspond to physical and chemical changes in the brain. Believe as you will, but the degree of addiction can be measured empirically. The relevant studies are cited.

everything you do corresponds to physical and chemical changes in the brain.

You're falling victim to neuro-realism.

http://www.badscience.net/2010/10/neuro-realism/

All mental states have physical correlates, if you believe that the physical activity of the brain is what underlies our sensations, beliefs and experiences

You're just applying disapproving snobbishness to porn. pleanty of forms of entertainment use hormones, emotions and chemical transmitters.
take those away and a rollercoaster is just a bumpy, poorly laid out train to nowhere.
take those away and skydiving is just a dangerous way to get out of a plane.

Every significant experience is the equivilent of soaking your brain in some seriously powerful drugs whether it's riding a kayak down a rapid or our first love.
That's what neurotransmitter are. seriously powerful drugs.

Porno is exceptionally mild in comparison to many of those.

Such things can become obsessions but that's true of quite litterally every single enjoyable thing in life.
If you can think of something enjoyable which is not also a potential process addiction then I'd love to hear it.

the terminology you try to apply to it is nothing more than a clumsy attempt to recast things you want to justify disapproving of in the same light as heroin or eating yourself to death.

is watching a porno more akin to pigging out on cake, or more like taking an opiate....or playing a video game or eating a nice meal or reading a fun story or getting a round of applause or spending the night with a lover or hitting a target or beating your opponent

Everything can become obsession but we don't try to cast sports as harmful or in the same light as heroin just because the occasional rock climber dies in persuit of a dopamine rush or an athletes heart gives out because he's pushing himself too hard in an attempt to get that lovely rush of neurotransmitters associated with standing on the winners podium while people cheer.

[morriswalters]

Of course rock climbing doesn't interact with a hormonal system that can already make men and women act nuts. You know, astronauts driving to Florida in diapers. Or men beating women to death and vice versa. Just saying.

[HungryHobo]

Of course rock climbing doesn't interact with a hormonal system that can already make men and women act nuts. You know, astronauts driving to Florida in diapers. Or men beating women to death and vice versa. Just saying.

no: just make otherwise sane people risk their lives by free climbing up rock faces for no good reason.

risking your life like that for nothing but the rush is a hell of a lot more insane than wearing a diaper.
Rationally it makes no sense whatsoever, and I say that as someone who likes rock climbing.
It's also a hell of a lot more potent experience than watching a porno.

of course it interacts with the hormonal system. What do you think adrenaline is? what do you think dopamine is?

Since when has porn caused a significant number of people to beat each other to death? Or are we not lumping in romance and sex with porn?

[morriswalters]

Read what I said, not what you think I said. Our culture, this fora, in point of fact any time there is more than one person present, is obsessed with sex. It is the way we are built. Fashion is built on it, barbers make a living off of it, we are talking about it right now. Porn is designed to appeal to that. In the process of doing so it does bad things, not always and not in the ways that you might suppose. For instance I believe Azreal stated that porn can't be correlated with rape. That is only partially true. In point of fact child porn of various types depict real rape if you consider children coerced into having sex. Of course maybe you are talking about good porn.

[Azrael]

For instance I believe Azreal stated that porn can't be correlated with rape. That is only partially true. In point of fact child porn of various types depict real rape if you consider children coerced into having sex. Of course maybe you are talking about good porn.

If you're not going to read the thread, I'd kindly ask you not to post.

No one is talking about child porn. And the discussion was what correlation could be drawn between consumption of pornography and incidents of sexual assault.

Nor is it relevant that our cultural norms are heavily sexualized when discussing psychological abnormalities. The noise level is unimportant, they're talking about significant deviations from the mean.

http://www.surgicalneurologyint.com/article.asp?issn=2152-7806;year=2011;volume=2;issue=1;spage=19;epage=19;aulast=Hilton
A quick google search for "neurological effects of pornography" yielded the preceding result. While written in a scholarly manner, with a bit of gentle chastisement toward those who attempt to thwart science with AAAHHHH THUMPY WOOBLE HARRRRRPINK!! thrown in, it's a very accessible summary of recent studies, and well referenced. I recommend reading it, regardless of how you choose to argue.

A few highlights.

• Process addictions, such as food, gambling, and pornography, have all the effects of chemical dependency: impulsivity, compulsivity, emotional instability, and impaired judgment. The evidence isn't correlative, but causative and measurable: multiple areas of volume loss in the brain, particularly in the frontal lobes, areas associated with judgment and control.
• http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=415
  The DSM-V draft includes Hypersexual Disorder as a psychological condition, which covers pornography addiction.
• http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/009262302760328235#preview
  Pornography consumption has a highly negative impact upon pair-bonding. This is well-documented.

Armed now with some objective evidence, it seems as though hosting a school-sponsored event, even if for a charitable cause, in which pornography is shown as the primary activity is beyond irresponsible. Actively encouraging young people to engage in the consumption of sexually explicit materials, given this information, would be described as malicious and reprehensible.

With this in mind, to argue for showing porn on campus, you must argue that the school has no accountability for the future development of their students, which considering the size of the alumni office of most universities, is one the school will undoubtedly disagree with.

Yes, a person can become addicted to pornography. But so too can they become addicted to food. What you haven't done is demonstrate that, like heroin or nicotine, pornography is inherently addictive, or that the addiction rates are high enough to warrant prohibitive action.

To illustrate: By your rationale, dining halls are also "...beyond irresponsible." And "actively encouraging young people to engage in the consumption [of food], given this information, would be described as malicious and reprehensible." Never mind the aforementioned "Casino Night" style fundraisers. Or any social function in which alcohol is involved; albeit you won't find many wine and cheese meet and greets where drinking is acknowledged as the primary activity.

(Also, you've mis-attributed the negative impact upon pair-bonding. Take a look at your first link, and you'll notice that it's addiction to pornography that's the cause, not just consumption.)

You're doing the same thing Tinman was: Selectively reading the data to fit your predetermined stance.

[Роберт]

Tinman is making me think that the college event shouldn't allow porn.

Ben-oni is making me think that they should.

[Azrael]

Tinman is making me think that the college event shouldn't allow porn.

Ben-oni is making me think that they should.

And here I was, trying not to comment on the irony of this sentiment being expressed by someone in the midst of flawed appeal:

Few things are worse than having a point you agree with argued badly.

[morriswalters]

My apologies. I didn't realize that this was about pure T&A with mild additives of various pleasant substructures.

This I believe was the OP statement of purpose.

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.

The film in question was Deep Throat I believe. He never stated what was acceptable, if anything is of this nature, when conducted on school property, which seems to be the case. Are you stating that I missed some limits that had been placed on the discussion? Or perhaps I am just obtuse. If the statement is inferred to be that watching pornography is okay as long as it is T&A and not demonstrably harmful porn, than I apologize again. However pornography overall consists of but is not limited to,

Scat
Bestiality
Group sex
Gang bangs
Sado Masochism
Rape films
up skirt films
Snuff films

And the list goes on and on. So I defy him to be able to support his original statement as I quoted it. Now per your request I withdraw.

[Tinman42]

Azreal, Thank you, it makes it more clear that way.

What about mentioning the studies shown in one article I posted.

Spoiler:

In their survey of 688 young Danish adults (men = 316; women = 372), Hald and Malamuth found that respondents construed the viewing of hardcore pornography as beneficial to their sex lives, their attitudes towards sex, their perceptions and attitudes towards members of the opposite sex, toward life in general, and over all. The obtained beneficial effects were statistically significant for all but one measure across both sexes. Now here is the kicker: A positive correlation was obtained between the amount of hardcore pornography that was viewed and the impact of the benefits reaped. This positive correlation was found for both sexes. In other words, the more that one watched porn, the stronger the benefits (for both sexes)! There you have it

This shows a positive correlation between porn and attitudes towards the opposite sex. I think that is probably relevant.

Tinman is making me think that the college event shouldn't allow porn.

Ben-oni is making me think that they should.

I'm glad you took enough time to enter the forum and make fun of people with no other input. The point of me arguing on the forum was to strengthen my argument, not convince people on the forum of anything. If I push an argument to its limits on the forum I'll have a better idea of how far I can push it during the actual meeting. Maybe you missed that in my first posting. I'm not saying that I don't think you should comment, but to come in and essentially just to say "you two are stupid" seems uncalled for.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

In their survey of 688 young Danish adults (men = 316; women = 372), Hald and Malamuth found that respondents construed the viewing of hardcore pornography as beneficial to their sex lives, their attitudes towards sex, their perceptions and attitudes towards members of the opposite sex, toward life in general, and over all.

People also construe prayer in this way. But it's another matter to show that porn actually has these benefits.

[Роберт]

Tinman is making me think that the college event shouldn't allow porn.

Ben-oni is making me think that they should.

I'm glad you took enough time to enter the forum and make fun of people with no other input. The point of me arguing on the forum was to strengthen my argument, not convince people on the forum of anything. If I push an argument to its limits on the forum I'll have a better idea of how far I can push it during the actual meeting. Maybe you missed that in my first posting. I'm not saying that I don't think you should comment, but to come in and essentially just to say "you two are stupid" seems uncalled for.

It seemed like it would be beneficial for you to know that your arguments have (thus far) been worse than ineffective. I'm not sure why you think my post was not a useful contribution.

Azreal, Thank you, it makes it more clear that way.

What about mentioning the studies shown in one article I posted.

Spoiler:

In their survey of 688 young Danish adults (men = 316; women = 372), Hald and Malamuth found that respondents construed the viewing of hardcore pornography as beneficial to their sex lives, their attitudes towards sex, their perceptions and attitudes towards members of the opposite sex, toward life in general, and over all. The obtained beneficial effects were statistically significant for all but one measure across both sexes. Now here is the kicker: A positive correlation was obtained between the amount of hardcore pornography that was viewed and the impact of the benefits reaped. This positive correlation was found for both sexes. In other words, the more that one watched porn, the stronger the benefits (for both sexes)! There you have it

This shows a positive correlation between porn and attitudes towards the opposite sex. I think that is probably relevant.

That's not at all convincing, because the metric used is self reported. If I ask people who use homeopathy if they think it is beneficial to their health, I'll bet you'll find out that they find it beneficial to their health in a bunch of different ways, and the more that one uses homeopathy, the stronger the (self-reported, completely unscientific) benefits. What would that tell you about the health benefits of homeopathy? That's right, nothing.

[Ben-oni]

Yes, a person can become addicted to pornography. But so too can they become addicted to food. What you haven't done is demonstrate that, like heroin or nicotine, pornography is inherently addictive, or that the addiction rates are high enough to warrant prohibitive action.

And down the rabbit hole we go. This is a topic debated at the highest levels of government: if we could reach a resolution in a small internet forum, we're grossly underpaid.

My intent was to demonstrate that one of the primary assumptions had not been challenged. The amount of material available from a search for "pornography addiction" is staggering. So much so, that you'd better bet that people on both sides of the debate are familiar with the strongest such arguments.

While I hold the opinion that pornography is inherently and dangerously addictive (I've had too many friends fall victim to it), I recognize that those who consume the stuff probably feel differently. But then, that's just the nature of addiction. I now bow out of the discussion.

(I'll still follow for a bit, if anyone cares to send a few vitriolic remarks my way. I recognize my last comment is fairly inflammatory, but I stand by it: if you can't take an ad hominem once in a while, you deserve to lose the debate.)

That last bit is called purposefully trolling. Continuing to do so typically results in thread ejections and formal warnings.

- Az

[LaserGuy]

My apologies. I didn't realize that this was about pure T&A with mild additives of various pleasant substructures.

The film in question was Deep Throat I believe. He never stated what was acceptable, if anything is of this nature, when conducted on school property, which seems to be the case. Are you stating that I missed some limits that had been placed on the discussion?

I don't think it is unreasonable to have a conversation about whether or not something should be allowed in principle, while still maintaining that certain subsets of that thing may be inappropriate. If I'm hosting an event and the dispute is over whether to include food, it isn't necessary to deal with the issue of, say, cannibalism, which is a subset of food. Once we've established that food is acceptable in principle, we can begin worrying about the specific types of food that may be acceptable.

The OP is not arguing that this specific film should be played, and everyone seems in agreement that it was probably a poor choice given the controversy surrounding it. That does not, in and of itself, mean that no film should be shown at all. They could just choose another film that has a better pedigree. I think there are probably reasonable boundaries that can be drawn around what types of films will be generally acceptable, and, so long as people have a good idea of what they're going into in advance and can therefore make an informed decision, I don't see any particular problem with it.

My intent was to demonstrate that one of the primary assumptions had not been challenged. The amount of material available from a search for "pornography addiction" is staggering. So much so, that you'd better bet that people on both sides of the debate are familiar with the strongest such arguments.

It is not clear to what extent this is relevant. Your argument basically takes the form of "Large amounts of X are harmful, therefore any amount of X is harmful." I don't think anyone is really disputing that pornography addiction is a serious concern for some individuals, and that consuming large amounts of pornography could have significant impacts. But that doesn't, in and of itself, mean that watching any particular pornographic film is also harmful. I'm sure there must be a name for this fallacy, but I don't know what it is. Regardless, it isn't true. There are many things that are dangerous in large quantities but beneficial, or even essential, in small ones--medicines, water, oxygen, food, caffeine, to name a few.

[morriswalters]

I was responding to two separate things, (one)that the endorphin rush of an extreme sport was similar to the response to a pornographic movie.

You're just applying disapproving snobbishness to porn. pleanty of forms of entertainment use hormones, emotions and chemical transmitters.
take those away and a rollercoaster is just a bumpy, poorly laid out train to nowhere.
take those away and skydiving is just a dangerous way to get out of a plane.

Every significant experience is the equivilent of soaking your brain in some seriously powerful drugs whether it's riding a kayak down a rapid or our first love.
That's what neurotransmitter are. seriously powerful drugs.

Porno is exceptionally mild in comparison to many of those.

To which I said.

Of course rock climbing doesn't interact with a hormonal system that can already make men and women act nuts. You know, astronauts driving to Florida in diapers. Or men beating women to death and vice versa. Just saying.

To which he replied

Since when has porn caused a significant number of people to beat each other to death? Or are we not lumping in romance and sex with porn?

Read what I said, not what you think I said. Our culture, this fora, in point of fact any time there is more than one person present, is obsessed with sex. It is the way we are built. Fashion is built on it, barbers make a living off of it, we are talking about it right now. Porn is designed to appeal to that. In the process of doing so it does bad things, not always and not in the ways that you might suppose. (2)For instance I believe Azreal stated that porn can't be correlated with rape. That is only partially true. In point of fact child porn of various types depict real rape if you consider children coerced into having sex. Of course maybe you are talking about good porn.

At which point Azreal suggested that I shut up. My point was and is that extreme sports and sex are two very different things in terms of how your brain reacts to them. People can be nutty about sex without the benefit of pornography, otherwise we wouldn't have some many statutes about sex in the books in the US. Now Azreal didn't limit his statement that I saw, but it was never my main point in any case. If the question is purely about the response of people in whatever jurisdiction he lives in the he would know better than any of us. For instance if it occurred where I had a family member in school I would raise hell, I could care less if anyone watches porn but I don't think we need to semi institutionalize it by permitting it on school property. I would certainly support their right to take it off campus at their own expense.

Just to be clear I have abbreviated others responses.

edited for clarity

[Azrael]

While I hold the opinion that pornography is inherently and dangerously addictive (I've had too many friends fall victim to it) ...

No, you haven't. What you've done is allowed your (acknowledged) moral stance color your assessment of friend's consumption as addiction. Google "internet porn addiction" or any of it's subset and the entire first page is full of groups rampantly moralizing against pornography, and trying to slap up "data" as a front to support them -- much like you've been doing here.

It's not until somewhere much deeper in the search results that you start to get to real, objective medical information. While the internet part of the phenomena is both recent and debated, porn itself is not. Sex addiction (which porn addiction is a subset of) has a longer diagnosis trail. And it's running at roughly 8%.

At which point Azreal suggested that I shut up. My point was and is that extreme sports and sex are two very different things in terms of how your brain reacts to them. People can be nutty about sex without the benefit of pornography, otherwise we wouldn't have some many statutes about sex in the books in the US. Now Azreal didn't limit his statement that I saw, but it was never my main point in any case. If the question is purely about the response of people in whatever jurisdiction he lives in the he would know better than any of us. For instance if it occurred where I had a family member in school I would raise hell, I could care less if anyone watches porn but I don't think we need to semi institutionalize it by permitting it on school property...

I hadn't suggested that you shut up. But now I will: Shut up and go read the thread. The entirety of the discussion between Tinman and myself was discussing whether or not consumption of pornography could be rationally correlated with the incidence rate of sexual assaults.

Now if you want to break it down to some subset of porn and provide some relevant data or analysis, go for it. The issue being the astoundingly lack of statistical collection for each and every kink. Trying to derail with child porn and instances of criminal production is being obviously obtuse.

[morriswalters]

Read this if you wish. My takeaway after doing some research is that there is almost no hard science behind anything that I was able to find. The study that Ben-oni cited is almost the only study that had any referents to any hard science. My link shows a critique and rebuttal of the paper. This paper makes some weak statements, but the last page speaks to the issue of the paucity of relevant research, as well as the short time that internet porn has been available. What I would conclude as a father is the risks associated with the consumption of pornography as well as the age at which it is now consumed, I saw 10 years old cited, as too poorly researched to provide any guidance of a substantive nature. Most research including the Danish research involves self reporting. Which means, at least in my mind, that it is unreliable as are most eye witness or in this case memory witness accounts. When there is actually some hard science I may change my stated position. Now possibly you are a better researcher than I am and perhaps you have data that I don't. If so share it with me if you wish.

[Tinman42]

I understand that you think the arguments I made became weak as I pushed them to a certain level of ridiculousness. However, claiming that the arguments (especially the beginning, before they got out there) are arguments better made for the opposition is wrong. Maybe if you had been more specific about what parts you thought were foolish (I know what they are now) I wouldn't have interpreted your comment as so childish.

That's not at all convincing, because the metric used is self reported. If I ask people who use homeopathy if they think it is beneficial to their health, I'll bet you'll find out that they find it beneficial to their health in a bunch of different ways, and the more that one uses homeopathy, the stronger the (self-reported, completely unscientific) benefits. What would that tell you about the health benefits of homeopathy? That's right, nothing.

This was a failure on my part to read the study correctly. This came across to me, for whatever reason, as saying they did a study, and the people that watched porn happened to also experience those benefits. I didn't realize that the people in the study made the claims themselves.

What do you think about the numbers showing that since porn became mainstream rape and sexual assault has decreased by 85%?

Two things real quick that are related to the topic, but not relevant to the argument itself.
1) I have not taken a statistics class, so when I misinterpret anything in relation to statistics etc. please be patient in explaining it to me. As stated earlier, I am here to strengthen my argument (or change it if proven wrong), if part of that includes increasing my understanding of correlation and causation (which I do have a basic understanding of), then let the learning begin.

2) Here is a link to the article I wrote about the event going on at school. The decision was made on Monday to cancel the film, but there was no real discussion held, so we didn't get the chance to argue our points. However, an open forum will be held in the fall to debate the issue.http://www.msuexponent.com/2012/04/deep-throat-screening-cancelled

[Ben-oni]

Read this if you wish. My takeaway after doing some research is that there is almost no hard science behind anything that I was able to find. The study that Ben-oni cited is almost the only study that had any referents to any hard science. My link shows a critique and rebuttal of the paper.

That's actually a really good discussion of the issue. I second this as a reference. For those unwilling to read any of the linked papers, much of the discussion is about whether or not viewing pornography (or gambling, or over-eating) is significantly different from, say, "watching the NCAA basketball playoffs", which elicit such compulsive behavior as putting off important tasks and violating workplace rules to view related information online. Every argument made here is covered within the discussion, both for and against.

I guess what really baffles me is that anyone thinks it's a good idea for a university theatre to screen a porno. I understand a private theatre's motivation: they want money. Tinman42, can you help me understand?

[LaserGuy]

I guess what really baffles me is that anyone thinks it's a good idea for a university theatre to screen a porno. I understand a private theatre's motivation: they want money. Tinman42, can you help me understand?

Well, the university theatre is probably privately owned and just leases the property. Or, possibly, it is owned by the student government who leases the property from the university. For that matter, the university itself may be privately owned. There's lots of ways that "they want the money" could be the conclusion. Except, IIRC, Tinman said that this was a charity event, so the theatre might not be getting much/any money for it. From the sounds of it, this was an annual event put on by the student government to entertain the students. I'm not sure why you think the university should care one way or the other--universities are pretty permissive about a lot of these sorts of issues. Most of them will look the other way when it comes to drug and alcohol usage on campus, for example, and I wouldn't be entirely surprised that there's the odd university that offers a film studies course in pornography or something. These aren't children we're talking about here. They're adults.

Do you think that the university theatre should be showing movies with violence? From my cursory search of the literature, there seems to be an awful lot of data suggesting that watching violence in media leads to aggressive tendencies after viewing.

[Tinman42]

I'm actually not sure how the ritual was started, but the reason we do it now is because it IS a ritual. Also as stated it's a very popular event that is for charity. The theatre we use is on campus, in one of the college owned buildings. The theatre is run by the films division of the student government and the event was cancelled by the student body president and vice president.


There are some good letters that students sent to the editor and the student body president.

http://msuexponent.com/

If you click one the "virtual edition" link on the upper right, there is a PDF of the full paper. Scroll down some and you can see the letters from some of the students.

[morriswalters]

Do you think that the university theatre should be showing movies with violence? From my cursory search of the literature, there seems to be an awful lot of data suggesting that watching violence in media leads to aggressive tendencies after viewing.

You can no more show an explicit link to general violence in movies and violence in the real world than you can between sexual violence and porn. It may well exist, but noise keeps you from knowing with any certainty. But movies are fantasy, created by cutting and splicing random bits together to create a narrative. Pornos of course are also edited, but when you see sex, it is sex, not fantasy, and the narrative in most cases is nonexistent. In the spirit of full disclosure I should say that I have watched a bit of porn, or perhaps more than a bit. A couple of observations from that perspective.

I have to admit I was somewhat surprised that this was taking place in Montana, in my home state of Kentucky, for better or for worse, the University president would be out of a job if this "ritual" drew too much attention. The school is a state school, taxpayer supported. It seems somewhat moronic to assume that everyone who supports this University through taxes or other state funds would accept this as a proper venue for this particular activity. There of course is no reason why the student body could not support "ritual" out of their own pockets and off campus. An interesting test would be for the student body to complain to their state legislator of choice and study the reaction.

[HungryHobo]

It seems somewhat moronic to assume that everyone who supports this University through taxes or other state funds would accept this as a proper venue for this particular activity. There of course is no reason why the student body could not support "ritual" out of their own pockets and off campus. An interesting test would be for the student body to complain to their state legislator of choice and study the reaction.

Since when has all taxpayers supporting something been a prerequesite for students to organise an event?

If that were the case student bodies would never do anything but quiet contemplation.

If we based what student bodies were allowed to organise on what prudish (as in "One who is excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous.") parents might object to or which they could convince themselves is wrong then pretty much anything involving sex, sexuality, gender etc would never take place since a huge portion of people have a kneejerk reaction to anything involving sex which they'll rationalise.

The amount of material available from a search for "pornography addiction" is staggering.

the amount of material available from a search for "vaccine caused autism" is staggering.
the amount of material available from a search for "homeopathy evidence" is staggering.
the amount of material available from a search for "bible historical genesis proof" is staggering.

All that tells you is that there's a large number of people who desperatly want to convince themselves that something is true.
That people want something to back up the little voice in the back of their mind and tell them whatever it's saying is the truth.

It's an argumentum ad populum.

[morriswalters]

Since when has all taxpayers supporting something been a prerequesite for students to organise an event?

As I said if you believe this is true, then complain to your legislator. Take it to court. If it is important than you should be willing to fight for it, as students have been prone to do over many other issues.

All that tells you is that there's a large number of people who desperatly want to convince themselves that something is true.
That people want something to back up the little voice in the back of their mind and tell them whatever it's saying is the truth.

It's an argumentum ad populum.

Actually I never made any point about porn being addictive, until after I upset certain people. There is no point to make because there is no reliable research(as I see it). Statistical studies in Denmark about violence on the other hand, or anywhere else, are subject to attack because they showed downward trends in violent crime overall. In so far as I was able to determine they didn't try to account for the drop overall to see if it was causing the signal to noise ratio to drown out the effect they were trying to see. When I did my searches as a matter of course I discounted anything that I considered biased, which included anything from sex counselors, family organizations, churches, and many others. Even the two papers I cited had problems. The point I was actually trying to make was that sexual activity is such a complex human behavior that anything which plays to it directly like porn has the potential to have unpredictable side effects. The point of the comment on Azreal's statement was to point out that what see see depends on how you look at it. Almost everything that has been said here is from the point of view of the consumer of porn. Yet the OP's problem occurred due the production of porn, not the consumption. Was Linda Borman or Lovelace, or whoever she was, coerced. While I have no doubt that any number of porn movies are made with willing and eager participants, if you try to tell me this is true overall than we will part company rather violently. No I have said what I wanted to say. As I have learned about certain other topics here at this fora there are some things about which it is not worth the effort to try to discuss, this is one of them.

[HungryHobo]

While I have no doubt that any number of porn movies are made with willing and eager participants, if you try to tell me this is true overall than we will part company rather violently.

You can apply the same to just about everything: I have no doubt that any number of food items, consumer electronics, wallets and jewlery are made by willing and free workers if you try to tell me that nobody uses slave labour to make such things then we will part company rather violently.

Is that relevant to the issue of similar items made by people who are not slaves?

no.

Trying to associate all porn with rape is as intellectually dishonest as trying to associate all wallets with child sweatshops.

The point I was actually trying to make was that sexual activity is such a complex human behavior that anything which plays to it directly like porn has the potential to have unpredictable side effects.

Sexual activity is a complex human behavior much like almost every other type of human activity. The potential to have unpredictable side effects isn't even remotely limited to things related to sex.

Appeals To Complexity alone do not an argument make.

[morriswalters]

I am not going to respond to the rest but this is too rich. I state without any sense of irony that if you believe that any other human behavior is more complex than sex that you have a very different opinion of complexity than I do. Whatever you think your purpose here on the planet is, evolution doesn't care since it's a process not a person and it doesn't have any feelings. The process uses sex to reproduce those things that for whatever reason let an organism survive, to produce the next generation. Everything else is bullshit. Invented by us to explain that behavior. Intellect is along for the ride, however it is not driving. Variations on a theme are to numerous to name. Almost anything can sexually arouse somebody. From murder to love sonnets. The drive, quite frequently, goes wrong in any number of ways. That you believe that you can separate it in to neat little categories is a matter of opinion not fact.

[HungryHobo]

Porn is designed to appeal to that. In the process of doing so it does bad things, not always and not in the ways that you might suppose.

I am not going to respond to the rest but this is too rich. I state without any sense of irony that if you believe that any other human behavior is more complex than sex that you have a very different opinion of complexity than I do. Whatever you think your purpose here on the planet is, evolution doesn't care since it's a process not a person and it doesn't have any feelings. The process uses sex to reproduce those things that for whatever reason let an organism survive, to produce the next generation. Everything else is bullshit. Invented by us to explain that behavior. Intellect is along for the ride, however it is not driving. Variations on a theme are to numerous to name. Almost anything can sexually arouse somebody. From murder to love sonnets. The drive, quite frequently, goes wrong in any number of ways. That you believe that you can separate it in to neat little categories is a matter of opinion not fact.

You keep implying that porn does something, something undefined and unknown and powerful and terrible and scary but but completely unknown. This is supposed to be Serious Buisness not fox news.

You're still providing nothing whatsoever beyond an appeal to complexity.

On top of the sex drive there's also the drive to protect your young which can be a far stronger drive than the sex drive.
How many parents would seriously risk their existing childs life for the chance to get laid?
Hell how many parents would risk castration to save their kids?
yet we don't wave our hands at everything involving a parent protecting their child and claim that it's too complex and unknowable to do anything related to it.
Movies which play on those emotional triggers aren't too dangerous to show to people despite being far more potent than mere sex.

So are you gonna provide an actual point or just more hand waving?

[Ben-oni]

It's an argumentum ad populum.

Oh, that's rich. "The topic is too well-argued for any meaningful points to be found." "Anyone who disagrees with me is a bigoted prude."

You can't argue by shifting the burden of proof and then refusing to examine anything presented. It's really made you look the fool here.

The best argument, of course, is an explanation of why people want the event to happen. "Tradition" is obviously a really bad reason. The last opinion piece from the Exponent gave an honest answer to the question:

Spoiler:

I understand that pornography raises issues of women's rights, objectification of women and the role sex holds in society and in an academic setting. That being said, I'd like to voice my own opinion.

The annual porn showing at the Pro was formative for me as a freshman in college. As a young woman with a relatively ac- tive and healthy sex life, I have never made a habit of watching porn, and I used to decry young men who made a habit of it. Now, as a seasoned veteran of two years of porn showings at the Procrastinator, I understand the value of pornography, and, more importantly, the value of pornography watched by several people at once.

Movies are wonderful because they have a culture surrounding them: people sit in darkened theaters, turn off their phones and violently shush anyone who dares to yell at the screen. Pornography has a culture, typically framed as a vice of perverts who cannot combat their baser animal urges and are incapable of sharing them with another human being. But the two combine at the Procrastinator every year and create an entirely different culture.

The annual porn screening at the Pro is not about sex. It is not about porn. It's about an evening during which people are permitted to be raunchy as hell. They can strip down, answer trivia questions about penis length and clap in unison shouting “REAL BOOBS” over and over again. The atmosphere is festive, people dance to music played by David Bowie cover bands and no one is ashamed of their bodies or their sexual desires.

I am not crazy about porn. But, I do enjoy a good evening surrounded by friends and strangers alike, all of whom enjoy sex as much as the next college kid. And the Procrastinator, once a year, is an opportu- nity for those consenting adults (they ID religiously at the door) to watch porn in a large group and view it not as a way to get off, but to enjoy the true absurdity of sex on screen.

I highly encourage ASMSU’s leadership to think seriously about shutting down one of the more interesting traditions at what is typically viewed as a very conservative institution. At least give the students a chance to develop a discourse about it next year, and allow this year's showing to continue. Canceling an event a few days prior with little student body input strikes me as somewhat brusque.

This provides a new perspective to me, one which I'm still digesting. On an instinctual level, I don't like the ideas presented, but I do understand that the experience offers something that can't be had in any other setting.

[HungryHobo]

Oh, that's rich. "The topic is too well-argued for any meaningful points to be found." "Anyone who disagrees with me is a bigoted prude."

Who exactly are you quoting?

I certainly didn't say either of those things.

you waved at google and implied that the mere fact that lots of people think it then it must be true.

That's an argumentum ad populum wether you like it or not.

I did address your arguments as they were presented, wether you like the answers is your own problem.

[Роберт]

What do you think about the numbers showing that since porn became mainstream rape and sexual assault has decreased by 85%?

Completely meaningless one way or the other. Hasn't that already been explained?

Some colleges have dress codes and what not. I think it's well within the right of the school to disallow certain student events. However, in this case, it would be a clear reversal of a situation already made, and I think they would need a compelling reason. So long as the event is not watching a film of rape (and as an aside your attitude about rape is part of what made me feel against the event - you didn't seem to take it seriously or have anything close to the correct definition), I don't see a compelling enough reason to stop allowing it. Unless there is something I don't know about. Perhaps that college has more instances of sexual assault around the time of the porno?

[morriswalters]

Which porn would we be talking about? Would that be man on woman, man on man, women on women, two men and one women,two women on one man, insert your own number of preference? Would that be sex with animals or vegetables or inanimate objects, Would that be sex involving human waste products, breast nailing, torture, breast hanging? Tell me what you would like to discuss. I have already be told that we can't talk about one thing because it hi-jacks the thread. You tell me what porn we are talking about. Are we talking about self produced porn? That one could be fun, it would allow me to bring in Mel Ignatow, a home town boy. I mean, what is it that you want me to argue? If you wish me to be specific, you be specific. If we are simply talking about, does porn cause young college boys to go into a rape frenzy and tarnish the reputations of the campus maidens, than I will specify that I do not believe that to be true. If you are selling that there is any meaningful , in depth research, about any of the topics discussed here, I will ask you to show them to me. Omit statistical research done on general crime trends unless you can tell me how to screen the data to deal with the noise. If you believe that I am stupid and making a stupid argument than my best suggestion would be that you ignore me because if I am ignored I will wander away and torment someone else, which, at this point I'm pretty sure is what Azreal would like.

[Azrael]

You can't argue by shifting the burden of proof and then refusing to examine anything presented. It's really made you look the fool here.

... says the person who's cited studies didn't support his stance, and who later agreed with morris' paper that trounced any remaining scientific backing for his notions.

[LaserGuy]

Do you think that the university theatre should be showing movies with violence? From my cursory search of the literature, there seems to be an awful lot of data suggesting that watching violence in media leads to aggressive tendencies after viewing.

You can no more show an explicit link to general violence in movies and violence in the real world than you can between sexual violence and porn.

The science would seem to suggest that you are incorrect in this assessment. Here's a couple papers to get you started.

Violent media increases aggression
Clearly positive link between violent media and violent tendencies in children (paywall)
Watching violence at young ages is a predictor for future violent activity (paywall)
The scientific debate over whether media violence increases aggression and violence is essentially over
Violent media "primes" individuals for aggressive thought
Children who identity with aggressive characters more at risk of violent behaviour.
Strong correlation between media violence and aggressive behaviour. (The figure on page 17 gives a good idea of the strength of the effect).

[Azrael]

Which porn would we be talking about?

You keep saying this. Again, unless you have some meaningful data, the distinction is useless. The best you can say is that no one knows the effects of individual kink porn. Although, some consideration can be made that the vast majority of sexual assaults are male-on-female heterosexual incidents that don't show signs of discrete fetishes.

If you are selling that there is any meaningful , in depth research, about any of the topics discussed here, I will ask you to show them to me. Omit statistical research done on general crime trends unless you can tell me how to screen the data to deal with the noise.

Well, I suppose that parroting my request for data is a form of acknowledgment.

[HungryHobo]

Which porn would we be talking about?

Given the context: a public showing by a student union for a charity event origionally meant to show a piece which played nationwide decades ago the obvious assumption would be : fairly mundane guy/girl or girl/girl without anything all that shocking intended.

[morriswalters]

LaserGuy, I said explicit. Read the text after the heading Background in your last link. This sums it up nicely. As a personal point I would tell you that I actually believe that it is true. But if the evidence were explicit then I would like to believe that we as a people would make a more serious effort to control access to it. Like most other things debated here this is about trying to reduce a complex topic that isn't well understood by the people who study it to something which we can talk about.

Azreal, when I ask what kind of porn we are talking about I am simply trying to avoid walking into another rhetorical buzz saw. Absence of data does not mean that there is nothing happening, it simply means that there is no data. You have no way of knowing who consumes what, who produces what, how the people involved in the production of pornography are introduced to the profession and what happens to them when they leave. To the best of my knowledge there are no long term studies about these topics. Lacking data I then fall back to the position of first do no harm. I then look for analogs to guide me absent evidence. What I can see and what I can know is that sexual violence exists and has existed for all of recorded time, assuming that the culture involved had any notion of rape. I can certainly look at the world around me and see how humans deal with sex in general. Rape used as a tactic in warfare, dominance and violence against women in domestic relationships, often ending in murder, sexual slavery in the Middle East and Europe and the US. Prostitution and drug use by prostitutes. I could go on, but whats the point? What I can infer is that human behavior involving sex is in a number of cases unpredictable and often deadly. So what I draw from that is that sexual behavior is chaotic and beyond intellectual control for some people. I can also rely on my personal experience to guide my personal beliefs.

Which porn would we be talking about?

Given the context: a public showing by a student union for a charity event origionally meant to show a piece which played nationwide decades ago the obvious assumption would be : fairly mundane guy/girl or girl/girl without anything all that shocking intended.

To which I have already given an answer. The controversy arises from the fact that Linda Boorman was coerced, or at least said she was. Have you seen her first epic Dogarama? I'm sure that the girl at Montana would have loved it. Just out of curiosity do you know why it was called Deep Throat?

[HungryHobo]

Lacking data I then fall back to the position of first do no harm. I then look for analogs to guide me absent evidence. What I can see and what I can know is that sexual violence exists and has existed for all of recorded time, assuming that the culture involved had any notion of rape. I can certainly look at the world around me and see how humans deal with sex in general. Rape used as a tactic in warfare, dominance and violence against women in domestic relationships, often ending in murder, sexual slavery in the Middle East and Europe and the US. Prostitution and drug use by prostitutes. I could go on, but whats the point? What I can infer is that human behavior involving sex is in a number of cases unpredictable and often deadly. So what I draw from that is that sexual behavior is chaotic and beyond intellectual control for some people. I can also rely on my personal experience to guide my personal beliefs.

So basically you just assume it's harmful and run with it because "sex".

Lets try the same approach applied to anything else whatsoever: historically human activity around labour involved huge amounts of slavery and cooercian, by the principle of "first do no harm." are we then to assume that all products and goods we encounter have been produced by slaves?

such a reasonable rule of thumb.

you're treating sex as incredibly special and not subject to the common sense we apply to every other area of life.

If you assume that X is harmful absent any evidence that X is harmful then you can, quite remarkably come to the conclusion that X is harmful.

To which I have already given an answer. The controversy arises from the fact that Linda Boorman was coerced, or at least said she was.

which is irrelevant because when they were made aware of the controversy they changed to a different movie. otherwise it's a fairly non-shocking piece about felatio by a girl with a anatomical quirk as a pretext for the movie.

[LaserGuy]

LaserGuy, I said explicit. Read the text after the heading Background in your last link. This sums it up nicely.

I'm not sure what point you're referring to here. It says that media is not the sole cause of violent activity, which is true, but can be a predictor of it, and is correlated with it. It also says that causation is difficult to determine because of the ethical issues surrounding the types of experiments that would be required. This doesn't mean that there isn't good data, and that the data isn't telling us something useful. The figure that I referred to shows that the correlation between violent media and aggressive behaviour is almost is strong as the one between smoking and lung cancer, and is much stronger than, say, the correlation between asbestos and laryngeal cancer. Yet we are perfectly willing to regulate, if not outright ban, asbestos.

But the broader point is this: there is a far better case to be made that violence in media is detrimental to public health than there is that pornography is detrimental to public health (this could be for lack of data, but be that as it may). It follows, that if you are prepared to restrict access to pornography based on the limited evidence available, then you should also be willing to restrict violent media based on the much stronger evidence available.

[morriswalters]

No such thing. But in the absence of any evidence that it is not harmful, I see no reason for centers of higher learning to promote it using state dollars. What you do off campus is your business. In terms of porn generally in the absence of evidence that it is harmful, then the laws should reflect that and err on the side of less is more in terms of legislation. In terms of how do I feel about porn, it's a love hate relationship. When I used it it seemed the more I watched the more extreme the material required to achieve the same effect. This lead to places I am not sure I should go. Your mileage may vary. Overall despite anything said here I am not convinced that it is a good thing. But in any case there is so much money involved the possibility of doing anything rational is in the wind. The area won't attract research dollars because there are too many interests who don't wish the issue to be resolved. As long as the issue isn't settled the status quo is maintained.

Hungryhobo I am glad that you feel that you can compartmentalize the issue so that there is no bleed over from the various other forms of ?kink?. I would suggest to you that that might not be the case for everyone. You seem to still be looking at it from a users perspective, but if it works for you it works for me. I have seen the movie in question, it was novel when it was released, and that's the best to be said for it. Just spitballing you know but if Tinman is still there next year it would be interesting to me to see if the administration has the balls to keep the "ritual" intact with a different more, "acceptable film.

I am constantly amazed here that because I state objections or reservations that people assume that I wish to resolve the things legislatively. If I don't like porn than I don't watch it, and I would also take steps to prevent anyone that I considered important to me from using it without thinking, especially when they are young. Children in particular are prone to risky behaviors. I make my own mistakes without anybodies help and am perfectly willing to let others make theirs. Azreal, this has been informative, but still no data, HungryHobo I am sorry you think that I am guilty of so many logical fallacies. Now unless there is something new to say I'm moving on.

LaserGuy I don't propose any bans on porn and for whatever meaning it has if I was currently raising kids I would have no TV or internet available to my children accept under closely monitored conditions and most movies would be out of bounds. I would consider home schooling but would probably send them to a parochial school even though I am an atheist. I would consider this the lesser of two evils. The absolute control I could maintain, versus the socialization in a more public setting. I might also consider immigration to a less frenetic and less violent culture.

[Xeio]

No such thing. But in the absence of any evidence that it is not harmful, I see no reason for centers of higher learning to promote it using state dollars. What you do off campus is your business. In terms of porn generally in the absence of evidence that it is harmful, then the laws should reflect that and err on the side of less is more in terms of legislation.

What kind of nonsense is that? Treat anything as harmful because some people think it might be harmful but have no evidence to that fact?

Student government organizations are not handled like that, if a group wants to start a gaming club they don't have to prove that Dungeons and Dragons or Video Games don't cause harm to do so. If there is interest in an activity, and the student run council is ok with it, who exactly is this nebulous third party banning it?