Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

porn higher in red states.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Women » Feminists Group Donate to DU
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-03-09 10:10 AM
Original message
porn higher in red states.
Edited on Tue Mar-03-09 10:37 AM by seabeyond
http://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2009/03/porn-and-re...

this thread has come across general a good 6, 7 times since it came out. i am seeing a lot of giggles from poster salivating over the fact repugs like their porn. their inability to look beyond the shallowness of the hypocrisy in the repug party regarding the study and see what this is really saying is staggering.

of course you have the religious repressed, and living where i do, i see it. but you also have the macho pig male that degrades and subjugates females at all cost to dominate. where as in the liberal, blue states you have the liberal evolved male that sees porn as anti female and refuse to be a part of degrading females and being conditioned to dehumanize female. and the female that is not willing to be a participant in the degradation. hence more porn in red states. seems obvious to me, yet ignored on du general.

from my perspective.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-04-09 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 06:39 AM
Response to Original message
2. i think the upside, the largest user had only 5 and half household per 1000
households that bought porn.

not nearly as high as people would like to suggest
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
3. Actually
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 07:46 AM by ismnotwasm
The religious right objects on moral grounds, or so they say. Progressives who defend porn on A) Use the first amendment B) the idea that we all are sexually equal, and women are intelligent entities who choose to participate in or watch porn. Or so they say.

Both views are dead wrong. I think we're a sexually sick, male/patriarchy dominated society that has evolved to a point some centuries back that so many need "dirty" sex. And the modern words they use, "hot" "nasty" "dirty" "freak" all indicate sexual behavior somehow out of the norm.

Like they invented sexual diversity, which is actually so stupid it's funny. Porn is to sex what fast food is to nutrition. It's not a moral issue, outside of the continuing sexual subjugation of women, it's a sexual health issue.

Blue states may look at the state of sexuality and challenge it, rather than passively accept that sexual access to women at all ages, at all times of day or night is their just due. And yes, that's how it is. You can buy anything. It's also an economic issue. We don't have a woman friendly economy. Strippers for instance can make a lot of money and some of them actually *do* save up and finish college. Or take their augmented breasts into a new marriage or new career.

(How come when men strip, it's an hysterically fun, joyous event with beautiful examples of the human body? When women strip, not only is there the double standard of "morality"--women considered sluts no matter what they do, but the more successful stripper had to buy an cartoonish figure. And then you have these creeps sitting there staring creepily. Certain men seem to have joy, if they're drunk enough, but most are simply entitled)

I've met people who are very sexually progressive. They meet and do all kinds of things. They are diverse and loving and experimental and manage to not objectify each other. They don't need porn for multiple orgasms.

I am not a civilized person. I don't come from a civilized background. I lived a lot of ways, and I've seen a lot of things, most of which I'm not going to commit to anything on-line.

I live in a working class neighborhood with porn shops on the main avenue. At any given time, the titles of the top ten sellers are prime examples of misogyny with violence or racism or both.

The thing is working in the sex industry at some point or another, you have to become a pimp. And not a nice pimp. An anti-woman pimp. I use the word pimp meaning eventually you recruit and convince another to join whatever part of the sex "industry" you're involved in. No matter what the unfortunate outcome for so many is, or will be. You end up with a vested interest in defending what is a pathologically self centered behavior. Those who defend porn without looking at the sex industry entire also tend to share those self centered characteristics.

Now, reading DU, I've always figured I could be wrong. I evidently missed all that empowerment with a long string of friends dead or beaten down or in prison. Or unable to have kids because of repeated PID. Perhaps my life was rough. Maybe all the defenders are enlightened, healthy individuals who haven't had any of the experiences I've had, or that certain friends of mine continue to have. (If I want to know, it's a phone call away)I could be wrong, but I doubt it.





Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. i dont see porn as a moral/religious issue. i dont even see it as a moral
issue pertaining to feminist cause. i dont care what choices people make, it is theirs to do, their journey to walk, their lessons to learn. my issue with porn goes off what you are saying. for a couple years on du the pro porn group paints only the sunny, we are all healthy and balanced, perspective demanding that their is no harm in all of this. there is the opportunity for and in fact absolute harm living in this world and can and does touch all kinds of different people, in all kinds of different ways in insurmountable ways that is continually denied.

there is absolutely no balance and honesty in the conversation. reflection or insight. it is not allowed. it is stopped at every opportunity in order to 'protect" these choices.

i talk with sons about the choices they will be making. i am opposed to the D.A.R.E program in the dishonesty in what they present and the expectation they demand. that doesn't mean i want my children to do drugs or drink alcohol. but i am a firm believer in being honest when it comes to the various drugs, and alcohol and what i see from both experience and effects in our society. they are going to make their choices, but i want them well informed in honesty.

i do the same when talking with them about their sexuality

and all other things in life.

but when it comes to talking about this stuff with pro porn they refuse to acknowledge and explore and reflect so many of the harms that this world does produce in society. there is a refusal to even recognize, let alone acknowledge. it is a dishonesty.

that is what bothers me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. We, or at least I, are not "pro porn" any more than I am "pro abortion"
Recognizing that women are autonomous beings willing to make their own choices also means the recognition that we should NOT be expected to hold some "higher moral standard". Freedom of choice is also freedom to make mistakes.

In any case, why is producing porn or stripping necessarily a mistake? Can you admit that there IS female-positive erotica, and that many women enjoy using it? There certainly is quite a bit of disgusting misogynist material out there, but banning it or pretending it is not there is probably the least effective avenue for ensuring that it is not made in the first place.

As with anything in our contradictorily sex-obsessed and Puritanical culture, it is necessary to look for the demons of subjugation in the institutions of power and oppression, as opposed to obsessing over the "errors" of those who have no real stake. Empowering women does not mean demonizing all porn because it's porn, but going after the institutions which are infected with White Male Money. The porn industry, as with all others, has a great deal of this influence and our efforts should be directed towards breaking up the businesses of sick fucks like Joe Francis and eventually working towards a society where nobody would even find garbage like that appealing. I think we can all agree on that one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. seabeyond expressly said
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 05:15 PM by iverglas
edited to fix html


i dont see porn as a moral/religious issue. i dont even see it as a moral issue pertaining to feminist cause.

so I'm unclear why your response is:

Recognizing that women are autonomous beings willing to make their own choices also means the recognition that we should NOT be expected to hold some "higher moral standard".

Classic straw person, I would think.

Can you admit that there IS female-positive erotica, and that many women enjoy using it?

Why do you want to use antagonistic language like "admit" here? There are lots of alternatives that do not imply that someone has already denied something, or is unwilling to speak the truth. "Acknowledge" is one; "recognize" is another.

To the meat of your question: what are women, or anyone who "uses" pornography, using? "Pornography" is not like a fork. One uses a fork for a purpose. It is an object. It was produced by people paid to do the job.

Pornography is not a tool produced for a job out of raw materials. Human beings are not raw materials, or tools for jobs. That is: human beings are not means to other people's ends. Human beings are subjects in their own lives; not mere objects in someone else's.

Is pornography like theatre? Actors are perhaps the objects of consumption in a play; the play is composed of human beings, just as pornography is.

Acting is a very particular practice, developed for the sole purpose of entertaining other people. It depends on its audience in order to achieve its end, the end for which the actors perform.

Sex is not. Sex is an activity that people engage in for themselves and the people with whom they choose to engage in it. Yes, this draws on a huge body of thought about self-interest and other-centredness and all the notions about the human psyche that have been discussed and debated for millennia. The rather clear fact is that as it is ordinarily practised, sex involves giving and receiving a particular kind of pleasure. It is not practised as a performance art.

I'm afraid that I find it disingenuous to invoke what women choose in any discussion about the oppression or exploitation or victimization or objectification of women. All of our choices are determined, to a greater or lesser extent, by all of our experience in our lives. Living one's entire life in a society in which women change their names when they marry, stay home to rear children, work in the service industry, have unequal educational and employment opportunities, and are objects of sexual imagery and practices, leaves one not particularly well-equipped to make choices unaffected by the subordinate status of women.


There certainly is quite a bit of disgusting misogynist material out there, but banning it or pretending it is not there is probably the least effective avenue for ensuring that it is not made in the first place.

Yet more straw.

It has been said over and over and over and over, in this forum and anywhere else the issue arises, that banning anything is not being proposed by anyone. Why do some find it necessary to keep batting this poor straw thing around?

(Obviously, we are leaving aside material in which the subject matter itself is properly illegal.)

Who's talking about pretending anything isn't anywhere? I am failing to follow this thought.


As with anything in our contradictorily sex-obsessed and Puritanical culture, it is necessary to look for the demons of subjugation in the institutions of power and oppression, as opposed to obsessing over the "errors" of those who have no real stake. Empowering women does not mean demonizing all porn because it's porn, but going after the institutions which are infected with White Male Money.

This one I'm familiar with. We must go after those "root causes". No point in trying to limit the firearms in the hands of Mexican drug cartels or urban youth gangs; no, we must overthrow capitalism and institute that utopian society where everyone will have equal opportunities and happy childhoods. Until then, nothing can be done. Except wring our hands.

Unfortunately for those who argue this, the evidence against them is all around. Progress has been made in quite a few spheres of life, in quite a few places, by starting with what is possible and making things better. Canada has universal single public payer health insurance today, not because somebody waved a wand one day and it appeared, but because one provincial premier instituted hospital insurance, and then it went national, and then public health insurance was adopted, and then the loopholes were closed. It took decades. We got there.

Women's lives are better in countless ways today than they were a century ago. We got birth control; we got abortion rights. We got non-discrimination; we got equal pay for work of equal value. We got laws against intimate partner assault; we got those laws taken seriously. Imperfectly, all of them; this is not utopia. But that is how these things happen.

How are we going to cleanse the world of White Male Money? By holding hands on all the Wall Streets and Bay Streets of the world and chanting?


The porn industry, as with all others, has a great deal of this influence and our efforts should be directed towards breaking up the businesses of sick fucks like Joe Francis and eventually working towards a society where nobody would even find garbage like that appealing. I think we can all agree on that one.

No, actually.

I'll go for a society in which women are not viewed as or treated like objects. As long as we're having our druthers.

The porn industry, like every other activity that depends on coerced participation on the part of at least some of its workers / consumers in order to meet demand / make its overseers profits, is always going to have sick fucks, or organized crime, involved in it. Legalized gambling has not ousted organized crime from the gambling biz. Legalizing prostitution does not oust organized crime and does not stop the abuse of sex workers. Legalizing drug possession will not oust organized crime and will not stop the very real horrors of drug addiction, any more than legalizing gambling has done for compulsive gambling.

Unnuanced criminalization of those activities does no better. Smarter approaches are needed.

In any event -- you feel free to target those aspects of the pornography industry you find particularly abhorrent.

I will continue to find the objectification of women abhorrent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Ripley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Well said.
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 06:59 PM by Ripley
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. "You really need to work on word economy"
says the author of the 500 word post....

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #21
28. nininininininini

It's not a straw man, it is completely relevant and this canard has also been used against the gay community: expecting them to live to some wholesome ideal if they wish to be seen in daylight: "I don't care what they do in the bedroom, just keep that shit out of my sight" attitude.

Did the person to whom you addressed your initial comment use it?

Have I used it?

Has ANYONE IN THIS GROUP used it?

The answer is: NO.

So what the fuck are you flinging it around here for?

The straw is choking me. Please do not track crap in from the barn when you visit.


Why do you want to use antagonistic language like "admit" here?
It's not antagonistic. All I've seen is demonization without any suggestion that there is female-positive pornography.

Here's a great big old news flash for you.

The fact that you say so does not make what you say the truth.

Wow. What a concept.

So no one has to "admit" the truth of anything you say, because it's just something you said. That's all it is. You can set about proving that it is true if you want. But unless and until you have done that, you would be well advised to leave your obnoxious demagoguish terminology in the barn with the straw.


People DO use porn. It CAN easily be an interactive tool. People create their own, they edit existing pieces, etc. Try it sometime if you don't believe me. Again, quibbling over this is just distracting from the main points which you refuse to address.

Eh, what? You're the one doing this quibbling, if that's what you want to call it. Your choice. *I* am not interested. Nor is anyone who was here before you got here, from what I cant tell. I have quibbled no quibble.

Now, I can't say as I have any idea what these "main points are". Perhaps you'll get to them once you stop quibbling.

Oh, and I am far too busy doing much more interesting and productive things to be farting around photoshopping pictures of bare naked people. I'd have to learn how to do that first, and as I say, I have better things to do. I cook. For instance. Makes my partner very happy. The way to, etc., just like they say it is, I guess. He does my laundry. I'd be walking around in clothes that were walking me around if he didn't. Well, no, but that is why I own 4 dozen pairs of underpants. If he started farting around with photoshopping pictures of bare naked people, I'd have to buy more.


I don't know why you're going off on some tangent about acting vs. sex.

You know, I don't actually doubt that. I really don't.

You know why? Because your idea of how to "win an argument" seems to be that you just keep telling the other person they're wrong, over and over, and demanding that they admit you're right, and telling them that if they would only do what you tell them to do, they would know you are right, and unless and until they shape up and do it, they should just admit you're right.

My idea of how to conduct a discussion of opposing viewpoints about a public policy issue is for each side to actually offer argument: reasoned consideration of the various angles of the issue, drawing on facts and logic. Some things that people who do indulge in this pleasurable pastime usually find to be useful are the techniques of comparing and contrasting, sometimes involving analogies.

Is X like Y, and should we consider treating it like Y therefore? In what ways is X different from Y? Are the ways in which it is different significant, in the sense that it would be inappropriate to treat X like Y? Based on what principles? what values shared with the interlocutor? what values not held in common that are preventing a consensus from being reached on how to treat X?

So that's why I was going off on some tangent about acting vs. sex. I was anticipating an argument to be made against my own: that there are instances in which human beings are indeed used, or volunteer themselves as, tools. (The same thing can be said about most anything people do, of course, particularly things they do that create profits for someone else. But you see, that's where all the comparing and contrasting comes in; where both the similarities and the differences have to be identified, and it has to be determined how significant they are, and what influence they should have on the treatment of X vs. Y in public policy, and what values each party's position on that question are based on, and how to explore those values ...........)

You claim shared values here. I haven't seen any discussion of this topic reach the point where any of the relevant values are actually explored to determine which are shared and to what extent.


I agree with your essential point that our culture increasingly objectifies human bodies.

You don't agree with shit. Or maybe you do agree with shit. I don't know. What I know is that I DID NOT SAY THAT, so you're not agreeing with any point of mine.

What I SAID is that women are objectified in our society (including by pornography). I said it several times, in a few different ways, and yet you missed it, and you thought I said something else altogether?


I never said you in particular want porn banned, but it is certainly a logical conclusion from your attitude.

Have you considered taking a course in logic? I know they were offered when I was majoring in philosophy. They probably still are.

If you want to know what I think about something, you could TRY FUCKING ASKING ME.

Or you could investigate my posting history. It's really easy. My name is pretty much unique in the world, except for being the ancient name of some river in Ireland I'd never heard of, and somebody inexplicably using it once on the internet on her own initiative entirely, and the odd asshole who signs up to Amazon or some such using my name intentionally, or signs my name to Draft Al Gore petitions (which I would never do, out of propriety, but which they do and then add "Toronto" to my name, to discredit whatever U.S. cause they are attacking that day.)

So you just go to google and ask it for my name and whatever you'd like to learn about today. What I think about just about anything can probably be found in the annals of DU somewhere, by google.


What would you like instead? To educate people out of their sexual drives? Good luck with that.

OH LOOK!!! It's a loaded question and a false dichotomy, all rolled into one!


However, your little sentence is loaded with judgment. For example, is there really anything wrong with a woman CHOOSING to stay home and rear children? Or a dad for that matter? Your moral compass seems to be stuck in the 70's unfortunately.

And your level of analysis seems to be stuck in the pre-kindergarten phase.

You aren't the boss of me! and nobody's the boss of women. You need to do some reading on the topic of exploitation. It's real. It's out there. It may not be coming to get you because you may have a comfy life; I wouldn't know. You might defend your psyche by telling yourself you're not being exploited, you're making a choice, whatever it's about, if that's the case. I wouldn't know. What I know is that you too obviously don't give a crap about other women, or if you think you do, it isn't enough of a one to put the effort into getting more than a skin-deep understanding of how their choices are determined.


I don't really have anything else to say to you. You haven't answered any of my questions...DO you know of any female-positive porn, for example? You certainly sound like someone who doesn't have much experience actually looking at any porn.

You've actually never had anything to say to me. If you did, you didn't say it.

I don't have to answer your questions, you know. I can look at your questions and decide whether they are of any consequence in the context in which they're asked. I decided some time ago that these were not.

And I was right. Because I was talking to somebody who does not discriminate about what she drags in from the barn and smears around, and on whom she smears it. Would I waste my time attempting civil discussion with someone who thinks it fit to tell someone else what she sounds like, and says it based on nothing at all but her own desire to "win" that "argument" by any means necessary, including baseless public ridicule? If I wanted to, I'd go find a 5-year-old somewhere to do it with.

I'm not the subject matter of this discussion. Of course, since the only way you appear to be able to discuss something is by flinging ridicule and patently ridiculous allegations around, this isn't actually a discussion.


To end the exploitation of women and others requires their recapturing of their own means of production, in porn or anywhere else.

Snork. Yes, and let the African-Americans re-enslave themselves, eh? As long as they get a fair price for themselves, what should we care? The hell with inalienable rights.

Now, don't you be worrying about my words. I've got a fair number of them to draw on.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #10
17. not a moral issue, you yell high morals. no one ever says ban, you talk ban
puritanical culture? fuckin sex everywhere you look including our little kids clothes, movies and shows. where did i talk about the workers in the sex industry? nowhere. not a mention, not a word.

not every person that has an issue with the porn and other shit has anything to do with the moral issue or fundamentalism, yet that is the first and last we hear from the people supporting it. this post of yours is the absolutely perfect example of what i am talking about that we can never get beyond the opening shot of the porn issue because of all the false arguments thrown our way.

there has to be at least, at the very minimum, some honesty in the discussion. your post lacks that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. "it seems that the people who don't even watch porn or know much about it"
assumptions, assumptions

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. you throw all this garbage out pertaining to anti porn people, on my post and tell me has nothing
Edited on Fri Mar-06-09 01:58 PM by seabeyond
to do with my post, not addressing what i post and that seems to be my problem?

ok

i tell you not a matter of morality, you lecture on that, why would it be relevent to me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
racaulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
5. Locking.
This thread is beyond the help of adequate moderation at this point.

Thank you.

racaulk
DU Moderator
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
racaulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
6. I am reopening this thread.
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 03:22 PM by racaulk
It is the opinion of the moderator group that this thread has the potential to generate some productive discussion, but it became bogged down in personal attacks and squabbles between members, and the discussion went awry. The removed subthread above generated many alerts, and as moderators, we strive to give each alert the amount of discussion and consideration that it deserves, and to take action accordingly. However, in this case, the alerts were coming in faster than the moderators could effectively handle them.

Earlier today, the moderators collectively decided to lock this thread to contain the damage. But after cleaning up the thread of the worst of the personal attacks and sniping, we have decided to reopen the thread for further discussion.

Please refrain from attacking one another. If you feel that someone has posted something in this thread that is against either DU Rules or the mission of the Feminists Group, please use the Alert function and let us know.

Also, please remember that the Feminists Group is a DU Group, not a Forum, and it is expected that your posts in this Group will be in support of its mission. For a refresher on the differences between Groups and Forums, please note this excerpt from DU Help:

What is a Forum?

A forum is an area set aside for discussion of related topics. For example, Latest Breaking News, General Discussion, and The DU Lounge are all very popular forums that host discussion of a broad range of topics. We also have many smaller forums where members can discuss a number of more specific topics. We encourage you to spend some time browsing all of our forums to familiarize yourself with the wide range of offerings. If a particular forum is of interest to you, you should add it to your "My Forums" list.

What is a DU Group?

A DU Group is a special type of discussion forum, suggested by DU Members and dedicated to a particular mission. They are "safe havens" where all participants must support the mission statement of the Group in order to post. The mission statement of each DU Group is pinned to the top of that Group. Only donors are permitted to post in DU Groups. All of the DU Groups are listed in the DU Groups folder.

Members who disagree with a particular Group's mission statement, or who otherwise disrupt a particular Group can be barred from posting in that Group.

For more information about DU Groups, please read the topics What are DU Groups? and How to Suggest a DU Group. We keep a running list of new DU Groups in the New DU Groups thread.

Thank you for your consideration.

racaulk
DU Moderator


Edited for proper capitalization and further clarity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #6
18. there have been a couple times in the years on du
where i have listened to a moderator talk thru the decisions they made for a particular thread and i gotta tell you, .... i am really impressed with the process i have seen you all go thru and attempt to be "fair and balanced", lol. seriously, i am impressed. thank you
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
7. Thank you.
Somebody made a point I'd like to reiterate (it looks as if her post was lost in one of the deleted subthreads--and I don't even remember who it was, so apologies for not being able to credit her specifically):

Without more detail on the study, I think this is at best good discussion fodder about moral hypocrisy on the right, something they seem to give us a never-ending supply of (and stupidity, which I'll address in a moment, just to keep things light).

Without knowing what kind of porn the subjects of the study were buying, it's rather difficult to know what to make of the red staters' high volume of consumption. There's a huge range of porn online--this we all know--from quality erotica to fetishism to truly horrendous stuff (not to mention just flat-out poorly produced porn). If, for example, we knew that consumption of rape fantasy porn was significantly higher in red states, we could certainly draw some ominous conclusions from that. Trouble is, we just don't know. What we do know is that for all their intoning about God and morality and what-will-we-tell-the-children, they're just as interested in porn as those in blue states. Thus, the moral hypocrisy noted above.

(And RE my comment about stupidity--I'd also add that it shows conservative porn consumers are really dumb if they're still paying for porn online; there are all manner of free outlets out there.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
8. the factual basis for the discussion
Edited on Thu Mar-05-09 04:11 PM by iverglas

The blog cited in the opening post cites a news report.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id=6977...

With my emphasis:

A new nationwide study (pdf) of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider finds little variation in consumption between states.

... The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. "The differences here are not so stark," Edelman says.

Number 10 on the list was West Virginia at 2.94 subscriptions per 1000, while number 41, Michigan, averaged 2.32.

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama.

... Residents of 27 states that passed laws banning gay marriages boasted 11% more porn subscribers than states that don't explicitly restrict gay marriage.

... States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement "I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage," bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behaviour."


I'm happy to offer a link again to a study of the evolution of patriarchal attitudes in the US:

http://erg.environics.net/media_room/default.asp?aID=45...

With my emphases again:

It's a news report from 2001 on an ongoing study by Environics, one of Canada's leading polling firms, of patriarchal attitudes in Canada, the US and other countries.
Nearly 20 years ago, my colleagues at Environics in Toronto and CROP in Montreal began a study of Canadian social values. In our first survey of Canadian values in 1983, we asked Canadians if they strongly or somewhat agreed or disagreed that: "The father of the family must be the master in his own house." We posed more than 100 such questions to respondents that year. Our intention was to track these 100 items over time, dropping some, adding others; we hoped we'd measure what was important to Canadians or what was changing in our values and perspectives on life.

The "father must be master" question has become legendary at Environics. We love it because it measures a traditional, patriarchal attitude to authority in our most cherished institution: the family. ...
The findings indicate that, over time, that patriarchal attitude has been in rather sharp decline in Canada and even in France -- and has been rising in the US across all demographic groups.
In Canada, almost everyone was part of this revolution, even men, who by 2000 had only 23 per cent of their numbers in support of dad being boss at home. The 60-plus group showed the largest drop: In 1992, 40 per cent thought father should be master, but by 2000, only 26 per cent of this age group said so. The highest-income category was also the most progressive (only 12 per cent of those earning $60,000 or more believed dad should be king of his castle). Married and single people were exactly the same.

Meanwhile, we found that where 42 per cent of Americans believed the father should be master in 1992, the number increased to 44 per cent in 1996. We wondered if this was a statistical anomaly. We went back into the field in 2000 to find out if the frontal assault on patriarchal authority by U.S. president Bill Clinton and television icon Homer Simpson would bring U.S. numbers more into line with those in Canada and France.

This time, 48 per cent of Americans said the father of the family must be master in his own home; 51 per cent disagreed and 1 per cent had no opinion. We were stunned.

Perhaps we need a study of online pornography consumption comparing the US and other countries ...


edited to fix html
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I am still having problems arriving at your conclusions.
Could you be more specific in linking porn consumption to the trend of patriarchy? I am 100% certain everyone in this forum recognizes the institutional problem of (largely unrecognized and passively accepted) male privilege, but considering the spectrum of types of porn and the large number of different groups who consume it, how exactly is this indicative of spreading patriarchal values?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I boldfaced the FACTS that are the subject of discussion

I'm happy to offer them up yet once again:

Residents of 27 states that passed laws banning gay marriages boasted 11% more porn subscribers than states that don't explicitly restrict gay marriage.

States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement "I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage," bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behaviour."


Now, I'm finding it quite easy to take opposition to same-sex marriage, old-fashioned values about amily and marriage and a belief that HIV/AIDS is supernatural punishment for immoral (read homosexual) sexual behaviour as proxies for patriarchal attitudes.

Perhaps you aren't.


how exactly is this indicative of spreading patriarchal values?

I didn't actually say it was.

The link to the Environics study shows how widespread patriarchal attitudes are in the US vs. other comparable countries and the rise in adherence to that attidude in recent years in the US vs. the decline in other comparable countries. Actually two different things.

The link is between the patriarchal attitude expressed in opposition to same-sex marriage, adherence to "old-fashioned" values and belief in divine punishment for homosexuality (belief in divine punishment being kind of the pinnacle of the patriarchal attitude in itself) and the higher rate of pornography consumption.

I see them as linked, anyhow. The people who did the study seem to think they're linked. Maybe it's just coincidence, though.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Has anyone been able to find a copy of the study referenced in the ABC report?
In the news story, there's a non-working link to the study (says "pdf"). It would be most helpful (and much less frustrating) if we could read more details of the study, and not just be limited to the ABC report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
maddezmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I think this is the link
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Mar-05-09 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Excellent. I'll read it when I get home tonight.
:hi: and Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. i'm a feminist who does not enjoy porn
i find it boring at best, and degrading or disgusting at worst.

why is it so hard to think of something to say to me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Runcible Spoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Huh?
I'm sorry, have I ignored your previous comments? I don't find it "hard" to say something to anyone. What a strange comment.

Look, you don't enjoy porn. That's your business and your tastes. Fine. I don't expect everyone to enjoy it.

My beef was with the insistence that heterosexual women don't (can't?) enjoy porn, especially not feminists.Unfortunately, that subthread was deleted yesterday. Also problematic is the lumping in of all sorts of porn without recognizing that there is a growing interest and industry of female-produced, female-oriented porn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. you said this: "I really don't know what else to say to a "feminist" who thinks heterosexual women d
"I really don't know what else to say to a "feminist" who thinks heterosexual women don't enjoy porn."

and i responded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. damned short attention span there, eh?

I don't really think that's an evolutionary advantage.

Mind you, I've seen it used to gain advantage on internet forums ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Shakespeare Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. For the record, there are many of us here (heterosexual femals) who DO enjoy porn.
I have no problem with those who don't enjoy it, but I'm tired of being told that either a. I don't exist, or b. there's something wrong with me because I do enjoy it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
La Lioness Priyanka Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-09-09 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. the first time i saw porn was in college with a lot of activist heterosexual women
the same ones who show up to the NOW rallies and to protest against the lack of gay rights.

so yeah, i know you and people like you exist.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Mar-06-09 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 17th 2014, 06:02 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Women » Feminists Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC