Porn & Pop Culture: A deadly Combination

[seabeyond]

Last edited Mon Jul 2, 2012, 03:15 PM - Edit history (4)

Before talking about the dangerous consequences of our porn-saturated culture – from sexual abuse to failed relationships and body hatred – we need to define what porn is. At this point, the average person hears the word “pornography” and imagines a computer, a vision of the World Wide Web, or a magazine hidden under a mattress. But scholars define pornography as “a state of undress and a mode of representation that invites the sexualized gaze of the viewer” (ex: Mooney, 2008). Webster’s Dictionary describes it as “the depiction of erotic behavior intended to cause sexual excitement.” Working from these definitions, we find these dangerous messages in many other places than just behind closed doors. In fact, we find them everywhere. Academics and journalists seem to agree the line between pop culture and pornography has blurred in just the last 10 years. The last decade of our lives has been called “the rise of raunch,” “porno chic society” and “striptease culture,” which marks the way media makers incorporate sex into their messages while totally denying they are pornographic.

*

* One in three American girls will be sexually molested by the age of 18 and 87 percent of convicted molesters of girls admit to viewing pornography (Media Education Fdtn, 2008).

* * A study of 813 college students across the US revealed 66.5% of college-aged men agreed viewing pornography is acceptable and 48.7% of college-aged females did. In all, 87% of men reported using pornography at some level, with one fifth reporting daily or every-other-day use and nearly HALF reporting a weekly or more frequent use pattern. One third of women reported using pornography at “some” level. AND these results revealed connections between porn acceptance/use and risky sexual attitudes and unsafe behaviors, as well as connections between pornography use and alcohol and drug use (Carroll and Padilla-Walker, 2008).

* Studies claim men and women who viewed just six hours of pornography (one hour each week for six weeks) reported significantly reduced satisfaction with their present relationship, both with their partner’s sexuality and appearance. Participants also reported being faithful to their partner was less important by study’s end and their view of sex without emotional involvement rose in favor (Bryant & Zillman, 1988).




http://www.beautyredefined.net/porn-pop-culture-a-deadly-combination/

______________________

more in article

[Drale]

1. I know this will be an unpopular view but

is it possible that all these terrible people are terrible people first and just happen to watch porn? I've watched porn and when I was single I watch it more then I'd like to admit but I've never wanted to molest any one or cheat one my girlfriend. This is similar to the "video games cause kids to be violent" argument which study after study has shown to be bullshit. Yes there is some pretty messed up and terrible porn out there but theres also a lot of pictures of just naked women and just normal people "doing it". I will admit that porn has a negative impact on girls body images but its not just porn, its advertisements, movies, tv shows and "fashion" designers as well. In the end even if porn was illegal, people would still find ways to get it and watch it because people Americans especially are fascinated and obsessed with sex.

[TheWraith]

102. And yet some people still choose to deliberately make false claims of correlation...

...up to and including basically saying that watching porn makes people rape little girls. It's a disgusting tactic intended not to facilitate a discussion but to prevent one by preemptively accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being pro-child-molestor. Frankly it's appalling that anyone would take this trash seriously.

[JNathanK]

130. I think it could have an effect on influenceing under age child sexual abusers though.

If a 12 year olds introduction into the world of sex is hardcore pornography, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them get the idea to pressure one of their younger siblings or a little girl in the local neighborhood into sexual acts they saw from porn. I don't really buy the comparison to violent video games, because porn directly leads to sexual stimulation, where fps games don't directly stimulate anger, rage and revenge in the player.

[TheWraith]

136. Considering that there's absolutely no evidence to support such an idea...

I would chalk it up with "masturbation causes insanity" and "vaccines cause autism" as "stuff that's not true."

[bettydavis]

2. GREAT post!

this is one of the most under the radar disasters waiting to happen. And I aint no prude but i am TERRIFIED as to what this is doing to young children. everyone of them exposed to VERY disturbing sexual imagery. thanks for this!

[CrispyQ]

3. I found this shocking:

* Studies claim men and women who viewed just six hours of pornography (one hour each week for six weeks) reported significantly reduced satisfaction with their present relationship, both with their partner’s sexuality and appearance. Participants also reported being faithful to their partner was less important by study’s end and their view of sex without emotional involvement rose in favor (Bryant & Zillman, 1988).

~emphasis added

One hour a week for six weeks had that much impact!

I too am very alarmed about the pornification of our culture. Seabeyond posted another thread within the past few weeks, about how porn is getting more & more extreme. The article told how the women prepare for these shootings - enemas, throwing up, so they basically have as little in their abdomen at all. The article stated that when you watch the film, some of these women appear to be in pain. It was disturbing to read. It left me wondering how many men get off on that aspect of the porn as well - the harm inflicted on the woman.

It's much like violence in the media. When The Godfather came out, it was incredibly violent for the time. Now it's mild in comparison to what is on TV these days! From what I've read, porn has gone the same way. I believe there is a direct correlation between the amount of violence in the media & the increase of violence in our culture & I fear the increase in extreme porn will have an equally detrimental effect.

Welcome to DU & HOF!

[seabeyond]

8. not only that article that was very informative, videos of what happens behind the scene of porn

the pain, the fear, the crying, the degradation and laughing by the men on the set. the total dehumanization. but, if shown to pro porn, they say, take it away, i dont want to see, that is bad bad bad, not what i look at. YET.... tell me how we know how many of these girls, women do this with total consent. tell me how we know that these women are not being forced or intimidated to do these acts? do we see what is happening behind the camera?

to be so naive to think that this is not just another fuckin way for a man to control and dominate a women and when the camera is on, the willing face is there. why would we be so naive to believe there is not abuse going on?

because, we dont want to have to look too far into the whole mess of porn and the net.

like the diamond trade. or the fur trade. as long as we get the product, keep all the rest of it away from us so we do not have to experience a conscience.

[4th law of robotics]

4. Most men who cheat, abuse women, divorce their wives, etc watch porn

then again most men who remain faithful, treat women as equals, and enjoy lasting healthy marriages watch porn as well.

When the vast majority of a population does something it's pretty easy to find an evil subset of that population that also does that same thing.

You may as well say most men who rape women or cheat on their wives have at one point or another worn pants, taken a shower, shaved, or driven a car. Not exactly a causative link.

First you need a decent sized control population. But of the guys who say they've never looked at porn (a small percentage to begin with) a lot are probably lying (hence why the most anti-porn regions tend to have the highest internet search rates for porn: you can lie but your browser history doesn't).

[seabeyond]

5. i understand men who are pro porn have a strong NEED to insist, demand, repeat that ALL men

do it.

the percentage of men in marriages and beyond their younger years grow up and only about 34% watch porn. and if the man says he isnt watching, he is LYING. yup, this is what the pro porn repeat continually. as a matter of fact, the pro porn men are so insistent on keeping this facade that if a man does say he doesnt look at porn, the pro porn men attack him. why would a man even say anything out loud. then the pro porn men can continue with their illusion it is ALL men, and some men are just lying to their wife.

like with divorce, one can say it is over 50%. when breaking down the divorce rate we see that is not the whole picture. those arguing high divorce rate is not going to look at it beyond the "it is over 50%". then they have justification and validation for their own experience. cause it is all people, dontcha know. though statistics tell a whole other story.

the older a man gets, the more likely he has let the porn thing go. same with women. when we are young, we have about all explored to some degree.

using a statement like, "people that have never seen", to claim almost ALL men, is a totally dishonest way of addressing the issue. with porn normalized and mainstreamed in society, no one can avoid it. everyone has seen it, regardless of want or not or feeling toward porn. it is lazy thinking. and it is used once again, to validate the pro porn.

there is a lot of misrepresentation in your post.

the simple fact, with easy access to porn, it has done damage to relationships and marriages.

deny deny deny.... whatever.

[4th law of robotics]

6. "the simple fact, with easy access to porn, it has done damage to relationships and marriages. "

Citation needed.

Thousands of feminists and evangelicals and other religious fundamentalists have *claimed* that porn must destroy society. Because. . . well it's icky.

But actual studies linking porn to anything negative are few and far between (and mostly based on junk science or spurious correlations).

In fact an easier access to porn over the years has coincided with a decrease in violence against women and an increase in their equality. That doesn't mean one causes the other. But it certainly makes it hard to claim one absolutely prevents the other.

[seabeyond]

7. google. i have been shown by pro porn people, regardless of the number of links, studies and facts

they are ignored. a simple google. i do it often; shows plenty of facts. put in studies: porn hurting relationships/marriage and do your own research.

personally, i have had two men tell me the wifes use took down their marriage, totally unknown to them. and watched my niece walk away from a two yr marriage because of her husbands addicted porn use.

now.... done debating.

[4th law of robotics]

9. Awesome

make a claim. Cite google. Back it up with personal anecdotes that can't be verified then walk away.

Very scientific.

[seabeyond]

11. backatcha.... prove you really are not interested in facts and do nothing to educate yourself. nt

[4th law of robotics]

12. A) the onus of proof

is on the person making the claim.

If you claimed chocolate causes autism you would have to prove it. Others wouldn't have to disprove it.

And B) just google it. There are plenty of studies.

[seabeyond]

13. again, proving you really are not interested in facts and reality or the subject at hand. nt

[4th law of robotics]

15. Asking you to provide evidence proves I don't care about facts?

Just like asking someone for food proves I'm not hungry I suppose.

Present facts. I have done so.

And no, saying "google it" is not evidence.

[seabeyond]

17. i know the game. i am not playing. anyone that is actually interested would become informed.

beating a dead horse here.

[4th law of robotics]

18. Could you address the conundrum I presented in post 16

using your own statistics. (ie claiming that 87% of child molesters view porn as if it were high while at the same time pointing out that 87% of normal men also watch porn).

[CrispyQ]

10. Citation needed:

In fact an easier access to porn over the years has coincided with a decrease in violence against women and an increase in their equality.

[4th law of robotics]

14. . . .

http://reason.com/archives/2007/11/05/is-pornography-a-catalyst-of-s

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-sunny-side-of-smut

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-15/news/chi-santorum-is-wrong-on-pornography-20120315_1_violent-crime-rick-santorum-internet

The counter point is here: http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/8970717485.html

Morality in media (an overtly christian organization) has declared that porn destroys society. That's it. No studies or anything.


Also consider the places where porn is commonplace: the US, most of Europe, Japan, etc. Now compare that to places where porn is specifically forbidden: the middle east, the more regressive parts of Africa. China.

Which group on average would you say treats women better? Saudi Arabia or Sweden?

Also consider some stats from the OP: 87% of child molesters viewed porn. Damning stuff right? But then if you scroll down you find . . . 87% of average men viewed porn. The numbers presented were exactly the same. How does that prove it's causative? If anything that proves that viewing porn has no bearing on whether or not a man will molest a child. It is a completely unrelated factor.

[CrispyQ]

22. I have articles, too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/02/gail-dines-pornography

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/08/07/does-porn-reduce-violence-against-women-evidence-says-otherwise/

I read yours. Will you read these? The second link actually addresses the Scientific American article you linked to.

Violence against women is more than just rape. It's living in a culture where you're afraid to go out alone at night, where you re-think the clothes you have on lest someone considers you provocative, where you don't contribute to male conversations because they would ridicule you simply because you're not one of them, where radio hosts get to call you a slut because you want access to affordable birth control.

It's living in a culture where your body is public domain - men on the street are allowed to say any disgusting thing they want to you. This is not a freedom of speech issue, this is about what is socially acceptable. It's perfectly acceptable for a group of men to shout out, "Nice rack!" to a woman they don't even know.

Living in a culture that dehumanizes & objectifies women is violence against women. The message is that we are not equal to men, that we are subservient to them. Yet we are a species that requires two to survive. A planet full of women with a few well stocked sperm banks would fare better at surviving than a planet full of men with well stocked fertilized eggs. How dare men suggest that we are not equal?

As for your comparison between how women fare in Saudi Arabia vs. Sweden, I'm sure if the Saudi's would just start watching porn they would treat their women better!

[4th law of robotics]

48. One is a link to a book review

that has a number of studies citing greater access to porn and then commentary showing why that's a horrible thing. But no actual studies showing anything bad.

So saying "porn is X % more accessible now and . . . . this must necessarily lead to men not respecting women" has the impression of a real study but in reality all that is noted is one trend, not any meaningful connection to the conclusions based on that trend. For instance: in the years leading up to 9/11 porn became increasingly available. Truth. However, linking the two would be silly. Not so?

So to sum up: that source had many links to studies on the prevalence of porn. But none on actual studies linking that to anything. Which is kinda my point: porn use is on the rise. Violence against women is not.


And the other study doesn't reference any real studies at all (except they one they were "refuting&quot . They use phrases like "it seems to me" or "I think not"

I never denied that some women feel this way. Which is all your sources have proven.

I was more interested in finding a legitimate scientific link between porn access and any quantifiable harm to society.

It's living in a culture where you're afraid to go out alone at night, where you re-think the clothes you have on lest someone considers you provocative, where you don't contribute to male conversations because they would ridicule you simply because you're not one of them, where radio hosts get to call you a slut because you want access to affordable birth control.

Prior to the internet no woman was ever afraid of going out at night alone. And the internet came up with the word "slut".

You do realize the standards you have set here are entirely subjective? Your argument is based exclusively on your "feeling" that things are so much worse now. In a way that absolutely cannot be disproven. Like saying today is the worst possible day in history because it seems like people are really mean.

Living in a culture that dehumanizes & objectifies women is violence against women. The message is that we are not equal to men, that we are subservient to them. Yet we are a species that requires two to survive. A planet full of women with a few well stocked sperm banks would fare better at surviving than a planet full of men with well stocked fertilized eggs. How dare men suggest that we are not equal?

State claim: porn dehumanizes women. Use claim as fact: why do we live in a society that dehumanizes women? Then run with it: men are only good as sperm producers! They could easily be replaced by sperm banks. Womyn rule!

As for your comparison between how women fare in Saudi Arabia vs. Sweden, I'm sure if the Saudi's would just start watching porn they would treat their women better!

By your argument they should treat women better since they ban dehumanizing porn that is commonplace in sweden.

[Major Nikon]

120. I have no problem agreeing with pretty much all that

The numbers I've seen suggest that people who use porn on a frequent basis (daily or several times per week) represent only a small portion of the population. I don't doubt that the numbers cited in the OP are probably pretty close to reality.

I'll also agree that porn often does have an effect on the sexual relationships of those who use it very frequently. However, I'm not entirely convinced this should be characterized as "damage". The question becomes did those people turn to porn before or after they started having problems with their relationships. In other words, is porn a cause of this "damage" or is it just a symptom? Furthermore, even if someone chooses masturbation over a "normal" relationship, is this ethically wrong? If a woman choses to divorce her husband, buy a vibrator, and live alone, she's viewed as strong willed, yet if a guy decides he prefers masturbation to marital sex, he's looked at as some type of freak who is doing "damage" to women. I just don't buy that. If you want to live in a society where the goose and gander are treated at the same, those two perceptions don't jive.

One thing I can't agreeing with is the OP tries to suggest that viewing porn makes men rape little girls and that's just fucking nutty BS that is unsupported by any causal evidence. The rest of the article doesn't get any better. Dr. Donald Hilton, who is referenced as the neurosurgeon 'expert' is also the Mormon author of He Restoreth My Soul, so it's not very hard to see where the agenda lies there. I didn't check the rest of the cites, but I doubt they get much better. The only thing that's surprising is there's no cite for Judith Reisman, other than a vague reference to those who "echo these findings".

[MadrasT]

131. This is where I have trouble too

In other words, is porn a cause of this "damage" or is it just a symptom?

[seabeyond]

139. porn is the problem. the cause

They reported increasing difficulty in being turned on by their actual sexual partners, spouses, or girlfriends, though they still considered them objectively attractive. When I asked if this phenomenon had any relationship to viewing pornography, they answered that it initially helped them get more excited during sex but over time had the opposite effect.

Internet pornography has absolutely changed my generation’s expectations. How could you be constantly synthesizing an orgasm [with a person] based on dozens of shots? You’re looking for the one … out of 100 you swear is going to be the one you finish to, and you still don’t finish. Twenty seconds ago you thought that photo was the hottest thing you ever saw, but you throw it back and continue your shot hunt and continue to make yourself late for work. How does that not affect the psychology of having a relationship with somebody? It’s got to.

Lack of desire was a factor in the failure of my marriage, and the failure of a relationship subsequent to that. I am in my late 30s, have used porn heavily since my teens, and have blamed my problems on partners (“I’m just not attracted to you,” “I wish you were more responsive”), the newness of partners (“I need to give my body time to catch up to my brain,” “I need to get over my ex”), fitness levels, diet, age, stress, performance anxiety …

Like a lot of men, I went to a doctor, got a physical that ruled out any serious medical conditions, and got Viagra. Once my marriage failed and I was single again, porn use went into overdrive—at least once a day and often two or three times. But when I realized I could no longer even masturbate to orgasm without porn, something clicked. Cause and effect seem blindingly obvious now, of course.

http://goodmenproject.com/health/how-porn-can-ruin-your-sex-life-and-your-marriage/

there is ample information out there to state that porn is the issue. men that do not want a divorce, but the woman wont stay.

i have seen it in two marriages. i have watched in three marriages where porn was used as a weapon against the woman for control and power.

i dont know that many people.

this article is good. i might use it later as an OP

[redqueen]

135. I agree it could be a symptom as much as a cause.

However I disagree with conflating masturbation with the use of porn. Masturbation does not require porn.

I also disagree that using a vibrator is the same as using porn. Or even romance novel porn. There's a big difference, IMO, between using a sex toy and images of other people. There is also IMO a big difference between using character-driven, story-driven, sexually explicit material and using images which portray women in the kind of light that the vast majority of both picture and video porn do.

[Major Nikon]

137. I'm not sure you understand the reason for porn

While it may be true that masturbation does not require porn, the purpose of porn is to cause arousal. So porn (or at least what I would call porn) is generally used by those who are masturbating, or couples who are having sex. The end result is the same. If you define Sports Illustrated as porn as the OP does, you may reach a different conclusion. And BTW, I never claimed porn was required for masturbation. If you want a better example of conflation, note how the author conflates consensual with non-consensual sex, legal with illegal activities, and sports magazines and lingerie retailers with porn.

As far as I'm concerned, there is little difference between what you are calling "character-driven, story-driven, sexually explicit material", and porn. The purpose of those things is the same. Only the media is different. Furthermore I'm not sure how many romance novels you've bothered reading. Many contain token resistance (or even sincere resistance) as a central theme or in other words they are stories where the woman says no, and the couple winds up having sex anyway. Some include rape fantasies and actual rape where the victim falls in love with her rapist. These aren't niche romance novels. They are very much mainstream, published by big name publishers, and widely available at 'respectable' stores and retail outlets. I don't know of any mainstream porn that uses actual rape as a central story line. These are novels which are quite often written by women, for women, and have clearly more extreme content in some cases as compared to mainstream porn yet the sex-negative feminist crowd is silent on the subject near as I can tell. I can only suppose they've figured out it's not a good idea to shit where you eat, but perhaps there's a better explanation.

[seabeyond]

138. the romance novels you talk about are prior to 80's. you would be incorrect about the genre today.

and for a while. it is something that many men hold up as an excuse for porn. see, the women have their novels. those novels are no different than pg, possibly r rated movies. it is a story told. and i am so tired of this lame argument from men that do not know what they are talking about, but hear from other men.

[Major Nikon]

140. Hardly

It took me all of a 30 second search to find this:

http://www.amazon.com/Forced-Bride-Harlequin-Presents/dp/0373125976

http://www.amazon.com/The-Innocents-Surrender-Romance-Largeprint/dp/0263212130

http://www.amazon.com/Claiming-Courtesan-Avon-Romantic-Treasures/dp/0061234915

[seabeyond]

141. bah hahaah. that is your proof? cover descriptions?

you do not know, nor do i, what happens in the story per that description. granted, i have not read all romance that ever existed. i read all types of books. i stopped reading romance decades ago for the reason you stated. that is not a part of any of the books i have read the last decade, when i picked up books again. i can pick up a book from mystery and see no difference from the supposed romance section. koontz, child, sanford all has as much of relationship and romance in their books as the romance. and i know this cause i have read about every one of those three authors books.

negger, jd robb, hoag, and many more.... all mystery, all the same.

http://www.wow-womenonwriting.com/18-FE2-AllieBoniface.html

These were the books responsible for the term “bodice ripper,” as their paperback covers tended to feature a scantily clad, young woman in the clutches of a powerful hero. The hero’s rape of the virginal heroine (who ultimately fell for him by the end of the novel) was a mainstay of these stories, along with fighting, kidnapping, and the predictable storyline of a domineering man, winning the heart of a passive, young woman.

For many people, this stereotypical image of the romance novel has stuck. But the industry has made remarkable changes in the last few decades. Yesterday’s bodice ripper has been replaced by 21st century stories with smart, savvy heroines, sensitive heroes, and complex plots. Jennifer Colgan, who writes sci-fi and paranormal romance, observes, “The heroine in modern romance has more to do than swoon at the sight of male anatomy and play coy, and her journey is more involved than merely the cradle-to-altar beeline it was years ago. Heroes are expected to have more going for them than good looks, overflowing family coffers, and domineering personalities.”

Jessica Faust, an agent for BookEnds, LLC, blogs regularly about the romance market. She goes one step further in describing the shifts she’s seen and talks about the “merging of genres” that’s happening industry wide. No longer do mysteries remain on the mystery bookshelf, or fantasy on the fantasy shelf, she says. Now, readers will see romance bookshelves filled with fantasy, mystery, and even horror romance stories. They’ll also see books in series, where the storyline doesn’t end happily ever after until the final book.

It’s true. Whether you’re looking for an inspirational love story, vampire romance, or a kick-ass heroine who triumphs over a serial killer, you’ll find something to please your fancy. Seeking a spicy erotic tale or a sweet historical set during the Civil War? You can find all that and more in the romance novels of the 21st century.

[Major Nikon]

143. Assumption is the mother of all fuck ups

Apparently you assumed I just read the cover descriptions. In your haste for a 'gotcha' you evidently didn't bother to scroll down a bit and read the reviews, or you might have noticed these:

The sex scenes (not love scenes) were definitely Rape.

http://www.amazon.com/Forced-Bride-Harlequin-Presents/dp/0373125976

Sara Craven's book "The Innocents Surrender" was so mis-titled that I could not believe it. Surrender? No. Rape? Yes

http://www.amazon.com/The-Innocents-Surrender-Romance-Largeprint/dp/0263212130

Rape is still rape even with a coating of icing sugar!!!

http://www.amazon.com/Claiming-Courtesan-Avon-Romantic-Treasures/dp/0061234915



Care to apologize now?

[seabeyond]

146. and look how popular they are. pretty resoundly rejected and called out for it.

you can go to kindle and get all kinds of crap. that is not the norm. but.... since you did not even comment on what i posted, showing you it is not the norm, and you do not read the material, so you do not know, and you want to hold onto this concept so you can say.... see see, in argument, whatever.

this is why i did not even bother with the other 90% of wrong in your post

really

why bother.

[Major Nikon]

147. I never claimed they were bestsellers

the romance novels you talk about are prior to 80's.

You were proved wrong.

bah hahaah. that is your proof? cover descriptions?

You were proved wrong again.

So you can't even begin to describe how or why I'm wrong (other than to just say I'm wrong), and you lack the ability to admit when you're wrong after you've been proved wrong.

I think I'm done here.

[seabeyond]

149. whatever

Many contain token resistance (or even sincere resistance) as a central theme or in other words they are stories where the woman says no, and the couple winds up having sex anyway. Some include rape fantasies and actual rape where the victim falls in love with her rapist. These aren't niche romance novels. They are very much mainstream, published by big name publishers, and widely available at 'respectable' stores and retail outlets.

this was your reference to romance novels. you are not correct. that simple.

[redqueen]

142. Address your arguments with seabeyond to seabeyond.

I never claimed porn was required for masturbation.

Looks to me like you did.

Furthermore, even if someone chooses masturbation over a "normal" relationship, is this ethically wrong? If a woman choses to divorce her husband, buy a vibrator, and live alone, she's viewed as strong willed, yet if a guy decides he prefers masturbation to marital sex, he's looked at as some type of freak who is doing "damage" to women.

It's not the masturbation that's the issue. It's using materials that exploit women. (Yes, they do. Not ALL the women are exploited, but most are. Many are trafficked and even raped. On film.)

As far as I'm concerned, there is little difference between what you are calling "character-driven, story-driven, sexually explicit material", and porn. The purpose of those things is the same. Only the media is different.

The purpose isn't what differentiates them. You just typed it yourself. One form involves people as characters. As people. Not things. Porn portrays people as things. Not only that, those are real live women who are all too often being humiliated, degraded, exploited, raped, etc. It's pretty disgusting that so many find it so easy to just blithely ignore those facts. But there it is.

Furthermore I'm not sure how many romance novels you've bothered reading. Many contain token resistance (or even sincere resistance) as a central theme or in other words they are stories where the woman says no, and the couple winds up having sex anyway. Some include rape fantasies and actual rape where the victim falls in love with her rapist. These aren't niche romance novels. They are very much mainstream, published by big name publishers, and widely available at 'respectable' stores and retail outlets. I don't know of any mainstream porn that uses actual rape as a central story line.

Rape fantasies in text don't involve real people who, again, are all too often being exploited, raped, etc. It's words on paper.

[Major Nikon]

144. I did. You replied to me replying to her.

Looks to me like you did.

I don't see how anything you posted provides a proof for your assertion. My claim wasn't that porn or anything else is required for masturbation. My only claim was that porn is quite commonly used for masturbation. I didn't realize that claim was so controversial. So there it is, clairfied twice for you.

It's not the masturbation that's the issue. It's using materials that exploit women. (Yes, they do. Not ALL the women are exploited, but most are. Many are trafficked and even raped. On film.)

While it may be true that some women are being trafficked and raped on film or otherwise expoited, I haven't seen any real facts that suggests this represents anything more than a very small segment of the industry. If you have anything to suggest different (other than anecdotal information), please provide it.

The purpose isn't what differentiates them. You just typed it yourself. One form involves people as characters. As people. Not things. Porn portrays people as things. Not only that, those are real live women who are all too often being humiliated, degraded, exploited, raped, etc. It's pretty disgusting that so many find it so easy to just blithely ignore those facts. But there it is.

Porn doesn't portray "people as things". If it did they would just use blow-up dolls and save money. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, people are sexual creatures and sometimes they are portrayed as such by all forms of media (not just photography or video). The portrayal of the sexual nature of a person does not make them any less of a person, unless you consider a person to be some type of asexual entity. As far as how women or men are potrayed, I could care less so long as it ONLY involves consensual activity. Non-consensual activity is another matter entirely and shouldn't be conflated as you have chosen to do.

Rape fantasies in text don't involve real people who, again, are all too often being exploited, raped, etc. It's words on paper.

So exactly what does "all too often" mean to you? .001%, 1%, 10%, 100%? I have no problem condemning any conduct that involves non-consensual, and/or illegal activities. It seems like you're trying to imply that most women who participate aren't giving consent, and I just can't agree with that.

Most definitions for porn that I've seen don't exclude "words on paper". You may have your own definition.

[redqueen]

148. I addressed your points, you went off about what someone else said.

Surely you ... nevermind.

I'm not here to educate you or do research for you. You've seen the evidence and you're one of those who prefers to believe it's all lies, and are comfortable ignoring it rather than looking into it. Be proud.

Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken you're of the opinion that no sometimes means yes, and also possibly a fan of that date rape and child molestation apologist. It was a mistake engaging with you. Mea culpa.

[seabeyond]

150. and this is why there are posters i never converse with on this subject, anymore. nor discuss it on

the main board. a total waste of time, while porn is defended at all cost, and conversation is never had.

[redqueen]

154. Yeah, I've been screwing up this week. nt

[seabeyond]

155. it does nothing but feed what they are looking for.

it took long enough for me to figure out. but man, is it a blessing not playing the game anymore.

[Major Nikon]

153. Personal attacks are so classy

I mentioned the OP, so apparently I made the grave mistake of staying on topic.



I posted a peer reviewed study (authored by two feminists no less) that proved no sometimes does mean yes. So that makes me a fan of rapists and child molesters? Wow!

Gotta love those who can only argue by personal attacks and hyperbole when the facts get too inconvenient for them. Speaks volumes about their lack of character.

Muehlenhard, Charlene, and Hollabaugh, Lisa (1988): Abstract posted:

We investigated whether women ever engage in token resistance to sex--saying no but meaning yes--and, if they do, what their reasons are for doing so. A questionnaire administered to 610 undergraduate women asked whether they had ever engaged in token resistance and, if so, asked them to rate the importance of 26 possible reasons. We found that 39.3% of the women had engaged in token resistance at least once. Their reasons fell into three categories: practical, inhibition-related, and manipulative reasons. Women's gender role attitudes, erotophobia-erotophilia, and other attitudes and beliefs varied as a function of their experience with token resistance and their sexual experience. We argue that, given society's sexual double standard, token resistance may be a rational behavior. It could, however, have negative consequences, including discouraging honest communication, perpetuating restrictive gender stereotypes, and--if men learn to disregard women's refusals--increasing the incidence of surprise sex.

[4th law of robotics]

16. 87% of men who molest children view porn, 87% of average men view porn

this is from the OP. This does not suggest a causative link. You may as well find that most child molesters are right handed and claim that causes child abuse.


One claims a correlation between viewing porn and being unsatisfied in a relationship. It is pretty obvious how this could be a false study: ie people who are unhappy with their sex lives to begin with choose to watch more porn. Like saying depression is caused by alcohol because so many unhappy people drink.

Real scientists have shown that it is only a problem when it consumes 16+ hours of your day. http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-02-11/entertainment/27056038_1_study-big-issue-problem

Which makes perfect sense. Knitting if taken to that extreme would destroy your life.

[opiate69]

19. still flogging those right wing fundy sources, eh sea?

[seabeyond]

24. BDSM’s Rape Problem And How To Fix It: Summary Of “There’s A War On” Series

In a podcast after Not What We Do , I declared that I’m not going to do BDSM community PR. We have problems. We have at least as much of a rape culture within as the mainstream, and I’m not going to shut up about it. This post summarizes what I said at the Yes Means Yes Blog, in a seven part series that ran 21,000 words. The original, full posts are at these links:

Predator Theory, backed by empirical research, tells us that the bad actors, the repeat, deliberate, serial abusers, are less than 10% of the general population. There’s no shortage of stories that start “I was abused” and end “when I tried to say something the community closed ranks around the abuser and I was frozen out.” Here is a classic example left in comments to Charlie Glickman’s blog post. This one appeared on Tracy-Clark Flory’s Tumblr, after she posted a story on BDSM and abuse in January. One woman had this to say (Sorry, folks, Fetlife login req’d and she prefers that I not cut down the excerpt and lose the nuance). In the full posts of the series, I go on and on with individual stories: some people at the fringes of or outside formal communities luring people on the internet, but too many others well entrenched and defended within social networks and organizations in kink communities. There’s a theme here: that silence and secrecy are the paramount values, and open discussion is to be avoided. It’s a basic function of institutions, but often of informal social networks as well, to protect the body from reputational damage. That’s what colleges do with rape.

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2012/06/20/20993/

when i hear you seriously address the issues in your community you play in, i will take you a little more seriously

[opiate69]

28. "less than 10% of the genrral population"

My community does a very good job policing itself. In any case, I`d still rather not get my science from people who believe Jesus rode a dinosaur.

[seabeyond]

29. you so effectively ignore an issue. no surprise there. meh... rape, pffft

no big deal. just ignore all the problems and issues so you play is not interferred with. then.... play games with those that bring it up.

[opiate69]

30. you have no idea what I do or don`t do concerning issues in my community.

And I imagine you missed the fact that the author you cited IS a member of the community.. so, yes, Virginia, we clean up our own. You would do well to stop leaping to, frankly, absurd conclusions.

[seabeyond]

32. i absolutely recognized that the woman writing the article is from the community. why i thought

you might appreciate it seeing how i have read from you there is not an issue and everything is wrapped up all pretty with a bow on it.

i am glad YOU recognized it was a member from the community. you seem to fail to note how much resistance she is having calling out the issue.

[opiate69]

33. really?

I`ve said there was no issue and everything was wrapped up in s pretty bow? Must have been drunk because I don`t recall that at all... link or retract. And why are we even discussing me and the BDSM community here? I wouldn`t want to derail a discussion in your group over that. I^d much rather discuss your habit of continually citing exteme fundamentlist right wing Christian cites as your primary evidence against adult entertainment, and your apparent unwillingness to stop it no matter how many times it is pointed out to you.

[Hatchling]

36. Why is it a rw fundy source?

I went to the site which is NOT dial up friendly and tried to find the source of your assertion but it just won't load fast enough for me and my dial up won't do face book at all. Could you provide me with a link for that assertion?

[seabeyond]

37. i had a list of police officers quoted in various newspapers that rape was downgraded in their city

all i had was a list of quotes from various newspapers.

there was a woman who put the list of quotes from various newspapers of police stating that rape was downgraded. when clicking on the womans name it took you to her site. which i had never done. she was a rw. a thread was started (well, more than one) to attack me in meta. hence, particular posters now will use that on everyone of my posts to dismiss what i post. beyond childish.

i deleted that post. and i spent an hour gathering all those incidents myself stating that police force were downgrading rapes, so the numbers of rapes would not be seen.

not a single person commented on them. they are not interested in facts.

certain posters are only interested in dismissing reality to wrap up the misogyny in a pretty little bow.

[Major Nikon]

145. I commented on them

I asked you twice why the National Crime Victimization Survey reflects the same trend as the FBIs data. You have yet to respond. I guess you weren't interested in facts and ignored it.

Just sayin'

[opiate69]

39. Lighted Candle Society....

An LDS organization pushing the works of Xian conservative (and noted World Net Daily contributor) Judith Reisman.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Reisman

http://www.lds.org/new-era/2011/02/the-secret-enemy?lang=eng

sorry.. can`t copy text on this phone so you`ll have to click thru... but those links should get you started.

[seabeyond]

40. i the name of honesty, i see you are making it clear i did not post any of this crap

right?

[opiate69]

41. really???? you didn`t????

so I just hallucinated when I saw "Dr" Hilton cited in the OP of this very thread?????

[seabeyond]

43. amazing. truly, amazing. good way to argue the issues. i give you a site from a woman within your

community and you dismiss.

read the threads above. why i do not discuss or get links. this is a good example.

[opiate69]

47. I didn`t dismiss that article...

I dismissed your faulty analysis of it, as well as your fallacious use of it to try to derail the discussion away from the subject which was your use of suspect sources.

[seabeyond]

58. you didnt prove anything was faulty. you did not like the source.

unless you can prove it is faulty, then it is a faulty claim that it is faulty. say it the way it is. you dont accept the source. that is the only position

[opiate69]

69. are you actually reading the words that I`m typing

or are you just making up your own? I never said anything about that particular source. Again, I dismissed your "Chicken Little-esque" attempt to discredit an entire, diverse community based on one person`s anecdotal testimony.

[redqueen]

74. One person?

Well that really says it all, right there.

[opiate69]

75. do you even know what we`re discussing?

[redqueen]

78. No, I magically lost the ability to read when I looked at your posts.

What kind of a stupidass question is that?

Is it your assertion that Kitty Stryker is the ONLY person complaining about rape and non consensual abuse in the bdsm community?

[opiate69]

80. Its my assertion that she`s the only one whom seabeyond cited.

And it`s my further assertion that, being an active member of that community, I have a far better understanding of what goes on in said community than someone whose only exposure to it is 50 Shades of Grey and the Google. I would be more than happy to discuss the various issues, and the ways the community is dealing with them, but this is not the thread for it. Since you are so astute, I`m sure you noticed that the only reason it`s even being discussed to this point is because seabeyond tried to use my involvement in the community to dismiss my opinion of her OP out of hand.

[redqueen]

82. For you to say that Kitty is the only person calling out the rape and abuse in the bdsm scene

shows you know far less about your community than you seem to think.

But I see how it is. Some people just don't care.

[seabeyond]

84. it is not about knowing less about his community but willingness to deny

deny deny.... kinda like what the article was saying.

[MadrasT]

87. Some people have their heads in the sand

Because they don't want anyone to rain on their kinky-sexy-fun parades.

Been there, done that.

[redqueen]

89. Yes that has been SOP in that community for ages.

It seems to be finally changing now, though.

[opiate69]

88. and again with the reading comprehension fail..

I never said she was the only person calling out rape in BDSM. Shouldn`t take an English professor to see that. And frankly, only a real idiot would try to ignore the real dangers of abuse in the community, given the fact that a large part of consensual play is illegal. Trust me, there are far more "good" nembers of the community working very hard to ferret out and eliminate the abusers. Of course, any community as large and as diverse as ours us going to have it`s share of malevolent parties. I trust my people to keep our back yard clean

[redqueen]

91. "... based on one person`s anecdotal testimony."

That looks an awful lot like you asserting its just one person saying all this.

Reading comprehension fail, indeed.

[opiate69]

92. yes.. one person cited..

if it was such a huge issue as to completly discredit my opinion on her LDS-authored anti-porn screed, surely she could have found more with her endless google research.

[redqueen]

94. If you're aware of what's been going on in the community,

you shouldn't need us HoF members to educate you.

[opiate69]

100. trust me, I dont...

[redqueen]

103. Obviously, you do.

You thought that because sea cited one person, that meant there was only one person making these 'anecdotal' claims.

Showed your ass on this one. You can continue to try to save face, but I don't see the point.

[seabeyond]

105. i dont know redqueen. when someone presents me with info people are being harmed, even women,

i actually WANT to be INFORMED and i do research to find out of there is any legitimacy to the claim. what we see here, is continual presentation of harm being done, and others totally ignoring, dismissing.

[redqueen]

109. That's how progressives usually react.

As chomsky, hedges and others have noted, this is just one area where logic seems to fall apart on the left, and most morph into libertarians. It's baffling.

[MadrasT]

111. Yet here on our lovely site,

We have a mens group that locks threads where anyone dares to mention the more disturbing side of porn, and then busies itself kicking a plethora of old threads with inane comments to make the aforementioned thread sink.

[seabeyond]

113. +1. nt

[redqueen]

114. Wow.

That sends a very obvious message.

[seabeyond]

112. yes... and those men were equally rejected. nt

[opiate69]

106. lol...

nah... I passed all my critical thinking classes in college with flying colors... not sure that many others here can say the same.

[redqueen]

110. lol indeed

Good luck not displaying your ignorance again quite so clearly.

[opiate69]

116. Well as long as you think you're qualified to educate folk...

Better clue seabeyond in on fallacy of accident.

[seabeyond]

44. took that stat out and put in another. there is plenty. you can keep pretending everything is

all pretty wrapped up in a bow.

now, what will be your reason for dismissing stuff.

[opiate69]

52. if you want people to stop "dismissing stuff"

ghen maybe you should excercise a little care and critical thinking when googling for websites to cite.

[4th law of robotics]

49. Evangelicals are the final authority on porn

on everything else they are religious nuts.

Didn't you know that?

[opiate69]

54. yep.. although in her defense she did remove that particular citation....

of course, she replaced it with a link to allegedly educated people who have not been taught that correlation does not equal causation

[4th law of robotics]

64. Ah well removing it means it never happened

by deleting it she proved that she never used it.

Stalin was a big fan of this style of debate.

[opiate69]

72. Heh.. well, I`m sure the good Drs Reisman and Hilton will rise again!

once sufficient time has passed that we might forget....

[Little Star]

20. I think another interesting question is....

When two people are in a committed relationship and one enjoys porn, should they be honest and tell their partner about it?

Personally, speaking just for me, if my spouse watched porn, I would feel betrayed and he would no longer be my spouse. My life, my choice.

I hate secrets in a committed relationship. Secrets are lies and betrayal in my mind. That is no way to run any type of partnership.

Besides if there is nothing wrong with porn just tell your partner about it so they can at least make a knowledgeable choice about who they want in their life.

[redqueen]

21. I would expect honesty, yes.

I think many women are uncomfortable with porn, and I don't know why those feelings are discounted by so many, as if they're meaningless.

Some people can be in a relationship with someone who doesn't share their values, but to me it is wrong to be dishonest. It's not a real relationship if the people involved don't know the values of the other.

[Little Star]

23. Amen!

[redqueen]

25. It's really sad to think of how many women are told they're just being jealous or controlling.

The reality is that it's disturbing on a very fundamental level to see people treated like things. I think it's very unfair to coerce anyone to ignore their own feelings about such things. People are free to believe whatever they like, but pushing others to accept something as divisive and unnecessary as porn if they don't want to is just wrong. And it seems to me that that is exactly what happens in the vast majority of cases.

[seabeyond]

26. How Pornography Impacts Marriage and Family Life

Thus far, the research on Internet pornography (which is a distinct genre due to it’s accessibility, affordability, and anonymity – called the “Triple A Engine”) is not yet reflected in the literature as there are no studies that look specifically at marital and family process and Internet pornography. Any conclusion from research can only be inferred – although the inference is not too much of a leap in my opinion. There are however, many studies involving general pornography and the impact on marriage and family life.

*

Pornography began being researched in 1984 and 1988 by Dolf Zillman and Jennings Bryant, and their research continues to be referenced. They discovered that the effects of repeated exposure to standard, non-violent, commonly available pornography includes: increased callousness toward women; distorted perceptions about sexuality; devaluation of the importance of monogamy; decreased satisfaction with partner’s sexual performance, affection, and appearance; doubts about the value of marriage; and decreased desire to have children. Later research studies further confirm their findings.

It’s important to note that some couples and even clinicians claim pornography consumed in a mutual, consensual, and open manner, can be an enriching aspect of marital intimacy. Although the material consumed is more likely to involve erotic content as opposed to hard-core pornography. Moreover, pornography consumed in a mutual way is inherently different than solitary pornography viewing because it is used as a bridge to become more closer and present with one’s partner, as opposed to a wall that cuts one’s partner off, draws sexual energy away from the marriage, and heightens distance between partners.

*

Results of the study showed that exposure to pornography negatively impacted self-assessment of sexual experience while some other aspects of life remained constant – namely professional satisfaction. Participants reported less satisfaction with their intimate partner, specifically with their partner’s affection, physical appearance, sexual curiosity, and sexual performance. Additionally, participants exposed to the pornographic material assigned an increased importance to sexual relations without emotional involvement. Furthermore, and the most telling aspect of the research, all these effects were uniform across male and female participants. Meaning this is not only a male issue.

http://www.simplemarriage.net/how-pornography-impacts-marriage-and-family-life.html

__________________________
more in article

[4th law of robotics]

51. Out of curiosity, if the guy in a relationship

has a real problem that his wife/girlfriend has male friends what would you say to that? There's no real risk of her cheating and he can't cite any real harm being done to him or the relationship other than he doesn't like it or feel it's appropriate (that's his woman, she should only wish to talk to him, share with him, no other male needs enter the picture).

Would you feel an ultimatum on his part that she cease all non-essential contact with other males be a fair demand?

[Little Star]

83. My point is that honesty is the best policy, always.....

And I can't figure out what your point is. But it sounds like you may approve of a committed couple keeping secrets?

[seabeyond]

86. the correlation must be their porn is a dear friend? nt

[seabeyond]

27. pretending it doesnt effect us or relationships

Getting Serious On Pornography

This behavior may manifest itself in the form of promiscuity, voyeurism, exhibitionism, group sex, rape, sadomasochism, or even child molestation. The final phase may also be characterized by one or more extramarital affairs. A 2004 study published in Social Science Quarterly found that Internet users who had had an extramarital affair were 3.18 times more likely to have used online porn than Internet users who had not had an affair. Among other things, the Witherspoon report is a stern warning to all married women to take seriously the signs of a sexual addiction, before it is too late.

Perhaps the greatest hardship for women who fear they have lost (or are losing) a husband to Internet porn is the absence of a public consensus about the harmful effects of pornography on marriage. Consider what we know. In a study published in Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, Schneider found that among the 68 percent of couples in which one person was addicted to Internet porn, one or both had lost interest in sex. Results of the same study, published in 2000, indicated that porn use was a major contributing factor to increased risk of separation and divorce. This finding is substantiated by results of a 2002 meeting of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, during which surveyed lawyers claimed that "an obsessive interest in Internet pornography" was a significant factor in 56 percent of their divorce cases the prior year.

Porn use creates the impression that aberrant sexual practices are more common than they really are, and that promiscuous behavior is normal. For example, in a 2000 meta-analysis of 46 published studies put out by the National Foundation for Family Research and Education at the University of Calgary, regular exposure to pornography increased risk of sexual deviancy (including lower age of first intercourse and excessive masturbation), increased belief in the "rape myth" (that women cause rape and rapists are normal), and was associated with negative attitudes regarding intimate relationships (e.g., rejecting the need for courtship and viewing persons as sexual objects). Indeed, neurological imaging confirms the latter finding. Susan Fiske, professor of psychology at Princeton University, used MRI scans to analyze the brain activity of men viewing pornography. She found that after viewing porn, men looked at women more as objects than as human beings.

The social implications of these data are significant, but we need to know more. The American Psychiatric Association is likely to add pornography addiction to their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual this year. Congress should fund a long-term, multidisciplinary analysis of the effects of porn addiction on marriage and family life. The National Institutes of Health are granted billions of taxpayer dollars for research on a wide variety of public-health problems, and yet pornography addiction is not among them. Most health-insurance companies provide little to no coverage for treatment of this problem, and the health-care legislation signed into law last week promises more of the same. The fact is that the moral and financial needs of couples struggling with this form of addiction will remain unaddressed in a country that views pornography use as a constitutional right.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125382361

[seabeyond]

31. Violence Against Women on the Internet

Doug McKenzie-Mohr and Mark Zanna conducted an experiment to test whether certain types of males would be more likely to sexually objectify a woman after viewing 15 minutes of non-violent pornography. They selected 60 male students who they classified into one of two categories: masculine sex-typed or gender schematic--individuals who "encode all cross-sex interactions in sexual terms and all members of the opposite sex in terms of sexual attractiveness" (Bem, 1981, p. 361); and androgynous or gender aschematic--males who do not encode cross-sex interactions and women in these ways (McKenzie-Mohr and Zanna, 1990, p. 297, 299).

McKenzie-Mohr and Zanna found that after exposure to non-violent pornography, the masculine sex-typed males "treated our female experimenter who was interacting with them in a professional setting, in a manner that was both cognitively and behaviorally sexist" (1990, p. 305). In comparison with the androgynous males, for example, the masculine sex-typed males positioned themselves closer to the female experimenter and had "greater recall for information about her physical appearance" and less about the survey she was conducting (1990, p. 305). The experimenter also rated these males as more sexually motivated based on her answers to questions such as, "How much did you feel he was looking at your body?" "How sexually motivated did you find the subject?" (1990, p. 301).

*

As the myth that women enjoy rape is widely held, the argument that consumers of pornography realize that such portrayals are false, is totally unconvincing (Brownmiller, 1975; Burt, 1980; Russell, 1975). Indeed, several studies have shown that portrayals of women enjoying rape and other kinds of sexual violence can lead to increased acceptance of rape myths in both males and females. In an experiment conducted by Neil Malamuth and James Check, for example, one group of college students saw a pornographic depiction in which a woman was portrayed as sexually aroused by sexual violence, and a second group was exposed to control materials. Subsequently, all subjects were shown a second rape portrayal. The students who had been exposed to the pornographic depiction of rape were significantly more likely than the students in the control group (1) to perceive the second rape victim as suffering less trauma; (2) to believe that she actually enjoyed it; and (3) to believe that women in general enjoy rape and forced sexual acts (Check and Malamuth, 1985, p. 419).

*

Zillmann and Bryant found that the male subjects who were exposed to the massive amounts of pornography considered rape a less serious crime than they did before they were exposed to it; they thought that prison sentences for rape should be shorter; and they perceived sexual aggression and abuse as causing less suffering for the victims, even in the case of an adult male having sexual intercourse with a 12-year-old girl (1984, p. 132). They concluded that "heavy exposure to common non-violent pornography trivialized rape as a criminal offense" (1984, p. 117).

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/vaw02/mod2-6b.htm

[redqueen]

34. Related.

http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/tag/robert-jensen/

[redqueen]

35. Or heck, why not start at the beginning...

http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2008/04/12/why-porn-isnt-cool-part-1/

[seabeyond]

38. The Difference Between Huffing Dong and Flipping Burgers

http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2012/03/15/porn-part-11-the-difference-between-huffing-dong-and-flipping-burgers/

this was the site and the article i was talking about the other day. with the xporn gal and the reality of a shoot.

but, again, pro porn does not want to see the reality and will ignore at all cost.

[redqueen]

42. I know. To see rapetastic images and then blithely dismiss them...

because *maybe* she liked it, and *some people* actually consent to such treatment (but let's not think about why, k? Kills boners)... So yeah, its THAT easy to dismiss. And all those porn 'stars' who self medicate with drugs and alcohol simply to function on set... who testify to the rampant abuses in the industry...well what matters more? Those "workers" or dudes' boners?

I would say its unreal, but this is the reality we live in.


I love this part of a later post in that series:
" I know men don’t want to give up using porn. Why should they when they know they don’t have to? It’s there, it’s often free, it does the job they want it to do, and they’ve already convinced everyone that they’re entitled to do so. Maybe because it hurts the people involved in its production, it hurts the women who have to deal with men who use it, and because it hurts the women they are in relationships with. A man who uses porn while he’s in a relationship is basically saying to his partner, “I care more about the fact that I want jerking off to be quicker and easier than I do about the fact that someone I’m jerking off to might be being raped, about the fact that it hurts you and damages your self esteem and security in our relationship, about the fact that it is detrimental to our sex life.”"

[seabeyond]

45. I want jerking off to be quicker and easier... more than I’m jerking off to might be being raped

about the fact that it hurts you
damages your self esteem
security in our relationship
it is detrimental to our sex life


the last one was the only one hubby and i needed in our selfish, self centered approach.

[seabeyond]

46. and be damn careful you do not use a neurologist that has a study with stats

if he is tied into anything that can be called out. cause though we do not know all these "religious" orgs, the pro porn people do.

kinda like using a man that promotes sex with kids as the expert on why porn does no harm.

[4th law of robotics]

50. She also has a series on why she hates men

yes, she uses the word hate and is entirely unrepentant in her hatred of an entire gender.

Hurray objective sources!

[redqueen]

53. link? nt

[4th law of robotics]

55. Ask and ye shall receive:

http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2009/07/05/why-i-hate-men-part-1-and-then-it-hit-me/

http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2010/02/18/why-i-hate-men-part-2-guys-take-up-space/

/imagine a pro-porn opinion piece from a site that openly revels in its hatred of women. I don't suppose that would be accepted as gospel here. Would it?

[Scootaloo]

56. Comprehending what you read is a core part of literacy

Does the term "snark" ring any bells?

[4th law of robotics]

60. An easy enough retort

it places the entire burden of proof on the accused and means that *any* sources presented are immediately declared false.

Easy, but also lazy and weak.

Like citing google as your evidence.

[Scootaloo]

107. Well, no, the article is pretty obviously meant as snark

But back to that bit about me hating men. I’m tired, tired, tired of people expecting me to defend myself against the accusation that I just hate men. It’s bullshit deluxe, and it’s the most transparent derailing tactic there is.

[ladjf]

57. "4th law" Thanks for your good efforts to enlighten the original poster to the process of

scientific proof . Your comments made perfect sense. Too bad the persons you were addressing your comments to were dead set on moving the agenda forward.

[4th law of robotics]

62. Yeah, it's pretty sad what a religious-like adherence to some ideology

does to people.

Citing evangelicals and admittedly radical man-hating feminists in the same breath as "proof" of anything.

It's just . . . sad what these people feel they are compelled to do to defend their false ideology. Admitting the truth would be far easier. But I guess they're too invested at this point.

[ladjf]

98. Well, we are actually discussing the fundamental problem with our political system, which is that

people are creating their World view, or basic wisdom upon totally unfounded ideas. A continuation of such bad thinking will , as you no doubt know, lead to annihilation for any species.

Unfortunately, since a majority of the politicians are living in this fantasy World, they are taking the rest of us down with them. How this happened would be a good topic for another thread.

[boston bean]

59. you need some reading comprehension lessons. nt

[4th law of robotics]

61. Could you explain which part of this quote:

That’s right, I’m admitting it. Tell all your MRA buddies that they’ve been vindicated, call Rush Limbaugh, make sure to let all the other feminists know I’m blowing their cover for them. Men are obnoxious, arrogant, entitled, violent, stinky, crass, loudmouthed, stupid, craven, bragadocious, thoughtless, unreflective, abusive, selfish, lowbrow, willfully ignorant assholes. Well, most of them.

. . . expresses anything other than contempt for men?

Take your time. I'm expecting more than a "well you just don't understand" response.

[4th law of robotics]

67. Yes, in her mult-page screed against all mankind

she throws in a little bit to deflect criticism.

I'd ask if you would defend a man guilty of the same thing?

Also read the responses. Those are quite telling.

/and yes I did read the whole thing. You in the length of time it took you to respond could not have read both essays plus several hundred comments. So calling me lazy is entirely projection on your part. Do your homework, then come back.

Also, if you do not stop ludicrous allegations and continue to try and provoke the members of this group, with you utterly, and easily provable, false allegations, you will be blocked.

Certain people earnestly believe that silencing opposition disproves that opposition.

I'm not one of those people. So . . . have fun with your echo chamber.

[boston bean]

68. We do not hate men in this group.

And we will not tolerate the allegations that members here hate men.

No matter what we are discussing, no matter what we are linking to, we do not hate men.

We are discussing issues and some of them aint pretty.

Goodbye.

[redqueen]

63. ...

But back to that bit about me hating men. I’m tired, tired, tired of people expecting me to defend myself against the accusation that I just hate men. It’s bullshit deluxe, and it’s the most transparent derailing tactic there is. I know that I’m raising spooky specters when I hint (I’m really subtle, right?) that there might be something wrong with male supremacy, with gender roles, with men violently abusing women, with men treating women like subhuman sex objects, with men being stupid violent alpha-male dicks towards each other, but it isn’t my job to reassure men that I still love all of them and give a shit what they think just because they’re uncomfortable confronting the possibility of the loss of a bit of their privilege.

And just for good measure...

As sociologist Allan Johnson notes, "misandry" has no place in a male-identified, male-centered world. Moreover, Johnson states: “And it takes almost no criticism at all in order for men to feel "bashed," like it's "open season on men." In fact, just saying "male privilege" or "patriarchy" can start eyes rolling and evoke that exasperated sense of "Here we go again.” (Allan Johnson, “Privilege, power and difference,” p. 197) "Accusations of male bashing and man hating work to discredit feminism because people often confuse men as individuals with men as a dominant and privileged category of people. Given the reality of women's oppression, male privilege, and some men's enforcement of both, it's hardly surprising that EVERY woman should have moments when she resents or even "hates" men.” (Allan Johnson, "The gender knot," p. 107

[4th law of robotics]

66. One paragraph defending herself against any retaliation

and then entire screeds condemning the entire gender.

Imagine this in reverse: a pro-porn website that has a series on why they hate women with a bit thrown in about "well yeah I do hate them but it's not my job to make women feel better so why shouldn't I say it?".

Also your second quote refutes your point: 1) this woman doesn't really hate men 2) women should hate men, it's expected.

[redqueen]

71. Wow.

Condemning the entire gender?

Leaving aside the gender/sex issue... you're clearly convinced that your understanding of the posts is the one true and correct interpretation, so... good luck with that.

[snooper2]

70. That is either satire or the writer is just a judgemental prick, is there a name of the author?

Who is this person?

[redqueen]

73. I wonder why the porn obsessed feel the need to come in here.

It's not enough to disagree.

[seabeyond]

76. gotta defend the porn.

Liberals tend to side with science, but knee-jerk reactions to anyone talking about the dangers of any form of expression get liberals into attack mode. They're so used to anti-porn people being religious moralists trying to legislate from the Bible that they often (quite unfairly) mistake Gary Wilson for one of these people at first glance. Liberals need porn to be harmless so that it remains true that nothing protected under the First Amendment causes harm. It's hard to deal with the complicated reality that a certain form of expression could be both deserving of protection and also potentially harmful to the brain. It is easier to believe that there is no problem in need of addressing.

Feminists, an important subset of liberals, also seem like natural allies. The patriarchy has no more vivid expression than in extreme porn. The young female performers in porn are very often traumatized by their experience. And many women, including feminists, who simply want good healthy sex with their male partners are being denied this valuable life experience by male PMO addiction. But feminists have three good reasons for not wanting to enter this debate. First, "sex positive" feminists have made criticizing anyone's sexuality controversial within feminism -- anything seen as condemning sex workers' free choices is seen as anti-women. Second, evolutionary psychology is rejected by virtually all prominent feminists; they see it as a "just so" explanation and excuse for men doing whatever they want to do. All ideologies are resistant to inconvenient science, and feminism is no exception. Third, correctly perceiving the problem here as "addiction" takes a measure of responsibility away from the individual man and also requires empathy for him. Feminism isn't fond of either of these.

Porn users, who are in a position to benefit most from this discussion, can be extremely resistant to the idea. It doesn't take long for ad hominem attack to become the primary defense deployed by a porn addict when confronted with his addiction, even in the abstract. Older porn users hearing about young guys suffering ED are sure that some other factor like diet must be at work, even when it is made clear that the affected guys can get it up for porn but not for hot young real-life women. It's as if the hindbrain has a devoted army of brain cells that order an immediate, irrational, strong attack on anyone threatening the precious porn. As is common with addiction, the porn user usually must "hit bottom" with ED or severe depression before he will be open to the idea that spending hours wanking every day to extreme Internet porn might represent problematic behavior.

[opiate69]

77. copying without citing makes the baby jesus cry, sea.

And yes, when freedom of expression is under cinstant attack from the kind of religious,right wing groups that you have repeatedly cited as sources, we do "gotta defend the porn"

[seabeyond]

79. look, when you are given sites that have cuts from porn films where women are being abused and you

and others say....

dont make me look. why is that here. i dont want to see

waaaaa, leave my porn alone.

that says a hell of a lot about your denial and is pretty good evidence that i dont want to have any kind of converation with you n the subject.

[opiate69]

81. again with attributing words I never said to me....

quote or retract

[boston bean]

85. How do you feel about Sandra Fluke? Is she reputable enough?

Would it be acceptable from her?

[opiate69]

90. If she had good science to back her up...

and not the same old faulty "studies" which continually try to equate correlation with causation.

[seabeyond]

93. ya, i know. nothing will work for you....

http://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=are+boys+unable+to+get+an+erection+due+to+porn&oq=are+boys+unable+to+get+an+erection+due+to+porn&gs_l=hp.12...5619.16225.0.18309.46.45.0.1.1.0.274.5025.24j19j2.45.0...0.0.RR3mVvOFBbg&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=4a7734df38a3f986&biw=1600&bih=775

[boston bean]

95. She feels the same way about porn that many feminists do.

But I suggest if you want to challenge her, you do it someplace else.

[redqueen]

96. I contend it's the vast majority of women.

Not just feminists... but women of all ages, even those with no political awareness at all.

It is a visceral thing to recognize when a human being is being treated like a thing.

[seabeyond]

97. agreed. nt

[opiate69]

99. "feels"?? so she has an opinion on it... bully for her.

Is she a social scientist? Has she conducted studies on it?? If not then, her opinion is as valid - or invalid - as anyone else`s.

[boston bean]

101. right, it's an opinion. you are entitled to yours others are just as entitled to theirs.

So, knock off the passive agressiveness, ok?

[opiate69]

104. of course she`s entitled to it...

am I supposed to respect it just because OxyRush was an asshole to her? Because that`s kinda the implication in rq`s post

[boston bean]

108. No you are suppose to respect others opinions, right?

But in this thread you are ever so cutely calling people who find that there is some harm that comes from porn, right wing religious nut bags, in so many words.

So knock that off please!

Sandra Fluke is not a right wing religious nut bag and neither are any of us here in this group.

If you continue to draw such parallels, there will be a consequence. And I really don't want to do it, but I will if need be. Do you need to make your chops with the rest of your buddies? Is that what you are looking for. You want to be blocked so you can go whine about it in Meta?

[opiate69]

115. We're supposed to respect other peoples opinions??

Regardless of how they came to those opinions? Are you sure it's that absolute? And if people in this group don't want to be associated with right-wing fundies, then they would do well to NOT post studies by right-wing fundies to advance their point.

[PassingFair]

117. This is a protected room.

It is populated, for the most part, by people who believe that pornography
de-humanizes women. That pornography and the objectification of women
in general tends to fuel the opinion that women are for "sex". That we are
the "sex class" in society.

It tends to fuel the opinion that women are body parts first, and people
only secondarily, if at all.

We are a population, generally, who have seen pornography ruin relationships.

Who tend to turn away from men who will objectify us and ours.

Who want (and have) relationships with emotional components.

You may come into this room and say that you like porn.

You may NOT come into this room and tell us that we MUST LIKE porn, any more
than a catholic would be allowed into the Buddhist room to extol the virtues of
the Pope and declare the Buddhists to be associated with Chinese fundies.


This is a protected room.

That being said, apparently there is nothing in the rules against dragging
a poster like RedQueen out and running a train on her in Meta.

What a world! What a world!

[opiate69]

118. Well.....

You go right ahead and let me know if I ever tell anyone in here that they "must like porn" then. As zeus is my witness I will delete it if ever I do.

[PassingFair]

119. "We're supposed to respect other peoples opinions?"

In a protected room, yes, you are.

You don't see me posting in the "Men's Room".

OR the Liberal Catholics room.

[opiate69]

121. I steadfastly refuse to respect the opinions of people like

Judith Reismann and Donald Hilton. Their bullshit has no business being paraded around a progressive site, protected group or no.

[seabeyond]

122. quotes from policemen from legitimate newspapers across the country is not

Judith Reismann opinion. can you really not comprehend a list of quotes SAID by policeman in newspaper articles of various newspapers isnt the womans opinion. that is really too hard for you to get? and you want to be taken seriously.

not one opinion of the woman. not one statement from the woman.

quotes from policemen out of newspapers.

what about continued lying to smear people? how do you and the others justify that?

[gaspee]

123. My theory on porn:

Honed from years of listening to increasingly desperate defenses of porn from the internet:

The ones most invested in defending porn from all of us oh-so-powerfull women who would pry their porn from their carpal tunnel wracked fingers are so invested in berating, shaming and demeaning those of us with a different opinion do it because they know it's flat out harmful and wrong.

The KNOW they are contributing to the abuse of women culturally, physically and mentally. They, on a deep, down to their core level actually know and understand this. But if they don't whistle past the graveyard as loudly as they can, it may sneak up on them and they can no longer deny the knowledge.

If it weren't so tied into their self-image, why would they give a damn what we (and other humans that think porn takes a real toll on living, breathing humans) think.

So that's my theory. Probably incoherent, but there you have it.

[MadrasT]

124. The loudest porn defenders are the ones suffering from the largest degree of cognitive dissonance.

Otherwise they wouldn't give it a second thought.

You said it perfectly here:

If it weren't so tied into their self-image, why would they give a damn what we (and other humans that think porn takes a real toll on living, breathing humans) think.

[redqueen]

125. Seems crystal clear to me.

I was wondering upthread why some people apparently can't tolerate any disagreement on this issue. Thanks for sharing your theory.

[seabeyond]

126. i think you have it right on. the struggle and fight to be the three monkeys. no hear, see, speak.

[JNathanK]

132. Porn is bad because its a comoditization of something sacred.

It essentially amounts to a legal form of prostitution, and I can't think of anything more sacred than a close intimacy that should be reserved only for two people that love each other. Its on par with putting a price tag on mother nature or putting a price tag on freedom.

[MadrasT]

133. I can't agree with that.

I don't think sex is especially sacred or only meant to be shared by two people that love each other.

[JNathanK]

134. If sex isn't particularly sacred though, I wonder why there's so much regret over it.

I see it time and time again, how many people wish they would have reserved sex for marriage or for someone they loved, rather than carelessly losing their virginity at a party. I think why women are so creeped out by porn has to do with the fact that its purely mechanical without any soul to it, and that's precisely the kind of sex they do regret having.

[Nikia]

127. I think that a problem is that porn is becoming a type of pop culture

That encourages certain sexual scripts that don't benefit women and maybe not most men. I watched porn dvds with my husband mostly 5-10 years ago. It seemed that many mainstream porn movies contained at least some violence against women. Almost all involved some derogatory language against women, calling them "sl*t", "b*tch", "c*nt", "wh*re" among other things. Most male ejaculates were on a woman's face. These things bothered me and made me not interested in renting more. I'd like to point out that we passed up every movie, which seemed to be the majority, of those movies that used derogatory language in the title or synopsis or even hinted at violence.
As a teenager, it seemed that the young men that I had been with ranging from a virgin to a "player" were all educated in sex by porn in that they seemed to want to follow a porn script. No, I don't want to change positions every 3 minutes.
I also think that the hairless look has been popularized with porn along with the properly shaped female sexual parts that can be better seen with the hairless look. I know that some people will say that they always have had these preferences, but porn has certainly made this mainstream whether by watchers or their friends.
I think that porn has definitely influenced mainstream society. I think that for that reason that we have a right to criticize it as much as we do any other genre of movie or Fox News for that matter.

[seabeyond]

128. nikia, you are absolutely correct.

and to have a group of people insisting that women cannot even point out what is happening in this society is beyond absurd.

[redqueen]

129. Flimsy excuse, or actual influence?

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Porn-corrupted-teenage-babysitter-who-raped-girl-5-03072012.htm

[Drale]

151. Its impossible to say yes or not based on the info in that story

you need to know a lot more about that boys background, his mental status, his childhood. But the fact remains that Porn especially movies and such should be kept out of the hands of children. Pretty much ever boy wants to see girls naked and I don't see a problem with just pictures of girls naked, almost every single guy on here has had a playboy under their bad at one time or another. This problem with porn and the young is that it gives an unrealistic view of sex.

[seabeyond]

152. and every girls wants to see a naked MAN, not boy, too.

why do you men continually create your sexuality as so above and beyond.... continually, always.

not even getting into the issue of giving our boys playboys to put under their bed.