PDA

View Full Version : The porn generation, scientific studies


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Meadmaker
22nd December 2007, 10:07 AM
An 18 year old graduating from high school this fall would have been born in 1990. That means he or she would have been four years old when the internet became ubiquitous in 1994. That means that he has never known a world in which free pornography was not easily accessible.

And make no mistake, if you think that porn filters on home computers can keep kids away from porn, you are wrong. If you have teenagers, it's a safe bet that they have seen a fair amount of porn. Also, make no mistake that it was not always this way. Yes, I got hold of Playboy, and occasionally more graphic stuff, as a teenager, but it was through sneaking around and stealth. Kids today really can get at it much more easily.

So, is there any reputable scientific study that shows any effects of all this porn on the adolescents of today, or on the adults that they are becoming? Do they behave differently, and can that difference be related to access to pornography? It seems that civilization has not collapsed just yet in internet accessible lands, although maybe I just haven't noticed it.

At any rate, I have a nine year old son. This thread was prompted when he asked for help learning how to find stuff on the internet. Uh..oh. Problem. The big problem, of course, is sexual predators or other scoundrels that he might encounter through social networking, but if we were to leave him with unfettered access to the internet, it's a safe bet he would stumble on porn. I once stumbled on a porn site after searching google for "barbeque sauce". I had actually intended to put the stuff on some chicken, but they had other intentions, I guess. Even if he manages not to stumble on it by accident, a few years from now he'll probably seek it out on purpose, and it's not likely I'll be able to stop him from finding it.


So, is there any particular reason, from a scientific basis, to believe that he will be warped psychologically if he sees pictures of naked women and people having kinky sex, with the promise of more pictures if he only had a credit card?

Meadmaker
22nd December 2007, 10:20 AM
I wish to add that the reason I ask here is that google is not all that helpful for this. So much of what you read is agenda driven. Google lists site by popularity, and especially crosslinking from pages. People tend to link to sites that support their own preconceived notions.

From what I can tell, pornography is either responsible for a huge explosion of sexual violence (conservative and Christian sites) or has no harmful effects (liberal sites).

hodgy
22nd December 2007, 10:27 AM
I once stumbled on a porn site after searching google for "barbeque sauce". I had actually intended to put the stuff on some chicken, but they had other intentions, I guess.

I just googled 'barbeque sauce' but couldn't find the porn - can you send me a link :)

tkingdoll
22nd December 2007, 10:36 AM
I must say, as an avid internet user for more than ten years, I don't recall ever 'accidentally' finding porn. And the more sophisticated Google gets, the less porn I even see in search results, let alone being misled into clicking on it.

However, there is no doubt at all that anyone can get free porn if they go looking for it.

I think the question about studies is a good one, I too would like to know what effect, if any, this has had on those generations growing up with it. I suspect if anything, it would desensitize those individuals rather than create any extra desire (and quite why it would be linked to violence, I don't know. Most porn is not violent). It might lead to a greater proliferation of 'perversions', e.g. consensual bondage, group sex, but I don't have a problem with people becoming more open-minded about sex. If it knocks a few taboos into the mainstream then...well, good.

jimbob
22nd December 2007, 10:41 AM
The worst google result I got was for 'FET turn-on MOS' without the quotations: I wanted MOSFET threshold voltage descriptions, and got some star wars slash fiction...

plumjam
22nd December 2007, 10:50 AM
I just googled 'barbeque sauce' but couldn't find the porn - can you send me a link :)

:D hilarious

At the OP, yeah, it'll be interesting to see if it has any discernible effect on society.
I wonder if maybe more people will have tired of sex by the time they're, say, 30.
Maybe there'll be a massive upswing in the numbers of people going fly fishing, painting watercolours, and stick dressing.
Hmm.. I think I might open my own arts and crafts shop.
Kerching.

andyandy
22nd December 2007, 11:14 AM
an article and comments on the effect of porn on people's perceptions of sex in today's guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2231488,00.html

no science, just discussion though :)

dann
22nd December 2007, 12:15 PM
I wonder if maybe more people will have tired of sex by the time they're, say, 30. Apropos of barbecue sauce: There are an awful lot of cooking recipes on the internet, but nobody seems to fear that people will tire of eating ...

andyandy
22nd December 2007, 12:19 PM
Apropos of barbecue sauce: There are an awful lot of cooking recipes on the internet, but nobody seems to fear that people will tire of eating ...

is there equivilence between eating and sex? Perhaps we should raise the age of consensual cooking to sixteen just in case :)

Michael C
22nd December 2007, 02:11 PM
I just googled 'barbeque sauce' but couldn't find the porn - can you send me a link :)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/16612476d8b2ef3543.jpg

ninjamessiah
22nd December 2007, 02:23 PM
I don't see how going online to find porn is any different from finding dad's Playboy/Hustler stash in the mid 80's. It's not like parents and kids are going online together to find the stuff (I sure hope not anyways(unless its part of an educational punishment/lecture with visual aid(even then still yuck))). I'd sooner tag my trouble with romantic relationships to my insane parents than me searching incessantly for "BRITNEY SPEARS NUDE" on Saturday nights when the parents were out when I was 14.

Bull13
22nd December 2007, 02:49 PM
Sorry but I have to say what or who you eat lololol I do crack myself up at times. I have a 15 year old stepson and it amazes me the stuff he finds on the internet. Guess what. He seems to be growing up fine and has no problems. Human beings adjust. If you are commiting sexual crimes or just a sexual deviant I don't think the internet can be blamed anymore then those dumb ass 70's porno movies.

BenBurch
22nd December 2007, 03:39 PM
No reason whatsoever to think that porn warps ANYBODY.

In fact, I think it has the opposite effect.

I think it is normal, healthy, and should be encouraged as a useful art.

casebro
22nd December 2007, 03:51 PM
I was curious too. The least biased-seeming study I found was one re: legalizing porn in one of the northern european countries. Holland? Sweden? Anyhow, sex crimes dropped after legalizing.

Anyhow, I just have to imagine early evolution. Mom and Dad procreating wherever/whenever the mood strikes. Sex ed in the savanna. Yet we still managed to evolve to a society. Right where we still are today.

DoubtingStephen
22nd December 2007, 04:23 PM
So, is there any particular reason, from a scientific basis, to believe that he will be warped psychologically if he sees pictures of naked women and people having kinky sex, with the promise of more pictures if he only had a credit card?

First, your description of the situation that exists today seems completely accurate. And of course your son will develop curiosity about porn no matter what you say or do, just as you say.

One thing that you can do is closely monitor your son's network activity by routing his network access through a device with reporting features under your exclusive control.

If we assume that all of the Internet access in your home uses a single means of connecting to an ISP, such as a cable or DSL modem, you can put a hardware router/firewall between all of the computers and that modem. This adds the benefit of protecting your home network from malicious incoming connections.

Netgear is one company that makes 802.11G wi-fi routers with a logging feature. You can configure these routers to send a daily email to you listing every domain accessed by a computer going through the router, with the IP address of that computer. I view this practice as perfectly consistent with a parent's responsibility to look out for their child's best interests.

Mind you this is rudimentary information, just the domains visited (using any TCP based protocol) but most porn sites will have, shall we say, easily recognizable domain names.

This will not monitor the content of web traffic, so it is not nearly as intrusive as other methods you might use.

A technically competent child might simply disconnect the router and connect directly to the cable/DSL modem, but this can be prevented if need be.

As far as the psychological impact of viewing porn is concerned, I think it is likely to reduce stress and anxiety and provide a very low risk outlet for normal and natural drives which will certainly exist regardless of the ability or inability to access porn.

Trying to prevent a modern teen from accessing porn is just as likely to succeed as efforts to keep our generation from masturbating might have been. Your best bet might be to stay emotionally involved with your son up to the time when he discovers how evil and stupid you are (until he turns 21).

ETA Im not saying you are evil or stupid, you're not

Tsukasa Buddha
22nd December 2007, 04:24 PM
Um, I was born just one year before the hypothetical person from the OP and I came into contact with porn from magazines.

Also, I have never accidentally found porn. Of course, I have enough sense not to search words that invite it, and perhaps a nine year old would not be so aware.[/anecdotes]

Linky time:

Linky (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W52-4F02RX2-B&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=cd61ccc9cac7815be7ab2ba552830828)

A review of the relevant literature led to three major conclusions: (1) Pornography and related sexual media can influence sexual violence, sexual attitudes, moral values, and sexual activity of children and youth. (2) Peer-to-peer file-sharing networks are part of an all-pervasive sexualized media environment. This total environment, including file-sharing networks, leads to a tremendous amount of inadvertent and unintentional exposure of children and young people to pornography and other adult sexual media. Peer-to-peer networks and the Internet differ from other sexualized media in that young people construct important components of this sexualized environment themselves. (3) A warm and communicative parent–child relationship is the most important nontechnical means that parents can use to deal with the challenges of the sexualized media environment, including peer-to-peer file-sharing networks. In addition, open parent–child channels for communicating about sexual and media experiences, sex education at home or school, and parental participation with children on the Internet are constructive influences. For boys already at risk for antisocial behavior, parents should carefully monitor and severely limit access to pornography on file-sharing networks and elsewhere.

Linky (http://yas.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/3/330)

This national survey of youth, ages 10 to 17, and their caretakers has several implications for the current debate about young people and Internet pornography. Twenty five percent of youth had unwanted exposure to sexual pictures on the Internet in the past year, challenging the prevalent assumption that the problem is primarily about young people motivated to actively seek out pornography. Most youth had no negative reactions to their unwanted exposure, but one quarter said they were very or extremely upset, suggesting a priority need for more research on and interventions directed toward such negative effects. The use of filtering and blocking software was associated with a modest reduction in unwanted exposure, suggesting that it may help but is far from foolproof. Various forms of parental supervision were not associated with any reduction in exposure. The authors urge that social scientific research be undertaken to inform this highly contentious public policy controversy.

Linky (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T80-4KSD860-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f96b21e60d748f0b24aa02bddd1299e4)

The decline in the percentage of youth reporting sexual solicitations may be the effect of education and law enforcement activity on this issue in the intervening years. Targeted prevention efforts for minority youth and those living in less affluent households need to be developed. The rise in unwanted pornography exposure may reflect technological changes such as digital photography, faster Internet connections and computer storage capacities, as well as the more aggressive marketing strategies of pornography merchants.

Hope this helps :) ! I definitely recommend #3 in the first one.

fls
22nd December 2007, 04:29 PM
I must say, as an avid internet user for more than ten years, I don't recall ever 'accidentally' finding porn. And the more sophisticated Google gets, the less porn I even see in search results, let alone being misled into clicking on it.

A few years ago I was trying to find a specific football jersey with my then 11-year-old son. We were clicking on links from a search at nfl.com. One link we went to popped up, as explicit as you could possibly get, oral sex. And clicking on the 'close window' box popped up a new window. I finally quit the program to get it off the screen. My son said, "I don't think that's what we're looking for."

I suspect it's one of those karma things. You only find it 'accidentally' when it would be exquisitely embarrassing to do so.

Linda

PAC
22nd December 2007, 04:33 PM
Would this question be an issue if our society were not so up-tight about sex?
Does the "snicker value" add to the interest level? Is the effect different because of the attitutude we have developed? Another thing to thank our religious friends for.

plumjam
22nd December 2007, 04:48 PM
Apropos of barbecue sauce: There are an awful lot of cooking recipes on the internet, but nobody seems to fear that people will tire of eating ...

Granted. But who on Earth would waste good internet time on recipes when there's still all that porn out there you haven't yet seen?
I was under the impression that recipe sites only survived cos they are a great maximise-the-window-quick-cos-the-missus-has-just-walked-in option.
She'll think you're a New Man, and might even tug you off in passing.

fuelair
22nd December 2007, 07:01 PM
:D hilarious

At the OP, yeah, it'll be interesting to see if it has any discernible effect on society.
I wonder if maybe more people will have tired of sex by the time they're, say, 30.
Kerching.
Not really.:)

Furious Coder
22nd December 2007, 07:02 PM
I must say, as an avid internet user for more than ten years, I don't recall ever 'accidentally' finding porn.

Back in the late-90's, I was thinking about interesting businesses to get into that could turn my Computer Science degree into a more lucritive source of income. One day at work, I was thinking about "smart houses", having a
networked house that one could control entirely from their computer. I guess "SmartHouse.com" was taken, so I started thinking of some alternate names, and then checking to see if the URL was available. Of course, eventually I thought "HotHouse.com" would be an excellent business name, so I typed that URL into the browser.

What I got was a screen full of Man-Ass, right there at work. It took a second for the shock to wear off and for me to quickly close the window, but I'll never forget that day, or that ass, for as long as I live.

casebro
22nd December 2007, 07:16 PM
Try a search for one one my medical probs- "fatty pancreas". Don't do it from a workplace, homeplace, or public place.

Corsair 115
22nd December 2007, 07:25 PM
The first question that always comes to my mind about such discussions is this: how is porn being defined?

For some, just the image of a naked woman is enough to get it labelled as porn. For others, it requires a lot more direct sexual depiction.

fuelair
22nd December 2007, 08:13 PM
The first question that always comes to my mind about such discussions is this: how is porn being defined?

For some, just the image of a naked woman is enough to get it labelled as porn. For others, it requires a lot more direct sexual depiction.Needs at least three people and something rude with a plate of spaghetti and sausages.:D

Dilb
22nd December 2007, 08:41 PM
Try a search for one one my medical probs- "fatty pancreas". Don't do it from a workplace, homeplace, or public place.

Both google and google image bring up entirely respectable results, for at least the first 10 pages. I fear the days of any and all searches bringing up porn are coming to an end.
...
"coming to an end" doesn't seem to bring up porn either. What is wrong with the world!?

Meadmaker
22nd December 2007, 08:50 PM
I just googled 'barbeque sauce' but couldn't find the porn - can you send me a link :)

I couldn't find it again (accidentally, of course) when I tried. It might have been related to the particular brand name, which was "Just Sweet 'Nuff".

When I typed that into google tonight, I didn't exactly get a porn site, but the description in one of the linked pages did include the word "masterbate" (sic).

Jonnyclueless
22nd December 2007, 09:43 PM
And why doesn't someone make a filter that removes everything BUT the porn?? Some of us are tired of accidentally running into legit web sites.

latent aaaack
22nd December 2007, 09:52 PM
Apropos of barbecue sauce: There are an awful lot of cooking recipes on the internet, but nobody seems to fear that people will tire of eating ...

There are no taboos or restrictions or any other issues associated with food though and in modern times people can get as much of any kind of food as they want anytime. That turned most people into fatasses and actually is contributing to a kind of collapse of western civilization physical health-wise or widespread costly epidemic.

On the other hand there is no known negative side effect of porn other than decreased temporary internet files and frantic awkward clicking. It's more likely to leave men feeling always full and not needing to see any more naked women. It might be like how supposedly you get acustomed to the sight of breasts at nudist beaches. According to one feminist Naomi Wolf: Departing from the anti-pornography emphasis of such second-wave feminist writers as Andrea Dworkin, Wolf suggested in 2003 that the ubiquity of Internet pornography tends to make males less libidinous toward typical real females

Kilgore Trout
22nd December 2007, 10:12 PM
Most porn is not violent

I think this depends what you consider "violent" and what geographical area you are talking about. My personal definition would have to disagree, but with respect to American porn. With what is produced most frequently, and without getting graphic, I would call the majority of porn produced in the US "violent." Now, I'm not talking hard-core bondage videos, but rather run of the mill, and elements of it are nothing but what would probably be considered violence. There exists, very much, an attitude of 'pushing the envelope' to sell DVDs. "Couples" videos, in contrast, are quite undersold.

Matteo Martini
22nd December 2007, 11:04 PM
I have never understood why watching porn should be such an horrendous/evil/wrong thing to do and watching two people kill each other in any movie rated PG13 is OK

Modified
23rd December 2007, 04:54 AM
Would this question be an issue if our society were not so up-tight about sex?
Does the "snicker value" add to the interest level? Is the effect different because of the attitutude we have developed? Another thing to thank our religious friends for.

Sounds reasonable. So be grateful for our uptight attitudes toward sex, otherwise porn would be no fun.

pgwenthold
23rd December 2007, 06:33 AM
Back in the late-90's, I was thinking about interesting businesses to get into that could turn my Computer Science degree into a more lucritive source of income. One day at work, I was thinking about "smart houses", having a
networked house that one could control entirely from their computer. I guess "SmartHouse.com" was taken, so I started thinking of some alternate names, and then checking to see if the URL was available. Of course, eventually I thought "HotHouse.com" would be an excellent business name, so I typed that URL into the browser.


The most famous site that one might accidentally discover is, of course, whitehouse.com

Tanja
23rd December 2007, 06:51 AM
I have never understood why watching porn should be such an horrendous/evil/wrong thing to do and watching two people kill each other in any movie rated PG13 is OK

What he said.

geni
23rd December 2007, 07:07 AM
I have never understood why watching porn should be such an horrendous/evil/wrong thing to do and watching two people kill each other in any movie rated PG13 is OK

Strangly the videos of people actualy killing each other keep getting taken down from youtube although they can be found on other video sites complete with music to jihad to.

BenBurch
23rd December 2007, 07:30 AM
Try a search for one one my medical probs- "fatty pancreas". Don't do it from a workplace, homeplace, or public place.

All I found were medical articles...

Island Skeptic
23rd December 2007, 11:46 AM
Alright, I feel compelled to share an essay I wrote on this very topic only a few months ago. I highly recommend reading Pamela Paul's "Pornified" for more information on this subject.

My essay:


Pornography is no longer something one self-consciously seeks out in a seedy back-alley video store. Instead, it has become a rather widely acceptable multibillion-dollar industry, accessible in our very own homes with a simple click of a mouse. While obscene images on the television and offensive language used on radio talk shows during prime time hours can result in heavy fines by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), there are no formal –or effective- regulations over the exceedingly illicit, illegal and easily accessible pornographic material published on the internet. Accessibility to children, in particular, makes online pornography extremely harmful and calls for government intervention.

The internet porn industry does not care how much harm it causes children, but like any other big business, it does understand the importance of strategically marketing its products to consumers while they are still young. Children are far more impressionable than adults; thus, the earlier children are exposed to pornography, the greater the likelihood they will become regular consumers of porn in the rest of their lives. Pornographic elements are tied into video game contents, even within their titles such as “BMX XXX.” Pop-ups to porn sites appear while children are engaged in internet games (Paul 185). The CyberSmuggling Center of the U.S. Customs Department discovered that typing in key words typically used by children in web searches drew up a “slew of pornography” (Paul 175). Pornographic sites deliberately target children by using keywords such as “Santa Claus” and “Telletubbies,” which draw kids directly to their sites (Whitehead). Additionally, some porn sites will create domain names that so closely resemble valid sites, such as “www.whitehouse.com,” to lure users who are innocently searching for the legitimate site: “www.whitehouse.org” (Thornburgh). Exposure to porn sites is hardly avoidable to children on the internet.

Some argue that it is the parents’ responsibility to watch over their children while they are sitting at their computers. And although computer filters are available (in Antivirus programs or software utilities such as “NetNanny”), not many parents are computer savvy enough to configure or install them; besides, children have learned how to remove these filters, and the porn industry has learned how to bypass these devices. Michael J Miller, senior vice president for technology strategy at Ziff Brothers Investments, and editor-in-chief of PC Magazine, writes that only eighty-five percent of the best filtering software tested were effective, and that he was still able to access content that should have been blocked. He also points out that the more significant problem is that there are websites that market utilities that enable children to bypass filtering software:

These utilities then restore the filters so a parent or administrator doesn't realize what happened. I was able to defeat [a filtering software] in less than 15 minutes. A motivated 14-year-old could do the same—even faster. (Miller)


The consequences of the exposure to such illicit material at an early age can be devastating to a child’s understanding of sex. Aline Zoldbrod, psychologist and sex therapist of Lexington, Massachusetts, attests that online pornography is a very harsh introduction to sexuality for children because much of it is violent and “rape-like” in nature (Paul 188). It depicts women in a degrading and subservient light, serving only one purpose: to persuade viewers that women are at the sexual disposal of men. Pamela Paul, contributor to Time magazine and author of “Pornified,” elaborates on how children interpret pornography:

Kids … absorb pornography very differently from the way adults do. Not only are kids like sponges, they are also quite literal. Even young teenagers are generally not sophisticated enough consumers to differentiate between fantasy and reality. What they learn from pornography are direct lessons, with no filter, and with no concept of exaggeration, irony, or affect. They learn what women supposedly look like, how they should act, and what they’re supposed to do. They learn what women “want” and how men can give it to them. They absorb these lessons avidly, emulating their role models. (Paul 186)

Today it is quite common to see young girls wearing shirts that say “Porn Star,” as many of their heroes are no longer comic book characters or rock stars; instead, they are the women -and girls- who perform in pornography. Children are too young to understand that the behavior presented in porn is not normal. Instead, girls feel that there is something wrong with them if they do not look and behave in the same way as the females who perform in pornographic material. Likewise, boys try to emulate the male characters they see in porn, and mistakenly believe that girls like being treated in the manners in which they are in pornography.

Addiction to internet pornography is becoming a serious problem, even in pre-adolescent children. Judith Coché, a clinical psychologist of The Coché Center in Philadelphia, remarks that with this steadily increasing boom of internet porn, she sees more young boys who have developed an addiction to porn –a problem she never encountered before the advent of the internet. She asserts that the impact pornography has on children is getting increasingly dangerous, adding, “we have an epidemic on our hands” (Paul 180). As an additional illustration of the dangers we are faced with, Coché relates the story of an eleven-year-old girl who was discovered to have developed her own pornographic website, claiming that this sort of behavior was considered “cool” among her peers and that “all [her] friends were doing it” (Paul 180). Although the young girl’s statement that “all” her friends were producing online pornography is certainly an exaggeration, the understanding that this young girl’s behavior is not entirely unique these days is enough to raise concern for their sexual development, and their vulnerability to sexual predators.

The dramatic increase of child pornography is one of the most frightening results of an unregulated cyber-world. Between 1996 and 2004, the number of child pornography cases handled by the FBI had tripled. By 2003, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reported internet porn had increased by seven hundred and fifty percent within a five-year period (Paul 190). One Federal attempt to regulate the child porn industry was defeated by the Supreme court’s ruling that virtual or simulated child pornography falls under the category of “artistic expression” (Paul 191).

If the Supreme Court won’t protect our children, then who will? The pornography published on the internet is in direct violation of the Obscenity laws[1] as they currently stand, yet there has been little -or no- enforcement of those laws. The public needs to become more engaged in the effort to ensure that existing laws are enforced and specifically modified to address the material created and distributed in today’s digital world. Every concerned individual can do something now. “101 Things You Can Do to Combat the Harms of Pornography” is a list of immediate actions one can take to fight against pornography. (This list can be found at the Anti-Porn Activists’ blog: http://antipornographyactivist.blogspot.com.) As the public becomes more aware of the little-known fact that the transmission of hard-core pornography on the internet is illegal, and understand the damaging effects that it has on children, it is hopeful that more and more people will demand tighter regulation of the porn industry.

Note
1 According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of what constitutes as obscenity, the guidelines are as follows:
(a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
“Community Standards” are determined from state to state, but because the Internet has no jurisdiction, the issue of how to regulate internet porn remains unresolved in the Supreme Court.



Works Cited

Miller, Michael J.“When does Web Filtering Make Sense?” PC Magazine 25 Sept. 2001. 9 Oct. 2007 <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,29342,00.asp>.

Paul, Pamela. “Pornified: How Pornography is Damaging our Lives, our Relationships, and our Families.” New York: Owl Books, 2005. 175-191.

Thornburgh, Dick and Herbert S. Lin, ed. “Youth, Pornography, and the Internet.” Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002

Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe. “Online Porn: How Do We Keep it From Our Kids?” Commonweal 21 Oct. 2005. Vol. 132 Issue 18, p6-6.

drzeus99
23rd December 2007, 12:08 PM
The most famous site that one might accidentally discover is, of course, whitehouse.com

Umm..Am I missing something here?

Puttting:

http://www.whitehouse.com

into the address field in my browser pulled up some political sight
(not the real whithouse website, of course, since that would
be a .gov address.

Was that sight sold to someone? Or is it "Political Porn"? Clicking
on the pick of Mr Huckabee just didn't interest me. ;)

Walter Wayne
23rd December 2007, 12:15 PM
Umm..Am I missing something here?

Puttting:

http://www.whitehouse.com

into the address field in my browser pulled up some political sight
(not the real whithouse website, of course, since that would
be a .gov address.

Was that sight sold to someone? Or is it "Political Porn"? Clicking
on the pick of Mr Huckabee just didn't interest me. ;)
The domain name was sold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse.com

Walt

BenBurch
23rd December 2007, 12:21 PM
drzeus99,

Long, long ago, whitehouse.com was in fact a very successful porn site.

Almost any misspelling of a popular name might have porn behind it.

The Internet is no place for children. If you think somehow banning all commercial porn would make it less likely that children will encounter the real danger, that is adults trolling for victims, you are mistaken. There is no amount of filtering that will stop that, you must directly supervise children's Internet use.

Tsukasa Buddha
23rd December 2007, 12:23 PM
The most famous site that one might accidentally discover is, of course, whitehouse.com

When I was in school, we needed to go to whitehouse.org for a worksheet. The teachers gave us explicit instructions to not use .com. So, naturally, everyone went to .com :p .

Island Skeptic
23rd December 2007, 02:01 PM
I would be very surprised if a study were to find that the kind of porn found on the internet would not have a negative impact on children (as well as adults).

Call me an idealist, but i feel that this problem can be fixed. But there is too much big money invested in it and there are too many perverts who'd fight tooth & nail to defend & protect their precious porn.

Personally, i find it sickening. I particularly find it sickening that "virtual child porn," and porn that involves "barely legal" girls dressed to look preadolescent, are legally permitted simply because they are not "real" children.

SICK SICK SICK.

PAC
23rd December 2007, 02:51 PM
Sounds reasonable. So be grateful for our uptight attitudes toward sex, otherwise porn would be no fun.

Good point! The snicker value has it's benefits.

Island Skeptic
23rd December 2007, 03:11 PM
Good point! The snicker value has it's benefits.

It is not funny. Are any of you aware of how many of these "performers" in porn are performing against their own will?

Are you aware of how many sex slaves -women, girls, boys- are being sold like merchandise every day?

Are any of you in any way sensitive to the psychological damage that "performers" -as well as many viewers- of porn suffer from?

Would you still think it funny if it were your own daughter or wife on your computer monitor performing in these grotesque and degrading (and often violent) sexual acts?

Do you think that the women and men (and girls and boys) who voluntarily perform in pornography are not psychologically disturbed and most often victims of sexual abuse, which drove them to further degrading themselves because their self-esteem and understanding of sex had been completely warped and destroyed?

And do you not consider that in perhaps in watching and/or condoning pornography, you are, indirectly, getting in the way of them getting the psychological help they need to get back on the road to recovery?

Have you people no hearts??

lenny
23rd December 2007, 03:25 PM
It is not funny. Are any of you aware of how many of these "performers" in porn are performing against their own will?

Are you aware of how many sex slaves -women, girls, boys- are being sold like merchandise every day?

Are any of you in any way sensitive to the psychological damage that "performers" -as well as many viewers- of porn suffer from?


do you define porn only as those works which involve "performing against their own will?" "sex slaves" "sold like merchandise" "psychological damage" and so on, distinguishing it from works which contain explicit sex? or is it all just the same stuff?

lenny
23rd December 2007, 03:27 PM
The Internet is no place for children.
...
There is no amount of filtering that will stop that, you must directly supervise children's Internet use.

as there seems to be no workable alternative to direct supervision, to do less is to place children at risk.

Island Skeptic
23rd December 2007, 04:25 PM
do you define porn only as those works which involve "performing against their own will?" "sex slaves" "sold like merchandise" "psychological damage" and so on, distinguishing it from works which contain explicit sex? or is it all just the same stuff?

I would say that probably about a rough estimate of 90% of the smut posted on the internet falls into one or more of those categories (and categories that you left out). I am not inferring that most porn involves people performing "against their will", but there are also different definitions of what might be defined as "against one's will." Many people are coerced, taken advantage of during desperate and/or vulnerable times, people who are psychologically unstable and incapable of making rational decisions, etc.

Most people do not take into consideration what sad circumstances lead "performers" into the porn industry, nor do they care.

Fiona
23rd December 2007, 04:47 PM
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/arpornography/arpornography.html

http://www.dianarussell.com/newarticles.html

Ron_Tomkins
23rd December 2007, 05:03 PM
It's not just about porn. Look at the popular culture itself.

There is a huge amount of sexual agressive messages in all of pop culture: movies, music, tv shows, advertisement. Sometimes I'm still shocked at it every once in a while. And this is all accesible to children.

I think that in general, we're loosing our innocence. The media has become so involved that there is virtually nothing you can do to prevent anyone from accesing pretty much anything.

I'm not sure if that's good or bad but it seems part of some sort of inevitable process.

And no, I don't believe that porn atrophiates people's sexuality, same way that violent movies don't make people more agressive.

I think it comes from a more internal kind of will. I was at this video store today and they were screening one of Saw's movies. I couldn't keep watching it. There are people, on the other hand, who enjoy watching it. It's not about the movie then. It's about what's going on inside you. What makes you tick and what makes you click.

It's a real act of irresponsability to go around blaming the media for our behaviour. But I agree that there should be some sort of orientation in the process of raising a child. Don't forbid them from searching up stuff but don't indoctrinate them with stuff either. Show them the best that we have from our culture and our arts. People react differently. Some children will avoid it and be more prone to the banal stuff from pop culture no matter how much you show try to orientate them. But it will still ring inside them.

lenny
23rd December 2007, 05:08 PM
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/arpornography/arpornography.html

http://www.dianarussell.com/newarticles.html

from your link


...for the remainder of this essay, "pornography" will be used to refer to graphic, sexually explicit materials using adults engaged primarily in heterosexual sex...

which would imply that anything sexually explicit is pornography. i sthat definition generally agreed on this thread?

do you feel this article is a useful, coherent scientific study, providing empirical insight on potential connections between porn and violence?

lenny
23rd December 2007, 05:19 PM
do you define porn only as those works which involve "performing against their own will?" "sex slaves" "sold like merchandise" "psychological damage" and so on, distinguishing it from works which contain explicit sex? or is it all just the same stuff?
I would say that probably about a rough estimate of 90% of the smut posted on the internet falls into one or more of those categories (and categories that you left out).

they were your quotes, not mine! and my " and so on" was an attempt not to leave any out ...

but my question was whether or not you distinquish porn from works which contain explicit sex? or is it all just the same stuff?

Most people do not take into consideration what sad circumstances lead "performers" into the porn industry, nor do they care.

really? "most people"? i expect a lot of people do care, even "most" among those people that stop to think about any employment practices that endanger life and health.

Madalch
23rd December 2007, 05:33 PM
I've had any number of people sign the guestbook on my website with SPAM ads for porn, viagra, and some rather disgusting pictures.

Fiona
23rd December 2007, 05:35 PM
from your link



which would imply that anything sexually explicit is pornography. i sthat definition generally agreed on this thread?

do you feel this article is a useful, coherent scientific study, providing empirical insight on potential connections between porn and violence?

The quote is taken somewhat out of context, Lenny.

"The term used most often in the public debate over sexually explicit material is "pornography," which is not rooted in law and has no commonly accepted definition. It is sometimes used as a generic term for commercially produced sexually explicit books, magazines, movies, and Internet sites, with a distinction commonly made between soft-core (nudity with limited sexual activity that does not include penetration) and hard-core (graphic images of actual, not simulated, sexual activity including penetration). In other contexts the term is juxtaposed to erotica, which typically is defined as material that depicts sexual behavior in a context of mutuality and respect. In that dichotomy, pornography is defined as material depicting sex in a context of domination or degradation. In many laboratory studies of pornography's effects, three categories of pornography are created: overtly violent; non-violent but degrading; and sexually explicit but neither violent nor degrading.

A separate category is child pornography -- material that is either made using children or, in the digital age, made through the use of technology that makes it appear the sexual activity uses children. The former is illegal without question ( New York v. Ferber, 1982); the status of the second remains uncertain but, for the moment, legal ( Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 2002).

The legal status of pornography using adults depends not only on the nature of the material, but also on the community and the political climate. Much of what is sold in pornography shops in the United States potentially fits the definition of obscenity, but in most jurisdictions prosecutors choose not to initiate cases. The same obscenity laws apply to the genres of lesbian or gay pornography. Those genres raise specific issues that will not be taken up here, and for the remainder of this essay, "pornography" will be used to refer to graphic, sexually explicit materials using adults engaged primarily in heterosexual sex, which makes up the bulk of the market."

In the context of the essay I think it is a justifiable definition, because the essay addresses the question of the effect of mainstream pornography.

I think it is a useful discussion of a very difficult topic. Do I think it is the final word? No I don't. Do I think it is a bit more sophisticated than the question often asked - does pornography cause or increase rape/and or sexual violence directly? Yes.

I do accept a distinction between, for want of a better word, erotica and porn. I have to say that I see very little erotica compared to the amount of porn I come across in every day life. But the definitions do matter. Free and equal sex is not very often depicted, at least not in my experience. Degradation of a subtle or blatant kind; imbalance of power as the norm; objectification of women and sometimes of men - all of that seems to me to be more usual and I think it does matter. I think it contributes to a view of gender relations which has ramifications in many areas. It does not spring from nothing but I think it is reinforces and strengthens a conception of those relations which I find it hard to ignore.

What do you think?

geni
23rd December 2007, 05:46 PM
Pornography is no longer something one self-consciously seeks out in a seedy back-alley video store. Instead, it has become a rather widely acceptable multibillion-dollar industry, accessible in our very own homes with a simple click of a mouse. While obscene images on the television and offensive language used on radio talk shows during prime time hours can result in heavy fines by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), there are no formal –or effective- regulations over the exceedingly illicit, illegal and easily accessible pornographic material published on the internet.

The bans on child porn are fairly effectively illegal.


Accessibility to children, in particular, makes online pornography extremely harmful and calls for government intervention.

It is unreasonable to expect the goverment to bring up people's kids for them.



Children are far more impressionable than adults; thus, the earlier children are exposed to pornography, the greater the likelihood they will become regular consumers of porn in the rest of their lives.

Evidences?


Pornographic elements are tied into video game contents, even within their titles such as “BMX XXX.”

Plently of sexual movie titles around. BMX XXX isn't aimed at kids any more than Leisure Suit Larry. There are people who play computer games who are over the age of 18/21.

In fact due to stores refuseing to stock 18+ games the world of gameing tends to be one of blood gore but no sex. This may or may not be considered a downside.


Pop-ups to porn sites appear while children are engaged in internet games (Paul 185).


That would be because they are playing games on places like newsgrounds which isn't exactly aimed at being kid friendly.


The CyberSmuggling Center of the U.S. Customs Department discovered that typing in key words typically used by children in web searches drew up a “slew of pornography” (Paul 175).


In the 90s maybe. Fooling search engins is a lot harder. Even with google safe search turned off you are unlikely to hit issues (image searches for names sometimes are problematical but that is with safe search turned off).


Pornographic sites deliberately target children by using keywords such as “Santa Claus” and “Telletubbies,” which draw kids directly to their sites (Whitehead).

Search engins have largly ignored keywords for years. In practice the word selection was probably due to the keyword lists being taken from lists of popular searches without any editing.


Additionally, some porn sites will create domain names that so closely resemble valid sites, such as “www.whitehouse.com,” to lure users who are innocently searching for the legitimate site: “www.whitehouse.org” (Thornburgh).


Not that common any more. It's 2007. The online world has realised that it is more important to get focused trafic rather than shear numbers.


Exposure to porn sites is hardly avoidable to children on the internet.


Fairly easy if they don't go looking.


Some argue that it is the parents’ responsibility to watch over their children while they are sitting at their computers. And although computer filters are available (in Antivirus programs or software utilities such as “NetNanny”), not many parents are computer savvy enough to configure or install them; besides, children have learned how to remove these filters, and the porn industry has learned how to bypass these devices. Michael J Miller, senior vice president for technology strategy at Ziff Brothers Investments, and editor-in-chief of PC Magazine, writes that only eighty-five percent of the best filtering software tested were effective, and that he was still able to access content that should have been blocked. He also points out that the more significant problem is that there are websites that market utilities that enable children to bypass filtering software:

These utilities then restore the filters so a parent or administrator doesn't realize what happened. I was able to defeat [a filtering software] in less than 15 minutes. A motivated 14-year-old could do the same—even faster. (Miller)



Which is why live parent monitoring is the only option. Software can't bring up your kids.


The consequences of the exposure to such illicit material at an early age can be devastating to a child’s understanding of sex. Aline Zoldbrod, psychologist and sex therapist of Lexington, Massachusetts, attests that online pornography is a very harsh introduction to sexuality for children because much of it is violent and “rape-like” in nature (Paul 188).

Does she have any actualy evidence?


It depicts women in a degrading and subservient light, serving only one purpose: to persuade viewers that women are at the sexual disposal of men.


Are we talking about porn or james bond here?


Pamela Paul, contributor to Time magazine and author of “Pornified,” elaborates on how children interpret pornography:

Kids … absorb pornography very differently from the way adults do. Not only are kids like sponges, they are also quite literal. Even young teenagers are generally not sophisticated enough consumers to differentiate between fantasy and reality. What they learn from pornography are direct lessons, with no filter, and with no concept of exaggeration, irony, or affect. They learn what women supposedly look like, how they should act, and what they’re supposed to do. They learn what women “want” and how men can give it to them. They absorb these lessons avidly, emulating their role models. (Paul 186)


Again lack of evidence for claim.


Today it is quite common to see young girls wearing shirts that say “Porn Star,”

I'm sure that fad passed over a year back.


as many of their heroes are no longer comic book characters


You have seen some of the older wonder women covers yes? As well as what appears to be a dirrect relationship between crime fighting and a woman's chest size? And then look at the costumes of most of the female characters.


or rock stars;


umm.


instead, they are the women -and girls- who perform in pornography.


I bet you can't name more than 5 people who perform in pornography and maybe two girls.


Children are too young to understand that the behavior presented in porn is not normal. Instead, girls feel that there is something wrong with them if they do not look and behave in the same way as the females who perform in pornographic material. Likewise, boys try to emulate the male characters they see in porn,

Jewish fat and hairy?



As an additional illustration of the dangers we are faced with, Coché relates the story of an eleven-year-old girl who was discovered to have developed her own pornographic website, claiming that this sort of behavior was considered “cool” among her peers and that “all [her] friends were doing it” (Paul 180). Although the young girl’s statement that “all” her friends were producing online pornography is certainly an exaggeration, the understanding that this young girl’s behavior is not entirely unique these days is enough to raise concern for their sexual development, and their vulnerability to sexual predators.

No one denies that such sexual preditors are a problem.


The dramatic increase of child pornography is one of the most frightening results of an unregulated cyber-world. Between 1996 and 2004, the number of child pornography cases handled by the FBI had tripled. By 2003, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reported internet porn had increased by seven hundred and fifty percent within a five-year period (Paul 190).


By internet standards that is a pretty low growth rate.


One Federal attempt to regulate the child porn industry was defeated by the Supreme court’s ruling that virtual or simulated child pornography falls under the category of “artistic expression” (Paul 191).

Constitutionaly that would appear to be correct. The alturnative is problematical. Outlawing a large number of clasical paintings of Cupid might not be viewed as an ideal outcome.


If the Supreme Court won’t protect our children, then who will?


Virtual or simulated child pornography has nothing to do with your children unless they are virtual or simulated.


The pornography published on the internet is in direct violation of the Obscenity laws[1] as they currently stand, yet there has been little -or no- enforcement of those laws.

Because they are unconstitional.


As the public becomes more aware of the little-known fact that the transmission of hard-core pornography on the internet is illegal,

Nope. Some of it might fail the miller test (there is I understand a case involeing simulated rape going on) most would not. Thus any law that would prevent it's transmission would be found unconstitional. Free speach doesn't just apply to speach you aprove of.



and understand the damaging effects that it has on children, it is hopeful that more and more people will demand tighter regulation of the porn industry.

Won't work. At most you could drive it out the US.


Note
1 According to the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of what constitutes as obscenity, the guidelines are as follows:
(a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
“Community Standards” are determined from state to state, but because the Internet has no jurisdiction, the issue of how to regulate internet porn remains unresolved in the Supreme Court.


Community Standards are largely an irrelivance. Most of the time the porn industry has relied of part c.

geni
23rd December 2007, 05:53 PM
Personally, i find it sickening. I particularly find it sickening that "virtual child porn," and porn that involves "barely legal" girls dressed to look preadolescent, are legally permitted simply because they are not "real" children.

SICK SICK SICK.

Yes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Amor_Victorious.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:William-Adolphe_Bouguereau_%281825-1905%29_-_Return_of_Spring_%281886%29.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cupidon.jpg

Artistic expression no?

heh 60 years ago the artistic expression was the Tableau vivant.

You have a choice. Either destory freedom of speach an genuine cases of artistic expression or accept that things that you find uncomfortable will exist.

geni
23rd December 2007, 05:57 PM
It is not funny. Are any of you aware of how many of these "performers" in porn are performing against their own will?

Very few cases have come to light so no more than a few percent at most.


Are you aware of how many sex slaves -women, girls, boys- are being sold like merchandise every day?

No evidence of any link to the porn industry. Would be far too legaly risky.

There are many things you can watch that will damage people.Combat sports. Non combat sorts (check out the life expectancy of american footballers). there are many idustries that are harmful. Porn is far from unique.

lenny
23rd December 2007, 06:32 PM
The quote is taken somewhat out of context, Lenny.

i'd disagree, but do not care to argue the point beyond noting that it was the author's summary statement explicitly identified as such by the author; but i also looked a short quote to distinguish porn from erotica, i just failed to spot a short one.

I do accept a distinction between, for want of a better word, erotica and porn. I have to say that I see very little erotica compared to the amount of porn I come across in every day life. But the definitions do matter. Free and equal sex is not very often depicted, at least not in my experience.

understood. it was not clear to me (from other posts, not yours) whether or not that distinction was accepted or if both were condemned. thanks for the clarification.

Island Skeptic
23rd December 2007, 06:41 PM
they were your quotes, not mine! and my " and so on" was an attempt not to leave any out ...
My apologies, i missed your "and so on".

but my question was whether or not you distinquish porn from works which contain explicit sex? or is it all just the same stuff?

I believe that question is appropriately answered in the first link Fiona posted (http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/arpornography/arpornography.html)
as well as her post #52.

really? "most people"? i expect a lot of people do care, even "most" among those people that stop to think about any employment practices that endanger life and health.

Most people I have had this discussion with admit to never having considered the deeper emotional and circumstantial issues behind the "performers" in porn.

Moving right along, i'd like to respond to a few other posts...

DRBUZZ0
23rd December 2007, 06:42 PM
I must say, as an avid internet user for more than ten years, I don't recall ever 'accidentally' finding porn. And the more sophisticated Google gets, the less porn I even see in search results, let alone being misled into clicking on it.


I don't think it's so far-fetched to think one could end up with porn popups or something like that at all. It depends on the sites you visit and what you search for. Anything with torrents or file sharing is going to get you some porn banner ads and such. Also if you search for hacking or game cheats.

The other thing is that popups can have nasty stuff if you have spyware and alike. It's not uncommon at all on unprotected systems with IE and for a while most systems lacked decent popup filters.

I've definately seen some things I did not want to by searching for something entirely unrelated on google image search with the content filter turned off. It could be something entirely unrleated to porn and I find all kinds of relevant results and then a big 'ole money shot picture right in the middle of results.

fuelair
23rd December 2007, 06:47 PM
drzeus99,

Long, long ago, whitehouse.com was in fact a very successful porn site.

Almost any misspelling of a popular name might have porn behind it.

The Internet is no place for children. If you think somehow banning all commercial porn would make it less likely that children will encounter the real danger, that is adults trolling for victims, you are mistaken. There is no amount of filtering that will stop that, you must directly supervise children's Internet use.

Do you know whether it was US or Brit.? Curious whether it was using the govt here as a lure or Mary Whitehouse (Brit.) for same - Brits would be more likely to have used that whereas here it would only be gone through due to ignorance.
:confused:

Island Skeptic
23rd December 2007, 06:51 PM
...In the context of the essay I think it is a justifiable definition, because the essay addresses the question of the effect of mainstream pornography.

I agree.

I think it is a useful discussion of a very difficult topic. Do I think it is the final word? No I don't. Do I think it is a bit more sophisticated than the question often asked - does pornography cause or increase rape/and or sexual violence directly? Yes.

Once again, I agree and feel the correlation between porn & sexual violence should be studied at greater depth. Studies have shown that porn addicts continue to seek out exceedingly more hardcore porn, and eventually hit a "breaking point" and need to act out on these fantasies that they've filled their heads with.

I do accept a distinction between, for want of a better word, erotica and porn. I have to say that I see very little erotica compared to the amount of porn I come across in every day life. But the definitions do matter. Free and equal sex is not very often depicted, at least not in my experience. Degradation of a subtle or blatant kind; imbalance of power as the norm; objectification of women and sometimes of men - all of that seems to me to be more usual and I think it does matter. I think it contributes to a view of gender relations which has ramifications in many areas. It does not spring from nothing but I think it is reinforces and strengthens a conception of those relations which I find it hard to ignore.

What do you think?

Just out of curiosity, where do you draw the line between erotica and porn? I have a difficult time answering this question.

(P.S. Thank you for those links!)

lenny
23rd December 2007, 07:07 PM
Studies have shown that porn addicts continue to seek out exceedingly more hardcore porn, and eventually hit a "breaking point" and need to act out on these fantasies that they've filled their heads with.

what studies?

i am not trying to give you a hard time, jsut asking for evidence.

it is not my field, and i do not know the literature; but it seems to me that the experimental design here would be a nightmare - to the point that statistical bias would be unavoidable and the direction of the bias known a priori.

Island Skeptic
23rd December 2007, 07:29 PM
The bans on child porn are fairly effectively illegal.

The bans are "in effect", but current enforcement of the law is very ineffective.

It is unreasonable to expect the goverment to bring up people's kids for them.

Nobody is suggesting the government raises their children for them. But we can expect the government to protect our children of known threats. For the government to stand by and allow porn to be so easily accessible to children is no different than if the government were to repeal the legal age for obtaining driver's licenses or purchasing tobacco.

Children are far more impressionable than adults; thus, the earlier children are exposed to pornography, the greater the likelihood they will become regular consumers of porn in the rest of their lives.

Evidences?

The fact that children are more impressionable is common knowledge. I don't believe I need to submit evidence for that. As for children's early exposure to porn = more likelihood of becoming regular consumers: Just plain logic.

In the 90s maybe. Fooling search engins is a lot harder. Even with google safe search turned off you are unlikely to hit issues (image searches for names sometimes are problematical but that is with safe search turned off).

I agree with you there. Search engines do filter out porn much more effectively now. As you said, however, it is easy for children to access porn when looking for it, and children are curious little critters. They WILL Google the word "sex" with mama's back turned, and they will get an eyeful of stuff that I seriously cannot believe you -or anyone else- would be comfortable with.


Which is why live parent monitoring is the only option. Software can't bring up your kids.
Do you have children? I assume not. It is nearly impossible for a parent to keep that close an eye on their children. And even if not at home, the child can access this stuff at a friend's house or one of those cyber cafe's, etc.


Quote:
The consequences of the exposure to such illicit material at an early age can be devastating to a child’s understanding of sex. Aline Zoldbrod, psychologist and sex therapist of Lexington, Massachusetts, attests that online pornography is a very harsh introduction to sexuality for children because much of it is violent and “rape-like” in nature (Paul 188).
Does she have any actualy evidence?
What sort of evidence do you want? What part of this paragraph do you question?


Quote:
It depicts women in a degrading and subservient light, serving only one purpose: to persuade viewers that women are at the sexual disposal of men.

Are we talking about porn or james bond here?
Very funny....


Quote:
Pamela Paul, contributor to Time magazine and author of “Pornified,” elaborates on how children interpret pornography:

Kids … absorb pornography very differently from the way adults do. Not only are kids like sponges, they are also quite literal. Even young teenagers are generally not sophisticated enough consumers to differentiate between fantasy and reality. What they learn from pornography are direct lessons, with no filter, and with no concept of exaggeration, irony, or affect. They learn what women supposedly look like, how they should act, and what they’re supposed to do. They learn what women “want” and how men can give it to them. They absorb these lessons avidly, emulating their role models. (Paul 186)
Again lack of evidence for claim.
Again: Which part of this paragraph/s do you want evidence for?

You have seen some of the older wonder women covers yes? As well as what appears to be a dirrect relationship between crime fighting and a woman's chest size? And then look at the costumes of most of the female characters.
We are talking about porn in this thread. The sexist designs of toys and cartoon characters belong to whole other thread of its own.


I bet you can't name more than 5 people who perform in pornography and maybe two girls.
What is your point? And how much are we betting for?


Quote:
Children are too young to understand that the behavior presented in porn is not normal. Instead, girls feel that there is something wrong with them if they do not look and behave in the same way as the females who perform in pornographic material. Likewise, boys try to emulate the male characters they see in porn,
Jewish fat and hairy?

Very funny....

No one denies that such sexual preditors are a problem.

Glad we agree on something! :yahoo

Constitutionaly that would appear to be correct. The alturnative is problematical. Outlawing a large number of clasical paintings of Cupid might not be viewed as an ideal outcome.

Virtual or simulated child pornography has nothing to do with your children unless they are virtual or simulated.

I am sure the laws can be defined properly enough to distinguish and protect legitimate art from porn. As for your statement re: virtual or simulated child porn: What exactly are you saying?


Quote:
The pornography published on the internet is in direct violation of the Obscenity laws[1] as they currently stand, yet there has been little -or no- enforcement of those laws. As the public becomes more aware of the little-known fact that the transmission of hard-core pornography on the internet is illegal,

Because they are unconstitional. Nope. .....Some of it might fail the miller test (there is I understand a case involeing simulated rape going on) most would not. Thus any law that would prevent it's transmission would be found unconstitional. Free speach doesn't just apply to speach you aprove of.

What part of the Obscenity laws do you find to be unconstitutional and why?


Quote:
and understand the damaging effects that it has on children, it is hopeful that more and more people will demand tighter regulation of the porn industry.
Won't work. At most you could drive it out the US.

You have a point, but there is a possible solution: To create 2 entirely separate WWW's. A smut-free WWW and an "adult" WWW. Let the consumers decide which world wide web they wish to sign up for.

ma1ic3
23rd December 2007, 07:34 PM
Alright it's settled then. We're going to have to start out own pornsite, to make sure it's composed of willing participants that don't have psychological problems and can make rational choices.

fuelair
23rd December 2007, 07:39 PM
I agree.



Once again, I agree and feel the correlation between porn & sexual violence should be studied at greater depth. Studies have shown that porn addicts continue to seek out exceedingly more hardcore porn, and eventually hit a "breaking point" and need to act out on these fantasies that they've filled their heads with. [{This one}]



Just out of curiosity, where do you draw the line between erotica and porn? I have a difficult time answering this question.

(P.S. Thank you for those links!)


I find the marked para interesting and can only comment on it anecdotally, but, I have observed porn since I was 8 years old (what passed as porn for the neighborhood and the real thing from another kid at school in 4th grade).
I showed porn films while in the Army in Maryland and Viet Nam (got an ACM for "worked many extra hours helping to improve the morale of the soldiers of the ....."). Have a brilliant representative collection from the mid-50's till now.
Still have not hit a "breaking point" and do not actually feel pressure towards that, think women are wonderful people - and talk more with them (and often more comfortably that males), like kids (in the hurt one and you will find out I do not make up the items in certain other threads way) and have never even thought of showing one any of that material - I have shown some to some women who were curious - but never as a seduction tool - and have been sought out by a science fiction writer or two for information in some of the more obscure byways. Any information can be used for ill or good and can lead to obsession - but it does not have to.:)

As a side note, side issues of reading porn: thanks to both porn and non-porn of the 50's I became pro-abortion and non-negative re: gays before I was a teenager. By the same token, I was never close to being a racist due to "Beulah" and "Amos and Andy" - which is why I could never agree with the NAACP about them.

Island Skeptic
23rd December 2007, 07:40 PM
Originally Posted by Jaana View Post
Studies have shown that porn addicts continue to seek out exceedingly more hardcore porn, and eventually hit a "breaking point" and need to act out on these fantasies that they've filled their heads with.
what studies?

i am not trying to give you a hard time, jsut asking for evidence.

it is not my field, and i do not know the literature; but it seems to me that the experimental design here would be a nightmare - to the point that statistical bias would be unavoidable and the direction of the bias known a priori.

Hi Lenny, I will have to come back with some links for you to answer this question if you sincerely are interested. (A close friend of mine is a heavy anti-porn activist, and she's the one with all the data.) You are right, however, that it could probably be difficult to eliminate bias in an experiment.

Keep in mind, though, that i was careful to specify "addicts." Those with addictive nature are the ones who have been observed to seek out increasingly more obscene hardcore porn. No different than drug addicts who are no longer able to get a "high" with so-and-so drug, and thus, seek out harder drugs. :czhypnotic:

Axiom_Blade
23rd December 2007, 08:06 PM
I think you all should know: I have found evidence that pornography leads to masturbation!

I know, it sounds outrageous; but it's true! I'm aware you are all skeptics, and will demand evidence...therefore, I will return and post more information as I discover it.

Travis
23rd December 2007, 09:21 PM
Keep in mind, though, that i was careful to specify "addicts." Those with addictive nature are the ones who have been observed to seek out increasingly more obscene hardcore porn. No different than drug addicts who are no longer able to get a "high" with so-and-so drug, and thus, seek out harder drugs. :czhypnotic:

Great so do you propose we remove everything that's even remotely harmful so that people with addictive personalities can't do any harm? It's that or kill all the addictive people.

I mean we could, I suppose, just accept that there will always be people who overdo things as being part of the fabric of a free society but you've obviously disregarded that option as "nonviable."

So what is it? Baby proof everything on the entire planet or kill off addiction prone people?

Meadmaker
23rd December 2007, 11:11 PM
Thanks to all who have contributed so far. There's a lot to digest, and I won't get back before Christmas.

Fiona
24th December 2007, 12:24 AM
Once again, I agree and feel the correlation between porn & sexual violence should be studied at greater depth. Studies have shown that porn addicts continue to seek out exceedingly more hardcore porn, and eventually hit a "breaking point" and need to act out on these fantasies that they've filled their heads with.

I think it is very important to be careful with what you claim, in this area. There are quite a lot of studies and there are more polemical pieces. In truth it is very very difficult to design and conduct proper studies in the field and we need to acknowledge that the evidence is ambiguous.

I am not comfortable with the characterisation of some as porn "addicts", personally. I dislike the "addiction" model generally and tend to keep that term for substance misuse where it can be shown that some chemical dependency has arisen. It is not clear to me that it is appropriate for more "socia"l behaviour, and for most I think that "I like this so I will do more of it" covers the pattern without introducing another concept.

Having said that I know that at least some people in the industry have stated that the competitve drive is like that in other fields. To keep a market share it is a reasonable strategy to offer the consumer something different and that something different can be depiction of more extreme acts. This will not apply to all companies and the consumers are not all going to get jaded, so there will be a market for the "softer" end as each new generation of young people enters. Nevertheless there is pressure to innovate, and it is hardly arguable that there is not a market for violent and degrading pornography. I believe that this kind becomes more acceptable in step by step fashion (not a good description - forgive me it is a bit early for me) and that the conflation of different kinds of material under the aegis of pornography allows a cynical industry to portray those with concerns as prudish or as zealots. I do not accept that this is a fair representation but it is certainly handy for a very lucrative industry if they can write us off in this way

Just out of curiosity, where do you draw the line between erotica and porn? I have a difficult time answering this question.



I agree it is difficult to draw this line. For me, as I think I indicated earlier, I have no problem with explicit depictions of sex which have no component of degradation, violence, or power relations. This kind of thing can be done but in my limited experience it is quite rare. I would call that erotica, but of course there are huge grey areas. Hey ho, life is not simple, and grown ups know that.

What I will refer to as pornography is the more common, and it serves a much wider audience and a wider purpose, I think. I do not argue it poisons gender relations of itself: but I do think there is reason to suppose it is part of an ugly feedback loop which is unpleasant, at best. Most porn, even the very softest, objectifies women. It portrays them as passive and pleasing and this is just a development of "glamour shots" which are outwith the realm of pornography altogether but which sexualise our culture. I do not think there is much doubt that much of what would have been an illicit thrill for little boys in the past is now unremarkable. So when they come to puberty and beyond they perhaps need something a little more edgy to produce the same effect: and certainly to enter the realm of the "forbidden" which is surely at least part of the thrill.

Material which is more clearly characterised as porn very often propagates a "theory" of women which I do believe is damaging. It perpetuates myths of rape and nymphomania, for example. I do not argue that it is impossible to separate fact from fantasy, but I do not see that it is inevitable that such hypotheses are intrinsic to an understanding of sexuality; and therefore I do think they are in some sense propaganda. Any message oft repeated and with little to counter it is powerful: this one derives from a pre-existing sexist culture. A stereotype does not need much for its confirmation, but it needs a great deal to dislodge it. And so this is quite a strong feedback loop. I think it damages both men and women

I accept that there are other sources of information, not least the real world contact with women. But that real world contact is itself distorted by a sexist background and our perceptions of ourselves are informed by that as we grow up. We all swim in sexist water, men and women alike: and so we all tend to reinforce those views in some ways and I think this is very hard to combat. A lot of porn shows women as perpetually on the edge of sexual arousal and as indiscriminate in choice of partner, for example. This would not matter if our society was open about sex and it was one thread continually shown to be fantasy by other information freely accessible. This is not the case and so to some extent it goes unchallenged. I do not argue that this legitimises rape or sexual violence for the vast majority: I do think it reinforces a subtle doubt about these things which have real consequences in the real world. The difficulty of getting convictions in a rape case for example: and the continuing suspicion that woman's sexual history is relevant in those cases. Laid out explicitly those things are patently absurd: but still I think they are often powerful and not explicit.

None of this is more than my musing on the subject. There is a lot o debate and material out there, but the thread starter wanted science and there is very little which could be adduced which would qualify as that, I think.

And this is a very long post which I have just admitted is oblique to the topic. So I will stop rambling. Sorry about that - it is an issue which matters to me :blush:

b33fj3rky
24th December 2007, 12:43 AM
But we can expect the government to protect our children of known threats.

Where in the Constitution is the government given responsibility for protecting people's kids?

They WILL Google the word "sex" with mama's back turned... It is nearly impossible for a parent to keep that close an eye on their children.

Then you're a bad parent. If you can't get your kids to obey simple orders like "don't look up porn," then don't give them Internet access. The 'net is not a friggin' McDonald's playground; kids have no business running around unsupervised.

Matteo Martini
24th December 2007, 01:50 AM
Strangly the videos of people actualy killing each other keep getting taken down from youtube although they can be found on other video sites complete with music to jihad to.

If by " taken down " you mean " downloaded ", I agree with you ( my point, actually )
If by " taken down " you mean " banned " ( or something like that ), I beg to notice you can see many videos of Star Trek, old series ( Starsky and Hutch ), and so on, in which a murder is committed and no nobody complains

Alright, I feel compelled to share an essay I wrote on this very topic only a few months ago. I highly recommend reading Pamela Paul's "Pornified" for more information on this subject.

[..]
The internet porn industry does not care how much harm it causes children, but like any other big business, it does understand the importance of strategically marketing its products to consumers while they are still young. Children are far more impressionable than adults; thus, the earlier children are exposed to pornography, the greater the likelihood they will become regular consumers of porn in the rest of their lives.

Why you can easily see a murder in any PG13 movie or TV series and why a murder should be less harmful to be seen by children than pornography?

Fiona
24th December 2007, 02:06 AM
Why you can easily see a murder in any PG13 movie or TV series and why a murder should be less harmful to be seen by children than pornography?

Well from my point of view it is less harmful to view murders because there is not a pre-existing and relatively unchallenged theory that murder is natural and right. This is not true for abusive gender relations. I think that there is some evidence that viewing violent material "desensitises" children to the horror of violence (Bandura was first but there has been work since then which seems to support his view: including some evidence suggesting that the fact that the "good guy" who uses violence in the service of society is in fact more harmful in this respect) but it is not unchallenged in the same way.

I would add that this is often a false dichotomy since a lot of pornography portrays both sex and violence. There is no acceptable relationship between the two and the fact that this is glossed over shows how deep this distortion goes in our culture

geni
24th December 2007, 04:02 AM
If by " taken down " you mean " downloaded ", I agree with you ( my point, actually )
If by " taken down " you mean " banned " ( or something like that ), I beg to notice you can see many videos of Star Trek, old series ( Starsky and Hutch ), and so on, in which a murder is committed and no nobody complains

I'm pretty sure we would have heard about it if someone was murdered in the makeing of star treck. You won't see something like this on youtube:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=181_1192560455

geni
24th December 2007, 04:40 AM
The bans are "in effect", but current enforcement of the law is very ineffective.

How many times have you seen actual involveing real children child porn on the web?



Nobody is suggesting the government raises their children for them. But we can expect the government to protect our children of known threats.

So baning all cars?


For the government to stand by and allow porn to be so easily accessible to children is no different than if the government were to repeal the legal age for obtaining driver's licenses or purchasing tobacco.

Kids often get runover. Don't need a driveing license to do that.



The fact that children are more impressionable is common knowledge. I don't believe I need to submit evidence for that. As for children's early exposure to porn = more likelihood of becoming regular consumers: Just plain logic.



The logic being?


I agree with you there. Search engines do filter out porn much more effectively now. As you said, however, it is easy for children to access porn when looking for it, and children are curious little critters. They WILL Google the word "sex" with mama's back turned, and they will get an eyeful of stuff that I seriously cannot believe you -or anyone else- would be comfortable with.

Excatly what is top for "sex" varies a fair bit but has tended to be the relivant wikipedia article.


Do you have children? I assume not. It is nearly impossible for a parent to keep that close an eye on their children. And even if not at home, the child can access this stuff at a friend's house or one of those cyber cafe's, etc.


Cyber cafes appear to largely have died outside major cities. And well 20 years ago they were probably looking at their friend's dad's pron collection. So no change.



What sort of evidence do you want? What part of this paragraph do you question?


"The consequences of the exposure to such illicit material at an early age can be devastating to a child’s understanding of sex"



Very funny....


Not really. You just described a james bond film (certianly the older ones). Are you suggesting banning james bond?



Again: Which part of this paragraph/s do you want evidence for?


Um all of it?


We are talking about porn in this thread. The sexist designs of toys and cartoon characters belong to whole other thread of its own.


Remeber everyone not porn:

http://www.superdickery.com/images/oneshot/wwbind.jpg
http://www.superdickery.com/images/bondage/bdoubleswall5ly4bs.jpg
http://www.superdickery.com/images/bondage/ww4ns8nx.gif

Okey maybe they have just been spending too much time in japan:
http://www.superdickery.com/images/bondage/3396_4_00005.jpg

(blame William Moulton Marston)


What is your point? And how much are we betting for?


Porn is not mainstream in any meaingful sense. People can perhaps name ron jeremy jemma jameson. That italian one who ran for election in europe and Linda Boreman for historical reasons.



I am sure the laws can be defined properly enough to distinguish and protect legitimate art from porn.

One of the paintings I linked to was meant as porn at the time. Which one?

Then you have the japanese stuff.



As for your statement re: virtual or simulated child porn: What exactly are you saying?


Virtual or simulated child pornography does not by defintion involve real children.


What part of the Obscenity laws do you find to be unconstitutional and why?


The ones that fail to include all parts of the miller test.


You have a point, but there is a possible solution: To create 2 entirely separate WWW's. A smut-free WWW and an "adult" WWW. Let the consumers decide which world wide web they wish to sign up for.

Been done a few times. Consumers decided they wanted the uncensored one. If you don't you are free to move to china.

Island Skeptic
24th December 2007, 09:12 AM
Geni, I am having a hard time determining if you are serious or just being a wise ass like some others in this thread. I'm not interested in getting involved in circular arguments or semantics.

The type of pornography that is circulated in today's world is a problem, and if you are unable to recognize that, then i can only surmise you have quite a calloused conscience.

Fiona has summarized all my thoughts on the subject and do not feel I have much more to add to what she has said except that I find it rather sad that this issue is not taken as seriously as i feel it should. I am also sick of the "violence in the media" counter-argument, which Fiona responded to very nicely -leaving me nothing more to say except "Nicely said, Fiona".

Although I do understand the concern over censorship very much, you must consider that in order to live as a civilized society, some laws have to be put in place -or otherwise we would live in complete anarchy. The freedom of expression is one of the greatest civilized freedoms, but the line must be (and is) drawn somewhere.

Do you sincerely believe there is no harm in hardcore porn and that it should not be regulated?

Would you feel completely comfortable if your child, nephew, niece, wife, husband (or anyone you love)(assuming you do love someone) were to make a living 'performing' in hardcore porn?

Virtual or simulated child pornography does not by defintion involve real children.

By definition it does not. But it feeds the viewer the idea that such behavior is acceptable.

You are apparently OK with that, thus, you frighten me.

Island Skeptic
24th December 2007, 09:58 AM
Originally Posted by Jaana View Post
But we can expect the government to protect our children of known threats.
Where in the Constitution is the government given responsibility for protecting people's kids?

Why do you think we have law enforcement? To protect the public, yes? Tell me: how is my expectation for the government to protect children any different than your expectation for the police to come when you call to report that someone had spray painted graffiti on your precious car?

Originally Posted by Jaana View Post
They WILL Google the word "sex" with mama's back turned... It is nearly impossible for a parent to keep that close an eye on their children.

Then you're a bad parent. If you can't get your kids to obey simple orders like "don't look up porn," then don't give them Internet access. The 'net is not a friggin' McDonald's playground; kids have no business running around unsupervised.

I am a great parent. Not perfect by any standards, but I believe I did a good job as a single working mother. (How many moms can brag that her son calls every week all the way from Italy -never because he wants something, but simply to say "Hello" and "I love you"?) I did not ban my son from using the computer. I could only hope he'd use it responsibly & heed my warnings.

It is unrealistic for you to suggest a parent deny their child from internet access in today's world & supervise them 24/7. This is why I suspect you do not have children. Unless you completely shelter a child from the world and deny them any form of a social life, a child will inevitably come across hardcore pornography one way or another.

It would not have been as bothersome for me to know my son would stumble upon a Playboy magazine, but to know my son would be prematurely introduced to sex via encountering such cr*p as "gang bangs" and such: the thought was horrifying.

More horrifying is that there are so many children who are raised in such dysfunctional families, and those are the children that i worry about the most.

The combination of a child's emotional scars from neglectful and bad parenting + access to violent porn could easily result in a highly sexually dysfunctional adult.

Ah, but you don't care...

geni
24th December 2007, 10:16 AM
Geni, I am having a hard time determining if you are serious or just being a wise ass like some others in this thread. I'm not interested in getting involved in circular arguments or semantics.

You don't appear to be interested in provideing evidence or logical arguments for your claims either.


The type of pornography that is circulated in today's world is a problem, and if you are unable to recognize that, then i can only surmise you have quite a calloused conscience.

Or I know what used to appear in Tijuana bibles (collectors items today). Incest, Bestiality, paedophilia, various forms of violence. What problems did they cause?


Although I do understand the concern over censorship very much, you must consider that in order to live as a civilized society, some laws have to be put in place -or otherwise we would live in complete anarchy. The freedom of expression is one of the greatest civilized freedoms, but the line must be (and is) drawn somewhere.

Generally at conspiracy to commit a crime.


Do you sincerely believe there is no harm in hardcore porn and that it should not be regulated?

At this time we don't know. Thus we play safe and limit it's sale to adults only.


Would you feel completely comfortable if your child, nephew, niece, wife, husband (or anyone you love)(assuming you do love someone) were to make a living 'performing' in hardcore porn?

No but then I'd rather they were not involved in boxing or working with certian chemicals.


By definition it does not. But it feeds the viewer the idea that such behavior is acceptable.

No evidence that this is the case.

Morrigan
24th December 2007, 11:40 AM
Alright, I feel compelled to share an essay I wrote on this very topic only a few months ago. I highly recommend reading Pamela Paul's "Pornified" for more information on this subject.

My essay:

My. That's a poorly researched essay full of fallacies you've got there. If I were your professor I'd give you a D- at best.


Children are far more impressionable than adults; thus, the earlier children are exposed to pornography, the greater the likelihood they will become regular consumers of porn in the rest of their lives.

Evidence?
"Children are far more impressionable than adults; thus, the earlier children are exposed to violent movies, the greater the likelihood they will become violent thugs in the rest of their lives". Um, wait. A generation or two of kids raised on Arnold Schwartzenegger and Sylvester Stallone movies beg to differ.


Pornographic elements are tied into video game contents, even within their titles such as “BMX XXX.”

What a ridiculous claim! :newlol Not only are plenty of video games targeted at adults, such as this game, but porn-related games are pretty damn rare, and this statement implies otherwise. And lastly, BMX XXX was a commercial flop. And lastly, the "porn" in that game involves... topless women. Oh no, boobies - how degrading and horrifying! Stop the press, think of the children! :newlol
Bad research, bad.


Pop-ups to porn sites appear while children are engaged in internet games (Paul 185).

I'm sure Microsoft or Yahoo Games and other friendly internet gaming sites have porn pop-ups... not. Oh wait, you mean sites targeted at adults? Tough. Funny how you bring up pop-ups, while since Microsoft released SP2 for WinXP (by far the largest user base), they have included a pop-up blocker. That was in 2004. You wrote your essay "a few months ago"? Bad research, bad.
The rest of your essay is more of the same. You show a very poor understanding of Internet technology.


The consequences of the exposure to such illicit material at an early age can be devastating to a child’s understanding of sex. Aline Zoldbrod, psychologist and sex therapist of Lexington, Massachusetts, attests that online pornography is a very harsh introduction to sexuality for children because much of it is violent and “rape-like” in nature (Paul 188).

Evidence that porn is often "rape-like"?

Kids … absorb pornography very differently from the way adults do. Not only are kids like sponges, they are also quite literal. Even young teenagers are generally not sophisticated enough consumers to differentiate between fantasy and reality.
Hysterical harpies have been throwing up that old canard about video game violence since forever, and they've never been shown to be right. Pardon me if I'll just think you guys are crying wolf again.


Today it is quite common to see young girls wearing shirts that say “Porn Star,”

How often is "common"? Vague weasel statement without evidence. Again.

Instead, girls feel that there is something wrong with them if they do not look and behave in the same way as the females who perform in pornographic material. Likewise, boys try to emulate the male characters they see in porn, and mistakenly believe that girls like being treated in the manners in which they are in pornography.
Evidence that this is actually happening?

As an additional illustration of the dangers we are faced with, Coché relates the story of an eleven-year-old girl who was discovered to have developed her own pornographic website, claiming that this sort of behavior was considered “cool” among her peers and that “all [her] friends were doing it” (Paul 180). Although the young girl’s statement that “all” her friends were producing online pornography is certainly an exaggeration, the understanding that this young girl’s behavior is not entirely unique these days is enough to raise concern for their sexual development, and their vulnerability to sexual predators.
An isolated incident is evidence now?


The dramatic increase of child pornography is one of the most frightening results of an unregulated cyber-world. Between 1996 and 2004, the number of child pornography cases handled by the FBI had tripled.

Could not the number of cases have increased due to an heightened awareness of law enforcement about child porn, as well as other factors such as technology increase? And what are those cases about, anyway? People getting caught with material on their computer, or are we talking about the producers? Still too vague. I'm not sure this is all "most frightening". I'm not saying it's cool, mind you, but let's have some perspective here.


By 2003, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children reported internet porn had increased by seven hundred and fifty percent within a five-year period (Paul 190).

Wow. Since 2002, my own website's traffic has increased over tenfold. It's not a porn site. Woohoo, my site is more popular than porn!...


If the Supreme Court won’t protect our children, then who will?

http://www.owenbloggers.com/tyler/WindowsLiveWriter/WinterWonderland_13F83/image%7B0%7D%5B8%5D_1.png

As the public becomes more aware of the little-known fact that the transmission of hard-core pornography on the internet is illegal,
[/SIZE]
....... Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. :newlol Good luck with that.


[QUOTE=Jaana;3272367]It is not funny. Are any of you aware of how many of these "performers" in porn are performing against their own will?
No. How many? Evidence?

Are any of you in any way sensitive to the psychological damage that "performers" -as well as many viewers- of porn suffer from?

Would you still think it funny if it were your own daughter or wife on your computer monitor performing in these grotesque and degrading (and often violent) sexual acts?

Appeals to emotions. And besides, grotesque and degrading are in the eye of the beholder (or participant).


Do you think that the women and men (and girls and boys) who voluntarily perform in pornography are not psychologically disturbed and most often victims of sexual abuse, which drove them to further degrading themselves because their self-esteem and understanding of sex had been completely warped and destroyed?


More appeals to emotion, without a shred of evidence. And I'm not sure I agree with your "non-warped, wholesome" view of sexuality.


And do you not consider that in perhaps in watching and/or condoning pornography, you are, indirectly, getting in the way of them getting the psychological help they need to get back on the road to recovery?

Have you people no hearts??

Do I need to post Helen Lovejoy again?

I would say that probably about a rough estimate of 90% of the smut posted on the internet falls into one or more of those categories (and categories that you left out).
Estimate based on what?
I like the use of the word "smut". It makes you sound so objective and rational, instead of hysterical and puritane...


The fact that children are more impressionable is common knowledge. I don't believe I need to submit evidence for that. As for children's early exposure to porn = more likelihood of becoming regular consumers: Just plain logic.

:newlol
You're quite something, you know that? I think that you meant to write, "just plain leaps of logic".


You have a point, but there is a possible solution: To create 2 entirely separate WWW's. A smut-free WWW and an "adult" WWW. Let the consumers decide which world wide web they wish to sign up for.
How exactly would that be enforced? And what happens if I want to see porn, but still want children? You don't know how the Internet works, clearly.

Geni, I am having a hard time determining if you are serious or just being a wise ass like some others in this thread. I'm not interested in getting involved in circular arguments or semantics.

The type of pornography that is circulated in today's world is a problem, and if you are unable to recognize that, then i can only surmise you have quite a calloused conscience.

You make a lot of outrageous and fallacious claims. Geni is making reasonable requests for evidence. Just because someone disagrees with your misinformed opinion about adult websites does not mean they are a big bad meanie with no conscience.


Do you sincerely believe there is no harm in hardcore porn and that it should not be regulated?

He has said no such thing, so thank you for not implying that, hmm?

Now if you posted carefully objective and scholarly research, we might listen. But you just sound like those fundies who scream when they see a boob.

fuelair
24th December 2007, 12:11 PM
I not no response to my input on this - but I am going to try again for a few questions.

1) please quote, say, two papers by known/clearly legitimate researchers on the following topics: evidence of harm to children exposed to pornography (including the nature and exposure time for same and the specific nature of the harm); evidence that a statistically significant number of sex performers in the US are directly or indirectly forced to so perform. More later - called away.

BenBurch
24th December 2007, 12:20 PM
It is not funny. Are any of you aware of how many of these "performers" in porn are performing against their own will?

NONE at all.

I have been a consultant to AVN Magazine (my name used to be in the colophon each month, you can go look...) And there is no slavery whatsoever in the commercial porn industry in the USA.

The only place you find coercion is with pedophiles, and they are outside of the law and outside of the industry.

BenBurch
24th December 2007, 12:45 PM
To amplify my above comments; Porn studios have to TURN AWAY women who want to work for them.

The money is good (could be better, but SAG will not admit porn actors,) the working conditions are safe, and many actresses actually enjoy the job. And those that don't, well, its a JOB! We are not supposed to enjoy them too much, or nobody would find the need to pay us for them.

There is simply no incentive whatsoever to coerce anybody into doing anything!

geni
24th December 2007, 12:54 PM
There is simply no incentive whatsoever to coerce anybody into doing anything!

Modern US industry pehaps there have been issues in the past though.

Soapy Sam
24th December 2007, 02:20 PM
I must say, as an avid internet user for more than ten years, I don't recall ever 'accidentally' finding porn.

Once.

I looked up "Seil Island" (pronounced "seal"), a place in Argyll, Scotland.
I was bemused to arrive at a German bondage site.
"Seil" is "rope" in German- as in "abseil", to move down a rope- but this one took me by surprise.

I think this was pre-Google, using Internet Explorer.

Other than that, all the porn I've found I had to look for.:D

DRBUZZ0
24th December 2007, 03:11 PM
If there is one cultural change which I think can be traced back to porn I think it might be the... grooming... of a woman's cratchal area. It seems that it is more of an expectation now that it be less covered. I remember not long ago that was considered something of a fetish or whatever, now I'd say most guys see it as a strong preference that is not unreasonable to expect to some degree.

Most girls who I know well enough to ask and get an honest answer from see it as totally normal and generally either do so to some degree or do so when in a sexual relationship (even if not when single).

I don't want to start an argument over whether or not it's a "fair" expectation but it's definitely considered more normal and common than I think it once was.

Matteo Martini
24th December 2007, 03:56 PM
Well from my point of view it is less harmful to view murders because there is not a pre-existing and relatively unchallenged theory that murder is natural and right. This is not true for abusive gender relations. I think that there is some evidence that viewing violent material "desensitises" children to the horror of violence (Bandura was first but there has been work since then which seems to support his view: including some evidence suggesting that the fact that the "good guy" who uses violence in the service of society is in fact more harmful in this respect) but it is not unchallenged in the same way.

I would add that this is often a false dichotomy since a lot of pornography portrays both sex and violence. There is no acceptable relationship between the two and the fact that this is glossed over shows how deep this distortion goes in our culture

Do 13 year-old kid care/know about pre-existing and relatively unchallenged theories?
What is more wrong?
Seeing two human beings do something like having sex or killing each other?

I'm pretty sure we would have heard about it if someone was murdered in the makeing of star treck. You won't see something like this on youtube:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=181_1192560455

I have seen people getting killed in the Smipsons cartoon ( if I remember well ), in " Starsky and Hutch " TV series, in " Lieutenant Colombo ", ..

Nobody seems to care..

geni
24th December 2007, 06:29 PM
I have seen people getting killed in the Smipsons cartoon ( if I remember well ), in " Starsky and Hutch " TV series, in " Lieutenant Colombo ", ..

Nobody seems to care..

You didn't see a single person die. Now without running to orgish can you find the nick berg beheading videos. Why do you think that is rather more difficult?

BenBurch
24th December 2007, 06:45 PM
Modern US industry pehaps there have been issues in the past though.

You have to go back to mob control of what porn there was (all under the counter) in the 30s to and EARLY 60s to find anybody who was coerced. And the coercion here was usually to pay off debts to said organization, usually involving women already in the sex trade - but even then it was NOT hard to find a prostitute to act in a "loop". You only had to pay them a little extra for what they were already doing. Often brothels were the venues for film shoots and were also where stag loops were sold.

I recommend a autobiography written by the late Tina Russell "Porn Star" if you want a window into the porn industry in the late 60s and early 70s; Nobody was coerced.

No, don't get me wrong; The sex trade is a terrible business. There is far too much exposure to drug use, and many wind up being sucked into it, but i have also seen that same thing happen in the movie industry, and the music industry, and even among commodities traders.

The porn itself is probably the best part of the sex trade, and many in it see it as a step up from stripping or whoring.

In the modern porn industry there is mandatory and effective HIV (and all other STDs) testing. There are dangers, usually when people leave the American system and go to someplace like Brazil where the porn industry has less strict standards on the sort of testing employed. (Antibody tests show positive too late, you have to test for viral DNA.)

So, yeah, in the deep, dark past things weren't so great, but in that era husbands routinely beat their wives and the law looked the other way, so its really hard to make the claim that the fault even then was with the porn itself.

Matteo Martini
24th December 2007, 08:01 PM
You didn't see a single person die. [..]

Almost all the episodes of Lieutenant Colombo start with a murder.
And I have seen many of them..

BenBurch
24th December 2007, 08:06 PM
Almost all the episodes of Lieutenant Colombo start with a murder.
And I have seen many of them..

The conflation of symbols with the things they represent is a common human cognitive issue, after all.

"Columbo" opens with a fake murder. Porn movies are full of fake passion and fake orgasms. Both are just dramatic entertainment. (Though the best porn usually isn't as good as the worst episode of "Columbo" - Notable exceptions like "Cafe Flesh" serving only to prove the rule.)

shadron
24th December 2007, 09:17 PM
Modern US industry pehaps there have been issues in the past though.

Hmmmmm, well, the same could be said of the clothing industry and in agriculture. Abuses of child labor, in these cases, have bent to better laws and increased awareness on the part of the buying public.

shadron
24th December 2007, 09:46 PM
It is not funny. Are any of you aware of how many of these "performers" in porn are performing against their own will?

...Yada yada yada...

Have you people no hearts??

Basicly, this is an appeal to emotions based on an undocumented model of what you think the industry is like. That the model fits your needs is manifest.

The people in this forum try very hard, usually, to bring a sense of objectivity to their arguments and opinions here. It would appear that you have no counter to that, only that you want the world to be the way you want it to be.

For the government to stand by and allow porn to be so easily accessible to children is no different than if the government were to repeal the legal age for obtaining driver's licenses or purchasing tobacco.

Don't be silly. Police can keep children from buying tobacco or liquor in a store, but they can't keep them from stealing it from their parent's stashes. They cannot make porn inaccessible within a child's home without making it inaccessible completely, and laws that attempt to do that have been repeatedly knocked down as unconstitutional. Parents are responsible for what happens at home, and that means that they have to instill, at an early age, respect for self and others, so that available booze, smokes, drugs (prescription or not) and internet is understood to include responsibility along with the apparent freedom. For 30 years I and my three siblings lived in a house with guns stored on open racks with amo, but my Dad made sure we understood what it meant, and to my knowledge the line he drew was never crossed. I used that same approach with my kids, and - surprise - it worked. I didn't have to stand over them 24/7 with a whip, and they are all now responsible adults, who know what all the possibilities are, and choose not to abuse them.

Any other approach, in my opinion, is madness. Eventually your children are going to become statuatory adults. Will they be able to handle the load if you've enforced a kid-glove approach to handling life's problems on them? What will the first year in a college dorm be like, if they don't know what kind of pressures they are going to encounter?

Matteo Martini
25th December 2007, 04:28 AM
The conflation of symbols with the things they represent is a common human cognitive issue, after all.

"Columbo" opens with a fake murder. Porn movies are full of fake passion and fake orgasms. Both are just dramatic entertainment. (Though the best porn usually isn't as good as the worst episode of "Columbo" - Notable exceptions like "Cafe Flesh" serving only to prove the rule.)

Still "Colombo" is not rated R, right?

Matteo Martini
25th December 2007, 06:02 AM
I would add that this is often a false dichotomy since a lot of pornography portrays both sex and violence.

Can you point me to a link where there is a porno video combined with a murder?
No, it is not for personal use :)
I can give you tons of links that portrais violence alone ( lots of )

Modified
25th December 2007, 06:23 AM
What will the first year in a college dorm be like, if they don't know what kind of pressures they are going to encounter?

For many of the kids I shared a floor with, it was something like what would happen if you gave a hyperactive four-year-old access to unlimited supplies of beer and a loud stereo.

BenBurch
25th December 2007, 09:34 AM
Sex and violence? Surely this does not refer to BDSM? Because if it does, you are woefully uninformed on that subject.

The Gnomon
26th December 2007, 02:23 PM
I must say, as an avid internet user for more than ten years, I don't recall ever 'accidentally' finding porn. And the more sophisticated Google gets, the less porn I even see in search results, let alone being misled into clicking on it..

the site "www.whitehouse.com" used to be a porn site, often accessed in error searching for "www.whitehouse.gov". This resulted in many popular sites registering all possible domains (gov, net, com, us, tv, etc.) to prevent this type of thing. :covereyes

The Gnomon
26th December 2007, 02:27 PM
. . . a woman's cratchal area.


I have been unable to locate such an area. Is it "catchall?" Or is it a newly discovered region? :p

BenBurch
26th December 2007, 03:23 PM
I have been unable to locate such an area. Is it "catchall?" Or is it a newly discovered region? :p

"crotchal" is a word invented by two Chicago drive-time radio knuckleheads so they could discuss sex organs on the air without using one of the forbidden words...

Thabiguy
27th December 2007, 04:04 AM
So, is there any particular reason, from a scientific basis, to believe that he will be warped psychologically if he sees pictures of naked women and people having kinky sex, with the promise of more pictures if he only had a credit card?

I'm sorry, I have no scientific studies to offer. Do you think you would have been warped psychologically, had you seen pictures of naked people having kinky sex when you were 9?

I would say that parents should learn to perceive their children as persons; persons that temporarily need our help, but will eventually - and quite soon - have to handle the world on their own, without our aid. The best we can do for them is to equip them for life, not try to force ourselves into each and every aspect of their lives in a well-meant attempt to shelter them from everything questionable. If you're worried about what your kid might encounter out there in the rough world, talk to your kid. Explain stuff, give advice, educate. Too many parents forget that their goal is not to build a perfectly safe home for their child; their goal is to help them become a self-dependent adult. If your child is 9, you have already spent 50% of the time that you were given to do that.

And in my opinion, no, I don't think a 9-year-old will be psychologically warped by stumbling upon pornography. If I recall correctly, the experience of seeing it was much like watching adults pee; it ranged from hilarious to yucky, depending on the amount of hardcore. Sure, it was material for lively debates with other kids and some failed experimentation, but lacking substantial sexual drive, we were thoroughly unable to understand the underlying motivation. Although older kids swore that watching that stuff is interesting, playing games seemed definitely more fun than looking at naked grown-ups grotesquely handling their private parts for no apparent reason.

BenBurch
27th December 2007, 04:41 AM
I'm sorry, I have no scientific studies to offer. Do you think you would have been warped psychologically, had you seen pictures of naked people having kinky sex when you were 9? ...

Nope. And the only people who would be are those raised in an environment of abusive sexual repression.

Kotatsu
27th December 2007, 05:26 AM
I suspect it's one of those karma things. You only find it 'accidentally' when it would be exquisitely embarrassing to do so.

I recall searching for information about... Tubificid worms of some sort, or perhaps regeneration... Anyway, my supervisor for my Masters was there,a s well as the lab technician and another master student. The latter noted happily that we didn't get any porn until the seventh link or so in Google. So it can happen, and as my supervisor was sort of a little Christian, he found the comment mor embarassing than humourous.

pgwenthold
27th December 2007, 08:04 AM
I am currently worried about the Nascar generation. Can you imagine when they get their driver's licenses? By watching Nascar, they are getting the impression that driving is all about going as fast as possible and only making left turns. They can't live up to that type of standard, and, if they try, they are going to cause a lot of harm to society.

Think of the damage we are inflicting upon our youth by exposing them to Nascar?

ImaginalDisc
27th December 2007, 09:03 AM
I am currently worried about the Nascar generation. Can you imagine when they get their driver's licenses? By watching Nascar, they are getting the impression that driving is all about going as fast as possible and only making left turns. They can't live up to that type of standard, and, if they try, they are going to cause a lot of harm to society.

Think of the damage we are inflicting upon our youth by exposing them to Nascar?

Our nation is in grave danger of losing the ability to turn right.

pgwenthold
27th December 2007, 09:09 AM
Our nation is in grave danger of losing the ability to turn right.

And we are going to fall way behind the Europeans who are used to watching cars drive on the F1 courses.

BenBurch
27th December 2007, 09:24 AM
And we are going to fall way behind the Europeans who are used to watching cars drive on the F1 courses.

And they have better porn too!

Hellbound
27th December 2007, 11:17 AM
On the NASCAR issue, I believe we can conclusively prove that it's already cost the majority of Americans the ability to use a turn signal!!

WHEN WILL THE MADNESS END!!!

MWare
27th December 2007, 11:22 AM
I don't see how going online to find porn is any different from finding dad's Playboy/Hustler stash in the mid 80's.

Two words: Tan Lines.

BenBurch
27th December 2007, 11:43 AM
Two words: Tan Lines.

And Pubic Hair!

;)

But there is some online porn that is more extreme than you could find in the 80s, but its not mainstream commercial porn. I refer to pedophile porn and zoophile porn. Icky. I mean I can't even think about it without getting ill. But the slime who sell these things (usually based in some country where the laws have not advanced past the telephone) do not give it away, so the chances of innocently seeing some of it is very small.

Tokenconservative
27th December 2007, 12:36 PM
I wish to add that the reason I ask here is that google is not all that helpful for this. So much of what you read is agenda driven. Google lists site by popularity, and especially crosslinking from pages. People tend to link to sites that support their own preconceived notions.

From what I can tell, pornography is either responsible for a huge explosion of sexual violence (conservative and Christian sites) or has no harmful effects (liberal sites).

Clearly then, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

I don't have any links--LIIIIINKKKKSSSSS!!!--and I don't normally believe in presenting correlation and causation (see: humans exist, therefore they must be the cause of "global warming") but we can't ignore the Internet when looking at the precipitous rise in sexual crimes and sex among younger and younger kids.

Yes, it's true that the socialist left has been for decades now sexualizing younger and younger kids through various media, and there may be something to the 24-hours news cycle phenomenon that is making it SEEM as if there is more of this.

But anyone who feels that the ready availability (by law in many places, for our public libraries) and accessibility of porn from the merely erotic to some truly sick and violent stuff will have absolutely no impact on anyone, is a fool.

It's really a pretty simple thing to look at: how many Pepsi and Coke commercials run on the avg. week of network TV? A thousand? These things cost Coke and Pepsi a LOT of money.

Does anyone think Coke and Pepsi run these ads just or fun? Because the CEOs of the companies want to see them?

Advertising is so pervasive for one reason: it works. Yes, yes....we all like to believe that it works...but not on someon as smart a us! Wrong. It works on everyone and actually, study after study has shown that the smarter you are, the better it works on you (which must give advertisers fits when they see how the leftist schools are dumbing us down....). The left figured this out long ago and have been using music, TV, and even books to "sell" sex to younger and younger kids for decades.

Today, a kid of 10 has the same sexual ideation as a kid of 16 might have in 1977.

Of course, then you have the naysayers who point to Japan and the way in which that unfortunate society is awash in vile, violent anti-female porn (usually in cartoon/comic form). Apples and Soviet ear Zir sedans. The Japanese culture is so tightly strictured otherwise (they have almost no personal freedom) that the comparison does not work.

You can't be a sexually violent criminal in Japan even if you want to. Or you can't more than once, anyway. In America, however, with our palette of freedoms, if you exercise just a modicum of caution and have at least average intelligence, you can kidnap, sexually torture and murder hundreds of young men or young women in the US before anyone starts paying attention.

Tokie

Tokenconservative
27th December 2007, 12:42 PM
Do 13 year-old kid care/know about pre-existing and relatively unchallenged theories?
What is more wrong?
Seeing two human beings do something like having sex or killing each other?



I have seen people getting killed in the Smipsons cartoon ( if I remember well ), in " Starsky and Hutch " TV series, in " Lieutenant Colombo ", ..

Nobody seems to care..

The difference is that there were always consequences to be paid by the murderer...of course, you didn't see him being anally raped in prison after Colombo sent him up, either.

In the old Perry Mason series, he helpe free the actual murderer once, and was devestate dby it.

Imagine modern TV show or movie where a defense attorney would be crushed by having done this. In real life, today, such an attorney would put it on a billboard to attract new clients:

He Raped and Murdered a 6-year-old Girl.

I Got Him Off.

When Only the Best Will Do....

Tokie
Tokie

Distracted1
27th December 2007, 12:58 PM
[QUOTE]The left figured this out long ago and have been using music, TV, and even books to "sell" sex to younger and younger kids for decades[QUOTE]/

Sell sex?....................Sell sex?....................
What the hell does that mean? Are you referring to prostitution?

As for sexual desire. Consider me sold I guess.

Loss Leader
27th December 2007, 01:02 PM
In real life, today, such an attorney would put it on a billboard to attract new clients:

He Raped and Murdered a 6-year-old Girl.

I Got Him Off.

When Only the Best Will Do....



Well, that's not even remotely true and you will not post a source to back up your hysterical assertion.

jimtron
27th December 2007, 01:10 PM
I have never understood why watching porn should be such an horrendous/evil/wrong thing to do and watching two people kill each other in any movie rated PG13 is OK

Good point. But it's not just porn--any nudity, even in a completely non-sexual content, is often forbidden or restricted, while violence is much more tolerated. For example, on broadcast TV in the U.S. you won't see full nudity, even in a non-sexual content, but you'll see plenty of murder and other violence. It's interesting that nudity by itself is considered indecent to many (remember when John Ashcroft wanted the nude bust covered up?).

JFrankA
27th December 2007, 01:37 PM
Although I do understand the concern over censorship very much, you must consider that in order to live as a civilized society, some laws have to be put in place -or otherwise we would live in complete anarchy. The freedom of expression is one of the greatest civilized freedoms, but the line must be (and is) drawn somewhere.

Those who sacrifice freedoms for security loses both! - Ben Franklin. I believe that's the quote, I might have paraphased.


Do you sincerely believe there is no harm in hardcore porn and that it should not be regulated?

Yes, I sincerely believe there is no harm in hardcore porn and it IS regulated....



Would you feel completely comfortable if your child, nephew, niece, wife, husband (or anyone you love)(assuming you do love someone) were to make a living 'performing' in hardcore porn?

1. Child, neice, nefew, etc.:
I have a son. He's 11 now, but if he's 18 working in porn, as long as he's not a drug addict, handling himself, very happy with what he's doing and his finances well, I'd have no problem with it. And, I would feel exactly the same way if I had a daughter.

2. Wife or girlfriend:
I would love it. It wouldn't bother me a bit because I know that no matter what she does for the camera or who with, she'll never ever be as good as when we do it together. If my wife or girlfriend left me because someone gave her sex better than I did, then there was absolutely no love to begin with. So it allows her to explore, experiment, etc, then come home and try it with me. :)



Virtual or simulated child pornography does not by defintion involve real children.
By definition it does not. But it feeds the viewer the idea that such behavior is acceptable.

So, by your logic, if someone wrote a story or drew a picture or played a game where someone murdered someone else and got away with it, then that depiction will feed "the viewer the idea that such behavior is acceptable"? Is that what you are saying?


You are apparently OK with that, thus, you frighten me.
And it seems to me that you are being lead by your emotional reaction and beliefs without regard to others opinions, rights and some dose of reality and thus, you frighten me....

BenBurch
27th December 2007, 01:58 PM
... Yes, I sincerely believe there is no harm in hardcore porn and it IS regulated....


Indeed it is!

Both self-regulation in the sense of AIM and the testing protocols and government-regulated as in US Code Title 18, 2257.

fuelair
27th December 2007, 02:02 PM
Well, that's not even remotely true and you will not post a source to back up your hysterical assertion.I would like to see an example, much less a source.

fuelair
27th December 2007, 02:09 PM
Clearly then, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

I don't have any links--LIIIIINKKKKSSSSS!!!--and I don't normally believe in presenting correlation and causation (see: humans exist, therefore they must be the cause of "global warming") but we can't ignore the Internet when looking at the precipitous rise in sexual crimes and sex among younger and younger kids.

Yes, it's true that the socialist left has been for decades now sexualizing younger and younger kids through various media, and there may be something to the 24-hours news cycle phenomenon that is making it SEEM as if there is more of this.

But anyone who feels that the ready availability (by law in many places, for our public libraries) and accessibility of porn from the merely erotic to some truly sick and violent stuff will have absolutely no impact on anyone, is a fool.

It's really a pretty simple thing to look at: how many Pepsi and Coke commercials run on the avg. week of network TV? A thousand? These things cost Coke and Pepsi a LOT of money.

Does anyone think Coke and Pepsi run these ads just or fun? Because the CEOs of the companies want to see them?

Advertising is so pervasive for one reason: it works. Yes, yes....we all like to believe that it works...but not on someon as smart a us! Wrong. It works on everyone and actually, study after study has shown that the smarter you are, the better it works on you (which must give advertisers fits when they see how the leftist schools are dumbing us down....). The left figured this out long ago and have been using music, TV, and even books to "sell" sex to younger and younger kids for decades.

Today, a kid of 10 has the same sexual ideation as a kid of 16 might have in 1977.

Of course, then you have the naysayers who point to Japan and the way in which that unfortunate society is awash in vile, violent anti-female porn (usually in cartoon/comic form). Apples and Soviet ear Zir sedans. The Japanese culture is so tightly strictured otherwise (they have almost no personal freedom) that the comparison does not work.

You can't be a sexually violent criminal in Japan even if you want to. Or you can't more than once, anyway. In America, however, with our palette of freedoms, if you exercise just a modicum of caution and have at least average intelligence, you can kidnap, sexually torture and murder hundreds of young men or young women in the US before anyone starts paying attention.

Tokie
I am vaguely curious where you get the idea that the heads of Coca-Cola etc. and of their advertising agencies are left -wingers.Last I heard, most of them are on the wrong side of the aisle with you - but give me data showing a giant trend the other way and I'll freely admit I am wrong (I doubt that though, since advertising is one of my big interests and I read a lot of the related books and trade papers and research.):)

Zarathustra
27th December 2007, 02:26 PM
I have often posed a question to my peers;

If faced with a decision in allowing children to watch

-images of intense graphic violence

-or images of two individuals engaged in the expression of mating activity

which would you rather have them see?

Though neither appeal to me at all as images fit for children, especially young children,
I have yet to have someone respond affirmatively to the latter.

Ultimately, I think it's the parent's responsibility to know more than the child regarding how to obtain and hide these types of things including the internet, and prevent it as much as possible. Also, informing your children of these sorts of things and having honest, open dialog with them concerning sex is always helpful, though with teenagers, it can be more difficult and as much fun as pulling teeth.

rubberducky
27th December 2007, 02:31 PM
There should be a Porn Actors Guild.

BenBurch
27th December 2007, 02:41 PM
Most human beings observed their parents mating prior to the demise of the Great Hall-type manor house in medieval Europe. The same is true now in some parts of the planet. So you will have to show me that all of those people were harmed by that before I will accept that viewing mating is more harmful than viewing violence.

When you see mating, it might make you want to mate. Wow. That is really counter to the survival of our species, isn't it? (Modern worries about overpopulation excepted.)

When you see violence, it might make you want to kill.

Any questions?

P.S. Rubber Duckie; A porn actors guild has been tried before; Neither the talent nor the studios got excited about it. There *are* sexworkers guilds, though, and even some strip clubs where the workers have union contracts.

jazzmojo
27th December 2007, 03:20 PM
I must say, as an avid internet user for more than ten years, I don't recall ever 'accidentally' finding porn.

Man, oh man I sure have. I was simply looking for lyrics from the world famous pop-punk band blink-182. If you need to look up blink-182 lyrics and you think it MIGHT be a good idea to skip Google and just try blink-182 and ctrl+enter in your browser, I will warn you now that long before you can hit an "X" or C+A+D, you will see a banana do something it was clearly never intended to do.

(and that is NOT a shot at Ray Comfort but it works just the same...)

Tiktaalik
27th December 2007, 04:01 PM
When I first got on the Internet, I think in 1995, one of the first things I did was look for gifts for people. I don't remember what kind of search engine I was using, but it didn't give me any description of the site, just a link (Compuserve?). Imagine my surprise when I didn't find what I thought I would when looking for "canoeing supplies" (links to "paddling"!!!).

And don't even try to search for "Zucchini Bread Recipes".

But today I get a pretty good description of the site right up front (I use Dogpile).

I pretty much don't go to movies at all, and one reason is all the violence in a lot of them. Like some posters above, I don't get why it's okay to show graphic, slow-motion violence but not full-frontal nudity. I don't think anybody's going to be permanently scarred by seeing "Life of Brian", for example...

Ron_Tomkins
27th December 2007, 04:09 PM
There should be a Porn Actors Guild.

What about an "Inside the Porn Actor's Studio"?:D

jazzmojo
27th December 2007, 04:35 PM
What about an "Inside the Porn Actor's Studio"?:D

Maybe because it's too hard to fit an entire studio audience inside of room 145 at the local Motel 6.

...and the pool house is already being used to host the after party.

Matteo Martini
27th December 2007, 05:28 PM
The difference is that there were always consequences to be paid by the murderer...of course, you didn't see him being anally raped in prison after Colombo sent him up, either.

In the old Perry Mason series, he helpe free the actual murderer once, and was devestate dby it.


Does not matter.
BTW, we have many examples in TV series when the good one kills the bad one.

Matteo Martini
27th December 2007, 05:29 PM
Good point. But it's not just porn--any nudity, even in a completely non-sexual content, is often forbidden or restricted, while violence is much more tolerated. For example, on broadcast TV in the U.S. you won't see full nudity, even in a non-sexual content, but you'll see plenty of murder and other violence. It's interesting that nudity by itself is considered indecent to many (remember when John Ashcroft wanted the nude bust covered up?).

I completely agree with you.
Could not agree more.
What is wrong with human body?

Travis
27th December 2007, 11:58 PM
You know according to Token teachers are leftists, actors are leftists, scientists are leftists and now advertising executives are leftists.

Who the heck is on the right?

jazzmojo
28th December 2007, 12:34 AM
You know according to Token teachers are leftists, actors are leftists, scientists are leftists and now advertising executives are leftists.

Who the heck is on the right?

Archimedes?



(show me where to stand)

pgwenthold
28th December 2007, 08:43 AM
You know according to Token teachers are leftists, actors are leftists, scientists are leftists and now advertising executives are leftists.

Who the heck is on the right?


"The one on the left is on the right
And the one in the middle is on the left
And the one in the right is in the middle
And the guy in the rear...was a Methodist"

Any time is always good for a Johnny Cash reference

pgwenthold
28th December 2007, 08:48 AM
If faced with a decision in allowing children to watch

-images of intense graphic violence

-or images of two individuals engaged in the expression of mating activity

which would you rather have them see?


I have thought about writing a movie about the Garden of Eden. I would be as true to the Bible story as I could, but in my movie, there wouldn't be no fig leaf (until it was warranted). Adam and Eve would be running around buck naked and there would be no shame in it.

How many religiousites would come? As many that went to see the Passion of the Christ?

Of course, I'd try to work a sex scene in it (hey, Adam and Eve had sex before the fall, right?)

Soapy Sam
28th December 2007, 12:43 PM
And don't even try to search for "Zucchini Bread Recipes".




Oh...my...GAWD!:eek:

jazzmojo
28th December 2007, 01:57 PM
I have thought about writing a movie about the Garden of Eden. I would be as true to the Bible story as I could, but in my movie, there wouldn't be no fig leaf (until it was warranted). Adam and Eve would be running around buck naked and there would be no shame in it.

How many religiousites would come? As many that went to see the Passion of the Christ?

Of course, I'd try to work a sex scene in it (hey, Adam and Eve had sex before the fall, right?)
Quirky...I don't think A&E could have mastered missionary yet since there were no missionaries to emulate.


...hmmm, what a conundrum

BenBurch
28th December 2007, 02:25 PM
Quirky...I don't think A&E could have mastered missionary yet since there were no missionary's to emulate.

...hmmm, what a conundrum

So obviously they did it as the 4-legged beasts did... Emulation.

jazzmojo
28th December 2007, 02:26 PM
So obviously they did it as the 4-legged beasts did... Emulation.
which would make the fig leaf the original barrier method? That had to hurt.

Who taught the missionaries?

BenBurch
28th December 2007, 02:44 PM
which would make the fig leaf the original barrier method? That had to hurt.

Beats the thistle method. :eye-poppi

Who taught the missionaries?

Oh, I don't know?

Maybe SATAN?!

http://www.countrykeepers.com.nyud.net/images/church_lady.jpg

Meadmaker
28th December 2007, 02:56 PM
I've looked through some stuff. I have a couple of thoughts.

Some have echoed the "it's the parents' responsibility" line. When applied to access to pornography, that's bunk. Porn is too freely accessible to prevent access. It was difficult when I was a kid. It's impossible now. Anyone halfway competent, and that includes an awful lot of teenagers, can defeat any sort of net screening tools. I think such things are useful, still, and I'll buy one, because at least it makes them work for it. They won't be able to sit in their rooms for hours and say they are doing homework. I would like to think it also might make them at least contemplate why it might be a bad idea to do so.

On the other hand, when applied to the reaction to porn, there's probably something to that. I think responsible parents have to recognize that their kids will in fact encounter porn, and do something about it. Of course, I'm not sure what that "something" is. I suppose, as uncomfortable as it is, I will, in a couple of years, just ask that my son consider the people he sees in those videos as real people, not objects.

It seems to me inconceivable that the depictions of sexual acts will not make people more likely to perform those sexual acts. This, then, is the real problem with pornography. I have no objection to pictures of good looking naked people. However, depictions of gang rape are, in my mind, highly disturbing. I'll try to post the links in the next day or so, but I have read studies that say that in people inclined toward sexual violence and/or aroused by sexual violence, depictions of such acts make them more likely to commit sexual violence.

I don't know if I would make such depictions illegal. I probably wouldn't. However, I see nothing wrong with doing a bit more to prove adult identity before getting to those pictures and movies on the internet. I would be a lot happier if the sex acts required some sort of adult check verification before you could reach them.

I suppose it comes down to, for me, whether I would be ashamed if my son, or a hypothetical daughter, appeared in one of these things. Would I be ashamed if I had a daughter with a great body who showed all of it to an appreciative audience? Probably not. How about if she filmed herself having great sex with someone, and shared the film with others to enjoy? Er..ummm...uh...I gues not. I guess. OK, I wouldn't be ashamed, but I would hope I didn't hear about it. I also would like it if my son could not find pictures of your daughter having great sex with someone, at least until he's an adult, or without sneaking it somewhere.

What about if she showed herself being smacked around and raped? OK. That's it. That's where I draw the line.

fuelair
28th December 2007, 03:21 PM
When I first got on the Internet, I think in 1995, one of the first things I did was look for gifts for people. I don't remember what kind of search engine I was using, but it didn't give me any description of the site, just a link (Compuserve?). Imagine my surprise when I didn't find what I thought I would when looking for "canoeing supplies" (links to "paddling"!!!).

And don't even try to search for "Zucchini Bread Recipes".

But today I get a pretty good description of the site right up front (I use Dogpile).

I pretty much don't go to movies at all, and one reason is all the violence in a lot of them. Like some posters above, I don't get why it's okay to show graphic, slow-motion violence but not full-frontal nudity. I don't think anybody's going to be permanently scarred by seeing "Life of Brian", for example...
Ah, one of the wise of the seekers of data. Dogpile is your friend!!:)

BenBurch
28th December 2007, 03:25 PM
Meadmaker, I don't believe that you cite an example of a good study that shows that BDSM porn makes anybody more likely to be sexually violent against the unwilling? If you can I would love to see it.

JFrankA
28th December 2007, 04:33 PM
Meadmaker, I don't believe that you cite an example of a good study that shows that BDSM porn makes anybody more likely to be sexually violent against the unwilling? If you can I would love to see it.


Completely agree with you Ben. In fact, I seem to remember (and I have to verify this, sorry), that when Nixon was president, there was an investigation he launched specifically to find a connection between porn and violent crimes.

They found absolutely no connection at all.

So they ignored the findings and went ahead and said that the evidence was "inconclusive" and proceded to start a war on porn.

Let me take your thoughts, Meadmaker, and take them a step further:

If a teenager sees gay porno, do you honestly think that will sway him/her into commiting a gay sex act?

Let me give you another example but the other way. I can remember being fourteen, and fantasizing about an orgy occuring in my school that included my schoolmates and a couple of teachers. These fantasies included some bondage. Now at the time I've never seen any bondage or orgy porno, (but I've seen other porno), yet I fantasized about bondage and orgies.

The point is, people are going to sexually explore what they find arousing. Some porno will interest a person, some will not. A person will act upon what they find desirable. Further, teenagers might have fantasies that they won't talk about because they feel badly about it.

This is why we have to communicate to our children, not hide and "protect" them. They are going to find porn, period, computer or no computer. And yes, it's the parents responsiblity to discuss it with them.

Matteo Martini
28th December 2007, 05:14 PM
I've looked through some stuff. I have a couple of thoughts.
[..]



Well..
It seems that you point out that porn in itself is not so bad, but violence associated with porn is.
Now, what about all the murders seen in TV at 3p.m.?
Are not they associated with violence?

Meadmaker
28th December 2007, 05:16 PM
Completely agree with you Ben. In fact, I seem to remember (and I have to verify this, sorry), that when Nixon was president, there was an investigation he launched specifically to find a connection between porn and violent crimes.

I'm guessing you are young, and can't remember the Meese Commission. It was during the Reagan administration.

I didn't say BDSM porn is linked to violence. I said violent porn.

I'll see if I can find the links.

Matteo Martini
28th December 2007, 05:16 PM
Let me give you another example but the other way. I can remember being fourteen, and fantasizing about an orgy occuring in my school that included my schoolmates and a couple of teachers. These fantasies included some bondage. Now at the time I've never seen any bondage or orgy porno, (but I've seen other porno), yet I fantasized about bondage and orgies.


Basically agree.
I think every single boy on Earth (dunno about girls) had sexual fantasies about his school teacher, class mates, since the time of the Romans (no porn at that time).
Sex fantasies are something connected with men`s (women`s) nature, not with porn.

Fiona
28th December 2007, 05:49 PM
I am interested in the fact that this thread in the last couple of pages has reverted to an assumption that pornography means the depiction of "full nudity", or portrayals of "great sex" and other such characterisations. Such things are wholly unobjectionable, in my opinion, and come within the orbit of erotica. They are not pornography, nor are they typical of what is sold as pornography. The link below does contain some mainstream pornographic content and I sincerely hope it does not break the rules of this forum. It is not extreme; it is not unusual; and it does illustrate the degradation and violence which is a common theme in what is seen as harmless in this thread. Many will not agree with the author's analysis and many will not see the harm in this either, I fully appreciate. Nonetheless, within the rules of the forum this is the best I can do to show the routine association of violence and sex, which I mentioned before. I find it very sad that this is mainstream, and also that apparently many here find it erotic

http://www.skk.uit.no/WW99/papers/Russell_Diana_E_H.pdf

I would also like to briefly address the point raised that women are not coerced into this trade. Someone drew a parallel I am fond of. It is indeed very like boxing. I do not see many people with a real choice choosing prize fighting as a career. Very few comfortably off young men choose this route, and there are very obvious reasons for this. Give the poor a decent standard of living then show me the flocks of young men risking brain damage for the entertainment of others. Pornography is much the same, I contend

casebro
28th December 2007, 06:06 PM
That is about what I thought- "in which men are portrayed ... in a dominant role".

I guess the missionary position is male dominant since he is on top. Some definition if pornography eh?

What I've skimmed of that link seem like a radical feminist's approach. You know, the same folks who have re-defined 'rape' to mean "any male initiated sex".

BenBurch
28th December 2007, 06:16 PM
Even VIOLENT (as in acts of non-consensual violence, more on the problems with definition follows) non BDSM porn (there is very very little of it) does not promote sexual violence against women.

The Meese Commission report was a product of the Religious Right and directly contradicted the results of President Nixon’s Commission on Obscenity and Pornography which was a bipartisan attempt to find out the truth. Which do you trust?

But I am not asking for the findings of a learned commission of any political stripe. I am asking for a significant peer-reviewed study of good construction that shows this.

And BTW, when they talk of violent porn, they mean pretend rape, "rough sex", bondage, BDSM, pure SM, watersports, etc. They are not talking about a specific sort of act or that the violence all be of a damaging character. They are also not differentiating between consensual violence (in the context of the screenplay) and non-consensual violence. So it is not a very specific term and that makes any research very hard to interpret.

Tsukasa Buddha
28th December 2007, 07:06 PM
I've looked through some stuff. I have a couple of thoughts.

Some have echoed the "it's the parents' responsibility" line. When applied to access to pornography, that's bunk. Porn is too freely accessible to prevent access. It was difficult when I was a kid. It's impossible now. Anyone halfway competent, and that includes an awful lot of teenagers, can defeat any sort of net screening tools. I think such things are useful, still, and I'll buy one, because at least it makes them work for it. They won't be able to sit in their rooms for hours and say they are doing homework. I would like to think it also might make them at least contemplate why it might be a bad idea to do so.

No it isn't. I've dealt with porn addicts. Trust me, parents can stop their children from getting porn if they are willing to do what it takes. If you don't want your kids getting porn, don't give them internet in their rooms. Monitor the internet activity. You could give them a limit of say thirty minutes to use the internet in the family room on a family computer. Don't give them the time or the opportunity to get around protections and the like and actually get to sites.

On the other hand, when applied to the reaction to porn, there's probably something to that. I think responsible parents have to recognize that their kids will in fact encounter porn, and do something about it. Of course, I'm not sure what that "something" is. I suppose, as uncomfortable as it is, I will, in a couple of years, just ask that my son consider the people he sees in those videos as real people, not objects.

One thing people can do is raise their kids to not feel so uncomfortable about talking about it ;) .

It seems to me inconceivable that the depictions of sexual acts will not make people more likely to perform those sexual acts. This, then, is the real problem with pornography. I have no objection to pictures of good looking naked people. However, depictions of gang rape are, in my mind, highly disturbing. I'll try to post the links in the next day or so, but I have read studies that say that in people inclined toward sexual violence and/or aroused by sexual violence, depictions of such acts make them more likely to commit sexual violence.

I'd like to see those studies. I'll try to find my studies on violent porn as well.

But, of course, I personally have to disagree. First of all, in my experience, gang rape porn is hardly mainstream. Even the ones with the name turn out to be obviously consentual. Secondly... Well, let's just say that I don't find it quite as disturbing, and I am hardly violent.

I don't know if I would make such depictions illegal. I probably wouldn't. However, I see nothing wrong with doing a bit more to prove adult identity before getting to those pictures and movies on the internet. I would be a lot happier if the sex acts required some sort of adult check verification before you could reach them.

Well, for a lot of them now, to enter you need to say that you are over the age of eighteen under penalty of perjury.

I suppose it comes down to, for me, whether I would be ashamed if my son, or a hypothetical daughter, appeared in one of these things. Would I be ashamed if I had a daughter with a great body who showed all of it to an appreciative audience? Probably not. How about if she filmed herself having great sex with someone, and shared the film with others to enjoy? Er..ummm...uh...I gues not. I guess. OK, I wouldn't be ashamed, but I would hope I didn't hear about it. I also would like it if my son could not find pictures of your daughter having great sex with someone, at least until he's an adult, or without sneaking it somewhere.

What about if she showed herself being smacked around and raped? OK. That's it. That's where I draw the line.

My point of is "As long as they are happy". Of course, me having children is so far divorced from reality that my response is probably hardly typical.

Meadmaker
28th December 2007, 07:23 PM
My mistake about the Meese Commission. There were also pornography studies under both Nixon and Johnson.

Matteo Martini
28th December 2007, 08:23 PM
[..]
http://www.skk.uit.no/WW99/papers/Russell_Diana_E_H.pdf
[..]

Fiona, I have seen the pictures in the document that you have linked.
They all look like pictures or drawing that are very old-fashion, maybe taken from magazines printed some decades ago, and they seem like stupid jokes directed at mentally ill people, nothing to do with pornography, AFAIK.

fuelair
28th December 2007, 10:59 PM
Basically agree.
I think every single boy on Earth (dunno about girls) had sexual fantasies about his school teacher, class mates, since the time of the Romans (no porn at that time).
Sex fantasies are something connected with men`s (women`s) nature, not with porn.
Actually, I am going with benefit of the doubt and assume you were joking on the "Romans (no porn at that time )" thing. But just in case I am wrong, two words: Pornos (prostitute) Graphicos (writing [of])and a suggestion to look up: Pompei walls.

Matteo Martini
28th December 2007, 11:08 PM
Actually, I am going with benefit of the doubt and assume you were joking on the "Romans (no porn at that time )" thing. But just in case I am wrong, two words: Pornos (prostitute) Graphicos (writing [of])and a suggestion to look up: Pompei walls.

You mean "pornoi", not "pornos" (AFAIK).
And you are not talking about Latin language here, but old Greek.

As of "porn" I meant commercial pornography, not paintings on wall

thaiboxerken
28th December 2007, 11:15 PM
Jaanaa, if you'd be so kind. Can you describe what kind of porn you would find acceptable for society to indulge in?

luchog
29th December 2007, 01:22 AM
zWould you feel completely comfortable if your child, nephew, niece, wife, husband (or anyone you love)(assuming you do love someone) were to make a living 'performing' in hardcore porn?

My wife used to work in a strip club. I have had a number of girlfriends who worked as strippers, and one who has done hardcore porn. I don't see the problem. If they're happy with what they're doing, and taking appropriate safety precautions, then more power to them. I wouldn't mind doing it myself, but I'm far too ugly.

By definition it does not. But it feeds the viewer the idea that such behavior is acceptable.

No, it doesn't. The ideation of a paedophile is completely independent of the ability to view graphic depictions of their fantasies. In every case that's been studied, ideation precedes access to pornographic materials in every instance. People don't just accidentally encounter child porn and suddenly turn into predatory paedophiles. The vast majority of them start as far back as puberty; and most were molested themselves.

You are apparently OK with that, thus, you frighten me.
And you are apparently OK with the fact that your entire argument is based on pure emotional extremism and borderline religious fanaticism; and has no solid scientific evidence to back it up whatsoever.

But that's a common tactic of extremists. If you can't find or manufacture evidence, appeal to emotion and demonize anyone who disagrees.

Fiona
29th December 2007, 01:56 AM
That is about what I thought- "in which men are portrayed ... in a dominant role".

I guess the missionary position is male dominant since he is on top. Some definition if pornography eh?

That is not an argument it is a straw man

What I've skimmed of that link seem like a radical feminist's approach. You know, the same folks who have re-defined 'rape' to mean "any male initiated sex".

Certainly it is a feminist approach. What is your point?

You know, the same folks who have re-defined 'rape' to mean "any male initiated sex"

And another fallacy- poisoning the well. Two in such a short post. Well done!

Fiona
29th December 2007, 04:03 AM
http://libertus.net/censor/studies2.html

As this site shows there is very little good research on the effects of pornography on the young. There is a also a lot of contradictory evidence in general. As I already stated I do not believe that explicit sexual material can be shown to have any detrimental effect at all: and this is what I have been classifying as erotica. There is some evidence that the depiction of violence and degradation does adversely affect women in that it influences attitudes; and although it is the violence/degradation etc which is the crucial factor this is an integral part of much pornographic material.

As I have argued throughout there is no simple correlation between exposure to pornography and behaviour and it would be surprising if there were. The demand to show such a relationship is disingenuous, and serves to distract from the real issue: at least as I see it. (http://www.apa.org/divisions/div46/articles/linz.pdf) is a good overview of the conflation of political and ideological stances with the research findings, imo)

Tokenconservative
29th December 2007, 06:08 AM
I completely agree with you.
Could not agree more.
What is wrong with human body?

Are you asking in general, or in specific.

I for one would not enjoy porn involving say, Michael Moore and Hillary Clinton.

And I doubt Moore would like being raped, either.

Tokie

Tokenconservative
29th December 2007, 06:19 AM
http://libertus.net/censor/studies2.html

As this site shows there is very little good research on the effects of pornography on the young. There is a also a lot of contradictory evidence in general. As I already stated I do not believe that explicit sexual material can be shown to have any detrimental effect at all: and this is what I have been classifying as erotica. There is some evidence that the depiction of violence and degradation does adversely affect women in that it influences attitudes; and although it is the violence/degradation etc which is the crucial factor this is an integral part of much pornographic material.

As I have argued throughout there is no simple correlation between exposure to pornography and behaviour and it would be surprising if there were. The demand to show such a relationship is disingenuous, and serves to distract from the real issue: at least as I see it. (http://www.apa.org/divisions/div46/articles/linz.pdf) is a good overview of the conflation of political and ideological stances with the research findings, imo)

For quite obvious reasons, it's going to be hard to do research on how porn impacts very young people.

At least I hope the reasons are obvious and that nobody has had an easy time setting up such research.

The issue should probably be addressed more to how it impacts young men and their perceptions of women after being exposed to "lots" of this stuff, and not in a scientific setting.

Of course, that means defining a few things.

An art student who has seen 200,000 nudes, is not exactly being exposed to porn, though I think we could all agree that if he's seen 200,000 individual nudes (paintings) that is a "lot."

A devout seminary student who was looking up "Virgin Birth" and was exposed for 2 minutes to a "Virgins Gone Wild" porn site would probably be on the other end of this spectrum.

The problem is also in defining "porn." Yes, most of us "know what it is when we see it," but some people will tell you a Reubens nude is porn, while others believe a video showing the gangrape of a 13 year old girl is "tame."

Outside a laboratory situation, you would then also have to deal with the lie factor: most people will lie about how much (if any) porn they regularly (if ever) view, what type it is (Reubens or the gangrape) and about how they believe it impacts them.

I believe (just that) that mose young males and in fact most males, period, are going to be more impacted by porn than will females (sigh...no, I don't have any links--LIIIINKKKKKKSSSS!!!--but most rational people know that human males are more visually oriented, sexually, than are females) and that a certain percentage of males, the more porn they view and the "worse" it is, will tend to develop less and less respect for women and girls and begin to develop some troubling sexual ideation from it.

If the above is true, then the fact that it is so prevalent and available today, cannot help but impact the situation. In 1960s, finding your Dad's stack of even some of the raunchiest, for the day, skin mags was nothing compared to what is readily and easily and widely available on the 'net, today. Even the very worst of these mags did not have video of women being mounted by horses, or using machines on themselves, or real video of girls being gang raped.

Tokie

Tokenconservative
29th December 2007, 06:40 AM
I am interested in the fact that this thread in the last couple of pages has reverted to an assumption that pornography means the depiction of "full nudity", or portrayals of "great sex" and other such characterisations. Such things are wholly unobjectionable, in my opinion, and come within the orbit of erotica. They are not pornography, nor are they typical of what is sold as pornography. The link below does contain some mainstream pornographic content and I sincerely hope it does not break the rules of this forum. It is not extreme; it is not unusual; and it does illustrate the degradation and violence which is a common theme in what is seen as harmless in this thread. Many will not agree with the author's analysis and many will not see the harm in this either, I fully appreciate. Nonetheless, within the rules of the forum this is the best I can do to show the routine association of violence and sex, which I mentioned before. I find it very sad that this is mainstream, and also that apparently many here find it erotic

http://www.skk.uit.no/WW99/papers/Russell_Diana_E_H.pdf

I would also like to briefly address the point raised that women are not coerced into this trade. Someone drew a parallel I am fond of. It is indeed very like boxing. I do not see many people with a real choice choosing prize fighting as a career. Very few comfortably off young men choose this route, and there are very obvious reasons for this. Give the poor a decent standard of living then show me the flocks of young men risking brain damage for the entertainment of others. Pornography is much the same, I contend

I dated a girl many, many years ago, Fiona, who liked to be handcuffed and liked to be choked during sex. A lot.

She initiated these things...not I.

That said, I believe the ideation of violence and sex as things to be comingled, is indeed "over-depicted" in modern, easily accessed porn on the 'net, and that because of this, many younger men (say, under the age of 35-40, anyway) are, if self-exposed to enough of it, going to get the idea that this is "normal." The girl I dated was, while lots and lots of fun, by no means "normal." I dated dozens and dozens of girls and women before "settling down," and this was the only one I ever knew who was like this (yes, very anecdotal, but there it is, just the same).

At the same time, I've known women who like porn. Now, and again, no, I have no link, men are hardwired by Creation or evolution, whichever you like, to be more visually stimulated (sexually) than women. While in our culture (US) today, we like to make it seem as if men and wymyn are the same in this regard, the reality is that the vast majority of porn is directed at men for a reason: men, in general, are more stimulated by visual depictions (or just looking at pretty girls) than are women. And yes, we can get into long, drawn out feminist/post-feminist arguments about how this is all my own (male) cultural bias based upon the hegemony of the patriarchy, blah, blah, blah.

It still will not change the fact that from time immemorial, guys have liked looking at women's bodies, more than women enjoy looking at men's bodies.

It's not, therefore "sad" that men find "porn" erotic. It's simply nature. This is the way in which we were evolved (I like that better than Created) to identify women we found to be sexually attractive and fecund. Yes, yes...it's terrible that men cannot be more like wymyn, but there it is. It's equally terrible that my wife cannot help me break ice out of the stock pond every morning because she simply doesn't have the upper body strength to be much use in swinging a 40lb, 12-ft long length of rebar or a 20# adz, nor has she much of a back for lifting 200-300 lbs of ice chunks out of the pond with a shovel after breaking it up.

On the other hand, were my wife able to do these things, she wouldn't be my wife, because I've always been drawn to women who well, look like women. My fault again, to be sure...I am a sexist!

Comfortably off young men don't go into boxiing for the same reason that as time progressed, fewer whites were boxers and now, most top prize fighters come from Africa and places like Russia where they grow up rough and tough.

Overall, most Americans don't any more. Yes, yes...the barrio, down in the g-ghetto, and all that. Here, a "poor" kid spends 6 hours a day watching TV and playing video games whereas in Russia he wakes up to his father beating him, goes to work in the lead mine for 16 hours, gets in three fights while walking home....boxers come from a tougher world and THAT is why few rich white boys go into it.

That said, lots of rich white boys become combat Marines, Rangers, SEALS, etc.

The reality is that there are tens of thousands of young and sometimes not so young women and yes, girls, beating down the doors of porn studios to be in stills for sale on the 'net or in movies. My understanding is that the pay is phenomenal for the work requirements and gradiated according to what you (woman/girl) WANT to do. Nobody is forced into it, at least not in the US, or at least not on a broad scale.

You can shriek the feminist cant: these poor girls are foreced by the sexists, patriarchal hegemony into this work because they simply cannot get jobs anywhere else!!!

The US has an unemployment rate below what Keynesians say is possible. It's down aroung 4%. Employers are BEGGING people--of any gender--to work for them. Any of these poor, unfortunate girls or women could easily get a job in a store, a restaraunt, driving a truck, in an office, etc. Porn pays much better, requires virtually no training and is pretty soft, typically indoor work and it's these things that attract women and girls to it.

By the way, most of those women and girls would be, by our standards "not too hard on the eyes." So women who are not so much so, they must be starving in the streets, right?

Tokie

Fiona
29th December 2007, 11:34 AM
I dated a girl many, many years ago, Fiona, who liked to be handcuffed and liked to be choked during sex. A lot.

She initiated these things...not I.

That said, I believe the ideation of violence and sex as things to be comingled, is indeed "over-depicted" in modern, easily accessed porn on the 'net, and that because of this, many younger men (say, under the age of 35-40, anyway) are, if self-exposed to enough of it, going to get the idea that this is "normal." The girl I dated was, while lots and lots of fun, by no means "normal." I dated dozens and dozens of girls and women before "settling down," and this was the only one I ever knew who was like this (yes, very anecdotal, but there it is, just the same).

Nice story. Did anybody suggest there are no women who like these things? I do not think it is relevant to any of the issues we are discussing, but I presume you had a good time :). You do recognise the point in your second paragraph so I am not sure why you told us the story. I am prepared to take your word that you are a man of the world, if that is what is bothering you ;)

At the same time, I've known women who like porn. Now, and again, no, I have no link, men are hardwired by Creation or evolution, whichever you like, to be more visually stimulated (sexually) than women.

No point of disagreement here either, if I understand your syntax correctly. Some women like visual erotica; more are said to like their erotica in the form of fiction for precisely the reasons you give - they are generally more verbal.

While in our culture (US) today, we like to make it seem as if men and wymyn are the same in this regard, the reality is that the vast majority of porn is directed at men for a reason:

Interesting spelling there :D

Yes porn is mainly directed at men for a reason. Historically they had the money to buy it. And of course historically it was not at all acceptable to admit that women were sexual beings at all.

It will take time to develop a sex industry for women, but I live in hope of good erotica for women, now more women have the means to buy it. Certainly there are business people out there trying to find the key to good saleable erotica for women - quite a lot of them, actually. They just don't have the years of experimentation behind them to get the formula right just yet

men, in general, are more stimulated by visual depictions (or just looking at pretty girls) than are women. And yes, we can get into long, drawn out feminist/post-feminist arguments about how this is all my own (male) cultural bias based upon the hegemony of the patriarchy, blah, blah, blah.

It still will not change the fact that from time immemorial, guys have liked looking at women's bodies, more than women enjoy looking at men's bodies.

See above :) You are a little limited in what you can conceive of as erotic, but that is not a big problem. I like the straw woman in the middle of this section too:)

It's not, therefore "sad" that men find "porn" erotic. It's simply nature.

I see you do not accept any distinction between porn and erotica. Well have the word, nothing hangs on it. It is sad that people are turned on by violent porn, in my opinion and no, I do not think there is much evidence that this is natural. Or are you still seeking another partner like the charming yet "far from normal" woman you described above? It seems to me that your description of her rather undermines your case, and it can only be sustained by conflating violent porn and erotica. You do not accept any distinction and I wonder how you can say she was "far from normal" in the circumstances?

This is the way in which we were evolved (I like that better than Created) to identify women we found to be sexually attractive and fecund. Yes, yes...it's terrible that men cannot be more like wymyn, but there it is. It's equally terrible that my wife cannot help me break ice out of the stock pond every morning because she simply doesn't have the upper body strength to be much use in swinging a 40lb, 12-ft long length of rebar or a 20# adz, nor has she much of a back for lifting 200-300 lbs of ice chunks out of the pond with a shovel after breaking it up.

See above

On the other hand, were my wife able to do these things, she wouldn't be my wife, because I've always been drawn to women who well, look like women. My fault again, to be sure...I am a sexist!

Ooh another pretty straw woman; though your spelling is better. Well done!

Comfortably off young men don't go into boxiing for the same reason that as time progressed, fewer whites were boxers and now, most top prize fighters come from Africa and places like Russia where they grow up rough and tough.

Overall, most Americans don't any more. Yes, yes...the barrio, down in the g-ghetto, and all that. Here, a "poor" kid spends 6 hours a day watching TV and playing video games whereas in Russia he wakes up to his father beating him, goes to work in the lead mine for 16 hours, gets in three fights while walking home....boxers come from a tougher world and THAT is why few rich white boys go into it.

You might be right. I tend to think it is because they are not poor, but it might be you are all wimps. I bow to your experience however.

That said, lots of rich white boys become combat Marines, Rangers, SEALS, etc.

Having said that, I really don't think you can have it both ways. Is this a new rule?

The reality is that there are tens of thousands of young and sometimes not so young women and yes, girls, beating down the doors of porn studios to be in stills for sale on the 'net or in movies. My understanding is that the pay is phenomenal for the work requirements and gradiated according to what you (woman/girl) WANT to do. Nobody is forced into it, at least not in the US, or at least not on a broad scale.

Repeating a thing does not make it true. I have suggested that for women it is a way not just to make a minimum wage but to have a chance of real wealth. Just as boxing is for poor young men. And that when people have a comfortable standard of living they do not choose either of these career paths. Well off young men will still join the marines, as you said. I wonder what you think the difference is, if not as I contend? I would be glad to hear your explanation and also how the case of boxing and porn are significantly different

You can shriek the feminist cant: these poor girls are foreced by the sexists, patriarchal hegemony into this work because they simply cannot get jobs anywhere else!!!

I think you must be mistaking me for someone else :D

The US has an unemployment rate below what Keynesians say is possible. It's down aroung 4%. Employers are BEGGING people--of any gender--to work for them. Any of these poor, unfortunate girls or women could easily get a job in a store, a restaraunt, driving a truck, in an office, etc. Porn pays much better, requires virtually no training and is pretty soft, typically indoor work and it's these things that attract women and girls to it.

Er....my point I rather think.

By the way, most of those women and girls would be, by our standards "not too hard on the eyes." So women who are not so much so, they must be starving in the streets, right?

No, I dont agree with this. Can you explain how you reached this conclusion please?

BenBurch
29th December 2007, 12:00 PM
You mean "pornoi", not "pornos" (AFAIK).
And you are not talking about Latin language here, but old Greek.

As of "porn" I meant commercial pornography, not paintings on wall

Well, now, brothels used to put on shows in Roman times. One presumes that they charged admission but the source I recall didn't mention that. Was that porn? Or do live sex shows not qualify?

fuelair
29th December 2007, 03:06 PM
You mean "pornoi", not "pornos" (AFAIK).
And you are not talking about Latin language here, but old Greek.

As of "porn" I meant commercial pornography, not paintings on wall

True - but the Greek pre-dated the Roman stuff and in the times of both in zenith there were materials that would be considered pornographic to us (they did not of necessity consider them so- but that is definition). So during the times considered, there were
artisans producing pottery, friezes, frescoes, etc. that were (by our definition) pornographic and (by both times definitions) commercial (they had to be paid for). I will grant that for technological and cost reasons there was not an adult business of the form that exists currently ( though there were sex shows, brothels, on-call prostitution and pottery sales), but material was available and had to be (most often) paid for.

Yes on Pornoi (mea culpa).:):):)

Matteo Martini
29th December 2007, 03:58 PM
Are you asking in general, or in specific.

I for one would not enjoy porn involving say, Michael Moore and Hillary Clinton.

And I doubt Moore would like being raped, either.

Tokie

I talk about the human body, and you talk about Michael Moore being raped

http://libertus.net/censor/studies2.html


Are not there studies that show that violence on video has harmful consequences on children?


Well, now, brothels used to put on shows in Roman times. One presumes that they charged admission but the source I recall didn't mention that. Was that porn? Or do live sex shows not qualify?

Are we talking about porn or brothels here?

True - but the Greek pre-dated the Roman stuff and in the times of both in zenith there were materials that would be considered pornographic to us (they did not of necessity - but that is definition). So during the times considered, there were
artisans producing pottery, friezes, frescoes, etc. that were (by our definition) pornographic and (by both times definitions) commercial (they had to be paid for). I will grant that for technological and cost reasons there was not an adult business of the form that exists currently ( though there were sex shows, brothels, on-call prostitution and pottery sales), but material was available and had to be (most often) paid for.

Yes on Pornoi (mea culpa).:):):)

I am not so sure about this, as, alas, my old Latin and history teacher did not teach us this, in high school.
Anyway, the discussion started here:
"Sex fantasies are something connected with men`s (women`s) nature, not with porn."
I was trying to say that all men in all times AFAIK had sex fantasies, and this was not triggered by modern (internet?) pornography

fuelair
29th December 2007, 06:07 PM
I talk about the human body, and you talk about Michael Moore being raped



Are not there studies that show that violence on video has harmful consequences on children?




Are we talking about porn or brothels here?



I am not so sure about this, as, alas, my old Latin and history teacher did not teach us this, in high school.
Anyway, the discussion started here:
"Sex fantasies are something connected with men`s (women`s) nature, not with porn."
I was trying to say that all men in all times AFAIK had sex fantasies, and this was not triggered by modern (internet?) pornographyIt's one of the things I study in that field - and have lots of books with lots of the material from Greeks, Romans, Etruscans, etc. I will happily agree that reasonably high quality material is now available to most of the population in ways it wasn't in more primitive/technologically backward times.

Meadmaker
29th December 2007, 06:27 PM
No it isn't. I've dealt with porn addicts.

On a professional basis? One of my concerns is pornography addiction. Do you know anything about causes of porn addiction? Especially, if my kid manages to get unfettered access to an internet connection for a few hours when he's 12, and uses it for erotic research, will he become an addict? (That's an exaggeration, sort of.) In other words, do we know anything about who gets addicted to porn, and whether viewing habits during developmental years have an influence?

Trust me, parents can stop their children from getting porn if they are willing to do what it takes. If you don't want your kids getting porn, don't give them internet in their rooms.

Certainly you can limit their access, but friends will share it, and they will share secrets among themselves. I'm quite certain that when my son is 14, he'll know how to install a modem, virtual PC, and an internet connection, and it will take about two hours to get an untraceable porn line running. By the time he's 14, I intend to be leaving him alone all day long. He will get access. Not frequent, unlimited, and unmonitored access, but he will get access.

I can remember sharing Playboys as a kid. Today, I can buy a 1 gig thumb drive for 10 bucks. It isn't hard to see how things get onto those thumb drives. You figure out how to stop him from looking at dirty pictures. I don't think it can be done.



My point of is "As long as they are happy". Of course, me having children is so far divorced from reality that my response is probably hardly typical.

Indeed, but as with drugs, there are some things that make you happy right now, but might make you unhappy, or dead, later.

Matteo Martini
29th December 2007, 06:55 PM
Indeed, but as with drugs, there are some things that make you happy right now, but might make you unhappy, or dead, later.

Are you comparing the effects of watching porn with the effects of inhaling crack?

Meadmaker
29th December 2007, 07:03 PM
Are you comparing the effects of watching porn with the effects of inhaling crack?

That particular response had to do with being a porn performer. Yes, I am making that comparison. I'm not saying they are the same. I am saying that the long term consequences may be different than the short term feelings associated with either drugs or sex. In rare cases, the effects are identical, such as those cases where you get AIDS and die from it. Fortunately, those cases are rare. However, I'm willing to bet that a lot of people will acknowledge that the whole porn scene is something they wish they had never gotten involved in, even if they enjoyed it at the time.

Individual experiences may vary.

Tsukasa Buddha
29th December 2007, 08:06 PM
On a professional basis? One of my concerns is pornography addiction. Do you know anything about causes of porn addiction? Especially, if my kid manages to get unfettered access to an internet connection for a few hours when he's 12, and uses it for erotic research, will he become an addict? (That's an exaggeration, sort of.) In other words, do we know anything about who gets addicted to porn, and whether viewing habits during developmental years have an influence?

On a more personal basis. The therapists I've dealt with told me that the typical causes are early exposures to sex, whether it be porn or abuse. However, there are plenty of cases in which such things are not the cause, and cases of early exposures and no development of addiction.

However, twelve is hardly considered an age for early exposure.

And this a lot like talking about whether a person having drinks will become an alcoholic.

Certainly you can limit their access, but friends will share it, and they will share secrets among themselves. I'm quite certain that when my son is 14, he'll know how to install a modem, virtual PC, and an internet connection, and it will take about two hours to get an untraceable porn line running. By the time he's 14, I intend to be leaving him alone all day long. He will get access. Not frequent, unlimited, and unmonitored access, but he will get access.

Well, how much you limit it really depends on how far you are willing to go. However, a teenager without a history of porn addiction will hardly cause enough psychological concern to go all that far in limiting acces.

For the vast majority of people, the important part is to have a good, open relationship with children.

I can remember sharing Playboys as a kid. Today, I can buy a 1 gig thumb drive for 10 bucks. It isn't hard to see how things get onto those thumb drives. You figure out how to stop him from looking at dirty pictures. I don't think it can be done.

You take away the ability for him to freely open the thumb drive. Kids just waste time on the computer anyway. I they really need it to do school work, they can go on the family one, which the family can tell what is going on in the computer. Look, stopping kids from viewing pornography can be done, it's just that for most people it isn't worth the effort.

If the croud he is with is unhealthy, you can talk to the school administration to limit his access to them and set limits at home to stop him from hanging out with them.

Indeed, but as with drugs, there are some things that make you happy right now, but might make you unhappy, or dead, later.

There is a difference between being happy and being high ;) .

I'm glad you responded, I was afraid you had me on ignore :) .

Matteo Martini
29th December 2007, 08:42 PM
That particular response had to do with being a porn performer. Yes, I am making that comparison. I'm not saying they are the same. I am saying that the long term consequences may be different than the short term feelings associated with either drugs or sex. In rare cases, the effects are identical, such as those cases where you get AIDS and die from it. Fortunately, those cases are rare. However, I'm willing to bet that a lot of people will acknowledge that the whole porn scene is something they wish they had never gotten involved in, even if they enjoyed it at the time.

Individual experiences may vary.

I do not know much about the porn industry, but, as from some interview of porn actors/actresses I have read and seen on television, I had the impression of quite "normal" people, not people devastated by an unpleasant experience.
About the AIDS thing, I think AIDS has little (nothing?) to do with porn

BenBurch
29th December 2007, 09:07 PM
These people are why HIV has not much to do with porn; http://www.aim-med.org/

thaiboxerken
29th December 2007, 11:09 PM
Is there evidence that pornography is any more addictive than playing chess?

Travis
30th December 2007, 12:04 AM
Is there evidence that pornography is any more addictive than playing chess?

We don't need that evidence stuff when we're thinking of the children.

Fiona
30th December 2007, 02:10 AM
I, too, would like to know how addiction is being defined here.

Soapy Sam
30th December 2007, 05:56 AM
One of my concerns is pornography addiction. Do you know anything about causes of porn addiction? Especially, if my kid manages to get unfettered access to an internet connection for a few hours when he's 12, and uses it for erotic research, will he become an addict? (That's an exaggeration, sort of.) In other words, do we know anything about who gets addicted to porn, and whether viewing habits during developmental years have an influence?


A wider question- do people become "addicted" to the Internet in general?

Of course I have looked at online porn, but find it gets boring fast, which was always my reaction to magazine / movie porn- the sexual response is not "intended" to keep a male aroused for hours on end.

But I HAVE found myself browsing this forum at 3 in the morning- and while my single status and odd work schedule mean this is no problem to me, it assuredly would be for a 13 year old going to school the same day.

Meadmaker
30th December 2007, 09:35 AM
Is there evidence that pornography is any more addictive than playing chess?


Have you ever met a Chess addict? It's not pretty.

Seriously, actually. I have met a couple of people I would consider Chess addicts. They would be better off as porn addicts.

To answer your question directly, though, the answer is yes. Almost everyone growing up in America today is exposed to Chess. Most ignore it completely. Among the people who learn the rules and play a game, most stop fairly quickly. A few become competitive and it actually has an influence on their lives. I've met a couple of people who do seem to be obsessed with the game, and it's a bit sad.

Of course, if we talk about addiction to things on the internet, we might talk about forum discussion addiction. But I'd rather not go there, if you take my meaning.

ETA: Stop me before I post again! (And I see that Sam already mentioned this.)

Meadmaker
30th December 2007, 09:38 AM
I, too, would like to know how addiction is being defined here.

If you are not doing something right at the moment, and you say, "I never want to do that again," but you do it anyway, you're addicted.

thaiboxerken
30th December 2007, 09:46 AM
To answer your question directly, though, the answer is yes.

And where can I find this evidence?

Meadmaker
30th December 2007, 09:49 AM
Well, how much you limit it really depends on how far you are willing to go. However, a teenager without a history of porn addiction will hardly cause enough psychological concern to go all that far in limiting acces.

...You take away the ability for him to freely open the thumb drive.


On the computer at home, and even then only if you are going to severely limit the legitimate use of the computer. My point is that if anyone thinks that they are actually successful at stopping kids from seeing those images, they're wrong. If you actually wanted to prevent all access, the restrictions would be much worse than whatever would happen if he got a look, at least for the vast, vast majority of people. I intend to take some reasonable precautions to make sure he doesn't spend all of his teenage years locked in his bedroom pleasuring himself while staring at airbrushed women, or kinky people doing things under bad lighting. Beyond that, I'm not sure.

If the croud he is with is unhealthy...

Teenagers sharing dirty pictures is unhealthy? It might be, and I mean that sincerely, but if so we have a very sick society.

The human mind wasn't actually wired to have visual images of sex available at a whim. There was a time when in order to have the image of a naked woman strike your retina, there had to actually be a naked woman in close proximity. Now, through the wonders of technology, real people aren't necessary for that stimulus. Well, we seem not to have destroyed ourselves just yet, but sometimes I wonder if all of our brains aren't just a little off due to the unnatural state of our living conditions.

Meadmaker
30th December 2007, 09:51 AM
And where can I find this evidence?

Open your eyes. Do a google search for Chess sites, and then for porn sites. Compare numbers. It's pretty easy to see Chess hasn't quite caught on to the level of porn.

Now, video games....?

thaiboxerken
30th December 2007, 10:18 AM
Open your eyes. Do a google search for Chess sites, and then for porn sites. Compare numbers. It's pretty easy to see Chess hasn't quite caught on to the level of porn.

Now, video games....?

That's evidence of popularity. Did you have evidence of addiction?

Earthborn
30th December 2007, 10:21 AM
Open your eyes. Do a google search for Chess sites, and then for porn sites. Compare numbers.You mean like this?

Tsukasa Buddha
30th December 2007, 10:53 AM
I, too, would like to know how addiction is being defined here.

When it interferes with maintaining a healthy lifestyle, the use of it goes beyond the diversion sphere of your life and distrupts the work and social spheres significantly.

fanboy
30th December 2007, 11:26 AM
You mean like this?
No, not like that. You had safe search on. I did a search and got 226 million for porn and 60.5 million for chess.

casebro
30th December 2007, 11:33 AM
Maybe you are mixing up 'chess' with 'chest'? What kind of boob would play that game anyhow?

thaiboxerken
30th December 2007, 11:50 AM
No, not like that. You had safe search on. I did a search and got 226 million for porn and 60.5 million for chess.

A google on crack-cocaine resulted in 2.03 million. I guess chess is more addictive than crack.

Really. Meadmaker should provide some evidence that porn is addictive instead of resorting to such silly fallacy.

Fiona
30th December 2007, 11:55 AM
@ Mead and Tsukasa Buddha

As I mentioned earlier I am not prepared to give up the word yet.

It is generally accepted that addiction is a disease, a state of physiological or psychological dependence or devotion to something manifesting as a condition in which medically significant symptoms liable to have a damaging effect are present[2].

Many people, both psychology professionals and laypersons, now feel that there should be accommodation made to include psychological dependency on such things as gambling, food, sex, pornography, computers, work, exercise, cutting, shopping, and religion[3] so these behaviours count as diseases as well and don't cause guilt, shame, fear, hopelessness, failure, rejection,anxiety, or humiliation symptoms associated with, among other medical conditions, depression[4],epilepsy, [5] and hyperreligiosity[6] In depression related to religious addiction "The religious addict seeks to avoid pain and overcome shame by becoming involved in a belief system which offers security through its rigidity and its absolute values."[7] While religion and spirituality may play a key role in psychotherapeutic support and recovery, it can also be a source of pain, guilt and exclusion, and religious themes may also play a negative role in psychopathology.[8] Although, the above mentioned are things or tasks which, when used or performed, do not fit into the traditional view of addiction and may be better defined as an obsessive-compulsive disorder,withdrawal symptoms may occur with abatement of such behaviors. It is said by those who adhere to a traditionalist view that these withdrawal-like symptoms are not strictly reflective of an addiction, but rather of a behavioral disorder. However, understanding of neural science, the brain, the nervous system, human behavior, and affective disorders has revealed "the impact of molecular biology in the mechanisms underlying developmental processes and in the pathogenesis of disease".[9] The use of thyroid hormones as an effective adjunct treatment for affective disorders has been studied over the past three decades and has been confirmed repeatedly.[10] In spite of traditionalist protests and warnings that overextension of definitions may cause the wrong treatment to be used (thus failing the person with the behavioral problem), popular media, and some members of the field, do represent the aforementioned behavioral examples as addictions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

Most definitions still exclude this type of behaviour

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=SOj&defl=en&q=define:Addiction&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

I think there is good reason to exclude obsessive/compulsive behaviour from the definition of the problem. I see no reason at all to medicalise it.

XBoxWarrior
30th December 2007, 12:00 PM
I must admit, I didn't read all 5 pages......

However, I am WAY more content with being 'Single', at this moment......

long live the INet! (thanks Al Gore)

peace

BenBurch
30th December 2007, 04:29 PM
Have you ever met a Chess addict? It's not pretty.

Yep!

GM Jeremy Silman.

Old, old, old friend of mine.

Can't see how its harmed him one iota.

JFrankA
30th December 2007, 05:24 PM
About this whole thing with addiction, I've posted two threads on this subject. (Links below):

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=99308
"Is Sexual Addiction real?"

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100264
"Is Religious Addiciton real?"

It seems to me that addiction really only applies to drugs, which causes changes in the human body that causes dependancy.

Therefore, (again, IMHO), if people are going to say there's a sex and/or porn addiction, then I say there's a chess, bowling, religion, peanut butter, the Simpsons, football, bread, video games, comedy movies, air addiction.

I feel that to call any of the non-drug "additions" above is purely subjective. A professional bowler can be an addict to a casual or non-bowler. Also, a stamp "addict" is acceptable but a porn "addict" is not. This is a purely subjective thing according to people's viewpoints. Personally, I'd find a stamp collection boring but a porno collection interesting. :)

And I am 44 years old. I wasn't too young to remember the Meese commision, my mind is too old to remember the details. :D

Meadmaker
30th December 2007, 06:38 PM
A google on crack-cocaine resulted in 2.03 million. I guess chess is more addictive than crack.

Really. Meadmaker should provide some evidence that porn is addictive instead of resorting to such silly fallacy.

Excuse me, but you are the one who brought up Chess. Are you saying Chess isn't addictive? It is. For the right type of personality, it's addictive. Lots of things can be addictive.

However, I am going to assert, without evidence nor with any intention of providing any, that there are more people addicted to porn than addicted to Chess. It's just a hunch.

Meadmaker
30th December 2007, 06:46 PM
It seems to me that addiction really only applies to drugs, which causes changes in the human body that causes dependancy.


When people are being more precise, you're right. A clinician might distinguish a heroin addict from a gambling addict. However, both can be harmful.

Porn addicts? I really don't know. I hear about them. I know one guy who was fired because he tried to sneak a peak at some hot sites when using the company network. Anyone with a clue knows that you can't do that without getting caught, and if you get caught, you may very well be fired. He didn't hate his job, but he did it anyway. Is there a word for that sort of behavior? Addiction seems ok for me.

I would like to know if anyone knows what might create that sort of addiction, I wouldn't want my son to be fired because he just couldn't say no to pornt. Is there anything that might trigger that sort of behavior, which could be avoided? Just askin'.

XBoxWarrior
30th December 2007, 06:55 PM
Have you ever met a Chess addict? It's not pretty.

My cousin in Manhattan was "addicted" to online chess. She had a nice Chest too! ;) She would go to cyber cafes just to make a freakin' move in a game that had time limits......yes, she was good.

I think that humans will adapt to the "internets" with all their faults and benefits.

I for one, think Google porn is good, but I live alone, and my daughter is in college, far away from the "internets".......yeah (like sure)

It's no different than me stealing my dad's Playboys from his nightstand.

JFrankA
30th December 2007, 07:32 PM
When people are being more precise, you're right. A clinician might distinguish a heroin addict from a gambling addict. However, both can be harmful.

Porn addicts? I really don't know. I hear about them. I know one guy who was fired because he tried to sneak a peak at some hot sites when using the company network. Anyone with a clue knows that you can't do that without getting caught, and if you get caught, you may very well be fired. He didn't hate his job, but he did it anyway. Is there a word for that sort of behavior? Addiction seems ok for me.

I would like to know if anyone knows what might create that sort of addiction, I wouldn't want my son to be fired because he just couldn't say no to pornt. Is there anything that might trigger that sort of behavior, which could be avoided? Just askin'.

And I know a woman who was fired for shopping on the internet while on company time.

I don't mean to be infuriating, but one person's "addiction" is another person's "hobby".

As to the trigger? Anything. People are different. Basically, it's a reward system. Think Pavlov.

For example, I love peanut butter. It's my one weakness when I diet. I can resist chocolate, candy, etc, but peanut butter? I'm salavating just typing the words! :)

Now anyone else could shrug that off, but if I'm in the break room at work and someone opens a jar of peanut butter, I'll be craving it. To anyone else, the reaction would be indifferent, or even repulsed.

The point is that a "trigger" will never be known until it's pulled. The key is not to avoid the trigger, but know be aware of it and know what to do to help deal with it.

thaiboxerken
30th December 2007, 08:06 PM
However, I am going to assert, without evidence nor with any intention of providing any, that there are more people addicted to porn than addicted to Chess. It's just a hunch.

Ahh yes, the claims of a true believer. Since evidence isn't important to you or your opinions, I will conclude that you are full of BS.

Meadmaker
30th December 2007, 09:36 PM
My cousin in Manhattan was "addicted" to online chess.

I;ve played a tiny bit of online Chess, and I can appreciate the feeling. There's a need to find out what the next move will be. There is probably a better word for it, probably "compulsion", but whatever it is, it can be quite powerful. I found myself sitting at work wondering what the online

I for one, think Google porn is good, but I live alone, and my daughter is in college, far away from the "internets".......yeah (like sure)

It's no different than me stealing my dad's Playboys from his nightstand.

There are significant differences. I just don't know if any of those differences matter. Some differences include the quantity of images available, the easy access to moving pictures, the easy access to a wide variety of aspects of human sexuality, and the potential for a (somewhat) interactive experience, such as hot chats and live webcams.

Do these differences matter?

Well, they can't matter all that much. America may not be the top of the heap the way it used to be, but most people believe that is because the world is catching up, as opposed to us sliding into decay. It doesn't seem likely that whatever problems we have are a result of access to pornography. People seem to be growing up and falling in love just like they always did, although they might do it a bit more frequently than the old days. Evidence of harm from pornography seems somewhere between anecdotal and non-existent, or, at worst, that it might, might, trigger some anti-social or violent behavior in those inclined toward that sort of thing in the first place.

Furious Coder
30th December 2007, 11:39 PM
When it interferes with maintaining a healthy lifestyle, the use of it goes beyond the diversion sphere of your life and distrupts the work and social spheres significantly.

I wouldn't necessarily blame porn for that, I'd blame the person and the personality. Anyone with an addictive personality and a lack of willpower can get caught up in anything to the detriment of their greater well-being. I don't think that porn is particularly prone to cause problems in people without existing predispositions to low willpower.

There are lots of people (the vast majority of Progressive Americans, I'd say) who view porn and use it in a healthy manner who lead normal, functional lives. Many of the people we all know probably fall into this category. If you took porn away from these people for a few months, they may be grumpy, but I suspect they'd function just fine otherwise. Thus, I would say that porn itself is not addictive.

Conversely, I wouldn't say that there are many people who use meth who are not additctive, even people who say they're only going to do it once. People who use meth don't have normal, functional lives. Plus, if you took a meth user's drugs away, they would not simply "just be grumpy" for a while. I'd say that's addiction.

I'll speak anecdotally here: I know lots of couples who enjoy porn, together or individually, and even occasionally in group settings (mostly putting one on at a party and laughing at them). None of the people who viewed porn have had any negative side effects that I have observed: there were no ruined marriages due to porn, no breakups, no one became a rapist or molester, and no one lost their job due to their porn viewing habits.

Tokenconservative
31st December 2007, 05:26 AM
I am vaguely curious where you get the idea that the heads of Coca-Cola etc. and of their advertising agencies are left -wingers.Last I heard, most of them are on the wrong side of the aisle with you - but give me data showing a giant trend the other way and I'll freely admit I am wrong (I doubt that though, since advertising is one of my big interests and I read a lot of the related books and trade papers and research.):)

Well, then we are in the same boat, because I'm "vaguely curious" where you got the idea I said that the head of Coca-Cola are libs...

But now, you have me at a disadvantage: I am clear in what I say, and then you say some vague thing about a "trend either way," and I've no earthly clue what you might be talking about.

Tokie

Tokenconservative
31st December 2007, 05:28 AM
I, too, would like to know how addiction is being defined here.

Easy, anything Oprah can present as an addiction is. Otherwise, you are just a sick puppy.

Tokie

Tokenconservative
31st December 2007, 05:30 AM
Man, oh man I sure have. I was simply looking for lyrics from the world famous pop-punk band blink-182. If you need to look up blink-182 lyrics and you think it MIGHT be a good idea to skip Google and just try blink-182 and ctrl+enter in your browser, I will warn you now that long before you can hit an "X" or C+A+D, you will see a banana do something it was clearly never intended to do.

(and that is NOT a shot at Ray Comfort but it works just the same...)

Oh, yeah...usta pop up all the time in the old days before I got all sorts of stuff that keeps anything from doing that.

Tokie

Tokenconservative
31st December 2007, 05:41 AM
I talk about the human body, and you talk about Michael Moore being raped

Are not there studies that show that violence on video has harmful consequences on children?

Are we talking about porn or brothels here?

I am not so sure about this, as, alas, my old Latin and history teacher did not teach us this, in high school.
Anyway, the discussion started here:
"Sex fantasies are something connected with men`s (women`s) nature, not with porn."
I was trying to say that all men in all times AFAIK had sex fantasies, and this was not triggered by modern (internet?) pornography

I'd be the first to agree that there's not much correlation between Michael Moore and humans, sure.

Yes, I believe there are. And any parent can tell you how this stuff impacts kids. Music, too.

I don't know what you are talking about. I believe the thread is about porn. And I am not sure what your English or Latin teachers did or did not teach you.

No. And porn has been around since just about the first time a guy picked up some ocher and a bit of bark and started scribbling things on cave walls. We know this.

If you are misreading something I said to assert here that I am claiming that (media-borne) porn is necessary for male arousal, you are either misreading, me or purposely stating it this way because you either believe it makes you seem much more clever than you are, or because you believe it will prove me much denser than I am.

You'll have to figure out which of those it is on your own. I am not your momma, your shrink or your parole officer and can't do that for you.

If on the other, very unlikely hand, you are simply unaware of human nature (or you deny that it exists...a whole 'nother set of problems you may need to go back to the list above to seek answers to) that's a diffferent kettle of fish. If you are female, or a male under the age of oh, about 35 or so, it's likely you are simply ignorant of how males "work," and have been told (and convinced) all your life by leftist-feminist sources that male interest in the female form is "perverted." Depending upon your age in that case, you can be forgiven. You have been so thoroughly inculcates with this it's not surprising that you find normal male behavior to be pathological--this is what you have been taugh all your life if you are younger than about 50, and you have had this pounded into your head if you are under about 35 or so.

It's not your fault, but it will BE your fault if, now that you know differently, you maintain that false belief structure.

If you are a male over the age of say, 40 or so, and you have not come to the realization on your own that a nicely turned calf, long thigh, shapely rear, nice bust--hell, ears, arms, hair, hands, feet, neck...name it!--on a woman does not draw the male eye there are two possibilities:

1. You are a whipped Alan Alda type lying to yourself,
2. You are gay. And look at men in exactly the same way as I look at women.

Tokie

Broes
31st December 2007, 05:49 AM
Porn and sex is not dirty.

Only by making it into something dark and forbidden and hiding it away from eyesight, will you make it into a forbidden fruit asking to be bitten into.
Take that with bad sexual education and 'condom scare' and your asking for teen pregnancies.

Tokenconservative
31st December 2007, 05:57 AM
Porn and sex is not dirty.

Only by making it into something dark and forbidden and hiding it away from eyesight, will you make it into a forbidden fruit asking to be bitten into.
Take that with bad sexual education and 'condom scare' and your asking for teen pregnancies.

Hmm...not sure I follow...so if we properly teach our kids sex, maybe using porn as visual aids, there'll be less unplanned pregnancy?

Question: do you know ANYTHING about young males?

Tokie

PogoPedant
31st December 2007, 06:07 AM
Question: do you know ANYTHING about young males?

Tokie

Uhm, young males like to get their groove on? And if they understand the risks, some small percentage of them may make some small effort to lessen these risks? Do you understand risk-management?

Tokenconservative
31st December 2007, 06:14 AM
Uhm, young males like to get their groove on? And if they understand the risks, some small percentage of them may make some small effort to lessen these risks? Do you understand risk-management?

Um.....no, what's this r-risk m-management of which you mumble?

Young males will attempt in some cases to minimize/mitigate even eliminate risk of getting a girl pregnant; many today see getting as many as they can pregnant as a sign of their manhood, however, and in the end the drive to rut will supercede just about anything.

Tokie

PogoPedant
31st December 2007, 06:28 AM
Um.....no, what's this r-risk m-management of which you mumble?

Young males will attempt in some cases to minimize/mitigate even eliminate risk of getting a girl pregnant; many today see getting as many as they can pregnant as a sign of their manhood, however, and in the end the drive to rut will supercede just about anything.

Tokie

Right. So lets divide the target audience into groups: There's those that want to impregnate as many as possible; they are a lost cause and sex-ed or no sex-ed is irrelevant. There's those that won't have sex at all, and they are mostly mythical and won't matter in this situation anyway.

Finally, there are those that want to have sex, but not necessarily want to make anybody pregnant. There are two basic strategies to not making women pregnant: One is to not have sex with them, and the other is to have sex involving the proper use of at least one prophylactic. The first strategy is for the most part ignored by all and sundry, and the second strategy demands effort and knowledge.

So what's the rational approach to sex-ed, taking the above analysis into account?

Fiona
31st December 2007, 07:32 AM
I
If you are female, or a male under the age of oh, about 35 or so, it's likely you are simply ignorant of how males "work," and have been told (and convinced) all your life by leftist-feminist sources that male interest in the female form is "perverted." Depending upon your age in that case, you can be forgiven. You have been so thoroughly inculcates with this it's not surprising that you find normal male behavior to be pathological--this is what you have been taugh all your life if you are younger than about 50, and you have had this pounded into your head if you are under about 35 or so.


Young males will attempt in some cases to minimize/mitigate even eliminate risk of getting a girl pregnant; many today see getting as many as they can pregnant as a sign of their manhood, however, and in the end the drive to rut will supercede just about anything.




Now I understand why the polls here all include a question about planet X. It's for you, isn't it? :newlol

aries
31st December 2007, 07:51 AM
I think I can safely say, coming from the land of porn ;) -eh- I mean the land that released pornography for adults as the first country in the world that your son probably will be safe. So will the country. I mean, Denmark still stands. The onluy thing the 'free porn' has achieved is that little 10-14 years orld boys don't bother peeping into girls bathrooms to see naked girls, since the society as a whole seems to take the whole watching of naked bodies, either on tv or in real life, more relaxed than before 1967 (where the porn became free in Denmark).

I don't think that it is good idea for nine year old to be given unfethered or unsupervised access to the internet. If I were his father, he of course, could use the internet, if it were for a school assignment or for something he wanted to know, but I want to help him as well. Sometimes, internet porn sites make a website that it very close to the site
to where you're going looking for info.

As for a 9-10 year old boy seeing naked people or breast, I doubt that seeing this will hurt him in any way, since most 9-10 years old children just seem to notice the naked people on the screen and then they go on living their lives again.

I understand the dangers and threats posed to your 9-10 year old son from scumbags and child molesters, but the thing is this: As in real life you learn your child not to say hello to strangers, not to talk to strangers, not to go with strangers or give any personal info out to strangers, including his full name, his adress or his phone number. And to call an adult, if he (or she) feels creepy. That's what the Danes teach their children on how to browse through the internet's social websites. It seems to be working :)

BenBurch
31st December 2007, 07:54 AM
Hmm...not sure I follow...so if we properly teach our kids sex, maybe using porn as visual aids, there'll be less unplanned pregnancy?

Question: do you know ANYTHING about young males?

Tokie

Yes, I think that would work.

I'll tell you why; I was looking at porn from about age 12... There was a large stash of it in our dairy barn in some boxes a friend of ours had stored and forgotten years before... Among these were "marriage manuals" in which I learned all about pregnancy, STDs, and condoms.

I was married (for quite some time) before I ever did it without a condom. And I did it A LOT between age 12 and are 21 when I got married.

Furious Coder
31st December 2007, 12:45 PM
I think the secrecy and shame surrounding porn and sexuality are part of the control mechanism. Every person has a desire to know that they're "normal", and the more honest, open, scientifically and medically accurate information we can disseminate, the more people can discuss their own experiences and come to a consensus about what they've done and what is normal.

The vast majority of people (Americans and Westerners, that is) have been exposed to pornography and sexual intimacy at some time in their teens, and have continued this exposure into adulthood with no ill effects. I would argue that by communicating honestly and openly about this, it becomes something that we can all identify as normal behavior, and thus a non-issue, and then we can get on with our lives. "Yeah, I look at porn once in a while. I had sex before marriage, and I still masturbate. So what? Let's get back to work."

By making porn and sexuality taboo and concealing the information, it becomes a control mechanism for those enforcing the taboo. The concealed information becomes a carrot that can be dangled in order to control, and the misinformation can drive situations and emotions that drive economics in a certain direction, as well as drive the population and the growth thereof in a certain direction.

Like many "Adult Issues", such as dealing with intimidation properly and being fiscally responsible, the best course of action seems to be to open information and communication about appropriateness during exposure to this information. I don't think porn or sexuality is any different.

luchog
31st December 2007, 12:56 PM
Repeating a thing does not make it true. I have suggested that for women it is a way not just to make a minimum wage but to have a chance of real wealth. Just as boxing is for poor young men. And that when people have a comfortable standard of living they do not choose either of these career paths. Well off young men will still join the marines, as you said. I wonder what you think the difference is, if not as I contend? I would be glad to hear your explanation and also how the case of boxing and porn are significantly different

For starters, your (unfortunately unchallenged) assertion that boxing is strictly for poor people is nonsense. Up until very recently, boxing was considered a "gentlemen's" sport; ane was a common part of every upper-class male's education. A proper "manly" form of physical exercise and competition; and unlike the lower-class bar and street brawls, had a rigid code of rules and behaviour, and therefore was an "honorable" method of fighting (Marquess of Queensbury rules, of course).

While some professionals come from poor backgrounds, the majority of them have working-class or lower-middle-class origins; while amateurs are often middle-class in origin.

Boxing as a sport has existed in various forms throughout recorded history.

As for prostitution, that, as well, has varied widely throughout history. It's typically only when illegal or repressed through strong social stigma that it's predominantly the domain of poor uneducated women. As even a cursory glance through the more popular magazines and websites will demonstrate, the majority of porn actresses are from the middle-class and of average education.

luchog
31st December 2007, 01:16 PM
I know one guy who was fired because he tried to sneak a peak at some hot sites when using the company network. Anyone with a clue knows that you can't do that without getting caught, and if you get caught, you may very well be fired. He didn't hate his job, but he did it anyway. Is there a word for that sort of behavior?

Yes, it's called "poor judgement". There have been several studies done in the US and UK about employees viewing porn in the workplace; and the overwhelming conclusion is that the vast majority of employees have viewed porn at work, regardless of company policies; and as many as half have forwarded pornographic materials to co-workers. Does that mean that nearly everyone is a porn addict?

luchog
31st December 2007, 01:25 PM
I think I can safely say, coming from the land of porn ;) -eh- I mean the land that released pornography for adults as the first country in the world that I understand the dangers and threats posed to your 9-10 year old son from scumbags and child molesters, but the thing is this: As in real life you learn your child not to say hello to strangers, not to talk to strangers, not to go with strangers or give any personal info out to strangers, including his full name, his adress or his phone number. And to call an adult, if he (or she) feels creepy.
Of course, child molesters are far more likely to be a relative or other person already well-known to the child.

I would, personally, not give a child unrestricted access to the Internet, but porn is only one reason, and not the most important. There are many other very good reasons not to give children unrestricted Internet access; most of which involve the behaviour of many other people on the 'net, and the widespread accessibility of misinformation and propaganda, particularly of the "woo" sort. And I would be very certain to ensure that said child knows not to believe things that he sees on the Internet, no matter who they're from. Porn is one of the least of my worries in that respect.

fuelair
31st December 2007, 02:57 PM
I'd be the first to agree that there's not much correlation between Michael Moore and humans, sure.

Yes, I believe there are. And any parent can tell you how this stuff impacts kids. Music, too.

I don't know what you are talking about. I believe the thread is about porn. And I am not sure what your English or Latin teachers did or did not teach you.

No. And porn has been around since just about the first time a guy picked up some ocher and a bit of bark and started scribbling things on cave walls. We know this.

If you are misreading something I said to assert here that I am claiming that (media-borne) porn is necessary for male arousal, you are either misreading, me or purposely stating it this way because you either believe it makes you seem much more clever than you are, or because you believe it will prove me much denser than I am.

You'll have to figure out which of those it is on your own. I am not your momma, your shrink or your parole officer and can't do that for you.

If on the other, very unlikely hand, you are simply unaware of human nature (or you deny that it exists...a whole 'nother set of problems you may need to go back to the list above to seek answers to) that's a diffferent kettle of fish. If you are female, or a male under the age of oh, about 35 or so, it's likely you are simply ignorant of how males "work," and have been told (and convinced) all your life by leftist-feminist sources that male interest in the female form is "perverted." Depending upon your age in that case, you can be forgiven. You have been so thoroughly inculcates with this it's not surprising that you find normal male behavior to be pathological--this is what you have been taugh all your life if you are younger than about 50, and you have had this pounded into your head if you are under about 35 or so.

It's not your fault, but it will BE your fault if, now that you know differently, you maintain that false belief structure.

If you are a male over the age of say, 40 or so, and you have not come to the realization on your own that a nicely turned calf, long thigh, shapely rear, nice bust--hell, ears, arms, hair, hands, feet, neck...name it!--on a woman does not draw the male eye there are two possibilities:

1. You are a whipped Alan Alda type lying to yourself,
2. You are gay. And look at men in exactly the same way as I look at women.

Tokie
Actually, and I am playing nice right this moment, M is arguing/coming from the viewpoint that prior to the printing press (and, later, film, tape, disc,/computer/digital) most erotica/crude porn was limited in production to one or just a few copies as opposed to not being produced. Most of the things we see as erotica/porn nowadays are produced in the thousands to hundreds of thousands of copies - or are delivered electronically as millions + of downloads and his argument comes from the wider availibility not just of individual items but of many more levels of it. The good news is that nothing current (if you substitute demons/gods for aliens and vampires) is not represented in ancient times.

Interestingly, I never went through the girl-hating stage so I can safely say I thought girls were a wonderful idea since I was around 3 and living on a (city) hillside in West Virginia. Best friend (no, we did not play doctor) was a year older and female - lived in the downstairs part of the three apartment/triplex. Started collecting adult materials when I was 8 or 9 (not hardcore - very hard to find in the 50's - especially if you were 5 - 15 ('50 - '60) - though a classmate had some when I was in 4th or 5th grade which I saw.:D

Fiona
31st December 2007, 03:37 PM
For starters, your (unfortunately unchallenged) assertion that boxing is strictly for poor people is nonsense. Up until very recently, boxing was considered a "gentlemen's" sport; ane was a common part of every upper-class male's education. A proper "manly" form of physical exercise and competition; and unlike the lower-class bar and street brawls, had a rigid code of rules and behaviour, and therefore was an "honorable" method of fighting (Marquess of Queensbury rules, of course).

I take it you can evidence this? AS I understand it The London Prize Fighting rules were first I believe, and they were introduced to regulate bare knuckle fighting. The Marquis of Queensbury rules superseded them in the mid 1800's and again these were designed to make the sport safer. It is true many of those fighters were called things like "Gentleman Jim" but this does not mean they had public school backgrounds or were members of the peerage. It is certainly true that amateur boxing was taught in english public schools but that is hardly relevant to the professional sport. The truth seems to be that the regulation of boxing was part of a much wider "philanthropic" movement at the time and it was the creditable attempt of the middle classes to "improve" the lot of the poor. I will be glad to see your evidence for your alternative account :)

While some professionals come from poor backgrounds, the majority of them have working-class or lower-middle-class origins; while amateurs are often middle-class in origin.

I do not dispute what you say about amateurs but that is hardly apposite in this context. Again I would like to see you support your assertion with some evidence. I have looked briefly at the backgrounds of the wbc emeritus world champions at each weight (list from wiki). Of these:

Lennox Lewis is from a Jamaican family who settled in Westham in England. This is a poor area and Jamaicans are not amongst the comfortably off, generally. Of course his family may have been and exception and I am sure you have more information than I do

Vitali Klitschko was indeed better off being the son of a Soviet Air Force Colonel

Bernard Hopkins was brought up in a housing project. I am not American but it is my understanding that this does not indicate wealth. Correct me if I am wrong

Floyd Mayweather is the son of a boxing family but his father served at least one prison term and again, this does not suggest privilege to me. You may have more information, certainly

Kostya Tszyu was the son of a russian fitter and his family shared an apartment with another family. As a child he slept on the floor

Manny Picquaio is Filipino but I could not find further information on his background:nor could I with the Mexican Erik Elvires

Sugar Ray Robinson's father worked two jobs to support his family and was seldom seen

Jack Dempsey was from a poor family of mixed Irish origin. His father was often out of work

Muhammed Ali's father painted billboards for a living and his mother was in domestic service

Joe Louis was the grandson of slaves and his father was as sharecropper who was committed to a mental asylum when he was two. He had 7 siblings

I do not so far see much to support your contention, though I do not assert that working class boys do not seek this route as well as those in the so called "underclass". I will be glad to learn more showing I am wrong, however.


As for prostitution, that, as well, has varied widely throughout history. It's typically only when illegal or repressed through strong social stigma that it's predominantly the domain of poor uneducated women. As even a cursory glance through the more popular magazines and websites will demonstrate, the majority of porn actresses are from the middle-class and of average education.

I assume you can evidence this assertion too, and I look forward to seeing this.

As I stated previously I do not contend that the people who pursue these two careers are always the very bottom of the heap: I do say that those who are comfortably off do not, generally, do so

fuelair
31st December 2007, 08:25 PM
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0140282963/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-1487367-7901452#reader-link
http://www.amazon.com/Elegant-Madness-Society-Regency-England/dp/0140282963/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199160311&sr=1-7

are two books that might help settle this for you both. though Sport is not my field - but I have loads of Socio. on prostitution.

By the by, as a very general point and not as hard evidence that many gentlemen did take up both boxing and football, both were taught/practiced at a number of Public Schools - though those attending were certainly not expected to take up either in the real world but, rather, to use those skills in the service of His/Her Majesty (in the Military). Boxing as a profession did tend to be left to the non-Public School attendees.

By the same token, prostitution did strongly tend to women not of means or power - though there were many exceptions (and they, of course, the better known as individuals).

Meadmaker
31st December 2007, 11:57 PM
There are lots of people (the vast majority of Progressive Americans, I'd say) who view porn and use it in a healthy manner who lead normal, functional lives. Many of the people we all know probably fall into this category. If you took porn away from these people for a few months, they may be grumpy, but I suspect they'd function just fine otherwise. Thus, I would say that porn itself is not addictive.

When I was between the ages of about 17 and 20, I drank a lot. During high school summers, when I was either not working or not working at a job with any responsibilities, I would guess I was drunk about 5 nights per week. During the school year I was only drunk on weekends. The level of drunkenness ranged from just beyond the level where I could drive safely to passed out, but generally, it was pretty darned drunk.

My alcohol consumption got less and less as time went on. By age 30, I hardly ever got drunk. Today, I doubt I get beyond the legal driving limit more than once per year, and I can't remember the last time I was truly drunk. I didn't ever consciously say I was going to stop drinking. I just did it less and less because I enjoyed it less and less.

Based on my experience, therefore, alcohol is not addictive.

However, we all know that alcohol is, in fact, addictive. I also can't stand gambling, but my dad was a compulsive gambler. Lots of people can gamble and not get addicted. My dad wasn't one of them. Can we say gambling is not addictive?

And exposure does matter. Looking back, I can see the behavior that predisposed my dad to compulsive gambling, but he didn't actually do it until casinos became legal in many places across the US, especially close to his home.

Lots of things, from Chess to video games to porn to alcohol can be addictive to some people, but not to others. However, some things affect more people than others. I'm willing to assert that more people are addicted to porn than to Chess. Also, among those addicted, the level of addiction varies. A meth, crack, or alcohol addiction is different than a gambling or porn addiction. The question is whether we know anything about the factors that might make someone susceptible to a porn addiction, and if any of those factors are environmental, and can be controlled and influenced by a parent while raising a child or adolescent. I think it's a worthwhile question, although it doesn't appear that anyone knows the answer.

Fiona
1st January 2008, 01:50 AM
.
The question is whether we know anything about the factors that might make someone susceptible to a porn addiction, and if any of those factors are environmental, and can be controlled and influenced by a parent while raising a child or adolescent. I think it's a worthwhile question, although it doesn't appear that anyone knows the answer.

As JFrankA and I have already said, this is because the addiction model is overextended and imo is not a helpful way to approach the problem.

Tokenconservative
1st January 2008, 05:23 AM
Yes, I think that would work.

I'll tell you why; I was looking at porn from about age 12... There was a large stash of it in our dairy barn in some boxes a friend of ours had stored and forgotten years before... Among these were "marriage manuals" in which I learned all about pregnancy, STDs, and condoms.

I was married (for quite some time) before I ever did it without a condom. And I did it A LOT between age 12 and are 21 when I got married.

Hmm....well, I am sure you did it far more than me.

Before I met my would-be wife (still the same wife, after 25 years now) I was a bit of a cad...was a pretty boy in my youth, which din't hurt my chances.

Prolly had, oh, conservativey, 20-25 sexual encounters between age 17-20.

Never used a condom. Just asked all of these women: are you on the pill.

When the answer was in the affirmative, we had sex.

When it wasn't we had Bill Clinton sex.

My parents din't have a dairy barn, and while I know my dad had one or two such mags, we were forbidden from entering their bedroom and so did not, and I really never saw them other than the occasional glimpse for one reason or another at the bottom of his sock and tie drawer.

So how did I learn to hump everything that moved (well, I was actually a bit more discerning, but I think you take my meaning) and not get anyone pregnant until my wife went off the pill in our early 30s (well before there was an Internet to teach me, too) without these helpful visual aids?

There is something to be said for on-the-job training.

Hey, anybody know why Fiona, Shemaster of the Universe has me on ignore?

Tokie

Tokenconservative
1st January 2008, 05:37 AM
Actually, and I am playing nice right this moment, M is arguing/coming from the viewpoint that prior to the printing press (and, later, film, tape, disc,/computer/digital) most erotica/crude porn was limited in production to one or just a few copies as opposed to not being produced. Most of the things we see as erotica/porn nowadays are produced in the thousands to hundreds of thousands of copies - or are delivered electronically as millions + of downloads and his argument comes from the wider availibility not just of individual items but of many more levels of it. The good news is that nothing current (if you substitute demons/gods for aliens and vampires) is not represented in ancient times.

Interestingly, I never went through the girl-hating stage so I can safely say I thought girls were a wonderful idea since I was around 3 and living on a (city) hillside in West Virginia. Best friend (no, we did not play doctor) was a year older and female - lived in the downstairs part of the three apartment/triplex. Started collecting adult materials when I was 8 or 9 (not hardcore - very hard to find in the 50's - especially if you were 5 - 15 ('50 - '60) - though a classmate had some when I was in 4th or 5th grade which I saw.:D

Maybe we are arguing around each other then.

And I am being nice, too...surely you've seen my nasty side in here by now....and when you make a threat like that, whether it's IRW, or in a net forum, you should be able to back it up.

You can't, not in here, anyway.

Onward and upward, shall we?

You are right. Lots more availability, today. Did I say otherwise? No, what I said is that men have been making and looking at porn since Ooog first figured out how to draw on a cave wall. First he drew the Bison God...then he drew a hot chick and whacked off. Hey, Ooog was the tribe artisted...he din't get a lot..until AFTER he drew a bunch of stuff and could say to particularly stupid young cave chicks "Me Ooog. You want see my etchings?"

Same here. Have always had more female friends than male, and I like it that way as I have no interest in cars, football, baseball, hockey, basketball, rubgy, NASCAR, Harleys, the nudie bar, power tools, etc. etc.

I like to ride an offroad bike in tiny little shorts, tho.

I guess I am gay!?

I digress...point is any NORMAL male is aroused visually. This, by the way, includes gays. In the past 40 years as we have femnized males and de-feminized females, things like The Chippendale Dancers have come about. This does virtually nothing for women, by the way....if it does, can someone please explain to me why you can find tens of thousands of strip joints that have women running around in various stages (depending upon local codes) of undress while Chippendales is a one-night-a week thing at regular clubs and suchlike. There are some GAY clubs of this sort, but they SEEM anyway, to be appealing to different audience.

This is why porn can be found on cave walls in Southern France and all over the Internet. Yes, SOME women look at it, and SOME are aroused, Most women are not terribly aroused by looking at a male body, in the way males are naturally aroused by looking at the female body.

I will try this again, since you seem unusually obtuse: nature or creation made male humans this way: we determine whether we find a female "attractive" to us for mating purposes. Females, traditionally, have looked to other issues: can this male who is about to impregnate me and make me more suseptible to being eaten by dire wolves, or hyenas for 7 months, support and protect me during this time, and will he be able to support and protect me while nursing and raising a cub to maturity and protect that cub?

Yes, yes...Sex in the City, commercial for those nasty spray perfumes young men use today, etc., etc., blah, blah.

That's just the way we were created or evolved.

Sorry.

Tokie

Tokenconservative
1st January 2008, 05:38 AM
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0140282963/ref=sib_dp_pt/103-1487367-7901452#reader-link
http://www.amazon.com/Elegant-Madness-Society-Regency-England/dp/0140282963/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199160311&sr=1-7

are two books that might help settle this for you both. though Sport is not my field - but I have loads of Socio. on prostitution.

By the by, as a very general point and not as hard evidence that many gentlemen did take up both boxing and football, both were taught/practiced at a number of Public Schools - though those attending were certainly not expected to take up either in the real world but, rather, to use those skills in the service of His/Her Majesty (in the Military). Boxing as a profession did tend to be left to the non-Public School attendees.

By the same token, prostitution did strongly tend to women not of means or power - though there were many exceptions (and they, of course, the better known as individuals).


A better book for a feminist wymyn like Fiona would be (hope I remember correctly) Why Men Can't Ask for Directions and Why Women Can't Read a Map. It's by a husband-wife team of social psychologists, if I do not misremember.

Very illuminating. I believe niether of them has worked a day again after it was published.

Tokie

Fiona
1st January 2008, 07:37 AM
I don't have you on ignore Tokie. I find you very funny :D

You didn't remember correctly, btw

The book you are talking about is "why men don't listen and women can't read maps" The authors are not social psychologists. He was a travelling salesmen and she was a model before they got into populist psychology and motivational speaking

http://www.peaseinternational.com/

Don't think you are right about the idea they never worked again :D

The better book is "Why men won't ask for directions"

Interview with the author of the latter here."Dr. Francis received his Ph.D. in Neurobiology and Behavior from Stony Brook University, and was a recipient of the National Science Research Award from NIH. He was a postdoctoral fellow at both Stanford and U.C. Berkeley. And, he is the author of the new book, “Why Men Won’t Ask for Directions: The Seductions of Sociobiology”.

http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~frank/BerkeleyGroks_Francis.htm

JFrankA
1st January 2008, 08:54 AM
The question is whether we know anything about the factors that might make someone susceptible to a porn addiction, and if any of those factors are environmental, and can be controlled and influenced by a parent while raising a child or adolescent. I think it's a worthwhile question, although it doesn't appear that anyone knows the answer.

In the case of porn, chess, bowling, gambling, television, etc, I liked the other word you used better: compulsion.

This kind of compulsion is not based on something physical, such as drugs, but on a reward system. E.g. I like playing chess because when I do, my brian shoots endorphines.
Now the difference with addiction and compulsion is that with addiction you are not only fighting your natural enophine rush, you are also fighting the changes that the chemical has done to your body to make the endorphines that your brain already has seem weak and useless.


point is any NORMAL male is aroused visually. This, by the way, includes gays. In the past 40 years as we have femnized males and de-feminized females, things like The Chippendale Dancers have come about. This does virtually nothing for women, by the way....if it does, can someone please explain to me why you can find tens of thousands of strip joints that have women running around in various stages (depending upon local codes) of undress while Chippendales is a one-night-a week thing at regular clubs and suchlike. There are some GAY clubs of this sort, but they SEEM anyway, to be appealing to different audience.
....
nature or creation made male humans this way: we determine whether we find a female "attractive" to us for mating purposes. Females, traditionally, have looked to other issues: can this male who is about to impregnate me and make me more suseptible to being eaten by dire wolves, or hyenas for 7 months, support and protect me during this time, and will he be able to support and protect me while nursing and raising a cub to maturity and protect that cub?

I agree with you there. And I have an answer for you: you've answered your own question. Women are not willing to pay to see a naked man unless he's, well, of the highest quality. Men, IMHO, are not as... uhm.. discriminate as women are.

I've got more female friends than men friends myself, and, have had my share of sex partners, too. The thing I've observed is that women, although they are just as horny as we guys are, they are more detailed-oriented when it comes to being attracted to someone. They tend to think of sex all the way though from before foreplay to breakfast the next morning. Women notice every detail. We guys just go WOW! WOMAN!! FUN!!! BOOM!!! Zzzzzzzz! :D

I was once told by an exgirlfriend that when someone is seducing a woman, the moment the woman starts thinking, the seduction is lost. Chippendales is a special group of guys that go beyond the norm of guys. There's not many like them. So when the girls go to Chippendales, it's an event. In fact, when I take my girlfriend to a strip club, it's an event. We prepare, we discuss, we get dressed and make it into something special. It's not just "Hey, let's go to the nudie bar!!!". Guys just go when they want a beer.

That's the difference.

And... that's the difference with porn. Porn, usually, is not an event. The sex scene are there, and boom. That's it. Women, for the most part, want to know why the sex is happening.

I am in the adult industry, very small time, but I've been doing it for eight years or so all behind the camera. I've learned this: men love it when women look into the camera. Women HATE it when people look into the camera. Why? Because women project themselves into the fantasy. The woman watching is thinking about how she feels in that situtation, so everything has to make sense, the sexual tension has to build, there is foreplay and visible arousal on everyone involved. The whole picture is important because she puts herself into what's happening, which fuels her fantasy and builds her arousal. And everything has to make sense: the dialog, the backgrounds, what people are (or were) wearing, etc.

If you want proof of this watch the films of Candide Royal (couples orientated films) and Girlfriends Films (real life lesbian films). They are geared more for women. There's a major difference in lesbian scene on how it is filmed and done between Vivid or Wicked produced porn and Girlfriends Films produced porn.

This is why romance novels are so popular with women: it's the whole fantasy, every detail, every feeling, every motion is spelled out to them. It's a slow, sensuous buildup of foreplay. We guys get bored too easily to do that. When we guys see the woman in a porn moive we just think "she's ***** HOT".

I know when I watch, I forget the story, don't care why she's having sex, and I focus on the parts that arouse me the most. (and honestly, it's the face that does it for me).

I don't know if this is because of nature or nurture, but it is what I've found to be true.

Disclaimers:
I am only refering to hetrosexual men and women. I've found that gay or bi males are pretty much like straight males except they like looking at guys. Gay or bi women, well, I'm still trying to sus them out. Women are much, much more complicated. (but that makes them much much more wonderful!)

Also, if any woman want to dispute me on this, please do. I want to make sure I've got this right... :)

cj.23
1st January 2008, 09:14 AM
Slightly off topic, but a while ago a friend was complaining that everytime he used google he got porn. I thought this was odd. I said it never happened to me. To prove my point I typed ""naked scandinavian nurses" into google.com with safe search off (with quotes). Try it...

cj x

Fiona
1st January 2008, 09:23 AM
@JFrankA. You last post touches on some of what I have said earlier. In fact I put it to you you do NOT agree with what you quoted. In particular

Females, traditionally, have looked to other issues: can this male who is about to impregnate me and make me more suseptible to being eaten by dire wolves, or hyenas for 7 months, support and protect me during this time, and will he be able to support and protect me while nursing and raising a cub to maturity and protect that cub?

your post does not support this "just so" story. Or so it seems to me :)

fuelair
1st January 2008, 11:27 AM
Maybe we are arguing around each other then.

And I am being nice, too...surely you've seen my nasty side in here by now....and when you make a threat like that, whether it's IRW, or in a net forum, you should be able to back it up.

You can't, not in here, anyway.

Onward and upward, shall we?

You are right. Lots more availability, today. Did I say otherwise? No, what I said is that men have been making and looking at porn since Ooog first figured out how to draw on a cave wall. First he drew the Bison God...then he drew a hot chick and whacked off. Hey, Ooog was the tribe artisted...he din't get a lot..until AFTER he drew a bunch of stuff and could say to particularly stupid young cave chicks "Me Ooog. You want see my etchings?"

Same here. Have always had more female friends than male, and I like it that way as I have no interest in cars, football, baseball, hockey, basketball, rubgy, NASCAR, Harleys, the nudie bar, power tools, etc. etc.

I like to ride an offroad bike in tiny little shorts, tho.

I guess I am gay!?

I digress...point is any NORMAL male is aroused visually. This, by the way, includes gays. In the past 40 years as we have femnized males and de-feminized females, things like The Chippendale Dancers have come about. This does virtually nothing for women, by the way....if it does, can someone please explain to me why you can find tens of thousands of strip joints that have women running around in various stages (depending upon local codes) of undress while Chippendales is a one-night-a week thing at regular clubs and suchlike. There are some GAY clubs of this sort, but they SEEM anyway, to be appealing to different audience.

This is why porn can be found on cave walls in Southern France and all over the Internet. Yes, SOME women look at it, and SOME are aroused, Most women are not terribly aroused by looking at a male body, in the way males are naturally aroused by looking at the female body.

I will try this again, since you seem unusually obtuse: nature or creation made male humans this way: we determine whether we find a female "attractive" to us for mating purposes. Females, traditionally, have looked to other issues: can this male who is about to impregnate me and make me more suseptible to being eaten by dire wolves, or hyenas for 7 months, support and protect me during this time, and will he be able to support and protect me while nursing and raising a cub to maturity and protect that cub?

Yes, yes...Sex in the City, commercial for those nasty spray perfumes young men use today, etc., etc., blah, blah.

That's just the way we were created or evolved.

Sorry.

Tokie
We may still be moving around a point here - because I think (based purely on what/how you wrote) that you are missing mine, so:

1) We agree (MM differs somewhat) that erotica/porn has existed at least since cave painting days (probably earlier).
2) We agree that the early material was limited by technology and cost in it's availability.
3) We agree that technology (and the economics brought about by the technology) makes the material much more widely available.
4) We agree that for normal heterosexual males (the differentiation here is normal vs. abnormal heterosexual - no discussion of homosexual males is in this ) the primary sexual effector is a human female.
5) (this is interpreted from the writings): I agree with the above but await major stud(y/ies) that truly proves/disproves MM idea of the effect of freely available porn, MM believes that that availability effect is self-evident, you don't believe it has any actual effect (I am the agnostic, you the atheist, MM the religious on this one). If I have misstated any of those points, feel free to correct/tinker with it.

BenBurch
1st January 2008, 12:36 PM
Tokie,

I grew up behind the bar or our family's tavern. I learned from an early age that women will sometimes lie about being on BC so they can get pregnant and snare them a husband. Usually this ends in disaster... So I never even asked if a woman were on the pill - I was going to use that condom come hell or high water.

Also, when I was a teen, I was sleeping with 30+ year old women; They didn't take as much convincing, already knew what they were doing, and really appreciated a young fellow who could go for hours. :-)

-Ben

Meadmaker
1st January 2008, 01:29 PM
5) (this is interpreted from the writings): I agree with the above but await major stud(y/ies) that truly proves/disproves MM idea of the effect of freely available porn, MM believes that that availability effect is self-evident, you don't believe it has any actual effect (I am the agnostic, you the atheist, MM the religious on this one). If I have misstated any of those points, feel free to correct/tinker with it.

GRRRR!:mad:


OK. Let's get to what MM ideas are. There are a few things that everyone with a clue agrees on.

1. Although porn has been around in some form since the dawn of time, there's a lot more of it, in a lot more detail, and with a lot more variety, than at any time in human history.

2. Porn is also a lot more accessible today than it was when I was a kid. As a kid, for someone to get to erotic materials, a physical object had to change hands. (A magazine, postcard, film reel, etc) That created a barrier which was fairly easy to work around, but which at least required some degree of effort, and some level of interaction with some human being somewhere. Today, it can be easily copied without destroying the original, and it can be delivered easily over a phone or network line without human intervention.

3. As a consequence, more kids see more porn than they used to.

If you don't agree with the above, you are clueless.

Now, we get to something a bit more controversial:

4. There is a phenomenon known as "pornography addiction". "Addiction" is probably a bad word for the phenomenon, but the phenomenon exists. It is defined by the tendency to spend more time viewing pornography than the viewer thinks he ought to spend.

5. There are lots of other addictions in the world, even after you exclude chemical dependencies like caffeine or heroin. A common one with severe effects is compulsive gambling, but any activity, even something as harmless as chess, can be the object of compulsive behavior in some individuals.

The above aren't really controversial statements, but sometimes people are afraid to agree with them because they are afraid of what thought might be behind them.

Oh, here's another one that you would have to be clueless to disagree with: A lot more people appear to have a pornography addicition than a chess addiction. I'm not saying that one is worse than the other. In fact, I specifically disclaimed such a statement. However, one affects more people than the other. Really. There just isn't much of an issue with compulsive chess playing, and this is not because society views chess playing in a favorable light. I think the population as a whole really does spend more time looking at porn than playing chess. I'm sure of it, really, and that holds true even if you include all the Chinese people playing Xiangqi.

Now, we have questions. That's "questions". Although questions can be asked as a rhetorical device, in which the questioner is actually trying to lead someone else to a specific conclusion, these aren't.

1. Is there any scientific evidence that the availability of porn has altered the behavior of the current generation of maturing adults in any measurable way?


2. Is there any knowledge of what factors might influence the development of the phenomenon known as "pornography addiction". Specifically, are there any factors which a parent can control that might make an eighteen year old raised by said parent less likely to be someone who spends a lot of time alone in a bedroom, staring at a computer monitor, and masturbating.

As best I can tell, from this thread and the background material associated with it, the answer is that we don't know much about any of this.

BenBurch
1st January 2008, 02:17 PM
The problem is that exposure to porn does not hurt kids. Period.

Fiona
1st January 2008, 02:48 PM
1. Is there any scientific evidence that the availability of porn has altered the behavior of the current generation of maturing adults in any measurable way?

Yes. Exposure to violent pornography alters behaviour. I have already posted some links and here is another, rather older, set

file:///D:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Fiona/Desktop/pornography

If you are only interested in the effect on the person using the pornography then, as you said before, the research is scanty on children for very obvious reasons. But many studies have found that violent pornography tends to desensitise. Naturally many other factors are involved and so the debate continues but I believe there is strong enough evidence for the damage this does to accept it at present. It may not matter to you if your only concernis for the direct effect on your children, but societal effects are important for them too. And this again is where some of us are talking at cross purposes. The case against violent pornography is based largely on the adverse effects on society not on individuals. Though personally I do not think a callous attitude to violence is desirable in the individual apart from that


2. Is there any knowledge of what factors might influence the development of the phenomenon known as "pornography addiction". Specifically, are there any factors which a parent can control that might make an eighteen year old raised by said parent less likely to be someone who spends a lot of time alone in a bedroom, staring at a computer monitor, and masturbating.

As best I can tell, from this thread and the background material associated with it, the answer is that we don't know much about any of this.

If we accept the addiction model you have preferred then it may be that you are looking in the wrong place and that more information might be found in research into OCD.

fuelair
1st January 2008, 03:27 PM
GRRRR!:mad:


OK. Let's get to what MM ideas are. There are a few things that everyone with a clue agrees on.

1. Although porn has been around in some form since the dawn of time, there's a lot more of it, in a lot more detail, and with a lot more variety, than at any time in human history.

2. Porn is also a lot more accessible today than it was when I was a kid. As a kid, for someone to get to erotic materials, a physical object had to change hands. (A magazine, postcard, film reel, etc) That created a barrier which was fairly easy to work around, but which at least required some degree of effort, and some level of interaction with some human being somewhere. Today, it can be easily copied without destroying the original, and it can be delivered easily over a phone or network line without human intervention.

3. As a consequence, more kids see more porn than they used to.

If you don't agree with the above, you are clueless.

Now, we get to something a bit more controversial:

4. There is a phenomenon known as "pornography addiction". "Addiction" is probably a bad word for the phenomenon, but the phenomenon exists. It is defined by the tendency to spend more time viewing pornography than the viewer thinks he ought to spend.

5. There are lots of other addictions in the world, even after you exclude chemical dependencies like caffeine or heroin. A common one with severe effects is compulsive gambling, but any activity, even something as harmless as chess, can be the object of compulsive behavior in some individuals.

The above aren't really controversial statements, but sometimes people are afraid to agree with them because they are afraid of what thought might be behind them.

Oh, here's another one that you would have to be clueless to disagree with: A lot more people appear to have a pornography addicition than a chess addiction. I'm not saying that one is worse than the other. In fact, I specifically disclaimed such a statement. However, one affects more people than the other. Really. There just isn't much of an issue with compulsive chess playing, and this is not because society views chess playing in a favorable light. I think the population as a whole really does spend more time looking at porn than playing chess. I'm sure of it, really, and that holds true even if you include all the Chinese people playing Xiangqi.

Now, we have questions. That's "questions". Although questions can be asked as a rhetorical device, in which the questioner is actually trying to lead someone else to a specific conclusion, these aren't.

1. Is there any scientific evidence that the availability of porn has altered the behavior of the current generation of maturing adults in any measurable way?


2. Is there any knowledge of what factors might influence the development of the phenomenon known as "pornography addiction". Specifically, are there any factors which a parent can control that might make an eighteen year old raised by said parent less likely to be someone who spends a lot of time alone in a bedroom, staring at a computer monitor, and masturbating.

As best I can tell, from this thread and the background material associated with it, the answer is that we don't know much about any of this.I begin to see at least one part of the problem - I never even hit your posts. The MM I refer to is Matteo Martini - who posted much earlier re:historic situation and modern (and I would have abbreviated you as Mm had I read yours). There is nothing above in yours I spot disagreement with on my part.:)

luchog
1st January 2008, 03:41 PM
1. Although porn has been around in some form since the dawn of time, there's a lot more of it, in a lot more detail, and with a lot more variety, than at any time in human history.

Most of this is not true. There has certainly been a dramatic increase in volume and realism since the invention of Photography; but realism isn't actually necessary. While much historical artwork, particularly erotic art, is highly stylized; many of the painters and sculptors of the past also created quite realistic depictions. The infamous "Pan copulating with goat" is a classic example.

Volume was smaller due to the skill and time required; but in many societies, porn was quite ubiquitous. Imperial Rome and Medieval India are some of the most well-known examples. As the excavations at Pompeii and Hercanuleum have demonstrated, explicit sexuality was a commonplace theme in nearly all Roman households, far more ubiquitous than is generally believed, today. Even the lowest-class free households often displayed at least a few such frescoes, sculptures, or items of illustrated pottery. Many wealthy families had their entire collection of dishware decorated with explicit sexual scenes. And the artworks varied widely, often including practices that are far less common, and often prohibited, in modern societies; such as pederasty and bestiality.

Indian history is also replete with similarities; particularly in those areas where Tantric practices, rather than the more aecetic Vedic beleifs, predominated. The most notable example being the Khajuraho temple. And again, often included situations that are considered deviant, and are typically prohibited today.

There are plenty of similar examples from Japan and China, dynastic Egypt, and the Mayan culture, whose style strongly resembles that of Hellenic Greece, including depictions of bestiality and pederasty.


Part of the problem with historical research on this sort of thing is that much of this sort of art has been destroyed by subsequent civilizations that possessed more restricted sexual mores and typically engaged in elimination of prior "decadence". There is also the issue that so much of it has simply decayed and disintigrated due to the ravages of time and the elements; so there is much that is known only through tradition, and references in works that do still exist.

It's clear from what we do know, however, that erotica/pornography has at times been quite easily available, to all classes and all ages. The Greeks and Romans certainly had no concerns about exposing their children to explicit depictions of sexuality; including bestiality.

There is truly nothing new under the sun; particularly when it comes to sexuality. The only real difference is sheer volume, due to modern innovations in replication.

Soapy Sam
1st January 2008, 03:52 PM
Tip- Never ask a pedestrian for directions in Glasgow, if you are in a car.

The person you asked will get into the car with you and tell you the place you want to go is just past where he is going.

It isn't.

Meadmaker
1st January 2008, 08:32 PM
The problem is that exposure to porn does not hurt kids. Period.


Fiona begs to differ, and I tend to agree. Actually, technically, she didn't say it hurt kids. She said it tends to desensitize people, but for me, that's not all that different.

Meadmaker
1st January 2008, 08:34 PM
I begin to see at least one part of the problem - I never even hit your posts. The MM I refer to is Matteo Martini - who posted much earlier re:historic situation and modern (and I would have abbreviated you as Mm had I read yours). There is nothing above in yours I spot disagreement with on my part.:)


Oops.:blush:

Meadmaker
1st January 2008, 08:39 PM
If we accept the addiction model you have preferred then it may be that you are looking in the wrong place and that more information might be found in research into OCD.


I don't accept an "addiction model". I do accept the phrase "pornography addiction", because that's what people call it, despite the fact that this might mislead people who think a "porn addiction" or a "video game addiction" is the same as a "heroin addiction".

BenBurch
1st January 2008, 08:45 PM
Fiona begs to differ, and I tend to agree. Actually, technically, she didn't say it hurt kids. She said it tends to desensitize people, but for me, that's not all that different.

Proof is lacking.

In cultures where adults make love in the presence of children there appears to be no damage whatsoever, in fact in those cultures it is "normal" and prudery is the pathology.

In fact I argue prudery is a pathology in THIS culture too.

thaiboxerken
1st January 2008, 10:28 PM
Exposure to violent porn is what Fiona was talking about, wasn't it?

Matteo Martini
2nd January 2008, 12:52 AM
I'd be the first to agree that there's not much correlation between Michael Moore and humans, sure.
[..]

How do you want to be taken seriously, when you start a comment in this way?

Matteo Martini
2nd January 2008, 12:58 AM
Sorry, wrong post

Fiona
2nd January 2008, 01:45 AM
Proof is lacking.

I have provided some few studies. Where are your counters?

In cultures where adults make love in the presence of children there appears to be no damage whatsoever, in fact in those cultures it is "normal" and prudery is the pathology.

1. You persist in conflating the erotic with the pornographic, and while I realise that some do not accept the need for different words, they do have significant differences. I can only conclude that you are doing so disingenuously either because you have a vested interest in bdsm ( as some of your earlier posts indicate): or because you find it helpful to poison the well of opposition. If this is not so please do address the issue, and show how opposition to violent pornography = prudery

2.Can you evidence this? How do you know there is no damage? For many many years this culture did not recognise the existence of child sexual abuse. It exists: it does damage. Perhaps exposure to adult love making is not damaging, but I would be prepared to bet that exposure to marital rape is. Can you show it is not?

In fact I argue prudery is a pathology in THIS culture too.

More of the same. You know putting your fingers in your ears and chanting "lalalalalalal" is not a very sceptical position :D

Matteo Martini
2nd January 2008, 03:01 AM
I begin to see at least one part of the problem - I never even hit your posts. The MM I refer to is Matteo Martini - who posted much earlier re:historic situation and modern (and I would have abbreviated you as Mm had I read yours). There is nothing above in yours I spot disagreement with on my part.:)

Drat!
I got confused too.
I was trying to ask a clarification about who is MM, but, as it appeared obvious it was not me, I canceled the comment and wrote: " Sorry, wrong post "

BTW.
My whole point is: why so much angriness against (internet) porn, and so little about murders on TV at 3p.m.?

Fiona
2nd January 2008, 04:52 AM
I think it might be because the thread is about porn. :)

Meadmaker
2nd January 2008, 07:22 PM
Proof is lacking.


On either side.

However, Fiona did post some links to scientific studies.


I seriously doubt pictures of naked people or plain old fashion sex does any harm. I don't have any evidence of harm or of lack thereof, but it just seems to me that it wouldn't do any harm.

On the other hand, it seems to me that disturbing images of violence may very well do some harm, and if that violence is sexual violence, I think the additional hold that such imagery might have on minds makes it more likely to influence minds. Also, if someone finds such images a turn on, it seems likely that a subset of those viewing those images might be inclined to experience the depicted acts in real life. That would be bad.

And even naked people and sexual images create a certain unrealistic view of the world, which are different than one might get viewing a set of anatomically exaggerated carvings on the side of a Hindu Temple. I doubt that it does all that much harm, but I have met people (honest) who have obviously seen certain things in pornographic imagery, which imagery seems to have influenced them toward an unrealistic understanding of typical sexual activity. While that is not exactly "harmful", it can't do any good.

Of course, that is just how it seems to me, but links like the ones provided by Fiona give some reason to believe that there is some sort of connection.

Meadmaker
2nd January 2008, 07:26 PM
BTW.
My whole point is: why so much angriness against (internet) porn, and so little about murders on TV at 3p.m.?

As Fiona said, this thread is about porn, but you are correct. If I could choose between my son reading Playboy or playing Grand Theft Auto, it would be Playboy. And CSI Las Vegas, with the mixing of sexual imagery and violence, is enough to make me reconsider my stance on censorship.

Matteo Martini
2nd January 2008, 08:34 PM
I think it might be because the thread is about porn. :)

As Fiona said, this thread is about porn, but you are correct. If I could choose between my son reading Playboy or playing Grand Theft Auto, it would be Playboy. And CSI Las Vegas, with the mixing of sexual imagery and violence, is enough to make me reconsider my stance on censorship.

I agree that I have partially derailed from the thread, still I think that is a relevant question (whether you think it is worth answering or not).
I also agree about your choice between my[your] son reading Playboy or playing Grand Theft Auto

Fiona
3rd January 2008, 12:01 AM
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/psy/psylect08.htm

http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm

http://bama.ua.edu/%7Esprentic/672%20Huesmann%20et%20al.%202003.pdf

I have not had time to find much but there are a few studies on the effects of media violence on behaviour. As with porn the results are not conclusive, and again, we would hardly expect them to be given the complexity of behaviour and the difficulties of controlling for compounding factors. I am sure you have much more material, Matteo, since it seems to be an interest of yours.

I do see this as a derailing the thread, though not completely. Some of the questions are the same, and the mechanisms which may be important are also related.

There are a couple of things I would like to draw together, if I may.

It seems obvious from the general tone of this thread that this is an area where a sceptical approach is hard to come by. I have seen very little objectivity and few attempts to find any evidence on either side of this debate. Some of the responses have been quite angry in tone, and although I am aware that the word "feminist" had become a "boo" word in recent years, it has surprised me how far this has been to the fore. I make no apology for my feminism, and the successful backlash of misinformation about this stance is dispiriting, in a forum dedicated to critical thinking. I am new here and perhaps I expect too much, but it seems to me that the things which attracted me to jref are almost wholly absent in this thread, or at least in some posters here. I have tried to address the arguments and I look to others to do the same :).

Before anyone accuses me, this is not special pleading. I am fully committed to the idea that the argument should be robust, and assertions should be challenged. But I was just very conscious that the demands for evidence in support of the case against pornography were very ....strident: and that evidence on the other side was not apparently required.

Now, it is perfectly possible to say that this is because the burden of proof lies with those who are suggesting it is harmful: as pornography is already established. I accept that as a starting point. But when I met that challenge, at least to some limited extent, the ball did not go over the net, or so it seemed to me. I am left with the impression that in this particular debate the normal rules are somehow suspended. And that leads me to the conclusion that there is little honest exploration of a complex issue here.This is not true of all the posts here but, as Janna said, there was a lack of seriousness in some places and since it is a serious issue for many women that discourages their participation to some extent, or so I contend. Again I do not object to lighthearted contibutions in the midst of serious debate but the "humour" here was to some extent an attack on the content and importance of the issue itself; and that is not the same as is seen in other threads, necessarily

That impression was in no way dispelled by the inclusion of posts which seemed solely designed to brag about comparative sexual experiences, but maybe that is just me :D.

Having said that, one or two valid points are buried in the hysteria and we should think about those

1. There is a concern about the effect of such findings on censorship and free speech. Free speech is a valid principle and we should not undervalue it. Neither should we overvalue it, however. It is not an absolute in any society at any time. It is one of a number of important principles which are sometimes at odds with each other. There is what seems to me a useful discussion of the issue, here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/

2. There was a sustained attempt to portray pornography as the depiction of free and equal sexuality: and those who oppose it as prudish. Some people do take the stance that all sexually explicit material is bad, but nobody who was discussing the issue here does, so far as I could see. Therefore this struck me as disingenous and there was a marked reluctance to engage with the argument actually being made rather than the straw man set up by some contributors.

Again there is a useful article on the issue here:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pornography-censorship/

it overlaps with the issue of free speech but does explore the various reasons why particular types of pornography might be harmful. As I have already said, I make a distinction between erotica and pornography and although this has not been found useful in this particular debate I wish to emphasise that my concern is with violent or degrading material: not with the free association of willing and equal adults

3 The third point I wish to raise is one which JFrankA brought up tangentially and I believe it is important. In considering this issue the emphasis has been very largely on the impact of pornography on men and particularly on boys. This is inevitable because of the terms of the opening post, but I would like to widen it a little. As I understand it from JFrankA's post there is some reason to believe that men do not approach pornography in the same way as women: in that they do not identify with the participants as people. This was relevant to my earlier point about the lack of erotica for women, and the reasons he gave go some way to explain that better than I managed. If he is correct ( and I think he is) then the pornography which is currently most available is directly harmful to girls in terms of their sense of their worth. This may be hard for men to understand: I do not know. And again I do not assert that this is the same for all women - we are people too and as such we differ as much as men ;). But the degradation and violence is harmful if it is true that women tend to put themselves into the place of the "actor"; and this goes some way to explaining the strong emotional reactions such material elicits. Earlier Janna was attacked for apealling to emotion, but I believe that this is very normal where a person feels personally threatened. It is not wrong to react in this way and while emotion itself does not further debate, neither is it legitimate to exclude it. We are not robots and to deny emotion is irrational: rather we should seek to understand why the content is emotive and see how that helps to clarify the issue, surely?

4. Coming back to Matteo's point: I agree that the issue of media portrayals of violence and degradation are very important. In short I think you have fallen victim to a false dichotomy when you pose the question in terms of which is more harmful ( this is how I understand your posts - correct me if I am wrong). I would see pornography as a subset of the violence which concerns you. Imitation and desensitisation are mechanisms common to both. We have grounds to believe that they are in play and that they have effects on the viewers, just as advertising does. It is not simple but I think there is sufficient evidence of harm that this should be taken seriously. I do not think that large businesses have an automatic right to make money in any way they see fit, and we do have laws to regulate them where they are harmful - the concern about free speech rightly leads to caution in this area but with due regard for it there are other values which need to be considered.

LeQue
3rd January 2008, 02:46 AM
By making porn and sexuality taboo and concealing the information, it becomes a control mechanism for those enforcing the taboo.



Porn does not equal sexuality.
There is not an argument here against sexuality or sex, just pornography; which is something that does not have value beyond titillation. Learn about people from people rather than depictions of sex created to make money.

Matteo Martini
3rd January 2008, 05:11 AM
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/psy/psylect08.htm
[..]

I admit I am not backing my statements with any evidence, I am also not stating any opinion in particular here.

I would like just to point out the following:
1) I am not sure that it is so easy to conduct independent scientific studies in sociological matters (pornography, violence, .. ) expecially when it is very hard to counter the claims of each specific study.
If a study says that internet porn has increased violence within husbands and wives of 8%, how can you counter that claim?
See also point 2)

2) While there are a lot of religious organization which see porn as evil, and may be sponsor a study over it, usually, I do not know any serious organization in the porn industry which would be interested in sponsor a study about porn (I maybe wrong)
which is connected with point 3)

3) There is a lot of ideology behind topics like free guns, prostitution, abortion, same-sex marriage and other topics like those. This may make it hard to have a completely objective study on the argument

For point 1,2 and 3 and for my personal ignorance about the matter, I would like just to point out a very simple conclusion, that is, internet porn has been out quite a lot in the last 10 years, and I do not think there are many males under the age of 30 who can claim they have never visited an adult site (mine are just assumptions).
But, I do not see an increase in violence related to sex, at least, according to newspaper and what I hear.

I agree that what I write above is not "evidence" at all, not even anedoctical, just a personal opinion

About the fact that "I[you] would see pornography as a subset of the violence which concerns you[me]", I would like you to point out some porn sites which make use of violence.
I maybe ignorant on the matter, and naive, but I still see mainstream pornography as unrelated from violence, if you have different evidence, please show

Meadmaker
3rd January 2008, 05:18 AM
..

What a great post. I especially admired the discussion at the beginning about critical thinking, or the lack thereof. More comments later.

ponderingturtle
3rd January 2008, 07:27 AM
Both google and google image bring up entirely respectable results, for at least the first 10 pages. I fear the days of any and all searches bringing up porn are coming to an end.
...
"coming to an end" doesn't seem to bring up porn either. What is wrong with the world!?

Hmm, I will have to find out if one a coworker had turn up porn on him would still do it. I think "Russian Screw Machines" likely still would turn up porn.

JFrankA
3rd January 2008, 07:32 AM
If I may discuss a little of what you said here, please. And please be sure I mean no offense, and that this is merely opinion based on my experiences only. I have no links, so feel free to debate me.


3 The third point I wish to raise is one which JFrankA brought up tangentially and I believe it is important. In considering this issue the emphasis has been very largely on the impact of pornography on men and particularly on boys. This is inevitable because of the terms of the opening post, but I would like to widen it a little. As I understand it from JFrankA's post there is some reason to believe that men do not approach pornography in the same way as women: in that they do not identify with the participants as people.

I'm sorry, I completely disagree with you here. Of course we men identify the participants as people, we just look at the people and situtation differnetly. In the adult film community, there are stars that men revered like regular celebraties. Tara Patrick, Savannah Sampson, Jenna Jameson, even Ron Jeremy to name a few. Personally, when I watch porn, I am very into the woman. How she reacts, what her body is doing, the expression on her face. Now our standards are not as high as a woman's, true, but I do not see an object, I see a person in the throws of passion, and the body reactions that show that passion.

I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that a woman tends to look at the entire picture - every detail. The setting, the reason, the foreplay, etc. We guys tend to zoom in on the woman. :)

This was relevant to my earlier point about the lack of erotica for women, and the reasons he gave go some way to explain that better than I managed. If he is correct ( and I think he is) then the pornography which is currently most available is directly harmful to girls in terms of their sense of their worth. This may be hard for men to understand: I do not know. And again I do not assert that this is the same for all women - we are people too and as such we differ as much as men ;). But the degradation and violence is harmful if it is true that women tend to put themselves into the place of the "actor"; and this goes some way to explaining the strong emotional reactions such material elicits. Earlier Janna was attacked for apealling to emotion, but I believe that this is very normal where a person feels personally threatened. It is not wrong to react in this way and while emotion itself does not further debate, neither is it legitimate to exclude it. We are not robots and to deny emotion is irrational: rather we should seek to understand why the content is emotive and see how that helps to clarify the issue, surely?


(Warning: Opinion coming up. I have no links to prove this: the following is life exprience and observation and a slight knowledge of psychology....)

I disagreed with Janna because it seems to me that she was advocating to ban all porn (and erotica) the cry of "think of the children", without regard to those people who handle it responsibly. I mean, guns kill and injure people all the time, but they're not banned - just regulated.

As to being desensitized by porn, I don't know. I know it gets really boring after a while. :) But then, after a while, I do want to see it again. But here's a question: does boredom = desensitizing?

As to violent porn, I have to apologize here, I don't know what is defined as violent porn. Is it BDSM? Because honestly, My girlfriend and I do BDSM. I can tell you that BDSM is erotic and very loving, however, I can see where it would give the wrong impression to young people who stumble across it for the first time.

Finona you've come up with a definition of the difference between erotic and porn, I've read it, and no offense, it's still a very subjective definition. That could be said for anything like this topic.

The trouble is that this entire thing is subjective. Two people of the same gender can watch the same porn and one will become a "porn addict" and the other will be so revolted that they devote their lives to god.

It's not that porn damages the person, it's a build up of that person's charactor, how she or he was raised, how she or he sees the world at the time, and how she or he has learned to react to something like this and their own expectations as a result of how the are and their upbringing. Porn, in this case, is a trigger. Nothing more. And even if a person never sees porn, if all their experience and the person they are have the wrong factors going, something else will trigger complusive behavior.

So the question to if porn can lead to a child into porn compulsion - possibly. But then, this would be a build up of what that child has experienced and how that child is hard wired. Some of it you can control, some you can't. You can try to hide it from the child, but no matter what you do, you can't stop it from coming into their lives. The best you can do is prepare them by giving them the best education and learning experiences you have can give them to deal with life.

Most times, they will come out okay. Look at everyone here. Everyone who's posted here - yes, even Jenna, :) has seen pornography and everyone here seems reasonable. We may all disagree with each other, but that's to be expected. We're human. :)

Porn's been around for thousands of years. We've survived and grown dispite it. Porn itself has gotten to a new standard than it was twenty, ten years ago. It has imporved to appeal to different audiences. Is that a good thing? Like anything else in our world, in some ways yes, in some ways, no.

But to answer the original question posed by Meadmaker, the answer is we don't know. Your child could look at porn, become compulsive at it for years and years. Or your child could look at a car and become obessed with driving fast and driving recklessly. Or your child can buy a lottery ticket and become a compulsive gambler. Or your child can play a video game and never come out of her or his room. Or your child can shoplift and eventually enjoy stealing cars. Or your child can see a murder mystery and eventually enjoy killing people.

The point is we don't know. This whole issue is so subjective that there's really no way to tell. All we can do is our best as parents (and friends) and hope.

I know this whole thing might sound pessimistic or full of emotion and woo, or I sound like I'm giving up or saying "well, I like it and it's going to stay", but honestly, it's not. People make their own choices, whether they know why or not, they do. All we can do for others, and what we are responsible for with our children, is guide them.

Sorry for the long post, I hope I made a little sense and I hope I didn't offend anyone. And I expect rebuttles! :)

ImaginalDisc
3rd January 2008, 08:19 AM
1. There is a concern about the effect of such findings on censorship and free speech. Free speech is a valid principle and we should not undervalue it. Neither should we overvalue it, however. It is not an absolute in any society at any time. It is one of a number of important principles which are sometimes at odds with each other. There is what seems to me a useful discussion of the issue, here:

Sorry, unless serious harm can be demonstrated, I won't even entertain the idea of restricting freedom of expression in this regard. The burden of proof is heavy on the matter.

2. There was a sustained attempt to portray pornography as the depiction of free and equal sexuality: and those who oppose it as prudish.

The reasons for which people oppose it aren't relevant unless those reasons involve substantive harm so great it requires curtailing freedom of expression.

3 The third point I wish to raise is one which JFrankA brought up tangentially and I believe it is important. In considering this issue the emphasis has been very largely on the impact of pornography on men and particularly on boys. This is inevitable because of the terms of the opening post, but I would like to widen it a little. As I understand it from JFrankA's post there is some reason to believe that men do not approach pornography in the same way as women: in that they do not identify with the participants as people.

Please substantiate this claim.

This was relevant to my earlier point about the lack of erotica for women, and the reasons he gave go some way to explain that better than I managed.

What are you talking about? While it's clear that men tend to respond more the visual depictions than women, I there is a larger "Romance Novel" section in the used bookstore down the street than cookbooks, sci-fi, or any other section. The vast majority of "Romance Novel" readers are women because, due to nature, nuture, or both, more women respond to the written word as erotica than men. That said, plenty of women buy porn videos. I also think it's absurd to try to distinguish between erotica and porn. Where is the dividing line, the pressence of euphamisms?

If he is correct ( and I think he is) then the pornography which is currently most available is directly harmful to girls in terms of their sense of their worth.

Please susbstantiate. If anything, mainstream porn should be at least as harmful to the self-worth of men, what with porn stars with instantly erect members, rugged bodies, and copious emmisions that even they need to have enhanced with Viagra and other "aids." Mainstream porn objectifies the male participant even more so than the female, beause the actresses are paid more and get more time on the camera.

This may be hard for men to understand: I do not know. And again I do not assert that this is the same for all women - we are people too and as such we differ as much as men ;). But the degradation and violence is harmful if it is true that women tend to put themselves into the place of the "actor"; and this goes some way to explaining the strong emotional reactions such material elicits.

What makes you think the "degredation and violence" is targeted particularly at the woman? There are as many "female boss uses her position of power and influence to have sex with her male errand boy" as there are "tow truck driver recieves sexual favors in lieu of payment for roadside assistance" scenarios. There are as many dominatrix themed scenarios as dominator themed videos.

4. Coming back to Matteo's point: I agree that the issue of media portrayals of violence and degradation are very important. In short I think you have fallen victim to a false dichotomy when you pose the question in terms of which is more harmful ( this is how I understand your posts - correct me if I am wrong). I would see pornography as a subset of the violence which concerns you.

Excuse me? Pornography is violence? How? It's a depiction of sex. What makes it violent?