Do you guys like this kind of porn?

[A O]

Does it not stand to reason, that if some effects never before present in the past begin to show themselves, and disturbing, harmful, destructive new trends start to become more prevalent within a culture, as indicated by several small, nonetheless credible studies... That something is afoot? Should we take some interest or concern now?

Absolutely, I'm a very proactive type. By all means, be concerned, I know I am, and I finally know that you recognize this! But stop acting like your beliefs are set in stone when clearly they're not.

 

Your initial statement in this thread was a defense of porn, as I have pointed out. This has always been your motive.

Not only have I defended porn, but I've also voiced both my distaste for certain elements of porn and my own concerns about that, while also presenting a few ideas in regards to dealing with these matters. Lets not leave those little tidbits out now aye.

 

There you go again, I never said that it has effected any majority

And I didn't use the term "majority" either, and yeah, yeah, I'm being pedantic, as are you. But I take your point nonetheless, given that it ties in moreso with what I've been saying than with your views.

 

 

.

[Des]

"I still feel that you are afraid of what you might see, like a lot of other men and women out there, you don't want see that perspective, you want to pretend it does not exist"

Two assumptions.

 

I feel that you are. Given that there is no other reason why you'd do something so silly as to write-off something your requested "hardcore proof". By the way, what was the real reasoning behind that, then? "YouTube isn't my thing". Honestly? Was that the best you could do?

 

" It's easy for us to block out the bad side of things and just focus on what brings us gratification."

Projection - your thought process not mine

 

How is this different from an opinion, if that is what I believe?

 

–noun 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

 

"You don't want to think more into than it just being "sex on film", so as to not kill it's effect."

Assumption

 

No, no, this is still more an overall opinion of mine of people who defend porn, but can't back anything up.

 

Point being, assumptions and the like are not indicative of critical thought, far from actually.

 

So... It makes no since to draw conclusions about the repetitive behavioral patters in those who "debate" with you over same topic time and time again? You know, the kind who avoid the evidence they request.

[Des]

No, what I am saying is that women are no different to men. They have no greater chance of becoming a victim, of becoming anything quite frankly, then men do. Your stance on the other hand implies that women have a far greater propensity to falling victim to anything that society throws at them. Seems that I have a lot more faith in women than you do.

 

Are women not more often victims of men than vise-versa, or victims of other women in our society? Domestic abuse, rape... any of that ever occur to you? Women are more vulnerable than men, in a society where men commit more crime... do I need a source for that? Or is it common knowledge (at least in the US) that our prison systems are booked full of men for felonies, murders, rape, robberies, drug dealing, etc? Obviously, those are things that men are far more guilty of than women. So who are largely the aggressors and who's more vulnerable to attack?

 

Since when is it a matter of having "faith" that those more vulnerable to a specific harm... won't in fact be effected... by said harm? What kind of sense does that make? "Oh, I have faith that those out to do you wrong, won't achieve it." And if they do, well, I guess we should have had a little more concern?

 

Now we're getting on to a different kettle of fish, to the heart of the matter in some ways. First off, I know more than most the role that low-esteem tends to play on women, moreso than men. Next, and the most ironic point really, you were so quick to use "equality" as one method of righting the wrongs, of addressing the ills of porn and male attitudes towards women. Yet, as soon as you bring up this point, you "equality" panacea flies out the window because now it becomes an issue of needing to somehow protect some women from themselves, namely the low self-esteem types who choose abuse.

 

It's the same kind of equality. The conditions for men and women are not equal, hence why the concerns are not the same for both sides. As one side is over-privileged and the other is underprivileged. It's a leveling of the playing field, that's part of achieving the equality. Helping the privileged in the same manner doesn't make sense.

 

So again, your implying it's simply unequal and insulting to protect those more vulnerable to a specific harm than others, from said harm (not from themselves). In a case were it would be ideal to eliminate this harm altogether, leveling the playing field.

 

It's simple, do you help those who suffer more, or do you give them the same treatment as those who don't suffer? If you help those who suffer achieve what the non suffering state, is that inequality? Or does that make them equal?

 

Oh, please, here you go again. Critical thought, not when it comes to others. Please, don't put words in my mouth.

 

Technically, I didn't. I never accused you of saying anything. But if you're suggesting that some women determine mistreatment as acceptable, what does that mean for them? Is it justified? Who is to blame?

 

Even better question is - what they heck can we do about it? What can we do to help these (mostly) women bring themselves up to a level whereupon they can say "No" to any form of abuse, to anything that they are uncomfortable with doing. That's the money shot, and as far as I'm concerned - thee most important question I've asked since been here!!

 

The problem is with those who present the forms of abuse, who fantasize, suggest, pressure, and bring it to the table as an option to begin with, as something desired. If men didn't want to abuse women, women would not be abused, and none would have to go through it for the gratification of any man. If men would stop putting it out there as something they more and more desired, women wouldn't even have to deal with it, much less feel pressured to accept or give-in to it.

 

The bigger problem isn't that women need to say no, but rather they shouldn't be presented with a desire from men for abusive or degrading treatment towards them in the first place.

 

Of course, I take issue with men even keeping those ideas in fantasy. They're still seeing that treatment and behavior as ideal, which obviously says a bit about them. I also see their fulfillment of it through porn, a depiction of the real thing, as being almost as bad as acting on it themselves.

[Taramere]

End of the day it all boils down to compatibility and finding those with like-minded boundaries on top of the usual attraction dynamics.

 

.

 

Unfortunately that's just a small part of life. Most people have to spend a lot of time trying to get along with people who they're not necessarily compatible with, and who might have very different boundaries from them. Most of my post, which you quoted from, questioned the degree to which women are responsible for the way in which they're perceived in their every day life. At work, for instance.

 

Let's say a a Chinese woman walks into work wearing over the knee boots, a tiny little top and a micro-mini skirt, and behaves in a very seductive way. Is it likely that her male colleagues will perceive her in a very sexual way? Yes. Is it likely that she knowingly influenced that perception? Yes.

 

However let's say she dresses in a conservative way at work, and doesn't behave flirtatiously with colleagues. One of her male colleagues, however, has an Asian porn fetish. He regularly whacks off to a combination of Asian porn and fantasies about his Chinese female colleague. Increasingly he builds up an association in his mind between the porn and the colleague.

 

Is that something his Chinese colleague has any control over...or is it purely the guy's issue in that he's transposing his fantasies onto someone who's the same nationality as the girls in his porn flicks? If he starts making unwanted sexual advances or comments, is it her fault for not trying hard enough to look a-sexual in the workplace?

 

Taking personal responsibility is always an issue in debates on these boards, and rightly so. However, people are sometimes limited in the power they have to control other people's perceptions of them...or to exact the treatment they would like. There are other variables that can influence perceptions and treatment. In the case of women (whose images are most commonly used to promote the sex industry), I'd argue that porn is a very significant one of those variables. Particularly when you consider how it's moved into mainstream culture in recent years.

[Jersey Shortie]

Of course, I take issue with men even keeping those ideas in fantasy. They're still seeing that treatment and behavior as ideal, which obviously says a bit about them. I also see their fulfillment of it through porn, a depiction of the real thing, as being almost as bad as acting on it themselves.

 

I don't think any person could realistically deny that the attraction or enjoyment of this type of porn doesn't imply something a person's own personaly pyschology on why they like to see women so throughly humilated and abused. And I do think that it's becoming more and more common. I also think there are things men have repeatidly seen in porn that they now hol as a standard in their own sexual play with their partners. It's not just fantasy anymore. Because alot of men want to now fulfill their fantasies with their real partners. Expect the wording use is "learn new things from porn", and because of the word "learn", it's suppose to be a positive. And on top of that, the things learned in porn are never about really pleasuring a woman. There isn't too much in porn videos that showcases true pleasure and fullfillment for women. Yet, women are expected to enjoy these acts, even if they are at our personal expense, and be happy as long as it the man has an orgasm. The ultimate message is that all that matters and all that should be important AND women should be actually be happy about the degradement of their gender, as logn as their man has an orgasm.

[A O]

Are women not more often victims of men than vise-versa, or victims of other women in our society?

No more than men are victims of abuse at the hands of women and other men.

 

Domestic abuse, rape... any of that ever occur to you? Women are more vulnerable than men, in a society where men commit more crime... do I need a source for that?.

Yes you do. Wiser and more knowledgeable people than me have made me see the light on this issue in regards to domestic violence in particular. Regardless, this isn't exactly what one could call an 'equality' point of view.

 

Obviously, those are things that men are far more guilty of than women. So who are largely the aggressors and who's more vulnerable to attack?

Basically, you're running the same argument here as you did for porn (more to the point - its effects) - you base "Y" on "x" without any substantive evidence to support the former especially.

 

It's the same kind of equality. The conditions for men and women are not equal, hence why the concerns are not the same for both sides. As one side is over-privileged and the other is underprivileged

Its not equality - you can't argue for equality if you believe that one sector is disadvantaged in some way, and you clearly believe that.

 

Technically, I didn't. I never accused you of saying anything. But if you're suggesting that some women determine mistreatment as acceptable, what does that mean for them? Is it justified? Who is to blame?

There is no technicality here - you presumed to talk for me without me saying anything of the kind. And you're doing something 'similar' here. I'm not suggesting, I'm not implying anything of the kind - whatever conclusion you're forming, is coming off the back of your own projections, out of your own head rather than anything I ever said.

 

The problem is with those who present the forms of abuse, who fantasize, suggest, pressure, and bring it to the table as an option to begin with, as something desired

Actually the problem runs deeper than that. The (mainly) women who are more prone to abuse, are subject to abuse across the board. They would have been abused/neglected, starved of emotional wellness well before they came into contact with the opposite sex. The problem starts in the home, the problem starts from a very young age, the problem has to do with a lack of parenting skill or opportunity.

 

The bigger problem isn't that women need to say no, but rather they shouldn't be presented with a desire from men for abusive or degrading treatment towards them in the first place.

Now I freely acknowledge that there's no shortage of arsehole men in this world, but the bigger problem, the bigger problem starts in the home.

 

.

[A O]

Most people have to spend a lot of time trying to get along with people who they're not necessarily compatible with, and who might have very different boundaries from them

My main point here is that we're constantly presented with just one side of the coin - women being seen as victims, as underprivileged, as ill equipped and incapable of standing up for themselves basically. Now, without doubt, there are women like that out there, quite a few actually, but the context that this point arose from centred around equality, and bottom line is, if you believe in equality, if you strive for equality, then believing that one gender is inherently more prone to certain conditions than the other isn't consistent with an equality based belief. Especially given the fact that many of that particular gender are well capable of, in this case, standing up for themselves. Henceforth, the problem here - women (or people) setting boundaries, isn't so much a gender issue as an educational issue and one that starts at home.

 

.

[Des]

But stop acting like your beliefs are set in stone when clearly they're not.

 

What are you implying here?

 

Not only have I defended porn, but I've also voiced both my distaste for certain elements of porn and my own concerns about that, while also presenting a few ideas in regards to dealing with these matters.

 

But that really makes no sense. You want to defend and support an industry that takes a large part in disrespectful, degrading, and abusive behavior towards women? All because of what, the fact that it is not the nature of some of it? When we've all agreed here, that a there's a growing majority of it in modern porn, some even admitting to it, yet... you'll get behind that industry and what it it does, in the hopes that some if it may not?

 

When it gets to a point where decent behavior becomes an even more rare find in modern porn, and the bad starts to get even uglier, will you still defend it?

 

But I take your point nonetheless, given that it ties in moreso with what I've been saying than with your views.

 

I don't really see how, as I've never suggested a majority effected, or proof of a dramatic, night and day change of any form.

[A O]

What are you implying here?

Its pretty simple - you believe that there's a societal shift underway, due to porn, that negatively impacts on women. And you espouse this view time after time with little more than a couple of links (that have more to do with porn, and little to do with said societal shift) as your justification. You somehow believe that this is all you need to bring to the table and anyone who doesn't agree with you is simply too scared, unwilling and basically wrong. That is why your views are cast in stone, because you simply refuse to believe anything other than your own views, and you let that be known in no uncertain terms!

 

But that really makes no sense. You want to defend and support an industry that takes a large part in disrespectful, degrading, and abusive behavior towards women?

Again, more cast iron views. It doesn't matter what I say - this is what you always come back to. Of course it doesn't make sense to you because you neither believe or see any other viewpoint than your own.

 

When it gets to a point where decent behavior becomes an even more rare find in modern porn, and the bad starts to get even uglier, will you still defend it?

I'll be the one working for change, as I am doing now, offering ideas, asking for solutions, advocating for both the respectful use of, and the respectful creation of - porn. Neither is an impossibility, and more probable than possible in the future.

 

.

[Taramere]

My main point here is that we're constantly presented with just one side of the coin - women being seen as victims, as underprivileged, as ill equipped and incapable of standing up for themselves basically.

 

But isn't that the image of women being presented in these movies? Downtrodden, abused, passively accepting whatever's dished out?

 

Now, without doubt, there are women like that out there, quite a few actually, but the context that this point arose from centred around equality, and bottom line is, if you believe in equality, if you strive for equality, then believing that one gender is inherently more prone to certain conditions than the other isn't consistent with an equality based belief.

 

I think men are more prone than women are to being victims of stranger violence. That women are more prone than men are to being raped by a stranger or an acquaintance. That men and women aren't equal in physical strength. That a female politician would be far less likely than a male politician (one she matches in experience, eloquence, policies and overall intelligence), to become the next president of the United States. It doesn't mean I think one gender is worth more than the other. I don't quite understand your logic there.

[Des]

Its pretty simple - you believe that there's a societal shift underway, due to porn, that negatively impacts on women. And you espouse this view time after time with little more than a couple of links (that have more to do with porn, and little to do with said societal shift) as your justification. You somehow believe that this is all you need to bring to the table and anyone who doesn't agree with you is simply too scared, unwilling and basically wrong. That is why your views are cast in stone, because you simply refuse to believe anything other than your own views, and you let that be known in no uncertain terms!

 

I saw an equal focus on real world effects, especially in the film I provided. I take it you've still not looked at it... and of course, you disqualified personal experience and perception of our day to day surroundings as evidence a long time ago. You have to understand how it seems like you're trying to reject any evidence anyone provides you, as this far, everything I've given you has been insufficient... and I could continue to give you evidence of about the same scale, but it would still be insufficient.

 

Logical progression is out too... Because somehow it doesn't make sense to take into consideration, attitudes and behavioral shifts from the 50s (an era with very little, if any porn influence) compared to the 90s (an era of porn widespread and accepted). Definitely a change there, in many ways. Now we're in to 00s (an era where porn becoming violent and degrading, easily accessed by anyone, including minors), considering what porn will likely become by the 2020s following this progression, is it so difficult to believe that again, attitudes and behavior will change? That right now, we're merely seeing the effects of this change in its infancy?

 

Again, more cast iron views. It doesn't matter what I say - this is what you always come back to. Of course it doesn't make sense to you because you neither believe or see any other viewpoint than your own.

 

No, no, no... I'm going to ask this again, and your going to address what I am saying, not avoid it and act like I'm being ridiculous, or narrow minded for asking.

 

You defend and support, an industry, that takes a large part in disrespectful, degrading, and abusive behavior towards women. No? Are you not in defense of an industry that is guilty of this?

 

Why are you?

 

Is it because of the fact that it is not the nature of some porn? When we've all agreed here (including you), that a there's a growing majority of it in modern porn, some even admitting to it.

 

Will you get behind an industry like this, knowing what it does, for the sake of what you find acceptable within it? If so, isn't that a bit selfish ... and wrong when you think about it?

 

I'll be the one working for change, as I am doing now, offering ideas, asking for solutions, advocating for both the respectful use of, and the respectful creation of - porn. Neither is an impossibility, and more probable than possible in the future.

 

I'm sorry, but the only idea you've offered, at least that I can remember, is that porn should have "disclaimers". Yeah... You ask for solutions a lot, but you tend to either shoot down, or ignore my attempts. "A respectful use and creation of porn" - not realistic, I just don't see that happening and I don't think anyone else here suggests that they do either, certainly not with the direction things are going now. Things are not getting better, they're getting worse. I think you can kiss that idea goodbye. The conditions need elimination, not improvement, in my opinion.

[A O]

But isn't that the image of women being presented in these movies? Downtrodden, abused, passively accepting whatever's dished out?

Is the image reality? Men, namely fathers are often portrayed on mainstream TV as incompetent buffoons. So then the point becomes - is this a true reflection of reality and are the actors involved being 'forced' in anyway, shape or form to adhere to this image? The simple answer to both is no.

 

I think men are more prone than women are to being victims of stranger violence. That women are more prone than men are to being raped by a stranger or an acquaintance

In regards to rape, I agree. In regards to violence perpetuated towards individuals, that's an even split between the sexes. Those slaps and the odd punch that some women dish out from time to time and that most men brush off as meaningless contact, they all constitute physical assault, something that I was unaware of until recently.Point being, most violence perpetuated by women simply goes unreported.

 

That men and women aren't equal in physical strength

An abuse of physical strength will land anyone in hot water. Simply being stronger doesn't mean the propensity towards violence is any greater, especially in this day in age.

 

That a female politician would be far less likely than a male politician (one she matches in experience, eloquence, policies and overall intelligence), to become the next president of the United States. It doesn't mean I think one gender is worth more than the other. I don't quite understand your logic there.

The point, or the context that gave rise to this point centered around Des's belief that equality will cure all the ills associated with this topic and more. However, Des is of the belief that women are more prone to victimization and that men are more prone to abuse.. Now, how can one argue for equality when they already have these rather skewed beliefs of the opposite sex? You can't, you simply can't argue for equality if you already hold certain beliefs about the genders.

 

 

.

[A O]

I saw an equal focus on real world effects, especially in the film I provided. I take it you've still not looked at it... and of course, you disqualified personal experience and perception of our day to day surroundings as evidence a long time ago

You say this and yet on the other hand, you say that I also agree with a good percentage of your views. Like I said, you'll see and believe whatever fits in with your stance. Now, that aside, you've managed to come up with one piece of evidence (of change). That's good, but not good enough to convince me. And like I said before, if the boot were on the other foot - I'd highly doubt it would convince you either.

 

Logical progression is out too... Because somehow it doesn't make sense to take into consideration, attitudes and behavioral shifts from the 50s (an era with very little, if any porn influence) compared to the 90s (an era of porn widespread and accepted).

The 70's, 80's and 90's make for a far better argument mainly because attitudes have changed too much since the 50's for them to be of any relevance today, not to mention that the proliferation of porn was nominal back then also.

 

You defend and support, an industry, that takes a large part in disrespectful, degrading, and abusive behavior towards women. No? Are you not in defense of an industry that is guilty of this?

 

Why are you?

It's this simple - you'll only be satisfied with complete agreeance of your stance.Anything else has you casting any amount of aspersions about my character and the character of men in general.

 

I'm sorry, but the only idea you've offered, at least that I can remember, is that porn should have "disclaimers".

Disclaimers like we have on cigarettes and a total industry overhaul, not unlike that being fleshed in in what's known as the developing world where all manner of malpractice towards workers take place. An overhaul that requires the industry participants to meet a set of to-be-specified-standards of conduct, that will then qualify them for an FTO (Fair Trade Organization) type registration that will help them be recognized in the same manner as an FTO aligned organization or as an organic food supplier, or as any organization whom strive to reach acceptable standards in their fields currently undergo. The latter will not happen overnight, as it didn't and isn't happening for Fair Trade and the like, at the moment, however, it is a huge step in the right direction, and like I mentioned before, I've since seen this very same idea both been brought forth and practiced by female producers of porn in the UK.

 

As for the former, for putting some sort of disclaimer on all porn material, that is an easily achieved goal, one of which, I believe will help combat the potential views of the younger generation especially.

 

"A respectful use and creation of porn" - not realistic, I just don't see that happening and I don't think anyone else here suggests that they do either, certainly not with the direction things are going now. Things are not getting better, they're getting worse. I think you can kiss that idea goodbye. The conditions need elimination, not improvement, in my opinion.

I wish I'd kept a link to the female UK porn producers advocating the very idea I'm highlighting - that'll put paid to the 'not realistic' argument right off the bat. All the rest just further highlights your tendency to right off anything but what you espouse, although I'd like clarification on this - " The conditions need elimination, not improvement".... is that the conditions that porn is produced in, is that the content that is produced or is that the elimination of porn overall?

 

 

 

.

[Des]

No more than men are victims of abuse at the hands of women and other men.

 

Yes you do. Wiser and more knowledgeable people than me have made me see the light on this issue in regards to domestic violence in particular.

 

Basically, you're running the same argument here as you did for porn (more to the point - its effects) - you base "Y" on "x" without any substantive evidence to support the former especially.

 

http://www.abanet.org/domviol/statistics.html

 

http://tinyurl.com/ydrvtol

 

http://www.dvrc-or.org/domestic/violence/resources/C61/

 

http://www.findcounseling.com/journal/domestic-violence/domestic-violence-statistics.html

 

http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/statistics.shtml

 

More specifically, for "teen relationship violence", see the following.

 

http://www.troubledteen101.com/articles47.html

 

http://tinyurl.com/teen-dating-violence-facts

 

"Approximately 1 in 5 female high school students reported being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner."

 

Its not equality - you can't argue for equality if you believe that one sector is disadvantaged in some way, and you clearly believe that.

 

What? You really makes no sense. If I see two people as being unequal in a society, and I work towards making them equal, that is not equality?

 

Actually the problem runs deeper than that. The (mainly) women who are more prone to abuse, are subject to abuse across the board. They would have been abused/neglected, starved of emotional wellness well before they came into contact with the opposite sex. The problem starts in the home, the problem starts from a very young age, the problem has to do with a lack of parenting skill or opportunity.

 

There are a lot of factors at play, more than just parenting. But if weren't for those out there who sought to take advantage of those prone to abuse, their problems wouldn't be exploited or reinforced. Those kind of parents are not unlike the rest who are out to abuse and do wrong. The same kind of people.

 

Now I freely acknowledge that there's no shortage of arsehole men in this world, but the bigger problem, the bigger problem starts in the home.

 

Mostly from those men, right? The same ones who look at child porn and act on it, not unlike those who watch general abusive porn and act on it. I think they're both equally a part of this problem.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Des

[A O]

First off, its interesting that you can come up with a lot links pertaining to abuse against women but very little in way of abuse, as a consequence of porn. I asked, I asked I asked, and you basically stalled time and time again. The fact that you could come up with what I call hard evidence, finally (in relation to a different matter) just further emphasizes my point that the tie in between porn and a change in attitude towards women as a consequence, is still unsubstantiated.

 

Now, as for the violence stats, I won't dispute them, but I will hark back to my earlier point - most of the violence against men goes unreported.

 

This has been a very telling little sequence overall.

 

What? You really makes no sense. If I see two people as being unequal in a society, and I work towards making them equal, that is not equality?

You're pushing for equality but you're not viewing people as equals - that's the point. You have a belief that one gender is more prone to certain behavior towards another. That's not equality - that's discrimination.

 

There are a lot of factors at play, more than just parenting. But if weren't for those out there who sought to take advantage of those prone to abuse, their problems wouldn't be exploited or reinforced

The biggest factor starts in the home, starts when people are young and most things grow from there. Its far harder to nah impossible to take advantage of a well-adjusted citizen, in a relationship sense. More to the point, the men are abusers and women the abused argument, isn't the only way to look at this situation.

 

.

[Des]

You say this and yet on the other hand, you say that I also agree with a good percentage of your views.

 

When I give you your requested evidence, is when you bury your head in the sand, so to speak. You're not accepting of any hard evidence.

 

The 70's, 80's and 90's make for a far better argument mainly because attitudes have changed too much since the 50's for them to be of any relevance today, not to mention that the proliferation of porn was nominal back then also.

 

That's my point. Porn was virtually non-existent then, as compared to today. We saw changes to a society that came to accept porn on scales similar to present day by the 90s. Now, we have the introduction of violent porn running wild, with hardly enough time passed compared to the amount given as the previous reaction and overall change from a non-porn, to pro-porn society. Possible to a go from a pro-porn society, to a pro-violent-porn society?

 

It's this simple - you'll only be satisfied with complete agreeance of your stance.Anything else has you casting any amount of aspersions about my character and the character of men in general.

 

Would you stop?! I'm not forcing you agree with anything.

 

I want you to answer it, and honestly.

 

Again.

 

You defend and support, an industry, that takes a large part in disrespectful, degrading, and abusive behavior towards women. No? Are you not in defense of an industry that is guilty of this?

 

Why?

 

Is it because of the fact that it is not the nature of some porn (the porn you watch)?

 

As for the former, for putting some sort of disclaimer on all porn material, that is an easily achieved goal, one of which, I believe will help combat the potential views of the younger generation especially.

 

Yeah, just like warnings, advisories and disclaimers keep explicit music, violent and sexual video games, violent and sexual movies, as well as alcohol and drugs from negatively effecting or influencing them. Yeah, they don't do anything to combat it... If anything, it usually entices them more.

 

is that the conditions that porn is produced in, is that the content that is produced or is that the elimination of porn overall?

 

All three, ideally. You can't have one of those with the other, by todays standards.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Des

[A O]

When I give you your requested evidence, is when you bury your head in the sand, so to speak. You're not accepting of any hard evidence.

Until your post prior to this, you hadn't presented any of what I call hard evidence, But it doesn't matter whether you present evidence, of any sort, or not, you still accuse me of burying my head in the sand, simply for doing little more than not taking what you say at face value. You want to talk about acceptance, the simple fact of the matter is that you're unaccepting of any view other than your own, and I'm certainly not the only person to experience this within this thread.

 

That's my point. Porn was virtually non-existent then, as compared to today. We saw changes to a society that came to accept porn on scales similar to present day by the 90s.

And what were these (porn-influenced) changes and what are these views based on? I understand that finding information on the effects of modern porn on society isn't the easiest thing to do, but finding evidence of the influence of porn from a period as far back as the 50's through to the 90's, now that should be a breeze to find for someone who firmly believes that societal change has taken place (again, due to porn).

 

Would you stop?! I'm not forcing you agree with anything.

It's not a matter of force, it's the ability to accept another point of view, something that quite clearly, you find extremely hard to do as evidenced by the keenness and frequency to which you negatively judge my views. If I don't agree with you, then naturally I must be this, that and the other according to you, and so typical for a man and men in general to boot, apparently! That's been the run of the green here thus far.

 

.

Yeah, just like warnings, advisories and disclaimers keep explicit music, violent and sexual video games, violent and sexual movies, as well as alcohol and drugs from negatively effecting or influencing them. Yeah, they don't do anything to combat it... If anything, it usually entices them more.

Well, again, I'm sure you have proof to verify your claims. My disclaimer idea is something that I only thought of since participating in this thread. I'll drop it like a hot potato if you can either verify your claims of give me a good enough justification against it.

 

All three, ideally. You can't have one of those with the other, by todays standards.

Yes you can, here's but one example - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/6530103/Women-aim-to-revive-porn-industry.html

 

.

[Taramere]

Is the image reality? Men, namely fathers are often portrayed on mainstream TV as incompetent buffoons. So then the point becomes - is this a true reflection of reality and are the actors involved being 'forced' in anyway, shape or form to adhere to this image? The simple answer to both is no.

 

It's funny you mentioned this, because it was a comparison I was thinking of making too. I've read quite a number of posts on here and another board where men have expressed anger about these buffoon dads on sitcoms.

 

I think sitcoms are generally home to a variety of stereotypes of which the buffoon dad is just one. Others include the interfering mother-in-law, the airhead daughter, and the angry ranter (Basil Fawlty, Alf Garnett, Victor Meldrew). The sitcoms don't generally, however, include violent assaults by or against any of those characters.

 

 

In regards to rape, I agree. In regards to violence perpetuated towards individuals, that's an even split between the sexes.

 

Not as regards violence from strangers and acquaintances. If you look at crime statistics, young men are far more likely to be the victims of stranger violence from people just looking for trouble.

 

Those slaps and the odd punch that some women dish out from time to time and that most men brush off as meaningless contact, they all constitute physical assault, something that I was unaware of until recently.Point being, most violence perpetuated by women simply goes unreported.

 

I don't doubt it at all, though I was talking specifically about violence from strangers or casual acquaintances rather than domestic violence. You maybe missed my point that men are more vulnerable to stranger/acquaintance violence than women are, not less.

 

The point, or the context that gave rise to this point centered around Des's belief that equality will cure all the ills associated with this topic and more. However, Des is of the belief that women are more prone to victimization and that men are more prone to abuse.. Now, how can one argue for equality when they already have these rather skewed beliefs of the opposite sex? You can't, you simply can't argue for equality if you already hold certain beliefs about the genders.

 

I think it's almost impossible to identify how many men are the victims of domestic violence compared to how many women are, because as you say - a lot goes unreported. All we know is that women are a great deal more likely to sustain injuries that require hospital treatment as a result of domestic violence. Presumably related to the strength difference.

 

One of the top causes of violence, as far as I can see, is alcohol. It lowers inhibitions and reduces self control - and frequently seems to be the tipping point for violence to occur. Heavy consumption of violent porn is more likely to lead to emotional numbing. Desensitisation. Significant reduction in the ability to empathise in the way that a normally functioning person would.

 

There's plenty of research and studies correlating frequent exposure to media violence and numbness/desensitisation. I'm sure you'll have read some of them already if you're interested in this subject - but if not, I can link you to a few.

 

If frequent viewing of violent porn reduces the viewer's empathy significantly, that leaves them far less placed to fully appreciate the devastating long term consequences to a victim of a violent sexual attack. They may realise in a dry, legal theory based way, that the attack is a serious crime from a legal/rights/consequences perspective. If they lack the empathy to appreciate the devastating impact these crimes tend to have on their victims/families, however, then they're seriously limited in their understanding of why these are classed as serious crimes.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Taramere

[A O]

I think sitcoms are generally home to a variety of stereotypes of which the buffoon dad is just one. Others include the interfering mother-in-law, the airhead daughter, and the angry ranter (Basil Fawlty, Alf Garnett, Victor Meldrew).

Crikey, you must be English - i've forgotten, but in what program did that Alf Garnett character appear in again?

 

The sitcoms don't generally, however, include violent assaults by or against any of those characters.

And in what context are we talking about this behavior being in again?

 

I don't doubt it at all, though I was talking specifically about violence from strangers or casual acquaintances rather than domestic violence. You maybe missed my point that men are more vulnerable to stranger/acquaintance violence than women are, not less.

Interesting - I see. yes I did miss your point,probably because this debate is geared towards male/female interaction, which basically means domestic violence than male/male or stranger/casual situations.

 

There's plenty of research and studies correlating frequent exposure to media violence and numbness/desensitisation. I'm sure you'll have read some of them already if you're interested in this subject - but if not, I can link you to a few.

Yes, some links would be appreciated thanks. Maybe they can give me the information I'm after, namely, whether exposure to such media translates into violence of some sort towards others and to what degree does this behavior occur and also how much exposure is needed before this all happens.

 

If frequent viewing of violent porn reduces the viewer's empathy significantly, that leaves them far less placed to fully appreciate the devastating long term consequences to a victim of a violent sexual attack

That's assuming of course that frequent viewing translates into actual violent assault. Now, I don't doubt that in 'some' cases it probably does, so basically I'm looking for degree, I'm looking for percentages because the implication I've gotten on here of late, is that this behavior, potentially, runs rife among men, which is of course, is something I strongly disagree with,

 

.

Edited December 16, 2009 by A O

[Taramere]

Crikey, you must be English - i've forgotten, but in what program did that Alf Garnett character appear in again?

 

The programme was "In sickness and in Health".

 

And in what context are we talking about this behavior being in again?

 

Comedy.

 

Interesting - I see. yes I did miss your point,probably because this debate is geared towards male/female interaction, which basically means domestic violence than male/male or stranger/casual situations.

 

Yes, some links would be appreciated thanks. Maybe they can give me the information I'm after, namely, whether exposure to such media translates into violence of some sort towards others and to what degree does this behavior occur and also how much exposure is needed before this all happens.

 

This link references various relevant studies. To read the studies in more depth - good luck! In many cases you'd have to go the old fashioned route of visiting a library or pay to get access to the academic sites. I can remember having to do an essay on this subject in my first degree (pre-Internet) and reading some of the studies then, but it's difficult to find detailed accounts on the Internet. When you google, what tends to come up is abstracts or references on commercial (often very subjectively toned) sites.

 

Zillman & Bryant Correlation between heavy porn consumption and triviliasation of rape (sample group of men and women watching four hours of X rated material over 6 weeks scored subsequently recommending significantly lighter sentences for convicted rapists and scored more highly than the other control groups on "Sexual Callousness Towards Women" scale).

 

Neil Malamuth is one who has researched this subject in a lot of depth, and carried out experimentation to demonstrate the desensitising impact. Mosher and Sirkin have found correlations between higher scoring on the "Sexual Callousness Towards Women" scale and an increased likelihood of offending.

 

That's assuming of course that frequent viewing translates into actual violent assault. Now, I don't doubt that in 'some' cases it probably does, so basically I'm looking for degree, I'm looking for percentages because the implication I've gotten on here of late, is that this behavior, potential, runs rife among men, which is of course, something I strongly disagree with,

 

Well no - I wasn't making an assumption in the bit you quoted that frequent viewing translates into actual violent assault. You seem to be stuck on the notion that anyone who questions the popular view of heavy porn consumption not being harmful is making a direct connection between porn consumption and violence. That's not the point I'm making at all. I'm talking about desensitisation.

 

Studies referred to in the links I've posted suggest correlations between heavy porn use and sexual offending, but factors such as an abusive upbringing, alcohol consumption and a naturally aggressive temperament/psychopathy would, I would think, be far more influential.

 

It's a bit like a heroin addict who uses dope. I think there's a general consensus amongst researchers that hash does not in itself lead to a heroin habit, but it's almost inevitable that someone who uses heroin has also used hash as - that's all part and parcel of the drug culture they're involved in.

 

It's predictable that people who were predisposed to offending would also use a lot of porn - but that doesn't mean the porn itself is the cause of them offending. What I was essentially saying, in the part you quoted, was that heavy porn use leads to desensitisation, which involves lower levels of empathy for, eg, rape victims.

 

This is re-iterated in some of the studies I've quoted earlier. Trivialisation of rape is correlated with a tendency to give far more lenient sentences to sexual offenders. In an environment where that happens, victims may be less likely to report rape in an environment where it's more liable to be trivilialised, but lower reporting doesn't necessarily correlate with lower incidence.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Taramere

[burning 4 revenge]

Taramere, I know you were in the book business or thinking about it

 

Would you sell violent porn if you knew it had extreme profit potential even though its not to your personal taste?

 

What if those profits could help you expand some of the other aspects of the business and eventually make them more profitable?

 

Would it feel like selling your soul to the devil?

[Taramere]

Taramere, I know you were in the book business or thinking about it

 

Would you sell violent porn if you knew it had extreme profit potential even though its not to your personal taste?

 

What if those profits could help you expand some of the other aspects of the business and eventually make them more profitable?

 

Would it feel like selling your soul to the devil?

 

I would sell (and have read) erotic literature that has some pretty heavy stuff in it. However, it's not the kind of stuff that would be likely to appeal to the consumer of Max Hardcore style porn. The stuff I'm talking about doesn't shy away from the dark side....but it's stunningly written, and retains a humane perspective.

 

I wouldn't neither sell nor attempt to write gratuitous violence with no attempt to examine it in a human manner. In a nutshell, I'm not opposed to exploring all kinds of dark places....but I think it's vital to hang on to your humanity in doing so. I don't think the sort of porn discussed here makes any effort to encourage people to do that. In fact, I believe it does the opposite, which is why I refuse to regard it as "art" rather than trash.

[burning 4 revenge]

I certainly am not wondering if its art or making any such an argument.

 

I wonder though for myself if I had a chance to profit from it would I profit from it

 

Theres a lot of things I find objectionable in the world but I wonder if I had a chance to really make money from them if I wouldnt find myself in the position of being a hypocrite

[Taramere]

Theres a lot of things I find objectionable in the world but I wonder if I had a chance to really make money from them if I wouldnt find myself in the position of being a hypocrite

 

I understand the conflict. People often have to sell out on some of their values in order to get by. I find violence distressing - so apart from anything else, I wouldn't be temperamentally cut out to peddle violent porn for a living. Even where it's part of something I consider to have genuine artistic merit, I struggle with it. For instance, I couldn't watch the end of Requiem for a Dream, despite thinking it was a great film. Irreversible....again, it just distressed me that bit too much. There are certain things I can handle reading about, but watching it on film becomes a step too far.

 

Even if a lot of money could be made, it wouldn't be worth it in terms of how that would leave me feeling. Partly that I'd concerned about the potential social harms associated with that kind of grim, gratuitous violent porn, but also that it would be very bad for me psychologically to get involved in that kind of thing. So in that sense it would be less about me having lofty principles, and more about just looking after my own emotional wellbeing.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Taramere

[Jersey Shortie]

A.O: My main point here is that we're constantly presented with just one side of the coin - women being seen as victims, as underprivileged, as ill equipped and incapable of standing up for themselves basically. Now, without doubt, there are women like that out there.....and bottom line is, if you believe in equality, if you strive for equality, then believing that one gender is inherently more prone to certain conditions than the other isn't consistent with an equality based belief. Especially given the fact that many of that particular gender are well capable of, in this case, standing up for themselves. Henceforth, the problem here - women (or people) setting boundaries, isn't so much a gender issue as an educational issue and one that starts at home.

 

That’s actually patently false and a rather ridiculous assertion to even make.

 

If we went under your mindset of what *true* equality meant, that one gender, race or religious group wasn’t more prone to certain unequal conditions then another, and that fair treatment for *true* equality meant not lending a hand to groups that clearly were at a disadvantage, we would still have slaves and Jews would still be second class citizens.

 

Slaves weren’t freed from their enslavement because of a mentality that all men are equal and the plight of white men should be just as heavily considered and counted as the plight of African-Americans in a time where powerlines where clearly defined. Or that it was all in the slaves control to turn things around and that it was only their responsiblity despite the actions taken by white men. It is infact the responsiblity of a society. And last time I checked, a society was made up of men and women.

 

The truth is that women are actually one of the last *groups* that are allowed to be victimized and brutalized to a degree and extent we could NEVER still do to other social, religious or race groups on a billion dollar scale that we see in porn. Could you imagine if we treated African American men and women or Jewish men and women with the same guidelines we allow women to be treated in porn? Sure, there are jewish men and women and black men and women in the industry. But that's not what I am talking about. I am talking about tageting people of a certain race or group and exploiting them for the pleasure of another. Could you imagine what would happen? And the excuse given on why it was okay to use these ethnic or religious groups was that it was *just* fantasy or that it wasn’t real? So it's okay to think of these groups negatively for pleasure if it's *just* fantasy that your abusing them? Could you imagine a video of calling African American people names and playfully smacked around? Could you imagine the uproar? I can. But yet, it’s okay to treat women as such. It’s okay to treat women with a level of disrespect, misogyny, discounting her as a human being, under crap arguments like free speech and “these women like it” and all the other arguments people use to get away from the truth. We treat women in porn as we would treat NO religious, race or culture group. And it’s okay to treat women this way as long as men are provided a service to masturbate to.

 

I think it's completely ridiculous to say that the path to true equality is ignoring the wrongs of one group in favor of the equality of one group that is infact already in control and in power of equality in a particular situation.

 

And yes A.O. Women DO have a responsiblity to themselves and this situation. We have the responsiblity to teach our daughters and son's to respect each other. And not think it's okay to use a gender as long as it's behind closed doors on a video. But women can't do it alone. They need the support of men to help and men who will teach their son's to respect women as well, not just at face value when women are looking. But when women aren't looking as well. But I will repeat it, if you expect and think all the responsiblity is on women to change and do something, then nothing ever will because it takes the help and support of the men in our lives as well that will be teaching their son's by action.

 

It's funny because most women aren't in porn. We are talking about a very small segment of women that actually do porn. And yet men use this segment of women that choose to do porn as an excuse why it's okay for them to look at porn. Most men, most fathers, husbands, boyfriends, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, are infact looking at porn. Women are not going to be able to do it alone. We are not here to teach men to be men. Infact, I hear frustration in many men that they do not feel like men anymore or women don't let them lead or offer them respect and a host of other issues. How do men expect women to trust them, follow them, honor them if men can not do the same? How do men expect women to have faith in them and see them as real men if what men like is seeing women abused and terroized If men want to lead, they need to lead on the things that women are goign to respect and honor them for. And men are never going to find respect and honor through the degradement, abuse and use of women in porn.

 

 

Taramere: I think sitcoms are generally home to a variety of stereotypes of which the buffoon dad is just one. Others include the interfering mother-in-law, the airhead daughter, and the angry ranter (Basil Fawlty, Alf Garnett, Victor Meldrew). The sitcoms don't generally, however, include violent assaults by or against any of those characters.[/QUOTE]

 

This is a great point to bring up. It's interesting how what most men focus on is how the buffoon dad is represented yet choose to ignore, or not even consider all the other stereotypes that are equally insulting to both genders. How come men are not disturbed by how the shrewess wife or mother-in-law is protrayed or the airhead daughter but are angry at the protrayl of the bufoon dad? Don't they think these protrayls of women are just as negative as these protrayls of men?

 

Or how about a show like Two and Half Men? Not a show I watch but I have seen it all of 3 times after it came on from my fav show FRIENDS and each time it protrays beautiful women as complete idiots and the men are all but laughing at these girls on this show. In addition to that, as Tra said, these sitcoms are not generally invovling violent assult to those characters. They also don't include a positive reinforcement of the behavior by encouraging masturbation while viewing it.

 

It's no big secret that masturbation causes a postive re-enforcement of a realease of pleasure of chemicals in our brains. This is a force more strong then getting a jolly out of a sitcome for crazy behavior. If men are masturbating, basically having a positive re-enforcement of pleasure, to women being abused and humilated in porn, we've got a big problem. One th The fact that most of us are even abel to know what this type of porn is and discuss it to the extent we are shows how much it has infact grown in a few short years since the internet became popular. I am not a fan of porn but even I have looked it up in an attempt to understand men and what they like. I was really ashamed to see the type of things that pop up just be typing in basic sexual words.

 

 

 

 

 

A.O: In regards to rape, I agree. In regards to violence perpetuated towards individuals, that's an even split between the sexes. Those slaps and the odd punch that some women dish out from time to time and that most men brush off as meaningless contact, they all constitute physical assault, something that I was unaware of until recently.Point being, most violence perpetuated by women simply goes unreported.

 

Does it matter? Isn't abuse of any kind given by men or woman wrong? Why is it that you can only argue the abuse of women if you talk about the abuse of men first? Or rather, you use the abuse that men might suffer as a justifaction why it’s okay to abuse women? You can’t directly address the abuse women suffer without mentiong the abuse men suffer, when they are two different topics, no less important then the other. Why is that? How do we ever talk about anything if the only arugment is "they do it too!" gets shoved in there?