Pornography harms...(you've got to see the picture if you need a damn good laugh)

[WillParkinson]

[OffWithTheirHeads]

1. And off you go

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. That's great!

:rofl:

[bigwillq]

3. HA!

:rofl:

[Whisp]

4. jerk

offs.

[HopeHoops]

5. Well, at least the guy is honest.

[kimmerspixelated]

240. HEh,

There's that HopeHoops! Howdy stranger!

[femrap]

548. and so is she

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jodi01/6308469212/in/photostream/

go make fun of her and the OWS

[Warren DeMontague]

901. That walrus faced jesus freak with the anti-porn sign and the clucking expression of disapproval

is not your friend or ally.

[redqueen]

6. Yes, just ignore the actors who get HIV and all the other problems...

just get a good laugh and forget all about the rest. Priorities, right?

Disgusting.

[MineralMan]

7. Sometimes, things are just funny...

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

28. What's funny about males needing to view violence against women to climax?

[truebrit71]

40. Oh god, here we go...

:eyes:

[rhett o rick]

155. Hey are you trying to shift the discussion to god? nm

[originalpckelly]

56. This comes as a surprise to me. I could swear that I only see dudes in my pron.

Then again, I am gay...so whatever.

[defendandprotect]

62. So you have nothing to worry about --

Except I'm sure you've noticed a few thousand years of HATE speech directed

at homosexuals -- so I presume you recognize it when you see it?


Meanwhile, preaching intolerance and hatred for homosexuals from Church pulpits

also really worked well to make violence against homosexuals permissable -- !!

[Warren DeMontague]

327. Hold the phone, chuck.. Are you SERIOUSLY blaming anti-gay hate on gay porn?

How the fuck does that one work???

[Incitatus]

414. That's GD, yo.

:rofl:

[Puregonzo1188]

322. Funny thing I have the same problem.

[stevenleser]

838. I love it when LGBT'ers weigh in on straight prudishness regarding porn

You all blow the standard arguments against porn to smithereens. It's beautiful to watch.

[Warren DeMontague]

875. The fact is, most people- gay and straight, either like it or are neutral on it.

It's a few people who seem all bent out of shape on what other people masturbate or get off to. A slim minority.

[EOTE]

What's funny about women needing to view puppy stomping in order to get off?

That really disgusts me. Some women are just sick beyond belief.

[MineralMan]

63. That's not what's funny about that photo, and you know it.

Further, pornography takes many forms, and they are not all violent in any way. I don't view porn often, but if I do, it is never violent porn. In fact the only porn I ever see is sort of humorous, with amateur couples videoing themselves and posting it somewhere. There's also porn that involves only one person. The assumption that pornography always involves coercion and violence is invalid, since it clearly does not.

That's beside the point, though. The photo was funny for many reasons not having to do with pornography. For one thing, it is the juxtaposition of the two sign holders and the humor of the contradictory nature of the two signs. In any case, it was funny.

[cliffordu]

101. What you said.

the broad brush of misogyny in all porn is a little thick here in DU.

[defendandprotect]

136. You expect everyone to share your sense of "fun" -- ????

You rarely watch porn but you know all about it -- ?

Read something of what Gail Denisen is saying in PORNLAND and in her videos --

and the impact that internet porn is having on young males.

And, in fact, additional to internet porn is becoming more noticeable in families

with husbands being discovered addited to it -- and harming their lives/families.


There is no "always" in the discussion -- but how much violence and themes of domination

would you see before you'd recognize it as degrading, demeaning and harmful to women on

the whole?

And certainly internet porn is becoming increasing more violent towards the women in porn.


And, the porn that Gail Dinisen is discussing is NOT "pay" porn -- it is readily available

on the internet. And so is the drive to increasingly provide younger and younger looking

females in order to push an interest in child pornography.


Those who need an industry to supply what they can't conjur up themselves should remember

the exploitation of women and the profit involved for cable companies.

[immoderate]

227. That sounds a bit nuts to me.

Someone can film their genitals and post them on the internet.

Someone else can view that a be aroused.

There is no violence, coercion, sickness to be inferred from that scenario. All those other things come from inside you, and you are projecting. Sublimate! Write screenplays.

--imm

[RaleighNCDUer]

392. Hey! What's with that pornographic avatar of yours?!

Disgusting!

[reggie the dog]

412. if people are watching violent porn then they have problems

i fail to see how my girfriend and i or how i alone watching videos of other amerature couples have sex (do role plays, kinky stuff etc). you take a couple who gets excited knowing that others will watch them and a couple getting excited watching it.

[defendandprotect]

539. "if people are watching violent porn then they have problems" - Glad you agree!!

As for putting anyone's girlfriend in a porn movie and making it available to others --

nah -- that wouldn't be demeaning or degrading!



:eyes:

[reggie the dog]

567. how do you know that it is not the womans idea?

some women are voyeurs and like to watch or be watched, some women like having sex outside in the woods because the possibility of someone seeing them excites them and the case is the same for some men.

how is it any more degrading to show a woman naked or having sex than to show a man naked or having sex?

[defendandprotect]

665. Bye --

[sibelian]

760. If she consents to it

Then, no, it isn't.

[crunch60]

424. Don't watch it, and don't talk for all women. Choice remember!

[defendandprotect]

541. Right -- like Segregation, inc. or Slavery were a "Choice" --- ROFL

And maybe "The Burning Times" were also CHOICE --

women made the CHOICE to have a holocaust visited on them -- !!!


:rofl:

[polly7]

558. Wow. nt.

[LadyHawkAZ]

680. Oh, joy. Another "women are too stupid to make decisions"

especially about our genitals.

Free Clue: not all or even most sex that women have with men is coerced or forced. Even if it's on video.

[seabeyond]

684. oh, joy. another "woman at home in the kitchen barefoot, repg and submissive"

i hear ya. gets old.

[LadyHawkAZ]

694. With the exception of pregnancy, that's exactly what

RadFem supports. I have exactly as much respect for the idiocy of "All sex is coerced!!" as I do for the "No means yes!" of radical chauvinism.

Pornography = Holocaust?? Pornography = Slavery?? SERIOUSLY?? Do either of you really think that you could take a woman from either era, drop them into the heavily regulated and watchdogged mainstream porn industry and have them say "Gee, I feel right at home!"?? That is the biggest batch of bullshit outside of a Kansas stockyard.

WOMEN ARE NOT STUPID, WEAK, HELPLESS CREATURES THAT NEED YOU TO THINK FOR THEM. They have functioning brains and are capable of making their own choices, however uncomfortable those choices may make someone who is not so comfortable in their own skin.

[whathehell]

737. Numerous studies have found most prostitutes to be victims of child sexcual abuse.

Their conclusions vary somewhat, but most find the number to be between 70 and 94 percent.

Very similar statistics hold for women in pornography.

In a study in which sex workers themselves were asked, 70 percent

said that they were sexually abused as kids and that it was a major factor

in their choice to enter prostitution.

http://womensissues.about.com/od/rapesexualassault/a/Wuornos.htm

http://womensissues.about.com/od/rapesexualassault/a/Wuornos.htm

http://www.childrenofthenight.org/faq.html

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20081670,00.html

[LadyHawkAZ]

813. I would like to see

your statistics of the percentage of abuse survivors in other industries.

This argument always disturbs me. Are you saying that abuse survivors should not be allowed their own opinions or choices because of past abuse? Should they then be classed as mentally impaired? Assigned a guardian for the rest of their lives?

[whathehell]

823. Then you should probably

do that research, though it might be difficult to find studies like

"Paralegals sexually abused as children" or something.

Other industries would likely reflect the stats for the general public, which seems to be about one in three.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45259088/ns/us_news-life/t/when-abusers-are-us-how-can-they-be-stoppedhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45259088/ns/us_news-life/t/when-abusers-are-

[LadyHawkAZ]

824. IOW you don't know.

I have attempted to do the research but the studies don't seem to exist. I'm very interested in the fact that you ignored the entire second half of the post. ARE you in fact saying that people sexually abused as children are not entitled to life choices later on? And who would you appoint to make those choices for them?

[whathehell]

829. IOW you don't either

and you're the one who's professed an interest.

If the "studies don't seem to exist" for occupations other than sex work,

I'd say the reasons are clear, in that there's no visible connection between

their jobs and their backgrounds.

Sorry, Lady, despite your suspicions, the second half of your post wasn't "ignored",

it was delayed. My dinner was waiting and I took care of that first...Now

that I'm finished, I'll address it. The answer to your questions, which seem to arise

from a very defensive stance on the entire topic is "No..I am not proscribing

any restrictions on the "life choices" of those so abused. I simply stated

the facts, or the "findings", if you prefer. People can infer what

they like from them and make their own personal decisions.

[LadyHawkAZ]

834. Yes, it is a very defensive stance

I have personally known people to die because of the underground, unprotected nature of criminalized prostitution. I take very serious issue with people marginalizing sex workers as stupid, mentally deficient or otherwise less than completely adult human beings with the same rights as everyone else. Because I know exactly where that leads.

If I were a person not totally hung up on the whole S-E-X issue, I'd wonder about how many abuse survivors wind up in high-risk, low-income jobs not involving genitals. But that's just me. It's amazing how many people only worry about abuse survivors if they fail to remain properly chaste and chastised the rest of their lives... but that's just me too. I'm nit-picky like that.

[whathehell]

836. Knock yourself out, but there's no point in taking that stance with me..

I'm just the messenger..facts are facts, much as you may dislike them.

Sounds like you believe in legalizing prostitution. Are you working on that, or are you just bitching at people who'll remind

you that it's not exactly a job most aspire to and it's a high risk lifestyle.

You can wonder all you like about "how many abuse survivors wind up in high-risk, low-income jobs not involving genitals", but "wondering"

proves nothing...Why don't you undertake a study yourself, or enlist others to do so?

I doubt you'll get the results you're hoping for, but you won't know until you try.

[LadyHawkAZ]

837. Yep, it should be

I work on that. And I bitch at people, too. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Facts don't bother me. Here's some:
http://www.sexwork.com/legal/Impact.html

Research on streetwalkers and call girls in California and legal brothel workers in Nevada found that 97% of the call girls reported an increase in self-esteem after they began working in prostitution, compared with 50% of the brothel workers but only 8% of the streetwalkers (Prince, 1986: 454).

Call girls expressed positive views of their work; brothel workers were generally satisfied with their work; but street prostitutes evaluated their work more negatively (Prince, 1986: 497).

Similarly, a study of indoor prostitutes (most of whom worked in bars) in a Midwestern city in the United States found that three-quarters of them felt that their life had improved after entering prostitution (the remainder reported no change; none said it was worse than before); more than half said that they generally enjoy their work (Decker, 1979: 166, 174).

In The Netherlands, three-quarters of indoor workers report that they enjoy their work (Dalder, 2004: 34). Research on 95 call girls in Sydney, Australia found that they were generally emotionally healthy (Perkins and Lovejoy, 1996). All of the escorts studied by Foltz (1979: 128) took “pride in their profession” and viewed themselves as “morally superior” to others: “they consider women who are not ‘in the life’ to be throwing away woman’s major source of power and control , while they as prostitutes are using it to their own advantage as well as for the benefit of society.”

And an Australian study found that half of call girls and brothel workers felt that their work was a “major source of satisfaction” in their lives, while 7 out of 10 said they would “definitely choose” this work if they had it to do over again (Woodward et al., 2004: 39).

Other studies of indoor work report that the workers felt the job had at least some positive effect on their lives or believed that they were providing a valuable service (Brents and Hausbeck, 2005; Bryant and Palmer, 1975; Chapkis, 1997; Farley and Davis, 1978; Lever and Dolnick, 2000; Lucas, 1998; Verlarde and Warlick, 1973; West, 1993).

Brents/Hausbeck, Ronald Weitzer and Charlotte Sieb's Queensland report are good places to go for more relevant facts than what you have. I can link you if you need.

What DOES bother me is people trying to marginalize sex workers to the point where it gets them killed. Like saying, for example, that they aren't quite capable of making choices like "normal" women because they were molested as children. Or comparing them to Holocaust victims. Or comparing them to slaves. This presents them as not-quite-human, not-quite-normal, somewhat-mentally-defective and adds to the problem. Clear?

[whathehell]

841. Maybe....but I doubt that's what you're really steamed up about.

and so you through out things like this: "What DOES bother me is people trying to marginalize sex workers to the point where it gets them killed. Like saying, for example, that they aren't quite capable of making choices like "normal" women because they were molested as children. Or comparing them to Holocaust victims. Or comparing them to slaves"

PLEASE...Prostitutes have been getting "marginalized", and unfortunately, killed, looooong before these studies done and we all know that; to suggest otherwise

is ludicrous on it's face. If anything, such findings would make people more compassionate toward them, not less.

Again, just because, for reasons of your own, you hate the message, don't shoot the messenger. That's what's "clear".

[LadyHawkAZ]

854. You can doubt all you want

doesn't change the facts.

[whathehell]

857. No kidding,

and you can cherry pick all the "facts" you want.

[LadyHawkAZ]

861. You broke my irony meter!

Damnit! Those things are expensive!

[emcguffie]

243. For once, I agree with you.

Doesn't happen too often, but here I do.

I'm an aging female and have no trouble in seeing the humor there. I have to say I do not see anything whatsoever there about violence towards women. God knows, there is far too much of that on this little world, but I sure don't see it in that photo.

[JDPriestly]

280. Most of the violence against women -- and children

occurs among family members. I think that is true in the US judging from what you see in the courts.

[whathehell]

500. Yes, and I'm sure framing it as a "turn on" amongst non-family members

really helps with that a lot.:eyes:

[JDPriestly]

714. A "turn-on"? I would never, never say that. Where in the world did you find that in my posts.

[whathehell]

720. I didn't say I found that in your posts

I'm referring to the larger issue of pornography which the OP featuring the cartoon addresses.

A goodly amount of pornography depicts violence against women...Where it's not physically violent,

it's psychologically violent with titles like "Teen Sluts" and "Dirty Ghetto Girls"...I saw this

last one, an unsolicited "ad" for porn, quite by accident when I turned on my PPV channel

last week.

It seems the porn makers have upped the ante...It's not now limited

to showing sex, including the violent kind, it now seeks

want to degrade the subjects verbally too....So, yes, I

think this type of porn (and there's lots of it) IS harmful.

Openly denigrating females as "dirty sluts"

is anti-female, anti-social and therefore

"harmful" to women and girls.

P.S. You might want to ask me about the studies

done years ago (sans name-calling) which showed the change

in attitude toward women that males

experience after watching violent porn.

[RaleighNCDUer]

725. You do understand that there is a logic to titles in internet porn, don't you?

Porn sites won't advertise "Nice girls having fun" because that could get a whole lot of clicks from people looking for Girl Scouts or 4-H clubs. That's a quick way to get your site shut down - it's like a library shelving Hustler in the childrens' section.

Somebody who clicks on "Teen Sluts" is clearly looking for porn, and that site will get no complaints about suckering people (children) in, and getting their site shut down.

[whathehell]

740. Sorry, Ignored

I decided awhile ago that I generally disagreed

with you, or just found you "disagreeable", generally

That being the case, I'll just have to live without your

current nuggets of wisdom.:eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

777. ignore those who stubbornly refuse to be re-educated

or otherwise effectively poke holes in totally bogus arguments

[defendandprotect]

532. True -- "68% of pedophiles attack family members" -- however the numbers should be higher ....

because they do not include: step-children, adopted children or foster children!


For some unknown reason which makes no sense --

Seems to me those children as well become victims because a family member is trusted.


And in all of these cases of INCEST PEDOPHILIA is where the greatest damage is done

because of the betrayal of trust.

[reggie the dog]

571. my wife walked out on me so i only live with my daughter 50%

of the time but if one of our new parteners ever abuses our kid i may end up killing them with my own hands. there is a sick fuck like this in my ex's family and i wonder if he had abused my ex when she was younger as there was a 35 year age gap and he had abused his own sons and later his grand daughter. and my dumb ass in laws let him be near by 2 year old daughter because they think he is better because he has been released from jail! i took my daughter back, told him that he is not welcome near her.

[JDPriestly]

715. It's about adolescents playing a joke.

[lbrtbell]

746. Not always violent, but always degrading

And more often than not, degrading to the actress(es).

[whathehell]

778. Too much of it is....and what's with the current "trend" of porn titles like "Teen Sluts" or

"Dirty Ghetto Girls"?.

This "ad" came to me unsolicited via a push to my remote to Pay Per View and I've seen,

again unsolicited -- Many other similarly entitled misogynist porn sites.

I guess graphic humiliation is no longer enough...They need to VERBALLY demean

the the females as well...Hell, there was one booth at a Porn Convention in Vegas

a couple of years ago which had a sign gushing: "Degrading Women for Your Pleasure".

Somehow I don't think this really squares with "progressive values", do you?:eyes:

[seabeyond]

781. "Degrading Women for Your Pleasure". lol, glad intent is cleared up for us

and here we are being told, really, no, not about degrading.... not at all.

[whathehell]

787. Yes, I'd say that makes it pretty clear.

There is a professor named Robert Jenson who is a professor of Media, Law and Ethics

at University of Texas at Austin and he is a founder

of an organization called "The Good Men Project".

He has joined with others, to take a strong

an anti-porn stand on the basis of it's emotional,

and psychological harm to women.

He is one of the very few men on the left,

to do so....Edited to add link:http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/pornography-is-what-the-end-of-the-world-looks-like/

[seabeyond]

790. professor at liberal university. no religion. not relg agenda. male. study for over decade

yes. i have him in different spots on this thread. people kept saying, want to ban. no mention of ban. then why??? say anything. not violent. not degrading. prove it. so i put this up. most people didnt respond to it and those that did probably didnt read, but sure did trash the man for being a religious nut job, or trashed me. this man pretty much states my position and concern. and the pro porn people will continue to wrap all this up as pretty woman in a pink bow. and warren, bottom of thread will suggest that a black man hanging from a noose is beyond anything tht happens to women in porn. no comparison. hypocrite?





http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/pornography&cruelty.htm

I am not suggesting that in every scene in mainstream pornography such expressions of pain are evident. And I acknowledge that I cannot know exactly what the women in these films were feeling, physically or emotionally. I do not presume to speak for them, or for women in pornography, or for women in general. But her is what Belladonna, one of the women who appeared in “Two in the Seat #3,” told a television interviewer about such scenes: “You have to really prepare physically and mentally for it. I mean, I go through a process from the night before. I stop eating at 5:00. I do, you know, like two enemas. The next morning I don’t eat anything. It’s so draining on your body.” Women’s experiences no doubt vary, but Belladonna’s experience hardly seems idiosyncratic.

However, it is not necessary to reach definitive conclusions about the degree of pain women experience in such scenes to make one important observation. In these scenes, all three women at some point clearly appeared to a viewer to be in pain. Their facial expressions and voices conveyed that what was being done to them was causing physical discomfort and/or fear and/or distress. Given the ease with which video can be edited, why did the producers not edit out those expressions? There are two possible answers. One, they may view these kinds of expressions of pain by the women as of no consequence to the viewers’ interest, and hence of no consequence to the goal of maximizing sales; women’s pain is neutral. The second possibility is that the producers have reason to believe that viewers like the expressions of pain; women’s pain helps sales.

Given that the vast majority of those who will rent or buy these tapes are men, from that we can derive this question: Why do some men find the infliction of pain on women during sexual activity either (1) not an obstacle to their ability to achieve sexual pleasure or (2) a factor that can enhance their sexual pleasure? Phrased differently: Why are some men so callous and cruel sexually?

By that, I don’t mean to ask why are men capable of being cruel in some general sense. All humans have the capacity to be cruel toward other humans and other living things, and we all have done cruel things in our lives, myself included. Contemporary mainstream heterosexual pornography raises the question: Why do some men find cruelty to women either sexually neutral or sexually pleasurable?

Feminist research into, and women’s reflection upon, experiences of sexual violence long ago established that rape involves the sexualization of power, the fusing in men’s imaginations of sexual pleasure with domination and control. The common phrase “rape is about power, not sex” misleads; rape is about the fusion of sex and domination, about the eroticization of control. And in this culture, rape is normal. That is, in a culture where the dominant definition of sex is the taking of pleasure from women by men, rape is an expression of the sexual norms of the culture, not violations of those norms. Sex is a sphere in which men are trained to see themselves as naturally dominant and women naturally passive. Rape is both nominally illegal and completely normal at the same time.

So, there’s nothing surprising in the observation that some pornography includes explicit images of women in pain. But a healthy society would want to deal with that, wouldn’t it? And from my research, both through these content analysis projects and my reading of material from the industry, it seems clear that mainstream heterosexual pornography is getting more, not less, cruel. A healthy society would take such things seriously, wouldn’t it?

[whathehell]

797. Yes,..Robert Jensen, lefty professor and strong critic of pornography.n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

876. yes? yes! Really? Really!

why, you agree with me? What a surprise! I agree with me too! Do I think I agree with me? I think I do! Does me? Me too!

Believe it or not, me agrees with me, too!

[snooper2]

150. Until you admit we did put a man on the moon, nobody is going to take you seriously

All you got to do is put it in one post...


NASA- Put- Man- On- Moon-

Shit, you can even copy and paste that :rofl:

[Chan790]

277. Wait wait what?

We have moon-landing-hoaxers here? No f'ing way. I thought those were a myth...like threesomes and the female orgasm. :dunce:

[snooper2]

461. You should spend a little time in the dungeon

(I.E. 911 forum)

:P

[femrap]

593. I just read

your bio...I see you are for equality on about everything except women. Do you know what 'marriage equality' used to mean back in the days of the Women's Movement? It meant hat the male partner would actively care for the kids (if there were any) and the household chores equally. The marriage would be equal...both working inside and outside the home.

What do we call that now? Equal Mythrage? I guess it's just called Women's Unpaid Work...would that be similar to slavery? Or something else.

Sometimes I get the feeling that if a women isn't a lesbian, many feel she really doesn't deserve to be equal....she's just supposed to go find a man, get marriage (a horrid state institution), and STFU.

I don't know what you responded to...it's Ignored.

[Warren DeMontague]

604. "Why you always on about women, Stan?"

[leveymg]

225. Might as well condem the whole film industry for slasher films.

Violent porn is a tiny, little sick niche of the much, much larger adult entertainment business. Nazis use video and the internet also - should we ban them because of that?

[Chan790]

279. Slasher films!

[defendandprotect]

535. Why do we have a film industry so dedicated to violence and "car chases" ... ?

Who's baser emotiosn are they pandering to --

Is the audience all 11 year old males?


Unfortunately, 11 year old males are being negatively impacted by internet porn --

and yes they are watching it -- and -- yes, what is readily available to "non-paying"

cstomers is violent. This violence and demeaning of women in porn distorts their image

of females -- which it is obviously intended to do.

But glad to see you confirming that violence in porn is "sick" -- !!


We're going to judge video now by the standards of Nazis' ... ???

Are you talking about old Nazi propaganda films -- or are they making porn?

[Warren DeMontague]

704. WHY DO MEN NEED TO SEE CARS THAT TRANSFORM INTO GIANT ROBOTS TO BE ABLE TO ORGASM????

WHY, GOD, WHY???

[Logical]

267. Jesus are people dramatic. Wtf

[Throd]

313. What the hell kind of porn are you watching?

[Occulus]

350. Every time this topic comes up I wonder if that's the only porn the complainer has ever seen

and yes, that in fact does make me wonder. About them.

[defendandprotect]

537. Obviously you're unaware of the actual criticism of the industry ....

Try googling Gail Dinisen -- PORNLAND -- the most current of these studies --


There are also many videos on the internet of her appearances at various colleges

and universities discussing this subject.


Of course there many are older studies you can also check out --


However, the internet has brought a much more violent and aggressive kind of porn

to viewers -- and that has to be understood.


Many are becoming addicted to internet porn which is negatively impacting their personal/

family lives.

[defendandprotect]

542. Too many don't understand how much more violent and aggressive internet porn has become ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2278376&mesg_id=2286957

[krispos42]

363. I like my porn with loving and caressing.

For the record.

[provis99]

373. are you talking about yourself?

Because that sure sounds like Freudian projection...

[defendandprotect]

544. If you're unaware of internet porn with themes of violence vs women ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2278376&mesg_id=2286957

[walerosco]

380. Really?

now we consider consensual sex as violence?

[defendandprotect]

545. Only YOU are suggesting . . .

that strawman --

Try to connect with the actual discussion --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2278376&mesg_id=2286957

Internet porn is much more violent and aggressive and demeaning vs women than

any previous porn --

It is readily available and 11 year old males are being negatively impacted by it --

Many males are becoming addicted to it -- as families are finding out eventually

because it does harm to their personal lives/families.

[reggie the dog]

410. most porn does not have violence

you even have lots of amerature porn these days which is nothing more the actual couples filming or streaming their sex sessions so others can see them. other films have plots, involve people going out on a date and trying to seduce each other etc. violence against women in a video, even if staged, personally makes me go limp. i prefer watching amerature porn if i watch it at all but much rather prefer watching my own girlfriend toying herself to orgasm before making love to her myself or watching her do a striptease for me.

[defendandprotect]

546. Then you are unaware of what's happening in internet porn --

Try this --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2278376&mesg_id=2286957

[crunch60]

425. I don't think most men need Violence to get off, You need to

watch some soft porn dude. What are you watching anyway?

[defendandprotect]

547. Try some of the research on internet porn --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2278376&mesg_id=2286957

[catbyte]

448. This female says please lighten up. Humorless people are very tiresome

And not all porno is violent against women.

[defendandprotect]

549. "And not ALL porn is violent against women" -- !! ROFL !!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2278376&mesg_id=2286957


Let's celebrate the demeaning of women?

:rofl:

[reggie the dog]

566. how is amerature porn demeaning?

like when a couple films their sex? an actual couple who gets off knowing that others will watch them. plus some porn shows men being dominated too.

[defendandprotect]

660. Are you serious? You don't understand how filming a lover and putting it out on internet ....

would be demeaning?

If the answer is "no" -- please discuss it with a professional.


Feminism is ... ANTI DOMINATION OF ANYONE BY ANYONE ELSE --

[Warren DeMontague]

825. .,.and what if it's the idea of BOTH partners?

Right, I know, "does not compute".

[whathehell]

765. Most females, and I'd bet you're one of them, know little about porn -- still mainly a male market

If they did, they wouldn't "lighten up" so much as vomit down.

[pipi_k]

453. So if a guy is watching a video

of a woman willingly giving very sensual oral sex to a man, that's "violence"?

And if he's watching two women having sex, that's "violence"?


ummm....OK...

[defendandprotect]

550. So you're unaware of the violence in internet porn ....

Try this --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2278376&mesg_id=2286957

[whathehell]

743. How do you know it was "willing"?

Linda Lovelace claimed she was brutalized

repeatedly by Chuck Trainer and forced

into making Deep Throat in her book "Ordeal"

Qualifiers on the term "willing" might also be inferred

by the studies that have found that the vast majority of women

in Porn (like prostitutes) are victims of child sex abuse.

[okieinpain]

456. huh? n/t.

[ZombieHorde]

460. That is the old porn. In the new porn, all of the women are already dead.

Anal Grave 7 is particularly popular.

[defendandprotect]

551. Many of the women are suffering body damage from abuse of their bodies ...

that's true --

[Codeine]

728. So THAT'S what those "Tomb Raider" movies are! nt

[ZombieHorde]

733. The bodies are cold, but the movie is hot! nt

[Warren DeMontague]

830. that's nothing.

I need to view Climax to climax.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS7s1ztElN8

[LanternWaste]

118. My grandfather thought the same

"Sometimes, things are just funny..."

My grandfather thought the same about the minorities in his neighborhood as he was growing up.

[defendandprotect]

138. +1 ---

[Remember Me]

200. well said! nt

[frylock]

330. sounds like a problem you and your family should work through..

can you point out the minority in this photo?

[Iggo]

458. It's the guy on the left.

B-)

[defendandprotect]

552. K/R --

[Rex]

497. And sometimes some people have no sense of humor.

They have to rage against the sun and the moon too.

[HappyMe]

540. I agree. nt

[Hassin Bin Sober]

11. Is that you on the left?

[Taverner]

17. So you advocate curtailing freedom of speech. Gotchya.

Good luck with that...

:eyes:

[Remember Me]

132. Gotta protect that supply, don't we? I'm always amused when the Free Speech

defense surfaces. It's so ridiculous. There's a lot of curtailing that could -- and should -- go on that has nothing to do with government censorship.

Of COURSE we want to curtail access to pornography. Women will NEVER be free and equal, women's rights never fully protected, until women are no longer depicted in debasing, depraved images in the media. And that's the MORALITY of it right there: it's misogynist. So don't your or anyone else go trying to pull a morality defense as well because it doesn't fly.

[The Doctor.]

220. That's right! It's wrong to depict men as sex objects!

Ugh! And when they're tied up and dominated? It's all about making men second-class citizens!

And get this; Male porn stars aren't paid nearly as much as their equally talented female counterparts! The anti-male objectification and discrimination must end!

[Warren DeMontague]

394. Yes, Pay Parity.

It's about time!

[Flubadubya]

506. Well, men can go "gay-for-pay"...

and make has much as women in straight porn. :silly:

[Chan790]

286. Appeals to faux misogyny are tedious. n/t

[defendandprotect]

524. You mean like the sex trade in women and young males -- rising with the RW?

Boring for you, eh?

[whathehell]

742. Oh, really?...What a shame....I find appeals to sick male sexuality more than "tedious"

I find them Demeaning, heartbreaking and intimidating....so screw your Tedium.

[Warren DeMontague]

786. "screw your tedium"

Kinky!

[Warren DeMontague]

393. You must have just stepped off the spaceship, because short of total global technological collapse

you're never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever going to be able to get rid of all the pictures of sexy nekkid women (and men) out there. That Genie isn't going back in the bottle, as much as it may pain you to realize it.

So, no, there's no "gotta protect that supply" going on here. There IS a real objection to half-wit attempts by some people to tell consenting adults that they can't watch films of other consenting adults fucking.

How about you explain, precisely, how you imagine you're going to 'curtail access to pornography' in ways that have 'nothing to do with government censorship'?

[reggie the dog]

413. most of us men dont like depraved images of women

nor do we like debasing women, now watching a woman seduce a man and watching them make love to each other on the other hand.... i find that the net makes it so if i do watch porn i dont have to watch scripted produced stuff, i watch amerature videos, videos swingers make or vids people make of them, their wife/girlfriend and another man or women having sex.

[defendandprotect]

525. Making porn featuring "wives, girlfriends" isn't degrading .... ??? ROFl

most of us men dont like depraved images of women

nor do we like debasing women, now watching a woman seduce a man and watching them make love to each other on the other hand....

i find that the net makes it so if i do watch porn i dont have to watch scripted produced stuff,

i watch amerature videos, videos swingers make or vids people make of them, their wife/girlfriend and another man or women having sex.

[reggie the dog]

568. did it ever occur to you that it may be the womans idea?

or that some women and men like the idea of others seeing them having sex?

[Warren DeMontague]

597. no, unless you think sex itself is inherently 'degrading'

which, I think, is the crux of the issue here.

[MadrasT]

457. Oh, bullshit.

You are welcome to speak for yourself, but don't project your beliefs onto an entire gender, please. Victims are created by their own attitudes. I am not a "victim" of anything because I am female and because pornography exists.

[defendandprotect]

527. Nothing like a female supporting the violence of porn --

Of COURSE we want to curtail access to pornography. Women will NEVER be free and equal, women's rights never fully protected, until women are no longer depicted in debasing, depraved images in the media. And that's the MORALITY of it right there: it's misogynist. So don't your or anyone else go trying to pull a morality defense as well because it doesn't fly.


Any limits on porn should be accomplished thru education, consciousness raising, enlightenment --

Ignoring the negative impact that organized porn has on female equality is dangerous for all

women.

We understand the exploitation involved in capitalism -- from there it should be rather easy to

understand the exploitation of women in general -- and in the propaganda of organized porn

specifically.

[polly7]

543. You know what? Women are allowed to enjoy sex. Women are

allowed to work in whatever profession they please and earn money at it ..... for some, VERY GOOD money. Equality ... freedom of choice, and until you can show women are being forced into anything, which obviously would be illegal and should be taken care of by laws, your claim of promoting inequality doesn't make sense at all. Unless you think sex itself is demeaning for women. You appear to want to turn back the clock imo, and that's what's scary.

[defendandprotect]

553. Pornography isn't sex -- it's masturbation for many --

Unless you think that a video is a relationship?


Someday women may be permitted to work in any profession they please --

Many in the porn industry are forced to perform -- and we've heard many of those

stories --


How much money would it take for a woman to subject hereself to multiple pentrations

of her body? Many of these women are suffering body damage.


Obviously, you have no idea of the increase in violence in internet porn --

If you're truly interested in the subject, try this --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2278376&mesg_id=2286957

[sibelian]

768. So now masturbation's bad too.

You disturb me.

[seabeyond]

782. i went into the post to find where it was said masturbation is bad. you know what... NOwhere

did the poster say masturbation is bad. is that really an honest way to argue an issue.

[sibelian]

792. It seems a reasonable inference to me

from the context.

[seabeyond]

795. no. you are wrong. you dont get to make things up. it is a cheap and lazy and dishonest

manner in discussing am issue.

if you think it might be, you might ASK the person if that is what they re saying. otherwise obvious ploy.

[Codeine]

729. Many women love porn and sex.

You don't have issues -- you have an entire subscription.

[whathehell]

734. I'd bet that more women love sex than love porn....They're not necessarily "go-togethers"

and I'd bet healthy women who DO love porn,

don't like that which degrades them physically

and/or verbally as "dirty sluts".

...Just a guess.:eyes:

[seabeyond]

735. from this thread it sounds like we are being told can't have sex, good sex, sex often, UNLESS

you have porn.

wow

didnt know

all these years enjoying my sex life

and without porn

go figure.

oh, and edit.... impossible to masturbate without porn. from what we are told. lol lol

[whathehell]

738. Of course...Even though studies show that most women in porn AND prostitution

were sexually abused as children

but hey...We can't let something like THAT that ruin the party, can we?


http://www.bing.com/search?q=most+porn+stars+abused+as+children&form=HPDTDF&pc=HPDTDF&src=IE-SearchBox

[seabeyond]

739. ya... and that

is the bottom line sick of it all.

[whathehell]

741. Sure...I mean what's the importance of dignity and quality of life for women

compared to the importance of a male's erection:shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

832. a LOT of women like porn. Some women like gay porn, so they can see 2 dudes together.

People get their kicks in all sorts of different ways, sort of like how some people enjoy adopting many, many different identities.

Humans are fascinating, huh?

[reggie the dog]

572. how is it demeaning to show people making love?

having sex is something normal for people from about age 14 up so really what is the problem? not all por debases women. simply showing half naked men and women having sex to orgasm is not demeaning.

[Warren DeMontague]

610. I've asked "anti porn because its violent/degrading" folks to give a concrete example of a depiction

of an actual sex act between 2 naked consenting adults that they would NOT consider "violent/degrading"

the answer? There is none. Apparently, it's impossible to explicitly show sex or a naked woman without a subtext of violence or degradation, period.

[reggie the dog]

635. does violent or degrading porn exist, yes, is all porn violent or

degrading, i say no.

"rape" porn, "incest" "brutal" porn are the kind of stuff i stay away from as those ideas make me go limp. that some men are excited from this kind of stuff worries me. what in the hell turns people on about brutality, rape, incest and the like?

i have "porn" that i will never show anyone but i do have photos of my ex wife having an orgasm while we were having sex, naked photos etc and even with the divorce they will never go up on the net, but i hardly see the harm in this kind of porn, i even know people who like the idea of being watched who film themselves and put it on the net and it is a mutal thing in their couple so i really dont understand why the conversation isnt about the violent/degrading kinds of porn, the idea that being paid for sex (as a prostitute or porn star) is degrading ect (while still acknowledging that other kind of porn exists) should be the center of discussion

i think that as men are losing their role as "sole bread winner" they are feeling lost and lashing out at the women in their lives (who they can actually still have power over) as opposed to the people who are making the middle class dissapear and making the poor poorer.

[Warren DeMontague]

703. violent crime is down. I don't see all this lashing out, actually.

the angriest people I encounter are tea party Jesus freaks and anti-science godbag cranks who are pissed because the Earth is no longer flat and it's not 1954.

[whathehell]

779. Awww....That's sweet, unfortunately

it's also simplistic to the point of being as irrelevant

as a 1950's Playboy.

No, not ALL porn is violent, but TOO MUCH of it IS...and if you were really

interested in being OBJECTIVE on the subject, you might actually want to check out the

reality of that fact, as well as that of the studies that have found

that the majority of porn "actresses", like prostitutes,

are victims of childhood sex abuse.

[sibelian]

762. Are you saying that pictures of women

lead to a change in perceptions of women?

[banned from Kos]

21. Porn stars who contract HIV is much much smaller than that of the general population

% wise, of course.

They test before every scene now. And the DNA test - the real time one.

[defendandprotect]

30. Can only think we need more of population working in porn in order to save them from HIV -- !! ROFL

[Warren DeMontague]

429. Delete

[Warren DeMontague]

430. Yesssssssssss!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[arbusto_baboso]

125. Shut up! Don't confuse us with facts!

After all, we have an axe to grind herte, and a supportable logical argument backed up with data just ruin the whiole damn thing!

[redqueen]

126. Source for that claim please. (nt)

[arbusto_baboso]

128. Haven't found the HIV data YET, but....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_in_the_pornographic_film_industry#2.4_.25_rate_of_STDs

"2.4 % rate of STDsAIM Healthcare Foundation has stated that the rate of STDs in adult film actors in production companies that follow the AIM testing protocols is 2.4%, which they state is "considerably lower than the average for sexually active young people with similar demographics."<7>

[La Lioness Priyanka]

121. people not in porn get hiv too. nt

[redqueen]

130. Not as an occupational hazard.

Not to mention I did state 'other problems', none of which I'm sure very many people here wish to consider.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

133. maybe not as an occupational hazard, but its not a hazard beyond the norm

doctors risk it when operating on patients who are HIV positive.

you said "other problems" but didnt specify, had you specified, i am sure people would have responded

who am i to tell other men/women what they can and cannot do with their bodies?

[seabeyond]

135. to address an issue is telling others what they can and cannot do? or educating oneself. nt

[redqueen]

139. As has been said repeatedly...

no one is telling anyone what to do.

Just stating that porn harms, and naively thinking that one could discuss those reasons, is not the same thing as calling for a ban.

The attempt to reframe the debate (e.g. as one of free speech, or one where people are dictating what others can and can't do), is a very old tactic in disrupting and derailing discussion.

[seabeyond]

142. not to mention, we dictate what people can do readily. vaccinations. no sex with animals.

no sex with children.

we do have our lines. but people make this comment, dictate to others.... no, wouldnt do that. as we do it all over the place

NOT THAT I DARE TO SUGGEST BANNING PORN. PROMISE.

[redqueen]

164. Yep... we do it all the time.

I hope enough people see Miss Representation. I don't think many or near enough have seen Tough Guise.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

255. thats because children and animals cant enter contract

we demand vaccinations to preserve the life of kids and somewhat for public health issues

we restrict sexual choices often for no good reason and porn/prostitution happen to be in that area, in my opinion

[redqueen]

256. Porn is obviously something we're just going to disagree about...

however regarding prostitution, I'm curious if you've read anything about the studies which show that the demand for illegal prostitution (underage, no condoms, abusive) goes up in areas where it is legal. So the idea that it's better for sex workers when it's legal has been shown not to be the case, since all these harmful practices apparently go up due to the increasing number of people who consider it acceptable to buy sex. Sweden's approach to this has not solved all of the problems which go along with prostitution, but it has been so successful that a few other countries have already adopted Sweden's model and others are looking into it as well.

I also hope you've seen or at least heard of the documentary called Miss Representation,which focuses on the media's representation of women and the consequences of the same. It's very much worth seeing IMO.

[seabeyond]

257. there are always good reasons for the line on things we like. i can also agree with you

that we restrict for no good reason. i will also disagree that laws against prostitution is one that is for no good reason. the countries that have legalized prostitution have a significant increase in the very issues they thought they would reduce. sweden has come up with a new model. decriminalize prostitution and illegal for jons to buy a prostitute. prostitution has significantly dropped. other countries that legalized are considering swedens approach. demark being one.

and i am not seeing anyone suggesting any kind of laws against porn. besides a certain age to view and no child porn, which again are lines. albeit, good lines, imo.

[JDPriestly]

298. Making the person who pays the criminal rather than the person who is paid

in prostitution cases is a good example.

But then what do you do if the payment is in the form of, say a job, or a job for a relative of the prostitute, or jewelry or just very expensive food at a restaurant? How do you define payment?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

446. i am actually ok with swedens model. infact i would support a similar one here

in poorer countries, where prostitution feeds families, i am not sure i would support swedens model.

i am against conflating issues. is hiv a problem, yes? is it enough of a problem in porn, not really. so if you have a legit objection to porn, bring that up. dont conflate the health risk, as we take those risks regularly and expect other people to do so (doctors, nurses etc)

[seabeyond]

452. i don't have an issue with sweden either

and i have considered what you said about the poorer countries that have no other option. it is not a pretty picture. when considering the legalization though, and the ready comment that it would fix all ills, i did think to do the research and educate myself before declaring that was the answer. i was surprised what i found on the issue. it taught me not to assume a result. to look into things. now i see so many people throw legalization out there without any knowledge of action/reaction and that bothers me. it doesnt fix the issues. so why blindly go forward.

as far as the issue for porn participants. i am clueless, so i dont discuss it.

[JDPriestly]

282. We protect our children because they cannot protect themselves

and they are not mature enough to understand the effects of their decisions or actions on themselves or others.

[RaleighNCDUer]

395. Yes, the best debates have only one side. Got it. nt

[defendandprotect]

554. Debates have many sides -- but "free speech" isn't an excuse for porn industry violence ....

isn't one of them any more than Citizens United is free speech!

[Occulus]

353. I smell false concern.

Doctors and nurses- in fact, all medical personnel- are exposed to that and much much more as an occupational hazard.

If they can accept the risk, why can't the people who make pornography?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

440. also these are all risks everyone is aware of. its not that its a hidden risk.

i think this country should have a conversation about owning their own bodies.

[defendandprotect]

555. Then you're unfamiliar with the violence of internet porn these days ... and the abuse

being inflicted on the bodies of the women --

Catch up with some Gail Dinisen videos --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2278376&mesg_id=2286957

[AngkorWot]

129. Because HIV is caused by pornography.

"AIDS is God's cure for porn stars."

[defendandprotect]

556. Right -- it's a healthy industry -- good for society -- especially 11 year old male viewers !!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2278376&mesg_id=2286957

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phleshdef]

239. Actually yea, ignore them. Because its really none of your business.

There are a lot of jobs with occupational hazards that far exceed that of the HIV rate of porn stars. Life in general is full of them, occupational or not.

Regardless, these people are consenting adults and they all know the dangers of not working with an operation that does responsible testing. No one can legally force them into it. People should have the freedom to have sex with whoever they want, given that its legal and consenting, on camera or off camera. Prostitution should be legal for the same reasons. Its no ones damn business other than the people involved.

[defendandprotect]

557. It's presumption that these are "consenting" adults -- you have no way of knowing that ....

No one can legally force them into it

Wow -- you've missed a lot of history!

Again -- pornography isn't "sex" -- unless you think videos are relationships? :rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

606. forcing someone to have sex without consent, either on or off camera, is a crime

so, yes, the presumption IS that these are consenting adults, no quotes.

If you've got proof to the contrary, back it up.

[phleshdef]

726. I haven't missed anything. Its illegal to force someone to have sex for any reason.

You've apparently missed a lot of modern laws.

[sibelian]

769. No, the problem here is you and your presumption of the absence of consent.

Looking at what you've posted all over this thread is actually quite frightening.

[Puglover]

254. OMG!

:rofl: Now YOUR post made me laugh out loud.

[backscatter712]

345. Yep, here come the Thought Police.

Your concern is noted.

[whathehell]

842. Bullshit.

Were you imaginative enough to create sexual imagery

in your mind and keep it there, no one could know or care.

[DissedByBush]

387. Action movies are bad too

Stuntmen get hurt, and even killed!

[liberalhistorian]

388. I guess some people just have no sense of humor

whatsoever. And last I checked, no one was putting a gun to the actor's heads and forcing them to participate.

[reggie the dog]

419. i think, that like with prostitution, the economy does that

rather than beg for money to buy food many people go into prostitution or porn, now of course others choose porn or prostitution instead of another job them have out of preference.

[defendandprotect]

559. And many "choose" the military -- but we understand that's not really CHOICE . . .

when the poor have so few options in a depression!

[reggie the dog]

569. like i said the economy forces them

there is little choice, choice one sex industy, choice 2 sell drugs, choice 3 steal????

[Incitatus]

415. No one forces porn stars to do porn.

A lot of people have sex with strangers and risk getting STDs.

Do you know what the great thing about America is?

Do you?

[defendandprotect]

560. No one forces young males to do the military -- !! Nothing except poverty -- !!

And a depression!

[okieinpain]

454. you're kidding right. n/t.

[Name removed]

481. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Rex]

492. What the hell are you talking about?

Please don't cross post about another topic, thanks or start your own thread. Nice try...but fail.

[Bucky]

902. killjoy

[redqueen]

920. .

[seabeyond]

8. yes. this is the pretty woman argument wrapping up the issue with a pretty pink bow

can't be honest about the issue, just snarky/funny/cute and ignore. hmmmm. repugs about science?

[femrap]

117. Have of this thread is

on my Ignore List.

Some of the so-called Leftie dudes just don't get it. Most of the pron is violence and exploitation of women...and eventually the dudes have a hard time forming relationships with real women...as the study from the NY Times Magazine stated: "Real women are just bad pron stars."

Our culture is misogynist. It's a patriarchy.

Gee if a women could make $400/day working a job with her clothes on, would she still want to strip for the same amount?

I won't even this thread....most of the dudes have made up their minds....let them jerk off until flaccidity becomes eternal.

[seabeyond]

123. shit... japan 43% of men 19-34 think sex is icky.... jacking off to porn is the way to go. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

403. ***

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEmJ-VWPDM4

[reggie the dog]

421. where did you read that? i would be interested to read more

is that a self confidence issue? not wanting kids and not understanding birth control? fear of aids???? lack of knowing how to seduce? personally i would choose actual sex over porn any day and if i do look at porn its when i havent had sex for a while.

[Remember Me]

140. I think it's all exploitation of women -- well, except for the gay men porn,

And in that case it's probably exploitation of the male actors/participants.

You just can't get around the fact that it's debasing, or the fact that the vast majority (if not 100% in reality) come to that "profession" because of having been psychologically wounded around sexual issues (e.g., sexually abused as children). This just keeps those old wounds firmly in place.

[seabeyond]

145. this is the game played. it is well known and discussed the porn is to entertain men

and they like being the dominant and subjugate the woman. ergo, the porn follows that pattern. this is not a secret. but we like to "pretend" otherwise.

[Warren DeMontague]

400. many psychologists believe it's important to have a rich fantasy life

some people imagine that they're pirates, or space travelers...

or, like, pretending to be a whole bunch of people when you're really only one.

[crunch60]

426. Now that's funny! nt

[The Doctor.]

447. Boom.

It's funny how some people have their minds made up based on their feelings rather than on reality.

Want to try a neat trick?

Take every single one of their arguments and transpose the correctly corresponding phrases. You'll see an interesting pattern.

Porn = The gay lifestyle
Women = families/children/marriage

Notice how every single argument they make is nearly identical in method and lack of substance to the arguments of homophobes. They'll cite studies that show correlations without controls, they'll give personal anecdotes/fables, and in every single case they are emotionally involved.


Let's look at a couple of posts in this thread;

hm. and since anytime anyone addresses teh harm in the gay lifestyle, pro gay lifestyle insists the person is saying ban

when no person has, effectively shuts up all conversation.

we cannot even say that the gay lifestyle is harmful without OUTRAGE at a banning. regardless of saying not advocating banning, banning is continually used int he argument.

so no

Just a warm up, they get better!

The important distinction is HATE speech -- We've ended it for everyone but families -- !! Updated at 4:09 PM

Homosexuality is HATE speech vs families--

And......

No one is seeking to ban the gay lifestyle -- that would only complicate things further --

We need to EDUCATE the public about the gay lifestyle and its harmful effects.

Oh, here's a gem;


Love this post.

So many people can't even see the degradation that is promoted in the vast majority of the gay lifestyle. It's just invisible.


Now, try to find a way to do something similar with people who are not 'pornophobes'. Guess what? It can't be done without running into hard facts that destroy the attempts to do so. Try transposing words that condone pedophilia or something... it doesn't work.

That's a very strong indication that there is a reasonable side and an unreasonable side to this issue. The ones on the side of reason have reality on their side. The ones that do not have emotions and very poor substance.

[hifiguy]

482. Whoa. Great post, The Doctor.

A trenchant and elegant analysis. :toast:

[LadyHawkAZ]

862. I wish I could rec this.

I'm surprised no one's come along screaming "How DARE you blah blah completely different blah blah" yet.

[reggie the dog]

422. i must be strange

i am a man and i have long hair and like it when women dominate me, i like being the subjugated one.....

[The Doctor.]

451. And you continue to think you are not a misandrist while bashing men.

No one here who tolerates pornography wants women to be 'degraded'. They believe women are realized adults who have the right to choose whatever profession they want.

The only gender-bashing going on here is from the pornophobes.


You do realize that the 'men in your life' you so love still do things that other men do when you're not around, right? You do realize that men can watch porn and still be very kind, gentle souls, right?
You do realize that some of the men you know watch porn, but they just don't tell you because they know how you'll react, right?

[seabeyond]

464. Men spend $10 billion on pornography a year. 11,000 new pornographic films are made every year. And

Men spend $10 billion on pornography a year. 11,000 new pornographic films are made every year. And in those films, women are not people.




I am not suggesting that in every scene in mainstream pornography such expressions of pain are evident. And I acknowledge that I cannot know exactly what the women in these films were feeling, physically or emotionally. I do not presume to speak for them, or for women in pornography, or for women in general. But her is what Belladonna, one of the women who appeared in “Two in the Seat #3,” told a television interviewer about such scenes: “You have to really prepare physically and mentally for it. I mean, I go through a process from the night before. I stop eating at 5:00. I do, you know, like two enemas. The next morning I don’t eat anything. It’s so draining on your body.” Women’s experiences no doubt vary, but Belladonna’s experience hardly seems idiosyncratic.

*

This analysis is not news to the industry. As Jerome Tanner put it during a pornography directors’ roundtable discussion featured in Adult Video News, “People just want it harder, harder, and harder, because like Ron said, what are you gonna do next?” Another director, Jules Jordan, was blunt about his task: “ne of the things about today’s porn and the extreme market, the gonzo market, so many fans want to see so much more extreme stuff that I’m always trying to figure out ways to do something different. But it seems everybody wants to see a girl doing a d.p. now or a gangbang. For certain girls, that’s great, and I like to see that for certain people, but a lot of fans are becoming a lot more demanding about wanting to see the more extreme stuff. It’s definitely brought porn somewhere, but I don’t know where it’s headed from there.”

*

We live in a culture in which rape and battery continue at epidemic levels. And in this culture, men are masturbating to orgasm in front of television and computer screens that present them sex with increasing levels of callousness and cruelty toward women. And no one seems to be terribly concerned about this. Right-wing opponents of pornography offer a moralistic critique that cannot help us find solutions, because typically they endorse male dominance, albeit not these manifestations of it. Some segments of the feminist movement, particularly the high-theory crowd in academic life, want us to believe that the growing acceptance of pornography is a sign of expanding sexual equality and freedom. Meanwhile, feminist critics of pornography have been marginalized in political and intellectual arenas. And all the while, the pornographers are trudging off to the bank with bags of money.

*

I am not suggesting all men use pornography, or that all men who use pornography want material in which women are hurt and humiliated, or that all men who use pornography are bound to then want to hurt and humiliate women. I am simply saying that much of the pornography in the United States records scenes of women being hurt and humiliated; that men masturbate to orgasm to those images; and that those men are not deviants but are acting on the cultural norms that are widely taught. And I am suggesting that these facts should matter to us; they should scare us.

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/pornography&cruelty.htm

_________________________

you want to know my perspective on porn, my concern, what i feel, this man pretty much states it exactly how i see it. as far as your continual need to make me misandrist because i feel porn is harmful and i dare to say out loud that mainstream porn is directed toward men in a way it subjugates women as male bashing is wrong. you are welcome to that belief. but it is wrong. i see this in a certain manner that may not conform to you views. i am allowed. i am not alone. and it does not mean i hate men. there are issues with women i can be honest about, i do not need to create an illusion or hide from them, and it still does not mean i hate women.

if you are truly open minded in a discussion of porn without name calling and a need to blindly defend, i am all for using my time to do it. otherwise, i find it a waste of time to open up and discuss this topic, aside from a short comment of agreeing or disagreeing. spend the time to read this article. i think he tries to be fair and balanced. i think he has tried to be objective on the matter.

[The Doctor.]

508. You paint men as 'bad' because they watch porn. Not because they are bad.

You have utterly unsupported opinions about porn being 'harmful' that are no more substantive than the arguments that 'teh gay lifestyle' is harmful. You believe that all men who watch porn (which is a vast majority) do so because they want to subjugate women.

I could go and find all the exact same anecdotes and pure conjecture "proving" that homosexuality is harmful as well.

Get a peer-reviewed study that demonstrates porn is harmful, and I'll take it seriously.

Meanwhile, you are most certainly a misandrist. You treat the desire to view sex as 'bad', and since 99.9% of men share that desire, you have personally judged nearly all men as perverts whether you admit it or not. The measure is to put the shoe on the other foot. I know damn well that if I picked one trait that the vast majority of women share and described it as 'harmful' without a shred of real proof, any rational person would call me a misogynist.

You've done exactly that here. If you do not see yourself as a misandrist, stop treating men who watch porn as somehow 'evil' or 'weak'.

That you can only see porn as demeaning to women while at the same time ignoring the fact that men appear in pornography also, and often enough as 'sex objects', also shows your double standard.

Let's add to that the very high percent of porn that has no men in it with women depicted engaging in mutual intimacy.

Your problem is not that 'porn degrades women' because only a small percentage of it shows men and women being degraded. Your problem is with MEN that watch it, which is 70% of them.

Outside of your immediate environment, you see men as horribly flawed because of a tendency that they are BORN with that tends to hurt no one, yet you choose to see that innate tendency as 'harmful'.

That. Is. Misandry.

Period.

[seabeyond]

509. ah, doctor.

take care of you.

:hug:

[The Doctor.]

526. There you go with the 'passive aggressive' again.

Doesn't work on me. ;)

Big Hug! :hug:

[Warren DeMontague]

583. I'll summarize: Take speculation, present it as accepted fact. Take psychobabble term, do the same.

"in those films, women are not people"

See, that doesn't MEAN anything. And if women "in those films" are not actual "people", what are they, then?


...Perhaps they are a surprising number of fictitious identities dreamed up for the purpose of creating an amplifying echo effect around one person's minority opinion on the internet?


hmmmm.

:shrug:

[seabeyond]

609. I'll summarize: really when pro porn tell us that we want to ban, because we put no concern out

and we actually take the time to engage in a discussion

a big ole, fuck you, is what we get.

i get that. it is how it always has been. and i am proved right once, now.


"As with any political issue, successful strategies of resistance to injustice and oppression must be collective. There cannot be personal solutions to political problems. If we avoid engaging political problems in public and hope to make the best of things in private, we fail. Pornographers know that, which is why they want to make sure no collective remedies for women (through legislation or the courts) are considered, let alone enacted. But they also would prefer that none of these issues even be discussed in public. In recent years, their strategies for cutting off that discussion have been remarkably successful. When we criticize pornography, we typically are told we are either sexually dysfunctional prudes who are scared of sex, or people who hate freedom, or both. That works to keep many people quiet. The pornographers desperately want to keep people from asking the simple question: What kind of society would turn the injury and degradation of some into sexual pleasure for others? What kind of people does that make us -- the men who learn to find pleasure this way, and the women who learn to accept it?

The pornographers want to label any collective discussion of the meaning of intimacy and sexuality as repression. They want to derail any talk about a sexual ethic. They, of course, have a sexual ethic: Anything goes. On the surface that seems to be freedom: Consenting adults should be free to choose. I agree they should. But in a society in which power is not equally distributed, “anything goes” translates into “anything goes for men, and some women and children will suffer for it.” Any society that claims to take freedom seriously must engage in a discussion about power, and take steps to equalize power. That means taking steps to end men’s domination of women.

There are many controversial questions in the pornography debate: What is the nature of the relationship between sexually explicit media and behavior? Under what conditions can the consent of people involved in acts that may be detrimental to their own well-being be questioned? What harms of speech acts can trump free-speech concerns?

But there should be nothing controversial about this: To criticize pornography is not repressive. To speak about what one knows and feels and dreams is, in fact, liberating. We are not free if we aren’t free to talk about our desire for an egalitarian intimacy and sexuality that would reject pain and humiliation.

That is not prudishness or censorship. It is at attempt to claim the best parts of our common humanity -- love, caring, empathy, solidarity. To do that is not to limit anyone. It is to say that people matter more than the profits of pornographers and the pleasure of pornography consumers. It is to say, simply, that women count as much as men.'


cause i am sure you did not actually read what the man wrote.

[Warren DeMontague]

615. Robert Jensen is a religious right fundy pretending to be a progressive IMHO

And he is just one of many people with opaque motivations justifying their lies and mis (not 'miss') representations.

See, he's a big phony. And with big phonies, eventually they get found out. They trip themselves up, sooner or later.

You may disagree with me, but I am what I am and what I appear to be. There's only one of me here. I don't piously spout the rules at people while I'm breaking several of the biggest ones.

I don't have time for phonies, or for people who are so insecure they need to play games to pretend that their voices are more numerous than they actually are.

[seabeyond]

618. he is a man, professor at a liberal universty, has study for a while now, no religious comments.

no religious ties on the site and STILL

it is not good enough. raise that bar so damn high that no one can jump it.

ya

that is reasonable.

[Warren DeMontague]

620. you know exactly what I'm talking about

that genie isn't going back in the bottle. Cat's out of the bag.

[seabeyond]

622. yup... reasonable. discussion. that is the pro porn people. actually there is one that actually

thinks. without losing ground. but thinks.

[Warren DeMontague]

626. people implies plural. person implies singular.

1=1. 1 does not equal 3, or 5, or 10 or 20.

perhaps we should meditate on it, a while. What is it 'people' say when they meditate?

"OM"?


...dig it? :think:

[seabeyond]

628. clueless. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

636. busted. nt

[reggie the dog]

574. what about amerature porn made by couples?

i would think that those women are voyeurs and like to be watched otherwise why would they make such vids?

[snooper2]

154. you typed "Have", I believe you meant "Half"

Unless you can have of a thread on ignore. Is that a new feature? :P

[seabeyond]

159. stay away from my posts....

typing nazi. i swear you want to deprive us of freedom of speech.

edit... had to hurry and edit a typing error. typning to typing

[snooper2]

172. I was responding to post #118 by a user handle called "femrap"

But :hi: anyway!

[seabeyond]

183. ya, i know

i was teasin

[snooper2]

196. lol...

[Warren DeMontague]

398. Oooops.

wait. What just happened?




Bookmarked.

[Warren DeMontague]

399. there are so many, aren't there?

honestly, I don't know how you keep track of them all.

[reggie the dog]

420. the men attracted to violent porn have the problem

do you have a problem with those of us who like watching amerature porn made by couples who like to put their sex sessions up on the net? personally while not into full out s and m i do like it when women dominate me a bit, yes i like my girlfriend to dress up in lingere or sexy latex outfits from time to time but i also seduce her and make love to her when she is wearing sweatpants and a t shirt, but i am not one of the "distrubed" men that is attracted to violent porn.

[femrap]

501. TMI

Why you feel it necessary to discuss your private business is beyond me.

You're ignored. I don't want to read it.

[reggie the dog]

570. i didnt tell you the womans name nor my name

just an adult talking about their sexual preferences on a thread related to porn and sexuality. i dont see why you need to ignore me for that. i guess you probably dont want to know that i have put on a dress and makeup for my girlfriend once as she wanted to see what i would look like 'as a girl'....

[Major Nikon]

908. What about women who are attracted to violent porn?

People from both sexes like to give and receive ass whippings and all manners of other things. I don't really understand it, but I'm not going to condemn it. Different strokes and all. What consenting adults do or watch in the privacy of their own homes is their own business.

[The Doctor.]

438. Actually, masturbation is very healthy.

Not only does it reduce the likely hood of prostate cancer, but it helps maintain a healthy sex drive.

[Name removed]

495. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[femrap]

503. Too bad so

many need perverted pron to get off.

Yeah right...a doctor. And the benefits for women? Or are you so self-centered that women don't have a sex drive. Women like it more than men...orgasm w/o the chance of pregnancy.

Rememer the Surgeon General who was forced to resign over the mentioning that masturbation should be taught in Sex Ed? I liked her...can't remember her name. This was under the Clinton Admin.

[The Doctor.]

510. 'Jocelyn Elders'

Masturbation is great for women too. You seem to be a misandrist as well. 'Women like it more than men'?

Really?

Personally, I'm not into 'perverted pron'. I like the kind which shows some real intimacy and genuine adoration. But I also don't pass judgment, the way you so easily do, on people that have different tastes.

So the 30% of women that watch porn... are they just as bad as the men?

[femrap]

531. Doc....I gave

a legitimate reason for women liking masturbation....orgasm and NO PREGNANCY. Getting pregnant is a real buzz killer, but I guess you don't understand that.

I was discussing the perv pron.

I don't hate all men....and I don't hate all humans either. Just look around and see what some humans have done to this once nice planet.

I do detest patriarchy...you boyz gotta a great gig.

I'm not taking your bait. You have a good life. I won't be reading you again.

[The Doctor.]

533. So only women have a 'legitimate reason' to enjoy masturbation?

I'm quite glad you've decided to ignore me. I won't be wasting my time on worthless opinions.

[reggie the dog]

578. she ignored me for saying that i like women to dominate me

from time to time....and that i would ask my girlfriend to wear lingere or latex outfits from time to time... oh noes.... a couple that enjoys sex together....the horror

[The Doctor.]

603. There are many around here

who can easily be classified as 'unhinged'.

Serious emotional turmoil gets in the way of any rational thought. It's kind of amusing, and kind of sad.

[reggie the dog]

631. any of us can come unhinged

plus sometimes we really just do not see things in the same way as others. i have never put anyone on ignore though, by principle, because i never know when i am going to be convinced i was wrong, i used to think ron paul was an ok guy but thanks to not ignoring people here i have seen the error in my ways.

i think porn can have negative ramifications for society but mostly from not talking about what kind of porn people are watching. if people are attracted to "rape porn" or degrading porn that says a lot about our society and our values/lack of empathy and should be examined. having said that i do look at photos of women in lingere and watch some amerature porn when i play with myself (my favorite porn is when my girlfriend lets me take photos of her that are for my eyes only)

[The Doctor.]

663. True, but some people are always emotion-driven.

They don't introspect, self-observe, or make any attempt to regard reason. They are completely stuck in an emotion-based perspective and cannot and will not listen to any facts, reason, or logic that impedes their views in the slightest.

They are simply fanatics. The man-haters will always see women as victims of men and men as oppressors of women. They will never even entertain the notion that women have privilege in some sectors of society and victimize men on a regular basis. I've tested some of them, and they are simply incapable of acknowledging that reality. Your admission that you enjoy being mildly submissive on occasion is difficult for them to reconcile with their concrete view of men as aggressive, domineering beasts.

We, otoh, (and because they'll assume otherwise, I don't just mean 'men') understand that it is still a man's world, but we make distinctions and examine issues from a greater perspective and on a case-by-case basis. I rarely let emotions take over my reason. That does not mean that I do not get emotional over issues.

This issue is one that gives some people an excuse to vilify men. What we are seeing here is little different than the anti-choicers who are absolutely convinced that abortion is evil and those who seek it must therefore be wicked creatures.

Sounds like you and your girl have some fun together. I'm always about accommodation. Heh... wonder what they would say if I mentioned that I've had two girlfriends, one a PhD, the other an English teacher, who loved to be dominated... and I obliged them. Well.

There's some red meat right there. :evilgrin:

They read that, they'll make all kinds of judgments about me without any other information. They won't care to know that the vast majority of my relationships (including the above) were about making the women in my life happy. Nope, that won't register with them at all.

Doesn't matter though, there's nothing they can accuse me of which has any basis in reality. So I really don't care beyond feeling a little sad that they're trapped as they are.

[reggie the dog]

577. birth control sort of reduces that pregancy risk

as do condoms, do you think men want to have kids every time they have sex? that is what all that safe sex stuff is about.

[polly7]

511. I've read this thread twice and honestly don't know what the problem

is. Women fought hard and long for equal rights, which includes the right to participate in any legal damn thing they please, and even profit from it. What bothers me 100X more is the stereo-typing of women we're bombarded with daily that portrays the ideal woman as some botoxed barbie-without-a brain that young girls are killing themselves trying to emulate. And this is on prime-time TV, unlike porn, which has to be actively sought out. Choice.

[seabeyond]

512. agree with you. but this thread seems to have gone exclusively to film porn

objectification is a whole other set of issues. and i agree, very much a problem in todays society.

[femrap]

528. Obviously you

haven't read about the pron that is being distributed to the population. That is your 'choice' as you call it.

I wish I had the 'choice' not to have to endure a patriarchal system whose MSM is 24/7 anti-women and all its other heinous rules as applied to women. Just look at the Herman Cain fiasco and see how those who were 'allegedly' harassed/assaulted were treated.

Let's just take one segment of patriarchy, the 'gentlemen's' clubs. Do you realize the Strippers/Dancers have to pay everyone from their tips....the bartender, the bouncers, everyone. The women are Independent Contractors. The owners of the club pay them and everyone else NOTHING. They just provide the building and booze. Great patriarchy set-up, don't you think?

I have a strip joint about 2 miles from my house and I have to drive by for certain errands...it's right across from McDonald's for one thing. I see the Dancers/Strippers outside the back of the building with their babies in strollers being fed. Oh...and the hot thing now is to watch pregnant women dance and strip. Cool, huh?

Seems like the dudes have all the 'choices.'

Wanna be in a pron movie...DP is mandatory. Google it for yourself.

If a woman has rent due, a child to feed....there really aren't that many 'choices' out there especially as the cost of food and gas has increased in price so dramatically. Wages in many women-dominated fields have in fact declined. The Rich Boyz enjoy watching women struggle for a decent life. Thank Goddess for OWS where their General Assembly has 2 Reps from each Congressional Districs...one female and one male.

And young women wearing 5" stilettos are going to, at least, maim themselves.

I have long been ridiculed and spit upon here at DU for my Feminist stance. Most of the other strong and vocal women on this board were banned during the 2008 Primary for their support of HRC. I wasn't banned only because I refused to visit this supposed 'progressive' board until AFTER the primary. The hatred for women was palpable. I had no idea that our culture had become so hateful, cruel, and willfully ignorant....but that is their 'choice.'

And just so we're clear, I was writing in response to the OP. I only read those posts that respond to me. It's rare I do read an entire thread...of late there are just too many

:dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: around.

If you have anything further you want to say to me...I'd prefer a PM. Otherwise all the boyz' gangs come out and behave like a pack of feral dogs.

[reggie the dog]

579. non industrial porn does not have DP in all clips

seriously you can just watch porn made by average couples

plus some women want DP. my current girlfriend fantasizes about DP and as i am open minded we may get her a second man for one night so she can try it, it is her idea too.

[defendandprotect]

561. Obviously, you don't know ....

Try this --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2278376&mesg_id=2286957

[reggie the dog]

575. men can orgasm with not possiblity of pregnancy

oral sex, masturbation, hand jobs ect.

[Rex]

493. What a stupid post. You knee jerked all over DU, please clean it up.

Pathetic post. :eyes:

[femrap]

504. Not half

as pathetic as you.

Clean up your own pron-produced wad....enjoy the snowball.

Just another widdle boy added to the list. buh bye.

[Rex]

529. Yeah right, just what I said.

Thank you for fleeing from a thread about jackin off. Have fun playing with yourself. :freak:

[reggie the dog]

573. you ignored me because i said i like to be dominated by women

a little bit, i fail to see how that is patriarchy but oh well. Men look at porn when they play with themselves, or photos in the sears catalog when they are 12, what do you look at or think about when you play with yourself?

[Occulus]

Question for you.

Is the guy on the right gay or straight?

[reggie the dog]

580. question for you. what difference would it make?

[Occulus]

845. To me? None.

But to the pearl-clutchers on this thread, well.... if he were gay they would look extremely silly.

I also like how they immediately assumed he's straight, and then jumped on "all porn objectifies women". Yes, someone here used those exact words.

Every time this topic comes up, seabeyond, defendandprotect, and others ignore gay porn as if it doesn't exist, because it screws up their whole narrative. And please believe me when I say that I am not the only one who has noticed that.

[NashVegas]

900. You'll Almost Never Have a Truly Rational Conversation About Porn on the Nets

The internet was built on porn.

Yes, really. All those mom and pop ISPs, all those early, pioneering websites, usenet and private IRC servers - how do you think the early birds paid for their T1s?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

9. Very good "Self-Help" message.

I'll be sure to switch periodically.

[dtexdem]

15. Self-help message or self-help massage?

;-)

[Fantastic Anarchist]

23. I see what you did there.

And I liked it. ;)

[nc4bo]

10. LOL! nt

[xchrom]

12. ...

:spray:

[Aerows]

13. Okay, that was hilarious

:spray:

[Zoeisright]

14. That's really stupid.

And buh bye!

[WillParkinson]

904. Ta-ta!

:hi:

[SidDithers]

16. K&R. Funny stuff...

:thumbsup:

Sid

[Taverner]

18. LOL. Awesome slam on the Thought Police.

I fucking hate the thought police

[seabeyond]

19. yes. cause god knows we dont want people to think. oh wait a minute...

huh?

[Taverner]

20. Anyone who wants to curtail freedom of speech is thought police

And I will fight them to the death. Sorry, free speech is free speech.

[hifiguy]

22. I stand with you on that one, Taverner.

100%.

[seabeyond]

27. except they were not curtailing FOS. telling them they are not allow to express their POV

is curtailing the FOS.

[Taverner]

33. It's not your job to legislate opinion

Sorry, go re-read Miller v California

[seabeyond]

38. then why are you working so hard at it? the poster said porn is harmful. you are telling them STFU

what does saying porn is harmful have to do with Miller v California

[redqueen]

41. +1 for logic.

That decision means no other conclusion can ever be drawn, ever.

Judicial outcomes are like, from GOD, or something. Never overturned or re-examed. Ever!

******* pathetic.

[reggie the dog]

582. in that sense roe v wade can also be re examened

not that i want it to, i respect a womans right to choose, but it is "just a judicial outcome"

[hifiguy]

98. You are blatantly misrepresenting what Taverner said.

Which was that he would fight against any restrictions on speech. He was not telling anyone to STFU, you invented that interpretation all on your own.

[redqueen]

100. The fact that you are somehow missing Taverner's misrepresentation of

well... of what no one even said... he just made it up out of whole cloth... that is amusing.

[seabeyond]

106. someone says porn is harmful. he is insisting saying that is a violation of freedom of speech

ergo, he is saying the person is not allowed to say porn is harmful.

how is that misrepresentation?

[hifiguy]

110. Oh, lordy lu,

The statement clearly implicit in Taverner's assertion, of which I have no doubt you are perfectly aware, was that if anyone tried to ban porn he would fight them on freedom of speech grounds. As would I.

In fact I did. I was in college when MacKinnon and Dworkin tried to get their crackpot "anti-porn" ordinance passed here in Minneapolis. The proposed ordinance was so vaguely worded (on purpose) that under it fashion magazines and the SI swimsuit issue would have been considered actionable. Fortunately, our mayor (former stalwart liberal Democratic Congressman Donald Fraser) and a clear majority of the city council came down on the side of sanity and the First Amendment. The whole thing spilled over to the University of Minnesota's Minneapolis campus. I wrote op-ed pieces in the school paper and fought the Dworkinites tooth and nail. I am proud to have earned a couple of stripes in the battle for free speech.

[seabeyond]

116. hm. and since anytime anyone addresses teh harm in porn, pro porn insists the person is saying ban

when no person has, effectively shuts up all conversation.

we cannot even say that porn is harmful without OUTRAGE at a banning. regardless of saying not advocating banning, banning is continually used int he argument.

so no

i was not being unfair to taverner.

there was NO mention of ban

[Remember Me]

193. NOT exactly.

Shame you didn't learn better reading comprehension skills up to that point of your education. Have those skills improved any? The Massachusetts ordinance can be found here: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/OrdinanceMassComplete.html
And the Model Ordinance here: http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/OrdinanceModelExcerpt.html

This is from Wikipedia's entry:

1. "Pornography" means the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures and/or words that also includes one or more of the following:

a. women are presented dehumanized as sexual objects, things or commodities; or
b. women are presented as sexual objects who enjoy humiliation or pain; or
c. women are presented as sexual objects experiencing sexual pleasure in rape, incest, or other sexual assault; or
d. women are presented as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated or bruised or physically hurt; or
e. women are presented in postures or positions of sexual submission, servility, or display; or
f. women's body parts-including but not limited to vaginas, breasts, or buttocks-are exhibited such that women are reduced to those parts; or
g. women are presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or
h. women are presented in scenarios of degradation, humiliation, injury, torture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised or hurt in a context that makes these conditions sexual.

2. The use of men, children, or transsexuals in the place of women in (a)-(h) of this definition is also pornography for purposes of this law.
3. "Person" shall include child or transsexual.

--Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon, "Model Antipornography Civil-Rights Ordinance," Pornography and Civil Rights: A New Day for Women's Equality, Appendix D


What I think is important to note is that the remedies for the various Causes for Action (see the Wikipedia entry) merely allow "anyone harmed" thereby to file a civil suit, except in the case of "Any person coerced, intimidated, or fraudulently induced into pornography could sue the maker(s), seller(s), exhibitor(s), or distributor(s)," to have the offending pornography "eliminated from public view."

So, if this ordinance were in effect and some woman filed suit under it, winning a monetary judgment awarded by a jury -- that's not a censorship or free speech issue to my mind. Normally, government censorship is preventing speech before or during that speech. This isn't preventing speech at all, it's allowing a jury of her peers to determine if she was harmed and awarding damages. No censorhsip, no free speech issue.

Also from Wikipedia:

Criticism

The most vocal critic of Mackinnon and (Andrea) Dworkin's rights-based approach to pornography is Ronald Dworkin who rejects the argument that the private consumption of pornography can be said to be a breach of women's civil rights.<1> Ronald Dworkin states that the Ordinance rests on the "frightening principle that considerations of equality require that some people not be free to express their tastes or convictions or preferences anywhere."

Yes,that's right. If you hate gays, this society is moving to a place where you're going to have to keep your bigoted opinions to yourself. If you hate blacks, Hispanics, and other people of color, ditto. Few would be amused if you were in the business of promoting lynchings and lynching parties.

If you love your pornography and hate women so much you can't even SEE the disproportionately negative effect pornograpny has on women as a class, and can't stop satisfying yourself via their utter degradation, it's about time you learned differently.

For the record, as much as I believe the McKinnon-Dworkin is right on target in its sentiment, it never would have worked and in fact didn't work. So don't go accusing me of wanting to censor you. I believe we're probably not going to solve the problem of pornography through legislation of any kind, at least not at this point.

But the problem DOES have to be solved.

I would encourage every male who is reading this to look within to check your values. Are you in favor of women's rights at all -- or only a little bit? Or maybe not at all? After all, "knowing" that half the world is inferior to you and there's nothing they can do about it is heady shit. Because no matter how screwed up YOU can be or get, you're at least not a woman. Yeah, you at least can never fall that far down.

But if you DO think you support women's rights and equality, but still can't see ANY problem with pornography (because after all you enjoy it so much and couldn't do without it -- protecting your supply), then your understanding of and education about women's rights AND about the real effect of pornography on women and our society is sorely lacking.

[hifiguy]

221. I was there at the time.

The City Attorney said that under the highly subjective definitions of that ordinance fashion magazines and the SI swimsuit issue would in fact be actionable and advised the mayor that it would be impossible to defend against the inevitable immediate challenge on grounds of constitutionality. Sorry, but it's true. And I correct my earlier post. The ordinance was passed by a bare majority of one vote twice in the City Council, and vetoed by Mayor Fraser on both occasions. His veto was not overridden. The ACLU was also foursquare against it. I tend to give the ACLU's opinions great weight when it comes to civil liberties and free speech issues.

Ronald Dworkin happens to be the most influential and highly regarded legal philosopher in the English-speaking world. I've read several of his books, in and after law school, and am not inclined to blow off his opinions in the cavalier way you do. He is also an ardent political liberal.

And you might want to read American Booksellers v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (5th Cir. 1985) aff'd 475 U.S. 1001 (1986), which found the ordinance unconstitutional on its face. The case came up in my advanced First Amendment class in law school. The professor, Laurence Tribe (perhaps the country's leading expert on the U.S. Constitution - he has appeared before the Supreme Court 35 times and also has impeccably left/liberal credentials), thought the underpinning of the ordinance completely unconstitutional and a serious threat to free speech. I concur completely with the ACLU and Professors Tribe and Dworkin.

Freedom of speech is meaningless unless it protects speech with which you disagree.

And, BTW, I am 100% pro-choice, pro-Planned Parenthood, pro-equal pay, and supported the ERA back in the 1970s and 1980s.

Edited for typo

[redqueen]

223. Love this post.

So many people can't even see the degradation that is promoted in the vast majority of pornography. It's just invisible.

[reggie the dog]

585. i see it and watch other stuff and i stupidly thought that was

what most people did, i am finding out that i am wrong.

[redqueen]

667. The most popular kind of porn ... by far ... is of the barely legal/teen variety.

But apparently that's totally cool. Nothing wrong with that at all. No way. It's legal, and consenting adults so *fingers in ears* LA LA LA LAAAAA!

[stevenleser]

839. Link to citation/facts? nt

[AtheistCrusader]

463. I can think of major, popular porn titles that contain all that

with the gender roles completely reversed.

Also, this one is pretty fucking vague:

"e. women are presented in postures or positions of sexual submission, servility, or display; or"

So, would that include the missionary position with the man on top? Seems like it could.

Also, this manages to target note-even-hardcore porn including some that might appeal to gay females:

"g. women are presented being penetrated by objects or animals; or"

I've seen a lot of attempts in the past to equivocate certain types of 'normal' sex with bestiality, often primarily targeting 'fear' tactics around homosexuals, but that one takes the cake. Really? Objects? So a vibrator is equivalent, and deserves same-line prohibition in a statute like this, to bestiality? What the blue fuck?

What an asinine law.

[Jakes Progress]

689. +100 for a post from an honest, thinking Democrat.

[reggie the dog]

584. tobacco is harmful, we talk about it and no one thinks we want

to ban it, so yes i can totally see what you are talking about here,

[seabeyond]

614. thank you. i appreciate you. you allow conversation. the guys are getting nasty

in name calling and insults.

not conducive to conversation.

cheers. enjoying a wonderful merlot.

[reggie the dog]

630. this guy doenst like nasty

and i am enjoying some nice durban poison too,

[defendandprotect]

144. The important distinction is HATE speech -- We've ended it for everyone but females -- !!

Pornography is HATE speech vs females --

[hifiguy]

195. Listen to Limbaugh, Hannity or the other micro-minds on the reichwing

and tell me how "hate speech has been eliminated" as to other groups. They spew hate of anything that isn't white, rich, reichwing, militaristic, greedy, and male.

:eyes:

[seabeyond]

197. you kinda make the point. 80's and 90's the limbaughs would not get away with what they do

with the net and the deculturization we have gone thru the last decade, the more we allow. same standard with the porn and our culture.

[defendandprotect]

335. Didn't mean to suggest it was "eliminated" -- however, should we stop the effort to end hate speech?

Or stop pointing to it -- or speaking out against it?

What I was trying to put forth was the idea that we have taken steps to prevent

hate speech against JEWS, AFRICAN AMERICANS, HOMOSEXUALS -- but not really women.

There was a faint effort with Political Correctness -- the idea that you could send

you daughter to college and not have a male student shout filthy names at her from

a dorm window.


Right now I don't see any new Nazi films being made comparing Jews to

"rats running in he gutters" --

Even the RCC took that battle against Jews out of the pulpit -- maybe it

exists somewhere in the church, but it's no longer being preached openly.

"White only" drinking fountains are gone as, well as.


Granted we do have a Goebbels' style corporate press and people like Limbaugh

and other RW'ers trying to return to the good old days. That's why it is

so important to continue to speak out against it.


Homosexuals, as well, have had to fight hate speech -- heard every Sunday in

Christian churches where they were called an "abomination" and where the

preaching encouraged families to abandon them own homosexual children -- and

the preaching created and encouraged intolerance and violence against homosexuals.


Trust we are all continuing to try to stop hate speech -- hate speech is one of the

first steps in creating violent attitudes and actions against those they wish to

demonize.

And one of the biggest hate campaigns against women -- aside from the Hammer of Witches

and the Bible -- is the pornography industry.

Let's keep at it -- !!


We need a much stronger effort to free women from this hate campaign called "pornography" -- !!

[reggie the dog]

589. the conversation is important

the 2 signs, replace porn with tobacco, "tabacco harms" "my lungs" and then you realize that sign holder number 2 is not taking into account the effects of second hand smoke

as they are not takin into account the effects on the women porn actresses or the impact on scoiety as a whole. like i said before i watch amerature porn and i get the impression that those women actually like having sex with their lover on film, but i could be wrong.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

260. So neo-Nazis only say nice things about blacks and Jews now?

:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

295. Um, actually, even if you think 2 people fucking = 'hate', there are no laws against 'hate speech'

Sorry.

[Occulus]

359. Is the guy on the right in the picture gay or straight?

I'd like both you and seabeyond to answer that.

[reggie the dog]

590. no one can, so we just have math

90% chance he watches hetero porn, 10% chance he watches gay porn

[TrogL]

605. You forgot "bi"

[reggie the dog]

581. what about amerature porn

made by consenting adults who simply film their sex? did it ever occur to you that some women get hot from the idea of being watched making love to their partener

[Remember Me]

205. MILLER v. CALIFORNIA -- does it really say what you think?

Wikipedia again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California

The decision

The question before the court was whether the sale and distribution of obscene material was protected under the First Amendment's guarantee of Freedom of Speech. The Court ruled that it was not. It indicated that "obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment", thereby reaffirming part of Roth.<1>

However, the Court acknowledged "the inherent dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of expression," and said that "State statutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be carefully limited."<2> The Court, in an attempt to set such limits devised a set of three criteria which must be met in order for a work to be legitimately subject to state regulation:

whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards (not national standards, as some prior tests required), would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions<3> specifically defined by applicable state law; and
"whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."<4>

This obscenity test overturns the definition of obscenity set out in the Memoirs decision, which held that "all ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance . . . have the full protection of the guaranties " and that obscenity was that which was "utterly without redeeming social importance."

The Miller decision vacated the Superior Court of California Appeals Court decision and remanded the case to that Court for further proceedings consistent with the First Amendment standards established by the opinion.

-------------------------------------


But really, what IS the point of throwing this out, as if it were an answer or defense to ANYthing that's been said in this thread? Hell, no one has even used the word "obscene," let alone asked for pornography to be banned on the basis of obscenity, or on ANY basis.

So why drag this ole thing out?

[seabeyond]

25. so will i. i saw nothing in that post that suggested curtailing FOS. there is nothing in that sign

curtailing FOS. you seem to be the only one doing that, saying these people do not have the right to express what they feel about porn.

they are saying, porn is harmful. address the point they are making, or pretend it is not. but, suggesting a conversation is not curtailing FOS

[Taverner]

We've had the "conversation" before. It was called 'Miller v California'

Cut to the chase, the good guys (free speech) won

[seabeyond]

35. you re throwing up something that has nothing to do with the other. are you saying a poster cannot

say that porn is harmful?

are you really saying, a person cannot say porn is harmful and that is stopping someone from their porn?

really?

so, everyone must accept, agree to, allow, see no problem with porn and STFU because of 'Miller v California'? i dont think so.

[Taverner]

39. You can say whatever you want. If you want to ban it, I will fight you.

[seabeyond]

43. you are wanting to ban people fucking talking, having a differing opinion, telling them

they are wanting to ban, when no one said anything about banning. YOU are telling them to STFU

who the fuck is talking about banning. you are the ONLY one talking about banning and telling people they are not allowed to speak

[Taverner]

44. where did I say ban them?

Mock, yes. Ban, no.

[seabeyond]

46. you are saying the people that say porn is harmful are saying ban porn. they are NOT

saying that.

you can infer whatever the fuck you want into what a person says. but you cant claim it is a truth.

YOU are the only one using the word BAN. you use it as your excuse to tell the poster and man holding a sign to STFU.

[Taverner]

48. Whatever. I mock stupid ideas. That is a stupid idea.

[seabeyond]

54. it is a stupid idea to suggest porn is harmful? nt

[Taverner]

57. Yes.

And I am ending here.

I don't argue with Authoritarians

[seabeyond]

61. because someone has an opinion on a subject that has been studied and expresses their opinion

they are authoritarians.

really.

you know those people that deny science and rights to minorities? they see you a bet as an authoritarian. how righteous you are.

[Remember Me]

199. This has been an absolutely hilarious exchange --

the one party getting plain out HYSTERICAL at the mere thought -- all imagined on his part, btw -- that ANYone has suggested, let alone threatened to take away (ban) his supply of pornography! Hilarious.

[seabeyond]

202. i know. up in arms..... what is it about taking it from cold dead hands..

:rofl:

[Remember Me]

203. ROFTL

Good one. Yes, that's what it'll take, I'm afraid.

Cold, dead hands indeed. :rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

397. where's the real, peer reviewed science that delineates the pathway via which porn causes 'harm'?

it's not there.

What IS there are a bunch of studies funded by groups like your old pals the AFA, which (surprise!) use a whole lot of unsubstantiated psychobabble and words like 'objectification' and 'erotoxins' which are totally meaningless in an actual scientific context to try to justify a pre-ordained conclusion, i.e. that every time someone masturbates god kills a kitten and Jesus cries.

[reggie the dog]

596. objectification is something we learn about in sociology

the idea that one is turned into an object and thereby dehumanized, a sexual object, a pice of machinery (slaves) in that my dad called vietnamese people "gooks" when he was in vietnam because that made it easier to kill them as in his mind he wasnt killing full humans, just "gooks" (objects not humans)

[seabeyond]

616. damn....

i am getting more appreciative of you as i come down the thread. lol.

and a couple sips later.

i know we probably dont agree on the whole thing. but i do like your ability to at least see reason in what is being said

bigger thanks.

[reggie the dog]

629. we may not agree about everything

but i think we both agree that porn can cause harm, i tend to think that consensual amerature porn for no money does little if any harm and think stuff like "fake rape" (i really hope it is fake too) is likely causing harm by desensitizing those watching it to rape, but i also think that killing shoot em up video games are helping to make the usa more violent by desensitizing kids to violent acts. most people make the disconnect between the screen and reality, others, not so much so.

[seabeyond]

638. one of the best movies i thought was, general's daughter.

she had been ganged rape and it was ugly. she was tryin to get attention of general father. he dismissed. she reenacted the scene. tied, spread eagle. awesome powerful in the pain of rape and the dismissal of it. as i am listening to her tell her father of the rape, watching the photography of the shots, i am also seeing the camera angles and oiled body, and body position was ALL about turning men on while watching a scene that should have horrified all of us.

i cannot tell you how much that turned me off and taught me something very real.

the whole purpose they made of that scene was rape fantasy.

you guys are talking about couple getting it on, on the net. i really dont have argument for that. i havent watched any. what i have watched and played in, confirms my opinion.

over the years i have had people come to me with their issues of porn, or walked into their issues with porn. and i have seen the result. it is not my world. but i do see how it has been used as a weapon for men, against women, in real life.

there is so much i have learned in the last couple years that would behoove us to discuss. but, as you see, it is not at all productive to put in the time and effort.

[reggie the dog]

645. casualties of war, do you know the rape scene in that movie?

the first time i ever took mdma one of my friends was channel surfing and put that movie on with the scene and i just cried for quite a while

i have seen the links for incest, brutal, rape "porn" on the net and i hope that those are indeed staged and not real but i am horrified to think that there are men out there who get excited fantasizing about burtally raping women even members of their own family. that people are excited by that kind of porn personally sickens me too.

now on the other hand i am aroused seeing images of people having "normal" sex which is why i try to only look at amerature stuff, not produced stuff, no money for sex kind of porn, and i think that many men look at photos or videos of women in sexy clothes or having sex when they play with themselves.

[seabeyond]

649. a couple things. sense no one else is open to discussion

there was a study where they actually hooked people up where they can read brainwave and found women are as visual or more visual than men. a myth that needs to be thrown away, men more visual hence their porn. that interesting, women get turned on man on man, man on woman, woman on woman. where as men get turned on to gender preference only.

who doest get turned on with just a couple minutes of looking. watch two minutes, get it on, and go on with life.

hubby and i where testing our safenet for the kids we were considering, put in dicks, and were ready to get at it.

also, another study that was interesting is when men look at women in bikinis they process thru part of the brain that sees tools. to use. when looking at mother, sister or friend, they process thru part of brain that sees human. a person.

i think that is significant.

women have not been conditioned to think of humans as things, but they will. and i guarentee, it will not bode well for a relationship and males as a whole. they may be all for it now. but not going to fly in relationship. there is a whole lot in this.

[reggie the dog]

650. i totally see that use as a tool side of the brain

when i see my girlfriend i dont think it is that side but when i was single and would see a woman i found sexy i would think "mmm candy" or something like that, but i was also always up front a let the ladies know i just wanted a good time, no relationship so i guess i let them know i just wanted to "use" them so long as the using was mutual.

the visual thing is equal as my girlfriend buys me tight fitting jeans and what not to wear, clothes i would never wear except for her.

[seabeyond]

652. the thing. i cannot tell you how many decades i have had "the look"

not the i am human look, a person, smile at cause you like the feel of the person, there energy. but the look as a thing to be used.

here i am getting old, and i still get the look. probably cause i am in shape, move fast, and have an energy that attracks it, cause i should really not be getting the thing look anymore.

today, walking thru gorcery store, get the look from an older, ugly ass man as a thing. i glance and see it. i look again a second later and still looking. finally i stared at HIM and raised eyebrows and he looked away. i. am. so. damn. tired. of being a thing for men. when all i fucking want to do is buy groceries.

more and more today, i feel the look is a man that is looking at porn. i am not his or yours or anyones porn. but men feel the right, to make women their porn.

so

what say you on that.....

[redqueen]

664. Not only as visual, but more prone to sexual excitement.

Here's some reference for that study about men who view women as tools.

The participants, 21 heterosexual male undergraduates at Princeton, took questionnaires to determine whether they harbor "benevolent" sexism, which includes the belief that a woman's place is in the home, or hostile sexism, a more adversarial viewpoint which includes the belief that women attempt to dominate men.

In the men who scored highest on hostile sexism, the part of the brain associated with analyzing another person's thoughts, feelings and intentions was inactive while viewing scantily clad women, Fiske said.

Men also remember these women's bodies better than those of fully-clothed women, Fiske said. Each image was shown for only a fraction of a second.

(snip)

A supplementary study on both male and female undergraduates found that men tend to associate bikini-clad women with first-person action verbs such as I "push," "handle" and "grab" instead of the third-person forms such as she "pushes," "handles" and "grabs." They associated fully clothed women, on the other hand, with the third-person forms, indicating these women were perceived as in control of their own actions. The females who took the test did not show this effect, Fiske said.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-02-19/health/women.bikinis.objects_1_bikini-strip-clubs-sexism?_s=PM:HEALTH

[Warren DeMontague]

639. oh, yeah, well if they teach it in sociology, it must be serious, concrete scientific fact

Jesus. And Millenials wonder why they aren't getting real jobs with their college degrees.

[reggie the dog]

648. are you saying i shouldnt have minored in sociology as an undergrad?

seriously? i should have had a minor in what then? biology?

i was in the liberal arts college, history major. i wanted to know why and how our world has evolved as it has.

my deep undercover reasearch on the role criminal gangs play in sociolizing urban youth enabled me to understand the dynamics of criminal gangs, as well as view police corruption first hand and see a gang trial.

teaching history is a real job but i left the usa so here teaching english as a second language is a real job.

what do you propose for studying the behavior patterns of the macro society or smaller micro societies? we do gather data. thanks to socioligists at UIC in chicago there is an evolving map of the gang territory of chicago (i suppose cartography is scientific enough for you.


you have honestly never heard of the term objectivication before? really? it is a synonym with dehumanization. ie you can kill them, they aint human they is injuns, or niggers, or gooks or fags or insert any racist/sexist/homophobic word you can imagine..

[Warren DeMontague]

699. I'd like to hear the anti-porn people come up with an example of a naked picture or film of fucking

that they wouldn't consider "objectification".

And no, it's not a concrete scientific concept. I'd like to know the precise pathway; neurochemical, quantum action-at-a-distance, what.. via which porn "causes harm" in people.

[reggie the dog]

595. tv can be harmful

so can porn, that does not stop me from watching family guy, or some porn now and again

you honestly see no negatives from porn? zero?

[RaleighNCDUer]

404. Have you REALLY ever met anyone who thinks porn is harmful

who does NOT want to ban it?

[seabeyond]

433. yes. nt

[reggie the dog]

598. some of us acknowledge harm but dont want a ban

we want harm reduction, i know crack is not good for people but it should be legal, i know tobacco is not good but it should remain legal

[seabeyond]

619. wow.... this is all.

is that so hard. lol

[redqueen]

45. LOL... I wonder who your'e talking to...

whoever it is is obviously extremely disturbed the the very idea that anyone might make porn unavailable to them... so any criticism at all is seen as a call for banning. I would laugh but it's truly just sad.

[seabeyond]

47. there is more than one agreeing that to say porn is harmful is denying their right to free speech

and to STFU

bah hahaha

[Confusious]

305. So really, what would you do then?

The denials are long, but no explanations about *what* you want done is forthcoming, so you leave it to the reader to decide.

Anytime anyone says porn is harmful, there INEVITABLY follows cries for bans. And you laugh.

It's like laughing at someone who says "The sun will rise in the morning after it sets in the evening" it's always happened before, and it will happen again.

The denials are long, but no explanations about *what* you want done is forthcoming, so you leave it to the reader to decide. and that's what they come up with.

Not really surprising, even though you seem to be. Sounds like you're trying to shame people into defending porn.

Sorry, the sexual revolution happened in the 60s, no one wants to go back in the closet. Not men, not women, not gays, nor anyone else I'm forgetting about.

[eridani]

406. Just what s/he is doing right now

Requesting people to think about the meaning of what they see, with a serving of public shaming on the side.

[Confusious]

427. Like I said, the 60s came and went

You try to put that back in the bottle, you put other things you don't want back in also.

shame about seeing sex translates to shame about sex.

example: sometimes you don't like what you hear, but you stand for free speech all the same.

You want people to be liberated, you have to put up with porn.

That won't change until evolution changes us or we're extinct. I can find examples of porn all the way back to the roman republic, and earlier,

[reggie the dog]

601. shame about seeing (hopefully) "staged rape" as porn

is healthy and in no way translates to shame about consensual sex.

i happen to like amerature couples sex because it is consensual sex between actual lovers, no money for sex being filmed.

[Confusious]

707. No one made any effort to differentiate

They just said "porn"

[reggie the dog]

600. how about this, telling people

do not base you view of reality on porn or reality tv as porn and reality tv (hell and sit coms etc) are distortions of reality.

why not look at what factors push women into porn and the sex trades and stripping etc and work to reduce those factors (and do the same to see what pushes men to deal drugs and steal and work to reduce those too

do sociological studies to see what impact porn is having on relationships and sexuality


seeing as the demand for porn is not going away it should be available legally and harm reduction should be the principle (as it should be for drugs too)

[seabeyond]

621. .

can i keep following you down this thread, lol

[Scout]

64. the only people i ever see on DU talking about banning porn....

are the wankers ACCUSING others of wanting to do so.

:eyes:

[redqueen]

69. LOL... wankers...

I see what you did there. :)

[Confusious]

311. Maybe if they came up with something

Instead of letting the reader decide, we could get somewhere.

But they just leave it up to the reader, which leads to the usual thought, banning. which is like night and day, summer and winter. Talk about porn, banning is going to come from the mouths of those who don't like it.

40 years of being on this earth has shown me that, primary source right there.

[Scout]

455. they HAVE come up with something ... discussion of their views ... but no discussion

is ever forthcoming, just cries of banning!! and accusations of prudery, pearl-clutching, man-hating and being against sex.

52 years of being on this earth has shown me that.

[seabeyond]

474. we cannot even get to the point of where the concern is. the only argument is dont ban. to suggest

porn may be harmful, is the end of the conversaton, if you will look at the vast comments on this thread. you want to understand what some women's concerns are with porn? this is an article froma man that appears to work hard at being objective and balance in his approach. openminded or not. a choice.


http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/pornography&cruelty.htm

This analysis is based primarily on three qualitative studies of pornographic videos I have conducted since 1996. I use the term “mainstream” to describe the tapes because I excluded what many would consider the non-representative fringe of the pornography market -- bondage and sadomasochistic tapes; any tape that advertised explicit violence, urination, or defecation; and child pornography (the only material clearly illegal everywhere in the United States). There is no shortage of such material in this country -- in shops, through the mail, on the internet, or underground (in the case of child pornography) -- but I passed over all of that. Instead, I visited stores that sold “adult product” (the industry’s preferred term) and asked clerks and managers to help me select the most commonly rented and purchased tapes. I wanted to avoid the common accusation that feminist critics of pornography pick out the worst examples, the most violent material, to critique. In one of the stores I visited, the section from which I rented tapes is actually labeled “mainstream.”

*

One of the 10 scenes in the film begins with a woman and man having a picnic in a park. He jokes about wanting to use the romantic moment to make love to her mouth, and then stands and thrusts into her mouth while she sits on the blanket. Two other men who walk by join in. Saying things such as “Pump that face, pump that fucking face,” “All the way down, choke, choke,” and “That’s real face fucking,” they hold her head and push harder. One man grabs her hair and pulls her head into his penis in what his friend calls “the jackhammer.” At this point she is grimacing and seems in pain. She then lies on the ground, and the men approach her from behind. “Eat that whole fucking dick. … You little whore, you like getting hurt,” one says, as her face is covered with saliva. “Do you like getting your face fucked?” one asks. She can’t answer. “Open your mouth if you like it,” he says, and she opens her mouth. After they all ejaculate into her mouth, the semen flows out onto her body. After the final ejaculation, she reaches quickly for the wine glass, takes a large drink, and looks up at her boyfriend, and says, “God, I love you baby.” Her smile fades to a pained look of shame and despair.

*

However, it is not necessary to reach definitive conclusions about the degree of pain women experience in such scenes to make one important observation. In these scenes, all three women at some point clearly appeared to a viewer to be in pain. Their facial expressions and voices conveyed that what was being done to them was causing physical discomfort and/or fear and/or distress. Given the ease with which video can be edited, why did the producers not edit out those expressions? There are two possible answers. One, they may view these kinds of expressions of pain by the women as of no consequence to the viewers’ interest, and hence of no consequence to the goal of maximizing sales; women’s pain is neutral. The second possibility is that the producers have reason to believe that viewers like the expressions of pain; women’s pain helps sales.

*

We live in a culture in which rape and battery continue at epidemic levels. And in this culture, men are masturbating to orgasm in front of television and computer screens that present them sex with increasing levels of callousness and cruelty toward women. And no one seems to be terribly concerned about this. Right-wing opponents of pornography offer a moralistic critique that cannot help us find solutions, because typically they endorse male dominance, albeit not these manifestations of it. Some segments of the feminist movement, particularly the high-theory crowd in academic life, want us to believe that the growing acceptance of pornography is a sign of expanding sexual equality and freedom. Meanwhile, feminist critics of pornography have been marginalized in political and intellectual arenas. And all the while, the pornographers are trudging off to the bank with bags of money.

[defendandprotect]

147. Sounds like the cry of "banning guns" has now matched up with porn????

No one is seeking to ban porn -- that would only complicate things further --

We need to EDUCATE the public about porn and its harmful effects.

[seabeyond]

151. exactly. that is exactly what it is omparable to. the NRA hair on fire, gonna take your guns

away

thank

that is just it

discuss the issue? nah

be reasonable? nah

THEY ARE TAKIN MY PORN AWAY. those witches.

[RaleighNCDUer]

405. To what ultimate end? nt

[defendandprotect]

521. To ensure that people are aware of the harmful effects ....

for the masturbator -- and for society -- !!


:rofl:

[eridani]

408. Strange logic, wot?

You can't say alcohol is sometimes harmful without someone accusing you of trying to bring back Prohibition, it would seem.

[Remember Me]

207. Miller v California?

See this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2278376&mesg_id=2280839

[defendandprotect]

26. There's a difference between freedom of speech and propaganda campaigns vs women --

If we had an industry as well financed and widespread as this with MALES

being exploited in this fashion by females it would be ended very quickly.

[Taverner]

32. oh god here we go

They're being EXPLOITED!!! All those wives who post their pictures on the internet, willingly, they're being EXPLOITED!!!

:eyes:

I happen to be of the belief that Adult Women can consent, we don't need the government to watch over them

[defendandprotect]

74. Organized pornography is a different subject --

However, our entire culture exploits females -- are you denying that?

And of course, there's nothing like HATE speech in our culture?

Nor campaigns of HATE to demonize African Americans, Homosexuals, Women -- ???

Maybe you've never read the Bible, either? :rofl:


Adult women can consent -- but many women make clear that they didn't conssent.

With the rise of the RW we have the rise of internet porn and billions being made

by cable companies. That's not exploitation?

We have a growing sex trade in women and children rising with the RW -- and that's

not exploitation?

You want free thought but you are also looking for an industry to supply fantasy

you can't conjur up on your own? And you want to ignore the themes of violence and

domination in porn?

Let's answer those questions --

Why do males need to see violence against women -- ?

Why dod males need themese of domination in order to be aroused -- ?

Pitiful!

[SharksBreath]

346. How are you going to stop the women who exploit themselves. Kardahshians come to mind.

[defendandprotect]

372. "Stop them" ... ???? When you educate people re hazards of smoking are you stopping them or

educating them and they stop themselves?

We have young pregnant women setting dates for delivery of their babies by

Cesarean for "their" convenience!

We have young women who hate their bodies -- not something new, either.

As Mary Wollstonecroft made clear in her understanding of how brainwashed the

women of here times were that she wanted to "shake them by the shoulderes" -- !!


How often do we see a true feminist on TV -- ?

What women are seeing on TV is other women cleaning toilet bowls or having plstic surgery!

And almost any male seen on TV is accompanied by heroic music! :rofl:

RW propaganda does work -- especially when there is no counter argument to it --

and we have some very SILENT Democrats!


The only way to change anything for the better or to awaken people - or women --

is by supplying better information. Enlightenment.


What you see on this thread is the growing opposition and understanding of the harm

that the porn industry does to society -- but most especially to females!

[Name removed]

210. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EOTE]

65. Yep, you're totally right.

If there was a huge demand for men to get paid large sums of money to have sex with women on camera, men everywhere would be outraged and they'd put an end to it. They'd be especially upset that due to increased demand from women that they'd be making much more than their women counterparts for participating in this porn. If there's one thing that men everywhere hate, it's having sex and money.

[redqueen]

71. Comparing men and women in this way is ignoring a huge part of the issue.

Privilege.

https://sindeloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/37/

If men had been treated as women have throughout history and up through today, still, the reaction would likely be very much the same.

[EOTE]

76. Which says nothing to the fact that your argument is utterly ridiculous.

You said that if men were the primary workers in porn that men simply wouldn't stand for it. That's a few steps beyond ludicrous. You can try to change the subject to whatever you'd like, it doesn't change the inaccuracy of your argument. And the whole male privilege thing is ridiculous as well. Much of the "privilege" we experience we don't consider to be privilege. Just as we see female privilege everywhere, even in things that women don't consider to be privilege. You can bet your ass that the fact that it's much easier for a woman to get a job in porn and get paid MUCH more for doing so is considered a "privilege" for most males.

[redqueen]

79. No I didn't, read it again.

I said if men had been treated the way women have since the dawn of time... that is not anywhere close to if men were the primary workers in porn.

But thanks for clarifying that you refuse to acknowledge male privilege.

Have a good day.

[EOTE]

84. You can't even read your own words? That's pretty sad.

Here, I'll quote you:


"If we had an industry as well financed and widespread as this with MALES

being exploited in this fashion by females it would be ended very quickly."

Notice that nowhere in that sentence did you say "dawn of time" or anything close to that. You said that if the shoe were on the other foot that males would put a stop to it. That's ridiculously wrong. Laughably wrong. Men would be in paradise if that were the case. What people like you consider "exploitation", men would consider getting paid for having sex. That you can't see that makes you utterly blind.

[redqueen]

86. You need to read more carefully. I understand the blind rage this brings out

so ... yeah.

[EOTE]

87. Read more carefully? I quoted your own words.

Which weren't terribly complicated to begin with. Believe me, I got it. And you said nothing that you claim to have. I'm very familiar with the English language, thanks.

[defendandprotect]

90. The poster has confused your posts with mine -- but basically wants to ignore "Privilege" .....

if he awoke to the reality of it, he might have to change some of his behavior?

[EOTE]

94. Privilege such as?

Being in the majority of college graduates? Having a far greater chance at getting paid for having sex on camera and getting paid far more for it? Privilege works both ways, if you only see it with one gender, you're blind.

[defendandprotect]

104. Such as the comments on "Privilege" which were addressed to you by the other poster ....

try dealing with some genuiness to what is being said to you --

[EOTE]

111. I did address that.

And once again, I think that getting paid to have sex and paid well for it is a privilege. Everyone has their own ideas of privilege.

[redqueen]

95. Indeed. (nt)

[defendandprotect]

88. First, you're responding to the wrong poster -- reread the posts ...

However, you're also desperately trying to ignore the "privilege" which was pointed

out to you by that poster.

Again -- nothing is making any sense to you because you've gotten the posters mixed up.

However -- the point THAT poster is making is the very same point I'm making --

exploitation is harmful -- campaigns of HATE speech are harmful -- to Jews, to African

Americans, to Homosexuals -- and to WOMEN.

And the issue of "Privilege" has to be acknowledged --


You know how many males now are being shopped around as 10 year old? Think they're enjoying

that? How about young males forced into the sex trade? Too macho to complain about it?

[EOTE]

92. If that wasn't your post, why did you respond to my reply as if it was?

And why did you not address a single thing which I said in my post which addressed that post? You're still more than welcome to actually address the things which I said in my response.

[defendandprotect]

105. No one is going to bother addressing anything you're saying ....

bye --

[EOTE]

113. Well, you certainly won't.

And, to tell you the truth, I'd be insanely surprised if you did. That would take a bit of intellectual honesty.

[defendandprotect]

85. Men immediately understand when they're being "disrespected" or "put down" ...

and they understand the power of that completely --

and will immediately react to any female making even jokes at their expense.


Everything males do and everything they say is predicated on the simple thought --

"Will this make me look weak" --



:rofl:

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

96. You're right of course ... because we have female equality and no exploitation ....

continue to ignore what is being said to you -- it will make this so much

a better world!


bye -- you're on ignore --

[EOTE]

109. So happy to be there.

There is no female equality just as there is no male equality. That's because males and females are not the same. That's not to say one is better, but to ignore differences between the genders is to ignore reality. And exploitation exists with both genders as well. But exploitation of males tends to get ignored rather quickly. Shame you think my words are so harmful they need to be ignored. Most people I discuss with don't find my words all that frightening.

[SharksBreath]

367. If I used your thought process all women are the Kardashians.

[defendandprotect]

522. I've seen the name "Kardashian" in news -- but who actually watches this garbage?

True -- presumably the elites would like to turn all women into know nothings

concerned merely with owning things -- and those who will spend time watching them.

[AtheistCrusader]

467. Are you paraphrasing some bigotry, or what?

I don't mean to attack you by asking, but you seem to be either demonstrating, or maybe mocking bigotry in a sarcastic manner? I can't tell.

Because what you just posted applies to individuals of both genders, but not entirely to all members of either.

[reggie the dog]

592. not all men are like that

i have hair down past my shoulders, drive a car smaller than a dodge neon (peugeot 206) and have even put on a dress and makeup when asked to do so by a lover. my girlfriend can make jokes at my expense if she wants to but generally we dont make fun of each other, we try to build each other up. if women make jokes about my sexual performance i just laugh it off because 1. not every performance is the best one, even motzart had off days (and i am long from motzart quality in bed on a good day)

2. i dont like the sex from every woman ihave been with so incompatability has a role,

3. it could just be a joke


like when i asked a woman to dance with me again, and she said "no, you dont dance well enough" in front of 8 people i knew i didnt get mad, i laughed, said "o baby how you gonna do me like that" and proceeded to find someone else to dance with. no anger, no "reaction" other than a playful "why not"

only brutes react as you describe. perhaps it is an age thing? i am 32 how old are you?

[Remember Me]

219. Privilege

And the whole male privilege thing is ridiculous as well. Much of the "privilege" we experience we don't consider to be privilege.

I wish I could remember who said this, but it's so true:

Yes, failure to recognize privilege is itself an abuse of privilege.


You don't consider it "privilege" because YOU have it all the time; women do not. That's why it's called male privilege. When women get the same privileges it will be called EQUALITY.

Just as we see female privilege everywhere, even in things that women don't consider to be privilege.

Uh, no. Not so much. Certainly not where it counts, anyway. Usually those kinds of "privilege" are the kinds of things that are distractions from how UNEQUAL women really are. They're exemplified by the privilege inherent in putting women on a pedestal. Do you remember the old saying about putting women on a pedestal? That made women THINK they had respect and special treatment when in fact it was mostly lip service, while the reality was that they were kept isolated (mostly in their own homes) and powerless. But they got nice compliments about their sorry state.


You can bet your ass that the fact that it's much easier for a woman to get a job in porn and get paid MUCH more for doing so is considered a "privilege" for most males.

Well, I guess all the women will just have to run right out and apply for jobs as porn stars, eh? Sure, that'll make up for all those male-only privileges, yessiree.

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[The Doctor.]

300. Yeah, just wait until a man you know and love is accused of anything

by a woman.

Hell, just wait until that man calls the police to stop a woman from doing something dangerous to him or his children. After she makes some bullshit up, even though every point of his report is the absolute truth, guess who is the suspect?

Male = 'guilty' in some sectors of society.

That is because women have the unfortunate and not universally solicited 'victim' status enshrined in certain sectors of society. Some people think that equality means 'screwing the men right back', but that philosophy only creates more victims who are otherwise entirely decent, respectful, and very kind.

Misandry is as alive and well today as misogyny, racism, bigotry, and homophobia. The only difference is that anti-male sentiments are still very acceptable among even 'liberal' people.

This thread has demonstrated very clearly how so many believe that women are perceived as victims and men as perverted monsters.

You can try and tell me otherwise, but I have been a victim of racism, homophobia, and misandry. So you might as well try to convince me water isn't wet.

[defendandprotect]

523. KR -- Comes the Enlightenment -- Thank you !!

:hi:

:)

[defendandprotect]

77. Pornography isn't about sex -- it's about masturbation --

Nor is the organized pornography industry about sex -- it's about demeaning and

degrading females -- often in violent portrayals of domination.

One of the most accessible scenes according to those researching internet porn is

a male receiving oral sex from a woman with a VICE on her head -- enabling him to

control the action!

That's the kind of HATE speech and violence readily available in internet porn vs

women.

And, if there is one thing we know about males, they know when they are being put down

and react immediately. Because they understand the power of that put down.

[EOTE]

81. Which addresses absolutely nothing of my argument. Or the argument I responded to.

Which was utterly ludicrous. And the great bulk of porn out there isn't the sick stuff you seem to be watching. You conflating porn in general to extremely rare fetish sites out there does absolutely nothing to bolster your argument.

[defendandprotect]

93. You can vouch for the "great bulk of porn out there" .... ??? Actually, I watch NO porn -- !!

These are reports from other people who do watch it --

I'd suggest you read or view something of what Gail Dinesen/PORNLAND is saying about

porn and the effect it has on especially young males who use it.


The incident of the woman with the vice on her head was readily available to the researchers --

not part of any "pay" porn.


And let me know when you see that happening in reverse -- !!



:rofl:

[EOTE]

97. Ahhh, so you're simply going by biased, second hand reports.

Yeah, that's a great way to judge porn. Because some idiot on the internet said so, you apparently think that women with their heads in vices is mainstream porn. Brilliant. And you honestly don't believe you'll find the same thing in reverse? Really? You can't be that daft. There are men who get off on watching women squeeze the testicles of other men, you really think degradation is for women only? I'd suggest leaving your house every now and then. Oh, and here are a few emoticons to make you happy. I'd like to be on the same level communications wise.

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

[defendandprotect]

102. Good to see you acknowledging this is "degradation" --- LOL

... you really think degradation is for women only?

I'd suggest leaving your house every now and then.

[EOTE]

114. What? Did I say it didn't exist?

I don't believe I did. I said it resides in the realm of fetish, which it does. And just so you're aware, both men and women have fetishes.

[The Doctor.]

212. I'm always amazed at how oblivious some people are.

There is a vast and thriving market for porn. Among women.

In many cases, there are graphic depictions of men being abused, dominated, and objectified by women. I've never found it offensive or made character judgments on the women who like it.

It's just funny to me that so many think that only men objectify women, and only for the purpose of satisfying some 'evil' impulse.

[EOTE]

218. It fits in with their narrative, so they believe it.

Of course, any women who view such material are part of the "fringe" or perhaps they're secretly part of the patriarchy as well. While all, or nearly all men regularly watch porn where alpha males slowly torture innocent young women to death. And have sex with them. Because all men equate sex with violence. It seems tough keeping such conflicting ideas in one's head, but they manage.

[Name removed]

201. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Doctor.]

232. My God...

Can you imagine how humiliating that would be for him? I can only imagine the brutality!

[seabeyond]

233. being a bet passively aggressive and nasty.... boys. nt

[The Doctor.]

238. Lol! Of all the most BS inventions ever. 'Passive agressive' has to be near the top.

If someone is not being directly assertive, aggressive, or insulting, then they MUST somehow be doing something wrong!

So now, if you're merely trying to be humorous, or aloof, or the 'better person' and it somehow offends someone, then obviously you're being 'passive aggressive'.

Sorry love, but that's an invention for the sake of making someone else 'wrong' no matter what they do. There exists no possible way I could have tried to jokingly respond to that post that could not be characterized as 'wrong' by someone who wanted to do so thanks to the invention of 'passive aggressive'.

You, however, are being deliberately aggressive by negatively characterizing my colorful suggestion that EOTE would be the subordinate in that situation.

Therefore, there is obviously no way to have a discussion on this without both of us being somehow 'wrong'.

Cheers!

:toast:

[d_b]

266. hahahahahahahahahaha

fucuuuucckkk

[Warren DeMontague]

334. I can PROVE that images cannot, alone, change peoples' minds.

For instance, you've been shown this thing probably 20 times, and you still stubbornly refuse to understand what it implies.

[truebrit71]

152. So if you watch no porn how the fuck do you know what is, or isn't being portrayed out there?

Because we all know that researchers NEVER have axes to grind or biases or anything...:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

167. For one, if you happen to be looking for Sesame Street and hit "Gonzo" ...

you get a good idea of what's out there --

Plus there are many studies -- people watching porn industry for us and reporting --

and have been many studies over the decades.


Try PORNLAND for one by Gail Dinesen -- or one of her videos of speeches at colleges!


So true -- researchers go into research to distort information -- !!


:eyes:

[EOTE]

209. Here, let me google that for you.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=gonzo

Looks pretty benign to me.

[Warren DeMontague]

333. You also might get Hunter S. Thompson.

Such are the dangers of the scary, scary internet.



If you only want search results appropriate to a Sesame Street maturity level, install some net nanny software.

[frylock]

339. there have been many studies over the years on the lunar landings as well..

we have our top men watching and reporting. TOP. MEN.

[defendandprotect]

517. Interesting --

but think you're in the wrong forum if you want to discuss lunar landings --

But overriding reality is all information re the moon landings has been destroyed --

:rofl:

And no one -- including US -- has sought to repeat the alleged landings -- !!


If you want to discuss this further, go to 9/11 --

[frylock]

563. you can post all the roffle smilies you like..

it won't change the fact that we're all pointing at you and laughing.

[defendandprotect]

564. Actually --

I laughed at you first -- !!

Bye --

You're on ignore -- !!

[frylock]

677. oh, the humanity..

how will i ever recover from this devastating news?

[Warren DeMontague]

588. "all information re the moon landings has been destroyed --"

What the fuck does that mean?

No, it hasn't. Ever been to the Smithsonian? That's a good place to start. And, In addition to all the evidence we have here on Earth, the evidence is still on the MOON:

[DonnieNarco]

407. I googled Gonzo.

I got a muppet and my favorite author and one of my biggest inspirations, Hunter S. Thompson. 2 in the morning is a good time to re-read Fear and Loathing!

[defendandprotect]

516. Google "image" --

[tammywammy]

709. I get the muppet

:shrug:

https://www.google.com/search?gcx=w&q=Gonzo&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1366&bih=653&sei=SQq-Tv7NE5GnsAKmrdigBA

[EOTE]

849. Done.

Do you have a Sesame Street fetish or something?

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&hs=59f&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=gonzo&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=483188l484270l0l484525l5l4l0l0l0l0l188l548l1.3l4l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&biw=1600&bih=1030&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

That's like one of the cleanest google image searches I've ever done.

[Occulus]

364. "Actually, I watch NO porn"

Then you have no business lecturing others on the subject. Period.

[defendandprotect]

518. Only those who believe in porn can discuss it -- ?? ROFL

[seabeyond]

519. one way to get a consensus. nt

[frylock]

337. and we reach the crux of the matter; masturbation makes you sqwicky

[Puglover]

536. I think bitter and bitten would be more apt.

[Upton]

31. +1000 for free speech

though they talk a lot of different shit, the anti porn authoritarians are primarily interested in one thing...CENSORSHIP

[seabeyond]

42. so... no one is allowed to talk about it being harnful, the effects on society

women, men. we need to all STFU cause "thinking, studying, learning" is bad?

are you guys serious.

yell freedom of speech as you tell people to STFU

this has gotten to funny

[Upton]

55. You can claim anything you want.,.

no one told you to STFU, scream your "porn is harmful" nonsense at the top of your lungs. Just keep in mind you're riding in the car with the religious right..

Radical anti porn feminists seem to think they know what is best for everybody else. I'm of the persuasion that adults can and should make their own decisions about sex..without being berated for it by puritans..

[seabeyond]

58. yes, there was a poster that said saying porn is harmful was denying freedom of speech

and you agreed with that poster.

i am arguing that a person saying porn is harmful is not an infringement to your freedom of speech. that simple

[Macoy]

53. That Young Man has a lot to Learn about Porn

That Young Man has a lot to Learn about Porn. He needs to pace himself, know his limits, and to switch hands from time to time. :P



Macoy

[defendandprotect]

148. Right -- keep that hate speech coming -- !!

[Doc Holliday]

441. Ever notice how

those who want porn banned don't want it banned because it's bad for them? :mad:

They want to ban it because it's bad for you. :wtf:

Thanks but no thanks, Protectors of Morals....I'll continue to look out for my own welfare and that of those I love.

And that picture is fucking hilarious!! :rofl:

[defendandprotect]

49. Pornography is just another campaign of HATE speech -- vs women -- !!

Interesting that we can recognize the harm done to Jews and African Americans

and homosexuals by HATE speech -- but not when the campaign is directed towards

women!



:evilgrin:

[Taverner]

51. Oh BS. That's fundie talk.

May I suggest Saudi Arabia?

[defendandprotect]

59. Didn't know that Fundies objected to HATE speech vs homosexuals ... ???

Or women -- they have Bibles full of it -- !!


Saudi Arabia? What's the saying there -- ?

"Men for pleasure, women for procreation" -- ??

Their entire culture is based on hatred for and control of women -- !!

And they don't need porn to do it -- !!



:rofl:

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

716. I lol'd so hard at you

You cannot be serious with this post. You're omparing pornography to those situations... just, wow.

[Fuddnik]

235. Nobody expects The Meese Commission!

Or was that The Spanish Inquisition?

[seabeyond]

237. i dont know. i dont know what you're talking about. all this man did was hold up a sign, porn harms

and people yell freedom of speech. i guess he is not allowed this precious freedom.

[Fuddnik]

252. He got harmed when he took a viagra.

And when he got home, his wife was gone, and he wound up separating his shoulder.

Poor goof.

[frylock]

332. you mention your god and want to lecture people on thinking

[seabeyond]

341. really? bah hahahah. you are funny. nt

[frylock]

396. i'm here all week..

plz tip the wait staff.

[defendandprotect]

24. Pornography isn't without a message -- a very misogyngist message --

And fortunately the Canadian courts hav emade that clear -- including the

negative impact on women worldwide -- and the struggle for female equality.


Pornography is neither benign -- nor harmless for females -- !

[SidDithers]

34. Can you please cite the Canadian court cases you're referring to?...

Thanks in advance.

Sid

[Taverner]

36. Bullshit. Is Gay Porn Misogynist? Are amateur wive sites misogynist.

:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

52. BS -- Porn is a campaign of HATE speech vs women --

Amazing that we well understand HATE speech when it's directed at homosexuals --

or Jews -- or African Americans -- but when it comes to pornography, seems it's

really a problem for some to see it!

[banned from Kos]

67. what about cuckold porn? Where the "wife" abuses the poor "husband" and forces him

to watch her have sex with another man?

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Remember Me]

222. who do you think imagines and produces that shit?

And watches it?

If it's women (and that's unlikely), they're operating under what's called "internalized oppression," which is where a member of an oppressed group identifies so strongly with their oppressor that they join in the oppression (if only by not being able to see it as oppression).

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

717. Cry just a little more, please.

Cry.

[EOTE]

850. Ahhh, I see. All women who watch porn are internally oppressed.

That's good to know. I guess all the women I've found worth being with have been oppressed. Don't tell them, though.

[Taverner]

37. Canada does not have freedom of speech, we do

End of story

[defendandprotect]

50. Right -- Citizens United -- "End of story" -- !!

[polly7]

112. Of course we do have freedom of speech. n/t.

[Hydra]

265. Not from what I've heard

You can get jailed for things that fall under the first amendment here.

While I was surprised to hear that at the time, I was even more surprised to hear a Canadian pipe in that they liked it better that way and that the community was better protected by jailing people for their scary ideas.

...not unlike in this thread...funny how that works.

[polly7]

271. Like what? We have a hate speech law that makes it illegal to

publicly incite hatred and violence towards a group. Also, a law that makes it illegal to present lies as 'news' in the public media ... as Fox does. Please let me know what other speech is limited here, because I honestly can't think of any.

And yes, I do like it this way, too.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

124. But Prostitution Is Legal In Canada

So a man can just buy a woman instead of seeing a woman do what he wants her to do in a porn movie. It would seem the former would lead to much more abuse.

[defendandprotect]

131. We need to concentrate more on why men need to "buy" a sexual relationship .. for an hour -- !!

Or is it a half hour -- ?

[redqueen]

134. Nobody "needs" to. They feel entitled to, and they think it's acceptable.

Thankfully that is changing.

[defendandprotect]

149. While I wholly agree with your premise ....

from what I can see many of the viewers can't even conjur up a worthwhile fantasy

on their own -- leave alone find an actual relationship other than with a magazine

picture or a video!!




:evilgrin:


And trust you're right about things changing -- having a harsh effect on young males

viewing internet porn -- and many families are discovering "Dad's" addicted to

internet porn which is destroying their lives.



:hi:

[redqueen]

162. Indeed...

it's a sad situation all around.

Thanks for the gun-grabber-paranoia reference somewhere else in the thread btw... bang on with that observation!

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

718. Eh?

You don't appear to know much, if anything, of the prostitution situation in Canada, so if that's the case, why bother commenting on it?

Outcall prostitution (where the sex worker goes to the sex client's house) is legal in Canada. You have independent operators as well as services providing workers to clients. Clients can be male or female, and the workers can be male or female as well. Many of the most successful services are owned by women, and they employ workers (mostly college and graduate students, some here on exchange visas) who simply want to earn a bit of extra money by providing services to clients. Now what exactly is the problem with that?

Canada has a lower rape rate than the United States and part of that is probably due to our less puritanical attitudes about pornography and prostitution. Studies have clearly proven a correlation between increased access to pornography and decreased incidences of rape.

Curious to hear your opinion, because your post seems to advocate the banning of prostitution. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'll end with a question: if increased access to pornography and prostitution are responsible for an increase in misogynistic attitudes in the male population (which you seem to believe it does), but are also responsible for a decrease in the rape rate, is that not a worthy tradeoff? I'm not saying that those services are responsible, obviously, but I'll give you the extreme benefit of the doubt for this post and say that it does.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

137. I Am Serious

What if he or she needs a sexual outlet and can't find a partner?

You could almost argue watching a pornographic video would be preferable.

Also, how does Canada ban pornography in the age of the internet?

[redqueen]

141. Most people don't buy sex. Most simply masturbate.

The idea that a person is entitled to buy access to another person's body for their sexual desires (not needs) needs to be re-examined honestly.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

146. The Other Poster Was Championing Canada Because They Ban Pornography

But they allow prostitution.

Seems incongruous.

Also, how do they ban pornography in the age of the internet?

I know they have a firewall in China but I know of Chinese who get around it.

[seabeyond]

157. canada also has an incredible problem with sex slave and child sex slave

the countries that have legalized are finding their problems escalate, not decrease. sweden addressed this by decriminalizing prostitution but buying it is illegal. prostitution has dropped 40%. denmark has a huge problem and is looking at swedens solutions. as are other countries

[Remember Me]

226. If you have links or sources for any of that, I'd love to have them too

You can PM me if you want. Thanks. I see the argument about how "healthy" those countries are and I know it's not true.

[seabeyond]

236. i am really bad with google

and it takes so much time for me to find anything. i havent saved anything. this is years on du, hearing legalized prostitution the answer. imagine my surprise when i found out it was not a solution, but a bigger problem. see, right now, i tried to find a good article with swedens solution to prostitution. lots there. anyway, just a year or more of reading for me.

[LadyHawkAZ]

856. The drop in Sweden has reversed itself

Sweden's law has NOT been a success. It has been an experiment in if-I-can't-see-it, it-isn't-there. It has targeted and tracked only street work, and has been pretty widely criticized for ignoring indoor and online prostitution- still going strong- in its "success" reports.
This report was well-written and contained many good sources:
http://www.pla.qld.gov.au/Resources/PLA/reportsPublications/documents/THE%20BAN%20ON%20PURCHASING%20SEX%20IN%20SWEDEN%20-%20THE%20SWEDISH%20MODEL.pdf
Others:
http://www.thelocal.se/9621/20080110/
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1072845--why-anti-john-laws-don-t-work
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2009/0630/p10s01-woeu.html
http://www.firstadvocates.org/sites/firstadvocates.org/files/Swedish-model-a-failure_0.pdf
http://www.petraostergren.com/pages.aspx?r_id=40716

Of course, there are those who define "success" in these laws as the moral stand that results in the greatest number of fresh new arrests and battered bodies, since that apparently proves it's working. So a lot depends on your definition of "success".

For other countries:
A good place to start is here, although the info is dated and some of the laws have changed.
http://prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=772

and simply cross reference with a search on their trafficking numbers, disease rates etc. Anything in particular you want to know about?

[defendandprotect]

158. Canada does not ban pornography ---

they have merely commented on it as harmful to female equality --

[DemocratSinceBirth]

161. Well, I Don't Think It's A Social Good Either

It just is.

[defendandprotect]

165. ROFL ... but you think internet porn is "a social good" -- !! ROFL

[DemocratSinceBirth]

169. Where Did I Suggest That I think Internet Porn Is A Social Good?

I don't think recreational drugs are a social good either.

But they just are.

[defendandprotect]

174. Wasn't that you supporting the "right to porn" ... ???

You speak in strange contradictions . . .

I don't think recreational drugs are a social good either.

But they just are.



:rofl:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

177. Do You Know What The Phrase "It Is What It Is" Means

I will give you another example.

I don't like Republicans "but it is what is."

I can't ban em, can I?

[redqueen]

181. No, you can't ban them. But do you STFU about their politics?

And how much you disagree with them, and why?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

189. It's Like My Opinion On The Death Penalty

I oppose the death penalty. I couldn't serve on a jury where the death penalty was an option because I oppose it in all circumstances. But I wouldn't go to a candle light vigil to oppose the execution of those two cretins in Connecticut who killed and raped the mother and daughter and set the house on fire.

There are so many things in the culture that aren't good; drugs, alcohol, promiscuous sex,cigarettes, Kid Rock but they are part of the culture and it's up to those who partake in them to stop.

It's not an issue I'm going to the mattresses on.

I have an old fashioned, bourgeoisie morality with a twist. In my perfect world gay couples and straight couples would be in loving and committed relations and the sex act would be part of those relations.

[redqueen]

194. So you never post on threads about whether we should have the death penatly?

No one is asking you to go out and hold up your own "Pornography harms" sign so that you too can be mocked... I'm just asking about what you speak out about.

You obviously speak out about republican policies, because you care about politics. That's not going to the "mattresses" (ugh)... that's just speaking your mind about it.

Do you keep your opinion to yourself about the death penalty, when it comes up in the forum?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

198. I Always Say The Same Thing When The Death Penalty Comes Up

I oppose the death penalty but I am not going to go to a candle light vigil to protest the execution of a child rapist/murderer.


As to the current instance I don't think pornography is a social good but as I listed there are so many things that aren't social goods that and to eliminate them is impossible.

If you want to bring social pressure to dissuade folks from watching porn I don't have a big problem.

Change the culture...

To elaborate on "going to the mattresses" what I meant is an anti pornography tirade is not a "hill I would die for".

As to the photo it was puerile.

[redqueen]

204. Objecting to this photo was my small way of attempting to change the culture.

I know what you meant about not going to the mat. The phrase is going to the mat. My impress of 'going to the mattresses' was that was just another puerile joke, mea culpa.

I hope you've seen the threads about Miss Representation. It's a documentary that's going to be re-aired on Saturday morning on OWN. It is very much worth watching.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

206. "Going To The Mattresses"

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=going%20to%20the%20mattresses

[redqueen]

215. Aha, a Godfather thing.

Well I'm less familiar with that movie than I am with the standard idiom.

[defendandprotect]

320. Do you think you said "It is what it is" in your post ???? ROFL

I'll quote it for you yet again ....

I don't think recreational drugs are a social good either.

But they just are.


LOL -- bye --

[Name removed]

462. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[marmar]

443. I walked down Yonge Street in Toronto last week. I can assure you Canada does NOT....

..... ban pornography.

[SidDithers]

469. Canada doesn't ban pornography...

the poster is talking out of their ass.

Sid

[Remember Me]

230. Excellent point

And very well said.

[redqueen]

234. Thank you... this is one of those things people don't even question...

and that says a lot, right there.


Also I'm enjoying your posts on this subject very much. Thanks for contributing to the discussion!

[frylock]

340. and as everyone knows, masturbation is icky and not normal

[Scout]

473. who knows that? has anyone said that here in this thread? n/t

[seabeyond]

477. the only people that say it are those arguing pro porn. along with a ban. rw style arguing. nt

[Scout]

486. +10,000 n/t

[frylock]

562. nope, not directly in any case

[Scout]

565. so, no. no one in this thread is condemning masturbation.

it's just the wankers getting all worried, clutching their "pearls" as i thought.

[frylock]

675. nope, not directly in any case

[seabeyond]

678. not directly or otherwise. nt

[WillParkinson]

923. If it's icky and not normal...

I never want to be normal. (Not that I ever really wanted that.)

[seabeyond]

927. not that anyone ever said it was. nt

[DissedByBush]

391. That's not where the entitlement lies

Women are entitled to allow access to their bodies for whatever reason they freely consent to -- for free or for a price.

An infringement on that is misogynistic, us telling women what they can do with their bodies.

Kind of like with abortion bans.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

719. What do you mean by idea re-examination???

If a gentleman has a fear of intimacy or perhaps has a medical condition that renders him unappealing to the vast majority of women that he would seek to have a sexual encounter with, what right is it of yours to deny him that opportunity? I am assuming that you are advocating a War on Prostitution, because although it is illegal in the United States, enforcement is typically limited to child prostitution rings (clearly immoral and should be illegal) as well as street prostitution. Online ads for prostitution abound.

If you aren't in fact advocating a ban, then save your breath. You won't convince anyone currently patronizing sex workers. You can talk all you want about changing societal attitudes but when has that ever worked long-term when you're talking about consensual behavior? All the positive social changes that have occurred in our society have been to expand freedom. Your seemingly Puritanical attitudes about sex have no place in a civilized society.

Disclaimer: I have never patronized a sex worker. I am not in need of one. But I won't deny a man that right to patronize a sex worker, and I won't deny a woman the right to benefit monetarily from the arrangement.

Edit: I swear, some of these posts really give me a Taliban vibe. It's icky. What business is it of yours what women choose to do with their bodies? NONE.

I apologize if you're not advocating banning prostitution and are in fact of continued legalization of it (in the case of Canada) or keeping it a low law enforcement priority (as it is in the United States). There are definitely some people on this thread (mostly women) who would like to see the police crack down on prostitution to protect women from themselves. No one on here (myself included) is advocating street prostitution with pimps beating up women. That is not the majority of prostitution in the United States, and certainly not in Canada. I don't think you have any idea how many prostitution arrangements are arranged over the internet, over message board forums, etc. Sure, you've probably heard of escorts, but do you really know how many exist? You probably went to high school with a couple. They operate their own websites, they keep all of the profit for themselves, and each worker provides a service to dozens of men. These women don't need you advocating for them. A couple of them are dear friends of mine and I showed one of them your posts yesterday. If they met you, they'd laugh in your face, redqueen. They don't need your compassion. They're raking in the dough, and no, they don't have mental health problems or drug addictions or daddy issues or anything else ridiculous that you might respond with to justify the age-old argument that women who work as sex workers must be mentally ill.

You're pro-choice, right? Well be consistent for Christ's sake. HER BODY. HER CHOICE. Don't want to serve as a sex worker or patronize one? THEN DON'T. Game over. You can't win the argument.

[seabeyond]

153. oh noes... the, you can't masturbate without porn argument. lmfao

bah hahahaha

oh

that is almost sad

really?

a guy has to have porn or he is useless?

really?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

176. I Am Trying To Be Civil But If You Want To Exchange Insults I Will Gladly Oblige You

I said Canada bans pornography and allows prostitution. That strikes me as incongruous (redux). They should have the courage of their convictions and ban both.

[seabeyond]

185. i was jesting more than anything. a couple weeks ago

we had a man say a man needs porn to masturbate. your wording was funny and could be construed that way.

but yes

i get your posts....

[Warren DeMontague]

292. No one said that. If they did, please post a link. The real question is-

why do you even give a shit how other people get their jollies, or whether they're 'able to' fantasize with or without porn?

Don't you have anything better to do?

[seabeyond]

301. oh...

you found me.

don't you have anything better to do? and it is not about other peoples "jollies" as i have said repeatedly. and since you are in all these threads, along with me, i know you have heard me say many many times, that my issue is the harm porn cause. yes. i said it. the harm that porn cause. how pro porn people ignore the harm porn does as they wrap it up all pretty woman in a pink bow. only talking about how harmless it is. it is not honest. it is not reality. it is an illusion. or could even be considered a lie. whether to oneself or society as a whole.

THAT is why i give a shit

[Warren DeMontague]

325. A lot of things are "lies". Stories about orcs and dragons. Science fiction. Cheesy vampire movies.

"Harm", the thing is, there is no harm. What is the "harm"? If person A) and person B) are consenting adults and they fuck in front of a camera and person C), who is also a consenting adult, watches that film and masturbates to it, where is the specific "harm"?

[seabeyond]

329. no warren. not even close. or kinda. or sorta. you wouldnt get it if i took the time to say it

you have clearly let us all know.... that you are not receptive to any honest cconversation about porn. nor was i getting into it on this thread. merely saying, the man holding up this sign was not denying porn lovers their freedom of speech. the other way around, demanding he shut up

[Warren DeMontague]

331. no, you're demanding that no one make fun of the anti-porn jesus dude.

I don't see his freedom of speech being impinged by someone else pointing out what a fucking goober he looks like standing there with that sign.

[seabeyond]

342. no. if you were following the subthread it was about tav saying his freedom of speech was being

denied from this man holding up the sign. i suggest he demanding this man not having the right is what is denying freedom of speech.

then i started playing when i heard the excuse need porn to masturbate. you know how that makes me laugh.

[polly7]

276. um, what?

Canada bans pornography?

Coulda fooled me.

Under Canadian criminal law, the term “pornography” occurs only in section 163.1 of the Criminal Code, which provides a definition of “child pornography.” Pornographic material featuring consenting adults is regulated through the “obscenity” provision of the Criminal Code (section 163). In other words, unlike child pornography, pornographic material involving consenting adults is legal in Canada if it is not deemed to be obscene. As a consequence, child pornography tends to be much more clandestine and difficult to detect than adult pornography, which is readily accessible in retail stores through the sale and exchange of DVDs, videos, films, books and magazines, as well as in theatres, on television and over the Internet.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/843-e.htm

[defendandprotect]

156. You mean what if a male is so pitiful he couldn't conjur up a fantasy of his own at home?

I'm sure we'd all be responsible for whatever he'd decide to do in that event -- !!


:evilgrin:


Canada hasn't banned anything -- they have commented on the the fact that pornography

is wholly damaging to female equality --


However, the internet isn't going without question as a porn industry making huge profits

for cable companies in past decades --

while doing damage to the young males who are watching it - as young as 11 years old.

And to many families where males are being found to be addicted to internet porn with very

harmful effects on their lives.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

168. My Point Is It's Incongruous To Ban Pornography And Allow Prostitution

Either both are exploitative or neither are. The Canadians should have the courage of their convictions and ban both.

They should put up a firewall to keep Canadians from viewing pornography. If they don't they are merely posturing. Kind of like the Repubs promising their constituents to ban abortion but never doing so.

[defendandprotect]

171. Will have to let Canadians speak for themselves ---

but we here also talk about legalizing prostitution -- and providing protection for it.


Both are exploitive as long as we have a society based on female inequality --

[DemocratSinceBirth]

178. Why Legalize Something That You Think Is Exploitative?

.

[seabeyond]

186. i think alcholism causes a lot fo damage to a lot of people. i know ban does not work. i also

believe people make their own choice. i prefer education.

[redqueen]

228. Exactly... why oh why is banning trotted out as a red herring? Derailment of course.

Mission accomplished.

[eridani]

416. Because that would cause more problems than keeping it legal? n/t

[polly7]

287. Pornography isn't banned in Canada. I'm not sure where you're getting this.

The Code of Ethics of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters<4> defines the "late viewing period" as the hours from 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Outside this period, the Code of Ethics prohibits programming containing sexually explicit material or coarse or offensive language. This association also publishes a "Voluntary Code Regarding Violence in Television Programming".<5>
In enforcing these two Codes, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council permits nudity to be broadcast during the day as long as it is considered non-sexual. For example, the CBSC permitted a 4:00 p.m. broadcast of the movie Wildcats containing male frontal nudity in a locker-room scene and female nudity in a bathtub.<6> The CBSC has also permitted the film Striptease, which contains scenes of bare female breasts, to be shown at 8:00 p.m.<7>

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

Under Canadian criminal law, the term “pornography” occurs only in section 163.1 of the Criminal Code, which provides a definition of “child pornography.” Pornographic material featuring consenting adults is regulated through the “obscenity” provision of the Criminal Code (section 163). In other words, unlike child pornography, pornographic material involving consenting adults is legal in Canada if it is not deemed to be obscene. As a consequence, child pornography tends to be much more clandestine and difficult to detect than adult pornography, which is readily accessible in retail stores through the sale and exchange of DVDs, videos, films, books and magazines, as well as in theatres, on television and over the Internet.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/843-e.htm

[Starbucks Anarchist]

288. Like those pitiful women who read trashy romance novels?

[seabeyond]

303. again, no different than a pg or r rated movie, depending. child, sanford, koontz writes the same

shit and it is called... a novel, or mystery. no difference. same shit

[Starbucks Anarchist]

310. I don't recall heavy sexual content in those works.

The poster was mocking male sexual fantasies via porn, yet hasn't provided me with an answer regarding romance novels, which also deal heavily in sexual fantasy. In fact, it seems to be their whole purpose, just like in porn.

[seabeyond]

316. are you kidding. sanford? heavy into the sex and wow on the sex crimes.

koontz almost always has a love story in his books. and the handful of childs i have read always had a romantic spin on it's story. a romance is no more. it is a story, with a plot and there is always a relationship in it. chick flick.

are pg and r rated chick flicks your porn for female? cause then we would have to say your macho movies are porn, too. are we really going there.

a lot of the romance has very little actual sex in it. that would be a pg version.

no more, no less.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

338. The romance genre is entirely different than mystery books that contain romantic relationships.

The specific purpose of the romance genre is to present a romantic/sexual fantasy. It's not an incidental part of the story -- it is the story. Ever hear of erotica?

And no, sex crimes are not the same as porn. Aside from psychopaths, nobody gets off on sex crimes.

[seabeyond]

343. erotica is a whole different animal than the romance novel. and i beg to differ that there is not

a story in a romance. you are wrong. the same as any other novel. adn regardless, it is not porn. again it is like a pg or r rated movie. a chick flick. are we calling a chick flick porn?

are we?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

349. Erotica is a subgenre of the romance genre.

And since you keep forgetting, what the poster was mocking was males' alleged inability to sexually fantasize without the aid of porn. I am arguing that the literary romance genre (hint: books, not movies) and its ilk represent the same fantasy aid for some women, yet I don't see the poster mocking women for buying those books in droves.

[seabeyond]

354. and i am disagreeing with you, obviously, that romance is female porn. and erotica is a different

genre. if you had made the statement that women have their erotica books for their porn, then i am all for it. but romance novels is not porn with the explicit purpose of getting a woman off. it is a story. like a movie that is titled a chick flick. are women getting off on chick flicks?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

358. Chick flicks are not totally comparable to romance novels.

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

Chick flick is a slang term for a film mainly dealing with love and romance designed to appeal to a female target audience. Although many types of films may be directed toward the female gender, "chick flick" is typically used only in reference to films that are heavy with emotion or contain themes that are relationship-based (although not necessarily romantic as many other themes may be present). This term is also applied to films with significant crossover appeal to other, more general audiences, such as Titanic (which was the highest-grossing film of all time until 2009).<3> Chick flicks often are released en masse around Valentine's Day.

"The Devil Wears Prada" and "Terms of Endearment" are classified as chick flicks, hardly comparable to romance novels.

You also have to look at the marketing. Romance novels frequently feature a woman in the arms of a shirtless Fabio-type male, which gives the target audience an impression of the book's contents. How many chick flicks are marketed that way?

[seabeyond]

360. that is absolutely what a romance novel is. it is literally no more or less.

you really dont know what you are talking about. this became really popular not long ago and then all of a sudden it became fact. romance novels are womens porn. read ONE. it is not porn. it is a chick flick in book form.

and the pictures on the fron are just as likely to have a near naked woman.

so

dont have the covers. doesnt change what the print is.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

366. See post #362.

[seabeyond]

371. so the poster has heard. doesnt sound like she reads the novels.

and yes. the men are good looking mostly. and the women are good looking mostly. the actors adn actresses are not? they arent in koontz, childs and sanford? have you read the flowers books of sanfords. he is one hot dude. and all those guys are definitely alpha males. as are all of koontz

which takes me back to the point. i read ALL genres. and almost all of them is the same formula.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

642. The "Or so I've heard" she posted was clearly tongue-in-cheek.

And as I've stated before, having a romantic/sexual relationship as one facet of a non-romance genre book is not quite the same as a book in the romance genre, which places far more emphasis on said relationship, considering it's the point of the romance genre in the first place.

[seabeyond]

643. yes. a relationship. relationship does not make it porn. nor does relationship in a chick flick

make the chick flick porn.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

647. It's like you're not even reading my posts.

Upthread, I said chick flicks were not comparable to romance novels, nor do they fit the "women's porn" paradigm. Then I mentioned romantic/sexual relationships in the romance genre, yet you glossed over the word "sexual" and implied that I thought any type of relationship, particularly non-sexual, constituted porn for women, which I clearly did not say.

[seabeyond]

651. sexual does not = porn. i read your words. and i dont agree with you. you want

to put the romance genre in porn, and it isnt. it is that simple. i read romance. i read mystery. i read sci fi. i read novels. they all have relationship. they all have sex. and none of them are porn.

[redqueen]

668. That's really it. Romance novels are not meant to be porn.

Romance novels might be used as porn, if one only turned straight to the sex scene, and just read that.

But that's not what people do. They read the story and build an emotional awareness of the characters and the relationship between them. That's not porn.

[eridani]

418. Slash fiction is a much better analogy than romance novels

Named after the first modern examples--amateur sex fiction written by and for women where Kirk and Spock are lovers, hence Kirk/Spock--the genre has expanded into many other imaginative pairings. It's a girl thing, like visual aids are a boy thing.

[seabeyond]

436. i dont know slash fiction

or i dont know it by that title. i read so much. i might have read some. i dont know.

but the ever lasting myth, women must have a story and men must have a visual is an old and tired myth. one that is very hard to dispel regardless what is found to be true.

http://sexuality.about.com/b/2006/06/19/new-brain-research-challenges-the-myth-that-men-are-more-visual-than-women.htm

New brain research challenges the myth that men are more visual than women.

It is considered an almost forgone conclusion across research disciplines, among pop psychologists of all stripes, and in the general population that men are more “visual” than women when it comes to the way they get turned on. Men, we’re told, are visually aroused, whereas women just need a good sense of humor, and possibly a strong jaw, and they're on board.

This misguided, but pervasive belief can be linked to a host of other gender stereotypes which are further complicated by sexual politics and differences in social power. So arguments which should be challenged, such as the “fact” that men leer more than women do, that they objectify women’s bodies more than women do men’s bodies, and that they just can’t stop watching porn, are explained as somehow being related to a mix of genetics, patriarchy, and simple mindedness.

Challenging these ideas can be a monumental task. Researcher bias being what it is, science rarely offers support for these "counter-intuitive" ideas. What's worse, when research does start to complicate matters, the media, and even smart bloggers who should know better, distort the findings beyond recognition.

Nonetheless, a recent study published in the journal Brain Research is offering the first preliminary but important evidence to dispel the age old myth that visual imagery is more important to men than it is to women. And it's worth considering without hyperbole.

[eridani]

701. What goes on in the brain is only indirectly connected to behavior

Plenty of women like visual porn, but they are greatly outnumbered by men. Men participate in writing slash fan fiction, but they are greatly outnumbered by women.

[eridani]

417. Erotica is sexually oriented media that I like

What YOU like is porn
What THEY like is appalling, disgusting filth.

[msanthrope]

466. Best post on the thread. Al Goldstein offered this--"The feminists say they are anti-porn, pro-

erotica, but they offer nothing in illustration of the latter. I wish they would offer up some of their erotica so I can jerk off to it. But the truth is, it's all semantics; if you like it, it's pornography, but if they like it, it's erotica."

[Starbucks Anarchist]

591. What I like is porn?

What the hell are you talking about? Where did I state that I was an aficionado?

Personally, I don't care about people viewing/reading/etc. porn so long as it doesn't involve minors or animals, or adults held against their will.

[redqueen]

594. It wasn't directed at you personally.

She was making the point that that thought is what is behind people's sentiment that porn harms/that porn has a harmful side.

She was insinuating that it is only the kind of porn that people don't find to their personal tastes that they label as 'porn' and anything they do like is 'erotica'.

[Rozlee]

361. I think Starbucks Anarchist is Right.

Many best selling women's authors such as Jill Shalvis, Bella Andre, Annette Blair, Nora Roberts, Leslie Kelly and even Young Adult author, Richelle Meade, have written some really steaming novels. Even my fantasies are pretty pedestrian compared to the stuff they come up with. The men are portrayed as obsessed with the heroines and are all alpha, hard-bodied, super well-endowed millionaires, cowboys, detectives, high-powered executives, sexy paranormal beings, etc. The description of sex scenes are very detailed and the man always performs oral sex on the female; she never performs it on him. The sex scenes can cover pages. Or so I've heard.

[seabeyond]

369. so you have heard? as i have stated, if you read koontz, childs and sanford

they all have exactly the same thing you talk about in their books. i have found since getting my kindle there is a genre of porn. it is not the romance novels. but kindle absolutely has erotica novels out there. that can be compared to porn, in print. read one of each. easy to see a difference.

[Rozlee]

379. The authors I've mentioned are considered mainstream. Their books

are not listed under erotica and they are best sellers. Modern erotic authors today are Eden Bradley, Sasha White, Lilli Feisty, Anais Nin, and Anne Rice under a different pen name. I've read a half dozen hard core erotica by some of them, thinking they'd teach me a thing or two to spring on my husband. Instead, I was shocked out of my mind. I guess he might like having sex in public. Or share me with three other men. But, I'd just as soon not even ask. But, even these books have a large female following. So, no. It's not just men that are horndogs.

[seabeyond]

382. wait....

i have never argued women dont like sex. as a matter of fact i argue the complete opposite. because there is sex in romance novels does not make it porn any more than koontz, childs or sanford or any other male authors that write books in the same manner with relationships and romance and sex, yet not titled romance. that is the whole point i am making in this discussion. he said romance novels is female porn and it is not. it is a book, story told along any of those other authors.

there is the genre of erotic writing that can be stated it is print porn.

not a tough one here. and certainly not arguing women dont get horney

[seaglass]

432. You are really not aware of the wide variety of romance novels out there that are very popular.

They have extremely explicit sex scenes, with a story and relationships. They are most definitely romance not erotica. Erotica is more a focus on the sex with not as much story/emotion/relationships.

I enjoy romance novels with explicit sex. I imagine some would consider it porn. To me it is fantasy. I don't have a difficult time separating fantasy from real life.

[seabeyond]

434. the poster said romance is female porn

i started hearing this about a decade ago. it seemed to be the position for men to validate their porn. over last decade reading many different books and hearing this said, i realized, romance is not porn. romance novels, even with explixit sex scenes is no more the a pg or r rated movies depending on the author. some have no sex. some have implied sex. some have a page or two of description one or two times. and some has 3, 4 page description a couple two three times. that would be r rated. the sex scenes are no more or less than male authors like childs, koontz or sanford. child, koontz and sanford are not considered porn. they are called mysteries.

then there is erotic, as you say, that is all about the sex and very little to the story or plot. that would be more the porn that men keep saying romance novels are.

posters keep saying i must not know the difference, as they keep repeating the exact thing that i say. i read sci fi, mystery, just plain fiction and romance and it is all the same for the most part.

[seaglass]

488. Koontz and Sanford do not write romance novels. A sex scene or two in a story that does not have

the attraction/love between two people as the main plot is not a romance novel.

I don't care if anyone calls romance novels female porn, it's a generalization and that person doesn't know what they are talking about. As we discussed, Romance can range from no sex to explicit sex.

I read a variety of genres myself and no, they are not all the same.

[seabeyond]

496. sigh... ok, cause you dont care if someone says it is porn, even though you know it isnt

really is not the point of the subthread, since that is the whole conversation. yes romance is porn. no, it isnt porn. yes it is. no, it isnt. yes, no.

most of the romance that i have read has a story. and yes, relationship based, hence the romance. especially koontz, it is a story and always a romance connection with happy ever after. so not seeing a whole lot different in the two authors. but now we are only talking a marginal difference in opinion.

now, to go past this argument. i have read so many books, with so many sex scenes, and only so much can be done, they are ultimately boring that i scan that part until i get to the story again. so want to get to the nitty gritty of it all, that part doesnt even have an interest for me in stories.

[seaglass]

505. FFS it's not all porn. If you know it's not why would you possibly care that someone who doesn't

know what they're talking about thinks it is. Some romance MIGHT be porn - I don't know exactly when it crosses the line into porn - but talk about wasting time on trivia...geesh.

I thought you were talking about Dean Koontz but obviously not. I haven't read any other authors named Koontz

So you are bored by sex scenes in books - not everyone is, thus their best-seller status.

[seabeyond]

507. i could throw the ffs backatcha

but i try to be patience, for the most part.

we are talking over and under and around. i gotta guess that i am not fitting into your box, you are trying hard to shove me in.

:hi:

enjoy your reading

[seaglass]

534. sigh...n/t

[SharksBreath]

348. We are animals. It amazes me how humans think they are not.

[seabeyond]

355. that is why we are going around taking a dump on the street. geez

forgot.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

471. Because we can't afford two hours?

[AtheistCrusader]

472. Do you really imagine that men are the only ones to do it?

[They_Live]

661. Some of your posts seem

like HATE speech against MEN. Do you realize that?

[Codeine]

730. An HOUR?!

Fifty-eight wasted minutes -- I'd better get a prorated bill.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

259. Yes, all that misogynistic gay and BDSM porn.

[Modern_Matthew]

29. Amateur porn, for the win. nt

[mistertrickster]

60. The old-school feminists hated pornography

Andrea Dworkin, Susan Brownmiller and Catharine MacKinnon for example. I was at Purdue when feminists staged a protest against a Playboy magazine shoot there.

This anti-sex view reached it's apogee when the old-school feminists declared that ANY sexual relationship between a man and woman was inherently unequal and essentially a form of rape. The only form of sexual expression that wasn't rape is a lesbian relationship.

This is a perfect example of ideology ossifying into a party line which forces out moderate voices. You could almost hear the feet of the mainstream pounding the pavement AWAY from these extremists. In the process, some of their good ideas were abandoned as well.

New-school feminists tend to argue either that it's free speech or that it empowers women. Instead of repressing their sexuality, women can accept and enjoy it. They also claim that women sex workers deserve legal protections, not censorship.

[redqueen]

66. Please don't generalize like that. Many feminists think prostitution is violence against women,

and therefore it should not be legalized.

Many feminists think that pornography encourages an emotional disconnection from women that enables things like the popular view that the constant and unrelenting objectification of women is 'no big deal'... and that this mindset of women as the 'other' and of an object first and a person second is what enables so much of the dysfunction we see in our society with respect to issues of sex and gender.

It is a systemic problem and it deserves serious consideration, and that is coming.

[seabeyond]

68. he was very very smooth on attacking womens sexuality if they do not vvalidate porn.

very smooth.

[redqueen]

78. Well feminists love it!

Get on board you stupid rigthwing fundie puritans!

:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

160. Ironic that it requires ignorning the reality that RW loves HATES speech vs women, homosexuals ...

African Americans -- Jews --

GOP -- Grand Old Patriarchy -- sexist, racist and homophobic -- !!



:evilgrin:

[MineralMan]

70. There are many types of pornography. Not all are

violence against women. Some porn doesn't even include women.

Other porn features only an individual. One of the most erotic films I ever saw was of a woman alone. It was also a favorite of my wife's. Was it pornography? It most certainly was. Did it depict violence towards women? It most certainly did not.

Pornography comes in many forms. Generalizations about it are often incorrect, as in this case, where the type of pornography mentioned in the photograph was not specified.

If you dislike all depictions of sexual activity, then that's your thing. The photo was funny.

[redqueen]

73. "Funny" is a matter of taste.

Thanks.

[MineralMan]

82. It is, indeed. I notice that you did not address the other

points in my post, however.

[redqueen]

83. They're strawmen.

Or else you were attempting to continue your conversation with someone else but mistakenly addressed the points to me.

I never implied that it is only violent porn that is harmful, for one thing.

[MineralMan]

99. So, you think all porn is harmful?

:shrug:

[redqueen]

103. Watch Miss Representation this Saturday on OWN.

Watch it with your wife.

[mistertrickster]

294. Condi Rice talking about "values" rather undercuts the message, does it not? nt

[redqueen]

386. She's just one of the many women interviewed

If you think it's logical to ignore the entire 2-hour documentary because of that then... well I'll read something into that, I admit.

[mistertrickster]

465. Thesis--"women are judged too much by their appearance."

Wow. Knock me over with a feather.

The problem is that sets women up as the victims and men as the victimizers. Men are judged too much by their appearance too. When was the last time we elected a hunchbacked politician?

And why is that only men are the victimizers? I see the covers of women's magazines, and except for Ms., they have thin models wearing the latest fashions. And who buys them? Women.

I agree we have equality problems in this country and in this world, but it's time to move past the "white male patriarchy" model of solving those problems.

[redqueen]

475. That's a gross oversimplification. It's not surprising if you don't want to know more. Most don't.

And no, it doesn't set women up as the victims and men as the victimizers. That's on you, you're being defensive.

The problem is the media's nearly constant misrepresentation of women as objects.

The "white male patriarchy" is not a model of solving problems. It just exists, and ignoring it or getting defensive whenever the issue comes up, and shutting down all conversation, that doesn't help solve anything either.

Minority groups tend to absorb the dominant group's message in society, and will go along with whatever unfair things they're conditioned to believe are reasonable and acceptable.

[mistertrickster]

478. That is so 1971. Face it, a lot of the dogma that proto-feminism pushed

has been proven false or at the very least is almost impossible to support--that gender roles are wholly learned and have no innate roots. "Boys don't like to play with guns and girls with dolls, until society teaches them to."

Yet, that is exactly what gay studies and the gay community have rejected. Gayness is innate, it's not learned or in any sense a choice. Who for instance taught Chas Bono that she was really a man?

On edit--brain scans, too, show marked differences between how male and female brains solve problems and process information. This isn't learned. Dominate social structures have nothing to do with that. Sex drive has long been tied to testosterone levels, which men have more of. One way to make a woman more masculine is to give her testosterone or vice-versa for men.

We need some deeper thinking and willingness to go beyond the simple faith-based arguments of the movement if we really want to create an equitable society within the constraints of human biology.

The guilt trip is over. Forty years is long enough.

[redqueen]

480. I get it. You're not going to watch. You don't want to know.

Glad you enjoy the status quo so much.

Maybe you'd be more willing to watch a different documentary: Tough Guise. Probably not though. If you think the status quo for women is fine, you probably think the situation with respect to men is fine, too.

[seabeyond]

484. do you have the link to tough guise? nt

[redqueen]

487. Here you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3exzMPT4nGI

I have to stay away from this thread, it's just too depressing.

[seabeyond]

491. i hear ya. thanks. nt

[mistertrickster]

485. I'll watch it, but believe me, I've heard it all before . . . many many times.

I had the good fortune to shack up with an academic feminist during its full flower.

My consciousness has been raised to the breaking point, heh.

[redqueen]

494. I hope you're pleasantly surprised.

Academic feminists aren't representative of all feminists. There are many kinds of feminists. Despite the hair-on-fire reaction in this thread, nobody said anything about banning porn. I don't think banning porn is any kind of a solution. I just think we need to address the problems involved with the industry. At least look at them. At least acknowledge them. Same with so many other issues in society. The Lucretia Mott signature in my signature says it all for me.

It's nice to try to imagine what the world might be like if people weren't conditioned the way they are.

Thanks for the actual discussion.

[mistertrickster]

489. I don't think the status quo is fine. I think we'd be better off with more women running things.

But at some point, one can't agree with wrong-headed dogma simply because it purports to achieve the same goal you want.

Pissing off men is not the way to make positive change. Identifying them as the enemy is not the way to get them to help you.

[defendandprotect]

108. Right ... "new school" feminists are making appointments for Cesareans for their convenience ...

having face lifts and limitless plastic surgery --

and cleaning toilet bowls on TV!!


Not to mention still paying for contraception while insurance companies cover VIAGRA --

Ain't freedom grand?



:rofl:

[Name removed]

351. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Remember Me]

241. Aw, geez, that old saw again -- or several of them, actually.

This anti-sex view reached it's apogee when the old-school feminists declared that ANY sexual relationship between a man and woman was inherently unequal and essentially a form of rape. The only form of sexual expression that wasn't rape is a lesbian relationship.

First, feminists aren't anti-sex, not EVEN the ones who see the harm to women inherent in pornography.

And that old lie about sex-is-rape has been debunked so often you surely should have seen it by now. It's so inaccurate and so thoroughly debunked you can find it on Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.asp

New-school feminists tend to argue either that it's free speech or that it empowers women. Instead of repressing their sexuality, women can accept and enjoy it.


"New school feminists" (your own inartful mischaracterization) don't exist. I've never heard of any woman arguing that "sex is free speech." The free speech argument was cratively manufactured by liberal men (lawyers) who didn't want to give up THEIR supply when the courts started going after neighborhood sex shops and movie houses.

"Instead of repressing their sexuality"? Sheesh. So, you're saying that women who are anti-porn are repressing their own sexuality? That's sick. Let me give you a clue: women can be vehemently anti-porn and equally energetically enjoy their own sexuality.

I think you're probably thinking of the so-called "Sex Positive Feminists" who are not so sex-positive, not so feminist, as they are deluded. Idiots by any other name. Terribly, terribly confused as well.

They also claim that women sex workers deserve legal protections, not censorship.

Well, guess what, buster. More inaccuracies. (And you thought you knew all about this shit, didn't you? Sure adopted a tone of voice like some sort of authority, that's for sure.) Women were lobbying for legal protections for sex workers back in the 70s if not even earlier. COYOTE -- Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics -- was one such group. Oops, look. Wikipedia has even heard about that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COYOTE:

COYOTE was founded in California in 1973 by Margo St. James, a feminist and alleged former prostitute. She chose the name COYOTE because novelist Tom Robbins called her a "coyote trickster" and came up with "Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics" to fit the chosen acronym.

[mistertrickster]

284. It's not a lie.

And that old lie about sex-is-rape has been debunked so often you surely should have seen it by now.

I remember feminists telling me that--confronting me with it--in the 70's. I can see why folks might not want to own up to it now, but I heard it repeated often by self-identifying feminists. It's hard to maintain this revisionist history given what rad-fems of the 70's have put into print:

Brownmiller in Against Our Will: "From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function. It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear."

Andrea Dworkin in Intercourse (summarized in Wiki) "she argues that all heterosexual sex in our patriarchal society is coercive and degrading to women, and sexual penetration may by its very nature doom women to inferiority and submission, and 'may be immune to reform'" and from your own Snopes link, "Penetrative intercourse is, by its nature, violent."


I've never heard of any woman arguing that "sex is free speech."

That may be because I didn't say "sex" was free speech, I think I said porn was protected under free speech, which some New School feminists have acknowledged and supported. See for instance Feminists for Free Expression or American Civil Liberties Union President Nadine Strossen, who wrote a book IIRC, Defending Pornography.

[hifiguy]

490. Thank you for posting this

I wanted to post the same references, but don't have the time to google them all right now. All of your points are spot on 100%. Andrea Dworkin was nuttier than a squirrel turd.

Nadine Strossen was in the forefront of shooting down the absurd MacKinnon/Dworkin ordinance and is a genuine heroine in defending the First Amendment.

[mistertrickster]

499. I think one has to see people like Dworkin in the context of their times.

I don't ridicule her . . . opportunities for women were very constrained until the late 60's. Women could be schoolteachers, secretaries, nurses, or stewardesses. That's it. No professions, no leadership, no politics really.

New movements commonly become extreme and over-react, and their beliefs fossilize into a party line.

What I see as unfortunate is that people like Dworkin were given so much attention that it alienated a lot of mainstream folks who otherwise would have helped achieve feminist goals perhaps faster and more extensively.

Men (and women) need to change their minds before they can change society--that's a given. But we have to work together which is hard to do when the other party can say nothing but how wrong you are.

[Warren DeMontague]

759. People have to see Dworkin as what she was, i.e. mentally ill.

She could have benefited from medication, probably.

[Warren DeMontague]

390. okay, so you ARE pro censorship.

as in, you think the government should be in the business of telling consenting adults they can't look at pictures or films of other consenting adults, naked or fucking each other.

I've never heard of any woman arguing that "sex is free speech." The free speech argument was creatively manufactured by liberal men (lawyers) who didn't want to give up THEIR supply when the courts started going after neighborhood sex shops and movie houses.

So... mind if I send folks over here who say "no one is interested in banning anything????"


Also, 'sex positive feminism' was a label self-applied by large numbers of these women (or, as you call them, 'idiots') who were and are reacting to what they believe are some authoritarian, negative, and generally disagreeable strains of thought in the "Feminism" exemplified by MacKinnon and Dworkin (who most assuredly DID believe that "all sex under patriarchy is indistinguishable from rape", her definition of "under patriarchy" being essentially indistinguishable from "on Planet Earth". Oh, she thought non-rape sex was perhaps possible, provided it in no way involved an erect penis.. but in reality, according to her, it never happens)

...so, you're gonna call all these articulate, bright, opinionated young women -some of whom, I am CERTAIN, you would hear argue that, yes, sex IS free speech- that you disagree with 'idiots'? And you wonder why people use phrases like "hopelessly out of touch"? :shrug:

[mistertrickster]

470. Thank you for setting the record straight.

I drives me crazy when people re-write history for their own motives.

One is not entitled to their own facts--facts are facts.

It's like Ollie North and the CONs deciding 20 years later that liberal protesters lost Vietnam. I lived through that era . . . in 1975, you couldn't find two people in the entire country that wanted our troops to stay in Vietnam.

[OneGrassRoot]

72. Gawd, I needed that!!!! LOL. We have the BEST protest signs!!! n/t

[montanto]

75. winning

[redqueen]

80. Oh I do love this.

Using a quote from someone like Charlie Sheen to cheer this is just too good for words, really.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

89. .

:popcorn: :hide: :yoiks:

[GliderGuider]

115. Chuckle-worthy indeed.

That is all.

[AllyCat]

119. Wow, I just rec'd up an unrec! Funny...

[Hydra]

120. Wow, what a popcorn thread

:popcorn:

Remember kids, naked bodies is E V I L!

[redqueen]

122. Ah the John Ashcroft tactic. How novel.

Naked bodies != porn.

Weak.

[Hydra]

143. Ok

Naked bodies + sex + film = Horrid evil?

I'm glad you reminded me about Ashcroft covering Justice's Boob. I thought of it symbolically that he was "covering up" things, but the fact that he was scared of boobs too is worth a laugh.

[WillParkinson]

217. Wasn't meant to be...

I just thought it was funny that someone is taking on one of the Phelps types. It blew way out of proportion.

[redqueen]

229. One of the Phelps types?

Jesus fucking christ.

[WillParkinson]

244. Yep...

That's what I said.

People are free to view pornography, or not.
People are free to protest pornography, or not.
People are free to mock those who protest pornography, or not.
People are free to view those protesting pornography as Phelps types, or not.
People are free to post a picture they find amusing on a website, others are free to disagree with the picture and make their opinions known. Or not.

You're entitled to your beliefs. I do not share them. I have no doubt your convictions are sincere and true, but my belief that people are free to make up their minds as they see fit as long as no one is being harmed and all parties are doing so of their own free will is also sincere and true.

[redqueen]

245. No, you obviously don't think I have the right to my opinion,

since you think it's fair and reasonable to mock anyone who dares to criticize porn.

[WillParkinson]

249. You're entitled to cherry pick from my paragraph...

Or not.

Let me reiterate for you.

You're entitled to your beliefs. I do not share them. I have no doubt your convictions are sincere and true, but my belief that people are free to make up their minds as they see fit as long as no one is being harmed and all parties are doing so of their own free will is also sincere and true.

---

You disagree with pornography. I get that. You're well within your rights to protest pornography. I will never deny that. By the same token, should someone take up a sign to protest your protest they are within their rights, too. I hope you cannot deny that

You are also well within your rights to leave such comments on this post. I will not deny that. Nor would I try to deny you that right. I may disagree with what you say but I believe in your right to say them.

Oh, and just so we're clear on this: I also think it's fine to mock people who view porn, if they're outside protesting for their right to do so. As one of the examples from the Merriam Webster Dictionary says, "You can mock me as much as you like, but I'm going to do it anyway." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mock

[redqueen]

250. Ok. I hope that you'll watch Miss Representation this weekend...

it's being re-aired on OWN on Saturday morning.

I also still maintain that calling anyone who thinks pornography is harmful "One of the Phelps types" says more than you think. He wasn't holding up a sign saying "GOD HATES PORNOGRAPHERS". It is worth considering why you made that statement.

[frylock]

344. and masturbation..

so just stop it!

[eallen]

127. University of Texas west mall

:hippie:

[WinkyDink]

163. Oh, my!!

[Name removed]

166. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eShirl]

170. I'm so confused. Should I burn my vintage copies of Penthouse Forum,

or is text-based porn OK?

:shrug:

[DRoseDARs]

173. Boy howdy, these porn threads are fun...

Gotta love the pearl(necklace)-clutching some people work themselves into over this topic. Pro tip: If you're going to paint with broad strokes, be prepared for when others take the paint bucket and dump it on your head.

[redqueen]

175. That's funny. If you had bothered to read anything

you'd see it's the defenders of the right to porn who are broad-brushing, working themselves into a panic, etc.

The labeling does suit you, though. Nice touch.

[Scout]

184. +10,000 n/t

[DRoseDARs]

283. Oh dear, did you get a touch of the vapors there?

I'm not going to waste my time going over what many others have gone over with you and your dismissive, condescending, self-righteous ilk, especially not if you're going to play "I'm rubber, you're glue" card. The only thing I'm taking away from your kind of posts is that "My body, my choice." only applies when YOU think it should. If you wouldn't do it, NO ONE should do it, their rights and free will be damned.

[Warren DeMontague]

385. if, as so many repeatedly protest, "no one wants to ban anything!!!11!!!"

then why the fuck is 'defending the right to porn' so threatening, or even a bad thing? You claim you're not interested in censorship or telling consenting adults they cant get nude in front of a camera and/or look at consenting adults doing the same...


then there's really no debate about 'right to porn', is there? You acknowledge that people are going to look at it, and as upset or 'harmed' or psychologically wounded as you may imagine you are every time someone you don't know masturbates while looking at a picture of someone else you don't know, it's not going away. Ever.

If you're really not pro-censorship, aren't you, also, a 'defender of the right to porn'? Seems sort of either/or, like either you want to outlaw abortion, or you're pro-choice. People are personally opposed to abortion yet want to leave the decision up to the individual, and are not interested in outlawing it. That's a pro-choice position.

Furthermore, since you're, as you claim, 'not interested in banning' it and the people involved with it don't really seem to agree with your negative assessment of it, what's the point?

[Occulus]

444. Is the guy on the right in the photo gay or striaight?

[seabeyond]

188. "Gotta love the pearl(necklace)-clutching", "If you're going to paint with broad strokes"

what a hoot. talk about your hypocrisy almost all in the same sentence

[Name removed]

179. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eShirl]

182. stop trying to get the thread locked

[Name removed]

180. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seabeyond]

191. bah hahahha.... yup. this. lol. thanks for showing us the ugly of SOME men. nt

[eShirl]

192. we believe you

:rofl:

[mistertrickster]

208. The simple fact is that the old-school feminists and the Fundy-Cons both HATE porn.

I heard that Gov. Brownback in my great state of Kansas said at a fundraiser . . . "you know what the biggest problem is in this country? Por-nography!"

Odd how the two very different groups are so united on the harm of watching humans engaged in sex.

Focus on the Family Policy Statement:

To reverse the cultural decay brought on by pornography, Americans must first examine their own role in spreading the philosophy that makes the porn industry viable: namely, that human beings are commodities to be bought and sold, and then discarded.

http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/pornography.aspx

On Aug. 7 (2003), Ashcroft’s Justice Department announced a 10-count indictment against a porno production company called Extreme Associates. The owners of the company, Robert Zicari and Janet Romano (aka “Lizzie Borden”) were charged with distributing obscene films and video clips through the U.S. mail and the Internet. The move was expected. The conservative groups that regard society’s tolerance for pornography as a sign of hideous moral decay, and that make up the Bush administration’s political base, have been critical of Bush for not launching an anti-porn war sooner. Attorney General Ashcroft is a fervent born-again Christian who met with anti-porn crusaders before Sept. 11; his planned crusade was derailed by the terrorist attacks.

http://www.salon.com/2003/08/26/lennybruce/

[redqueen]

231. I hope that you'll watch Miss Representation on OWS this Saturday morning.

It's a very important documentary.

[mistertrickster]

272. I could never figure out why the radical feminists always attacked Playboy for

"objectifying" women, but they gave Cosmopolitan and Fitness a free pass . . .

[hifiguy]

242. The irony here is so thick...

The bible thumpers think that treating "human beings are commodities to be bought and sold, and then discarded" is soooooo awful when it's porn but perfectly acceptable, even required by Supply-Side Jebus himself, in every other part of society. :rofl: Idiots.

[seabeyond]

246. yes, the irony. show me one post quoting religion, the bible or christ. one post.

since you have once again broad brushed all posters who are not into porn as bible thumpers, i am only asking for ONE bible thumping post

just one.

show me that thick irony.

kinda like defending tav for misconstruing his words, when he is the one to claim people were demanding bans.

[hifiguy]

248. I was referring SPECIFICALLY to the Focus on the Family quote

in the post to which I was responding. :eyes:

[SharksBreath]

356. You being the pot just called the ketlle black.

[seabeyond]

357. you are really a confused person, arent you? nt

[mistertrickster]

273. God wants you to be RICH! nt

[Upton]

251. Yep, the old school feminists are in bed with the fundies in their crusade against porn

but good luck trying to get the old timers to acknowledge it..

[Warren DeMontague]

296. the 'real problem' is 'progressives who don't get it'

:eyes:

Amazing how much the authoritarians discover that they have in common, once they start hanging out.

[AngkorWot]

211. Protip: it's OK to not like porn. Just don't be a dick about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0la5DBtOVNI

[yellowcanine]

213. The guy with the yellow sign appears to have a severe wedgie.

[AngkorWot]

216. It looks that way because he's got an enormous stick up his ass.

[seabeyond]

224. what was that about not "being a dick" about it? what a hoot. nt

[AngkorWot]

269. See the picture in the OP? See that neckbeard on the left?

That dude's a dick. A raging asshole. A first class douchebag.

[seabeyond]

275. he is standing there holding a sign saying porns harmful. that is all. you are all for people

not liking porn. you said so. told them not to be a dick. he is not. he is holding a sign, that says porns harmful.

then you say he has a stick up the ass, a dick, raging asshole and douchebag.

so i ask

who really is being the dick.

[AngkorWot]

307. Oh, he's a dick all right.

He's a liar. He's got a fucked up sense of morality. Ten to one odds says he's also a hypocrite.

[seabeyond]

309. ah. so really, you dont agree that people can not like porn. or they re a dick

for the simple fact of not agreeing with you

[AngkorWot]

314. Actually, I suspect that guy probably likes porn.

It's not that he doesn't like porn, it's that he's being a dick about it.

[seabeyond]

317. so, all these posts of your about this man that has done anything ot you is NOT being a dick

right?

[AngkorWot]

318. No. I'm not a dick. That guy is a dick.

Figure it out, slowpoke.

[seabeyond]

321. he hasnt done anything but not have your position. you are the one that has called him all kinds of

names and drawn all kinds of offensive conclusions without any knowledge what so ever.

i think you are the one moving pretty slow on this.

[AngkorWot]

324. He's protesting against pornography holding a sign saying porn his harmful.

That's a dick move.

"offensive conclusions"

Maybe offensive to dicks like him.

[seabeyond]

347. so, what you are saying is you do have a problem with people that does not have the same position as

you. so the very first comment of yours that i addressed, about being able to not like porn being fine with you, really was not true. people are not allowed to have a differing opinion, or the are dicks.

they can only have a differing opinion if they shut the fuck up. then they are not being dicks.

got it.

loves me some freedom of speech that others are demanding on this thread. such a hoot.

[AngkorWot]

376. I'm not saying he doesn't have a right to be a dick, just saying he's a dick.

Is that really so hard for you to figure out?

"so the very first comment of yours that i addressed, about being able to not like porn being fine with you, really was not true."

No, it's completely. He's perfectly welcome to not like porn. He's going a step beyond that, and making up bullshit about porn being harmful. He wants other people to not like porn to, and is being a real big dick about it.

But, of course, given the nature of the image and how funny he is, he could just be satirizing anti-porn assholes.

[seabeyond]

377. so. he is allowed to think porn is harmful. he just is not allowed to say it out loud.

he has to keep his mouth shut. if he does say what he thinks out loud. he is a dick.

hm

[AngkorWot]

378. Saying porn is harmful is different from not liking it.

I myself don't romantic comedy movies. I don't go out and protest them. Or make up bullshit about them being harmful or sexist or hate speech. I don't think less of people if they do like it.

I'd be a dick if I did. But I don't.

[seabeyond]

384. lot of data says porn is harmful. it is not way out there. maybe he does not like

porn because he feels it is harmful.

so

he is only allowed to say that he does not like porn. he is not allowed to say that he feels porn is harmful.

or

he is a dick.

tell you, you authoritarians need to write a script what people are allowed to say, when they disagree with you

remind me who the dick is.

i keep forgetting.

[The Doctor.]

670. 'lot of data' says abortion is harmful. Funny thing is,

that data and the data you allude to are similar in one important way; they've never been validated by peer-review.

So you and the anti-choicers can just go on believing what you want to.

(Or you could get some peer-reviewed stuff that supports your 'porn is bad' theory)

[seabeyond]

671. do you THINK that abortion does not effect the health of a girl/woman?

really? do you think a girl goes in and blase get her abortion and walk out without a thought in the world about what she just did. of course there are lasting/lingering effects with a lot of the girls that get an abortion. and you can damn well bet i am going to listen, empathize, understand all the emotion experience she has gone thru.

been there, done that.

[The Doctor.]

690. Why the need to substitute 'Woman' with 'Girl'?

I'm sure you agree the same is true for a 'woman' as it might be for a 'girl'.

Right?

[seabeyond]

691. because the majority of abortions with our females are very young.

it is call truth. reality. say it like it is. if i used woman, it would not be accurate.

but why that is your only interest in what i posted says something.

ignore what was said.

[The Doctor.]

692. Oh no, I caught everything.

Are girls still girls after the age of 18?

[seabeyond]

693. i dot see either gender reaching maturity of adult until 25-28. but i am referring to under 20

generally 18 and under, with this issue. this has been my experience with abortion. younger girls. we were talking about my experience with abortion.

but i do have a couple of friends that are older and i can share how it was not blaze for them, either if you like

[The Doctor.]

695. You said that "the majority of abortions with our females are very young".

That's why I asked.

In reality, 57% of abortions are performed on women age 20-29.

Are women generally mature by 20?

[and-justice-for-all]

214. Brilliant...nt

[blackspade]

247. Thanks! I needed the chuckle!

[liberal N proud]

253. lol

[Quantess]

258. I laughed.

I don't care what the finger waggers on their high-horses have to say about it.

Edit to add: I'm a woman and I think most pornography is boring. Banal. There are a lot worse things in the world, and most pornography is just fine. Get a life if you think pornography is worth protesting, I say.

[mistertrickster]

270. You don't see it as a perfect representation of men's innate need to dominate

and subjugate women, to keep them in their place, and maintain the white male power structure?

Hoo boy, you're never going to make tenure in the Women's Studies Dept. at your local university . . .

[Quantess]

763. I don't know about that... I would assume that college classes are more thoughtful and comprehensive

I wonder what the womens studies is like in San Francisco State University, for example. I went to SF State, and there I took a course called "Images of Eroticism" where we read Marquille De Sade, Sacher Von Masoch, and watched the film Caligula.

What would a Womens Studies Class be like at Brigham Young in Utah?

[rpannier]

261. It's funny

At first I thought they were together -- the looks on their faces seemed similar to comedy sketches

But, I guess they aren't.

Thanks for sharing

[Utopian Leftist]

262. Eye for an eye?

I have an argument that I can't imagine anyone else has come up with in this thread. It is a scientific fact that men's eyes are directly connected to the sexual center of the brain. This is the plain and simple reason why men are generally more visually stimulated than women are. Now, imagine for one second that the situation were reversed and that women were the ones who got this "special boost" from visual stimuli. The women in that scenario would all be screaming bloody murder that we are taking away their rights to porn. And they would be right to do so.

I am gay so I don't believe I have personal investment in this argument but if they come for my porn, they're pulling back the metaphorical bloody stump. I also don't get the argument that states, "some porn is degrading to women, therefore all porn is degrading to women." That is specious at best.

[seabeyond]

263. imagine my surprise when i found out that was not true. women are as visual if not more, than men

New brain research challenges the myth that men are more visual than women.

It is considered an almost forgone conclusion across research disciplines, among pop psychologists of all stripes, and in the general population that men are more “visual” than women when it comes to the way they get turned on. Men, we’re told, are visually aroused, whereas women just need a good sense of humor, and possibly a strong jaw, and they're on board.

This misguided, but pervasive belief can be linked to a host of other gender stereotypes which are further complicated by sexual politics and differences in social power. So arguments which should be challenged, such as the “fact” that men leer more than women do, that they objectify women’s bodies more than women do men’s bodies, and that they just can’t stop watching porn, are explained as somehow being related to a mix of genetics, patriarchy, and simple mindedness.

Challenging these ideas can be a monumental task. Researcher bias being what it is, science rarely offers support for these "counter-intuitive" ideas. What's worse, when research does start to complicate matters, the media, and even smart bloggers who should know better, distort the findings beyond recognition.

Nonetheless, a recent study published in the journal Brain Research is offering the first preliminary but important evidence to dispel the age old myth that visual imagery is more important to men than it is to women. And it's worth considering without hyperbole.

http://sexuality.about.com/b/2006/06/19/new-brain-research-challenges-the-myth-that-men-are-more-visual-than-women.htm

[redqueen]

264. It's worh considering, but very few will.

I feel extremely confident in making that assumption. Just like I'm fairly sure Miss Representation will be studiously avoided.

[seabeyond]

268. we wonder why myth is held up as gospel. scientific fact. oh wait. not really. never mind

still gonna pretend.

gotta believe... gotta believe.

so many things i hear from the pro porn people are the same things the ridicule the rw christian coalition about.

plug ears and .... na na na n anan

[Utopian Leftist]

302. The article you linked to,

while interesting, does itself state that:

It is considered an almost forgone conclusion across research disciplines, among pop psychologists of all stripes, and in the general population that men are more “visual” than women when it comes to the way they get turned on.

Then it goes on to dispute this entire "forgone conclusion" on one flimsy study, which again, the link you posted describes as: "This study, which itself carries several limitations, and I would argue more than a few major theoretical flaws, is still one of the first to offer statistically significant empirical evidence that both women and men respond subjectively and significantly to visual erotic material. "

I'll need a bit more scientific evidence than that before I will change my mind about pornography based on what is known about the visual center of the brain though. Quite a bit more.

[seabeyond]

306. yes... they did ONE study with questionaires asking people to say if there were visually

turned on, back in the 80's. hm.... women conditioned they are not suppose to be. men conditioned they are suppose to be. ergo, the results... men are more visual. no balance, no control.

this one, they hook up the brain and get a read out on what is actually happening.

but.... because of one poorly done study in the 80's all we hear is men gotta have their porn, they are visual.

it doesnt even make logical sense.

[Utopian Leftist]

323. Well, sorry again to quote but

I don't doubt that as the article says, "that both women and men respond subjectively and significantly to visual erotic material."

What does that sentence from the article's conclusion actually say? "Subjectively and significantly." I'm sure women respond subjectively and significantly to most of the stimuli in the environment. As do men if they have any sense. I don't believe men are superior or inferior in any way shape or form to women. Nor do I think they have a stronger sex drive. I just think they get bug-eyed over sex.

[seabeyond]

328. yes...

when we live in a culture that now emphasis male to be the be all end all, all empowering awesome sexuality, then i imagine the men buy into it.

and women, well hell, their job is to hand their sexuality to men and entertain them, to turn them on.

no, i dont believe one gender libido is over another gender. nor one gender visual over another.

so really

what is in all this awesomeness.

[Name removed]

352. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtheistCrusader]

476. So many examples of that in this thread, it should be bronzed for posterity.

All we are missing is the Circumcision debate, and this thing is ready for the archives.

[NMMNG]

274. Why is it always

those anti-porn/anti-sex/anti-abortion people are the kind you'd never want to &%#! in the first place?

[HubertHeaver]

278. Just one wrist?

[RedCloud]

285. They don't call him shorty for nothing.

[Warren DeMontague]

281. IS EVERYONE INVOLVED A CONSENTING ADULT? YES?

THEN IT'S NOT ANY OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

next.

[DRoseDARs]

290. You're forgetting that "My body, my choice." doesn't apply when it goes against another's morals.

Also, gays don't exist because it screws up the whole premise of the argument.

[Occulus]

362. Dont you just love how seabeyond, defendandprotect, and others ASSUMED the guy on the right

is heterosexual?

[DRoseDARs]

402. It's really kinda funny/sad too. The gays actually were more progressive in their approach to porn.

When AIDS struck, they quickly made condom use the norm in footage. Even made a point to show condoms being put on. "Bareback" was by-and-large shunned because of the risk to the actors and only in more recent years has it made a bit of a return as people wrongly became more relaxed about the threat. It's my understanding they do a lot of testing but still, risky and they consent to it.

Are there cretins in porn production? Absolutely, but to pretend that any "bad" porn = ALL porn is bad is very much like calling all soldiers "baby killers." It's asinine, ignorant, and oblivious. The shear scope of types of porn is, well, disturbing, but it's also none of your business or mine. If it's consensual and precautions are taken to protect the health of the workers, same as any industry, then who the fuck are we to judge? Some people are really into pain for pleasure. Doesn't float my boat, but you don't see me going around sinking theirs. Some people are really into putting food into places that are not mouths. Me, I prefer eating food. Some people are really into being in full-body latex. I don't even like being in my own skin in the middle of summer, I think I'll pass on being shrink-wrapped and steamed in my own sweat bath.

All this, and saying nothing of gay porn, or lesbian porn, or transexual/transgendered porn, or woman-as-dominatrix porn, or amateur home movie porn. They simply don't exist as legitimate examples of contrary evidence to these anti-porn arguments.

[eShirl]

437. interesting post, thanks

[apocalypsehow]

736. Ask "defendandprotect" about the Moon landing, and you'll get a good laugh. n/t.

[Warren DeMontague]

776. she's had me on ignore, now, for a while

Probably because I asked her to explain this:

[Mojambo]

515. This. SO SO SO SO THIS. n/t

[backscatter712]

374. BINGO!!!

If it's all between consenting adults, the .gov and the net.prudes need to butt out!

[Warren DeMontague]

289. The Internet...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRgNOyCnbqg

[DRoseDARs]

291. Honestly, while that one was good, I prefer the puppet one.

Brace yourself for the outrage.

[Warren DeMontague]

293. Nah, I remember this exact thread from back in 2006

I expect the arguments will be the same. It's not outrage that scares me, it's the boredom of 'been there, done that'

[DRoseDARs]

297. See, the Internet is good for something other than porn: It's good for heated threads about porn. nt

[AngkorWot]

308. >implying that's not somebody's fetish

>implying people aren't jacking off to this thread right now

[DRoseDARs]

312. Admit it: You have the weirdest boner right now. n/t

:P

[AngkorWot]

315. OK, I confess

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_I2uQkGxIykM/TUpBPZ2apUI/AAAAAAAAOPU/RBjsUfW6xsY/s1600/weirs+blackadder.jpg

[Warren DeMontague]

326. Olive Garden threads make me positively priapic

wheeeee!

[WillParkinson]

889. The best thing about Warcraft...

Was that cartoon.

[JDPriestly]

299. Seriously, which of these two boys is going to be snubbed by Santa Claus this Christmas?

[DRoseDARs]

304. If he's lucky, the naughty one will get a visit from Sexy Santa.

He just needs to find a hand-shaped Santa costume... ;)

[Throd]

319. I'm ambidextrous about this whole issue.

[edbermac]

336. Give me smut and nothing but!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pva35TFiBfI

[bertman]

365. Now, that photo is HILARIOUS. But quick, call the PC police because somebody

made a funny out of a serious subject.

My gawd, some of you people need to get a life and lighten up.

REC.

[Name removed]

368. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Odin2005]

370. This thread hasn't gone well, I see.

Seriously, as long as the model isn't a sex slave and it is totally consensual than what is the fucking problem? And what about women who put theor own amateur sex tapes online?

[DRoseDARs]

383. The problem is dehumanizes women in any and all circumstances, no exceptions... not even gay porn.

They're following the "Your body, MY business..." principle of moralizing: If they wouldn't do it themself, no one else should.

[Odin2005]

435. Heya, Toggle-caps! how is it going over at Apolyton?

I haven't been there in ages! :hi:

[DRoseDARs]

468. Sadly, neither have I. I load the bookmark by accident sometimes.

It's not that I don't want to go there, it's just my interests drifted away to other things and life intercedes too. Ce la vie. Good to see you. :)

[killbotfactory]

375. Porn is bad because most guys in it are circumsized, encouraging male genital mutilation

:popcorn:

[deadinsider]

411. Uh oh

Now that is a smart ass comment.

[PatrynXX]

381. it hurts?

more like you need the exercise. burn some calories. wheres Dr Ruth :P

not entirely in for hard core talk dirty to me type porn. More into the reality sort. Solo or whatever.

Certainly better than going out near 18 having sex and getting a kid one can't take care of. and she did it again with the next guy. then again but miscarried so he had himself tied off. My cousin heck no. Let alone takes my other cousin into an area where she might have been date raped. Those two haven't talked to each other in at least 3 years. For a good fucking reason. Yeah nothing wrong with porn, lots wrong with you have sex uneducated. with idiots saying you can't get pregnant in 30 seconds. X_X.... yeah thats what they say about dry humping. yet they get pregnant.

[mwooldri]

389. After all of this, I can clearly say Rule 34 has yet to be broken. nt

[Iggo]

401. You mean there's porn of dead-end DU arguments?

[Hydra]

520. If not, I'll draw it! n/t

[thesquanderer]

409. Safest sex = masturbation. No HIV risk.

So maybe we should thank porn actors for helping to facilitate the safest sex there is.

[crunch60]

423. Watch Penn and Teller.. this is hilarious. Their take on

this crazy war on Porn.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/penn-teller-bullshit-season-6/

[Enthusiast]

428. Funny shit..............nt

[Behind the Aegis]

431. How dare he make light of the evils of pornography!

(I can help him with his wrist problems. :evilgrin:)

[Danse]

439. Only in America

...or Saudi Arabia.

Methinks the folks most concerned about porn are the same folks who watch the weirdest, kinkiest shit.

Sorta like the people who rant and rave about gays etc.

Grow up. People like to have sex. Some people like to watch people having sex. Deal with it.

[Name removed]

442. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DonnieNarco]

445. You're doing it wrong, dude.

[chrisa]

449. "Stop Liking What I Don't Like!!!"

Pretty much the theme of this thread.

As long as everybody making these things are willing and legitimate, what's the difference? I don't get the argument that this is exploitative? How can it be exploitative if everybody in those movies wants to be in those movies (and get paid for doing so)?

The only downside of Free Speech is that you have to defend speech on the extreme spectrum, which you often won't like. However, it's important in the long run.

[Mojambo]

514. A lot of that going around here lately. n/t

[Taverner]

632. EXACTAMUNDO!

[pipi_k]

450. hahahahah!!! The guy with the yellow sign

looks like he doesn't get the joke...

:7

[DemocratSinceBirth]

459. A Lot Of Folks Talking Past One Another In This Thread

I have a question. I have seen some males attacked in this thread for allegedly masturbating to pornographic images with the suggestion the activity is shameful.

Is it the masturbation or the masturbation to pornographic images that is shameful.If it's the former there's a lot of people who are shameful.

[seabeyond]

479. agreed. a lot of talking past this. i dont think it really touches on the issue

of the photo the Op put up. and why i think it is something to be said and possibly thought out. i assumed everyone masturbates, so where is the problem in that. i dont think there is anyone that has an issue with that.

people say, anti porn means banning. i know that with myself and a couple others on this thread, it is not and never has been about banning. i would fight for someones right to porn. as i would guns. and like guns, i would discuss the harm the right to own guns can cause.

can't even get past that in conversation on these threads, with an oh so progressive board of adults.

this article is my position. not to mention what i have seen in RL with people who use porn and how they use it. the harm, damage that is caused, that we always ignore. cannot admit to or recognize or talk about.

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/pornography&cruelty.htm

When I critique pornography, I often am told to lighten up; sex is just sex, people say, and I should stop trying to politicize pornography. But pornography obviously is political. Telling men stories about sex in which women are three holes and two hands, not people, is political. It offers men a politics of sex and gender. And that politics is patriarchal and reactionary.

As with any political issue, successful strategies of resistance to injustice and oppression must be collective. There cannot be personal solutions to political problems. If we avoid engaging political problems in public and hope to make the best of things in private, we fail. Pornographers know that, which is why they want to make sure no collective remedies for women (through legislation or the courts) are considered, let alone enacted. But they also would prefer that none of these issues even be discussed in public. In recent years, their strategies for cutting off that discussion have been remarkably successful. When we criticize pornography, we typically are told we are either sexually dysfunctional prudes who are scared of sex, or people who hate freedom, or both. That works to keep many people quiet. The pornographers desperately want to keep people from asking the simple question: What kind of society would turn the injury and degradation of some into sexual pleasure for others? What kind of people does that make us -- the men who learn to find pleasure this way, and the women who learn to accept it?

The pornographers want to label any collective discussion of the meaning of intimacy and sexuality as repression. They want to derail any talk about a sexual ethic. They, of course, have a sexual ethic: Anything goes. On the surface that seems to be freedom: Consenting adults should be free to choose. I agree they should. But in a society in which power is not equally distributed, “anything goes” translates into “anything goes for men, and some women and children will suffer for it.” Any society that claims to take freedom seriously must engage in a discussion about power, and take steps to equalize power. That means taking steps to end men’s domination of women.

There are many controversial questions in the pornography debate: What is the nature of the relationship between sexually explicit media and behavior? Under what conditions can the consent of people involved in acts that may be detrimental to their own well-being be questioned? What harms of speech acts can trump free-speech concerns?

But there should be nothing controversial about this: To criticize pornography is not repressive. To speak about what one knows and feels and dreams is, in fact, liberating. We are not free if we aren’t free to talk about our desire for an egalitarian intimacy and sexuality that would reject pain and humiliation.

[Hydra]

538. Ok, so pornography is political and leads to brainwashing and woman/child abuse?

That was quite a flow chart. I'd like to propose an alternative: we tune in to what our natural level is. That means that when I'm being told crap via the MSM I turn it off.

There was a lot of buzz in this thread and in another a few weeks ago about Miss Representation. For the reason stated above, I both agree with it and I disagree. Yes, Vogue, Cosmo and the rest of the MSM are selling fake women and an agenda.

Guess what happens when nobody pays attention?

If you have a problem with patriarchy, get rid of capitalism and religion. I'll be happy to help.

[Taverner]

633. I am so glad there are people like you to watch over us...

:eyes:

Either you support freedom of speech or you don't

You CLEARLY don't

[seabeyond]

640. so you dont fight for the right of guns, yet discuss the harn that right can cause. you dont stand

for the right to smoke, yet discuss the harm that right can cause. you dont stand for the right for booze or drugs, but discuss that harm that right can cause. you dont stand for the right to prostitution but discuss the harm that right can cause. you dont stand for the right to strip, yet discuss the harn that right may cause.

you dont stand for the right to be fat, but discuss the harm in the right

you dont stand for the right of fox news, but discuss the harm of fox news

[redqueen]

669. Seems so very simple. So very obvious.

Yet so many are so hellbent on avoiding the hell out of it. Entitlement.

[seabeyond]

672. of course it is simple. they chose to be obtuse. i do not respect that even a little.

i dont do dumb.

i dont know how many times i have told my kids with them, with nieces and nephews, with their friends

I DONT DO DUMB.

[redqueen]

679. Me neither.

As a consequence, my ignore list has grown by leaps and bounds over the course of this thread.

[seabeyond]

686. lol

that works. i chose to walk away. i dont like missing anything.

[Warren DeMontague]

712. I think anyone who was paying attention learned at least one very important fact from this thread

[Taverner]

802. I am all for the right to bear arms

I just don't want to own a gun myself

Those things are dangerous

[NeedleCast]

483. I Participated

In this thread.

Then went and watched some porn.

[onager]

498. "5 Insane Ways Fear of Masturbation Shaped the Modern World"

Well, it seems to belong here...

Great factoid: vibrators were originally sold as a medical aide to keep women from masturbating.

"Why yes, I use that vibrator 3 times a day. And I no longer have the urge to masturbate at all!"

:rofl:

http://www.cracked.com/article_19520_5-insane-ways-fear-masturbation-shaped-modern-world.html

On edit:

Let's throw this one in too...

"14 'Luxury' Sex Toys for the Extremely Rich and Creepy"

http://www.cracked.com/article_19488_14-luxury-sex-toys-extremely-rich-creepy.html

[efhmc]

502. My first and only unrecommend. Ponography is demeaning and

destructive to all people, particularly women and children.

[Jakes Progress]

586. You are right. But

here on DU, it is considered cool to demean women. It is seen as the right of the sleazy to defend a product of debasement and harm. It's all in fun. It's also funny. They know better, but they like to say that the stuff does not harm to the people involved. They ignore people like the woman at the shelter where I volunteer. Forced into porn at 13, she's now 28. Messed up and so ashamed of herself that she keeps being used over and over. This is her second time in the shelter. Last time she left with a "friend" who abused her for six months. She said he made about twenty films in that time. He is rich from the people who buy and use his product. She is now HIV and wants to die. That story must really arouse some. All you have to do to "enjoy" porn is believe in the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, and how much those in the "business' love doing it. Reality is a buzz kill for those who love porn.

[Warren DeMontague]

587. And given that that situation pertains to neither "consent" nor "adults"

it's not really relevant to consenting adult porn.

Has this person spoken to a prosecutor? Whoever "forced her into porn at 13" broke a whole bunch of laws.

[seabeyond]

627. you are clueless. and lack empathy and understanding. and at 28 this is her life. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

637. I lack empathy? No I don't. She should talk to a prosecutor. There probably isn't a statute of

limitations on what sounds like it must have been an awful crime.

I support her getting justice just like I support the victims of the Catholic Church getting justice.

[seabeyond]

641. i think you do. if you reduce that whole post to her going back to 13, you are

clueless.

[redqueen]

655. And the most popular type of porn is of the barely legal variety.

But that's totally cool, though, really.

And let's just ignore what unpleasant factors might influence or result from that all that 'staged' violent porn. It's definitely all consenting adults. Definitely. So that means all the bad things about it magically disappear! See? We don't have to address that at all. Everything's peachy.

[seabeyond]

662. my niece divorced her husband because of his need for porn. she left him. i listened for TWO fuckin

hours to this man aboit how he really really needed to stay with my niece. cry, cry, i need my family. she was tellign me he would get up in the mornings and jack off to porn. she has an active libedo and didnt appreciate that. he insisted she go to strip clubs. open your mind. she wasnt into watching him get turned on to later service him. (my words. that is what women tell me so i heel APPEASED letting hubby use strip clubs. as long as he comes home. WTF?) rape porn. she was raped at 12. auntie, she asks me, how do i get turned on when i am watching some girl looking really afraid, screaming and crying as she is attacked by 6 men.

he went back. they tired it again. he brought out his porn again. and she walked away.

no harm. no foul.

[redqueen]

666. Well you know, priorities.

Strip clubs & porn > marriage & being with his daughter.

Obviously we prudes need to figure out what's really important in life.

(I would bet my last dime that there are people who think that exact thing. That the woman is to blame (of course!) for putting her peace of mind ahead of his "need" :eyes: for (some euphemism for his entitlement).)

[seabeyond]

673. damn straight. and he is out. and he stills is trying to get back in.

two times. that is it. didnt listen to here all those times.

i ahve more REAL LIFE stories, where porn harms. fuckin tired of no repercussions to porn. it is dishonest.

dont do dishonest, either.

[Warren DeMontague]

696. My grandson's college roommate divorced his wife over her fetish for fucking straw men.

not to mention, her bizarre collection of discussion forum alter identities.

[Jakes Progress]

682. You do have a rich fantasy life

if you think that all those luscious babes in our videos are consenting and adult. But then, it would kill the mood to think about it too much, I guess.

[Jakes Progress]

683. You do lead a rich fantasy life

if you think that all those luscious babes in your videos are consenting and adult. But then, it would kill the mood to think about it too much, I guess.

She can't be talked into going to the police. Does it really shock you to know that people break laws when there are millions of dollars to be made?

[Warren DeMontague]

702. When it turned out that Tracie Lords was not 18 and she was in a bunch of videos

a whole bunch of people went to jail.

So, yes, I do actually think that the people in the porn that is widely available ARE 18, as much as that may fuck up your desperate attempts to conflate consenting adult behavior with non-consent and non-adults.



Hypothetically, here---- If it WERE possible, as you think it isn't, for someone to make, say a video with 2 adults fucking who were both consenting, would you consider that to be 'problematic' or 'objectifying' or 'harmful' or whatever?

[Jakes Progress]

751. Head in the sand.

So you think the Tracie Lords thing was just the only time that happened? Millions of dollars. Lots of perverts. But of course your money only supports happy hookers who do it for fun. It would really kill the buzz if you had to imagine that that sweet young thing your are masturbating to didn't really want to be doing what is making you hot. And age isn't the only issue. Women can be degraded at any age.

The problem is the industry. You have a desire to watch others fuck? That's not my problem. Just like if you want some coke to make you forget stuff, that's your business. But don't fool yourself that you are not funding an industry that harms. Laugh all you want at the picture in the OP. But don't think about it too much or you will have to admit some things to yourself. Sorry to keep using the second personal pronoun and making it all sound personal. The problem isn't you. It is people who think porn is harmless and does not harm. They are fooling themselves and refuse to examine why they do so.

[Warren DeMontague]

753. Don't want to answer the question: Is it possible, or not, to have an explicit film of ppl fucking

that is not, to your mind, "degrading"?

And did it ever occur to you that not EVERYONE agrees that sex- or visual representations thereof- is inherently oppressive, objectifying, degrading, what-have-you?

So you think the Tracie Lords thing was just the only time that happened?

I think it was a huge deal, and people went to jail. I think there is a strong bright line between ADULTS and NON-ADULTS, a line you desperately want to muddle because it pisses you off that billions of people are masturbating without your permission.

And age isn't the only issue. Women can be degraded at any age.

Well, wait. I thought it WAS about age. Now, consent only means consent-when-you-agree-with-the-choice, and adult only means old-enough-to-make-the-decisions-I-would-make?

I'm sure there are plenty of 40 year old women who happily take their clothes off in front of cameras who would be deeply offended at your attempt to turn them into helpless, victimized babies.

[Jakes Progress]

764. Already answered you, I will again.

It is not the picture. It is the industry.

You don't seem to be able to address that issue. Don't want to answer the question?

You didn't answer the question about Lords either.

And then you suggest that women over 18 can't be degraded. You put in a lot of things I didn't say. That seems to help you feel better about your position, but it is beside the point.

You don't know that the people in your pictures are adult. You don't know that they consented. You don't know. I can tell you that many are not 18 and many did not really want to be photographed for this purpose. Your money supports an industry that abuses and uses. If that is not something you mind doing, there is nothing to be done about it. The country allows you to do that. Sometimes it is a matter of personal honor and conviction more than a matter of law. Do what you want. Just don't think not one gets harmed.

[Warren DeMontague]

773. Perhaps you should start an ethical fair trade porn production company.

seriously. They do it for coffee.

[Jakes Progress]

846. Too tacky for me.

You?

[DRoseDARs]

871. So you think it's tacky for adults in a legal industry to unionize to protect themselves from...

...the very ills you brand their entire industry with (in addition to the usual reasons for unionization)?

[seabeyond]

625. +1. yes. and thank you for the reality check. nt

[Mojambo]

513. So porn is out. Football is out. What the FUCK am I supposed to do with my Sundays? n/t

[WillParkinson]

721. Sleep is still healthy...

Or so I hear.

[TK421]

530. Which is why it is so important to switch up from time to time n/t

[PotatoChip]

576. I have nothing to add to this discussion except to say

550+ posts and this thing began only yesterday afternoon??? :wow: Sorry. Carry on.

[Jetboy]

599. It makes me sad that we fight about this so much when there is

so much we all agree on. Nobody's perfect so let's just forgive and forget and move on.

[RegieRocker]

602. This country is doomed. Making light (jokes) about

a serious subject is chaos.

[Warren DeMontague]

607. I know. Jesus is mad.

First it was filling kids' heads with all that evolution nonsense, and now this.

[RegieRocker]

608. What did I just see something? No, it was a figment of thier

wild imagination. You can stand alongside the republicans and stand up for Paterno. I bet he likes pornography.

[Warren DeMontague]

611. Nice attempt at ad hominem. Actually, he protects child abusers, just like the Vatican

You know the Vatican, right? They're the ones who finance your friends, the 'scientists' at the Discovery Institute.

[Name removed]

613. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren DeMontague]

617. Are you saying that the Pope DOESN'T protect child abusers?

There is documentation to that effect. Written. Part of the public record. Personally, I think the guy should be indicted in an international court.

This isn't about me, it's about free speech and about people with nothing better to do than tell consenting ADULTS how they should or shouldn't get their jollies.

[AngkorWot]

646. Studies show that 85% of everybody masturbates to pornography.

The other 15% are liars.

[seabeyond]

653. oh bullshit. and this is the pro porn that have to have their validation of all because of their

insecurities

why?

[AngkorWot]

654. insecurities?

Seems like it's the anti-porn crowd that keeps imagining it's harmful. That's practically the definition of being insecure.

[seabeyond]

657. there is fact in the real word that it can be harmful to people and society as a whole. why are you

afraid to educate yourself? ya, that insecurity. and it has to be ALL. just gotta be. tell me it is sooooooo.

[AngkorWot]

659. But that's just wrong.

You can keep repeating it until you're blue in the face, but it's never going to support your backwards, outdated world view.

[seabeyond]

674. but... no i am not wrong. nt

[AngkorWot]

681. I'm sure you actually believe that.

Same with 9-11 truthers and creationists and any number of believers in the absurd.

All the while ignoring the other 99% of society happily and healthily producing and consuming pornography.

[seabeyond]

688. hmmmmm, i have actually LISTENED to people with RL experience. go figure. try it some time. nt

[redqueen]

656. Why? Simple, one word.

Entitlement.

[seabeyond]

676. yup. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

700. No, "entitlement" is the fantasy that you've been placed on Earth to tell other consenting adults

how they should or shouldn't get their jollies, when it's none of your business and has zero intersection with your life.

[tabasco]

612. Looks like Smedley doesn't appreciate the company.

The dude on the left looks like a dork.

[redqueen]

658. .

.

[redqueen]

623. Funny... I just noticed all the 'no true Scotsman' logical fallacies all up and down this thread.

Any porn that is harmful (underage stars, drug addicted / coerced stars, etc.) is just not true porn.

All porn involves consenting adults and it's not violent and if it is violent it's the good kind of violence. So shut up.

Such logic. So many reasons for so many people to be so very proud of their willingness to address an issue instead of scrambling around flailing their limbs and screaming out their insanely idiotic or intentionally derailing strawman arguments about free speech and bans.

[Taverner]

624. I don't care if all porn is made by drug addicts

The problem is the addiction, not the porn

No fallacy here

I believe in freedom of speech, you don't

[Warren DeMontague]

634. No, but any porn that contains non-consent and/or non-adults is ILLEGAL and not relevant

to a discussion about consenting adult porn.

That's not a "no true scotsman" fallacy, that's a reaction to the same tired playbook that the drug warriors use; i.e. inevitably dragging in things like "the children" as an excuse to tell CONSENTING ADULTS what not to do.

I'll spell it out for you: If it involves non-consent or non-adults, it's illegal, should be illegal, and should be vigorously prosecuted and eliminated to the full extent of the law.

But beyond that, if you've got something that DOES involve consenting adults, what's the objection? And if the only "bad porn" is that which contains degradation or implied violence, why can't the anti-porn folks come up with a concrete example of, say, an explicit film of two CONSENTING ADULTS having CONSENTING ADULT sex that they wouldn't find objectionable?

[Jakes Progress]

687. Roll your own.

That is the only way to know that the "actors" in your precious commodity are consenting and adult. Stop fooling yourself. Find a real person. Make love.

[Warren DeMontague]

697. Wow. Can't make that argument for controlling other peoples' entertainment choices w/o insults, eh?

I'm married, buddy. Not that it's any of your business, but I have a very satisfactory sex life with an actual flesh-and-blood human who ALSO shares my commitment to the First Amendment and the belief that we have enough idiotic laws driven by goofy fucking control freaks without trying to ALSO tell consenting adults that they can't watch other consenting adults screw on film.

Merely saying "oh, they must not be consenting because no one would consent to that" (meaning, I wouldn't) isn't any kind of proof of non-consent; that's the same kind of idiotic infantalizing argument the anti-choicers use when they talk about the poor helpless women 'victimized' by the 'abortion industry'

[DRoseDARs]

708. I was waiting to see your response, knew it'd be good. I'd like to point out how dismissive his post

...was in another way: What about individuals who are in less than ideal home situations for whom finding a flesh and blood partner is either a very difficult task or even dangerous? Specifically, I mean gay teens. It's hard enough in many high schools to find other gays, let alone have *that* kind of relationship (hell, even in college... remember recent the guy that killed himself when his and his partner's privacy was violated), let alone not be the victim of anti-gay violence. More over, their home situation might be such that gay porn (which remember, doesn't actually exist, apparently) might be their only outlet that minimizes their risk of being beaten by their parents or kicked out.

[Warren DeMontague]

710. Years ago, I worked in a video store. One customer was HIV+ and in a wheelchair.

I know for a fact that porn was his only sexual outlet.

[DRoseDARs]

711. Yet another example that undermines the whole premise of the anti-porn arguments. Shhh...

Stop kicking the soap box out from under them, it's rude. ;)

[Jakes Progress]

752. Self-delete

[Warren DeMontague]

755. It's insulting that because I support the unequivocal right of consenting adults to watch other

consenting adults fuck on film, you assume I want or require your 'friendly' advice about my personal life.

You're making a whole laundry list of snarky little assumptions about me, but all you know is that I SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF CONSENTING ADULTS TO LOOK PICTURES OF OTHER CONSENTING ADULTS NAKED OR SEE FILMS OF THEM FUCKING.

That's all you know.

[Jakes Progress]

756. All I know

is that you like watching other people have sex. Why? Who cares? I also know that those pictures are not harmless. You don't know that the people in them are consenting. You don't. But you seem to not care.

[Warren DeMontague]

758. Really? And where did I say that I "like watcing other people have sex"

I said I support the right of consenting adults to watch other consenting adults have sex.

[Jakes Progress]

767. Are you saying you don't like it?

What must be in your porn collection?

[Warren DeMontague]

774. oh, you have NO idea

[Warren DeMontague]

761. So in Hypothetical-land, for a moment, IF everyone WAS for sure a consenting adult

then you would have no problem with it, right?




Something tells me, you still would.

[Jakes Progress]

770. Something tells you wrong.

But I guess that would ruin your day. You had a nice little windmill to tilt at.

Was never the point. The point is the harm the porn industry does.

Let's try another hypothetical. If you knew that the porn industry used under-age kids frequently, used drugs and hidden cameras to coerce and obtain film that was non-consenting, and caused a hundreds of women and men to hate themselves would you still find it a good thing to give millions of dollars to that industry? If you knew that the company that filmed the playful romp you watched last night also distributes kiddie porn, would you support the playful films anyway?

It's just a matter of what you are willing to do for the pictures.

[Warren DeMontague]

772. I've been clear from the get-go. Consenting adults.

If you've got solid evidence pertaining to situations involving different, that's a crime and I suggest you go to the police ASAP.

I'm glad you acnkowlege that consenting adults taking their clothes off and/or fucking in front of a camera for other consenting adults to watch is a healthy activity, or at least not a 'problem'. :thumbsup:

so in the situation you describe, "would I give my money"? No, in the situation you describe above, I would not. Assuming, of course, there was an actual verifiable case that had been made, beyond, say, someone from the Smith College Womens' Studies Department's say-so.


Of course, there's a tremendous amount of free porn on the internet these days, so I don't really know who is paying for porn these days anyway, short of business travelers with hotel room pay per views.

[Jakes Progress]

848. You certainly have. You don't care.

I have taken evidence to the police. Have you? Have you every questioned the legal and ethical sources of any of you stash? I guess with porn ignorance is not only bliss but a prerequisite. Why bother to think about it if it means that your personal needs are satisfied.

Nothing is free. Someone pays.

[Warren DeMontague]

855. why don't you show me the concrete evidence of widespread non-consent or non-adults in

commercially available porn.

You can't, because it's not there. In short, you got nothin'.

Do you know what a 2257 statement is? If you actually look at the porn that is out there, instead of hearing about it 3rd hand from Robert Jensen or Catherine MacKinnon, you will see something about documentation pertaining to 2257 compliance. That is record-keeping verifying the ADULT AGE of the performers. Since the performers provided verification of their own age, I think it's a safe bet that they consented, too. In fact, they probably signed something to that effect as well. Shit, I know from my experiences with Hollywood that you can't so much as fart near a camera without signing a consent/release form.

So there you have it.

Unless it really isn't about non-consent, or non-adults, but instead something else, for you.

[Jakes Progress]

860. Golly. You mean they have a signed form?

I guess that settles it. No one ever forges those. No one ever makes up names and stuff. Whew. That is a load off my mind. I can tell the women at the shelter that it was all their fault.

Golly. You do care.

But then, it really isn't about whether other people get hurt or whether the industry you support destroys lives for you, is it?

[Warren DeMontague]

864. So what level of proof, beyond, say a valid state issued driver's license & signed consent form

would you consider relevant?

You want to talk about living in fantasy-land.. you have an industry you find objectionable that nevertheless has a high level of legal documentation establishing that the participants are COSENTING ADULTS, and yet you desperately seem to NEED to believe that they're not consenting and not adults.

Look, you could be a head in a jar, dreaming all this. At some point, you need to accept that evidence trumps non-evidence. You have no evidence for your claims.

As for "I can tell the women at the shelter it was all their fault".. ah, okay, what was all their fault? What specifically are you alleging, and how does it relate to the porn industry?

[Jakes Progress]

878. You just don't want to see.

S'okay. Enjoy your porn. If thinking about it causes you problems the blue pill won't fix, then just don't think about it.

You seem to have a need to convince everyone that your stash is a noble, patriotic thing. Guy. I don't care. I really don't care what you do with whatever. I do care that the porn industry, whose practice not product is my concern, harms. You need to ignore that - Okay. You need to try to convince everyone that these are pioneers defending the constitution - Sure. If that's what you need. But the truth is the truth. Volunteer at a few shelters and rehab centers. See what you see.

[Warren DeMontague]

880. and abortion causes breast cancer.

I mean, never mind the facts, it sounds authoritative, so why not say it.

[Jakes Progress]

883. No. It doesn't. But if you've got nothing else, why not try to change the subject?

Look. You need to look at other people having sex for your fun? Go ahead. People have been doing it for centuries. Most grow out of it, but it's not mandatory. But you should be able to acknowledge the reality. That would be the responsible thing to do. Aren't libertarians big on personal responsibility? Hmmmm.

[Warren DeMontague]

891. look, you need to make shit up to justify your pre-ordained yet factually dubious conclusions? Great

Good for you. Most people grow out of it, just like they grow out of this sophomoric self-righteous delusion that they're entitled to lecture consenting adults about their lives and choices, but some don't. Still, aren't self-righteous control freaks big on honesty? Or was it hypocrisy. :shrug:


Anyway, the REALITY is that mainstream commercially available porn is by and for consenting adults. If you have PROOF to the contrary, I'm all ears.

But you don't.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

822. I Don't Think Main Stream Porn Producers Would Get Within A Thousand Miles Of Kiddy Porn

And I believe they have releases on file from all the participants. They have to be over eighteen years old. I believe it's a federal law.

Look, I am conflicted about the proliferation of porn but even your hypothetical is implausible.

If I was to argue the lack of consent I would argue from a "manufactured consent" position. At least that argument is plausible.

[hifiguy]

843. I think you are totally correct here.

Why would the mainstream porn producers jeopardize their lucrative operations by using underage performers? That makes no sense at all.

And regarding Tracy Lords, no one went to jail IIRC, and for a very simple reason: she produced a birth certificate (actually her sister's, I think) saying she was 18 when she got in to the porn business. I recall some prosecutor at the time saying that whoever signed her to a contract had done, in good faith, everything that could be done to make sure she was of legal age.

[Jakes Progress]

851. Why

would you be concerned about the proliferation of porn if you agree with the poster that this is a noble and desired commodity?

My position is that any industry that is so unregulated and produces such huge profits will not behave ethically. From my work at the shelter, I know of those who have been abused by the industry. The poster's argument that all the bad ones go to jail or that the law will handle it shows a sad ignorance of the seamy side of this business. Why would we think that porn producers would behave more ethically than oil companies, arms dealers, banks, and drug companies? They are all regulated.

I just think that I would prefer to find my erotic bliss in other less questionable ways.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

852. I Don't Think It Is A Noble And Desired Commodity

But I think efforts to ban it would do more harm than good. If you want to inspire folks to believe that it's a potentially harmful activity to engage in , including those who watch and produce it, I don't have a big problem.

[Jakes Progress]

858. We agree then.

[redqueen]

872. The guy in the OP isn't saying "BAN PORN" ... neither is anyone in the thread...

not that I've seen, anyway.

Apparently a whole hell of a lot of people on this site have a very, very big problem with anyone who tries just informing folks that it's a potentially harmful activity.

[Warren DeMontague]

874. Here are more helpful folks pointing out what they think is a "potentially harmful activity"

I'm sure you would thank them for taking the time to offer their opinion on this matter and 'inform you' on how you should feel about it; and run your life with regards to it.





Right?

No, you'd tell them to fuck the hell off and mind their own god-damn business.

And you'd be right.

[redqueen]

870. Just wanted to thank you for your posts on this subject.

Thank you very, very much.

[Jakes Progress]

873. Some here seem to really, really, really need their porn.

[redqueen]

885. Indeed...

we are witnessing all-out meltdowns over this.

And all because someone dared to say it harms.

Somehow that got some people into a near frenzy... insulting people, telling people to fuck off, saying fuck you... it's been a real eye-opener, that's for sure.

Incredible, bewildering stuff.

[Warren DeMontague]

892. I know. The baby Jesus is weeping. And all because helpful folks just wanted to share 'concerns'

I mean, really, the problem must be with YOU if you have any objection to helpy-help people who just want to protect women from stuff like evil industries that exploit them and bad so-called 'choices' that they make with what they mistakenly believe are their own bodies.

[Jakes Progress]

893. How low will you go to make it seem your stash is sacred stuff.

Hey. Go play with yourself if you need. Your manic need to make your bathroom habits into a noble crusade is getting old.

[Warren DeMontague]

894. your manic need to make this somehow about me is just plain fucking goofy.

Like I said, back up your assertions. Because they're exactly the same sort of crap an anti-choice jesus freak would try to spout unchallenged, with broad generalizations and scientific-sounding but ultimately meaningless -or blatantly false- gibberish about how such and such is 'proven to be harmful'...

...except, uh, it hasn't been.

And the ridiculous thing is, many of the EXACT SAME PEOPLE here having a tantrum that they should be allowed to 'educate' the rest of us without anyone challenging them or expecting the most minimal sort of evidentiary basis for their outlandish claims; those same folks would have a giant fucking shitfit if anti-choice godbags tried to pull the exact same nonsense over something like reproductive freedom.

If the shoe fits, lady.

[Jakes Progress]

754. How is suggesting that you make love an insult?

You have an odd view.

Make all the psuedo-intellectual arguments you want. Rave about your rights. Just don't think about it. It won't do to have your fantasy punctured by reality.

If you buy porn. If you partake of commercial porn, you are supporting an industry that harms. That money is what drives the industry and it caters to all sorts and the amount involved is more than what makes main stream corporations ignore laws and morals. Those who give them the money enable them. You can pretend, and you can ignore. But some of us deal with the reality of what gets you off.

And nice little jump there to decide that I was a prude. My sex life is none of your business either. Non consent means non consent. It doesn't mean distaste or preference. it means the person doing is doesn't want to be in that situation but is because of circumstances they feel powerless to deal with. Porn is a business that preys on powerlessness. Then you compare me to the anti-abortion people. You seem to have no back up but calling names.

So go ahead. Get off and ignore the consequence. Some of us will be there to try to do something about the lives you don't want to think about.

[Warren DeMontague]

757. Okay, you keep moving. Here's my response, again.

It's insulting that because I support the unequivocal right of consenting adults to watch other consenting adults fuck on film, you assume I want or require your 'friendly' advice about my personal life.

You're making a whole laundry list of snarky little assumptions about me, but all you know is that I SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF CONSENTING ADULTS TO LOOK PICTURES OF OTHER CONSENTING ADULTS NAKED OR SEE FILMS OF THEM FUCKING.

That's all you know.

I didn't "decide you are a prude", you're the one who thinks you can get inside my head about "oh, don't want to ruin the buzz" and "try making love instead". Give me a fucking break. :eyes: "get off and ignore the consequence".

Sure, and keep humping that straw man while you're at it.

[Jakes Progress]

766. You keep moving. Here is my response to your equivocation.

You still can't point to my "insult". I didn't say you don't have the right to get off to films. I said those films support an industry that hurts people. You don't seem to want to think about that.

Then you quote me in pieces and try to act like I'm the only one putting motives on the other. How about a little intellectual honesty?

Please look up the definition of straw man. It isn't a straw man when it is the very point under discussion.

[Warren DeMontague]

775. You're flailing. There's no 'equivocation'- maybe you should look THAT word up.

See, you keep wanting to make this about me, and I can't help but notice that you're using the same tactics I get from half-wit fundamentalists trying to evangelize me. Weepy appeal, vague threat of damnation, personal insult combined with spurious assumption. Rinse. Repeat.

Sorry, I'm not converting.

[Jakes Progress]

847. Still gaming?

You say it is not about you. Then you say I'm just like half-wit fundamentalists. Okay, I'll play.

I notice your posts use the same tactics I get from self-absorbed libertarians who try to intellectualize their fantasies, who avoid the responsibility for anything, who ignore how much their "needs" are paid for by other people's pain. Rationalization, vague appeals to constitutional rights, and personal insult combined with avoidance of the issues introduced. Repeat. Avoid. Ignore. Repeat.

Sorry if my true story of the abused woman didn't make you weep. Some can just ignore that kind of thing. And I never damned you. I can't. And any perception of personal insult you have seen here comes rom a description of your own behavior. If you find that insulting, then you should examine that. Please list the spurious assumptions I have made.

[Warren DeMontague]

853. How do you know it didn't make me weep? There's ONE spurious assumption.

I suggested that she contact law enforcement, because there probably isn't a statute of limitations on something like "forced into porn at 13". For many people, getting justice IS therapeutic. How my offering a concrete positive suggestion translates to me not giving a shit, I have NO idea.

I didn't say that you were 'just like half-wit fundamentalists', but your arguments sound awfully similar. You know, the groaning and eye rolling and quotes around words like "choice" and "free speech". There's no fucking rationalization, here- it's VERY SIMPLE. IS EVERYONE INVOLVED A CONSENTING ADULT? YES? THEN IT'S PROBABLY NOT YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS.

And if you think it IS your business, to run around barking orders at consenting adults about how they should or shouldn't live their lives, then I don't care how much you want to wave the word 'libertarian' around like it's doggy doo on a stick, you are making AUTHORITARIAN arguments well suited for control freaks, fascists, and, yes, religious right theocrats.

[Jakes Progress]

859. Simply because you denigrated the story in the post I made.

This argument line reminds me again of discussions with libertarians. Wanting it both ways. I care, but I'm really cool too.

That you continue to ignore even the possibility that putting money into the porn industry would harm people is the main indication of not giving a shit. That is the idea. You can have it.

What groaning? What eye-rolling? You are the one using words like choice and free speech. There is fucking rationalization. Rationalization is when you willfully ignore the reality of the porn world, defending it with your special words, so that you can do what you want regardless of how it might adversely affect others. Rationalization is making what you want into a noble cause when it isn't.

I never barked any orders to anyone. If you don't wish to acknowledge the harm in porn, there is nothing I can do about it. I don't think that makes me authoritarian. I haven't tried to control you. You accuse me of tossing around the libertarian work like doggy doo (libertarians are doggy doo) buy you have used fascism and the religious right to define my premise without any vestige of showing that you understand the problem or, for that fact, what those terms mean.

I would suggest that you cool off. If you need a little video to calm you down. Go ahead. Just don't think too much about the actors and their lives.

[Warren DeMontague]

865. where did I denigrate the story in the post you made? link, please.

And you know what? "libertarian" is not a dirty word. Many here, including myself, consider ourselves left-libertarians. Even beyond that, the larger body of libertarian thinkers- the philosophical libertarians, and even the big-L libertarian Party, are RIGHT about 50% of the time. They are.

When it comes to letting consenting adults run their own fucking lives, they're right. They're batshit crazy the other 50% of the time, but that's better than the authoritarian control freak asshats on the right, who are wrong 100% of the time, having taken the worst part of the libertarian economic philosophy and married it to an intrusive police state.

Who is putting money into the porn industry? (Not the people who have figured out how much free porn is on the intertubes, that's for sure.) How, specifically, does "the porn industry" play into the story you're alleging in your previous post? Please, specifics. Oh, I know it's 'denigrating' to suggest that someone who was abused at 13 contact law enforcement instead of talking to you how it's the fault of a 'porn industry' that, again, is by and for adults.

Lastly, again, please spare me the weepy pathos and lame attempts at guilt tripping. You don't know me, and beyond that, yes, I realize that every time someone masturbates, God kills a kitten. Please, think of the kittens.

[Jakes Progress]

879. Just like you did in this post.

You referred to my "weepy stories". That is the only story I told.

Since you even admit to being a libertarian - so lame - I don't expect you to be guilt tripped. The inability to take blame for actions or feel guilt are hallmarks of libertarianism.

[Warren DeMontague]

881. you claim you know someone who was 'forced into porn'- mainsteam, commercially avail. porn - 'at 13'

honestly, on that story, I call bs.

And aren't you in a mandated reporting position, with that one? It might not just be a good idea for you to get in touch with law enforcement on that, you might be legally obligated to.

[Jakes Progress]

884. Grabbing here.

As a card carrying libertarian you should say what you mean. If you want to call someone a liar, don't wimp out.

You have no idea what legal steps our shelter uses. I'm quite comfortable with the methods and extent of services offered. My duty is taken care of. I acknowledge my responsibilities to the woman and have taken care of them. The BS I call is on you giving a shit about her.

You seem to be sort of hysterically concerned with my story. If you need to think its a lie in order to enjoy your stash, perhaps you could examine your motives and drives there. Perhaps I was wrong about the libertarian guilt thing and you do have qualms. Or maybe ..... hmmmm.

[Warren DeMontague]

890. no, I want you to back up your assertion- you know, the one that is central to your argument.

the fact that you want to bob, duck, evade and weave rather than actually do that, tells me plenty.

[stevenleser]

840. You mean like going personal, aka ad hominem when discussing a philosophical issue?

Its not only rude, it is a logical fallacy.

[Jakes Progress]

863. Pot. Meet Kettle.

And to me (and to the woman I am working with at the shelter) this isn't just a philosophical issue. If you don't use porn, if you don't have a hand in the issue, then it can be philosophical. If you are defending your own practices and pass time or if you are arguing for the victims of a predatory industry (especially when you know some of those victims) it isn't philosophical. it is personal.

You can't have it both ways.

[stevenleser]

868. Your response is to my pointing out your going ad hominem is to make another ad hominem attack?

No, its not "Pot, meet kettle", it's you engaging in discussion tactics that make you someone that no one should debate with.

[Jakes Progress]

877. You do it again.

You call people on doing exactly what you are doing. Neither effective or moral.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

723. Amen, way to smack down those ridiculous and pathetic arguments.

Nt

[AngkorWot]

644. ROFLMAO

"scrambling around flailing their limbs and screaming out their insanely idiotic or intentionally derailing strawman arguments about child pornography and drug addiction."

Fixed that for you.

[GoneOffShore]

685. Here's a link about women who are pro-porn

http://www.tinynibbles.com/smartporn

And a quote from the author - Violet Blue
"Women enjoy porn and erotica of all kinds, and it’s a fact – don’t listen to conservative pundits who would like to convince you otherwise."

"After reading Smart Girl’s Guide to Porn, Wired said: “Her focus on answering common questions — What if you don’t look like a porn star? Why does the guy always ejaculate on the woman? How do they do it with those fingernails? — and her emphasis on giving the reader the tools to discover and find her own porn is more valuable than a list of recommended titles. I’m no newbie and I learned something; the book will be eye-opening for many women and probably some men, too. Meanwhile, Violet’s enthusiasm for porn inspired me to put the effort into finding adult content that I genuinely like, rather than settling for what’s easy to find. That’s a smart girl.”"


Her book is available on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/157344247X/tinynibbles-20

[redqueen]

888. Nobody said women don't.

What was said was that it harms. It can cause harm. It has, and it will continue to do so, especially if people keep sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending that any attempt to address those harms is an attempt to ban porn.

[DRoseDARs]

698. 730 responses/17k views and counting. Is that a DU record? WillParkison, what hell hath you wrought?

Also, what the fuck are those shoes BOTH of them are wearing? Just noticed them, they're like slippers or something!

Edit: 730+ responses according to the forum tracker, this post is numbered 717, the discrepency comes from a few posts having been deleted.

[WillParkinson]

724. Not nearly a record...I believe that belongs to GrayWarrior

GrayWarrior created the thread: I want to create a thread that never dies. To date it has received 5078 replies and 1595163 views.

(It's in The Lounge.)

[Blue_Tires]

867. i dunno; give it another couple of days

if the mods merged all the splinter threads on the same topic it might give Gray a run for the money

[Warren DeMontague]

705. SEE? WE NEVER SHOULD HAVE BOMBED THE MOON!!!!

Ah, DU. Let it out. Clearly this has been building up for some time.

[tawadi]

706. Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours

I guess it will stand at only 238 recs.
:rofl:

[trackfan]

713. I first happened to see this post when there were just 2 or 3 responses.

I didn't realize how new the thread was, and my thought was, "Hmm. I'm surprised this has only got a couple responses. I would have thought something like this might break out into a big war. Well, I guess things have calmed down a bit at DU these days." Or something like that.

[CreekDog]

722. I accidentally the whole thread

[theophilus]

727. I believe that pornography can be enjoyable and provide

a needed "release" of sexual tension. One can enjoy the exploits of strangers as if "peeping", etc. However, I believe that the bad outweighs the good by a considerable degree. I believe we tend to view the participants as other than human and enjoy humiliation and exploitation much of the time. If I could push a button and have the porn industry disappear, I would do it. I would do it with a little regret but I would do it. The world would be a better place in my opinion.

Believe it or not there are more important things than orgasms.

[redqueen]

731. Wow, very well said. (nt)

[seabeyond]

732. i hear ya and beyond that....

a person can actually have an orgasm without porn. i know, i know... a way out there concept, but can be done. lol

[apocalypsehow]

747. "Believe it or not there are more important things than orgasms" - I know you're probably right, but

at the moment I'm stumped.

[seabeyond]

749. nevermind. nt

[apocalypsehow]

744. It's threads like this we miss HiFructosePronSyrup's input. n/t.

[seabeyond]

745. whatever happened to him. he is not ts'ed. nt

[apocalypsehow]

748. He was on a suspension, and after it ended he just never posted on DU again, at least that I have

seen. I didn't always agree with him, but he could liven a thread up! :rofl: :toast:

[seabeyond]

750. i had heard that but i am surprised

just didnt come back.

maybe but yea... for me anyway. i rarely answered the number of posts he would address to me. kinda like dont feed the stray cat kinda thing.

[sibelian]

771. Controlling pictures of things or videos of things

or being upset at depictions of things is just plain nonensense.

If there is a genuine phenomenon of misinterpretation of intent behind a certain item of imagery then the fault lies in that misinterpretation not the imagery.

[seabeyond]

783. "being upset at depictions of things...plain nonensense" lynching of a black man

from a tree.... for humor and entertainent of us white folks.

silly blacks for getting bothered.

[Warren DeMontague]

784. Which might make sense as an analogy, if sex = lynching

but it doesn't.

[seabeyond]

785. ah, come on warren, even you dont have the whatevers to suggest there is not exactly this kinda shit

being depicted of females. really?

[Warren DeMontague]

788. No, I don't think the majority of porn is violent or oppressive or what-have-you, actually

I think the majority is 2 people having sex, or pictures of naked people (mostly women, but some men)

I do NOT think that sex, hetero sex, gay sex, oral sex, anal sex, what-have-you, between 2 consenting adults is intrinsically oppressive. But we've been through this, or at least I've been through this with someone.

It's hard to keep track, sometimes I think I'm talking to different people and then I find out I've been talking to the same one all along. So why do I need to repeat myself?

[seabeyond]

793. your post is irrelevant. the poster said nonsense to be bothered by a depiction.

that is it. that is all he said. i addressed that. i asked, if it is nonsense for the black community to be bothered by a man hanging from a tree for white peoples entertainment and amusement.

address that, or you are irrelevant.

it is all fuckin over the place. so, i guess you do have the whatever to blatantly deny something so damn obvious, to everyone else.

cowardly. at least be honest to say, ok.... it is WOMEN that depictions dont matter. everyone else we will be damn sensitive about.

[Warren DeMontague]

810. I'm irrelevant, but at least there's only one of me.

At least I'm not a giant friggin' phony.

[sibelian]

791. Depictions of things

are not the same as the things they are depicting.

[seabeyond]

794. i understand women are things and black people are not. but lets just pretend a woman is a person,

too

i know, that is way way out there. but try. being bothered about a depiction of women is nonsense? then being bothered by a depiction of a black man hanging on a tree for the entertainment and amusement of white people, is nonsense.

[sibelian]

799. So you want to ban pictures of black people being hung?

Is that it? Do you think my seeing a picture of a black person being hung is going to make me think less of the black person?

No of course you don't. That's a ridiculous idea.

So what IS your idea?

Nice use of the everpresent wordsnatcher, there incidentally. It's probably clear to most people that when I was using the word "things" I was not referring to women. You've certainly demonstrated that you can wilfully misinterpret my post to portray yourself as righteously offended, if nothing else. I notice that elsewhere on this thread you accuse me of exactly the same thing, interestingly.

I'm not going argue with you as if you're a six year old. If you'd like to make a case for the idea that the image of something has the same moral quality as the thing it is an image of, I'd be interested to hear the case. I think it's a silly idea. I might be wrong, however, I don't think you're going to get very far (certainly not with me) by comparing pornography to images of lynchings. I think lynchings are horrible. I think images of genuine lynchings are very disturbing. However, I don't think filming a *fictional* lynching, with the consent of the black actor, is horrible, I would go far as do describe *that* as *necessary* for the field of art and history.

I think violence against women is revolting. I do NOT think fictional representations of violence against women are revolting in and of themselves because fiction should not be judged in the same way we judge a documentary which is supposed to represent truth.

Pornography is a form of fiction. It may be poorly written and have in mind a slightly less intellectual pay-off than Dickens but that doesn't matter, being angry with fiction is silly. Nobody interacts with porn as if it is a serious subject to taken as something informative or of social value or useful as a guide to relating to women. Or, put it this way, if they do then they're idiotic but their idiocy is not the fault of the porn.

If you are able to show that there is some cause and effect relationship beteween the generation of this erotic violent imagery and an actual disntegration of respect for women in those that have seen it then we have something to discuss, but at the moment all I'm seeing is a totally unanalysed emotional reaction to fictional depictions of an event as if they are the same thing as the real world event that they are fictionalising, which, frankly, is utterly disturbing.

Are you willing to discuss that particular point with me or are you only interested in pretending I'm racist and sexist?

[seabeyond]

800. you did it again. where did you read me say ban? you said it was nonsense being bothered.

follow closely, cause i stopped reading that long ole post of yours with your subject line.

i did not say anything about banning. that was once again, dishonest.

i asked you a question, per what you put out. simple enough.

is it nonsense for the black community to be bothered by a depiction of a black man hanging from a tree for the humor and entertainment of white people?

[seabeyond]

801. so white people being entertained by black man being hung is fine if fictional. rape of women fine

if fictional to be used as entertainment and jacking off. and really silly of women to be bothered by it.

thank you for letting all women who have been raped know, not to take their pain and horror so seriously, that just nonsense being bothered at the thought of men being entertained by rape.

and black people should not be bothered by whites being entertained at their hangings....

your post was about dismissing how others may feel when they see something that is horrendous to them. you dismissed how they feel. and tell them how they are suppose to feel. are you white? are you a man? have you been raped?

done, with you

[sibelian]

804. Done

Because you can't answer it. You know that fact and fiction aren't the same but you want them to be the same so you can take more offense. End of.

[seabeyond]

806. and you know that if you tell the black community it is nonsense to be bothered with whites being

entertained by their horrors, you will look the fool and worse.

[AngkorWot]

835. So then you're saying it's OK with you if women are OK with rape porn but not men?

Because there are an awful lot of women out there with rape fetishes.

[seabeyond]

808. wrong place

[sibelian]

789. Do you see how far you had to reach?

Do you see?

[seabeyond]

796. that is far? no. it isnt. it is right there. you still have not answered the question.

you made a statement. i am ASKING you.... nonsense being bothered by a depiction. YOU made that statement. is it nonsense the black community being outraged with a black man hung from a tree for white peoples entertainment and amusement?

i am ASKING you.

[sibelian]

803. I think this response is absolutely fascinating.

Because, you see, photographs of lynchings are deeply unpleasant, the reason being they depict factual events. Whereas pornography depicts fictional events. And you seem to think they are the same.

[seabeyond]

805. all the horrors done to women in real life. merely fiction. men being entertained

stimulated, excited, by violence to women. just fiction. nonsense being bothered.

[Warren DeMontague]

780. This THREAD harms my wrist

and there's not a picture of Aria Giovanni anywhere to be seen.

[deutsey]

798. LOL...you never know what the tripwire will be for flame wars at DU

:rofl:

I found the OP mildly humorous when I first saw it, kind of in a twisted Norman Rockwell slice-of-Americana way, but I never expected this mother of all flame wars to erupt from it.

[DRoseDARs]

807. It's almost pushed me to the brink of expanding my Ignore list, but I went the opposite route.

People on that list I had no recollection why they were there in the first place. Decided "Meh, if I don't know why they're there, they shouldn't be there." I'll likely forget this thread and any new Ignore additions it spawns, so why bother?

[Warren DeMontague]

812. I coulda told you.

'course, I had it down for May. Go figure.

[Cali_Democrat]

816. LOL!

[DRoseDARs]

817. I remember the Moon bombing! Nuked those fuckers back into the Stone Age.

Shame about all the Moon kittens being wiped out too, though. At least we secured the Moon oil for our energy security.

[cemaphonic]

820. August is A-Bomb Month

other than that, well done.

[deutsey]

826. LOL

[seabeyond]

809. 300k x's the number of kids they have + the unknowns

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2295194&mesg_id=2295194

300,000 unique computers identified by law enforcement trafficking in the most brutal and violent child pornography movies and images

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2278376&mesg_id=2293800

most prostitutes to be victims of child sexual abuse. most find the number to be between 70 and 94 percent.

Very similar statistics hold for women in pornography.

In a study in which sex workers themselves were asked, 70 percent



this is just a glance of the life of the people participating. it does not even address how porn effects society, user and loved ones. not that i have much hope that anyone who is pro porn will actually take time to think of the number of children that are being indoctrinated into the trade by scum. and the users that jack off to these kids that will never be innocent in childhood.

[Warren DeMontague]

811. do you think that gay people are child molesters, too?

the idea that consenting adult porn has anything to do with kids is the exact same sort of argument.

Most adults are wired for adult sex, and that is what this discussion is about. Adults watching other adults screw on film, and then some other adults having a hand-clutching temper tantrum because they want to put a stop to it, or re-educate people out of it, or whatever.

Some people are horribly mis-wired and fixated on kids, but honestly a lot more of them seem to be in the Priesthood than the porn industry.

[DRoseDARs]

814. I think what amuses me the most is the anti-porners feel so insecure in their own position that they

...seek validation from the pro-porners in that yes, terrible things are terrible and that illegal things are illegal (as if anyone is advocating FOR terrible and illegal things). However, once the pro-porners have done that, no input or viewpoints on relevant issues will be considered from them (and as you yourself pointed out, anything outside the scope of consenting adults engaging in legal activities is irrelevant) as the anti-porners will believe they have won the argument (as if this matter can be won or lost now that it hasn't in several thousands years).

I am amazed and humbled by yours and others endurance against this skullduggery.

[Warren DeMontague]

815. You see the same exact sort of games when folks try to justify drug laws or outlawing gay marriage.

Rather than come right out and make a case for telling consenting adults what they can do with their own bodies and how to run their own lives, for instance, they need to make it about 'the children' or some nebulous quantum action-at-a-distance harm to other people or "society", or some other contortion of logic.

[DRoseDARs]

818. On an aside, I had posted these two threads some years ago regarding gay marriage:

November '08 - "Anthropologists have debunked this "traditional marriage" nonsense for years..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=4427900

and

December '08 - "Stop it. Stop trying to redefine marriage. Just stop it right now."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4700155



I'm sure their points can be refined and expanded upon, but I got a mostly good feedback for them.

[Warren DeMontague]

819. thanks for those.

good stuff. Bookmarked for further reference.

[Puglover]

821. As much as I enjoy porn I do think there are hazards.

Like anything else fun, food, booze, money it can be addicting. I am only speaking for guys here. To be even more specific gay guys.

Looking at porn goes straight to your libido. There is no output(no pun intended) on the users part. It's easy. It's fast. It's hot. It's fun.

However an intimate relationship is a two way street. It can be complicated. Some NOT all could be taken in by the easiness of porn and become less able or less interested in keeping the intimacy alive in their relationship. One could argue the relationship would have issues in the first place but I'm not so sure.

Maybe that has already been or is just to obvious to be said. Anyway just some thoughts.

PS I LOVE the pic that started all of this. I really laughed out loud.

[deutsey]

827. Nice post.

:thumbsup:

[Warren DeMontague]

828. that's what she said!

sorry, it was in the strike zone.

[deutsey]

831. No reference to what the thumb is up into?

Disappointing.

:evilgrin:

[Warren DeMontague]

833. BOTH those guys need different shoes.

Seriously, there's way too much loafer in that shot.

[WillParkinson]

866. Got to love a person who, when speaking of porn...

Focuses on the footwear. :)

[Warren DeMontague]

869. Personally, I'd be more about thigh high black leather boots

and... they wouldn't be on either of those guys.

But, to each his or her own!

[Marrah_G]

844. I have no problem with masturbation or with porn

Both can be fun with or without a partner!

Just my unapologetic two-cents.

[Warren DeMontague]

882. "It's huge! I've never seen such a long one!"

Ah, thread.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

886. Have We Reached A Resolution Yet?

.

[redqueen]

887. In the women's rights forum, yes.

It harms. So does prostitution.

Most feminist groups agree.

It seems odd that so many liberals seem so very unwilling to abandon their death-grip on the absolutes that allow them to obfuscate any attempt at rational discussion of these issues... but actually, no... no it really doesn't seem that odd at all.

We need to seriously focus on increasing awareness of feminist issues. Too many people are complacent and think all our problems are already solved, or that none of the ones which remain are worth addressing.

[Warren DeMontague]

898. Probably 95% of DU identifies with the guy on the right. Maybe 5%, tops

agrees with the walrus-faced godbag on the left and his tight-lipped expression of clucking disapproval.

And that's counting all 30 faces of Eve.

[Major Nikon]

909. Not all feminist groups agree

You may be right in that most do, but some most certainly don't and argue the opposite. Just because "most feminist groups agree" doesn't mean they all do. So if the dissent hasn't even been settled from within the feminist community, do you really expect it to be settled everywhere else?

[Warren DeMontague]

911. Yeah, don't hold your breath waiting for the statistical data to back up that "most feminist groups"

thing, either.

I mean, it's just one of those things that is known, dig, sort of like how it is known that there has been an 'recent significant increase in ads objectifying women' and that said increase is directly responsible for fewer women being in elected office.

To even ask for statistical or other corroborating evidence is to display your entitlement male gaze heteronormative patriarchy-enabling bad self, and you should be ashamed.

Anyway, the 'feminists' who aren't anti porn aren't 'real' feminists

(in fact, when the old guard is in one of their crankier senior moods, they get called 'idiots')

because being anti-porn is the only acceptable true 'feminist' position on the matter.

This, of course, is logically proven by the fact that all real feminists are anti porn.

[Major Nikon]

913. Even if such a thing could be derived, it wouldn't mean much

Even if you could somehow say 90% of feminists think porn is harmful to women and 10% thought otherwise, that doesn't mean the 90% side is right and the 10% side is wrong.

The data I want to see is how exactly is porn harmful to women and were are the statistics proving that cause and effect relationship. If the best someone can do is cite that Andrea Dworkin thought porn was bad so it must be, they don't have much of an argument. The same can be said for those who cite Ed Meese.

[redqueen]

919. It is good to know you understand what the word "most" means.

Thanks for explaining it to me, but I assure you I already get it.

I expect people to at least be able to have a discussion about possible harm without screaming like crazy people about the very idea that anyone might someday make all the precious porn go bye bye.

[Major Nikon]

922. I'm all for reasonable discussion

I haven't seen much of that here, from either side. I suspect the reason is because when someone does take a chance and ask a reasonable question, as I did, they get little more than snark in return instead of a reasonable answer.

[Warren DeMontague]

924. okay, here's discussion: your assertions of 'harm' or 'possible harm' are bs.

and like I said, if anyone was to try the same crap with reproductive rights, i.e. making specious claims about how the 'abortion industry' 'harms women', while forcing the poor, befuddled, exploited, helpless dears to do things with their own bodies that they only claim are their own choice... would you calmly welcome the discussion and let that crap get floated unchallenged? No, you would not.

At which point, I guess, it would be okay for the anti-choicers to try to insinuate that your objections were due to some personal issue on your part, like "screaming like crazy people about the very idea that someone might make your precious right to abort your baby go bye bye."

:eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

895. Most people don't think it's a big deal, as long as all participants are consenting adults

it elicits the standard mass freak-the-fuck out temper tantrum in a slim minority, whose numbers are probably even smaller when you consider the 'pufferfish' factor.

[WillParkinson]

897. Each person will have to reach their own, I'm afraid...

In this post many people talk about the harm that pornography does to women. Yet when questioned about the men involved in pornography they are oddly silent. Then there's the different types of pornography. What about stories? There's not any flesh and blood person involved in the story (unless it's a true story) so is this type of pornography still considered bad?

I feel that whatever people want to do, as long as it's legal and everyone agrees to it, is completely up to them.

[lillypaddle]

914. Agree

Used to surprise me that a bunch of liberal progressives/dems could be so judgmental. But there seems to be a rash of it, on almost every topic. And some are downright puritanical about it, whether it's OWS, smoking, porn, or Big Macs.

[SoapBox]

896. Hilarious...

[Warren DeMontague]

899. "Have I got a big nose, mum?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY6dIxQTaf8

[flvegan]

903. Congrats Will! This thread has gone epic.

Also thus proving that a picture is worth a thousand words. No, responses.

[WillParkinson]

905. Thanks...

Never had anything like this one before. Amusing and sad at the same time.

[Warren DeMontague]

912. They happen every so often. Last one was in 2006, I believe

ah, yes, the great DU porn hurricane of '06.



Nearly blew my truck, my dog, and my blow-up Jenna Jameson doll clear off my lawn.

[madinmaryland]

906. This needs to be on the first page.

:evilgrin:

[EastTennesseeDem]

907. delete

wrong place. carry on.

Boy, was that awkward.

[Orrex]

910. Did you hear the one about the two elderly nuns and the teacher they caught masturbating?

'Cause you didn't hear it from me.

[seabeyond]

915. argument was porn does harm. tantrum came from pro porn, and is still coming from them

demanding the world say porn does not harm.

that is what all 900+ posts are about. pro porn demanding that NO ONE say, porn harms. and if anyone dares to have that opinion, then really, they are saying ban.

ya

something to boast about as this thread continually is shot back to the front page......

no one is allowed to have the opinion that porn can be harmful. du demands it.

[Major Nikon]

918. Who is saying you're not entitled to your opinion?

I'm not even going to go as far as to say it's wrong, whether you're in the minority or not. I'd just like to know why some seem to think porn harms them even if they aren't participating. I haven't read every post in this thread, but so far all I'm seeing from the anti-porners is that X, Y, and/or Z feminist thinks porn harms so it must be so. I can read their opinions myself, as well as other feminists who think porn doesn't harm. So where's the facts on this? Perhaps there are some. As yet I haven't seen any. When asked for them all I get is, "you need to read blah, blah, blah". Or, what if your daughter were doing porn? Those aren't facts. They are opinions and emotion based arguments. I'd rather have something of a bit more substance. Where's the data linking this to the claim? Where's the peer reviewed studies? In the last two decades, the availability and proliferation of porn has skyrocketed, so if the anti-porners are correct there should be a measurable increase in this alleged harm. So where is this apparent? Is violence against women increasing? Everything I've seen suggests the opposite.

I'm pretty well convinced porn does harm those who use it to excess, but that's a matter of people harming themselves. I don't think it makes a good case for the condemnation of porn. I'm sure the religious zealots would disagree, but I don't put a lot of stock in what they have to say.

[Warren DeMontague]

921. Asking people to back up their goofy unfounded assertions does not equal 'silencing' them.

And like I said, if a bunch of godbaggers came in here spouting identical gibberish about 'the abortion industry' and how it 'harms', folks would go fucking ape, and rightly so.

[piratefish08]

916. kick! just to see this thread hit 1000 replies.....

[hifiguy]

917. All this over an OP by Will that was nothing more

than a wry observation about the humorous nature of the juxtaposed signs.

:eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

925. Best. Smiley. Ever.

You can thank me later.

[WillParkinson]

926. Never saw that smiley before...

He doesn't look like he's having a good time but I am adding him to my list.