Pornography isn't degrading.

That link is about child porn and abuse.

 

Why the need to be so aggressive to 2cesarewild? By stating those who watch porn have low self-esteem, you are implying they are sick, because low self-esteem is a form of mental illness. People become depressed and suicidal when they have low self-esteem.

The two statements above are different: the first deals with people who view porn, the second with porn workers. The second is more believable out of the two.

Not at all. There are very advanced statistical methods to isolate causes, to the point where a person can be reasonably certain that one thing is a causative agent.

Why the need to sigh?

Links? In other words, a correlation without causation? That was my concern early on in this thread. Saying there are "links" is vague.

I actually had the same thoughts about nations without porn, especially the Muslim ones: crimes against women are underreported. So there's no way to gauge the amount of actual sex crimes to make valid comparisons, because many nations are not reporting statistics accurately. Additionally, you cannot control for other factors such as severity of punishment for sex crimes. We all know "tolerant" nations in the West slap the wrists of rapists, as opposed to "intolerant" nations that will behead or even kill them.

But if porn causes significant spikes in crimes against women, there's an argument for banning it. That's my opinion.

I am offended? By what? Please tell me what I am offended about?

Saying people who watch porn have mental health issues (e.g., low self-esteem) takes aim at whole populations, IMO. To be honest, I am surprised more people have not responded to you about this very claim.

 

Why are you so defensive about stereotypes of feminists? Why is defending feminism so important to you?

Feminism, like neo-Nazism, liberalism, conservatism, etc. is meaningless. They are all ideologies that clutter the mind and make enlightenment harder.

If I were you, I'd worry less about defending feminists and worry more about defending women.

I never thought feminists were all alike. I already explained why I thought you were for the banning of porn: because if porn causes sexual violence against women, any reasonable person would conclude that banning it is the solution. Your vagueness about law-making seems awkward to me. You strike me as someone who has not fully thought out these issues. Your lines even strike me as somewhat rehearsed, as opposed to having spontaneity.

Right now my time is constrained, but I'd be more than happy to look at the "data" you introduced to the thread.

 

I tried responding to this very claim, but it did not go through due to a bug on this Web site. If this turns out to be a double-post, my apologies in advance.

I never claimed all feminists think alike, nor am I pro- or anti-feminist.

I interpreted your posts as saying porn causes sex crimes against women. It was reasonable to conclude you wanted it banned to protect women. For example, if I believed porn caused violent crimes against women, I'd want it banned.

You are now saying that it's impossible to isolate porn as a cause of violent crimes against women. Furthermore, you are now claiming ignorance of the law for your vagueness about your stance on this now that it has been brought up. Believing that porn harms society in the way you do and being indifferent as to its legality strikes me as incongruous, to say the least.

One difficulty I have had on this thread is that you are making so many claims it's difficult to respond to all of them. You are also unnecessarily defensive. This I attribute to your "feminism."

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

ROFL!!!!!
ROFL!!!!!
ROFL!!!!!

Sorry, Maggie, I couldn't help myself. I am feeling a little pink after reviewing your sources. Where to start, where to start?

OK, I hope you understand that I have nothing against you. I think we all can disagree and it's OK. No bad feelings here.

Let's review what Wikipedia says about Judith Reisman:

In Crafting "Gay" Children, Reisman claims that homosexuals are trying to recruit children through schools and the mainstream media, attempts to link homosexuality with pedophilia, accuses Kinsey of abnormal sexual practices, and attributes his early death to excessive "self-abuse" (masturbation). She alleges that the only correct response to homosexuality is "recovery" such as the "therapy" offered by the International Healing Foundation. Based on the links she sees between homosexuality and pedophilia, she states: And, as there is, on the evidence, a definite connection between homosexuality and the myriad pathologies, including pedophilia, schools and youth organizations should be legally liable for allowing bi/homosexuals any authority or influence over children. This is a sure way to severely limit the traffic in child pornography and prostitution.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Reisman )

As for Mary Anne Layden, here's a nugget:

The keynote speaker at the Forum was an American, Dr. Mary Anne Layden who, among much else, called for mandatory Internet filtering by ISPs and promoted Internet Sheriff blocking software...

(Source: http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/mandatoryblocking-timeline.html )

Another from "The Register":

Public libraries are a hotbed of on-line pedo activity and must therefore be forced to install Internet filtering software on their public computers, pedophile psychotherapist Mary Anne Layden told a Congressional Committee on Children and Families which convened last year to consider measures for protecting children from Internet predators.

(Source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/03/23/carnivore_and_net_censorship/ )

I liked this article from "Wired" best of all:

However, as the panelists (of the Senate Subcommittee cited by Maggie Sugar) themselves acknowledged, there is no consensus among mental health professionals about the dangers of porn or the use of the term "pornography addiction."

Many psychologists and most sexologists find the concepts of sex and pornography addiction problematic, said Carol Queen, staff sexologist for the San Francisco-based, woman-owned Good Vibrations.

Queen questioned the validity of the panel for not including anyone who thinks "pornography is not particularly problematic in most people's lives."

(Source: http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,65772,00.html )

What you did was introduce a slew of names that support the banning of porn, claiming it as an infraction against obscenity laws. So while you may not support the banning of porn, some of the names you just cited do. One person you cited (Judith Reisman) thinks homosexuals need therapy.* You should check your sources a little better. I also found a paucity of "data" -- nay, utter lack: most of what you posted was opinion by some political activists.

*While I can't say Judith Reisman is wrong about her many conclusions, I strongly disagree with the notion that homosexuals need therapy. I believe homosexuals are genetically predisposed to their sexual orientation.

 

The sources can be classed as "propaganda" because the statements are emotive and yet, if you look closely at the quoted paragraphs, there are no data to support the claims. No studies which challenge the theses of these studies are mentioned. No alternative theories or opposing scholars are mentioned.

As the "Wired" article I cited states, there is no consensus among psychologists and sexologists on what constitutes "porn addiction," much less if porn is harmful.

This is a quote from Mary Anne Layden:

The internet is a perfect drug delivery system because you are anonymous, aroused and have role models for these behaviors ... To have drug pumped into your house 24/7, free, and children know how to use it better than grown-ups know how to use it -- it's a perfect delivery system if we want to have a whole generation of young addicts who will never have the drug out of their mind.

Notice her references to drug use: does that not sound like propaganda to you? Read that paragraph real well and reflect on the sheer demagoguery of it. I can't think of a more perfect example of propaganda for politicians and the general public to swallow.

 

Yea sure everything could be classed as propaganda then. You never get the full story from a passive observer, well I shoudln't say never but it's pretty rare. I thought the article was pretty bad.

Attacking the credibility of a source on a completely different topic doesn't need to be done. That's a dirty politician tactic, and deemed completely irrelevant by most people in any kind of argument/debate. The issue is pornography, degrading or not. Not, homosexuals, normal or disturbed or anything else.

 

lol yea that's pretty hilarious, especially "and the children know how to use it better than grown-ups" LMFAO. But it's still a tangent if you ask me.

 

For a fellow guy Mr. Anarchist,
Please read the following not to criticize but to see if this has some truth to it. It does not matter whether pornography is degrading to women or not but it certainly is evil. 1) they first attract you with provoking images of sex , increase your curiosity and hook you up. With these images, after a while you lose the ability to get excited
2) then after some time you will not be happy with those images , you will want more, more requires money, then you will somehow try to pay for it, and some people get embarrassed and hide it from their spouses, etc. Then, these images too will not be enough after a while, you will think if paying for pornography is okay, whats wrong with going for strip clubs, you will then go there, then you will think whats wrong with a stripper, you will do that, and finally you will think whats wrong with prostitution, you are helping her earn money anyway, and go into that, if you won't do this, you will certainly be addicted to sex, with this addiction you can never be free of it and it will finally consume you. Pornography is evil my friend, Buddha was right- you will not be happy by dwelling into your desires, it is better to be free , and for people who are already into it, May God help them.

 

maybe I wasn't clear, the pornography industry aims to hook you up, while food does not. And yes, drugs too are addictive and just as bad as pornography. Violence? addiction to violence? this is new and control? - addiction is the loss of control of onself to the object of desire.

 

I do not have the time, nor the experience, but don't worry you will learn in time...

ciao

 

I'm amazed.

By the comments posted here, such as the person who blames pron for her boyfriemds desire to fuck her in the ass.
Yeah , like that's never occured to any man except from watch ing porn.
GET REAL.
Or the fact that women "sell themselves" and blaming it on porn.
Wake up and smell the coffee, EVERYONE does stuff for money, whether it be fucking or flipping burgers. It's just that one pays far far better than the other.
And because men's sex drive is stronger than a woman's, men have paid women for sex since--well, it's called the worlds oldest profession.
Before porn can be comitted to film/video/paper, etc., it must first exist in the minds of humans.

The anti-porn prigs are advocating mind control do you want to go there?

Porn is a billion-dollar-a-year business. Know why?
CAUSE PEOPLE LIKE IT.
I know LOTS of women who enjoy sex and sex foreplay which includes porn. Not because men expect it; because it makes their pussies wet.

A lot of the anti-porn people just don't 'get' it.

For the record, I LOVE porn (although my tastes run more towards seeing women naked rather than engaged in sex), and I've never raped/molested anyone.

Also, area's where porn is freely available have LOWER rates of sex crimes, since people often use porn as an aid to masturbation. Sex crimes are committed by sexually dysfunctional people, those who are sexually repressed, who believe sex of any kind is evil.

P.S. porn is geared towards men's fantasies because men buy more porn than women, it's as simple as that. There have been "romantic" porn films; they don't sell.

Saying that watching porn encourages sex crimes is like saying watching The Terminator makes people want to become cyborgs from the future who want to kill hundreds of people.

 

yea porn is evil, lol, right. Just because some people let their desires control them instead of controlling their desires, doesn't make porn 'evil.' That's a steaming loaf straight from the cow's brown eye. Calling any inaminate object evil is an age-old non-sensical form of religious propaganda intended to control you.


ranger: excellent post.

 

Finding absolute causative agents if very very difficult. I've done research for my undergrad and grad work. Links and co-occurences are one things, definiate "causatives" are an other. People are not isolated in society to only ONE influence. You are not going to get me to way "Porn should be outlawed." As there it would be ridiculous, and finding "causative agents" in ANY complicated sociological issue is very difficult.

The best we can do for now is to find links and trends, and hope people will have the brains and the need for better things to do with their time to avoid less than healthy influences on their own. Laws aren't the answer. (WIth the exception of child porn, which revictimizes a non-consenting child every time it is accessed.)

 

What amazes me is that no one here would place such a thread which was so blatently anti-male and so degrading to men on the Men's Issues Forum, yet placing stuff like this, and some of these posts, while attacking womyn on the Women's Issues Forum seems OK to some.

Nice comment. Looks like your ability to empathise with womyn HAS been destroyed. And you seem to need to blame womyn seems well developed. By your love of porn? I have no idea. But maybe there is a link.

I am done here. As I said. I'll be monitoring this thread for abuse.

 

Maggie and I will likely disagree on this one.

But, I see pornography as a neutral tool that can be beneficial or harmful. Harmful in the hands of the harmful mind, just as is a gun, car, credit card, etc.

Sure there are pornographic "snuff" out there and there are levels of anything that is harmful, but I see pornography itself as a neutral tool. My wife and I have used pornography to benefit and spice up our sexual lives and are better for it!

Here are why I defend porn as beneficial:

1. It provides sexual information on at least three levels:

a. It gives a wide view of the world's sexual possibilities.

b. it allows people to 'safely' experience sexual alternatives and satisfy a healthy sexual curiosity.
c. it provides a different form of information than textbooks or discussion. It provides us with a sense how it would 'feel' to do something.

2. Pornography strips away the emotional confusion that so often surrounds real world sex. Pornography allows women to enjoy scenes and situations that would be anathema to them in real life. Take, for example, one of the most common fantasies reported by women -- the fantasy of 'being taken', of being raped.The first thing to understand is that a rape fantasy does not represent a desire for the real thing. It is a fantasy. The woman is in control of the smallest detail of every act.

Why would a healthy woman daydream about being raped?

There are dozens of reasons. Perhaps by losing control, she also sheds all sense of responsibility for and guilt over sex. Perhaps it is the exact opposite of the polite, gentle sex she has now. Perhaps it is flattering to imagine a particular man being so overwhelmed by her that he must have her. Perhaps she is curious. Perhaps she has some masochistic feelings that are vented through the fantasy. Is it better to bottle them up?

3. Pornography breaks cultural and political stereotypes, so that each person can interpret sex for herself. Some women tell other women to be ashamed of their appetites and urges. Pornography tells them to accept and enjoy them. Pornography provides reassurance and eliminates shame. It says to women 'you are not alone in your fantasies and deepest darkest desires. Right there, on the screen are others who feel the same urges and are so confident that they flaunt them.'

4. Pornography can be good therapy. Pornography provides a sexual outlet for those who -- for whatever reason -- have no sexual partner. Perhaps they are away from home, recently widowed, isolated because of infirmity. Perhaps they simply choose to be alone. Sometimes, masturbation and vicarious sex are the only alternatives to celibacy. Couples also use pornography to enhance their relationship. Sometimes they do so on their own, watching videos and exploring their reactions together. Sometimes, the couples go to a sex therapist who advises them to use pornography as a way of opening up communication on sex. By sharing pornography, the couples are able to experience variety in their sex lives without having to commit adultery.

Pornography can benefits WOMEN SOCIALLY in many ways as well...

1. Historically, laws directed against pornography or obscenity, such as the Comstock Law in the late 1880's, have always been used to hinder women's rights, such as birth control. Although it is not possible to draw a cause-and-effect relationship between the rise of pornography and that of feminism, they both demand the same social conditions -- namely, sexual freedom.

2. Pornography is free speech applied to the sexual realm. Freedom of speech is the ally of those who seek change: it is the enemy of those who seek to maintain control. Pornography, along with all other forms of sexual heresy, such as homosexuality, should have the same legal protection as political heresy. This protection is especially important to women, whose sexuality has been controlled by censorship through the centuries.

 

NO dude porn is evil it is satan incarnate

Nice post, great articulation I believe in all the points you made.

 

Lib, I don't neccesariy agree with you, but I do respect your ability to be respectul, as well as eloquent with your reply.

I think, in essense you may be saying it is similar to alcohol (kind of) that some can use it without abuse, enjoy it, and leave the experience untainted, and some will find it may destroy them. Thing is, like alcohol, no one knows who is which of these. Like alcohol, outlawing all but the most dangerous (as in things like grain alcohol and child pornography) is simply unworkable, That has been proven.

I'd like to think that most humans could have the grace to know to stay away from things which are damaging to them, but that isn't rarely the case. With porn, those who have the capacity to be most damaged by it, seem to be most drawn to it. Just like alcoholics seem drawn to booze. Unlike alcolhol, the manufacture or selling of porn does victimize some people. No one can say the number of people who are damaged and harmed by the manufactue of and use of porn. I dare to say, that in the wrong hands, porn probably had the ability to produce more damage to the loved ones of those who abuse it. But, as you said, I know some people can use it, occasionally, and be unharmed.

I do agree, which is why I refused to be forced to say I think it should be outlawed by some of the previous posters. Just because I don't like it, or feel it is pretty damaging to many, doesn't mean it should be against the law. I, as those who care for it, have a right to my opinion, also. I know you agree with this. That is one of the reasons I understand (now) and value your input, even if we don;t alwys agree.

Thank you for your eloquent and respectful response.

 

Thanks.

I have to admit all those ideas weren't mine originally. I just happen to see it that way 100%.

I do see most all things as "tools" to be used beneficially or harmfully, yes. I suppose that is the progressive, uber-liberal in me.

 

TokeTrip has a pretty good grasp on all this. Probably somthing else too.










For his age