Pornography isn't degrading.

I placed it here as it was in reply to an issue of Women; the issue among many women of the forum that is id degradation caused by porn.

 

Is womyn plural or singular???

 

I tried to avoid posting in Women's Issues lately, and I will continue to try to minimize my postings in this forum due to my own biases. It is my belief that people are entitled to their own forums to promote their own beliefs or worldview.

If it were irrelevant I would not have posted the information that I did. Truth is that we are all biased as human beings, and our biases shape our political views. There is a reason the women on this thread took offense to my posts, and that is because my view on sexuality is male-centered. Likewise, the women on this thread have a female-centered view. So how do we get around that? How do we reach a compromise? How do we find the truth?

What a person needs to do is put himself in the shoes of another, and to acknowledge that the other person may have a valid point. We need to try as much as we can to take our emotions out of the picture to see reality more clearly. We must consider the possibility that we are wrong.

What I saw in the sources posted were views clouded by ideological bias. It's not so much what a person thinks about a certain issue, and how controversial that position might be, but how the other issues relate to the current one, and help us to understand the worldview of the source. When we try to understand the worldview of the source, that's not the same as refuting someone or winning an argument, though. I don't think that should be the goal, tempting though it may be, in this type of discussion anyway.

What I posted does meet the journalistic standards on many popular Web sites, although your own personal standards might be higher. I don't think it's "deemed completely irrelevant by most people," which takes an overly optimistic and erroneous view of human nature.

 

It's almost an ad hominem attack. If X's view on issue A is what's at debate, you present your argument about issue A. Presenting arguments about issue B, C, or D only gives the impression that you cannot successfully present a valid argument about issue A. If you did that in a huge open forum at a podium, you would be made to look like a donkey by a good debator.

 

I have to admit, 2cesarewild, that I am a bit disappointed that you have taken this view of the debate. I really cannot empathize with you on this point, and feel that, while your insights on marijuana cultivation and drugs are sometimes sharp, your analysis of these types of discussions is at best weak. This is not meant as a personal attack on you. I just don't relate to you in a similar way that I don't relate to Jedi, which shows us how different we all view the world even when we see the "same" information.

This is probably flogging a dead horse, but there was not, before my last group of posts, a single issue being discussed. There were different topics within the thread: (1) whether pornography is degrading, (2) whether pornography leads to violence against women, (3) whether pornography addiction is a problem, (4) whether pornography makes men more callous and insensitive to women, and relatedly, (5) whether pornography ruins marriages and adds to social instability, etc.

All of these issues were brought up by other people. And it's natural that this happened, because pornography encompasses many topics.

If these topics are brought up in the thread and someone makes a claim on them, it only makes sense that someone with an opposing view would counter that claim rather than stick to the very first topic brought up and thus give others a monopoly on related topics.

It also makes sense, in such highly politicized topics, to discuss the motivations of those who take a certain position. For example, when discussing whether the war in Iraq is just, it's valid, in my view, to introduce the topic of motivations of some politicians and ideologues who might have a vested interest in oil and construction companies that can profit from the war. If we are forced to stick to merely "is the war good or bad?", we could be potentially blinding ourselves from a fuller understanding of the war.

Likewise, what I found when I researched the sources was that they are strongly ideologically minded, and several want pornography banned. To point out that one source believes homosexuals need therapy is relevant, because it also deals with human sexuality. If a person makes false or bigoted statements about homosexuals, how can we trust that person to make good judgments regarding pornography or human sexuality generally? Any good lawyer or debater would work to deconstruct an opposing view in this manner: to chop at the credibility of a "witness."

If I had instead brought up the favorite baseball team of a source, or what he thinks about drug legalization, then your point would be valid.

 

lol my 'analysis' of these types of discussions? Like what discussions? Didn't know I did much analyzing on this thread (in comparison), but whatever man, the psychology of homosexuals I'd say is a far different issue than any being discussed here. Notice how your numbered points are all about pornography. All of them deal with pornography's degradation (of women is implied, we're in the women's forum) and its inherent influences on society.

What this source thinks about homosexuality is not a motivator for her to publish this information or say these things about pornography. It is just another belief she has, on a totally different issue.

Every homosexual I have ever met had a really fucked up childhood, full of neglect, molestation or <insert traumatizing experience(s) here>. So I believe that psychology plays a role, but I don't necessarily believe in them all 'needing therapy.' Whatever's clever man, if it works for you it works for you, I just have never met one who lived a 'normal' life. Now, what in the hell does that belief of mine have to do with my beliefs on pornography's degradation of women or its effect on society? There is no correlation.

Your analogy of politicians' motives for wardoes not fit. It is completely valid to investigate their motivations for going to war to determine whether or not from an ethical standpoint that the war was the 'right' thing to do (is it ever?). However, it is not analogous to you bringing up a source's opinion on homo psychology.

Whatever though I'm not going to argue logic 101 here anymore, I only brought it up because you're trying to get so deep in this argument, but IMO you've headed down the wrong direction.

 

Hey, 2cesarewild, I will drop this with you, because I don't think I will get anywhere with you. I instinctively feel like pummelling you on this, but I must restrain myself. It's just a matter of perception, so don't take it personal.

What this thread taught me is how unique our perceptions really are. I don't think you are a dummy, 2cesarewild, and I don't think the others I debated, from DancerAnnie to Jedi to Maggie Sugar, are dummies either. At times I have been tempted to think so, but the truth is that our minds are clouded with so much bias and individuality that we end up differing as much over basic opinions as we do over physical appearances, if not more.

This thread has made me pessimistic on humanity, though. How can there be human brotherhood when what truly separates us are not physical but psychological differences? I was thinking of posting this in the Mind Fuck forum, but what the hell. Then again, so many seem to agree with me in the Psychedelics forum, where more psychological convergence seems to take place. Perhaps it's the nature of Women's Issues to bring about more varied viewpoints.

This thread has been a sort of "mindfuck" for me because it's rare for me to disagree with so many people in one single thread, on something that shouldn't be so contentious.

 

This is getting WAY off topic. How people feel about Gay people, or baseball teams or Iraq is really off topic. Stick to the topic, please.

If this continues to degrade into ad hominem attacks, the topic will be closed.

I think about everything which can be said about this by the people discussing it already has been said.

 

With all due respect, Maggie Sugar, I think over the last few days the participants have controlled themselves within this thread and avoided ad hominem attacks.

 

One thing that is very clear from reading this thread is that there continue to be a lot of misconceptions about pornographic film.

I believe that the common objection that porn is "degrading" is a very revealing one. What is being degraded? Isn't it nothing more than an individual's perception of reality? Somebody has a high-minded impression of reality, they see porno films and subsequently their perception has been "degraded" to a lower resolution.

Those making this objection seem to think that it is society's view of women that is being degraded. They have to make several assumptions to get there. The first is that our society actually has a "high quality" view of women. Does it?

In some respects, the issue is complex. To what extent do the producers cater to audience expectations? Surely audiences themselves are as equally responsible for their own expectations as are the producers of the porn???

Female performers are paid much more than male performers. Fact.

The variety and range of styles is staggering, and the same can be said of audiences for porn. So making any generalization is foolish. I believe that people's personal objections can only come from their own reaction and nothing more. Just because you have an adverse reaction to a graphic video, don't assume that others will share it.

All claims that "pornography is degrading" rely upon overly simplistic ideas about the videos themselves and the human beings who consume them in the millions every day.

P.S: if you are a parent worried about their child being exposed to adult content before they reach the appropriate age, I suggest you look to the advertising industry which many consider an industry which is degrading to humanity and the planet itself.

Peace

 

This is one of the best non-academic analyses that I have ever read on this contentious subject. I'm glad you had the courage to wade into these waters, friend. Nicely done, sir.

 

I don't think it's degrading, I think it's misleading.

 

It's only misleading to someone who already has issues. To a normal (the majority of people), person, it can provide a healthy outlet. Look at how the crime rate, including sexual crimes are down below what they were in 1963. There is currently a study being done out of Europe about this but it is not completed so I am unable to link to their findings.

 

An easter resurrection?

 

I'm totally fine with nudity. It doesn't bother me at all. But when women are more naked than men/ more suggestive, etc., then it does.
Especially when they look unnatural and airbrushed up with photoshopping and what not.

It's embarrasing, and definitely degrading. Women are made up to be nothing but sexual objects who only want to pleasure men. Who cares if they want to or not. I'm sure if a woman was educated and wasn't in desperate need of money- she would never sell herself out like that.
Porn can tear couples apart, get people addicted, and give unrealistic sexual expectations.
There are much better ways to get aroused.

 

I wasn't referring to 46 year olds who should know about sex already.
I meant that it was misleading to the young kids who find Daddy's stash and get the idea that women are supposed to have giant boobs, no pubic hair, and orgasm during penetration.

 

Yeah I don't understand how porn would be degrading either. It's a business just like any other business. The business just happens to be sex.