Porn/erotica/smut

[Strong Atheist]

Poll question: Porn/erotica/smut

Posted this poll in the Lounge, it was mostly without flames there. We had a mostly civil discussion. Time for the GD poll! :scared:















Oh, BTW, completely G-Rated (for visual) and PG-Rated (for language) humor on the differences between some men and some women on this issue. DIAL UP WARNING: Don't bother, 3 minute flash movie.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5430343841227974645

PS: I am a male who thinks porn is normal and healthy, for what that is worth.

[ixion]

1. Porn has a bad rap, thanks to the fundies, IMO

It's about human sexuality, which is the most natural thing in the world.

[Strong Atheist]

2. Agreed. nt.

[NaturalHigh]

143. Thanks to the fundies?

Have you ever read the posts here at DU from the porn-haters?

[benburch]

257. Those people ARE fundies.

They have bought the whole "sex is filthy" meme so totally that they had to find other justifications for it when they abandoned mainstream religion.

[hfojvt]

260. Speaking as a fundy

You seem to have bought a "porn is sex" meme. To much of the anti porn crowd it is not about sex, it is about dysfunctional sex - about violence and objectification. They distinguish between "porn" and "erotica". And hopefully most people answering this poll are conflating porn and erotica. Otherwise, as a group we seem to have an "anything goes" mentality. Does this include child porn then? Pornography is only pornography when it promotes "sex without love".

[benburch]

261. No, your sort tie porn and sex whenever it suits your purposes.

So you cannot slime out of this one that way.

And damn but you have some huge cahones to say that anybody else's sexuality is dysfunctional. I know a lot of people for whom "rough" porn is very, very tame compared to how they really make love, and I don't consider those people to be dysfunctional at all.

Of course, you mentally ill fundies consider anybody who does not share your Ward and June Cleaver world view to be dysfunctional...

[hfojvt]

270. Of course, you are right. There is no dysfunctionality in the world

everyone is totally happy and decent and kind and honest ...
Pardon my cojones.
I did not say that the way anybody "makes love" is dysfunctional. I said that "sex without love" is dysfunctional.
You have some cojones yourself to call me mentally ill. Doubtless there are many in the anti-porn crowd, especially on the right, who are in the "nothing goes" camp, who do not approve of any sex at all. Cojonically, I also consider that to be dysfunctional, but not as bad as the other extreme.

[Warren DeMontague]

277. There is plenty of sexual dysfunction in, for example, the Vatican

but maybe that's "not as bad" (your words, not mine) as consenting adults screwing each for reasons other than "love".

(Caveat: I'm happily married. I think that the best, most transcendent sex in the world is the prolonged tantric psychic merging of souls which can come about through the union of two people who deeply love and understand each other. But that doesn't mean that I never enjoyed the lusty, lower-chakra sex that I had with other women, back in my single days... -I also don't think "lust" and "love" are mutually exclusive- and it certainly doesn't mean that I think *my* current preferred way of having sex is the only "right", or "functional", way to do it.)

[hfojvt]

279. as a protestant, of course I think that Catholicism

has a twisted view of sex and birth control. Sociologist and priest (and "smut" author) Andrew Greeley claims that priests do not have a higher rate of child molestation or infidelity than Protestant ministers or teachers or postal workers, etc. But that the media has hyped those stories.

Perhaps I am misusing the word "dysfunctional", and it is one of "those" (overused) words. Certainly I never said there is only "one" right way to have sex, but I would put "dysfunctional" in the same class as smoking a pack of cigarettes. Not good for your health, but not going to kill you either. However, if it becomes a habit, then it is even less healthy.

Also, the Priest who is a pedophile is not living up to what he says he believes whereas the heartbreaking Casanova is. I would claim that the pedophile priest would be a worse person if he followed the philisophy of the Casanova and that the Casanova would be a better person if he followed the philosophy of the priest. Yes I do think that Ward Cleaver is a better role model than Hugh Hefner. I must admit, though, there really is alot of good reading in Playboy. I shoulda sold them. I might still be in business.

[Warren DeMontague]

280. I think if a kid has either Ward Cleaver OR Hugh Hefner as role models

He's going to end up getting his ass kicked for dressing like that.



I'm not gonna buy what Father Andrew Greeley is peddling re; pedophile priests, sorry. He's hardly a disinterested party. If anything, it's been conclusively demonstrated that, unlike your normal, creepy, trenchcoat-n'-van pedophiles, Priests have the wealthiest organization on the planet at their disposal to cover up their crimes, move 'em around, buy off their victims, etc. etc. etc. I would turn your argument around, and say if postal workers were molesting kids like Priests have been shown to, and the post office was displaying a rampant, egregious pattern of covering up their crimes, townspeople with pitchforks and torches would be surrounding post offices across the land, demanding that they get the fuck out of their towns.

But on this, like on so many things, "the church" gets an extra-special free pass and dispensation.

Also, if two adults consent to have sex, even though they aren't in necessarily love, and both get mutual enjoyment out of the act (which sums up a great deal of my casanova-like behavior in younger days), how is that "heartbreaking"?

[Djinn]

298. sex without love is dysfunctional?

WHAT?

[Warren DeMontague]

303. Apparently.

:eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

265. All these discussions are UNIVERSALLY predicated upon two words:

"consenting"
and
"adults".

If I had ten bucks for every person who reflexively tried to bring in non-consent or non-adults to back their shit up in these threads, I could retire.

[hfojvt]

266. Yet, if there are lines

which I feel should be stated rather than assumed, then the argument switches to "where" to draw the line. Which is a different argument than the position that there should be no lines.
Unless your position is that there should be no lines for adults. Are crush videos rules out then because the rodents do not consent?

[Warren DeMontague]

268. The argument around smut pertains to consenting adult material.

This has been stated time, and time, and time again. Yet people reflexively bring up "what about kids" just like they can't seem to help but conflate "rape" and "porn" with the kind of glee the administration uses to conflate "iraq" and "9-11".

As far as the rest, if you're talking about videos of people smashing insects or rodents, if such a thing exists, it's certainly doubtful that you'll find it on the shelves of the local smut hut, and I don't really consider that erotica--- so I'm not sure how the hell it's relevant to the discussion. (Are Field and Stream or Hunting, Fishing and Outdoors Magazine "porn"?) But let's simplify, here: When you are talking about commercially available adult material, you are talking about adult humans engaged in consensual behavior intended for the viewing pleasure of other consenting adults. That's what the thread is about. And yeah, generally, I think that sort of thing is no one's business except the people involved- certainly not the government's.

[hfojvt]

276. I would think you are also talking about pictures and writing as well

Yet if the government has NO business then why wouldn't crush videos and snuff films also be made commercially available? You also seem to be making an argument for eliminating all government regulation. Thus, we can talk about consenting adults manufacturing methamphetamines for the ingesting pleasure of other consenting adults. Where does MYOB end? Conservatives have a double standard in that they want the bedroom regulated but industry left alone. Isn't there a double standard if progressives want industry regulated but porn left alone. Hey, porn is an industry. So, excuse me, if I as a sociologist and philosopher, think that industry is producing a product which is neither healthy nor edifying. An MYOB argument does not change my mind about the quality of its product.

[Warren DeMontague]

278. Actually, in my humble opinion, drug abuse should be addressed as

a health issue- NOT a law enforcement one.

Again, you must not be able to justify your arguments within the paramaters of the subject matter- what is commercially available- because you can't seem to stop yourself from bringing up other shit, like crush and snuff videos, to back up your point.

Allow me to address:

"snuff" videos, if I understand it, are centered around a crime- the crime of killing someone. I find it hard to believe that constitutes a situation of 'consent'. I think you're talking about a straw man, and certainly one that's not relevant to the discussion. Personally, some of the images that have come back from Abu Ghraib are the closest thing to "Snuff" material that I've ever seen- and sick shit, too.

As for "crush" videos- again, I really don't have any fucking idea what you're talking about, except that it's legal, in many instances, right or wrong, to kill animals. It's not legal to fuck them and sell the videotapes, at least not in this country, and before you start jumping up and down and hollering, I completely agree with that. Animals can't consent and are not relevant to the discussion, any more than talk of humans marrying box turtles is relevant to discussions of gay marriage. (Although it's interesting, from a philosophical standpoint, to think that Dick Cheney could shoot a bird or a deer on film and no one would bat an eye, but if he tried to fuck one... well, you get the idea)

As far as consenting adults- actually, no, I don't really think it's the government's place to tell consenting adults what they can or cannot do with their own bodies, or bloodstreams either, for that matter. If you drive under the influence, neglect your kids, rob a bank, then you're a criminal and should be treated as such. As far as meth, I will be the first to attest to the damage I've seen it do to people. Like drunk driving- I have personally witnessed the devastation. But the best educational answer to meth abuse is meth users themselves. We blow $40 Billion a Year on a "drug war" (aimed, I might add, primarily at pot smokers) which, in case you haven't noticed, isn't working. And it's precisely those communities where the DEA has been successful in keeping things like marijuana out that folks have been turning en masse to things like meth and sniffing paint, both obtained from legal sources or ingredients. Those are facts.

Philosophically, I'm pretty socially libertarian. The realist in me understands that the best strategy for the "drug war" would be to legalize and tax marijuana, and adopt a 'harm reduction' strategy for harder drugs, like the Netherlands. $40 Billion a year could fund both treatment on demand and some real, honest education about things like meth (as opposed to the lies they ladle on kids about pot, which cause them to never believe anyone in authority on these subjects, ever)

And no, I don't think we should be locking people up for 10, 20 years for what they choose to put in their OWN bodies, period. So I think MYOB arguments are perfectly fucking reasonable for most things consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own homes.

[hfojvt]

281. "legally available" is the issue

Presumably in alot of smut, the sex is fake, although it is not advertised as such. Thus a snuff film could be made where the snuffing is fake, although it is not advertised as such. Same for child porn. It could be fake - done with electronic imaging. So why not mind our own business on that? Imagine the wondrous things we can do with our technology, and you know there's a market for it.

I believe the discussion was about porn, so I was talking about things that are available, AFAIK, although maybe not at my corner shop. Then too, when things are commercially available their advertising ends up being viewed by alot of people who would rather not see it nor have their kids see it.

Same with the lies that the government tells about pot. Typically nobody lies like an advertiser ("Thanks Payday Loans" because paying 3000% interest was just the help I needed for my financial troubles).

I never said that the Prison Industrial Complex was the answer for anything, but it seems to me that addressing drugs as a health issue still steps away from a pure MYOB position. Whatever I advocate or disparage, I am not suggesting some sort of jack-booted zero tolerance gestapo or censors or gulags. Just public flogging and sale of the videotapes :evilgrin: (jeez, didya see the freeper thread where they wanted stocks and public executions with increasing levels of violence. I do not claim to speak for them. Only to say that I have found many decent people in Free Methodist and Nazarene Churches.)

[mongo]

267. What you like is "erotica" what other people watch is dirty "smut"

And you have bought into the "one true and right way of sex"(tm), and are perfectly happy imposing your views onto other consenting adults.

And if we don't agree with YOU, then we must like child porn -- STRAWMAN!

There is no distinction between porn and erotica except as I mentioned in the title of this post.

Pornography is only pornography when it promotes "sex without love".

Is sex without love inherently bad? What about "erotica"? I doubt if the performers in the movies you approve of are in love themselves. Wouldn't that make ALL of it bad?

Porn (regardless of plot, character development, etc) -- is porn. It is sport fucking.

[hfojvt]

272. Your last line is clearly untrue

There is no "sport fu$%ing" in the pictures I have. They are semi-nudes. Of course, I think that would make both Andrea Dworkin and Charles Dobson have a fit.

Well, if you say that "anything goes" then how is child porn a straw man?

It is not about technique in the "one true, right way of sex" it is about attitude, and people learn their attitudes from the stories they hear. So the distinction I am making is between stories that encourage love and stories that don't. Therefore, the feelings of the performers are not at all relevant.

Am I trying to impose that on other consenting adults? Well, I would like to live in a world where it is possible to graduate from junior high. I also feel, that pornography, like every other industry in our society does not operate for the public good - it operates for private profit. Society does not get alot of satisfaction from the invisible hand.

[Warren DeMontague]

274. "Society does not get alot of satisfaction from the invisible hand"

:rofl:

You know, I disagree with you on a whole laundry list of issues, but you do get props for that line.

[chefgirl]

3. Robb is a dingbat

Actually that wasn't my vote.

I'm a female and I believe that as long as its not hurting anyone (against their will ;) ) it's perfectly healthy and normal.

-chef-

[Strong Atheist]

5. We agree!

:toast:

[wakeme2008]

9. Agree to what

Robb is a dingbat or about porn being healthy. :evilgrin: Or both...

[Strong Atheist]

11. On the porn. I would not call Robb a dingbat, especially NOW:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=4874143

[AnnieBW]

245. I Agree, Too

As long as the woman is not being forced or coerced (or worse, hidden camera), it's not a snuff film, and she's of legal age, what's the problem? Yes, there is some stuff out there that I feel is pretty sick, but whatever floats your boat. Deliberately harming someone, like in a snuff film, is where I draw the line. And kiddie pr0n, well, that's just sick. From what I understand, there are responsible people in the pr0n industry as well as irresponsible people, just like anywhere else. Banning or putting limits on pr0n is only going to drive the responsible ones out of the business.

[meganmonkey]

4. I answered healthy/normal

BUT - there is some very unhealthy stuff out there too...

[Strong Atheist]

6. Agreed. The same can be said on almost any topic,

drugs, alcohol... some are good, some are very bad...

[Viva_La_Revolution]

40. too much is a bad thing

in moderation, s'okay. :)

[Strong Atheist]

95. Who gets to define "too much"? The gov.? Some church? You?

Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as "too much" when it comes to seeing naked people! Wish we lived in a clothing-free/optional society... sigh ...

[Viva_La_Revolution]

103. The person who's viewing it, and their SO

If it's causing trouble in their relationship, then it's a problem.

Nobody else's business, and I never said it was.

Naked people is not porn.
Naked people photographed for other's sexual enjoyment is porn.

[Strong Atheist]

104. We mostly agree, which is sometimes as good as it gets.

:hi:

[William769]

7. Porn is porn. Whats the difference if it's male or female?

We are all adults as long as kids are not involved, I see no problem with it.

[Strong Atheist]

8. Ah. Sorry, that is not what I meant. I was asking for responses

based on the sex of the responder, not on the type of porn...

Edited to add: If you mean about the "violence against women" part, I put that because most of the serious arguments against porn seem to involve a variation of this...

[William769]

10. Well then Male porn is very Healthy!!!

:evilgrin:

[meegbear]

15. LOL!!!

[WePurrsevere]

12. It depends on the theme of the porn & the attitudes expressed within.

Since I think enjoying sex is normal and healthy, I can't make a blanket statement saying that I object to all porn. Over the years I've increasingly seen some that I've actually enjoyed quite a bit, a few that I've found very offensive as a female and a few that were more denegrating to men then to women.

There's so much variety out there now with that's geared towards different sexual fantasies and not just hetrosexual males. What I may be comfortable watching as a hetrosexual female another may not be and might even find it offensive.

[Strong Atheist]

13. Agreed. BTW, that cat looks much like mine... nt.

[Rich Hunt]

192. I'm with you

Some of it is shit. Not necessarily 'unhealthy', just worthless. Doesn't mean I think it should be suppressed, it's just I'm not into this 'it's all wonderful and healthy' thing. It's a consumer product, and like any other, it has the good, the bad, and the vile.

Support for freedom of expression doesn't mean you have to like everything, nor does it mean you have to prove that all expression is 'good' and 'healthy' - if that were the true, the case for free expression would be a lot weaker.

[mcscajun]

14. Smut! A March by Tom Lehrer

Lehrer's opening to this one (spoken): I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it owing to the nature of the laws as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on but we know what's really involved: dirty books are fun. That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in a court and say that I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the Constitution unfortunately. Anyway, since people seem to be marching for their causes these days I have here a march for mine. It's called...

Smut!
Give me smut and nothing but!
A dirty novel I can't shut,
If it's uncut,
and unsubt- le.

I've never quibbled
If it was ribald,
I would devour where others merely nibbled.
As the judge remarked the day that he
acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
"To be smut
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance."

Por-
Nographic pictures I adore.
Indecent magazines galore,
I like them more
If they're hard core.

(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties,
samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!
More, more, I'm still not satisfied!)

Stories of tortures
Used by debauchers,
Lurid, licentious, and vile,
Make me smile.
Novels that pander
To my taste for candor
Give me a pleasure sublime.
(Let's face it, I love slime.)

All books can be indecent books
Though recent books are bolder,
For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)

I thrill
To any book like Fanny Hill,
And I suppose I always will,
If it is swill
And really fil
thy.

Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
I've got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.
But now they're trying to take it all
away from us unless
We take a stand, and hand in hand
we fight for freedom of the press.
In other words,

Smut! (I love it)
Ah, the adventures of a slut.
Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,
I don't know what
Compares with smut.

Hip hip hooray!
Let's hear it for the Supreme Court!
Don't let them take it away!

On edit: removed the midi link -- it sucks. Added his opening talk instead. :)

[Strong Atheist]

16. Yep. I had three or four of his albums at one time... good song. nt.

[GOPFighter]

17. Overall, I think it's healthy

As long as the participants are doing it voluntarily and it doesn't depict violent rape or other violence directed at women (or men for that matter).

A healthy society recognizes that prostitution and pornography, satisfying the sex drive if you will, are not perversions and should be made legal and regulated for the protection of the participants.

[Strong Atheist]

19. Agreed on all counts. nt.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

18. It's only healthy

if Republikans are not involved. The idea of them breeding is disgusting and immoral!

[Strong Atheist]

20. Loll! nt.

[Ufomammut]

21. I voted "other"

It's an interesting debate, and one, I find, that is often framed in a way that overlooks a rather obvious point: there are vast differences between sexual liberation and sexual exploitation. Yet a common talking point in porn's defense is that it's somehow "liberating" for people to literally sell their sexuality, often for very degrading acts that they wouldn't participate in if they weren't being paid.

The biggest money making porn is not "soft" porn for "her," or for "couples;" it's the typical stuff that portrays women as salivating animals who lust for endowed men to sodomize them and to ejaculate in their mouths and faces. Now, whatever weird psychology people want to express or "act out" or "work through" sexually is their own business, and is something that, to a large extent, we all experience with our partners.

However, taking the fleshy substance, if you will, of sexual expression, and "framing" it within a capitalist pop culture medium - which by it's nature effectively flourishes through a monkey-see-monkey-do mentality - seems to significantly downplay the personal aspects and instead promotes a "sport sex" mindset where emotional bonds and love are unconsciously dismissed as passe' and boring. I think that young people, who quickly move onto adulthood, find that message reinforced at every turn in our Consumer Culture, and I think that ethic of greed and superficiality, the seeming preferrence for it, has come about through corporate "values," which are a determing factor in our "pornographized" culture.

I'm not saying that I think porn is just bad, or that it shouldn't exist. Nothing is that simple. I tend to see it - especially in its current, derogatory, gross out "reality" tv form - as an offshoot of largely unaddressed, misunderstood social roles ...so it's likely just an odd way of the ridiculous "battle of the sexes" playing itself out.

[Strong Atheist]

23. Welcome to D.U.!

:toast:

Interesting analysis...

[mongo]

44. Well, as Nina Harley recently said

"a society get's the porn it deserves".

But I do have to take exception at a few points:

The biggest money making porn is not "soft" porn for "her," or for "couples;"

The two biggest companies in the business Vivid and Private, cater to the couples market. Now "expliotation" is subjective, and I'm sure that there are DU'ers who would find their fare disgusting, but the fact is that the big money maker right now is tamer, couples fare.

. Now, whatever weird psychology people want to express or "act out" or "work through" sexually is their own business, and is something that, to a large extent, we all experience with our partners.


Why is that people think we can watch action-adventure movies without becoming killers, play video games without "acting out", but as soon as two people take their clothes off, whatever they see happen on the screen will be so compelling that they will go out and immediatly emulate it.

People watch porn to see things they don't want to/can't do in their own lives. Porn is larger that life sex. People don't watch Nascar and then try to drive 180mph on their favorite patch of interstate.

I'm not saying that there is not nasty porn out there. I don't want to watch nasty Hollywood movies either, but I don't judge all of Hollywood by the latest blood and gore slasher flick.

[Ufomammut]

56. It's complicated

Most people know they can't do what they see in "action" movies, or be a NASCAR redneck driving five hundred miles in a circle, but pornography, and the complicated secrecy of traditional shame/guilt-based approach to sex and sexual roles, leaves many people at a loss in knowing how to deal with this stuff very well. People are what they see on the boob tube, which is exactly why so many will deny that fact to be true.

As I said, it's very complex, many variables and nuances, and there will always be those who vehemently defend porn without examining the underlying issues, or framing them to fit their endorsement of porn. What I've been addressing,or, trying to, anyway, is the broader social aspects behind men and women's attitudes in relation to these very personal matters, and the inevitable influence the corporate commodity has over the media we routinely use while denying the indoctrinating effects of such entertainment.

[mongo]

64. People are what they see on the boob tube?

Wow. Must go do what TV tells me.

This whole porn/acting out complex is mostly a myth. Yeah, sometimes people learn from porn, it may give them ideas for new positions, etc.

But they underlying theme here is that porn will turn you into a sex monster. There's no evidence to back that up, and the whole idea that people can't tell fantasy from reality where sex is involved is a myth.

[Ufomammut]

70. No, porn alone won't necessarily make a "monster"

Yes, people, in a very real sense, are the media they consume.

This is actually the very crux of the whole "tinfoil" conspiracy theory quagmire of our culture: people believe ansd value as they do because it's reinforced all around them by people who, just like them, consciously and unconsciously take all of their cues from the media that is all around them, sort of like man-made weather, an atmosphere of bullshit that instructs people to ignore what otherwise would be obvious.

Within that process is why so many people can't face the truth about their country.

[benburch]

256. Porn is just pictures of people having sex.

It has no ability to even HELP make you a monster.

Most monsters, in my experience, were the products of religion and commerce.

Commerce might be a necessary evil, but we need to do away with religion completely.

[benburch]

263. Read Nina's essay...

http://www.counterpunch.org/hartley02022005.html

February 2, 2005

Thus I Refute Chyng Sun

Feminists for Porn

By NINA HARTLEY

It was with a growing sense of outrage that I read Prof.Chyng Sun's report of her visit this past January to the Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas. I couldn't help wondering it the author had done any prior research whatsoever into the active, twenty-year debate among women over the impact of pornography on their individual lives and their status as a gender. There's nothing new in her indignation, nothing fresh in her insights and nothing unfamiliar in her arguments. As a sex-worker and sex-worker advocate for over two decades, I've heard and read it all before.

The professor appears wholly unfamiliar with the work of accomplished, feminist women who reject her fundamental contentions about porn and sex-work. If she bothered to consider the writings of Nadine Strossen, Carol Queen, Pat Califia, Susie Bright, Wendy McElroy, Sallie Tisdale, Linda Williams, Annie Sprinkle, myself and others, her homework wasn't reflected in what she showed me. Clearly, testimony that failed to corroborate her pre-conceived notions of what porn is "really" about, or what it "really" means didn't register on her radar screen.

I am an R.N., a third-generation feminist and a First-Amendment activist as well as a porn performer with the longest continuous career in the history of the industry. I'm easy to find. In fact, I was in one place for four hours each day on the floor at AEE. She certainly found my husband, writer-director I.S. Levine, (whose videos and magazines appear under the name Ernest Greene). At her request, he granted her a two-hour, on-camera interview in good faith, hoping but not expecting to receive an open-minded hearing. Why did Professor Sun not speak to me? Could it be because she knew that my very existence argues against her core assertions? Where was the honest, fearless intellectual curiousity that is hallmark of the pioneering academic researcher?

<snip> More at link.

[Rich Hunt]

193. This is an excellent post

Thought I'd let you know before the defensive 'you're a censor and a prude' squad jumps down your throat.

[abluelady]

22. I Voted Other

I am an old lady and quite frankly don't care if you're interested in porn or not. Like most things I believe it is personal and each to their own. But saying that, I really don't "get" the attraction. I would rather spend my time with a live person in my own bed!

[Strong Atheist]

24. "Live and let live". Cool. nt.

[FVZA_Colonel]

124. That's pretty much my reasoning as well.

I don't desire to look at it, and I'm really not upset if someone chose to do so.

[BlackVelvet04]

25. Personally I find porn

juvenile, distasteful and insulting; HOWEVER, if we truly want a free country then we have to live with the juvenile, distasteful and insulting.

If we are talking about child porn then I think it being illegal is of course appropriate.

[Strong Atheist]

26. I did not mean to include anything that was illegal in the porn

category, certainly not child porn.

As for distasteful and insulting, I find the human body (both male and female) neither ugly nor evil; quite to the contrary. The human body is beautiful and good; therefore it should be seen; it is the clothes that cover it up that are evil.

[Ufomammut]

27. Clarification

First, thanks for the compliment on my prior post.

Second, I don't infer the meaning of "distasteful and insulting" as equated with "ugly," or "evil." The ultimate sexual organ is the mind, so regarding the body, the outter manifestations and subsequent behavior and physical actions stemming from either hard-wired, primal impulse, or environmental conditioning ("copycatting" porn-style sex as it manifests in various influential ways throughout the pop culture} and determining the "beauty" of the physical self, or how and what people express through that, well, it's all very subjective.

When I see a young woman willingly debasing herself in porn, or in any other numerous, more "acceptable" forms of cultural titilation, I react on two levels: there's something exciting and arousing about seeing that young woman ..however, is it genuine, or, and much more likely, is it yet another example of a typically non-critical automatism and cultural affectation? My other reaction then is to see it along the lines of the spine of "reality TV," which is the public's desire to see "losers," to see suffering and humiliation. Given the climate in this country, the whole thing smacks too much of people in the Roman empire watching Christians being fed to lions as "entertainment."

On one side of it, from the average male point of view, thusly effected by exposure to pornography, there is something darkly seductive about the young woman who truly desires sexual objectification and submissive "porn sex," even if for deeply seated reasons, she needs to rely on euphemistic language to call it by a more palatable, self-serving name: for example, being degraded is somehow "empowering."

However, that earnest desire would seem to be a minority, with the majority of young women who choose to participate in porn, or porn-style sex, only doing so as a result of a Consumer Culture that has "taught" and instructed her values through a sense of cultural familiarity, coupled with the expected low self esteem of most "TV babies," and peer coercion i.e. "cool" girls aspire to be "one of the guys."

All of these issues boil down to mass communication breakdown at a time when people are "communicating" more than ever before, but apparently have little to say, or the intelligence to sort out shit from shinola. This applies to everything in America right now. Another gigantic aspect to all of this is how America's "friendly fascism" has come about in the first place: many people refuse to accept that their consciousness is as susceptible to mass media's power of suggestion as it is. So they prefer to believe that they make up their own minds on many issues, when all they're really doing is selecting an existential option from a cultural menu, trying it on for size...which is all fine and well, as it's what we humans have to do. The problem is, just how far the pendulum has swung into the twilight of unreality...that is, the bullshitters have forgetton that it's bullshit, and are treating their bullshit as if it's irrefutable.

[Strong Atheist]

28. I am not quite sure what to make of all of this; I am a simpler creature.

I like the sight of the human body, and like to see as much of it as often as possible. I REALLY want to live in a nudist/clothing optional society...

Body good, clothing evil...

[GOPFighter]

36. "When I see a young woman willingly debasing herself in porn..."

This sounds like a value judgement. What is "debasing"? There are men and women who like "golden showers." Some might find that debasing, but what if a couple finds it arousing? Is anyone harmed? And what if someone is payed to depict a golden shower for the pleasure of those who cannot find a partner who will engage in it? Again, is anyone harmed?

There are all kinds of fetishes out there, most of which totally baffle me, but if it's voluntary and no one is harmed, who's to argue with arousal?

[Ufomammut]

38. I've already outlined my position on this

Debase - to make lower in value, dignity.

In other words, one could suggest that there is no dignity in, to use your example, being urinated on, or in urinating on someone. Just as there will be those who will argue just the opposite. And to take it to a more disturning level, where does "dignity" fit in with the woman who loathes being urinated upon, but does so for money, money she accepts from people who see her as livestock, and are only "friendly" to her because she's "willing" to allow for her debasement at their hands?

[lapislzi]

72. "Debasement" is YOUR judgment

Sex work can be (I'm not saying it always is) a choice like any other. There is no shame in making money off your body. At least not the way I see it.

On the other hand, think about the viewer. Is it the viewer's appetites that are being manipulated for monetary gain?

[Ufomammut]

73. It's fairly obvious

I don't think many girls say "I want to be a porn star when I grow up!" Although there may be some, I likewise suspect that not many parents or family members or friends are usually pleased or enthusiastic over their daughter's/sister's/friends, etc involvement with such a choice. Realistically, all you can do is make generalizations, as everyone does, ..or, "judgements," as you put it. I'm not in favor of censoring porn at all, just offering a different perspective. I also suspect that many twenty-somethings who are very supportive of the whole sexual exploitation-as-"liberation"-girls-gone-wild thing will completely change their tune after they have a daughter of their own.

However, I've exhausted my views on this issue.

[benburch]

259. LOL! You're funny!

I know several women who wanted to be porn actress all through their teen years. And you know what? About half of them did it.

And I have a daughter. If she wanted to be a porn actress, I'd simply want to make sure she got a good contract, and worked only for studios who do all their testing through AIM.

[mongo]

47. Especially when most of the "golden shower" genre

consists of a man being urinated upon. Hard to see how that is debasing to the woman in the movie.

[BlackVelvet04]

35. I don't find the human body ugly or evil either.....

I'm talking about how that body is used, sometimes abused, and presented in what little porn I have seen.

I think the nude body is a work of art and have no problem when it is displayed as a work of art. I just don't think most "porn" falls into the category of art.

[Strong Atheist]

52. Ah, well I don't think "art" falls in the category of

porn!:evilgrin:

Seriously, the human body is wonderful to look at because it is erotic, not because it is "art".

[StellaBlue]

195. ditto n/t

[FlaGranny]

29. I was shocked to discover

that there is Christian porn. Someone actually makes (or used to) Christian "martial aid" porn movies. No kidding. The woman I used to work for told me about them, although I've never seen one. They are supposed to be viewed by newly married couples. She and her family used to be followers of the Bakers and, believe it or not, they believed the bible was not literally true and believed in evolution.

[Ufomammut]

30. "Clean" smut is always a marginal sell

Just ask Larry Flynt!

[mongo]

49. Actually Hustler's movie product

is not the "bad" porn that the few here try to characterize as mainstream. Yeah, it has all the familiar porn moments (I.E. the facial), but you won't find women being verbally debased, handled rough, in pain, slapped around, etc. The women (if shown eager for sex), are in control and shown enjoying the experience.

[Ufomammut]

60. Not what I was alluding to

I was taking a jab at the time Flynt "found religion" and tried to blend the usual substance of his rag with religious iconography.

[benburch]

253. That was a joke on his part, you know.

Hustler is an ongoing 30 year long practical joke on fundies and the oh-so-crunchy "feminists" who enable them.

[Strong Atheist]

31. Hmmmm. Interesting. I knew none of that, though a friend once

told me a story (I kid you not) about a couple who went to find out why they (she) was not getting pregnant... turns out they were going about it wrong... do not know how true this story was, but my friend swore it was... guess they needed your video...:rofl:

[FatDave]

92. There's a similar story in Catch-22

A couple of Doc Daneeka's early private practice patients were having trouble getting pregnant, despite trying every night. After the Doc explained the proper method to the husband, he came back the next day and punched him. I assume he preferred the erroneous method.

I'm not saying your friend's story isn't true because a similar story appeared in a book, I'm just mentioning it because it's a pretty hilarious bit of a very good book. On the contrary, I think this sort of thing probably happens all the time. Consider the religious right's fight against sex education and emphasis on abstinence. Would you be surprised if some inexperienced newlyweds went about it all wrong?

[Strong Atheist]

100. Would I be surprised? Somewhat. It seemed sorta

instinctual to me at the time, but I guess some people have bad instincts lol...

[FlaGranny]

114. And,

I kid YOU not - my cousin had a neighbor, married 15 years and with 2 kids, who said she and her husband had never seen each other naked and seemed quite put off by the idea. Dirty stuff, ya know?

[Strong Atheist]

137. So how did they have two kids?

Adoption?

Lights out?

[FlaGranny]

148. Hey, beats me! I guess

it was lights out and pajamas and nightgown.

[RagingInMiami]

37. Gives new meaning to the phrase ....

"Oh God, I'm coming!"

[Ufomammut]

39. Zing LOL

[Rich Hunt]

194. That's good

It subverts the 'official' concept of Christianity in the U.S.

I remember back in the seventies and eighties when centerfolds used to talk about how they were a church-going Christian, etc. etc. and they posed nude because the body was made by God. There used to be more 'liberal' portrayals of Christianity in the media. In the eighties, the backlash started and people forgot that ever happened.

They don't do that anymore - gotta keep those Christians in line!!

[Yollam]

32. Porn is healthy/normal wih a caveat.

It's okay only when the people in it are consenting adults. And as far as I'm concerned, a 19-year old Hollywood Boulevard street kid is not a consenting adult. These kids are vulnerable, then they are sucked up, chewed up and spit out by this industry.

So I do think that there should be some extra hoops to go through for kids under 21 to get into porn, if not an outright ban. And the industry needs to do much more to help break the cycle of prostitution and drugs a lot of the young "stars" are trapped in.

I'm not anti-porn per se, but it is an extremely exploitative industry.

PS - I preferred the porn in the 70s, when the people still looked like people, and most were well over 25. Now they are all plastic and 18-19 years old. Kids that age don't know sexy from a hole in the wall.

[Strong Atheist]

33. I liked 60"s/70's stuff because I like hirsute. As for age, I think

"legal age" should be the same for all things legal, whether 18 or 21, whether alcohol/draft/drugs/sex/marriage/porn/contracts/whatever... the standards should be the same age throughout the country.

If you are too young to properly handle "X", then you are too young to properly handle "Y". If you are "mature" enough to handle "A", then you are mature enough to handle "B". We all have to leave the nest and make our own way in the world at SOME point...

[Yollam]

41. The street kids sucked in by the industry are not on an equal footing.

Being young and on the street, they are desperate for an easy way out, and see porn as the way. They're often too young or drug-addled to realize how a past in porn might affect their future. It's not just the age. I think the fact that this industry preys on kids who they know to be desperate, naive and not of sound mind (drugs) calls their ethics into question.

And yes, age limits should all be the same. As far as I'm concerned, the age limit to be in porn, get a beer or cigarettes, or serve in the military should be 21. Very few 18 year olds are adults yet.

And there needs to be some way to filter out the kids on drugs and get them help. In the same way that you can't sell a gun to a person with mental health issues, you should not be able to hire a street kid on drugs to do porn - they need to be in treatment.

That being said, I have no problem with a grown, sober adult making a choice to have a career in porn. If their head is on straight and they take precautions, it can be lucrative and bring pleasure to its viewers. Erotica has been around longer than any of us, and some of it's actually pretty good.


As for me, it's not the hair I like in the 70s stuff, it's just that people looked more natural. Also, film is more attractive than video - skin tones look better. Taboo, Insatiable, etc. they actually felt like sexy movies rather than just a cheap, XXX-rated version of "Girls Gone Wild". I hate contemporary porn.

[Ufomammut]

42. Very misleading stereotype

These aren't just jaded strippers and street urchins, they're high school and college aged girls who attend party's where there will be group sex and blow job competitions. The whole "broken home, abused, on drugs, living in the street" thing doesn't really apply to the extent it used to. There are thousands of young women who eagerly strive to "make it" in pornland every year, many are very average, "normal" girls from cozy suburbs who are taking their cue from the popularity of porn, and the idea of acting out a "slut" affectation is synonymous with "liberation" and "empowerment." ...Which it can be subjectively, just as anyone who wants to can suppose that the earth is flat, and really believe in that, so for them, it's "true." As with everything in America now, very topsyturvy and transitional.

[Yollam]

43. I realize that not all porn "actors" are like that.

But I know from personal experience that a lot of them are. I was friends with several of them in the early 90's.

But yes, there is a whole new pool of "talent" out there for porn peddlers to choose from. They may not be drugged-out street urchins, but I still believe that their age compromises their ability to really comprehend what a gig in porn might do to their future prospects.

Like I said, I'm not against it, but if the government is going to impose waiting periods, etc. on things like abortion, why not a quick talk with a counselor before doing a porn shoot if you are under the age of 21?

[mongo]

66. They do.

See my other post where I mention Adult Industry Medicine.

[ismnotwasm]

177. Here's a link

http://aim-med.org/
And the history of Dr. Sharon Michell is worth a read in itself. She went out made a difference in the lives of sex workers. A place to go, and if they choose, opportunities for life after porn.

BTW Mongo, I was reading a study that said that "Sex-shops" were an under used resource as far as information for sexual health. That the employee's and owners of these places get asked a lot of questions, and have the opportunity to educate those who come up for toys, movies's, protection, safe sex-- whatever. It was a nation-wide study. I was impressed by the concept, because no matter how much we disagree on pornagraphy or the porn industry, sexual health of Americans and sex workers are important to me.

[mongo]

196. Thanks

And yeah, it's true. People tell me things that they won't talk to their spouse about. It's a weird position to be in. I just try to give people as much information as I can, although I often defer to Daisy when health issues are brought up.

I like to think that I've helped a lot of people, and I know I have, but there is a limited amount of support I can provide them as their sex store clerk, especially when the issue is more relationship issues and/or a partner not being able to communicate their wants/needs to a partner. The how-to..., why do I...., and is this weird... questions are much easier to answer.

I also get hit up for a threesome by a married couple every few months. I very, VERY politely turn them down.

We got into this business to sell toys. A straight toy store would not work in this town, but we are the only venue besides Spencer's Gifts for a vibrator within 30 miles. So, the video is more a means to an end than anything.

We do try to keep our image on the higher end of the scale, even if we are two-bit venue with run down fixtures, etc.

Oh and Sharon Mitchell rocks!

[mongo]

59. Um, No.

These aren't just jaded strippers and street urchins, they're high school and college aged girls who attend party's where there will be group sex and blow job competitions.

I'm assuming that you are saying that this activity would be filmed and wind up for sale? Doesn't happen without all participants signing model releases, having their ID's checked and photocopied, etc.

And it never happens when the participants are under 18.

Shane's world does go to college campus's and make movies. But as I said above, they do have several legal considerations that they have to comply. And the performers are informed, know exactly what the deal is and are paid for their work.

[Ufomammut]

62. No

I'm offering a sample of routine behavior and cultural expectation of "average" people within a certain demographic - nothing at all to do with what is "filmed" and distributed. You've heard the old saw about the rundown girls who are more or less forced into porn, right, well, I'm saying that doesn't hold up so much anymore, that it's young women who, in my estimation, because porn has been an indoctrinating cultural influence, are quite enthusiastic about signing that contract.

[mongo]

53. The industry doesn't "prey" on anyone.

Models are busting down the doors to get in. Hundreds of women every week go to the casting agencies seeking work.

[Yollam]

54. "Models" LOL

Maybe that's the case at Vivid or the other big names. There are still a lot of these seedy outfits that do prey on street kids because they will work for cheap, esp. gay porn outfits.


"Models" - that's a good one.

:rofl:

[mongo]

63. There are suitcase pimps

who pressure other people into work, and take their money. Hell, half of the stippers on this town have some deadbeat boyfriend that sponges off them.

That doesn't make the boyfriend part of the adult entertainment industry.

[benburch]

254. Same is true about many people in many professions, though.

When you move in with a woman who is a stripper, and she supports you, you are a "pimp".

When you move in with a woman who is an accountant, and she supports you, you are a rock-n-roll drummer...

[readmoreoften]

133. Gay porn outfits are certainly no sleazier than straight ones.

I directed a bit of gay male porn in the 90s (I'm a woman) and the men I met felt very good about what they were doing. In the gay community, there is really no stigma attached to being in porn. Many men from small rural communities break down and cry when they meet the porn stars that helped them come out by showing them that gay men exist.

[Strong Atheist]

55. (Sigh). Most of us end up doing things we are not thrilled with to make

money. It is the way of the world. How many of us are REALLY happy with our jobs? Not most people I have known in life. Do people working in factories, or cubes in an office, or at hard physical labor really like their jobs? I suspect not. Most of do what we do to earn money. We have made choices given our talents and abilities about what to do, and most are probably less than happy with their jobs. Why should getting paid to show (or use) your body be different? It is a choice, after all...

[Yollam]

68. But a mixed-up kid off the bus from Kansas might think...

that $1000 for a days work is a fortune.

A few years later, she might feel its' a pittance compared to what she's lost.


And it really is a pittance, given the amount of money porn generates for those who make it. Jenna Jameson is one of the rare cases of a person with her head on straight who has "made it" but even she only has a McMansion in Phoenix. She ought to have a palace in Malibu for the amount of money she's generated for the industry.

[Strong Atheist]

74. ... and as a teacher, I am GROSSLY underpaid, and some

jocks are GROSSLY overpaid. That is also life, and was my CHOICE. With freedom of choice, comes the freedom to make poor choices...

[Iris]

156. Wow. It gives me no end of comfort to know there are teachers like you

with so much compassion for young people.

Bravo.

[mondo joe]

285. You mean she'd be better off deep frying McNuggets for a few years

to benefit McDonalds investors?

[Rich Hunt]

197. the difference is...

Try going straight in this age, with the internet and all, if someone out there has nude pictures or videos of you....

If you're really in favor of free expression, you'll also fight the stigma and potential for blackmail or blacklisting that these people face if they try to get out of 'the life'...

[Iris]

146. yeah. Like the 20 year old chick who got caught up in the HIV scare a few

years back. She had performed with a porn star who was HIV positive and had to be tested during the porn-industry's hiatus. When asked if it scared her enough to quit making porn, she said "no" because she had stuff to pay for -- like her cell phone.

That's really mature thinking there.

[mongo]

152. The (straight) adult performer community

has lower HIV rates than the general population.

[Iris]

153. I'm not saying that HIV is prevalent in that community.

I'm saying a few weeks back they had a scare and a 20 year old woman was part of it. She went through the whole testing scenario and it didn't even bother her.

Her priority is to make money to pay for a cell phone. I find that very sad.

[Iris]

154. You know what I really hate about DU?

It's the way people don't read a thread (or a thread within a thread) but feel compelled to reply anyway.

I don't mean to pick on you, mongo, but this is the 3rd time this has happened to me in less that 24 hours.

[mongo]

166. And I was addressing your post

She had performed with a porn star who was HIV positive and had to be tested during the porn-industry's hiatus. When asked if it scared her enough to quit making porn

Are you saying that your post somehow did not imply that getting HIV is somehow more of a concern for adult performers? That HIV was a risk in making porn?

I was simply pointing out that she was less likely to contract HIV from a porn shoot than in relations outside the performer community. So the fact that it didn't worry her is not suprising. You also didn't state whether she had relations with the infected performer -- which she probably didn't. Everyone gets tested on a regular basis, and when there is a scare (and there have been a few), the whole industry shuts down, and EVERYONE gets an extra test.

[Iris]

183. You know so much about porn,

I figured you'd know about the porn stars who did test positive for HIV and after that they did a temporary hiatus. This young woman HAD slept with one of the stars and so was more likely to have contracted the virus.

But my main point is, I think a society where a young woman would trade sex for a cell phone is pretty sickening.

[mongo]

186. Trading sex for a cell phone is not so bad

when I see women every day trading sex for their next meth fix.

Now, there's a real problem I would like to see addressed.

[benburch]

301. AMEN on that.

I know of people trading their blood plasma for beer money, too.

[benburch]

255. All work is wage slavery. ALL of it.

But it is nice to know that you allow other women the freedom to make their own adult choices. :sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

292. Maybe she could have worked in a coal mine for a few decades.

That would have been so much better for her.

[mongo]

51. I disagree that it is an extremely exloitative industry

Women call the shots with what they will and won't do in the industry. Some women performers only do girl-girl, some will not do anal, etc.

The women are also paid much more than the men performers for the work.

But I wouldn't mind if the age to perform was raised to 21. We don't let 18yo's drink in this country.
Porn is a hard business and most newcommers have no idea what performing is like before they enter the industry. Adult Industry Medicine (where the performers go for their pre-work STD testing), shows newcommers a video that causes about half to leave the business before they ever start.

Porn is not for everyone. It takes a certain personality to be sucessful in the business.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

202. strongly seconded!

18-19 year olds are very rarely mature enough to decide on selling their bodies for money ....

[kalibex]

34. I also voted 'other'.

As the saying generally goes, 'I don't know exactly how to describe where 'erotica' (as in, 'good', healthy display of sexuality) crosses the line and turns into 'porn' (as in, 'bad' unhealthy sexual displays), but I know it when I see it'....

Though I do personally have my own definition: 'Porn' = Where the depiction of sexuality involves a power differential that leads to the depiction of coercian/degradation/duress/harm to one of the people involved.

At that point, for me personally, erotica remains perfectly fine, whereas 'porn' is a form of 'hate-speech'.

As I see it, lumping it all together under one blanket term is part of the problem...


-B

[Strong Atheist]

Ah. They are interchangeable terms to me, but I see your point.

BTW: Welcome to D.U.!:toast:

[mongo]

67. Who gets to draw the line

between porn vs erotica? The government?

The whole porn vs erotica debate boils down to -- I like erotica, what you like is dirty porn.

Smut is totally in the eye of the beholder. There is no line that can be drawn.

[Strong Atheist]

75. For the most part, agreed. Some things are illegal for a reason,

but other than that, I agree.

Edited: Child porn, being illegal for a reason...

[mongo]

85. Heartily agree

and although a few like to throw in Child porn as part of the "porn industry", it is small groups of criminals making profit from the record of a crime.

So I don't even think of the filming of crimes against children or animals as part of the discussion of "porn" in general.

Someone upthread mentioned "snuff films". There has never been a prosecution for a "snuff film", as none have ever been found to actually exist.

[Strong Atheist]

88. Cool! Good luck in your battles! nt.

[eppur_se_muova]

101. Porn or erotica? "It's mostly a matter of lighting".

At least according to one expert.

Erotica leaves something to the imagination. Porn gives the imagination a helping, uh, hand.

[noonwitch]

45. It's pretty normal, for the most part

Not all porn is necessarily healthy, but looking at it is normal, especially for men. Seeing a porno flick when I was about 18 certainly answered some of the questions about sex that my mother wouldn't answer, so I guess it can have educational value, too.

[Warren DeMontague]

128. The first porno I saw was certainly something made in the early 70s.

It might have screwed me up if it made me think people really should dress like that, or that mutton chops or commodore beards are normal (much less "sexy") on a man.

[libnnc]

46. Just like anything else, there's good porn and bad porn

There is female-centered erotica out there. Directed by, produced by and for women gay/bi and hetero. There is also porn/erotica that I'd never in a million years watch or endorse. I think the industry as a whole has changed over the last 30 years. Tristan Taromino, Jenna Jamison and Nina Hartley are current examples of women in the business who are making erotica that is geared toward women of all different orientations and sensibilities.

[mongo]

69. Nice post

The only thing that I would like to add -- if people wanted to see porn evolve into a product that was more women-friendly, couples-oriented and just plain sex-positive, they should seek to LEGALIZE IT.

Most people don't know that porn exists in a grey area where it is neither legal or illegal. If it were legal, I think better directorial talent would flock to it.

[hyphenate]

48. I don't think there is a whole lot wrong with most

porn, as long as it's consenting adults participating in it. I do, however, have a major issue with child pornography, animal pornography and snuff films. If there is anything that inflicts pain, mentally or physically on someone who is not a willing and comprehending adult in the event, I think it is indecent and perverted. But basic sex, either hetero- or homosexual, is fine, as well as whatever those two (or more) consenting adults want to do with or to each other.

[Ufomammut]

50. For me it's...

The motivations and impulses behind the choice, within the consent, that's the stuff you need to examine because it's within that area you'll find the cultural prescription and inclination being played out - just like "politics," really. Nothing is ever what it is on the surface alone.

[RandomKoolzip]

87. Snuff films don't exist.

No law enforcement agency in the US has ever been able to come up with a single "snuff" film. It's a myth.

[readmoreoften]

182. Thank you for reminding people of this.

I swear, the fact that this needs to be repeated in this day and age tires me.

[Deja Q]

57. For some, it's all they've got.

Don't you think we'd all want somebody to love?

Some of us are just unloveable.

[Ufomammut]

65. Actually...

You've hit upon a crucial dilemma: how does our society approach "love," or "falling in love?" In my time, I've known two very bright, normal girls who were both very upfront about not wanting real love, and actually preferred "artificial," going-through-the-motions "love." Neither had any history of dramatic heartbreak or loss, they were both simply products of their culture's values. It's that fundamental perversion of consciousness that allows for unsavory values to form a stronghold within the collective consciousness.

[Deja Q]

122. I have a tendency to do that...

Except I would prefer real love to a picture.

It also boils down to personality. Even I have fathomed that out.

[Vektor]

58. Female - porn is just totally comical/lame and not at all interesting.

Some of it is gritty, violent, and objectionable, and that's not cool.

But your run of the mill porn featuring consensual sex between a sorority girl and the pizza delivery guy is just silliness.

I have a really clinical view of the human body and it's functionality - I'm a health care professional. I need a brain and a good personality to turn me on. A nude body is just a shell, and other people screwing is something I have no need to see. Just not into it.

[lapislzi]

61. Not sure what your focus is here

Are you referring to the consumption of sexually explicit materials, or the act of working in this type of industry?

I think sex work is as valid a choice as any--as long as it's a choice and not a coercive or abusive relationship between the employer and the worker, or a situation that arises from the desperation of the worker who believes he or she has no other choice but this work. Sex work gets no respect in our society, and I think that stems from some very basic moral judgments that nearly everyone makes about it: no "nice" person would choose sex work. Why not? Because it's exploitative by its very nature? How so? If I choose this work and I am well paid for it and I enjoy it, how am I being exploited?

I think many things of a non-sexual nature can be classified as "pornography." Just watch Fox News if you don't believe me. But I digress.

It also leads you to explore the idea of who exactly is being exploited in a pornographic situation. The participant or the viewer? Both? Neither? You could argue that the viewer's appetite for sexually explicit material is what's being exploited for monetary gain. But that's business--taking morality out of the equation, as any good businessperson would do.

If you wanted to look at it in purely commercial and ojective terms, potentially, it's a win-win-win situation: the worker gets paid, the viewer gets his/her porn, and the producer/business owner/whoever takes a cut.

I hope I'm opening up a can of something here :evilgrin:

[DaveColorado]

71. Who is Rob?

[Strong Atheist]

79. Here:

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Dingbat

Edited to add:

Currently, needs support:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=4874143

[Strong Atheist]

78. I was referring to the consumption, but others in this thread

have gotten into the "sex workers", which is ok by me. The poll was about the materials...

[Endangered Specie]

76. Well, on a non serious note... that video is HILARIOUS!!

"grab your dick and double click" :rofl: :spray:

[Strong Atheist]

80. Thank you! I stole it from another D.U.er ... nt

[Endangered Specie]

89. god I hope I dont start randomly singing it tomorrow

;)

[Strong Atheist]

90. Catchy, ain't it? nt.

[Warren DeMontague]

120. Ditto. That thing is a riot. n/t

[Strong Atheist]

138. Thank you. It is pretty funny. nt.

[Taverner]

77. Porn is good. Plain and simple.

It is our catharsis, and catharsises can only help things.

Tell me, if you had a 15-year-old son, would you rather him looking and enjoying porn, or would you rather him having sex, even if it were protected?

[Strong Atheist]

81. Agreed. I like porn. nt.

[PassingFair]

112. I would rather he be having sex.

I would prefer my kid to be either hetero or homo - sexual.
Not a paper or videosexual.

To me, sex is a private thing. Not to be acted out
in public.

Just my opinion. I wouldn't want to see porn banned or anything.
I just won't have anything to do with anyone who seems to "need"
it. And I have ALWAYS reserved the right to dump anyone who
has a problem with that.

[Taverner]

159. Private sex? That's your thing

Sex should be done in whatever way makes you feel good, and to me self-love is just as sexual as a twosome.

I'm a Secular Humanist Hedonist, what can I say?

[Armstead]

82. Other -- It depends on the porn

Some porn is okay....otehrs is degrading and disgusting.

Of course it's all a matter of taste which is which.

[American Tragedy]

83. Well, as long as it's between consenting adults

With that condition, I'm fairly supportive of anything, at least from the standpoint of the law. I favor minimal governmental interference as a rule.

I must say though, that I have been genuinely disturbed by the sheer naivete of some guys with whom I've been involved, who derived bizarre expectations of real women from what they see in porn.

It's another example of why it is so critically important for parents to teach their children early on that media fantasy is not necessarily reflective of reality. My parents never had to restrict my viewing of TV and movies when I was growing up, because they worked so actively with me to establish that principle.

[Taverner]

86. Kiddie porn is not, by definition, porn, it is obscenity

[mtnsnake]

84. Sex is healthy & normal. Porn is often degrading n/t

[Taverner]

93. Degrading depends on your opinion

Some people find any and all oral sex to be degrading. The Christian Taliban considers all homosexual sex to be degrading.

In the end, you're left trying to define obscenity, which cannot be defined in legal terms.

[mtnsnake]

98. No. I think you know what I'm referring to

and I'm not referring to "oral sex" or "homosexual sex", as you suggested in your post. Not even close.

No matter how you define it, porn IS often degrading, and WHEN it's degrading, it's usually degrading towards women. Anyone who says otherwise is simply trying to sell an agenda.

[Taverner]

102. I disagree

Take, for example, something that many parties would find "degrading." Say a BDSM scene with what appears to be forced sex. Now this might seem "degrading" to some - but what about the role players, who like to role play rape scenes? That might not be your cup of tea, and would be degrading for yourself, but not the one who does the role play.

[mzmolly]

91. I don't care for the wording so I didn't vote.

MOST porn is degrading to women, but not ALL.

[Strong Atheist]

96. Sigh. Everyone's a critic. I wrote the poll as best I could.

Start your own poll, if you want...

Speaking of wording, when you say MOST but not ALL, what are we talking about here? 80%? 90? Playboys but not Hustlers? Get more specific; I won't mind...

[redqueen]

107. I'd be curious to know as well. n/t

[mzmolly]

119. I'm talking about most mainstream porn. Maxhardcore is an example.

I also take issue with women full of silicone and airbrushed to perfection becoming the standard for beauty. I have the same issues with the fashion industry for that matter, but the fashion industry doesn't pretend to rape young girls like maxhardcore does.

The subject doesn't interest me enough right now to start my own poll though, sorry.

What I do find worth discussion is how porn can inhibit intimacy:

http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap10/chap10r.htm

This lusting for women's body parts by men causes many problems for both men and women: (1) men feel compelled to look at women but see them as only highly erotic sexual parts, not real whole persons. (2) Men believe they must "turn on" women in order to feel like "a man;" thus, women wield enormous power over men. (3) Likewise, men feel that attracting beautiful women, as if they were great trophies, proves their sexual powers and personal worth. (4) Once men are trained to crave sexual gratification and, at the same time, taught to avoid softness, emotionality, and intimacy, men may sexualize their relationships as a way of avoiding the dangers of a deeper involvement, such as emotional domination by women, commitment to women, and love. Recognizing and rejecting the "centerfold syndrome" is necessary before we, as men, can mature, like ourselves, become a compassionate caretaker, and become close friends with women. Brooks (1995) says men can consciously suppress their voyeurism and sexual thoughts (as they do towards a daughter), learn to love women for their abilities and personal traits, and enjoy the nurturing of others as much as women do. But as long as males are exclusively obsessed with the sexual build of any attractive woman that comes along, we have a serious social problem.

Peace

[Warren DeMontague]

121. Max Hardcore is at one extreme end of the smut spectrum.

And I don't like what he does, at all. I used to work for an indie chain of video stores, and we convinced the owners to specifically stop carrying his stuff. Bad energy.

But the worst examples are not indicative of the majority of what's out there.

I also take issue with the idea that male intimate relationships with women need to be 'desexualized' before we immature men can manage to make emotional connections or commitments. (If you asked her, my wife would say the same thing) I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous psychobabble balderdash-- and it's like these 'studies' which claim that the minute men are 'exposed' to porn, we suddenly become incapable of seeing women- in any situation, be they the manager of our bank, our Senator, our dry cleaner, or the cop that just pulled us over- in ANY context other than a sexual one.

Um, some of us ARE multi-faceted beings, thankyouverymuch, and we are more than capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

[mzmolly]

144. Who said you should desexualize?

What the author claims is that one should de-objectify if they wish to have true lasting intimacy with a partner, most mature men understand the difference, no?

As for Maxhardcore, you can tell me how extreme he is - but his sales are among the top/fastest growing within the porn industry so he's not quite as "extreme" as you claim he is.

[Warren DeMontague]

157. All I know is, his "style"- if you can call it that- is hardly indicative

of the majority of what's out there. And from what I've seen, he's just about the worst of the worst. That's what I meant by the 'extreme end of the spectrum'. His popularity certainly wasn't impressive enough to make the owners of my old company go to the wall when we demanded that they stop carrying him.

Anyway, as for making noise about men 'desexualizing' their intimate relationships with women, I refer you to the quote you posted (bold added):

Once men are trained to crave sexual gratification and, at the same time, taught to avoid softness, emotionality, and intimacy, men may sexualize their relationships as a way of avoiding the dangers of a deeper involvement, such as emotional domination by women, commitment to women, and love. Recognizing and rejecting the "centerfold syndrome" is necessary before we, as men, can mature, like ourselves, become a compassionate caretaker, and become close friends with women. Brooks (1995) says men can consciously suppress their voyeurism and sexual thoughts (as they do towards a daughter), learn to love women for their abilities and personal traits, and enjoy the nurturing of others as much as women do. But as long as males are exclusively obsessed with the sexual build of any attractive woman that comes along, we have a serious social problem.

Somewhere there must be a mill or a think tank where these people come up with this stuff, and it must pay pretty well, because there are reams and reams of this kind of gibberish strewn across the semantic landscape. Where to begin? The idea that sexual attraction or desire (or even the dreaded "lust") and love or respect are mutually exclusive? The idea that men are somehow "trained" to "crave sexual gratification" like a dog is trained to salivate at the ringing of a bell?.. (Yes, it was those years of training at Patriarchy summer camp that convinced me that I should get aroused by looking at a picture of a naked woman, surpressing my natural instinct to tell her to cover up and then ask her about her hobbies.) ...And of course, liberally sprinkling it with nebulous terms like "objectification" and "centerfold syndrome" which no doubt sound good to the choir he is invariably preaching to, but don't actually MEAN anything. (Presumably, because I looked at nudie magazines as an adolescent, now I'm only attracted to women with staples in their navels) ... That's funny, I've managed to have good female friends, female co-workers, and more female relatives than you can shake a stick at, I love them for their abilities and personal traits, I'm perfectly capable of enjoying the nurturing of others... and -most importantly- I'm a mature, multi-faceted human being whose sexuality is but one component of many... all that, magically, without renouncing evil smut or getting de-programmed of all these evil "centerfold syndromes" which looking at pictures of naked women over the course of my life has supposedly mojo'd into my brain.

Actually, if asked, I would say a far larger "serious social problem" is the Neo-Puritanism some folks have, even when they dress it up in fancy language. But that's just me.

[mzmolly]

163. The quote should be taken in context.

Once men are trained to crave sexual gratification and, at the same time, taught to avoid softness, emotionality, and intimacy, men may sexualize their relationships as a way of avoiding the dangers of a deeper involvement, such as emotional domination by women, commitment to women, and love. Recognizing and rejecting the "centerfold syndrome" is necessary before we, as men, can mature, like ourselves, become a compassionate caretaker, and become close friends with women.

It's fine with me if my partner likes my "tits," etc. but he should consider the fact that they come attached to a person - dig?

Actually, if asked, I would say a far larger "serious social problem" is the Neo-Puritanism some folks have, even when they dress it up in fancy language. But that's just me.

I don't think we have to choose between treating people has human beings and sex exclusively for pro-creation.

I'd rather read a saucy novel than contribute to the porn industry - But that's just me. ;)

Peace out.

[Warren DeMontague]

164. I gotcha. It would be pretty weird to be attracted to just a pair of,

as you put it, "tits"- with no human being attached to them.

Pretty weird, indeed.

I just dont concur with the notion that porn, smut, erotica, what-have-you, 'programs' men to be attracted to body parts as opposed to people. You could probably make a similar argument that vibrators and other similar sundry sex toys for women 'program' women to be attracted to D Cells, or that they 'objectify' and reduce men to a humming lump of plastic. Talk about your parts with no body attached to 'em!

And as I noted elsewhere in the thread, the 'programming' effects porn is supposed to have on men certainly haven't made themselves apparent in my own preferences. Pamela Anderson, for instance, is the epitome of everything that I find not sexy.

---But that's just me. :) Peace.

[mzmolly]

170. All good points.

As for the weird body parts thing, lets just say uhm, it happens. ;)

:hi:

[mongo]

188. And there are certainly men

who feel threatened by vibrators too.

They are IDIOTS!

[Warren DeMontague]

203. I got mugged in the alley behind the Good Vibrations store on 23rd street

in San Francisco-- so don't tell me those things aren't dangerous! ;)

[mongo]

161. The fact that you chose Max Hardcore

just proves that you really know nothing about the industry, and only care to parrot the propaganda you read from authoritarian leftists -- or the religious right.

Max hasn't made any movies for at least 6 months, and has been on the decline. There are certainly new players in the "raunch" porn style, but it in itself is a small genre of what is out there.

I would like to see where you got your statistics from. The top companies - Vivid, Wicked, Adam & Eve produce more couple friendly fare.

[mzmolly]

162. I've shown you this info before Mongo

After you complained that the poor violent porn peddler was shut down for obscenity remember?

From City Pages:
http://citypages.com/databank/19/893/article4117.asp

From painful sex to foul-mouthed revenge fantasies, a meaner brand of pornography takes the back door to commercial success.

...

The fact that gonzo rentals have largely eclipsed the slick "couples porn" of major companies like Vivid and VCA is no small coup in the booming video world.

Also you may note that many of those who carry "Adam and Eve" also carry Max HC.

http://www.google.com.ar/search?hl=en&rls=RNWE%2CRNWE%3A2004-45%2CRNWE%3Aen&q=max+hardcore+and+adam+and+eve

Also, what issues do you have with Max Hardcore Mongo?

As for couple friendly fare, I don't really think most porn is couple friendly. I think about the greater consequences, like the porn star who admitted to being too tired to have sex with her husband or the one who's drugged so he/she can do their jobs day in day out. ;)

[Warren DeMontague]

165. I suppose it's redundant to point out that the linked article

is over eight years old.

[mzmolly]

172. That means MHC has been a big seller for sometime.

The content of his videos hasn't changed - unless I'm unaware of an epiphany on his part?

[Warren DeMontague]

181. Either that, or, the popularity of that genre as reported by one article

was a flash in the pan and an abberration.

Like I said, his stuff was glaringly different enough, and more obnoxious, than the majority of smut that at least MY old place of work used to carry-- enough so that we put our foot down and said "we don't want you to buy any more of this guy's crap".

[mzmolly]

184. Given the ease in which I can find his material I'd say he's not a flash

in the pan. I found many articles on his "stuff" but most were a sales pitch from a porn peddlers website.

[mongo]

189. Well, I'm sure you can find the movie Casablanca being sold

on the internet too -- but that doesn't mean Humphrey Bogart is the biggest star in Hollywood today.

But I don't want to suggest that "raunch" porn has gone away. It hasn't. There are several companies making it, and they do have their place in the market - as does movies of men being feminized, beaten, having their privates tied up and tortured, etc. by women.

It's the characterization of this type of porn as "typical" or "mainstream" or what most Americans are consuming that is the issue.

[mzmolly]

191. Find me the data. From what I've read MHC is selling more than the

porn you call "couple friendly." Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, I'm certain it's much more difficult to find the penis in knots thing you mention than MHC or uhm Casablanca.

[mongo]

198. Top 75 DVD sales

Warning:from Adult video news, not at all work friendly contains explicit sexual conduct, yada yada
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Charts&Secondary_Navigation=Top_75_DVD_Sales

Max Hardcore doesn't even make the list.

Now, you can't judge a porno by it's title, most of the time they go for an over the top title, when the sex contained within is more of the standard fare.

I'm not familiar with all of the titles in the list of course, but in the top 10 I'm pretty sure only #2 and #10 would qualify as raunch porn. #3 is just plain weird, and I don't have a review for #9 in front of me but that is John Stagliano's line (he produces now), so I doubt if it is that bad.

[mzmolly]

199. MHC ranked 145 on this list

145. Max Faktor 15 Max Hardcore/Exquisite Multimedia

http://www.adultvideonews.com/charts/rent0106.html

Considering the fact that many claim not to associate/carry his "stuff" I'd say he's doing quite well.

[mongo]

210. 145th on the adult rental list

I'm impressed. Do you think I should carry it?

[mzmolly]

211. I don't know you tell me.

Where do YOU draw the line?

[mongo]

219. Well with 1700 ever changing movies on the floor

I can't watch every one -- it would be impossible.

And also our video model is "discount porn" that is, we buy movies as manufacturers drop them off their catalog, and some of the cheaper producers. So I order a box of 50 from a producer and take what I get.

Now, I do scan or watch a movie in each line for any new company that I bring in.

Outside the BDSM genre, which I really only order from a couple of companies that I know their product, here are some of the things that will make a movie unacceptable for my shelves

scat (never seen a title with this come through the store)

Blood (only seen 1 title in the store)

Choking during sex (red light, JM prod). Although I must say that in the few of these that I have seen, the woman appears to enjoy it.

implied or actual (simulated) non-consentual or overt coerced sex in a wall-to-wall release. If the movie has a plot, then it is probably OK.

Overt and over the top degredation -- calling someone a slut is OK, a women's head in the toilet is not. (Max Hardcore)

Obvious and continued distress. A woman momentarily gagging, but then smiling a minute later (usually without an edit cut) is OK, a woman in tears by the end of a scene and continued degredation is not.

Sex with simulated violence (Extreme Assoc)

You'll notice that I did not have sex with minors on the list. That is a given, and isn't something I even have access to through the adult distribution channels. Same with sex with animals, although there are a couple of companies that imply that on the box cover.

The other thing that didn't make the list is ATM (look it up), which I find personally disgusting, but it is one of those things that people want to watch that they won't do at home. Porn is sport fucking - one of the big reasons people watch it is because they do get to see things they don't do at home.

The other thing about this list is that it is subjective. What gets said and what happens in a scene is not as important as the woman's reactions and body language as things progress. Rough sex is Ok, even momentary pain, but I have to get the feeling that overall the woman is enjoying herself.

And yes, I do pull entire lines of product because of one scene in a 4 hr wall-to-wall release.

[mzmolly]

222. I'm glad you have some standards.

But I can't help but notice the slippery slope in the dialogue above. Are you likely to get films with mens heads in the toilet? How bout with men choking or being strangled? Or, men with tears in their eyes by the end of a scene?

Also non-concentual sex is rape, are you saying that if a porn movie has a rape plot you carry it? And if so, do you carry plots with men raping other men?

[mongo]

230. Hi

I didn't want to contribute to keeping that porn thread alive, but I did want to answer your questions.

Actually rape scenes are much more common in classic porn from the 70's/early 80's than they are today.

And yes, some of these films are pretty famous, and I do get them in when I order boxes of classics. But the thing is, rape is depicted in hollywood movies too. Should stores not carry Looking for Mr. Goodbar, or Clockwork Orange? Do these films have no value because they have a rape scene?

So, yeah, if say Autobiography of a Flea comes in, it goes on the shelves (I wish it would, I've never seen it). But in it's day, it was an important film.

As far as gay porn -- I don't watch much of it. But I'm sure that there are movies with a plot that have rape scenes. I've certainly seen gay movies with a prison theme.

As far as men being degraded etc., that really only happens in BDSM Fem Dom porn. That's another genre I don't watch much, but judging by the boxcover's it gets pretty extreme. Perhaps more extreme than the Male Dom porn.

I don't accept the whole porn causes violence argument at all. Anyone who has it in themselves to rape is going to do it regardless of what movie they watched. And really, in the newer movies that come in, a rape scene is more uncommon. The other thing is that when there is some sort of violence in these movies, it is usually done in such a way as to be so obviosly fake that it is almost comical --- compared to the stark reality that gets presented in Hollywood films. Hollywood films are much more violent then any porn.

[mzmolly]

241. Hello

Actually rape scenes are much more common in classic porn from the 70's/early 80's than they are today.

Glad there is a downward trend.

And yes, some of these films are pretty famous, and I do get them in when I order boxes of classics. But the thing is, rape is depicted in hollywood movies too. Should stores not carry Looking for Mr. Goodbar, or Clockwork Orange? Do these films have no value because they have a rape scene?

I don't think you can compare a movie with a sex flick in terms of rape scenes/violence. For example in the burning bed Farrah Fawcett was raped/beaten by her husband. It was not an erotic scene, nor was it intended to be. Porn is intended to arouse people in a sexual manner and by inserting rape in that context it implies that rape is just a form of sex.

Would it be fair to call this erotica?



Of course not because the context is very different.

As far as gay porn -- I don't watch much of it. But I'm sure that there are movies with a plot that have rape scenes. I've certainly seen gay movies with a prison theme.

Actually, I'm not so sure about that. I would venture to guess that movies with men being raped are quite rare, if they exist at all - regardless of genre.

As far as men being degraded etc., that really only happens in BDSM Fem Dom porn. That's another genre I don't watch much, but judging by the boxcover's it gets pretty extreme. Perhaps more extreme than the Male Dom porn.

Well one can find a snuff film if they look hard enough I imagine? That doesn't make it on par with the porn that anyone can order from the convenience of their own home on a daily basis - right?

I don't accept the whole porn causes violence argument at all. Anyone who has it in themselves to rape is going to do it regardless of what movie they watched. And really, in the newer movies that come in, a rape scene is more uncommon. The other thing is that when there is some sort of violence in these movies, it is usually done in such a way as to be so obviosly fake that it is almost comical --- compared to the stark reality that gets presented in Hollywood films. Hollywood films are much more violent then any porn.

I've said before, I don't think Porn CAUSES violence, however much of today's commonly found down-loadable/tv available porn it is one piece of the societal puzzle that contributes toward violence against/the objectification of women.

[mongo]

247. There is no such thing as snuff films

There has never been a prosecution for it, and their has never been a snuff film confiscated by the police.

[mzmolly]

248. Most are hoaxes to my understanding.

However check this out:

http://www.google.com.ar/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2004-45,RNWE:en&q=snuff+films+prosecution

And this: "DA pursues 'snuff film' murder motive"

http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11986535&BRD=1672&PAG=461&dept_id=33380&rfi=6

Snopes comes to your defense a bit but it does not fully address the "fake murder/rape" genre which are also called "snuff films" by many.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.htm

[mongo]

250. From your google search

Also known as "white heat" films and "the real thing," the snuff film myth lives on like Bigfoot, despite the fact that no law enforcement agency in America has publicly admitted to ever locating one. Alan Sears, former executive director of the Attorney General's commission on pornography during 1985-86, agrees with the more than two dozen law enforcement agencies I interviewed. "Our experience was that we could not find any such thing as a commercially produced snuff film," says Sears. "Our commission was all-inclusive and exhaustive. If snuff films were available, we'd have found them."

This sentiment is echoed by Ken Lanning, a cult expert at the FBI training academy at Quantico, Virginia. "I've not found one single documented case of a snuff film anywhere in the world. I've been searching for 20 years, talked to hundreds of people. There's plenty of once-removed sightings, but I've never found a credible personality who personally saw one."

And if you want to include "fake murders" -- then half of the Hollywood films produced in a year are "snuff films"

[mzmolly]

251. What part of intermingling murder with sexual arousal don't you get?

It's called context.

Also, you did see the article where a person was prosecuted for murdering a woman in a snuff film right?

[mongo]

271. I read the article, did you?

DA pursues 'snuff film' murder motive

COURTHOUSE - Montgomery County prosecutors continue to pursue a possible motive of a "snuff film gone" awry in the stabbing death of Canadian sex model Natel King.
County District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr., who is prosecuting the murder case against Lower Providence photographer Anthony J. Frederick, Wednesday said the prosecution does not have to prove motive at the time of the trial.


However, he said, he is moving forward under two possible motives as to why Frederick would allegedly stab King to death following a photo shoot at his Conshohocken studio last February.
One of the motives is that Frederick simply did not want to pay King, as he had refused to pay one other model in the past, and feared King would make trouble for him, according to Castor.
"The second motive, and what I think is more likely given the ferocity of the attack and the circumstances, is that this was suppose to be a snuff film or a film involving simulated violence during sex that escalated to actual violence," said Castor. "But whether that is a theory with which I will go at trial, I can't say at this time."
Supporting this theory, according to Castor, is an unsigned generic contract found in Frederick's possessions. That contract, which refers to snuff photographs or videos, indicates that the person signing it gives permission for the photographs or videos to be used as part of a private collection that would not be disseminated beyond members of a private club, said Castor.

Contract that refers to "snuff photographs" -- WTF? This insane prosecutor is using the term SNUFF when the contract must refer to BDSM. Do you really think anyone would sign a contract that says, "hey I'm going to kill you and take pictures, is that OK with you?"

As far as context, then we'd better ban the movie Basic Instinct, etc. since they mix sexual arousal and violence.

[mzmolly]

273. You keep changing the subject.

And yes I read the article. All anyone has without a confession is a "possible" motive.

[benburch]

258. My friends in law enforcement tell me there has never been ONE commercial

"snuff film". EVER. There have been videos of people committing rape/murder, though, made for their own amusement. The serial killers Leonard Lake and Charles Ng were two such, who kept extensive photographic records of their victims.

However, this is NOT what we mean when we talk of a "snuff film" as they were never made for commercial distribution.

PERIOD.

No matter how much you want to saddle the porn industry with this, it doesn't exist, and was made up largely as a bludgeon against porn.

Argue with lies if you want to... Republicans do this every day.

[mzmolly]

287. There are fake snuff films which are called "snuff films."

Unless you know of another name? Also, I don't believe I used the word "commercial."

[benburch]

288. Well, fake hardly counts...

And "Silence of The Lambs" counts if you accept fakes...

And "House of 1000 Corpses"...

And more others than you could name in which a woman is raped and then killed. And these are not porn.

"Snuff" films are used by fundamentalists and the "feminists" who are in bed with them to indict all pornography. It is "See, look! They even KILL people to make this stuff!" It is an argument you pull out when you are losing on the facts of the issue.

But it is a complete lie and a complete fabrication, and those who use it are damned liars.

[mzmolly]

290. Really?

Silence of The Lambs did not set out arouse one sexually while showing the commission a murder. As I said above it's called "context."

"Snuff" films are used by fundamentalists and the "feminists" who are in bed with them to indict all pornography. It is "See, look! They even KILL people to make this stuff!" It is an argument you pull out when you are losing on the facts of the issue.

Actually, I'm not losing an argument, as I'm not having one. I'm engaging in discussion that apparently makes you uncomfortable?

I'm off to do better things this evening. I'll check back later. :hi:

[benburch]

291. Have Fun!

We were out having fun earlier in the day; Dog expo. Bought too many things for our spoiled dog.

When you return; I didn't think you were making this argument, I was telling you where I believe the argument comes from... So, the original intent of the makers is what is significant to you? How do you know that intent? Also, has it occurred to you that some people might make such a film to SHOCK rather than to arouse? And does that change you assessment of a film? Assume we are talking the same film. For example, what if "Hannibal" really was made with the intent to arouse rather than shock? Realistically portrayed cannibalism in that one...

[mzmolly]

294. Yes making a film with the intent to shock would change my assessment,

however - I am still troubled by the fact that women are used as the sole avenue to achieve said shock, KWIM? I know that's not the case with gay porn. ;) But, since were on the subject, perhaps you can tell me if the gay porn industry is likely to provide the same "shock/violence" elements? Or, is it considered too much of a turn off to harm/kill men for shock value?

Dog expo? That sound fun, lucky dog! I've got two dogs/two cats and a new uninvited mouse. Given my cat situation I expect he'll be clearing out of here soon. :hi:

[benburch]

295. The mice are usually smart enough to stay away...

We have three old cat hunters here...

Well, gay porn is certainly full of S&M elements, and rape themes (often involving men in uniform) are common. Like straight porn, rape and death scenes are nonexistent. I've seen a mid-80s "striaght" film where the two main characters have to fuck to the death in a ritual for domination of the kingdom... The woman (played by Barbara Dare) wins, but instead of a dead King, he simply fades out of existence to avoid the troublesome dead body. Actually, "straight" porn is far less likely to have rape elements in it than gay porn. The only era I know of when rape themes were at all common in "straight" films was the early 70s through about 1978, when a common plot was "woman hitchhiker gets raped and then plots her revenge". Most "straight" porn is about women who are AVAILABLE and WELCOMING of sex. Guys get into that. Now, I can only speak to American and British porn. Foreign porn may be different.

And I put "straight" in quotes as I know hardly any such films without same-sex contact between the women, and that is hardly "striaght". Sadly sexual contact between the males is rare in such films, and when that occurs they are called "bisexual" features.

I'd be interested to hear from you the titles of some commercial porn with rape and simulated death since the 70s? I have the resources to track them down and examine their content and report back.

[mzmolly]

296. Interesting ...

I wasn't aware that gay porn had rape themes a-plenty. Disturbing that some feel victimization is sexy.

I think you raise a good point about most mainstream porn actually being "gay/lesbian" yet it's not considered as such. I too have wondered why it's not typical to show men engaged in sexual acts with one another, while showing women "involved" is such a common element in "regular" run of the mill porn?

A related story: A friend of my husbands sent an email aghast at the idea of gay marriage (around election time.) Knowing he was a regular cable tv porn viewer I asked what his thoughts were on the "morality" of girl on girl action in the porn he watched. :evilgrin: Ahh, never heard back on that one.

Anyhow regarding the titles of Movies, you may want to pose that question to mongo as he rejects films with various themes? I really don't want to seek out titles and I have no idea where to find said titles.

An aside: I found out through our conversation that Canada defines material as legally "obscene/illegal" if it contains sexual violence, is degrading or dehumanizing, or involves sexual portrayals of children - virtual or otherwise. I know you disagree, but that's where I'm at personally.

Peace ~ I'm out.

[benburch]

300. Well, SOME sexual violence is in the eye of the beholder.

In non-sexual realms violence if often quite acceptable if freely entered into; Football, Hockey, Fencing, Wrestling, Surgery, etc. All are violent, but no victims because all consent. So too in S&M sex play. All consent ahead of time and there is no victim at all.

And I know of no porn films where there is not consent. Mongo will not carry Max Hardcore, but I assure you everybody who does a film with him knew exactly what sort of film it was and was well paid for it. None of that is rape.

Now, there was one film made, I think by Vivid, called I believe "Rough Sex 1" where one actress who was in the film said that she was treated much more roughly than she had any idea of in advance, and her complaints caused the film to be pulled from distribution and the series to be cancelled. Now, if nonconsensual sexual violence really were marketable, that film should have been a gold mine, and they would have kept selling it... But nobody wants even the suspicion of anything approximating rape in the making of adult films. That is just not in anybody's interests.

Canada's laws are so strict that the Lesbian sex magazine "On Our Backs" could not be mailed to subscribers there. This was during the magazine's first incarnation in the 80s and early 90s when Susie Bright edited it. When I was in Halifax NS doing a project in 1989, I bought a Penthouse Forum magazine in Halifax, and an identical one in the States... It was really educational to compare them. Some stories were pulled. Anything that involved spanking, for example would be replaced. One story got pulled that I could not see the reason at all, till I realized that it said "he pinned me to the bed" about a fucking scene, and that was obviously enough of a suggestion of violence! The ads in the back were extensively bowdlerized. If the ad said; Call 1-900-SPANK-ME to talk to the Mistress of your dreams, and there was a picture of a woman in leather with a riding crop, that whole ad was likely just a white box in the Canadian version!

REAL sexual violence is perpetrated by people with ill intent against unwilling victims, and I think we have to be able to distinguish this from acts that might be outwardly identical but are between willing partners.

[mzmolly]

306. Consent IS key.

However MaxHC was accused of rape by an "actress" who worked with him. Others have said they would never work with him again b/c they felt violated. The actress eventually dropped the charges (probably wanted to work again, and didn't want to be subjected to a trail?) I am certain there are actresses who feel violated and never report it?

Now, there was one film made, I think by Vivid, called I believe "Rough Sex 1" where one actress who was in the film said that she was treated much more roughly than she had any idea of in advance, and her complaints caused the film to be pulled from distribution and the series to be cancelled. Now, if nonconsensual sexual violence really were marketable, that film should have been a gold mine, and they would have kept selling it... But nobody wants even the suspicion of anything approximating rape in the making of adult films. That is just not in anybody's interests.

I agree that it's not in anyones interest, but as Mongo stated - he rejects films where the actress appears scared/crying fairly regularily. Someone is making these films.

Thanks for the discussion, it has been interesting - at least for me. :P

[benburch]

302. Oh, and...

With the gay porn, some people feel being the VICTIM is the sexy part. Not PC, I know, but fantasies rarely are.

[mzmolly]

307. I'm certain many people role play.

As for same sex partners, I imagine the equal balance of physical power changes the dynamics a bit?

[benburch]

308. I really don't think so.

Physical power plays very little in S&M.

I know a 5'2" 130# professional dominatrix who has Chicago Bears football players as clients.

[mzmolly]

309. SHE is the aggressor, which is less intimidating

than the Chicago Bears being aggressive toward her KWIM? A role reversal is likely not as "appealing."

:hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

204. There was this "puppetry of the penis" show that was very popular

in San Francisco a couple years back. My wife saw it- she said it was entertaining for maybe 10 minutes, then it was like watching someone make balloon animals for an hour.

[mzmolly]

205. They did a national tour.

I didn't see it, but I'd catch it with some girl friends if it comes around again. ;)

[Warren DeMontague]

213. "better in concept than in actuality"

my Wife's words.

[mzmolly]

216. Likely so.

I'd probably bore after about 5 mns as well. Then again, after a few drinks I think my friends and I may have a good laugh? Oh well, I'll never know - unless there is a video of sorts ? ;)

[Warren DeMontague]

218. Ah, you gotta love the internet.

Ask, and ye shall receive:

http://www.puppetryofthepenis.com/

page down to "live at the forum- yours to own on DVD".

[mzmolly]

221. LOL

Thanks! :hi:

[mongo]

171. Personally, I don't carry Max Hardcore

I brought some of his much older movies in on VHS once, but they are not as nasty as his (more) current fare.

But the article is misleading -- it talks about one specific company, then about "gonzo".

Gonzo porn is a genre where you have just wall-to-wall sex without any type of plot, but someone (usually the cameraman) is giving a running narration. If you look at the people who made the genre, Stagliono, Ed Powers, Ben Dover -- it is not raunch porn. They are not abusing the women, or degrading them. Ben Dover and Ed Powers are especially positive towards the women in their films. So, the article makes it seem like raunch porn is huge, but then goes on to compare apples to oranges.

[mzmolly]

174. I'll have to take your word for it.

I'm not familiar with the who's who. All I know is the guy is disturbing - sells like "mad," and has no problem finding distribution.

[benburch]

289. Sells like "mad"?

Actually, his stuff is a minority taste. I've seen sales figures from a major internet porn shop, and his stuff was much less than 1%.

You know what really sells? The Nina Hartley sex education videos. Especially "Nina Hartley's Advanced Guide To Oral Sex".

And the Adam & Eve videos sell really well.

[mtnsnake]

99. That's the same reason I didn't vote

and I agree with your post.

[Zynx]

94. I have no problem with it so long as it is not into weird stuff.

[Strong Atheist]

97. What's weird? I like hirsute. Some like S&M. What's weird,

who decides, and what should be done about the "weird stuff"? Make it illegal? Kiddie porn already is everywhere, and bestiality in most places... what else would you add to the list?

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

106. FWIW, this is what customs considers obscene in the UK

Asphyxia. Where the person is being choked in order to gain sexual pleasure.

Bestiality. Sexual acts between humans and animals.

Bondage. Tying a person in an unnatural position for sexual gratification where the participant is unable to withdraw their consent (for example they are gagged).

Corporal Punishment. Inflicting pain on another person(1)

Cruelty to animals. Includes organised dog fighting, bear baiting, badger baiting, cock fighting. Also ?crush? material which features humans stamping on vertebrates or standing on them with increased pressure until they are crushed.

Defecation. Voiding excrement from the bowels.

Enemas. Flushing the bowels with water, usually to drink the product or torture the victim.

Fisting. (anal or vaginal) Inserting a fist in the anus or vagina for sexual gratification.

Insertion of an object. Only where the insertion clearly inflicts pain.

Menstrual Blood. Sex between adults where the female is menstruating heavily and the blood is being smeared on the body or the used tampon is being sucked etc. This does not include post-intercourse depictions where a small amount of blood can be seen on the participants.(2)

Necrophilia. Sexual intercourse with a corpse.(3)

Sado-masochism. Sadists achieve sexual pleasure through inflicting torture and humiliation upon another person. Masochists desire maltreatment as a means of sexual gratification.

Scatology. Depictions indicating a general interest in excrement such as smearing or eating of excrement.

Urolagnia. The act of urination in the context of any of the following where a person is shown:
urinating at the same time as they are engaged in a sexual act. The urination and sexual act must be seen at the same time. The sexual act includes those such as fellatio (oral sex) and masturbation which would not be obscene if shown without urination; smearing urine on themselves or another;
urinating on another person; being urinated upon; drinking urine.

Violence (non-simulated). Scenes of actual violence or mutilation shown in an exploitative context where they are not part of a legitimate documentary. For example a compilation of newsreel footage concentrating solely on scenes of violence or mutilation. This would also cover scenes of actual sexual assault including rape.

Violence (simulated). Scenes of simulated sexual violence such as rape shown in an exploitative context where the activity is graphically depicted and clearly intended to appear non-consensual. This excludes scenes contained in serious dramatic films.(4)

(1)my note - the test is often "a reddening of the skin" - consent is not a defense (infact sex with a gagged woman who doesn't give verbal consent on the film itself is also out)
(2)my note - this seemingly now only applies to a "sex work"; the French arthouse film Anatomy of Hell - which is excellent btw - contains such scenes and is legally available here (albeit with an "18" certificate)
(3)my note - add to that so called "sleeping porn"
(4)my note - some Manga can fall into this category

I'd also add that actors pretending to be younger than 18 (the new - since 2003 I think - age someone is legally a child) engaged in non-simulated sex is out. (Simulated sex/nudity - ala Larry Clark's Kids & Bully is fine.) The rules on fisting and urolagnia are sometimes relaxed in the case of "art" like the photography of Robert Mapplethorpe.

For me personally, I think it's all about consent. I'm against child pornography and beastiality and non-consentual sex (that is the actors, not the characters). With regard to BDSM, it's actually impossible in this country to give consent to "abuse" (see the Spanner case) which I am wholly against as it clearly victimises a segment of society. However the UK Government is proposing to make it illegal to view or posess images or what it terms "extreme pornography" which is rather troubling (but that's a rant for another day).

[Zynx]

117. I consider that all to be in my "weird" category.

I'm sorry, but that stuff is just perverted. I'm not saying it should be illegal with the exception of child pornography and beastiality, both of which should be illegal. I'm just saying that I think that there is a perverse strain in human sexuality that I find disturbing. S&M and the like is just disgusting.

[slackmaster]

105. Male - Other

Porn is used mainly by men who don't have regular sex partners and/or are not satisfied with their sex partner(s) in order to bring about erousal so they can gratify themselves through masturbation.

Men who have good sex with a regular partner don't need it and generally don't use it.

On edit: The content of some porn depicts exploitation. The production of porn may also constitute exploitation, but not necessarily in all cases.

[geniph]

108. Smut that works for me is normal/healthy.

If I don't like it, it's perverted, degrading and wrong.

:sarcasm:

[Strong Atheist]

139. Lol!

:thumbsup:

:yourock:

[mongo]

173. Isn't what you like called erotica?

and what you don't like called smut?

LOL!

[Warren DeMontague]

109. If everyone involved is a consenting adult, what they do with their bodies

onscreen or off, isn't my business.

I do think it's perfectly normal and healthy to like to look at members of the opposite sex (or the same sex) nude and having sex.

Beyond that, rather than type this twice:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=4873994&mesg_id=4874995

[iconoclastNYC]

110. REAL AMERICANS DON'T CENSOR

The counterpart to the "REAL MEN DON'T NEED PORN" billboards.

I guess these right-wing anti-porn types know this is true because "real men" just take women when they get the urge, right?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

111. It's In The Eye Of The Beholder. It's None Of Anyone Elses Damn Business!

I don't really watch porn very often but if I did who cares? None of anybody's damn business if I choose to watch it or not.

As far as being evil blah blah blah, that's only the case to extremists in my opinion. We are sexual creatures. Labeling those that enjoy watching sexual exploits (which is instinctual in most men and women) as abusive or evil somehow, is just so beyond absurd and misguided it makes me laugh LOL

[Raydawg1234]

113. I'd have to say that cases of rape and sexual assault would go up if not

for porn. It is just nature, men need a release.

[Raydawg1234]

115. what about the double standard, there are men in porno's too.

nobody complains that the men are debasing themselves.

[mwooldri]

116. Depends whether you define Fox News as "Porn". In any case...

things can be pornographic without being about sex.

But I realise we're talking about the sex type of porn. I voted Male/Other because although in "the majority of cases" porn is healthy, certainly there are cases where it is not at all appropriate. There's also personal taste to account for too. Some people would find gay sex (of either gender) a turn off (for me it's gay male sex). Some people think bondage and S&M to be inappropriate. And there's some people who think The Simpsons has too much sex in it.

And then there's those that cross the line entirely. Child porn is one of those lines where it is absolutely not acceptable, as is filming non-consensual sex of any kind. (Consensual acting out a rape scene is darned close to the line in my mind though). Those are my definitions of what's not acceptable and is what I think the vast majority of society thinks is also unacceptable.

Of course because people have differing agreements as to what is acceptable and what is healthy, certain limitations need to be put into place.

In the meantime, I'm going to get my rocks off by watching the Fox Porn Channel.

Mark.

[Warren DeMontague]

118. If you're really getting off from watching FOX News, that's your business.

But I certainly wouldn't call that "healthy". :hippie:

[walldude]

123. I can't believe there is even still a debate on "porn"

As long as it involves consenting adults then get the fuck out of my bedroom. My wife and I both enjoy a little porn once in awhile, we have even made our own(talk about spicing things up!)on occasion. I find it amazing that the so called "Christians" are so anti porn when if you ask any prostitute they will tell you that right wing fundies make up a large part of their clientel. Also they will tell you that they are into more wierd shit than your average "leftie". You can also check stats on hotel porn. Hotels sell more porn movies during so called "Christian" converntions than any others. The hypocrisy among these people is astounding. The truth is I'd much rather fuck than fight. Too bad the people on the right would rather fight then fuck. It's no wonder their women are so uptight, when you've never had a real orgasm life has a whole different outlook.

[Warren DeMontague]

125. 'Cuz some people get off on watching other adults in consensual behavior

and some people get off on telling other adults what behaviors they may or may not be allowed to consent to.

[WildEyedLiberal]

126. Other: it can be normal and healthy OR objectifying

I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to read/view something that makes you aroused. I don't have a problem with naked women or viewing sex acts in order to pleasure yourself.

It is when porn indulges in fetishes and conditions men to think of women as objects that exist solely for their pleasure that I have a problem with it. There's some nasty, degrading porn out there - men shitting on women, forcing them into painful sex positions, forcing them to perform a "dirty sanchez," and numerous other fetish acts that treat women as disposable slaves. When a man watches these and thinks it's perfectly okay to expect a woman to submit to all manner of degrading and humiliating sexual fetishes for his pleasure, then porn becomes a big problem.

In sum: normal, healthy sex acts (ranging from intercourse, oral sex, even anal sex, mild BDSM, roleplaying, etc) are perfectly healthy. Destructive and harmful fetishes (hardcore BDSM, scatology fetishes, slave fetishes, etc) are harmful and teach men that women exist solely for their pleasure.

[Warren DeMontague]

127. in my experience, most commercial smut falls into the first category.

At least, that was what we dealt with in my old video store gig. So much so, that something really offensive and misogynist, like "Max"- stuck out like a sore thumb, and we made a stink until the owners stopped carrying it.

I find any porn where women are called degrading names during sex, you know, B** or S** or others that I won't repeat out of courtesy --- that sort of thing is a huge turn-off for me. I like to see women who are at least obstensibly enjoying themselves- I'd much rather watch porn where the focus is at least supposed to be on pleasing the woman, not the guy.

But, then, being exposed to porn is supposed to make men like women shaved and submissive, and even after working around it for several years I still liked 'em hairy--- and dominant. Go figure. :evilgrin:

[Strong Atheist]

140. Another hairy lover! Me too!

:yourock:

[Warren DeMontague]

212. Yeah, this brazillian waxing trend does absolutely nothing for me.

But, then, I'm a hippie. :hippie:

[omega minimo]

129. Can you both use porn & acknowledge the harmful effects of objectification

of women in media and society-- or are those mutually exclusive?

[mongo]

178. Not mutally exclusive -- but hard to define.

and there is some nasty porn out there. But problems arise when the worst examples are being passed off as what the average American is consuming.

But the whole "objectification" meme is confusing. That is sort of the point, isn't it? To show two or more people engaged in sex for the veiwer's pleasure. How could that not be objectifying, I don't know.

Also, isn't all entertainment in some way an objectification?

How about Fear Factor. The contenstants are made to do all sorts of humiliating "feats" for money. And that is on in a time slot where kids are watching. If you think that watching porn makes you want to try what you see on the screen in real life, then what about 13yo boys watching people eat bugs, being handcuffed under water, etc?

Or The Real World. We get to spy on every aspect of the roomates lives. Are they not being objectified and their joy and pain put on the screen for our voyeristic pleasure?

I could go on and on here, but really when you step back, almost all of our entertainment consists of someone being objectified for our pleasure. TV is inherently voyeristic.

Somehow, once sex is involved in the entertainment, it suddenly becomes an issue. It seems to me that it is really the sex that is the issue rather than objectification. Or perhaps the problem is viewers lusting over someone who is not their sexual partner.

In a way, the basic emotion of lust is inherently objectifying. It is the projection of your desires onto another person. But lust is essental to forming sexual partnerships.

[omega minimo]

208. The first step would be better understanding of objectification and the

effects that it has on individuals and society.

Food for thought.





Your anecdotal answers are interesting because those types of shows are quite new. Perhaps it's the pornification of television programming........................ :dilemma:

Someone on the thread mentioned desensitization (or dehumanization). That's relevant to the first question and the second. :think:

[Warren DeMontague]

225. self delete

dupe

[Warren DeMontague]

226. Is "desensitization" still relevant if the source of these dubious"facts"

is a religious right shill peddling "pro-traditional family" (we know what that's code for, don't we?) bullshit for the Mormon church?

[omega minimo]

227. ETA you know I don't like to get thrust into someone else's argument

:hi:

[Warren DeMontague]

229. Okay, but you mentioned 'desensitization' being relevant. Never mind that

it's clearly based on biased "studies" which have as much to do, factually, with the topic at hand as breast cancer does to the abortion debate- and as worthy of debunking in a thread pertaining to the same, an activity which I'm fairly certain you would eagerly participate in. :hi:

[omega minimo]

231. Methinks debunkers doth protest too much

in general.

The initial question was in #129.

[Warren DeMontague]

232. Sure you do. I'm sure there are pro-lifers and creation "scientists" who

feel the same about folks who debunk their "studies". (You know, why do you CARE so much about little things, like the truth?) Nevertheless, I find it curious, to say the least, that someone like "Dr. Victor Cline" can be quoted as not just an but seemingly THE authoritative and final word (Posts #150, #223) on this subject, when if anyone showed up flouting 'studies' from him or his peers saying that abortions turned women into werewolves, or lesbian lifestyles were statistically likely to make women into child molesters, they would be roundly flamed the hell out of here- and rightly so. But let the same obvious religious right shill come to some dubious conclusion that gels with someone's agenda and preconceived notions about how "porn is bad", and all of a sudden he's the greatest scientific mind since Watson and Crick.

I dunno, it's raining, and maybe you left your great slayer of hypocrisy hat at home, today. ;)

But- as for your question- I will be glad to answer it if I can get a concrete, concise definition of the terms, starting with "objectification".

[omega minimo]

233. See, I'm not really part of that argument you're having with whoever

I thought I'd pose the question, but it doesn't matter any more.

DU discussions tend toward such black and white thinking, it doesn't seem possible here.

Your posts are talking to someone other than me and my posts. I don't even know what you're talking about. Another reason we can't have these discussions productively here.

Thank you though, for giving it a go. :hug:

[Warren DeMontague]

234. I think you're right, and this thread has earned a decent burial.

Peace.

[mondo joe]

130. Porn isn't just about women.

Take it from a gay man.

[Warren DeMontague]

131. You just pull that bus over to the side of the double entendre highway

right now, sir. :patriot:

[Strong Atheist]

167. Sorry, did not mean to exclude anyone (I'm bi meself). The thing

is, most of the noise and heat over porn seems to come from people talking about what it does to women (not men), so that is why I structured the poll the way I did...

[Quantess]

132. people need to...

...get off, and some people use porn for that purpose. Some folks seem to be against ALL porn simply because they are aghast at the idea that people...(cough)..get off. :o
As a woman, I have very little interest in porno movies, but I would never judge people who happen to get turned on by that stuff, if that's what they gotta have. None of my business. My "porn" goes on in my mind, and luckily that can't be censored. ;)

[Warren DeMontague]

135. In case no one has said it, yet-

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[Strong Atheist]

141. Yes, Welcome to D.U.!

:toast:

[readmoreoften]

134. As a female who worked in porn for years.....

As someone who was a stripper, a dominatrix, and a small time porn director, I can tell you that my biggest pet peeves is broad generalizations when it comes to who these women are. There are CERTAINLY problems in the industry. But many of those problems could be remedied if all the anti-porn feminists stopped treating adult workers like they are less human and less intelligent than other women. Anti-porn feminist demonization of sex workers contributes to their marginalization, which in turn contributes to their shitty working conditions.

I really wish that all the people who "take issue" with the sex industry actually started talking to its so-called victims instead of speaking for them. There are three issues when it comes to porn:

(1) the representation of female sexuality (in the case of straight porn)
(2) the problem of unrealistic body portrayals.
(3) the working conditions of the model.

* The second issue is identical to advertising, film, and other heavily photoshopped industries. Here's a place where I actually think porn can help, if a variety of body types are shown. In advertising, you can take less risks because you have a billion dollar product to sell. In porn, if you want to show hirsute models with a little cellulite, you can. The marketing schema for the industry (hirsute, blonde, asian, thick, chubby, mature) is the biggest sticking point for this. But marketing in general also uses a similar schema for its models (blonde, asian, black) that is just as objectifying and compartmentalizing.

* The first issue is interesting because not only does porn take cues from what people want in "real life", in "real life" people take cues from their porn. People fetishize porn and it becomes a part of their sex lives. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that in any way. The only problem is with such a wide variety of sexual fantasies presented on the internet with no context, a violently anti-woman man or group of men could use pornography as a justification of their behavior.

For example, most people are pretty okay with any kind of behavior between two consenting adults: we know that a wife may whip her husband or a man may spank his girlfriend. But when the latter is played out on the internet (a male actor spanking a female actress) it takes on the weight of sexist propaganda in the minds of anti-porn feminists. Even if the majority of people who watch it are healthy, normal people into this particular kink (male and female), we fear that it could fall into the hands of violent men. My feeling is that violent men who hate women are going to be violent with or without porn.

* The third issue "the poor, drug addicted street girl" is ALWAYS just bandied about for rhetorical effect. Most anti-porn feminists have never talked to a stripper or a prostitute. (To be fair, most "pro-porn" feminists haven't either and all too often they glamorize our lives.) Labor issues around sex work are extremely complicated. There are enormous gaps in working conditions between strippers, prostitutes, porn stars, and dominatrixes. It's like comparing the working conditions of the waitstaff at a local diner, the head chef at a fine restaurant, and a taste-tester who works for a foodie magazine.

Lastly, sex work has historically been a field that is overrepresented by blue collar feminine lesbians who couldn't get work elsewhere because of discrimination. Just a little something extra to chew on.

[blogslut]

145. I like your post

Especially the opening:

"As someone who was a stripper, a dominatrix, and a small time porn director, I can tell you that my biggest pet peeves is broad generalizations when it comes to who these women are. There are CERTAINLY problems in the industry. But many of those problems could be remedied if all the anti-porn feminists stopped treating adult workers like they are less human and less intelligent than other women. Anti-porn feminist demonization of sex workers contributes to their marginalization, which in turn contributes to their shitty working conditions."

[hunter]

151. My vote is Male: Other. And very much what readmoreoften said...

...except I wouldn't limit this discussion to Anti- and Pro-porn "feminists."

Anti-porn and Pro-porn activists tend to go shopping for sex workers the very same way men looking to hire "dates" do. If you are looking for poor drug addicted "street girls" you can find those, and if you are looking for high class "escorts" you can find those too. It's the same in the film industry. There are "street girls" who do it to support their drug habits, there are porn stars, and there are actresses.

I also agree with readmoreoften's observation that "...sex work has historically been a field that is overrepresented by blue collar feminine lesbians who couldn't get work elsewhere because of discrimination."

[mongo]

180. If this were virtual reality

You'd be getting a standing ovation right now for your great post!

The only thing that I would add is that it seems the people who have the most problem with porn, also have the least experience with it.

[mzmolly]

207. Sex workers have always had shitty working conditions.

"Anti-porn feminist demonization of sex workers contributes to their marginalization, which in turn contributes to their shitty working conditions."

I might say if the conditions are poor - one is free to find a new line of work. I've known both strippers and prostitutes BTW. One friend I had started turning tricks before the age of 12. Her mom started her in the "business." Call me an anti-porn feminist if you will - but I've seen too much to glamorize the shit.

[Name removed]

214. Deleted message

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

[mzmolly]

215. You call me what you like.

Also, I've met countless hookers, I have family members who have "sold their ass" for that matter - but you go ahead and generalize if that makes you happy. For the record, I pity every prostitute I've ever known personally. Their "job" had little to do with economic opportunity and a lot to do with abuse at the hands of an authority figure - pimp, mother etc. I've also known strippers and they had an entirely different experience, made lots of money and moved on to other things. But that's here nor there.

"A lot of jobs have shitty working conditions. Including teachers, writers, editors, freelance artists, factory workers, childcare workers, maids, and secretaries. The ones who tell them to "find a new job, free country" are called Republicans. The ones who help them organize unions and understand their rights as workers have, historically, been called Democrats."

You are comparing the profession of a prostitute to that of a preschool teacher/writer? Prostitution is illegal in most states and I don't think "working conditions" are at the top of the priority list for most involved? Selling drugs is also illegal thus I'm not fighting to unionize drug dealers just yet. That said - In the states where prostitution is legal (NV) I'd gladly/LOUDLY support "workers rights," but that might not reconcile with your BS about how "judgmental and smug" I am. Further, I am in favor of legalizing prostitution mainly to take pimps/leeches out of the equation.

Also - I do not judge you or what you've done for a living - frankly I don't give a rats rear. But, I do resent your assertion about so called "anti-porn feminists" ruining previously great working conditions for sex workers. :eyes: BTW - Why not ask the men who support/view porn and/or buy hookers to help establish "better working conditions" instead of railing on other women? We get enough of the "feminazi" BS from the right wing.

"For example, most people are pretty okay with any kind of behavior between two consenting adults: we know that a wife may whip her husband or a man may spank his girlfriend. But when the latter is played out on the internet (a male actor spanking a female actress) it takes on the weight of sexist propaganda in the minds of anti-porn feminists. Even if the majority of people who watch it are healthy, normal people into this particular kink (male and female), we fear that it could fall into the hands of violent men. My feeling is that violent men who hate women are going to be violent with or without porn."

You are correct in one aspect and incorrect in another. The issue most "anti-porn feminists" have with porn to my understanding is the marketing/presentation/saturation. Chew on that for a while. It's not about violent men getting their hands on porn, it's about creating/supporting the conditions that lend to a violent/predatory mentality via the objectification/de-humanization of people - mainly women. Porn is a small part of the problem. The issue is akin to being concerned about FOX news and the impact the media has on society, or being concerned about misogyny in music for example. My personal concern about mass media influence does not begin/end with porn. Make sense?

[Name removed]

217. Deleted message

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

[mzmolly]

220. Your the one who attacked women who take issue with the industry your

defending. You suggested that you were being infantilized and that "anti-porn feminists" should be fighting for better working conditions??

"2) My post was largely about porn actresses and strippers, which is what the OP was about. I was talking about PORN not HOOKERS. And obviously HOOKERS CAN'T UNIONIZE outside of places where HOOKING IS ILLEGAL. But there have been many campaigns where strippers have sought to unionize and the anti-porn feminists sure didn't help them any. And the union guys didn't help them either, for that matter."

Actually, many dominatrix's are hookers as are many strippers - if the price is right. Additionally, you suggest that women who have an issue with porn/objectification have an obligation to ensure better working conditions for women who choose to be objects for a living? That's ridiculous - here have another one of these :eyes: Reach out to the union guys you note above who come in for a "beer" and a lap dance first huh?

"3) My point was that anti-porn feminists just use the people who are most harshly abused in the industry to make a political point and then they don't listen to the women who are asking them for help making their working conditions safer."

It is first up to those who DEFEND this industry to make sure the working conditions are safe. And, you call me a "fucking idiot?" Also you are saying that working conditions are unsafe, doesn't that blow your street urchin argument out of the water?

And yes, strippers DO DESERVE SAFE WORKING CONDITIONS. When you sign on for being a dancer, you don't necessarily sign on for being terminated immediately after a breast cancer diagnosis, or have a club demand that you lose ten pounds in two weeks when your weight gain is in reaction to a medication, or that you suddenly have to give 50% of your earnings instead of 10%. You deserve to know if the management sprays with a toxic pesticide. And you shouldn't be forced to work with bronchitis or with 27 stitches in your leg. You also shouldn't be forced to come to work with black eyes after being assaulted by your ex-husband just to "prove it". Why are all these examples so specific? Because these are the grievances my co-workers had. Would you expect a cocktail waitress to work under these conditions? Then why would expect a stripper to endure it?

Previously you stated: "My point was that anti-porn feminists just use the people who are most harshly abused in the industry to make a political point ..."

Yet by the statements above YOU have proven that the issues so called "anti-porn" feminists have with the industry - WOMEN BEING USED AND ABUSED - is a wide spread problem. It's not just about a few "street urchins." The experiences you've noted above demonstrate that you were an object/tool/non-human to those who wrote your paycheck. Thanks for the input. I wonder if the men you gyrated for lost any sleep over your working conditions? My guess - far more of the women you bitched about in your post above have.

"And talking about "pissing and moaning"....I resent you pissing and moaning about how you care about all the abused prostitutes of the world, but when somebody is advocating that people should treat porn actresses and strippers like normal human beings and actually help them improve their working conditions you start a flame war... obviously without even reading the post you're responding to."

My issue was not with your demand for better working conditions, it was for laying your troubles in the industry at the feet of other women. If you start a union for strippers, I'd help in any way I could, and I'd urge liberal men to boycott non-unionized strip clubs as well. I'd picket, I'd make calls, I'd stuff envelopes! And, I'd venture to guess that many of those you deem "anti-porn feminists" would have your back. However, I suggest you reach out the MEN here who are defending/supporting/making money off your previous line of work - first. After all, they still have more power influence in our society that I do.

Are we done here?

I dunno, you tell me.

Perhaps we should take this in a direction that asks - what can we both do to solve the problems we both have with how women in the sex industry are treated? How can we "humanize" and empower women? I'm willing to work with you on this.

[readmoreoften]

240. If you really want to help...

"My issue was not with your demand for better working conditions, it was for laying your troubles in the industry at the feet of other women."

That's a gross generalization and mischaracterization of what I said. Of course the problem with stripping is the customers and the management. Obviously anti-porn feminists are not the root of the problem. They're nowhere near the root of the problem. But they also do nothing to alleviate the problem and they tend to consider all sex workers nothing more than victims or stupid or both.

But with the unionization attempts I saw happen, no one helped at all, and many girls lives were destroyed. Most of these girls were intelligent, normal people, with a young child or two or saving for school. They had no issue with their jobs at all, except that conditions were deteriorating. What I mean by "conditions are deteriorating" is that they were forced to have more and more contact with the customers against their will. Well, they were laughed at in the press. They were blacklisted from all clubs in the tristate area. Their names were published in the paper so the customers could find them. After that debacle, the industry starting to decline in that state, stripping edged closer to coercive prostitution. I know that the girls reached out to mainstream feminist organizations and they were treated like a joke. Many times I've witnesses self-proclaimed anti-porn feminists say to sex workers, "well if you don't like the working conditions, you don't have to work there." You said something similar, in fact, in your first post. That sounds scarily similar to mothers of the past saying, "well if you don't want the attention then don't wear that short skirt." Or "If you dress like that, you get what you deserve."

I think there a lot of ways to empower women in the sex industry (street prostitution aside, because I think it's a much more difficult issue) The first thing is to stop automatically assuming the workers are victims. When I was working as a dominatrix taking $3000 a night for beating rich guys, I didn't much feel like a victim. Domination, mainstream porn, and high-paid escorts don't really need anyone's help. The second thing would be to not assume the workers are NOT victims. When you're looking at improving the work conditions of anyone, you don't get into a big debate over whether or not the workers are victims of choice, or circumstance or whatever. You just find out about their working conditions and try to solve the problem.

In fact, another good thing would be not to "censor" porn but start discussions around it. There will always be adult material, but the tone, attitude, and physical attributes of the players vary culturally. For example, from what I've read, in Italian culture, the market for BDSM is barely existent, where in Germany it is huge. In Italy, the men want to see women looking 'beautiful and carefree' and they want their porn to have a storyline. The example was "beautiful woman walking down the street drops her groceries, man helps her pick them up, their eyes meet, they have sex." I don't imagine that would be very popular in America.

My sense is that porn (particularly internet porn) in America follows the patterns of Fear Factor more than it follows the stirrings of the genitals of American men. It doesn't surprise me that "gross-out" porn is popular in America; our founders were puritans. And it doesn't shock me that every porn in America needs a gimmick, just like the big-budget special effects movies need gimmicks to sell tickets.

Bayswan and SWOP are two good groups doing good work if you want to get involved.

[mzmolly]

242. I'm going to take time to consider what you've posted.

I just saw your response.

Anyhow, I'll try to have a more thoughtful reply tomorrow. I don't want to ignore your post.

[mzmolly]

246. First I want to respond to the statements you made which troubled me.

"There are CERTAINLY problems in the industry. But many of those problems could be remedied if all the anti-porn feminists stopped treating adult workers like they are less human and less intelligent than other women. Anti-porn feminist demonization of sex workers contributes to their marginalization, which in turn contributes to their shitty working conditions."

"The third issue "the poor, drug addicted street girl" is ALWAYS just bandied about for rhetorical effect. Most anti-porn feminists have never talked to a stripper or a prostitute."

I find it ironic that women are going to war with one another - but isn't it convenient for the men involved? When I read the BS above it still chaps my hide. As I said it's crazy to reach out to people who are "anti-porn" and hold them accountable for a lack of industry standards. However I want to try and find some common ground as we both have some of the same issues with the industry.

"But with the unionization attempts I saw happen, no one helped at all, and many girls lives were destroyed. Most of these girls were intelligent, normal people, with a young child or two or saving for school. They had no issue with their jobs at all, except that conditions were deteriorating. What I mean by "conditions are deteriorating" is that they were forced to have more and more contact with the customers against their will. Well, they were laughed at in the press. They were blacklisted from all clubs in the tristate area. Their names were published in the paper so the customers could find them. After that debacle, the industry starting to decline in that state, stripping edged closer to coercive prostitution. I know that the girls reached out to mainstream feminist organizations and they were treated like a joke. Many times I've witnesses self-proclaimed anti-porn feminists say to sex workers, "well if you don't like the working conditions, you don't have to work there." You said something similar, in fact, in your first post. That sounds scarily similar to mothers of the past saying, "well if you don't want the attention then don't wear that short skirt." Or "If you dress like that, you get what you deserve."

I'm going to be frank, you cant demand to be treated like a non-victim and then claim to be one on the other hand. I make no apologies for saying "find another job." I worked for 7.50 when I was in my early 20's. I could have walked up the street from my apartment and took off my clothes for more money, I did not. I'm not any better than you, I just did not feel I'd care for the working conditions, and I did not want my work and sex life intertwined. I also did not feel that the industry was likely to be respectful of me. It just wasn't a consideration. Further, I've worked for assholes in a variety of positions, I sought new employment. When friends complain about their working conditions - no matter the employer, I suggest a new job. It has nothing to do with the work itself. That said, I am with the local wakeup walmart group. I've sold candy outside walmart to raise money for health insurance for walmart workers. It wasn't about raising the amount of money, but about raising awareness. I think if strippers/adult film actors want better working conditions you are going to have to organize and your going to have to be frank about how your mistreated. Workers who want better conditions and get them, are not afraid to appear victimized if that is the case. As I said, I'd LOVE to see an organized front. Your likely going to have to separate one industry from another to make this happen in an effective way?

An aside, I have horror stories about working in a bank as well. I knew a kid who worked in a local bank since he was in highschool. He was a teller who was in college at the time he was fired. One day he made mistake POOF he was gone, end of story. ONE mistake and he was history. Granted it was a big mistake, but he had a six year history with the bank that meant NADA.

"I think there a lot of ways to empower women in the sex industry (street prostitution aside, because I think it's a much more difficult issue) The first thing is to stop automatically assuming the workers are victims. When I was working as a dominatrix taking $3000 a night for beating rich guys, I didn't much feel like a victim. Domination, mainstream porn, and high-paid escorts don't really need anyone's help. The second thing would be to not assume the workers are NOT victims."

I don't care about money enough to say you were/weren't a victim if you made X amount. What matters is if YOU felt victimized. If you did not, then obviously you are not a victim. However, another consideration is how you might have been conditioned to feel that your value is of a sexual nature? I have an impression of most people who work in the industry as people who have been sexually abused, generally as children? Is that the case in your estimation? I feel that many women/men wouldn't even acknowledge that they were being victimized as they were conditioned to accept it? And, my thoughts don't don't just apply to the sex industry.

"When you're looking at improving the work conditions of anyone, you don't get into a big debate over whether or not the workers are victims of choice, or circumstance or whatever. You just find out about their working conditions and try to solve the problem."

That depends actually. Sex workers don't work for corporations that people with a conscience can boycott for example. I don't shop at walmart and I don't buy various products b/c I don't care for the conditions of the workers. I can't boycott a place I don't frequent KWIM? Also, in the sex industry it's hard to have an effective movement to improve conditions unless people like you are willing to speak out and not fear being labeled victims. You'd also have to be willing to pickett strip clubs that treat employees like shit. And, having an internet based discussion board where strippers could talk about working conditions and which clubs are good to work for vs. which are not, might be a start? At some point you are going to have to reach the actual customers though, if you want change IMHO. Money talks, picket, educate! ;)

"In fact, another good thing would be not to "censor" porn but start discussions around it. There will always be adult material, but the tone, attitude, and physical attributes of the players vary culturally. For example, from what I've read, in Italian culture, the market for BDSM is barely existent, where in Germany it is huge. In Italy, the men want to see women looking 'beautiful and carefree' and they want their porn to have a storyline. The example was "beautiful woman walking down the street drops her groceries, man helps her pick them up, their eyes meet, they have sex." I don't imagine that would be very popular in America."

I agree, censorship of legalized porn is impossible - dialog is not.

"My sense is that porn (particularly internet porn) in America follows the patterns of Fear Factor more than it follows the stirrings of the genitals of American men. It doesn't surprise me that "gross-out" porn is popular in America; our founders were puritans. And it doesn't shock me that every porn in America needs a gimmick, just like the big-budget special effects movies need gimmicks to sell tickets."

I don't think we can blame the puritans. But, I do think we can consider our media in general and the influence violence has on our society.

"Bayswan and SWOP are two good groups doing good work if you want to get involved."

I checked them out they don't appear organized in a manner that is effective?

This is interesting:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/03/1088488197890.html

Australia has a strip tease association, I can't find one in the US?

Lastly, I'm not in "the industry" nor have I been obviously, so I don't know the ins and outs (no pun intended) ;) and as such it's difficult to make specific recommendations as to how to improve conditions. Not that you were reaching out to me for such recommendations ... :D That said, if one looks at history - awareness has been a huge motivator. Off the top I'd say American strippers need an alliance - adult film stars need their own alliance. Organizations such as these can be first a database as to what clubs/directors etc. treat workers fairly, and which ones should be avoided. The internet can be a powerful tool if used properly. I would encourage groups to reach out to the Jenna Jameson's frankly, she has been involved in various aspects, she has money and she has a national voice now. :shrug:

Peace - and if you ever arrange a picket in my area, let me know.

PS this discussion might be interesting in the feminism forum? Perhaps there can be some common ground sought?

sorry to ramble, I'm going on about 3 hours sleep today. I know that there are things we don't agree on, but we do agree that women/people deserve to be treated with dignity.

Edited to add please pardon spelling and grammatical errors. I'm to tired to be coherent.

[sandnsea]

136. Porn is what the viewer deems it to be

which is why it is sometimes evil/harmful/degrading/objectifying and causes violence to women. If the viewer sees that and chooses porn based on their pre-conceived ideas, then that's what the porn is. If the viewer sees erotica, then that's what the porn is. All depends on the viewer.

[Strong Atheist]

142. There is a lot of truth in this... nt.

[Strong Atheist]

147. Well, the results are in!

...and there seems to be some gender disparity... what a surprise... not, as the kids say ...

[OxQQme]

149. Lol...My other toy has tits

Democracy in/action

[Strong Atheist]

169. Welcome to D.U.!

:toast:

Edited: Oops! I see you have been here for a while, longer than I.... sorry about the welcome, I should have checked yer profile first... sorry ...

[debbierlus]

150. Porn desensitives the viewer

I am sorry. Maybe, I will be deemed a prude, but I don't think porn is a good idea.

Men get a completely unrealistic idea of what turns on a woman sexually. Constantly showing women on their hands and knees, visual thrill for the guys, most women get nothing out of that position. And, when guys try to translate it into real life, their women are the ones that end up with the short end of the stick (sorry, I just could not resist).

And, it does portray women as total sex objects. The men too. I think it is degrading.

It also desensitizes arousal. More and more extreme porn is required for the regular viewer.

And, it really bums your partner out when you want to watch strangers have sex instead of focusing on your own intimacy. No matter what you say, it is reaching outside your relationship for fantasy and arousal. And, I personally don't want myself or my husband focusing on anything but each other in that arena.

Like I said, maybe I am prude.

But, I don't like porn.

[Occulus]

155. Do you feel the same way about gay porn? n/t

[Puglover]

158. "It also desensitizes arousal. More and more extreme porn

is required for the regular viewer." Got a link for that little factoid?

That being asked if you have no taste for porn is certainly doesn't mean you are a prude. However passing judgement on people who might enjoy it or trying to make it a crime is a whole different ballgame.

on edit add last paragraph

[plcdude]

160. I think there are

some women who will disagree with you on that particular sexual position. I have never seen any study that supports your statement that porn desensitizes. Maybe there is and I would be happy to read it but I think making those two particular statements warrrants some sort of citation to support your points.

[Quantess]

168. interesting

The sex acts are sort of unrealistic, yes. The main reason is that it's a show for the camera, not for the enjoyment of the people filmed in the act. This is not a sex thread, otherwise I could give examples of what I perceive as "weirdness" in porn sex.

That position you mentioned-- maybe you don't like it, but it's popular with many real couples.

"reaching outside your relationship for fantasy and arousal" Does imagination count? Even Jimmy Carter admitted to cheating in his mind. It would be flattering to ones' ego to think of oneself as your partner's complete, ultimately fulfilling fantasy at all times of the day. Is anyone truly this utterly worshipping of their mate, that they never think of anyone else or look at anyone else? I say not, and that's why I don't get bothered by porn. Porn isn't cheating.

[Strong Atheist]

176. Welcome to D.U.!

:toast:

I agree on the "porn isn't cheating" part, but others here will disagree...

:hide:

[mondo joe]

175. This post is 100% speculation, 0% factual basis.

First off, "Men get a completely unrealistic idea of what turns on a woman sexually."

That would indicate pretty dumb men. I'm gay. I've watched gay porn. I never confused it with reality. I don't think the pizza boy is going to deliver anything more than pizza.

Secondly, "It also desensitizes arousal. More and more extreme porn is required for the regular viewer."

Can you back this up?

Thirdly, "And, it really bums your partner out when you want to watch strangers have sex instead of focusing on your own intimacy." You might want to speak for yourself instead of everyone else, please.

[debbierlus]

223. No, it is NOT speculation. Porn can be VERY damaging.

Here are some facts about porn:

A 1992 survey of 14 year olds, 87% of boys and 61% of girls reported having viewed video pornography. Boys who were frequent consumers of pornography and/or reported learning a lot from pornography were more accepting of rape myths and violence against women, and were also more likely to say that it was "OK" to hold a girl down and force her to have intercourse.
- Dr. James Check, York University

non-aggressive" pornography (pornography prominently available in mainstream market), that which excludes rape and violence but graphically depicts all other forms of sex (group, homosexual, switching, anal, oral, etc.) was found to:

desensitize the viewers to the material's breaking of sexual taboos, causing the viewers to become more accepting of it and much less concerned about its negative effects;
cause the viewers to regard rape as a more trivial offense, with men particularly showing major increases of sexual callousness toward women;
increase the viewers' loss of compassion for women as rape victims. In a sense, then, this kind of pornography as male entertainment promotes the victimization of women.
- Dr. Victor Cline, University of Utah


From the above study:

Those who treat pornography victims report that many who are exposed to pornography progress through four stages:

ADDICTION: This addiction of the mind can be as powerful as any drug, alcohol, or cigarette addiction of the body. Flashbacks are also experienced.
ESCALATION: Need for rougher and more sexually shocking material in order to get the same sexual stimulation as before.
DESENSITIZATION: With continued exposure, what at first was gross, shocking and disturbing becomes acceptable and commonplace.
ACTING OUT: There is an increased tendency to start "acting out" the sexual activities seen in the pornography.

On liberal men
“For the last 30 years and more, I have watched liberals in America…try to repackage pornography and prostitution as a hip and groovy thing, a liberating thing, something novel and progressive and good for us all, men and women alike. Allegedly Leftist, Progressive men declare their loyalty (both as customers and partisans) to one of the biggest and most exploitative sweatshop industries of them all. Men who would not be caught dead wearing Reeboks or Nikes, or drinking Starbucks coffee, can still kid themselves into thinking Larry Flynt is some kind of People's Hero.”

-D.A. Clarke in Not For Sale

I realize that there are people who could watch a porn video without much, if any ill effect. But, what about the people in that video? Do you really think that is a good way for anyone to make a living?

I think porn has consequences and implications that people on this board do not want to acknowledge.

http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/arpornography/arpornography.html

As pornography has become more acceptable, both legally and culturally, the level of brutality toward, and degradation of, women has intensified ( Jensen, 2004). As one pornography director put it, "People just want it harder, harder, and harder...what are you gonna do next?" ( Adult Video News, 2003, p. 60). Another director was blunt in describing 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. (double penetration) 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" (p. 46).

[Warren DeMontague]

224. "Dr. Victor Cline"- Now THERE'S a guy without an obvious agenda:

http://www.ldsr.org/info/drcline.phtml

You'll forgive me if I prefer to not get my "science" straight from the Mormon Church.

[mondo joe]

284. I like my evidence to be scientific, not religious belief based.

Thanks anyhow.

[slackmaster]

179. I think it does exactly the opposite

Porn titillates the viewer. It makes the viewer start thinking more about sex, and become aroused.

It's addicting to some people, as is sex.

[mongo]

185. Most women don't like doggie style?

Constantly showing women on their hands and knees, visual thrill for the guys, most women get nothing out of that position.

Well, that has not been my experience.

For many women, it is difficult to properly stimulate the G spot in the missionary position. Other positions such as the one with the woman sitting astride on top or the one with male entry into the vagina from the rear ("doggie style") work better.

http://www.atihealthnet.com/pages/gspot.html

More and more extreme porn is required for the regular viewer.

This is another common myth the anti-porner's like to throw around without any kind of evidence. If most porn is bought by people who are already adult entertainment consumers, then why is the #1 movie for 2005 the big budget, couple friendly movie Pirates by Wicked entertainment?

And, I personally don't want myself or my husband focusing on anything but each other in that arena.

No value judgements on you for prudery. I think you are about the only person in this thread with the guts to actually explain why so many women hate porn -- instead of the "political" reasons so often given.

[redqueen]

187. "most women get nothing out of that position"

I really doubt that's the case.

[mongo]

190. Great minds think alike

:toast:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

201. i like being on my hands and knees

so do a lot of other women. (trust me, i should know, i sleep with women)

[geniph]

235. There's a lot to be said for that position

other than the obvious ease of filming gynecological entry angles. I'm a 120-lb woman married to a 290-lb man. Believe me, that position has decided advantages!

[Iniquitous Bunny]

282. "most women get nothing out of that position"

Another woman here saying, um, can't agree there. Most of my female friends I've talked to say this is one of the best positions. Anyway, if porn was a replacement for me, I wouldn't like it, but I have a great relationship with a man both loving and sexually compatible. Once in awhile we like a little porn and I'm secure enough within myself (hardly some phony "perfect" person) that it's fun. It's about fantasy and exploration within a relationship. You talk. You try new things. You share experiences together. Nothing wrong with that IMHO.

I have some worker's rights issues in regard to porn, so because of that I prefer to keep it in moderation. Even better, dig a bit deeper to find more female produced erotica.

[nemo137]

200. the thing that's interesting to me about porn

(well, aside from the fact that I'm a 19 year old male) Is how it deals with racial and ethnic issues. I mean, besides the fact that most models in porn tend to be white, the way that "ethnic" or "interracial" sites deal with ethnicity is so stereotype laden that it's beyond offputting. So is there any research discussion on this out there, or is this what happens when you let adolescent males take classes in race and ethnicity and give them fast internet connections?

[SPKrazy]

206. Probably Not Unhealthy For Most Folks

Although there is an element of exploitation that is involved a lot of the time.

But to those who find themselves sexual addicts, porn may be like beer is to alcoholism.

It may not be the most destructive aspect of a person's addiction, but it may be the primer of the pump (bad pun) so to speak for those who act out in ways that are destructive to themselves or others sexually.

But just like any other sexual issue, most are not going to be affected negatively. In fact, some people are just plain turned on by porn and it becomes part of their foreplay.

But what if a person can no longer function normally with their partner and it is related to the fact that the person can't get aroused without the porn images. They've become desensitized to the act of sex with their partner. This is a destructive example.

What about the person who spends HOURS on the internet to the exclusion of the rest of their life looking for sexual stimulating material, pics, videos, chat, etc., this is destructive to them.

[geniph]

236. But should we tailor our laws for those few

who find it addictive, or for the majority who don't have a problem with it? Shouldn't we focus our attentions on finding ways to help those who have destructive addictions - to anything - rather than on punitive legislation aimed at preventing ANYONE from engaging in pastimes which are destructive to a few?

[killbotfactory]

209. Depends on the type of porn

Some of the stuff from the 70's, and a lot of Japanese porn caters to rape fantasies and pedophiles. I don't think any healthy influence can come from that... :shrug:

I guess it all depends on whether it acts to encourage them to commit these types of acts, or acts as an outlet for those desires.

[savemefromdumbya]

228. Have you seen the Netherlands new immigration law?

you have to qualify by seeing nude videos and photos and then answer some questions about history. I think I'll move to the Netherlands!

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/16/international/europe/16dutch.html

[Warren DeMontague]

243. I'm so there. n/t

[CovertOP]

237. First

they came for the pornographers but I was not a pornographer, so I said nothing.
Then they came for the political boards, but my interest in politics was low, so I said nothing.

[arwalden]

238. Well... The Porn *I* Look At Does NOT Objectify Or Degrade Women...

... why must everyone assume that it's always about the WOMEN? Why can't MEN be objectified and degraded?

:popcorn:

[Warren DeMontague]

310. Well, hopefully it would depend on the man...

You really wanna see, say, Rush Limpballs nude? To quote Fred Willard, "I Don't Think Sooooo!"

[progressivebydesign]

239. Other: There are different types of porn.

Some could be viewed as healthy, some could be viewed as harmful and derrogatory. You can't lump it all together... just as you could not lump all movies together.

[MadisonProgressive]

244. I'm touching myself again!

[Kailassa]

249. How many people's sexual fantasies are exclusively Nice?

One thing I love about porn is being able to watch people acting out my more weird and wild fantasies, the sort of things I would never let a guy (or guys) actually do to me IRL. And if my boyfriend is away, we have a great deal of fun putting on headsets and chatting while we both watch the same porn video on out computers.

I don't like to see a girl getting her face sprayed, or being treated with contempt, that turns my stomach. But apart from that, if everyone involved seems to be enjoying themselves, the raunchier the story they act out the better.

ReadMoreOften had a good point about the grey legal status of porn films which explains the lack of skill put into filming most that I've seen and the lack of an involving story line. I'd always wondered why more were not made the way I'd love to make them. I reckon it would be a real hoot to have the facilities to get a bunch of people together who loved sex, and work out a good story-line so each could have fun acting out their fantasies on film.

Porn is not only for the guys. My only problem is it's mostly so male oriented that little thought has been put into making films that put more time into a storyline and less time into boring genital close-ups. I'm a daydreamer, not an engineer.

[bridgit]

252. make mine 'erotica' please, thank you...

:-)

[Ksec]

262. I like a good porno movie to get the motor humming

I dont want my children watching them though.

[Pale Blue Dot]

264. One question.

What one person likes, someone else may find degrading. On the other hand, what someone else likes, another person may find "too boring". Sexuality is subjective and individual and why should one person's views dictate someone else's practices or viewing preferences?

Hey, many people are offended at all the incest in the Bible, should we ban that? :shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

275. Tempting as that idea is...

I'd have to say "no".

[mongo]

269. The thread that would not die

This proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt -- that DU threads about porn are 6 times more addicting than porn itself.

[benburch]

283. And six times...

...less interesting.

[bigwillq]

286. Porn is healthy and even normal

It's all about fantasy, really and as long as it's used and viewed for those purposes as well as for entertainment then I don't think there's anything wrong with it.

[Pryderi]

293. Harlequin Romances are Smutty. :P

[ScreamingMeemie]

297. There is nothing wrong with pornography.

If you want to purchase and watch..enjoy. If you don't, hey that's okay too.

[Feron]

299. Porn ,like anything else, is only bad...

when in excess. A messed up person will be messed up without porn. I suppose since porn is considered a vice, it makes for a convenient scapegoat for society's ills. Personally I think that disrespect towards any gender has more to do with the fact that the culture mistakenly believes that being an angry asshole or a junior psychopath makes a strong person.

Back to porn, as long as the participants are adults and consenting, I don't see the problem. Porn isn't an ideal profession in my view, but some may disagree and like it so who am I to judge. Like mainstream movies, porn is about fantasy. Like any movie, not all stunts are worth replicating.

And if some guy forces a woman to preform an act she didn't want to, then let's face it, the jerk would have forced her even if the movies never existed. Furthermore, any person that thinks a mate should be a centerfold isn't a person worth having to begin with.

America is fucked up when a terrorist can graphically plug a hostage on 24, but Janet Jackson's blink-and-you'll-miss-it breast flash causes a national uproar. We have all of this violence that is deemed acceptable, but fuck or accidently show a naughty bit and all hell breaks loose. *shakes head*

[Imagevision]

304. How old were you when you sneeked a peek at Playboy/ how about

your kid?

[upi402]

305. sexual repression = perversions and crime

if fundies want less porn, then stop controlling the behavior of others and worry more about Uncle Chuckie and Reverend Willy.