Truth about Porn

Eve_Dublin

The Corinthian wrote: »

Maybe, but that does not invalidate what I wrote. You have essentially said that 'women are irrational' and bizarrely expect no comment against this.

Women are not irrational - that's pure sexism talking. Women are just as rational as men, just some hide behind this chauvinism so as to abdicate responsibility for their actions, choices and opinions.

The right to have and express an opinion does not extend to the right to avoid the consequences for expressing it. If you subsequently become the poster girl for how not to debate, then you have to accept that consequence.

I phrased what I said incorrectly. I said women are ruled by emotions more than logic but we still possess logic. I believe that to be true. Nothing wrong with being ruled by emotions. That´s why women are scientifically proven to be more empathetic than men. Generally speaking men will look for the logic solution, women will go with the gut. Didn´t mean to imply that both sexes don´t possess both. I replied in a hurry. Nothing wrong with either approach. Got me this far in life and I´m doing pretty well.

Honestly, I´m lost on this debate now...I´d love to know what you´re all on about but I don´t, so I´m leaving (this time I mean it ) Will you continue to bitch about me once I´m gone???

Eve_Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

Speak up? That's awfully ignorant. Typical of you.. retreating to gender bias when you can't be bothered to argue a subject properly. Entrenched thinking of us versus them..

I was joking. Typical of me? I can think of plenty of attributes typical to yourself but I´m not risking getting banned. No one´s perfect.

metrovelvet

Eh....to both of you...it is optimal if you can employ both reason and empathy for this subject.

The Corinthian

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I phrased what I said incorrectly. I said women are ruled by emotions more than logic but we still possess logic. I believe that to be true. Nothing wrong with being ruled by emotions.

There is if you're trying to have a rational discussion.

catthinkin

ok i understand . I take it then you are referring to gangbangs ? rape scence etc etc
ok fair enough i dont watch them because i it does nothing for me do i think it harms woman ? hmm i dont believe that they are that popular but tbh i would uphold the right of freedom of expression before i would start tryin to dictate what people chose to watch .

If they are adults.

Eve_Dublin

The Corinthian wrote: »

There is if you're trying to have a rational discussion.

Right...in my experience I´ve heard language used in porn in mainstream media and in the real world and more so in the last, say, 10 years. I find a lot of it offensive. Why should I defend myself on here when you guys aren´t the perpetrators?

You discounted the article as "drivel"....I would agree with you to a degree but I agree with the premise of the article. I can´t argue with you because your experiences have been different to mine and I know it´s futile trying to convince you other wise....there´s me using my logic. Go me!

The Corinthian

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Right...in my experience I´ve heard language used in porn in mainstream media and in the real world and more so in the last, say, 10 years. I find a lot of it offensive. Why should I defend myself on here when you guys aren´t the perpetrators?

No one has said you should not feel offended by such language. What people have pointed out is that the article you posted and the views expressed within it had nothing to do with this offense, but pushed a theory on the cause of this language that, other than being poorly thought through, was offensive to men.

You discounted the article as "drivel"....I would agree with you to a degree but I agree with the premise of the article. I can´t argue with you because your experiences have been different to mine and I know it´s futile trying to convince you other wise....there´s me using my logic. Go me!

Problem is that your experiences are anecdotal evidence, and that only goes so far in any argument. Additionally, while you base your evidence on your own experiences of gender specific insults, you rejected the experience of men with corresponding anecdotal evidence.

So, you didn't use much logic there in reality. You stated your view from an egocentric and anecdotal perspective and when faced with argument or even conflicting anecdotal evidence from others, you reacted in an egocentric and dismissive manner.

gcgirl

Ah Yeh all porn is wrong ! Ballocks I hate all this crap, I read the first couple of lines and said to myself this is a load of crap I am a woman in my mid 30s I enjoy porn since I can remember and all this men hating women crap is just doing my nerves in as for the exploitation of women well the men get paid a fraction of what the women get, so we are ahead on the equality stakes in porn pretty good if you ask me !

Eve_Dublin

The Corinthian wrote: »

No one has said you should not feel offended by such language. What people have pointed out is that the article you posted and the views expressed within it had nothing to do with this offense, but pushed a theory on the cause of this language that, other than being poorly thought through, was offensive to men.

I apologise. Enjoy your weekend.

gbee

catthinkin wrote: »

i would uphold the right of freedom of expression before i would start tryin to dictate what people chose to watch .
If they are adults.

I think we have to have limits and to be honest, personally I'd have much preferred not to have seen some of the twisted and bizarre stuff, back in the days when anything and everything was online.

catthinkin

gbee wrote: »

I think we have to have limits and to be honest, personally I'd have much preferred not to have seen some of the twisted and bizarre stuff, back in the days when anything and everything was online.

were you underage when you viewed these images ?

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

No one has said you should not feel offended by such language. What people have pointed out is that the article you posted and the views expressed within it had nothing to do with this offense, but pushed a theory on the cause of this language that, other than being poorly thought through, was offensive to men.

Problem is that your experiences are anecdotal evidence, and that only goes so far in any argument. Additionally, while you base your evidence on your own experiences of gender specific insults, you rejected the experience of men with corresponding anecdotal evidence.

So, you didn't use much logic there in reality. You stated your view from an egocentric and anecdotal perspective and when faced with argument or even conflicting anecdotal evidence from others, you reacted in an egocentric and dismissive manner.

Sorry but I don't think anecdotal evidence should be readily dismissed. What you are in essence doing, is privaliging removed, decontextualised knowledge.

When you talk about any kind of representation, you should consider the audience.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Problem is that your experiences are anecdotal evidence, and that only goes so far in any argument. Additionally, while you base your evidence on your own experiences of gender specific insults, you rejected the experience of men with corresponding anecdotal evidence.

So, you didn't use much logic there in reality. You stated your view from an egocentric and anecdotal perspective and when faced with argument or even conflicting anecdotal evidence from others, you reacted in an egocentric and dismissive manner.

In fairness, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence from both sides.

Seems to be very little research in Ireland on it.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Sorry but I don't think anecdotal evidence should be readily dismissed. What you are in essence doing, is privaliging removed, decontextualised knowledge.

It wasn't dismissed, but as I already said anecdotal evidence will only get you so far and the evidence posted, anecdotal and otherwise, debunked the anecdotal evidence of one individual.

When you talk about any kind of representation, you should consider the audience.

Panem et circenses?

metrovelvet

What kind of evidence do you want exactly?

catthinkin

sorry what we discussing here ? eating a sandwich watching the clowns . messin hah

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence from both sides.

That's a fair point, but the onus is really on those attempting to prove their theory on misogyny and pornography, not on disproving it.

metrovelvet wrote: »

What kind of evidence do you want exactly?

Evidence that does not begin with the words "I think/feel/believe".

metrovelvet

What does it begin with. Say what you want, not what you dont want.

catthinkin

no i think he means statistical evidence trials on the effect of porn such as this
Silbert, M. and Pines, A., in "Pornography and Sexual Abuse of Women," published their study involving prostitutes in the international journal Sex Roles, "The comments followed the same pattern: the assailant referred to pornographic materials he had seen or read and then insisted that the victims not only enjoyed rape but also extreme violence."[6]

i would just like to point out that as in most debates there is research out there which will provide the counter argument .

Ultimately our points of veiw will all be clouded by our personal experiences, i dont think that makes an individuals argument invalid though

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

What does it begin with. Say what you want, not what you dont want.

And if you remove what I don't want, what are you left with?

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

And if you remove what I don't want, what are you left with?

I don't know. I'm not a mind reader.

You cant complain about evidence without ever saying what kind you'd like. Perhaps provide an example.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

I don't know. I'm not a mind reader.

You cant complain about evidence without ever saying what kind you'd like. Perhaps provide an example.

You don't need to be a mind reader. Eliminate one item from a list and what are you left with - all the remaining items on that list. Logic 101.

metrovelvet

Right. So anecdotal evidence is what we have. You agreed there is value in it. So why request another kind of evidence which is not in existence? Or is that logic 102?

catthinkin

ok although this is kind of funny there isnt much debate going on here

nobody has to follow any set rules . voice your opinion back it up or not move on

anyone got anything else to add? on the TOPIC

AngryBadger

metrovelvet wrote: »

You're fantasizing again.

No I'm extrapolating your attitude form the litany of narrow spite-filled posts you've peppered throughout this thread, and a great many other threads which tend to reflect your obviously bitter experience with men in general.

Which is tragic and all but in no way justifies your tantrum-esque reactions when people don't subscribe to proposals based on your particular view of the world.

Several times in this thread alone you've made generally, and specifically abusive comments about other posters, which does nothing to further any of the "arguments" you keep pushing, but does great work in establishing you as a very unhappy woman, who obviously has issues with menfolk in general. Which is fair enough, there are plenty of men in the world who are complete asses, but doesn't give you license to throw your toys out of the pram when you're not getting your way.

Eve_Dublin

If there´s no mods about to referee then I´ll say I think there´s a fair few people on this thread, myself included, who´ve overstepped the rules of the charter. There are others making snide accusation on this thread (myself included) and not just Metrovelvet. This is the charter:

Humanities was created for the purpose of having rational, thoughtful, calm, civil debate about issues. It was created as an alternative to After Hours, as a place for intellectual discourse.

Starting Threads:
New threads should endeavour to start a debate around a consequential issue, question, topic, or concern. Do not post threads about a specific topical event, unless that event raises or illustrates the larger issue you wish to discuss. Do not start threads that are trivial, intellectually vacuous, or so general as to be pointless. Give your own opinion on the subject, and be willing to debate it.

A few things that may get your thread locked, your post removed/edited, or you infracted/banned:

Trolling:
Posting something that is designed not to provoke debate but anger or annoyance.

Ranting and Soapboxing:
This forum is not your blog. Nor is it your opportunity to shout everyone else down. If you cannot engage in calm, rational, respectful debate, go elsewhere.

Personal Attacks:
Personal attacks are not conducive to an atmosphere of rational, thoughtful, calm debate. Criticize the post; don't attack the poster.

Off-topic Posting:
If a thread is about, say, vegetarianism, then it should not be derailed by a discussion of racism in the Irish education system. If you want to discuss racism in the Irish education system, start a new thread.

Racism/Sexism/****ism:
Don't make grand generalisations about [women/ethnic & racial minorities/travelers/you name it] without backing them up with solid irrefutable facts.

Being Stupid:
Stupid, pointless, inane, foolish posts will be deleted on sight. If you want to make stupid, pointless, inane, foolish posts, you may find that other forums on Boards are better suited to your needs. If you want to engage in banter with other posters, find a suitable forum or take it to PM.

A moderator may well warn people about their posts in a thread. Do not respond to the warning on the thread.

If you have a complaint about a moderator, first PM the moderator. Then take it to the Cat Mod. Then take it to the Help Desk. Any complaint made about moderators in the forum will be locked/deleted/moved.

A lot of us are guilty of it and some of us got personal when this isn´t the place. We should keep that stuff to PMs.

Eve_Dublin

AngryBadger wrote: »

No I'm extrapolating your attitude form the litany of narrow spite-filled posts you've peppered throughout this thread, and a great many other threads which tend to reflect your obviously bitter experience with men in general.

Which is tragic and all but in no way justifies your tantrum-esque reactions when people don't subscribe to proposals based on your particular view of the world.

Several times in this thread alone you've made generally, and specifically abusive comments about other posters, which does nothing to further any of the "arguments" you keep pushing, but does great work in establishing you as a very unhappy woman, who obviously has issues with menfolk in general. Which is fair enough, there are plenty of men in the world who are complete asses, but doesn't give you license to throw your toys out of the pram when you're not getting your way.

You´ve overstepped the mark Angrybadger. You´ve gone too far.

Eve_Dublin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

You´ve overstepped the mark Angrybadger. You´ve gone too far.

Eve_Dublin, why don't you stay out of it, and let them handle it?

Eve_Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

Eve_Dublin, why don't you stay out of it, and let them handle it?

You stuck your nose in by thanking him. YOU stay out of it. I´m entitled to take sides as well.

Eve_Dublin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

You stuck your nose in by thanking him. YOU stay out of it. I´m entitled to take sides as well.

OMG. I thanked him because I happen to agree with him, since I was on the receiving end of her posts. However, I didn't post my opinions because its less aggressive. You, on the other hand, are continuing to post your opinions on the various subjects.

For all your posting of the charter, and telling us that we're all guilty, you're continuing to fan the flames.

Why not keep out of it, and just "thank" her?