Truth about Porn

Andrew33

Andrew33 wrote: »

Ya put animals ahead of children ya freak, you should be burned at the stake:D, porn is probably the second oldest industry on the planet, but I do think the whole porn industry is becoming a bit too mainstream and that just numbs people against ANY sex crime.

Err, I think its advertising & the amount of media (including the news) that we receive on a daily basis that is numbing people to any sex crime. Lets be honest here, unless you go seeking to find Porn, you're not going to stumble upon it. Which means that people are not going to be exposed to it on a daily basis. In fact, the only people exposed to it are those actively seeking it.

How often in the last week have you been exposed to porn just by switching through channels at home or scanning magazines in the shop?

donegalfella

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So the difference is based entirely on the perception that this comes from Hollywood and the other comes from something else?

And the fact is that Hollywood and other reputable studio's have released movies depicting the crimes of serial killers, rapists, etc which were based on fact.

And TBH, most porn is based on fantasy just like the movies we see in the theaters. If anything the movies we see from Hollywood regarding the terrible acts are portrayed as being more factual and realistic than the porn movies themselves.

There have been quite a number of "official" type movies which have shown rather dispicable acts in the past from rape, to child abuse right through to genocide. All of which were based on real life, stated as such, and the actors received awards for being so real-life... TBH, your explanation doesn't cut it.

The only real difference is that one is categorised as porn, and the other as "thriller", or "real life story" or "Drama".

nozzferrahhtoo

Bella_purple wrote: »

But I guess if rape has to do with sex and porn industry has to do with sex also, then there is a bit of a link, though. Do you find the correlation acceptable, now, nozferatu'?

Not in the slightest no.

Escaping a crime scene involves running. So does marathon training. Do you think if I found a handful of anecdotes about people who ran away from crime scene and then went into marathon running that I somehow have found some correlation containing any explanatory power what so ever?

Not in the slightest.

There are many good and bad things in our lives that share common elements. This does not mean that those common elements are automatically a casual link between them. Good food feels good to us to eat. Obesity also involves food. Do you honestly think that obesity occurs because people love the taste of food so much? Do you think anorexia occurs only in people who do not like food?

Not in the slightest I imagine.

AngreyBadgers example of procreation and rape is also very good, better than either of mine. Just because the two things involve sex does not in any way mean you have an automatic correlation, let alone a causal one.

However can we find some anecdotes about someone who was abused sexually and then went on to work in porn? Of course we can. It would be a shock if you can not. The danger however is in extrapolating anecdotes that confirm your own biases into generalised statements about the industry as a whole.

nozzferrahhtoo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And which do you think is worse to portray, if you forget for one moment that one is real and one is acted?

On one hand you have the portrayal of a sexual act that some people enjoy very much, many people consent to, and in fact harms no one and is one of the many aspects of the pleasures of human sexuality…

On the other hand you have the portrayal of horrific violence being perpetrated against unwilling, non-consenting victims in wanton, gory ways.

The difference here is a lot deeper than merely waving ones hands and saying “Ah well the second one is not real, only acted, the other one is really happening”. Both of these things happen for real in our real world. In a straight comparison I think there is a world of difference between watching a bloody violent non consensual act, against watching a pleasurable consensual one.

Zombrex

vicecreamsundae wrote: »

so my friend is an idiot because her first time sleeping with a new guy he started choking her?

No, the new guy (who I assumed was your friend) is an idiot for thinking "Oh I saw this in a gonzo porn movie I'm sure the girl I hardly know and have never slept with before will like it because after all all girls are exactly the same"

Blaming porn for this is a bit like playing the A-Team because your friend drove his car off a bridge while trying to jump it.

Wicknight

Wicknight wrote: »

No, the new guy (who I assumed was your friend) is an idiot for thinking "Oh I saw this in a gonzo porn movie I'm sure the girl I hardly know and have never slept with before will like it because after all all girls are exactly the same"

Blaming porn for this is a bit like playing the A-Team because your friend drove his car off a bridge while trying to jump it.

You're all assuming he learned this from porn... he could just have easily picked this up from a previous lover, and assumed it was the norm for most relationships...

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

No, the new guy (who I assumed was your friend) is an idiot for thinking "Oh I saw this in a gonzo porn movie I'm sure the girl I hardly know and have never slept with before will like it because after all all girls are exactly the same"

I don't think it is unfair to suggest that while art imitates life, life will often do the same. It is quite likely that many current trends in sexual grooming and practice have been influenced by porn, just as porn draws from market demand. For example, shaved or waxed pubic reasons were rare in Ireland up until ten years ago - for men they were unheard of - yet these are more common nowadays.

Of course, that any guy will assume that a woman will do something because it is in a porn movie is a bit ridiculous - just as it is ridiculous that a woman will assume that a guy should be able to shag her standing up supporting her solely with his John Thomas, for the same reasons. But then again, idiocy pretty much predates pornography.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

donegalfella

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Take a porn film showing a rape, and a Hollywood movie showing a rape. The first uses rather cheesy lines, hunky actors, and big boobed women with tattoos which just reinforces the lack of realism.... whereas the Hollywood movie throws millions of dollars, the top actors, research departments, etc to make the experience as realistic as possible.

Personally, I believe the majority of porn films look like porn, and rarely enters the real world. Hollywood movies on the other hand regularly seek as much realism as possible. If we're talking influence over people, the studios with the money behind them, are going to come up trumps.

That the actors received awards for the verisimilitude or plausibility of their performances only highlights the point that I'm making. What porn actress has ever received an award for doing a really authentic imitation of being gangbanged?

Dunno. I'm sure they have their own award schemes... considering they're not going to get recognition from the mainstream award schemes from Hollywood or such.

No, the real difference is in the kinds of "acting" that is required to produce the film in the first place.

Why? As I have said above, the high budget movies of Hollywood have more money & technology to make the experience more "real".. I've never seen a Porn film that didn't fail to appear to be "a porn".

Unless you're including the amateur movies which are posted on the internet, that are made with a home camera, and are realistic simply on their basic technology/camera handling?

Because I think we need to decide here.. whether we're talking about Porn as in the studios publishing stuff, and the material which comes from the ether of the internet.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AngryBadger

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm still not seeing your point here, if a woman consents to being in a movie of this type then it's her decision to have these things done to her. If you're point is that seeing these acts in pornography numbs us, I have to point out that's adults watching porn KNOW that it's a bunch of people being paid to "perform" on screen, so I don't think it's reasonable to say they're going to be "numbed" by something they know is almost completely divorced from reality.

In contrast the kind of person who watches porn and then "assumes" this is normal, has to be more than a little unbalanced already. In which case it's a "chicken vs. egg" situation, and you can hardly blame pornography for their actions, that kind of person is just as likely to take their cues from reports of real-life events, the hollywood movies you've described, or trumped-up stories told by bragging friends.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There are "adult entertainment" awards every year. Are you saying getting an award somehow makes things more legitimate?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again the only point I see you making here is that you feel porn should be done away with to protect the "poor wimmins"? Obviously it's sad when anyone has a negative experience of any kind whether it's an actual sexual assault, or consenting to be in a pornographic film and finding the experience harrowing, surely the issue here is that people have a duty of care to themselves and unfortunately a great many people don't discharge this responsibility properly?

I mean if someone walked into a cage at the zoo and started poking a sleeping lion on a dare, would you feel sympathy for them after hearing their arm had been bitten off, or would you think they were very foolish to poke a sleeping lion?

donegalfella

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No I'm arguing that the productions from big budget places like Hollywood are more capable of producing movies which have the appearance of being real compared with the porn productions.

But I'm also seeking not to place all porn in the same category.. There's a huge difference between the amateur porn on the net, the production movies available for purchase off Amazon, the stuff you buy in seedy shops in Amsterdam, and the underground movies of S&m or such.

Regardless, when a mainstream Hollywood movie contains a sex scene, the actors are not actually having intercourse; they are simulating it. While some elements of porn films may be simulated—the ridiculous scenarios, the fake moans, and the like—when it comes down to the sexual act itself, there is no simulation. Neither is there simulation when it comes to "portrayals" of men spitting on women, urinating on them, ejaculating on them, penetrating them with baseball bats, or performing oral sex on them so roughly that they gag or vomit. To call this "acting" is something of a misnomer.

Really? So movies from directors like Stanly Kubrick which have rather "different" ideas than the mainstream Hollywood, and yet receive the full backing of it, don't seek to portray an certain element of realism?

You seem to hold the mainstream movies as something higher.. however Hollywood has its own share of sexual movies which aren't classified "porn" but "art". They seek to get as close to realism as possible, and lets face it, in many cases they do. There are many such movies from many different directors hosting many different levels of sexual themes. Kubrick is probably the best known of the lot, but they're there nonetheless.

And the influence is there nonetheless. Despite your stance that none of it is real in a mainstream movie, versus a porn, the impression is there. If someone is likely to believe that an act in a porn should be repeated, then its just as likely that they'll believe some act in a mainstream production house should be repeated also.

nozzferrahhtoo

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Is this what they signed up for though? Some people are willing you know. Some people even enjoy pain, though I am as far from understanding that as it is possible to get while recognizing it exists.

If they are in actual distress then this can only be because they are performing their job under duress, in conditions that they did not sign up for, or are being forced to perform the acts against their will. These are not problems of porn. These are problems of legality.

There are many industries where people are cajoled or even forced into performing actions that they simply did not sign up for. This is not a problem of those industries, but a problem of the employer in question breaking the law.

What you say here can just as easily be said of some people working in McDonalds, as secretaries, in politics, or just about any industry you can name. Women, for example, who have signed up to be secretaries answering phones and doing data entry can suddenly find their boss telling them that they will lose their job if they do not now proceed to make everyone a coffee and then go clean the company toilets.

If you take a job and you are cajoled, forced, or pressured into performing tasks or actions that are NOT in the job description you signed up for then this is a work place legality issue.

Alas when it comes to pornography, our attitudes to it socially and in some countries legally have pushed it underground to the point that when such work place ethics are broken the sex workers in question do not have the same legal workplace recourses that you and I likely take for granted. The secretary who loses her job for not cleaning the toilets has grounds to take a case of “unfair dismissal”. Have you heard of a girl in porn having this option because when she got on the set she was told she had to engage in a form of penetration she did not sign up for?
However the problem here having said all that is that „porn“ is a catch all term for anything sexual that is in some way recorded fort he viewing of others. Clearly however the entire industry is a very wide spectrum of actual products.

This is a fact that pushes discussions such as this around in a never ending circle. Usually when a product category has so many sub products and product types… and some of those sub products are problematic or unethical…. We focus our discussion on THOSE sub-products and not the category as a whole. When, for example, alcopops we getting people too drunk, too fast, too young, people rose up against alcopops. Very few rose up against alcohol as a whole.

Alas that does not happen with porn and when people find some extreme porn of one type or another, this is held up as a banner against porn itself, and the resulting impression people have of porn causes us to push it further underground, make it more taboo, and hence create the working environment for the sex workers that actually fosters and perpetuates the type of events that we are using to indict the industry in the first place.

Zombrex

Deleted User wrote: »

You're all assuming he learned this from porn... he could just have easily picked this up from a previous lover, and assumed it was the norm for most relationships...

True. As TC points out acts in porn simply reflect what people do during sex anyway. Porn didn't invent a whole lot of new stuff that no one had ever done before.

Bella_purple

I tried to look at why a woman would choose such a career. If coming from a poor environment and in this way making the money, I understand, has limited possibilities.
Then, the correlation between sex and sex industry (be it pornography or prostitution) is not any correlation. Otherwise, I agree with the example of athletes who run and the criminal who flees the scene.
I do not think I want to make connections where they don't exist. Rather try to find out what would be in the minds of ordinary women who would choose such a career. I can understand everyone's fantasies that can carry out and fulfill by opting for this career.
But from a psychological perspective (not that I would be in the right position, for I'm not a psychologist), especially for a normal woman, sex is not random. We are genetically programmed to seek stability. In our brain, sex is linked with love. That's why I said that I find it hard to believe that a woman would get into such a career without some hidden psychological motivations.

On the other hand, is a pretty good book that explains the mechanism of a woman raped. The result is that it will be more active sexually slipping towards promiscuity.

Understand that I am not against pornography. Not even close. I was trying to figure out what made those women enter the industry. Of course some come because they want more sex (biological, that translates into more testosterone they have).

AngryBadger

Bella_purple wrote: »

But from a psychological perspective (not that I would be in the right position, for I'm not a psychologist), especially for a normal woman, sex is not random. We are genetically programmed to seek stability. In our brain, sex is linked with love. That's why I said that I find it hard to believe that a woman would get into such a career without some hidden psychological motivations.

What you say about sex/love/stability is valid, however you're forgetting that humans (stupidly) throw "culture" into the mix. A huge part of culture in general is the power associated with creation, and by extension women, (since they are the bearers of children). Now that's all fine and dandy, but unfortunately for many women nowadays they confuse this idea with the notion of using sex as a means of control. i.e. Men want to have sex with me, and I can use that desire to get what I want.

I'm not saying this explains why women get into pornography, but there are examples where this is exactly what happens, sadly this approach does not involve any real understanding of being a part of the porn industry can entail.

Similarly there are instances of women who get into prostitution because using the same reasoning, "Men want to have sex with me, and I can charge them for that privilege/service", again on paper this seems fine, but does not reflect any real understanding of the industry they're getting involved in.

For the record I'm not comparing prostitution and pornography directly, I'm simply offering a possible explanation of the logic driving at least some women to get involved in either since these are both part of the "sex industry" share many criticisms.

Bella_purple wrote: »

On the other hand, is a pretty good book that explains the mechanism of a woman raped. The result is that it will be more active sexually slipping towards promiscuity.

See this logic would only apply if it was shown that every woman who got involved in porn had been raped at some point in their lives, (maybe they have I don't know but I'm opposed to this being presented as an "accepted fact").

strobe

Bella_purple wrote: »

But from a psychological perspective (not that I would be in the right position, for I'm not a psychologist), especially for a normal woman, sex is not random. We are genetically programmed to seek stability. In our brain, sex is linked with love. That's why I said that I find it hard to believe that a woman would get into such a career without some hidden psychological motivations.

In general...........

I know a couple of girls that believe in the "free love" concept of the hippy era. They enjoy sex and sleep with many different people, most have no interest whatsoever in being in a stable relationship unless it is a open relationship sexually. Are they outside the norm for females? Yes certainly. But so are a lot of people for a lot of different reasons outside the norm.

From a psychological (if that is the right word) persepective, for a normal man, sex is "random" in that they want to sleep with as many women as possible. But I know men that outside of a relationship have absolutely no interest in sex. They wouldn't consider having a one night stand for a second. If it isn't with a girlfriend they love they have no real interest as far as I can tell.

Not all women have the same view of sex anymore than all men have the same view of sex. Some women want nothing more than to have sex with no strings attached and some men only ever want to have sex if it is in a loving relationship. This is outside of what you would expect in general but it is pretty common all the same.

nozzferrahhtoo

Bella_purple wrote: »

I tried to look at why a woman would choose such a career.

In this you failed, no matter that you tried. You openly said that you chose one particular explanation, out of the infinite number available, and then sought out anecdotes to confirm that assumption. This is not trying to "look at why a woman would choose such a career"... this is trying to "confirm the reason I think a woman would choose such a career".

As I said in post #127 this is not a good way to do research at all. In fact it is a mockery of research and your methodology needs a massive overhaul. As I said in that post "Essentially what you have done here is come up with a hypothesis which, you admit yourself, was based on NO data at all, and then you engaged in “confirmation bias” by searching for anecdotes which confirmed your idea."

There is even a flaw in your basic research topic. It seems to suggest you may be of a mind to think that there is one reason why a woman would choose such a career. I challenge you to show me many careers that have ONE reason for choosing them. Every career has people in it that had a diversity of motivations for joining it. Some love the work, some hate the work but find it noble, some just are in it for the money... whatever career you find you will find near infinite motivations behind the workers being there. Some even have no motivations, life just egged them in that direction.

That is "in the minds of ordinary women who would choose such a career" as you put it is likely to be different for each and every woman that is in it.

Bella_purple wrote: »

But from a psychological perspective (not that I would be in the right position, for I'm not a psychologist), especially for a normal woman, sex is not random. We are genetically programmed to seek stability. In our brain, sex is linked with love.

Alas it would seem you are not only not a psychologist but not a neuroscientist or evolutionary biologist either. These are very sweeping statements you just made and I struggle to find more than a mere modicum of accuracy in them.

nozzferrahhtoo

AngryBadger wrote: »

See this logic would only apply if it was shown that every woman who got involved in porn had been raped at some point in their lives

Or, it could be added, that every woman raped showed some tendencies towards porn, but this is far from the truth. There are strong tendencies in rape victims AWAY from sex too in many cases.

strobe

strobe wrote: »

In general...........

I know a couple of girls that believe in the "free love" concept of the hippy era. They enjoy sex and sleep with many different people, most have no interest whatsoever in being in a stable relationship unless it is a open relationship sexually. Are they outside the norm for females? Yes certainly. But so are a lot of people for a lot of different reasons outside the norm.

And what is the norm for females? Are we talking about what the norm was 10 years ago, 5 years ago, etc?

And more importantly what age are these females? From my experience younger women have less respect for sex and what it entails, than women in their late 20's, whereas women in their 30's have developed their own individual ways of dealing with it.

My point is that its rather difficult to talk about the norm, especially when we factor in Age. I can talk about my personal experiences, but thats no guarantee or respectable measurement of the whole. In fact, I doubt there is any respectable measurement possible.

There are just assumptions.

From a psychological (if that is the right word) persepective, for a normal man, sex is "random" in that they want to sleep with as many women as possible. But I know men that outside of a relationship have absolutely no interest in sex. They wouldn't consider having a one night stand for a second. If it isn't with a girlfriend they love they have no real interest as far as I can tell.

This is typical stereotyping. Most of my friends do not do one-night-stands. Tried them once or twice, and moved on. Casual sex is rubbish, and most acknowledge it.

However your statement is a reinforcement of past attitudes. The reputation that men are horny beasts and sex has little real meaning beyond the act. :rolleyes: If anything it is this attitude and the propaganda that goes with this attitude that encourages younger men to sleep around.

Not all women have the same view of sex anymore than all men have the same view of sex. Some women want nothing more than to have sex with no strings attached and some men only ever want to have sex if it is in a loving relationship. This is outside of what you would expect in general but it is pretty common all the same.

And that paragraph means what? That your previous points were meaningless? Its a justification.

strobe

Are you disagreeing with me Klaz? I think you missed my whole point. You seem to think I was agreeing with Bella? I wasn't. My post was in relation to Bella's view that in general for women sex is more tied in with emotional intimacy than it is with men. She is probably right. It's probaby true that women are preprogrammed to seek out a single partner and men are preprogrammed to spread their seed far and wide. You can disagree with that but it's pretty much the generally excepted biological viewpoint. It's just how are species reproductive system is set up. But just because that is what is common doesn't mean it is definitive. My whole point was that for some men sex is completely about intimacy and has huge emotional meaning every time, and for some women sex is just a feel good activity that doesn't have to have any particular deep emotional resonance. Then for some men it can be one thing one time and another another time. The same for women.

As for your "casual sex is rubbish" comment. Well I will have to respectfully but forcefully disagree. :cool: Maybe you're doing it wrong man?

strobe

strobe wrote: »

Are you disagreeing with me Klaz? I think you missed my whole point. You seem to think I was agreeing with Bella? I wasn't. My post was in relation to Bella's view that in general for women sex is more tied in with emotional intimacy than it is with men. She is probably right. It's probaby true that women are preprogrammed to seek out a single partner and men are preprogrammed to spread their seed far and wide. You can disagree with that but it's pretty much the generally excepted biological viewpoint.

The point being that many of the "generally" accepted beliefs about sexuality and predispositions towards sexual activity are based upon assumptions made 30 or 40 years ago. Our society, and that of societies in other countries have changed drastically over the last few decades, and the drivers that influence people have also changed.

Its a stereotype from the past that hasn't been reviewed and updated to fit changed times.

It's just how are species reproductive system is set up. But just because that is what is common doesn't mean it is definitive. My whole point was that for some men sex is completely about intimacy and has huge emotional meaning every time, and for some women sex is just a feel good activity that doesn't have to have any particular deep emotional resonance. Then for some men it can be one thing one time and another another time. The same for women.

And I can agree with that. Its about the individual.

As for your "casual sex is rubbish" comment. Well I will have to respectfully but forcefully disagree. :cool: Maybe you're doing it wrong man?

I'm 33 years old, been single most of my life, and during my 20's had plenty of casual sex in multiple countries. It can be good, but mostly its not that great. Ultimately the woman you can have repeat encounters with and form a relationship/attachment that generates the best sex.

My comment is based on my experience as a sexually active male. You have your own experience. Grand. No problems there. But the assumption that all men find casual sex to be fulfilling or enjoyable is bogus. Its similar to the assumption that all men watch porn. Or that all women watch coronation street.

strobe

Deleted User wrote: »

My comment is based on my experience as a sexually active male. You have your own experience. Grand. No problems there. But the assumption that all men find casual sex to be fulfilling or enjoyable is bogus. Its similar to the assumption that all men watch porn. Or that all women watch coronation street.

I agree....... That is not my assumption. Again I'm not really sure what you are disagreeing with that I said. Or if you are even referencing anything I said. You appear to be reading all my posts in a meaning opposite to the one I intend. I presume it's not deliberate on your part.

Okie Dokie.

Bella_purple

Interesting, AngryBadger your point of view resambles with a democratic economy: me (a female) give sex for men for my benefit (power or money) ... I guess it's a realistic approach, based on giving-receiving/ supply and demand let's call it game.

ok nozzferrahhtoo, I'm wrong (I already explined how I did my little research. I'm not a psychologist/ bilogist/ neuroscientist). Then how do you see this matter of porn/ prostitution?

nozzferrahhtoo

Bella_purple wrote: »

ok nozzferrahhtoo, I'm wrong (I already explined how I did my little research. I'm not a psychologist/ bilogist/ neuroscientist). Then how do you see this matter of porn/ prostitution?

No do not say that either!!! The issue is not with whether you are right or wrong, but with how you did your research.

You could very well be right. I can not say!!! Do not give up on this so easily.

Something you should NEVER do is think that if people say "Your reason for thinking X is a load of ****e" that they are saying "You are wrong about X".

Our history is PEPPERED with people who have been spot on the money, but people crapped on them because their arguments were useless.

How do I see the matter? I see it like I see everything else. "innocent until proven guilty".

What we have is an industry, and until that industry can be shown to be damaging in some way then I would never move to speak against it.

Not that speaking against it is EVER enough. We are inundated with research showing the damage caused by the cigarette industry. We KNOW it is damaging, we KNOW it does no good yet we allow it to continue.

So speaking against it is not the only thing you can do, but at least when you speak against ciggs, you know you are on strong ground. It is NOT an innocent industry and it HAS been proven guilty.

You have not even got that far with porn though, which is why I take issue. There are so many things to rise up against that you have good reason to rise up against....

... yet porn.... I have seen no good arguments against it.... and what arguments I have seen always seem to be ones that... if you pause to think about it... can be leveled at a hell of a lot, if not most, of our other industries....

And if there is one thing i hate... is an argument that can be taken against a lot of things, but people use against only one while ignoring the rest. Pet peev for me.

Bella_purple

See, nosferatu', I didn't try to think about porn from a ethical, moral perspective. My research, or less exigent term because it wasn't a scientific research, my analyse began with the motivations of women who chooses it. I don't have anything against porn or the ones that do porn.

Bella_purple

Bella_purple wrote: »

See, nosferatu', I didn't try to think about porn from a ethical, moral perspective. My research, or less exigent term because it wasn't a scientific research, my analyse began with the motivations of women who chooses it. I don't have anything against porn or the ones that do porn.

To be perfectly honest, this seems less about their actual possible motivations, and more about passing your own judgment. Which is fine, since this is a bulletin board. Still, don't dress it up as something else.

HavingCrack

The article the Op linked to criticised the new acts of porn but surely these acts must always have existed??. But porn isn't a new issue-have you seen some of the pictures of the walls of Pompeii brothels, dirty feckers

nozzferrahhtoo

Bella_purple wrote: »

See, nosferatu', I didn't try to think about porn from a ethical, moral perspective. My research, or less exigent term because it wasn't a scientific research, my analyse began with the motivations of women who chooses it. I don't have anything against porn or the ones that do porn.

Yet another correction (and not on the spelling of my user name which I have resisted correcting on numerous occasions now)… you did not “analyse” the “motivations of women who choose” it. You systematically attempted to confirm the presumption of ONE SINGLE possible motivation for choosing it.