Truth about Porn

Bella_purple

Yes, it is true, nozzferrahhtoo (I written your nick-name exactly the way it is pronounced). However, the fact of looking from one perspective does not invalidate the correctness of that view. It just doesn't say anything about other possible angles. Those unexplored sides can be valid. I mentioned them, you have shown them too: that they chose porn or entering in the sex industry just with a greater desire of having sex, of poverty etc.




If you look at something you don't necessarly do it with the role of issuing judgments. Analysis allows a neutral location outside the problem, klaz.

Bella_purple

Bella_purple wrote: »

If you look at something you don't necessarly do it with the role of issuing judgments. Analysis allows a neutral location outside the problem, klaz.

I know what an analysis of a situation or subject is. I'm wondering though if you do, because your usage of the word isn't applicable to what you were doing. You were offering your opinion on a subject. As I said thats fine in itself. However, you seem to want to make it sound like it was based on measurable or quantifiable material, which it wasn't.

My objection is the manner in which you're projecting your opinions. You're playing with words. And frankly, IMHO your stance is not neutral.

nozzferrahhtoo

Bella_purple wrote: »

Yes, it is true, nozzferrahhtoo (I written your nick-name exactly the way it is pronounced)

Really? I hope you do not meet a Siobhans in your life. I tend to find it more polite to spell peoples names, online and offline, correctly. Not phonetically. Mainly because… you know… one is their name and the other is not.

Bella_purple wrote: »

. However, the fact of looking from one perspective does not invalidate the correctness of that view

Never said it does. Not once. It however does invalidate your methodology and makes your view useless for presentation as a result, even if it is 100% correct.

Remember, you can be 100% right about something, but if your methodology is entirely useless (and it is) your conclusions are unpresentable. Just because your bad methodology does not "invalidate the correctness of the view" as you put it, does NOT mean your view is still not, currently, entirely devoid of credibility (and it is).

Put it another way. I could say you are green. I could then say "I know this because I looked at an apple and IT was green". Having pointed out the complete ridiculousness of my methods, would I then lend ANY CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER to my claim that you are green by saying "Ah well, but just because my methodology was bad... it does not mean you are NOT green.... It just doesn't say anything about other possible angles"

No. The problem is it does not say anything about other angles. NOR HAVE YOU.

If however you want to start, we are here for you. IF "those unexplored sides can be valid" then explore them, rather than wasting your time presenting self-confirming bias.

Until then if the only support for your position is "my bad support doesnt negate the position" you have a long... long long..... looooooong way to go yet.

Bella_purple

klaz, let's put things straight: my only problem regarding porn was if a considerable amount of the women who entered this industry were raped or something related. And if things were staying in this way, even if they were raped, if it gives any insight at all for the matter. But apart from this, apart for my interest in porn linked with the assumption of those women being raped, I didn't draw any conclusion about weather it was right or wrong if women enter in this industry. I wasn't emphasising any moral views. Not interested in that. So why do you say I judge? If I am to error, my only error can be a false hypothesis: that women who enter this industry had problemes regarding sex and that led them to practicing sex by choosing a porn career. When I think of the word "judgde" I relate it to opinions of the rightness or wrongness of the issue. Not my case.

So, back to the problem, nozzferrahhtoo I'm sorry if I wasn't polite... in my own language we write as we pronounce. That's not an excuse, I just wanted to tell you that my intention wasn't rude. The result, yes, for which I apologise. What's a "Siobhans"?
I think we are spinning around not coming up with any conclusion, just for the sake of the spinning... So for everything to be clear: I tryed to see if there is any connection with a rape, a molested child and a woman who later in her life chooses to follow a sex industry path of career. Yet, if there is a link, does it gives any insight of porn industry? Or should I take only what's seen on the surface: a bunch of people who deliberatly choose to have sex, no strings attached, no nothing. I told you: it can be that case too. You, other than criticising my bised opinion, my lack of information regarding the industry, my anecdots etc., what exactly have you really tryed to understand from this industry, nozzferrahhtoo? What is your perspective upon things? It's easy to demilosh something, I wanna see you building a hypothesis. I understand that you don't want me or another person to jump to the conclusions or assume things which don't stand at a propper observation. So I do understand that your criticism was constructive. Ok, I may be biased, but how do you see the matter?

Bella_purple

Bella_purple wrote: »

klaz, let's put things straight: my only problem regarding porn was if a considerable amount of the women who entered this industry were raped or something related.

And the point being that while some women may indeed have suffered rape in the past, there is no evidence to support the supposition that this a common occurrence. Considering the high profile that porn receives from monitoring agencies, religious groups, morality groups, etc such a trend would be promoted to the extreme and yet it doesn't. While there are cases of it happening to some individuals, its not widespread.

Secondly, there is nothing to suggest that rape victims have shown a greater desire to enter the porn industry than non-rape victims. Nowhere in this thread does it show any evidence to support such a belief. Unless you're going to provide such reputable evidence?

And if things were staying in this way, even if they were raped, if it gives any insight at all for the matter.

Your whole stance above was if the women were raped. There is nothing else. So why put in " even if they were raped "?

But apart from this, apart for my interest in porn linked with the assumption of those women being raped, I didn't draw any conclusion about weather it was right or wrong if women enter in this industry.

Your assumption, first off. Secondly, both the tone you write in, and the area(s) you have focused on, show a definite bias on the subject.

I wasn't emphasising any moral views. Not interested in that. So why do you say I judge? If I am to error, my only error can be a false hypothesis: that women who enter this industry had problemes regarding sex and that led them to practicing sex by choosing a porn career. When I think of the word "judgde" I relate it to opinions of the rightness or wrongness of the issue. Not my case.

Think back. I objected to your Analysis... not your hypothesis. An analysis tends to rely on facts, statistics, and measurable references to function. A hypothesis can be based entirely on whats going on in your head.

When i think of the word Judge (not "judgde") I think of passing judgment on a subject. Generally people posting or arguing will create a pyramid or a stack of "evidence" (i.e. posts with opinions, links, research, etc) under them to support their belief. That is what you attempted to do, and yet.... remain "neutral".

How can you remain neutral on the subject when you only talk about rape, sex abuse or other such negative influences?

nozzferrahhtoo

Bella_purple wrote: »

I think we are spinning around not coming up with any conclusion

False. We came up with a conclusion. The conclusion was that you did no research, nor did you consider a multitude of possibilities. You decided on one possibility and then engaged in an attempt to support it by selective use of anecdote.

Sounds like a good conclusion to me, and it appears to be sound based on your posts so far.

Bella_purple wrote: »

what exactly have you really tryed to understand from this industry, nozzferrahhtoo? What is your perspective upon things?

Read the posts I have made on this thread, my perspective and my conclusions, and what they are based on are clear. If you want to ask me ABOUT anything I have written in this thread then go ahead. But do not ask me to repeat myself just because you are too lazy to scroll back and read it.

However a quick summary to help you find it when you do scroll back: I believe in innocent until proven guilty. And given that no guilt or harm is being established from porn in and of itself, I see no reason to indict it or speak against it.

What I find instead is that speaking against it, forcing it underground and making it taboo, is a larger cause of harm in porn than the porn itself. It pushes the sex workers beyond the benefits that everyone else has in their day job that they take for granted. Medical insurance. Work place safety laws. Contractual obligations on the part of the employer and employee.

We all spend our days taking these things for granted in our own job, and create an environment where this is absent in porn. Then when employers take advantage of the women in this industry because of this, we indict porn itself with these crimes of the employer, ignoring all the while that it is societies treatment of porn that nurtures the environment that those advantages are taken in.

Bella_purple

Deleted User wrote: »

Your whole stance above was if the women were raped. There is nothing else. So why put in " even if they were raped "?

Even if they were raped this doesn't mean it can give relevant insight on the porn industry as a whole. Here I agree with nozzferrahhtoo. I mean I'm not sure if it would...

Deleted User wrote: »

How can you remain neutral on the subject when you only talk about rape, sex abuse or other such negative influences?

Simple, I don't think if it's right nor wrong to enter in this industry. My attempt was to know more about the procentage of women who enter. And if a woman who is raped or molested as a child or has other sexual problemes is more drawn to this activity.
I think I said that several times. I don't have any scientific evidence, just some anecdotes, as you call them, nozzferrahhtoo. I openely admited myself from the very beginning how I conducted this investigation or whatever you wanna call it.




So basicly, I see women who enter in this industry divided in 3 categories:
1. the ones that have been raped
2. the ones with more testosterone -this hormone is responsable for a greater desire to have sex
3. they come for poor enviornments.

I was interested in point 1. The problem is that in other industries are also women who were raped. So the question is: does this rape-elemnt is concludent for the porn industry? This is what I'd like to find out.

Bella_purple

Bella_purple wrote: »

Even if they were raped this doesn't mean it can give relevant insight on the porn industry as a whole. Here I agree with nozzferrahhtoo. I mean I'm not sure if it would...

Never mind. You're missing the point completely.

Simple, I don't think if it's right nor wrong to enter in this industry. My attempt was to know more about the procentage of women who enter. And if a woman who is raped or molested as a child or has other sexual problemes is more drawn to this activity.

Then perhaps frame these as questions rather than suggesting that they're the norm?

I think I said that several times. I don't have any scientific evidence, just some anecdotes, as you call them, nozzferrahhtoo. I openely admited myself from the very beginning how I conducted this investigation or whatever you wanna call it.

Then why use words like investigation or analysis? You didn't investigate anything. You didn't gather data on the subject. You made an assumption and went with it. You make it sound as if your pretext comment allows you free reign in your comments...

Like. God is wonderful, and I haven't done any research on the subject, but my analysis suggests that God is really a strawberry. - I suppose you could be right. God could be a strawberry based on your pretext.

So basicly, I see women who enter in this industry divided in 3 categories:
1. the ones that have been raped
2. the ones with more testosterone -this hormone is responsable for a greater desire to have sex
3. they come for poor enviornments.

So much for those that have free will... that see a solid investment for their time... those that enjoy the attention... those that see absolutely no problem with doing it... etc.

Again, the manner in which you post suggests a negative trend.

You see, I'm partially biased. My two first girlfriends were strippers in Australia. And you'd be amazed at the sort of attitude that "normal" people have towards strippers. My mother considers them not far removed from hookers. It was tense when my mother met my girlfriend at the time.

In any case, I've heard from them the manner in which their lives went. The amount of bigotry they receive off people with no clue about their lives both professionally and personally. I'm not saying its a great life, but neither of them were mistreated. Neither of them were raped. The both had university qualifications, were highly intelligent and saw immediately that they could make more money stripping and getting groped by strangers than if they did normal work. And it was true, they were.

And having had these as girlfriends, I had other friends in that industry. Who admitted to sleeping with customers for extra cash. And while I would never say they had "normal" personalities (it was rare i met a girl who could switch off the manipulation skills they developed), none of them were messed up.

So when talking about porn, I think back to my own experience with strippers.. those who did have sex with customers, and those that didn't. I think of their reasons for doing what they did, in spite of the social stigma, and I don't go searching for the worst possible reason.

I was interested in point 1. The problem is that in other industries are also women who were raped. So the question is: does this rape-elemnt is concludent for the porn industry? This is what I'd like to find out.

Well, you'd have to do some decent research and leave your own thoughts on the matter at the door until you've gained some solid results. You're not going to find that information here, since I doubt there's many porn actors/actresses here... and from what I have read on the subject, theres very little research done on what encourages people into doing porn.

But I'd suggest that the desire to be wealthy and famous is rather high.... and the end justifies the means.

nozzferrahhtoo

Bella_purple wrote: »

I think I said that several times. I don't have any scientific evidence, just some anecdotes, as you call them, nozzferrahhtoo.

So basicly, I see women who enter in this industry divided in 3 categories:
1. the ones that have been raped
2. the ones with more testosterone -this hormone is responsable for a greater desire to have sex
3. they come for poor enviornments.

Again just because you think you see it that way, does not mean it IS that way. The only difference between the above and your attempt to confirum your own biases from before… is that this time you have three things and not one that you are declaring to be so and providing no evidence or causal arguments for.

Put another way: We are not interested in HOW you see it or WHAT you think. We are interested in WHY you think it… what it is based on.

And thus far nothing you have said appears to be based on anything except you think it… because you think it. There is nothing for us to work with here.

You seem to want to declare that if a woman wants to enter into this industry she either has emotional, economic or hormonal issues which drive her to it.

a) This is based on nothing that I know of and appears not to be correct.
b) This is highly insulting to these women as it pre-judges them based on their career choice as being somehow deficient or defective and
c) so what? Even if you were 100% right, which it appears you are not... so what? Your premise appears therefore not to be only baseless and likely false... but entirely irrelevant too.

Dr. Zeus

I actually heard that lady speaking on Newstalk and I thought she made some valid points. I didn't get to read through all of the posts but what I did notice was that some men get very defensive when any negatives towards porn are expressed. That is a worrying trend IMO. Of course porn comes with side effects. This is like saying been exposed to advertisements does not impact people.

There is no denying that porn culture has seeped into the mainstream. The majority of the internet is taken up with porn so we cannot say that this does not impact users in some way.

If children as young as 11 are viewing porn that we should be talking about this. Of course this is impacting their view of sexuality. Nobody in society is talking about this. it is the massive elephant in the room.

I have started to think more about what use of porn means for me and have started to see it in a more negative light.

For a lot of people it is very addictive and I myself noticed in the past that previous stuff I would have found distasteful becomes more acceptable after a while! You become desensitized to what you are seeing.

There is no doubt that there is an increase of hardcore stuff even on more vanilla sites. The author of the book interviewed porn makers in the States and they admitted that they were surprised by how hardcore/violent/degrading/abuse porn had become so mainstrean and they had a tough time keeping up with demand Why is there such a demand for violent and degrading porn? Is it a reflection of society? Why do some men need to see women being abused to get off?

There is no doubt that a lot of porn objectifies women as mere sex objects to be used for male pleasure. I have a huge issue with the language used "whore/bitch/slut. Why is this neccessary. No-one can argue that does not degrade females. They aren't even given a first name. This is language I hear a lot of my friends using and I find it disturbing. it''s also very prevelant on another forum here. Also, some of the comments that users post on videos is disturbing and severly misognistic.

I have also spoken to many female friends about guys coming on their faces and demanding anal and this IMO is definetely due to the porn culture making this seem like the norm.

I know if I have watched porn during the day I find myself thinking about sex a lot more and looking at women more objectively and imaginging scenarios in my head. This has made me think about porn differently.

I am not saying all porn is bad -it's not. I am just expressing my views as a porn viewer. While some men can separate the reality from the fantasy not all men can unfortunately and porn does blur the lines! Subconsciously even you have to be picking up some messages from porn -impossible not to. What are those messages?

On the women being paid more than men - it's one of the few industries where they are. Why is that? Maybe to attract women into the industry and keep them there. Maybe to "compensate" for the humilitation and degradation they often suffer. I don't know.

It's great to talk about this and I was happy to see this thread. To challenge anything to do with porn is often reduced to you're a prude and that's just bogus. Porn does have side-effects for both men and women and we need to discuss this. We need to remember that porn is a business first and foremost a very rich one and it's going to do everything it can to hook you in and keep you coming back for more.

Let's hope this doesn't turn into a for/against debate where there is no meaningful debate. I look forward to reading the other posts in more detail.

Dr. Zeus

Article from the Guardian about the impact of porn on men, written by a male jounrnalist. It's long but worth a read!

There's an episode of Friends - The One With The Free Porn - in which Chandler and Joey discover they have tuned into a porn channel. And it's free. They leave the TV on, afraid switching off will mean no more pornography. By the end of the episode, Chandler is seeing the world through porn-tinted spectacles. "I was just at the bank," he complains, "and the teller didn't ask me to go do it with her in the vault." Joey, bewildered, reports a similar reaction from the pizza-delivery girl. "You know what," decides Chandler, "we have to turn off the porn."


As a society, however, we are further from turning off the porn than we have ever been. Pornography is everywhere - it masquerades as "gentlemen's entertainment" in the form of clubs such as Spearmint Rhino, it infiltrates advertising and it will soon be available in our back pockets, thanks to a deal by adult entertainment giant Private Media Group to beam porn to UK mobile phones.

In its hardcore form, pornography is now accessed in the UK by an estimated 33% of all internet users. Since the British Board of Film Classification relaxed its guidelines in 2000, hardcore video pornography now makes up between 13% and 17% of censors' viewing, compared with just 1% three years ago, a rate of growth that is being cited as a causal factor in the recent bankruptcy of Penthouse, at one time the very apotheosis of porno chic but in recent years little more risqué than Loaded. In the US, with the pornography industry bringing in up to $15bn (£8.9bn) annually, people spend more on porn every year than they do on movie tickets and all the performing arts combined. Each year, in Los Angeles alone, more than 10,000 hardcore pornographic films are made, against an annual Hollywood average of just 400 movies.
Pornography is not only bigger business than ever before, it is also more acceptable, more fashionable, more of a statement of cool. From pieces "in praise of porn" in the normally sober Prospect magazine, to such programmes as Pornography: The Musical on Channel 4 last month, to Victoria Coren and Charlie Skelton's book, published last year, about making a porn film, to the news that Val Kilmer is to play the part of pornography actor John Holmes in a new mainstream movie, there is a widespread sense that anyone who suggests pornography might have any kind of adverse effect is laughably out of touch.

Coren and Skelton, former Erotic Review film critics, focus on their flip comic narrative, scarcely troubling themselves with any deeper issues. "In all our years of watching porn," they write, in a rare moment of analysis that doesn't get developed any further, "we have never properly resolved what we think about how, why and whether it is degrading to women. We suspect that it might be. We suspect that pornography might be degrading to everybody."

With pornography, it seems as if the sheer scale of the phenomenon has, in time-honoured capitalist fashion, conferred its own respectability; as a result, serious analysis is hard to come by. Only occasionally, amid porn-disguised-as-documentary that distinguishes much of Channel 5's late-night output, is there broadcasting that gives any kind of insight. Channel 4's documentary Hardcore, shown two years ago, told the story of Felicity, a single mother from Essex who travelled to Los Angeles hoping to make a career in pornography. Arriving excited, and clear about what she would not do - anal sex, double-vaginal penetration - she ended up being coerced into playing a submissive role and agreeing to anal sex. Felicity - the vicissitudes of whose own troubled relationship with her father were mirrored by the cruelty of the men with whom she ended up working - eventually escaped back to the UK.

Hardcore offered a rare, unadorned look at the inside of the industry, as did Pornography: The Musical, albeit in a more surreal form, with actors interrupting sex to break into song. Yet what about the millions who consume pornography, the men - for they are, despite pornographers' claims about growing numbers of female fans, mostly men - who habitually use it? How are they affected? Is pornography, as most these days claim, a harmless masturbatory diversion? That episode of Friends, albeit with tongue in cheek, suggested a heavy diet of porn might encourage men inappropriately to expect sex. Is that true? And what about more profound effects?

How does it affect relationships? Is it addictive? Does it encourage rape, paedophilia, sexual murder? Surely tough questions need to be asked.

First, though, some definitions. According to the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, the word "pornography" dates to 1864, when it described "the life, manners, etc of prostitutes or their patrons". More recently, it has come to signify material, in the words of Chambers, "intended to arouse sexual excitement". Its most common themes, however, are power and submission. By contrast, "erotica", which is pretty hard to find now, carries additional connotations of "amorousness" and is far less concerned with control and domination. No, it is pornography plain and simple, from teen magazines such as Front to venerable "wrist mags" such as Playboy, to the almost daily bombardment of teaser pornographic emails, that confronts all of us on a ceaseless basis.

The received wisdom, pushed hard by such mass-market magazines as Loaded and FHM, is that men derive a pretty uncomplicated enjoyment from pornography. That, certainly, is the argument put forward by such proponents as David Baddiel, AA Gill, who has directed his own pornographic film, and the musician Moby, who once said in an interview, "I like pornography - who doesn't? I don't really trust men who claim to not be interested in porn. We're biologically programmed to respond to the sight of people having sex." Danny Plunkett, then features editor of Loaded, takes an equally relaxed view: "We know that a lot of people enjoy it and take it with a pinch of salt. We certainly don't view it as dangerous."

But is it as simple as this? One of my best friends is a man for whom pornography has apparently never held even the slimmest interest. Moby may choose to distrust him, but his sex life otherwise has always seemed to me perfectly robust. He is, however, so much in the minority as to seem almost an oddity.

For most men, at some point in their lives, pornography has held a strong appeal and, before any examination of its effects, this fact has to be addressed. Like many men, I first saw pornography during puberty. At boarding school, dog-eared copies of Mayfair and Knave were stowed behind toilet cisterns; this borrow-and-return library system was considered absolutely normal, seldom commented upon and either never discovered by the masters or tacitly permitted. Long before my first sexual relationship, porn was my sex education.

No doubt (though we'd never have admitted it then) my friends and I were driven to use porn through loneliness: being away from home, we longed for love, closeness, unquestioning acceptance. The women over whom we masturbated - the surrogate mothers, if you like - seemed to be offering this but, of course, they were never going to provide it. The untruths it taught me on top of this disappointment - that women are always available, that sex is about what a man can do to a woman - I am only now, more than two decades on, finally succeeding in unlearning.

From men everywhere come similar stories. Nick Samuels, 46, an electrical contractor from Epping - now, with a wife and four children, the very image of respectable fatherhood - says he first discovered the power of pornographic images at the age of 16, when he found a copy of Mayfair in his father's garage. "I can even remember the picture. There was a woman walking topless past a building site and the builders were ogling her from the scaffolding. It was pretty soft stuff, but it heightened my senses and kicked off my interest in pornography. Before long, I was reading Whitehouse and then, through a friend at my squash club, I was introduced to hardcore videos."

Si Jones, a 39-year-old north London vicar who regularly counsels men trying to "come off" pornography, admits that, for him, too, it was his introduction to sex. "As a teenager, I watched porn films with my friends at the weekend. It was just what you did. It was cool, naughty and everyone was doing it." Set against today's habit of solitary internet masturbation, Jones's collegiate introduction to porn seems peculiarly sociable. Today, boys no longer clandestinely circulate magazines after school; nor do they need to rummage through their fathers' cupboards in search of titillating material. Access to internet pornography has never been easier, its users never younger, and the heaviest demand, according to research published in the New York Times, is for " 'deviant' material including paedophilia, bondage, sadomasochism and sex acts with various animals".

At its most basic level, pornography answers natural human curiosity. Adolescent boys want to know what sex is about, and porn certainly demonstrates the mechanics. David Morgan, consultant clinical psychologist and psychoanalyst at the Portman Clinic in London, which specialises in problems relating to sexuality and violence, describes this phase as "transitional, like a rehearsal for the real thing. The problem with pornography begins when, instead of being a temporary stop on the way to full sexual relations, it becomes a full-time place of residence." Morgan's experience of counselling men addicted to porn has convinced him that "the more time you spend in this fantasy world, the more difficult it becomes to make the transition to reality. Just like drugs, pornography provides a quick fix, a masturbatory universe people can get stuck in. This can result in their not being able to involve anyone else."

For most men, the way pornography objectifies sex strikes a visceral emotional chord. Psychotherapists Michael Thompson and Dan Kindlon, in their book Raising Cain: Protecting The Emotional Life Of Boys, suggest that objectification, for boys, starts early. "By adolescence, a boy wakes up most mornings with an erection. This can happen whether he is in a good or bad mood, whether it is a school day or a weekend ... Boys enjoy their own physical gadgetry. But the feeling isn't always, 'Look what I can do!' The feeling is often, 'Look what it can do!' - again, a reflection of the way a boy views his instrument of sexuality as just that: an object. What people might not realise when they justly criticise men for objectifying sex - viewing sex as something you do, rather than part of a relationship - is that the first experience of objectification of sexuality in a boy's life comes from his experience of his own body, having this penis that makes its own demands."

But the roots go back further still. Research has shown that boy babies
are treated more harshly than their female counterparts and, as they grow up, boys are taught that success is achieved through competition. In order to deal with this harsh masculine world, boys can learn not to trust their own feelings and not to express their emotions. They become suspicious of other men, with whom they're in competition, after all, and as a result they often feel lonely and isolated.

Yet men, as much as women, hunger for intimacy. For many males, locked into a life in which self-esteem has grown intrinsically entwined with performance, sex assumes an almost unsustainable freight of demands and needs. Not only does the act itself become almost the only means through which many men can feel intimate and close, but it is also the way in which they find validation. And sex itself, of course, cannot possibly satisfy such demands.

It is into this troubled scenario that porn finds such easy access. For in pornography, unlike in real life, there is no criticism, real or imagined, of male performance. Women are always, in the words of the average internet site, "hot and ready", eager to please. In real life, by contrast, men find women are anything but: they have higher job status, they demand that they be sexually satisfied, and they are increasingly opting to combine career and motherhood.

Men, say psychologists, also feel threatened by the "emotional power" they perceive women wielding over them. Unable to feel alive except when in relationships with women, they are at the same time painfully aware that their only salvation from isolation comes in being sexually acceptable to women. This sense of neediness can provoke intense anger that, all too often, finds expression in porn. Unlike real life, the pornographic world is a place in which men find their authority unchallenged and in which women are their willing, even grateful servants. "The illusion is created," as one male writer on pornography puts it, "that women are really in their rightful place and that there is, after all, no real and serious challenge to male authority."

Seen in this light, the patently ridiculous pornography scenario of the pretty female flat-hunter (or hitch-hiker, driver with broken-down car, or any number of similar such vulnerable roles) who is happy to let herself be gang-banged by a group of overweight, hairy-shouldered couch potatoes makes perfect psychological sense.

The porn industry, of course, dismisses such talk, yet occasionally comes a glimmer of authenticity. Bill Margold, one of the industry's longest-serving film performers, was interviewed in 1991 by psychoanalyst Robert Stoller for his book Porn: Myths For The Twentieth Century. Margold made no attempt to gloss over the realities. "My whole reason for being in this industry is to satisfy the desire of the men in the world who basically don't care much for women and want to see the men in my industry getting even with the women they couldn't have when they were growing up. So we come on a woman's face or brutalise her sexually: we're getting even for lost dreams."

As well as "eroticising male supremacy", in the words of anti-porn campaigner John Stoltenberg, pornography also attempts to assuage other male fears, in particular that of erection failure. According to psychoanalytical thinking, pornography answers men's fetishistic need for visual proof of phallic potency. Lynne Segal, professor of psychology and gender studies at Birkbeck College, University of London, writes: "Men's specific fears of impotence, feeding off infantile castration anxiety, generate hostility towards women. Through pornography, real women can be avoided, male anxiety soothed and delusions of phallic prowess indulged, by intimations of the rock-hard, larger-than-life male organ."

Pornography, in other words, is a lie. It peddles falsehoods about men, women and human relationships. In the name of titillation, it seduces vulnerable, lonely men - and a small number of women - with the promise of intimacy, and delivers only a transitory masturbatory fix. Increasingly, though, men are starting to be open about the effect pornography has had upon them.

David McLeod, a marketing executive, explains the cycle: "I'm drawn to porn when I'm lonely, particularly when I'm single and sexually frustrated. But I can easily get disgusted with myself. After watching a video two or three times, I'll throw it away and vow never to watch another again. But my resolve never lasts very long." He has, he says, "seen pretty much everything. I've even seen pictures of men being buggered by a pig. But once you start going down that slope, you get very quickly jaded."

Like many men, McLeod is torn. Quick to claim that porn has "no harmful effects", he is also happy to acknowledge the contradictory fact that it is "deadening". Andy Philips, a Leeds art dealer and, at 38, a father for the first time, says there have been times when he has been "a very heavy user". His initial reaction, like that of many of the men to whom I spoke, is studiedly jokey: "I love porn." Yet, as he grows more contemplative, he admits: "I've always used it secretly, never as part of a relationship. It's always been like the other woman on the side. It's something to do with being naughty, I guess."

Again and again, despite now being married, he is drawn back. "You can easily get too much of it. It's deadening, nullifying, gratuitous, unsatisfying. At one point I was single for three years and I used a lot of porn then. After a while, it made me feel worse. I'd feel disgusted with myself and have a huge purge."

Extended exposure to pornography can have a whole raft of effects. By the time Nick Samuels had reached his mid-20s, it was altering his view of what he wanted from a sexual relationship. "I used to watch porn with one of my girlfriends, and I started to want to try things I'd seen in the films: anal sex, or threesomes." Sometimes, he says, this was OK - "She was an easy-going person." At other times, "it shocked her". Married for 15 years, he admits he has carried the same sexual expectations into the marital bedroom. "There's been real friction over this: my wife simply isn't that kind of person. And it's only now, after all these years, that I'm beginning to move on from it. Porn is like alcoholism: it clings to you like a leech."

Psychoanalyst Estela Welldon, author of the classic text Mother, Madonna, Whore, has treated couples for whom such scenarios spiralled out of control. "A lot of men involve their partners in the use of porn. Typically, they will say, 'Don't you want a better sex life?' I have seen cases in which first the woman has been subjected to porn and then they have used their own children for pornographic purposes." When couples use porn together - a growing trend, if anecdotal evidence is anything to go by - there is, says Welldon, "an illusory sense that they are getting closer together. Then they film themselves having sex and feel outside themselves. This dehumanising aspect is an important part of pornography. It dehumanises the other person, the relationship, and any intimacy."

Even when in a loving sexual relationship, men who have used porn say that, all too often, they see their partner through a kind of "pornographic filter". This effect is summed up eloquently by US sociologist Harry Brod, in Segal's essay Sweet Sorrows, Painful Pleasures: "There have been too many times when I have guiltily resorted to impersonal fantasy because the genuine love I felt for a woman wasn't enough to convert feelings into performance. And in those sorry, secret moments, I have resented deeply my lifelong indoctrination into the aesthetic of the centrefold."

Running like a watermark through all pornography use, according to Morgan at the Portman Clinic, is the desire for control. This need, he says, has its roots in early childhood. "A typical example might be a boy with fairly absent parents, either in emotional terms or in actual fact." The boy, wishing his parents were more present - more within his control, as it were - can grow up wishing "to find something over which he can have control. Pornography fills that space."

But the user of pornography is also psychologically on the run, Welldon adds. "People who use pornography feel dead inside, and they are trying to avoid being aware of that pain. There is a sense of liberation, which is temporary: that's why pornography is so repetitive - you have to go back again and again."

Lost in a world of pornographic fantasy, men can become less inclined, as well as increasingly less able, to form lasting relationships. In part, this is due to the underlying message of pornography. Ray Wyre, a specialist in sexual crime, says pornography "encourages transience, experimentation and moving between partners". Morgan goes further: "Pornography does damage," he says, "because it encourages people to make their home in shallow relationships."

Jan Woolf believes it might also prevent a relationship getting started. A former special needs teacher, she lasted only six months in the job of BBFC censor in 2001. During this time, she watched hundreds of hours of hardcore videos. At the time, she was single. "If I'd been in the early stages of a relationship, it would have been very difficult, because I'd have been watching what I might have been expected to be doing, except it would never have been like that." She left the job because the porn was starting to make her feel "depressed - I wanted my lively mind back".

The more powerful the sense of pre-existing internal distress, the more compelling becomes the pull towards pornography. For John-Paul Day, a 50-year-old Edinburgh architect in his first "non-addictive" sexual relationship, the experience of being a small boy with a dying mother drove him to seek solace in masturbation. He says he has been "addicted" to pornography his entire adult life. "The thing about it is that, unlike real life, it is incredibly safe," Day says. "I'm frightened of real sex, which is unscripted and unpredictable. And so I engage in pornography, which is totally under my control. But, of course, it also brings intense disappointment, precisely because it is not what I'm really searching for. It's rather like a hungry person standing outside the window of a restaurant, thinking that they're going to get fed."

Day, who has attended meetings of Sex Addicts Anonymous for 12 years, says, "Pornography is central to my own sex addiction in as much as sex addiction has to do with the use of fantasy as a way of escaping from reality. Even in my fantasies about 'real' people, I am really transforming them into pieces of walking pornography. It is not the reality of who they are that I focus on, but the fantasy I project on to them."

Like drugs and drink, pornography - as Day has realised - is an addictive substance. Porn actor Kelly Cooke, one of the stars of Pornography: The Musical, says this applies on either side of the camera: "It got to the point where I considered having sex the way most people consider getting a hamburger. But when you try to give it up - that's when you realise how addictive it is, both for consumers and performers. It's a class A drug, and it's hell coming off it."

The cycle of addiction leads one way: towards ever harder material. Morgan believes "all pornography ends up with S&M". The now-infamous Carnegie Mellon study of porn on the internet found that images of hardcore sex were in far less demand than more extreme material. Images of women engaging in acts of bestiality were hugely popular, the most frequently downloaded being of a brunette with - in the pornographer's trusty lexicon - "a huge horse cock in her tight pussy".

The mechanics of the pornographic search - craving, discovery of the "right" image, masturbation, relief - makes it, says Morgan, work like "a sort of drug, an antidepressant". The myth about porn, as a witness told the 1983 Minneapolis city council public hearings on it, is that "it frees the libido and gives men an outlet for sexual expression. This is truly a myth. I have found pornography not only does not liberate men, but on the contrary is a source of bondage. Men masturbate to pornography only to become addicted to the fantasy. There is no liberation for men in pornography. [It] becomes a source of addiction, much like alcohol. There is no temporary relief. It is mood-altering. And reinforcing, ie, 'you want more' because 'you got relief'. It is this reinforcing characteristic that leads men to want the experience they have in pornographic fantasy to happen in real life."

In its most severe form, this can lead to sexual crime, though the links between the two remain controversial and much argued-over. Wyre, from his work with sex offenders, says, "It is impossible not to believe pornography plays a part in sexual violence. As we constantly confront sex offenders about their behaviour, they display a wide range of distorted views that they then use to excuse their behaviour, justify their actions, blame the victim and minimise the effect of their offending. They seek to make their own behaviour seem normal, and interpret the behaviour of the victim as consent, rather than a survival strategy. Pornography legitimises these views."

One of the most extreme examples of this is Ted Bundy, the US serial sexual murderer executed for his crimes in January 1989. The night before his death, he explained his addiction to pornography in a radio interview: "It happened in stages, gradually ... My experience with ... pornography that deals on a violent level with sexuality is that, once you become addicted to it, and I look at this as a kind of addiction like other kinds of addiction, I would keep looking for more potent, more explicit, more graphic kinds of material. Like an addiction, you keep craving something which is harder, harder, something which gives you a greater sense of excitement, until you reach the point where the pornography only goes so far ... It reaches that jumping-off point where you begin to wonder if, maybe, actually doing it will give you that which is beyond just reading about it or looking at it."

Bundy, as damaged as he was, stopped short of blaming pornography for his actions, though it was, he believed, an intrinsic part of the picture. "I tell you that I am not blaming pornography ... I take full responsibility for whatever I've done and all the things I've done ... I don't want to infer that I was some helpless kind of victim. And yet we're talking about an influence that is the influence of violent types of media and violent pornography, which was an indispensable link in the chain ... of events that led to behaviours, to the assaults, to the murders." In the understated words of Wyre, "The very least pornography does is make sexism sexy."

The average man, of course, whatever his consumption of pornography, is no Bundy. Yet for those who have become addicted, the road to a pornography-free life can be long and arduous. Si Jones advises accountability: "Make your computer accountable, let other people check what you've been looking at."

And the alternative to pornography, says Morgan, is not always easy. "Relationships are difficult. Intimacy, having a good relationship, loving your children, involves work. Pornography is fantasy in the place of reality. But it is just that: fantasy. Pornography is not real, and the only thing human beings get nourishment from is reality: real relationships. And, anyway, what do you want to say when you get to the end of your life? That you wish you'd spent more time **** on the internet? I hardly think so."

The Corinthian

Dr. Zeus wrote: »

I actually heard that lady speaking on Newstalk and I thought she made some valid points.

Pornography aside, my main issue with "that lady", aka Gail Dines, is that she is a pretty blatant misandrist. It's pretty difficult to respect someone like her when while arguing against misogyny she ironically drips with hatred towards men - something that has been raised, with evidence, earlier in this discussion if you care to look back.

I didn't get to read through all of the posts but what I did notice was that some men get very defensive when any negatives towards porn are expressed.

I think both sides of this debate have a tendency towards the soap box.

If children as young as 11 are viewing porn that we should be talking about this. Of course this is impacting their view of sexuality. Nobody in society is talking about this. it is the massive elephant in the room.

That is utterly ridiculous. Pornography and it's effects of children and society in general has been discussed for a very long time - all that is new is the Internet.

In the past, such anti-pornography campaigners such as Mary Whitehouse made similar arguments against pornographic magazines and explicit sex on TV (anyone remember her crusade against Channel 4's 'Red Triangle' movies?) on the basis that it could fall into the hands of children. So regardless of the good or ill of pornography, it's ridiculous to suggest that this is something undiscussed.

Is it a reflection of society? Why do some men need to see women being abused to get off?

Why do some women (and men) get off on being abused? Why are movies such as Secretary so popular with women, rather than men?

In reality human sexuality is, for lack of a better word, weird, and there is an entire BDSM subculture of people who are into this kind of weirdness out there. You'll even find pornography catering towards men being abused by women. Go figure.

I have also spoken to many female friends about guys coming on their faces and demanding anal and this IMO is definetely due to the porn culture making this seem like the norm.

Why is it definitely due to the porn culture? Unless you are at least in your late thirties, if not older, your anecdotal evidence assumes that such things did not occur prior to the Internet.

This is not to say that facials and anal sex has not become more popular in the last ten or twenty years as a result of the Internet - this is quite possible - only that you're jumping to conclusions and ignoring the simple fact that sexual practices are changing constantly, with or without the Internet.

Dr. Zeus

Damn this is what I hate about boards. The Pedantic Police come out in force and start nit picking.

In response to Corinthian, first of all I apolgise I didn't remember the author's name while I was replying so I referred to her as "that lady". Forgive me. Also, I did state that I had not got time to read all the posts in advance. I did not say that Gail Dines was the gospel but I did say she made some valid points IMO. It doesn't matter if she is an alien from outer space, she still made some good points.

You reference to the secretary made me roll around the floor. It's not exactly what I was referrring to when I was referencing abuse porn. I think that movie is mild in comparison to what is out there and maybe that's why women like it.

With respect to the 11 year olds what I meant was that teachers/parents are not sitting down with kids and discussing what they are viewing. You barely get sex-education in this country let alone info on how viewing porn might impact you.

If you want to think that porn is a harmless pastime with no side effects that's up to you. I think it would be helpful to think a little bit deeper about the issue and think what messages sub consciously am I picking up here- that's all.

Dr. Zeus

QUOTEThis is not to say that facials and anal sex has not become more popular in the last ten or twenty years as a result of the Internet - this is quite possible - only that you're jumping to conclusions and ignoring the simple fact that sexual practices are changing constantly, with or without the Internet.[/QUOTE]

I think it is very possible. Based on what female friends told me about their experiences and the guys response was "what's the big deal everyone in porn does it and I thought you would like it"

Of course sexual practice are changing but the internet speeds things up for sure. That is undeniable

gbee

Just more feminist claptrap.

"To think that so many men hate women to the degree that they can get aroused by such vile images is quite profound," says Dines.

If she had not come to this conclusion, then I think much of what she says can have merit.

however, she OBVIOUSLY does NOT understand when she uses the words "men hate women" ~ she is putting HER interpretation and slant on what should be 'independent' observations.

There is MORE wrong with the loose morals of women today who allow men to practice porn on them. Men will do only what they can get away with ~ outside of criminal activity and rape ~ I'm not referring to this element.

PeakOutput

Dolorous wrote: »

What disturbed me most was the undertone of violence and humiliation, that this 'wh*re' being f*cked as hard as possible and reduced to a collection of orifices was apparently what men were supposed to get off on.

i have met more women then men in my life who are into that sort of fantasy / that sort of sex so you really have no idea what your talking about. there are in fact books written on the fact that womens fantasies are usually far more extreme then mens(im trying to findthe link to it now)

yes porn desnsitizes people to certain acts

no it wont turn anyone into anything like arapist or an abuser

no kids should not be able to access porn

no porn should not be banned or controlled any more then is necessary to stop kids getting it

PeakOutput

gbee wrote: »

There is MORE wrong with the loose morals of women today who allow men to practice porn on them

thats complete bollix too, there is nothing wrong with sex at all ever as long as its consensual and between people of age

Dr. Zeus

gbee wrote: »

There is MORE wrong with the loose morals of women today who allow men to practice porn on them. Men will do only what they can get away with ~ outside of criminal activity and rape ~ I'm not referring to this element.

Jesus H! Are you for real? So men take no responsibilty for their actions and it is up to women to police them sexually.That is what strict Islamic regimes teach i.e uncovered women lead men into lust and therefore cannot be responsible for their actions if they rape a woman.

BS and insulting to both men and women!

The Corinthian

Dr. Zeus wrote: »

Damn this is what I hate about boards. The Pedantic Police come out in force and start nit picking.

I wasn't 'nit picking' - I wasn't even correcting you. Citing Ms Dines by name was relevant for me only in that we are not quoting some nameless, all knowing source, but a very questionable one with an agenda that is well documented on the Internet.

Also, I did state that I had not got time to read all the posts in advance. I did not say that Gail Dines was the gospel but I did say she made some valid points IMO. It doesn't matter if she is an alien from outer space, she still made some good points.

I never disputed that she may. However, I did point out that it is difficult to respect, or even trust, an argument presented by someone with what amounts to a 'hate agenda' - it would be akin to saying that the National Front make some valid points about immigration or race (which may be the case, but I would be very suspicious about such a source).

You reference to the secretary made me roll around the floor. It's not exactly what I was referrring to when I was referencing abuse porn. I think that movie is mild in comparison to what is out there and maybe that's why women like it.

It was anything but mild in that it explored a consensual sexual relationship that included physical abuse and degradation. What the movie was not was explicit; just as you won't see a couple in a Hollywood movie actually having sexual intercourse, in this you won't see the type of abuse and degradation that was implied and touched on.

People are into that kind of abuse and degradation - both giving and receiving. It's never been for me, but I've come across it myself upon occasion over the years and it is not always the man that requests certain acts.

I suppose they're all victims of Internet porn - even the ones who were like that before the Internet.

With respect to the 11 year olds what I meant was that teachers/parents are not sitting down with kids and discussing what they are viewing. You barely get sex-education in this country let alone info on how viewing porn might impact you.

Lack of sex education though is historically tied into societal attitudes with sex in general though, not pornography. If it was not discussed in the past, then this is a fault in society, not the pornography that forced the discussion - assuming that it was pornography that forced said discussion.

As such I still would question relevancy of raising the issue.

If you want to think that porn is a harmless pastime with no side effects that's up to you. I think it would be helpful to think a little bit deeper about the issue and think what messages sub consciously am I picking up here- that's all.

You'll note that I never suggested that it is a harmless pastime with no side effects. If you read back you'll also find that I even mused that it almost certainly has side effects, although to what degree and whether they are harmful is a matter for debate.

Ironically, along with your accusation of somehow taking you up on a point of pedantry, you appear to be as defensive in your response as those defending pornography.

Dr. Zeus wrote: »

I think it is very possible. Based on what female friends told me about their experiences and the guys response was "what's the big deal everyone in porn does it and I thought you would like it"

Oh, it's possible, but you are looking at a few anecdotal examples and concluding with absolute certainty that it is. Not only that, but you are ignoring other changes in Irish society during the same period - the increased availability of contraception leading in increased sexual activity, for one.

Of course sexual practice are changing but the internet speeds things up for sure. That is undeniable

If you look at what you've said, it's meaningless. You accept that sexual practices are changing. You don't know how quickly they previously changed, to begin with. Then you make a simplistic assumption that because the Internet is fast, ergo this change (that must be as a result of the Internet) has also accelerated.

It sounds more like a snappy soundbite than an argument, TBH.

Dr. Zeus

The Corinthian wrote: »

IIf you look at what you've said, it's meaningless. You accept that sexual practices are changing. You don't know how quickly they previously changed, to begin with. Then you make a simplistic assumption that because the Internet is fast, ergo this change (that must be as a result of the Internet) has also accelerated.

It sounds more like a snappy soundbite than an argument, TBH.

The internet had made porn widely accesible that is undeniable. Of course this is going to have an impact. Has the availabilty of music on the internet changed the way we consume music - yes it has. Somebody posting themselves on youtube can become an overnight sensation.

The internet has faciliated wide access to child abuse imagery and connected tonnes of child abusers who file share etc.This would not be possible without the internet as these abuser would not necessarily have made contact with each other in the real world.

You can access porn at the touch of a button, on a mobile phone etc. OF course this has impacts

The Corinthian

Dr. Zeus wrote: »

The internet had made porn widely accesible that is undeniable. Of course this is going to have an impact. Has the availabilty of music on the internet changed the way we consume music - yes it has. Somebody posting themselves on youtube can become an overnight sensation.

All of that I would agree with, including that it is likely to have had an impact.

The internet has faciliated wide access to child abuse imagery and connected tonnes of child abusers who file share etc.This would not be possible without the internet as these abuser would not necessarily have made contact with each other in the real world.

Hold on, now you jump to Child abuse imagery. Are you linking legal pornography with child porn now or simply citing an area where the Internet has had an impact?

You can access porn at the touch of a button, on a mobile phone etc. OF course this has impacts

And again, I've repeatedly said that it more than likely has had an impact. Just as the publication of Lady Chatterley's Lover did. Or the introduction of the contraceptive pill. Or (in Ireland) late opening times for pubs. Or AIDS.

What I am questioning is what that impact is, and whether one can really point the finger at pornography (on or off-line) for any perceived negative impact.

That is why your statement was ultimately meaningless. It jumped to so many conclusions to the point of hubris.

Dr. Zeus

[QUOTE=Hold on, now you jump to Child abuse imagery. Are you linking legal pornography with child porn now or simply citing an area where the Internet has had an impact?

I am talking about how the internet can impact not linking to porn
And again, I've repeatedly said that it more than likely has had an impact. Just as the publication of Lady Chatterley's Lover did. Or the introduction of the contraceptive pill. Or (in Ireland) late opening times for pubs. Or AIDS.

What I am questioning is what that impact is, and whether one can really point the finger at pornography (on or off-line) for any perceived negative impact.

My point is that the wide availability of all types of porn at the click of a button has to have impact

That is why your statement was ultimately meaningless. It jumped to so many conclusions to the point of hubris.[/QUOTE]

Hubris - seriously get a grip on yourself. I think you are losing the plot an if I think if anything you argue in a patronising and narcissitic manner.

The Corinthian

Dr. Zeus wrote: »

My point is that the wide availability of all types of porn at the click of a button has to have impact

I agree, but you've repeatedly gone further and expanded that point to say what that impact is, to what degree, whether it is positive or negative and, finally, excluded the impact of any other factor. This is what I have challenged as unsubstantiated.

Hubris - seriously get a grip on yourself. I think you are losing the plot an if I think if anything you argue in a patronising and narcissitic manner.

It would serve you better if you avoided ad hominem attacks.

Dr. Zeus

The Corinthian wrote: »

I agree, but you've repeatedly gone further and expanded that point to say what that impact is, to what degree, whether it is positive or negative and, finally, excluded the impact of any other factor. This is what I have challenged as unsubstantiated.

It would serve you better if you avoided ad hominem attacks.

Yes, indeed. I'll let you have the last word here. I'm out.

The Corinthian

Dr. Zeus wrote: »

Yes, indeed. I'll let you have the last word here. I'm out.

Hold on. You come here, claim that you "hope this doesn't turn into a for/against debate where there is no meaningful debate", I question your argument as being flawed and, in some areas, not making any sense, then you respond indignantly, make a number of personal attacks against me and now you're storming off.

What exactly were you looking for in terms of a meaningful debate? That no one would question your arguments?

Cyzrane

I would think one of the most dangerous aspects of an article such as this is the precedent it sets for a culture of sexual repression. This is not to say that a world without some of the more extreme genres of pornography is one that is oppressive...but it's certainly heading there.

Also, her association of pornography with inherent hatred is rather illogically reasoned. She leaps from "I find these images vile" to "these images are filled with hate and dehumanisation". Whether or not one finds the images repulsive is subjective, but to make a sweeping statement that (effectively) deems all pornography to be motivated by malice is just erroneous.

As has been mentioned before, she's really the one undermining the women of these videos/images. By swinging her accusations so broadly, she has not only tarred any man who has ever watched pornography with the brush of guilt, but also any women who would let herself be "subjugated" in such a manner.

To be fair, though, there might be something to her theory about an undertone of violence or domination in pornography. It does explore, perhaps, some aspects of the human psyche that we would prefer to ignore. I think that whatever reason somebody enjoys pornography is personal and to make grand, all-encompassing statements (as Gail Dines more or less does in her article) about its appeal is pure folly. The damning part of her argument, in my opinion, is the totalitarian manner in which she seeks to accomplish her objective and also her lack of objective evidence for many of her claims.

Ultimately, I would echo the sentiments of other posts in this thread and say that while pornography has certainly changed the scape of sexuality across the globe, this change is not necessarily good or bad in any absolute manner. Sure, new problems might arise from a culture in danger of being over-sexed, but is it really any better than the repression that existed before, which carried with it a different set of issues? Before hearkening back to those "halcyon" days, it might be worth reflecting on the dissatisfaction that was experienced then, too. Sexuality is a fundamental part of any human being's psyche, and how we should embrace it as a collective is a issue surrounded by thorns and pitfalls. Trying our best to ignore it, though, hardly seems like an effective answer.

(Ugh, my post is terribly disjointed. I'm sure I had about six different points in there, all of them poorly developed)

Dr. Zeus

The Corinthian wrote: »

Hold on. You come here, claim that you "hope this doesn't turn into a for/against debate where there is no meaningful debate", I question your argument as being flawed and, in some areas, not making any sense, then you respond indignantly, make a number of personal attacks against me and now you're storming off.

No am not storming off. I think I actually prefer talking about these issues rather than discussing them here. Things get misinterpreted, quoted out of context etc and for me it gets tedious trying to keep track of my original point. Yes, I did describe your style of debate as patronising and narcissistic which was personal and uncalled for. I think you got my shackles up when the word hubris was used as in reality I am really not like that. I think I an not really articulate enough to make my points clearly and concisely.
What exactly were you looking for in terms of a meaningful debate? That no one would question your arguments?

No, not at all. I think more frustration at not being articulate enough which is my problem at the end of day and something I need to address.

The Corinthian

Dr. Zeus wrote: »

No am not storming off. I think I actually prefer talking about these issues rather than discussing them here. Things get misinterpreted, quoted out of context etc and for me it gets tedious trying to keep track of my original point.

I understood what your original point was, I merely was pointing out that it you developed it beyond what was reasonable. Even if one concedes that Internet pornography has had an impact, it is an entirely different thing to presume what that impact is, to decide if it is good or bad or if alone it is responsible.

This, as Cyzrane pointed out, is one of the problems with Dines - she makes a number of observations then wildly extrapolates them to suit an ideological agenda. This is why I have little respect for someone like her.

Yes, I did describe your style of debate as patronising and narcissistic which was personal and uncalled for. I think you got my shackles up when the word hubris was used as in reality I am really not like that.

Hubris referred to your argument rather than you personally, in that its weakness was based upon the arrogance of the presumptions it made.

No, not at all. I think more frustration at not being articulate enough which is my problem at the end of day and something I need to address.

Not sure if articulateness is the issue. For example, I repeatedly pointed out that I accepted that Internet pornography has had an impact, yet you continued to underline this point, despite it not being questioned.

gbee

Cyzrane wrote: »

Also, her association of pornography with inherent hatred is rather illogically reasoned. .

I left at this part too, IMO it's her personal agenda ~ she can't possibly say men hate women because ...

I won't go any further, I think the point is made.

K-9

Results of a survey in Britain on porn and sexual activity in Britain.

Sexperience - Highlights from YouGov’s “Sex Education” survey

At this stage it really is a normal experience for teenagers:

• 58% of all 14-17 year-olds have viewed pornography online, on mobile phones, in magazines, movies or on TV
• 71% of sexually active teenagers have viewed pornography
• 42% of sexually active teenagers view pornography regularly
• More than a quarter of the boys surveyed use porn at least once a week (5% of them every day)

Watched the episode of the program on E4 last night. Young lads did seem to view facials etc. as normal and girls commented on it being expected of them.

It comes to back to education again. They are at an impressionable age and they need to be educated that porn is fantasy, similar to Hollywood.