Fighting an addiction to porn (not me!)

Victor

Someone posted this site on politics and I went browsing around and found this. Now I know porn isn't something we normally discuss on Humanities, but I suspect this is the best place for the discussion. OK, I’m not sure why I am discussing this, I’m not sure if I have a real point, but here goes.

Now like pretty much any other male (in particular) I like looking at (in my case) scantily clad or naked women. But I don't think I have an addiction. It's an interest. Maybe more than my interest in sport, but less than my interest in say good TV drama, railways or the internet. If the opportunity presents itself, say late night TV, it may pique my interest for a short while. But I'm not at the stage of hanging around adult bookstores or the like or as in this case attempting to rape someone. Even at a lower level a lot of the lewdness on TV (think “Sex on the Beach” on Sky1 or “Eurotrash” on E4) just isn’t all that interesting. Not quite “if you’ve seen one you’ve seen them all”, but quite close to it. Some is funny or titillating, but a lot is just “yawn, what’s the big deal”.

Does porn warp people in the same way as drink and drugs?

---

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_1591.shtml

Fighting an addiction to porn
By JUDY TARJANYI
Toledo Blade
Jan 22, 2003, 00:02

Gene McConnell was 12 years old when he discovered the world of pornography in a stack of magazines stashed in his uncle's shed.

That was 35 years ago. Were he 12 today, he said, he wouldn't have had to wait so long. The very kinds of images that hooked him as a young adolescent would have unfolded before his eyes as soon as he was able to see.

"We live in a pornographic culture," said McConnell, a recovered porn addict who will speak to a youth seminar in Toledo, Ohio, on Jan. 25. "If you look at a 1950s centerfold, it's far less explicit than what you see in everyday life in Cosmo, muscle magazines, motorcycle magazines, teen magazines."

McConnell, whose secret addiction to pornography was exposed after he attempted to rape a woman in California more than 23 years ago, tries to help young people and their parents understand and combat the messages such images send.

The 47-year-old father of three said he believes today's sex-saturated culture robs children of their innocence and affects their ability to see sex, women and, ultimately, relationships, in a healthy light.

"I believe adults have the right to choose to consume what they want as long as they don't hurt another, but I don't believe we have the right to expose children to material that is detrimental to their life."

McConnell said everyone wants to have good and healthy relationships, but that pornography does little to advance the authenticity needed for such relationships because it produces unrealistic images of women and dehumanizes them. McConnell said people turn to pornography because they lack authentic relationships.

He was confronted with his own addiction after he was arrested for forcing his way into a woman's car with the intent of raping her. At the time, he was living a double life as a respected church leader and a patron of adult bookstores, prostitutes and massage parlors.

Although the charge against him was reduced to a misdemeanor and McConnell was released from jail after less than a month, his life was shattered. He stepped down from his church position and was left to deal with the aftermath at home.

His wife became anorexic and suicidal and for a time her survival was in doubt. Their marriage survived, but the message McConnell had sent his family came back to haunt him.

Nine years ago, his then-13-year-old daughter attempted suicide. After a counseling session, she told her father, "Mom was never enough for you."

McConnell said his daughter confided that her greatest fear was that she would never be enough for the man she married. "It's taken years to struggle with that."

He believes that being sexually abused by a babysitter and later two other boys contributed to his problems.

After his recovery, McConnell headed a victim assistance program for the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families in Cincinnati and later went on to found and direct Authentic Relationships International, also in Cincinnati.

He advises parents to help their children make good choices about their viewing habits, but also to talk with them about healthy sexuality and what pornography does to women.

Most importantly, he said, parents should be available to help their children deal with conflicts and other problems.

DeVore

God we don't know *anyone* who has a BIG FNCK OFF stash of porn, do we? <g>


Very topical subject actually Victor... only the other day I was talking with a mate about how I felt hardcore porn lessened the human spirit. My mate didnt agree but then that shouldnt sway you since you dont know him from BOB.


DeV, walking away, whistling...











phew, I think I got away it

leeroybrown

I reckon that it is probably possible to become "addicted" to porn (a weak mind and a strong wrist ) , but I don't think that it will ever occur in the same frequency that people have addictions to drugs and alcohol.

This guy seems to be a very severe case and it is plain to see that more was at work that simply looking at some pornography. We've all done that but I don't see queues of rapists waiting just past the taxi rank.

Looking at Porn has no effect other than the bodies normal sexual respones unlike situations with alcohol and drugs. Also for the majority of people there is at least one safe outlet for their urges (back to that wrist again)

Obviously Children shouldn't be un-necessarily exposed to pornography, but just as happened to him it happens. The rare cases will always crop up but they'll be exactly that ... rarities, unless something strange happens to us all.

mike65

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=77265

Mike.

Zombrex

leeroybrown
This guy seems to be a very severe case and it is plain to see that more was at work that simply looking at some pornography.

I agree ... it is kinda like blaming video games for kids shooting up a school.

While I think the de-emotionalising of sex by modern branding culture in general (everything from porn to advertising … what does casual sex have to do with buying a car ffs) is having a detrimental effect on men treating women and sex as instant gratification objects, i think saying that porn will turn a man into a rapist is not very likely. I would say he was more likely a rapist who liked looking at porn.

But hey I don’t know much about porn … I just read the articles :-P

Nevyn

yeah it can be addictive, plain nakey girls leads to lesbo porn and then on and on .

But where in the reguards to children do you drawn the line between nudity and pron, ok so two girls insertin dildos is defo pron but a naked person , porn or art or the wonder of the human body ?

we had a lan in the house an my brother booted up his pc and lo and behold there was " a nakey lady " on the screen and my 5 year old asked his uncle why was there a nakey lady on the pc?

why becasue she is pretty? it was notslimey or crass but where is is the line betweent a photo and what could be a painting ?

i think children only make a big deal over something if the adulst arround them do. The human form is not a dirty or pervse thing, what some people may do while looking at a picof it maybe .

DeVore

I draw a line between what is Erotica and whats Porn. Most of the time its pretty damned clear to me.If you asked me to define it I doubt I could write rules which would suffice. Even if they did suffice, it would only be an accurate description of my opinion.

Personally, I follow what Talliesin has often told me a judge in the states said about porn: "I know it when I see it".
I dont watch porn because I *honestly* believe it cheapens the human spirit and I feel lessened after watching it.
However I think erotica is healthy and well, fun!

The legal definition is (slightly paraphrased) "Media designed to stimulate erotic thoughts , lacking any artistic merit".

Which pretty much nails any car or beer commercial I've even seen...


DeV.

hussey

I remember when I was in school(6 years ago) and one of my teachers was talking about it, He said that porn for a certain amount of people will ruin their lives, as they will get bored of their partner and want other things, as porn isn't real life its escapism .. e.g. people never fight over money, going out, or forgeting the toothpaste when you go shopping etc. The peoples lives are perfect

It always stuck in my mind, but never really thought it was true, until about a year ago, when my friend did the dirt on his girlfriend he never knew why he did it, he just said he couldn't resist, the girl wasn't exactly a stunner.

But I always thought it was because just to be 'free' for one night.

Victor

Thaed, I think a lot of the diffence is context, what is the person doing? And it doesn't matter between a painting and a photo, although photos are usually more detailed / focused / clearer. A friend has a painting (from behind) in his bathroom of a topless woman washing herself. OK, nothing was showing so it's soft even soft core, but it shows nudity / partial nudity doesn't have to have negative or sexual connotations and I think it would be suitable for pretty much any audience.

And maybe I'm desensitized, but page 3 just doesn't do anything for me on any level. To be honest a nice face on page 3 would be more interesting.

However any semi- / naked image of a child makes my feel really uncomfortable. BBC had a documentary on child porn the other night and showed blanked off images of a naked man kissing a naked child. Sorry but I just couldn't look at it. There has to be something wrong with someone to get their kicks from that.

neuro-praxis

The difference between pornography and art, I think, is whether or not the intention is to arouse.

If the aim is to display beauty or intrigue, then it's art.

If the aim is to sexually arouse the viewer, then it's pornography.

I grew up in a house where everybody was naked from time to time. My folks weren't nudists or anything close to it - there simply was no stigma attached to nakedness in our house and nobody ever locked the bathroom door. When I got into teens, puberty made me more self-conscious, but as a whole, it just wasn't an issue. If you saw a family member naked, well, big deal.

I love art, and the pieces of my own that I like the most are the nude sculptures I've done. The human body is just beautiful, and I think especially during pregnancy. I also love life drawing, but haven't done any nudes yet. I plan to join a class this year, though.

Now, my attitude to nakedness clarified; I abhorr pornography for a thousand reasons. I understand the appeal - but the whole industry is dripping in sleaze and seediness. It twists the beauty of sexuality into merely a fixation on the genitalia. It dehumanises. It's only aim is to arouse, and make money. It turns the body (specifically women's bodies) into nothing more than a empty and dank commodity.

I think that people are so sucked in by it and enjoy it so much that they create a morality around it whereby they believe that it damages nothing and nobody. I firmly believe this is untrue. Sex and sexuality isn't just about what you do; it's about who you are. And I think that focusing on graphic sexual imagery for private gratification is unhealthy for maintaining a positive and healthy attitude towards sexuality as a whole.

I don't know if I'd say it leads to rape though - I think that's a rash statement, and rape is about power and not arousal anyway apparently...but it can certainly create warped attitudes to sex when it turns into an addiction.

hunkypex

I think what can happen is someone goes through puberty and interest in sex develops and emotions develop too but at a young age like that theres not going to be any emotion got from a magazine. And a magazine cant any either. I think maybe porn robs the need and the ability of an addict to develop emotional response which leads to the addict having an inability to see women as a complete package so to speak. i think
porn would not be neccesary to create that bloke there. Going back two hundred years when there were no videos, internet or magazines you still got sex attackers. there was some porn but like the Marquis de Sade the imagination is the most powerful pornography.

DapperGent

I think there are two different kinds of pornography, or at least adult pornography.

There isn't in my opinion anything wrong with deriving pleasure vicariously by watching people enjoying sex. It doesn't really matter what they're doing given that they're consenting adults and so are you. Whatever thing you might enjoy looking at I don't mind, I really don't see any sexual act that one person can engage with another (or others) as perverted or wrong. I don't see any sexual act a person can engage in by themselves as perverted. So whats wrong with filming it and viewing it? Nothing that I can see. Thats the first kind.

The trouble is is that very little pornography is of the first kind. It may look like it but it isn't. The vast majority of hardcore porn is concerned with something else, again, I can't descride it but "I know it when I see it". It's not about vicarious pleasure from others people pleasure. It's about vicarious pleasure from someone's real or implied misery and/or debasement. A lot of it is concerned with a man or men having power over or dominating women.

A lot of people say that porn objectifies women, makes them into things to be used. I think this is bollox. What it tries to do is make men feel powerful, that their desires are more important than a woman's. That women should do exactly what they are told, and enjoy it while they're at it. This isn't making someone into a thing, inanimate, they keep their humanity except now it's subserviant to someone else's desires. It's a depiction of enslavement in a way. That isn't objectification, it's worse.

Anyways thats my waffling done. I just wish there was a bit more porn out there that had people enjoying themsleves, rather than the theory of rape.

Victor

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
If the aim is to display beauty or intrigue, then it's art. If the aim is to sexually arouse the viewer, then it's pornography.

It struck me that pornography is probably subjective, not objective, insofar as some material (say an art book or medical text, to be extreme) could be used as pornography (i.e. to get a sexual high), but may not actually be pornography. Perhaps this is where some people with odder or unacceptable tastes in pornography get their buzz.

mike65

The definiton of porn is simple enough, but what actually causes a hard-on is another matter, bearing in mind that table legs where covered over in the Victorian era as they had a certain effect on the male mind of that era!

Some might say watching
Nigella Lawson licking her fingers is enough!

Mike.

amp

If erotica is sex interpreted in an artistic way then I think pornography is sex interpreted in a non-artistic way. It does not seek to inspire thought.

Porn is simply what it is, media designed to get people off on a somewhat baser level. But the urge to get off on that level is no less worthy than being inspired at a higher level.

But to decry porn is to decry perfectly normal human lust. Sometimes we just want to get rid of some sexual energy without having to think to much. Just because porn is not art doesn't make it any less important.

It's like saying that dancing is better than sex because dancing is art and sex is merely the act of procreation.

Some have said that the human body is beautiful. Is it not beautiful when engaged in sex or masterbation? Why not? Does it go through some magical transformation during the sexual act where it ceases to be beautiful?

Truth is, sex, masterbation, porn and even nakedness are all still part of a taboo which makes some people uncomfortable.

Imo though, lust is a valid emotion which deserves exploration rather than repression.

joec

heres my 2 cents worth................i have been involved in the area of "addiction" for about 7 years though my own "issues" not relating to porn but i have studied this whole area and read a lot on the topic...........i feel anything can become an "addiction" and i think its merely behaviour that is used for a number of reasons.........i think if anyone is interedted this linkis worth a look at worth a look at http://www.peele.net/lib/index.html i do feel becuase of the easy to get nature of porn on the net it is becoming mroe widespread as an escape from ones life as can a variety of things.....but i feel peoples behaviour reflects how they feel about themselves and how well they know themselves and is also a huge reflection on society and the undercurrents of unhappiness

Blitzkrieger

Originally posted by Victor
Does porn warp people in the same way as drink and drugs?

To me that's like asking "Do guns kill people?". The old cliche answer : "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Like joec says, anything can become an addiction. I constantly wonder if I would be classified as a computer/Internet addict. If you allow porn to become an obession, to the point where you spend too much time and money on it, then it will affect your life and relationships. You can't blame porn for the addiction any more than you can blame the Internet for an Internet addiction. It's a result of psychological/sociological factors in the addicts life.


A lot of people seem to be trying to make distinctions - between porn and erotica, porn and art, "good porn" and "bad porn". All these seem to be subjective. I wouldn't even try to define what's what. What I will say is the vast majority of porn seems to have little to do with real sex.

Porn makers seem to have a formula of 3 positions and a ***shot, and the vast majority of pron seems to be dehumanising. Ever see the show Laid Bare that used to be on Bravo? It was the same **** every week. Some blonde with big fake breasts would come on spouting the same lines about how much she enjoys working with some sweaty bloke. How much she loves her work - how she just can't wait to be ****ed hard, or some similar obscenity. There is probably people out there impressionable enough to believe anything they see in a porn movie, and these people probably will have a negative image of women as a result. How would you deal with this problem without infringeing on people's freedoms?


Also, IMO, Gene McConnell, the subject of the original article was describing trends in the media as a whole, and the porn industry can't be blamed for all his/our problems.

The Corinthian

This story was sparked off by a chap who blamed pornography for his general objectifying attitude towards women, his use of prostitutes, an arrest for attempted rape and the problems that then ensued in his family.

The fact that he was a religious leader, which (dare I say it) has been linked to patriarchal conservative moral views which are often marked by repressed forms of sexual expression, leading to the escape valve of (often violent) paraphilia, escaped the author of the article completely. Also, being sexually abused by a babysitter and later two other boys is a footnote in the article that may also have contributed a wee bit.

On the other hand, he’s the guy who tried to rape someone and maybe, just maybe, we’re just hearing the old “society made be do this” whinge (it’s replace the old “voices told me” line).

Pornography probably has a negative effect upon people. That’s just an opinion. How bad and in what manner is open to question, and one which I doubt this article could scratch, let alone answer.

As for what pornography is, well; whatever gives a judge an erection, at the end of the day.

DriftingRain

'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" From a female point of view on porn. I once had a friend who had this boyfriend, (she later told me all this btw), he started off with playboy"For the articles" then it was hustler, then maxium mags, then acended to movies and so on and so on. Anyhow one day she came to work with a black eye. She had dumped him due to the fact that she couldn't handle his craving for the "ways porn stars do it". He had hit her cause she refused to try this style the porn girls did. This is a real issue. I think many guys have these unrealistic fantasy's the try to play out with their girlfriends/wives. People that have to watch porn to get the thrill are sick in my opinion. Why must one watch something so fake to be aroused. I just don't understand it. My friend is still in therapy because of this and I just think porn affects everyone differently, not to say you have to be abused as a child to act harshly from watching porn but I think it is more likely to affect people that way. I am not sure after rereading this if it has made any sence. I LOVE art. I love classical statues. I like the human form that way. But I DONOT like porn. I think it is degrading to a female. I just wish things like that story would never have happened. That poor child will be dealing with that the rest of her life. As soon as she falls for someone and she catches then with a dirty mag. she will probally flip the lid. Instead of doing the tours sounds like the chap may need to deal with issues at his own home first?...Now I am rambeling ...This was a great topic!

Shinji

I once had a friend who had this boyfriend, (she later told me all this btw), he started off with playboy"For the articles" then it was hustler, then maxium mags, then acended to movies and so on and so on.

Er hang on. What age was this guy when he "started off with playboy"?

I find it stunningly hard to believe that any male out of his early teenage years hasn't already gone significantly further into the realms of porn than "starting off with playboy". That's screaming "repressed/ultra-conservative upbringing" to me, which probably has a LOT more to do with his problems with women than looking at porn did....

The Corinthian's assessment is very close to my own reading of the situation; this is a "society made me do it" excuse. Videogames don't make people kill each other. The Matrix didn't make anyone run up a wall. Porn doesn't make people into rapists.

It does make them into wankers, though

Victor

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger
To me that's like asking "Do guns kill people?". The old cliche answer : "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

Well, didn't Chris Rock (comedian) say that "Guns don't kill people, people don't kill people, bullets kill people, lets make bullet $5,000 each".

Originally posted by DriftingRain
Anyhow one day she came to work with a black eye. She had dumped him due to the fact that she couldn't handle his craving for the "ways porn stars do it". He had hit her cause she refused to try this style the porn girls did.

I'm not sure, but I doubt that is the full story. Maybe it's my own particular spin on things, but that sounds much closer to a control fantasy than a sexual fantasy.

Talliesin

Now this is a BIG topic.

To begin with the subject of the possibility of addiction to pornography alone: I am cautious of use of the word "addiction". There is clearly a difference between addiction to chemicals (whether coffee to heroin) and addiction to behaviour and experiences (whether soap operas, gambling or pornography).

Just how strong that difference is is unclear, for the use of chemicals is a behaviour, and as such chemical addiction "contains" behavioural addiction. It has been argued that for some addicts the behavioural component may be stronger than the chemical (I myself will strongly crave the act of smoking even if I have taken a dose of nicotine by other means).

I am also cautious of the disease model of addiction, partly because I am unconvinced that that is the best way of viewing addiction (though it is a good way, I'm not entirely at odds with the concept), and partly because there is an increasing tendency to fail to realise that just because we should not give up on addicts, victimise them or marginalise them does not mean that they are excused from any moral responsibility for their actions.

Now can an action be addictive? It can certainly be compulsive, to a debilitating degree, as anyone who has suffered from, or who knows anyone who suffers from, OCD, trichotillomania, compulsive gambling and similar conditions can attest (though OCD and trichotillomania are a different thing again). In practical terms maybe this is as good a definition of addiction as we need, and we can leave debates over whether addiction is something beyond compulsive behaviour to clinical psychologists.

Now, how likely is pornography to be addictive? Consider the use of pornography and what happens. The user gains sexual release, probably orgasm, in using the pornography. That is a pretty strong and primal response to the experience. The rush of hormones could lead one to conclude that there was indeed something chemical as well as behavioural going on. To expect that people could not become compulsive about pornography's use when there are people who can't stop gambling or pulling out their hair is hard to justify.

Consider also the use of pornography in propaganda, from "sex sells" and Varga airbrushing on US planes to the violent anti-Semitic pornography of Julius Streicher's Der Sturmer. This propaganda worked on the basis of linking the message they wish to convey with the orgasmic response to the medium. It worked, and it continues to work. The viewer develops a vested interest in repeating the experience of the propaganda, becomes convinced that their sexual response and the emotional response it brings with it is "natural" (for after all arousal and orgasm are natural, and this is causing arousal and orgasm), and as such gains a vested interest in agreement with the propagandised position.

In Nuremberg, a relationship between sexualized hate propaganda and genocide was demonstrated. Many Western democracies responded by criminalizing the kind of hate speech, or incitement to genocide, in which Streicher engaged, indeed, at which he excelled. The United States has apparently, as a matter of law and public policy, decided to masturbate to it.
- Andrea Dworkin, Life and Death

Now whether pornography acts as propaganda to rape, sexism, harassment and related behaviour is a good question, but I won't tackle that one right now.

One thing pornography definitely propagandises is pornography. Not only does the experience call for repetition in it simply being pleasurable to the user, but also it repeatedly defends itself in a myriad of ways both blatant and subtle.

The first of these is the concept of the normalcy of pornography. Now one might think the libertarian and civil libertarian ideology most often used to defend pornography would have little use for the concept of normalcy - that they would rather be fighting for a world in which we would be free not to fit anyone's model of normalcy. However this is rarely a position seen in pornography, even in the liberal pseudo-intellectual posturing that gets published along with the porn in Playboy.

Rather in pornography and its defences we see a recurrent attempt to define both the acts portrayed and the pornography itself as normal to the point of being universal. This is most apparent in the expressions defenders of pornography use when referring to their opponents.

On boards.ie someone not long ago referred to Men Against Pornography as "hypocrites", without any evidence of hypocrisy, and further that it was like "Fish Against Water". I'm not sure just how much he honestly believed that it is as possible for a man to not use pornography than as it is for a fish to not consume water, but the use of the term "hypocrites" certainly implies that he assumes that they actually do use pornography and are dishonest about this.

It seems an outlandish example, but users of pornography that honestly believe that everyone, or at least every man, also uses pornography aren't hard to find. More common is a bizarre inversion of reality that leads porn-users to believe that it is actually those who don't use pornography, rather than themselves, who suffer from sexual repression.

A clearer example of this projection of the aura of normalcy onto ones own use of pornography can be seen in fetish pornography. It's not that this is a quality that is seen more in fetish pornography, but rather the rarer the fetish the more obviously delusional are their claims to be almost universal.

This projection of normalcy doesn't often manifest itself as directly as it does for pornography as a whole, and when it does it's often as wish-fulfilment (á la much of Tom of Finland's leather fetishism). However the language often attempts to project normalcy (particularly common is use of the definite article, where the indefinite should be more appropriate) and a common idiom is the belief that those who do not have the same fetish are in a state of denial.

Another common idiom is the equation of sex with pornography. The slogan of one pornographic site marketed at women is "because women like sex too". They even try to project this as a revolutionary act ("a site that dares to admit that women like sex too" [emphasis mine]). This equation of sex with pornography comes up again and again in pornography itself and defences of it. Interestingly it also comes up again and again in Right-Wing objections to pornography, and the concept of "obscenity" in law (a double misconception of what is obscene) and the terms "dirty books", "dirty pictures" and so on. The latter is worth noting for while it originates as a condemnation of pornography it is a frequent idiom of pornography to revel in concepts of both pornography and sex as dirty (the Marquis de Sade would always refer to his semen as his "pollution"), leaving attempts to refute the label "dirty" to the arty-farty wanker writing the Playboy article.

This may explain the frequent attempts by pro-pornography diatribes to argue that Left-Wing opposition to pornography, which is not based on concepts of obscenity or dirt, are in the pocket of the Christian Right. They understand the objections of the Christian Right because those objections come from the same equation of sex, pornography and dirtiness that they too engage in. The Feminist argument that those three are not entwined is a deeper challenge, and harder to engage with on their terms.

Once you have the equation of sex with pornography successfully indoctrinated then any attack on the latter appears to be an attack on the former, hence Feminists are labelled anti-sex (you know, the people who fought for contraceptives, stigma-free STD treatment and the repeal of laws against homosexuality and sex outside of marriage – obviously they're anti-sex!), those who don't use porn are labelled repressed.

As such it is no longer enough in libertarian circles to tolerate and defend the right to make and use pornography, but rather libertarians are required to actively use pornography to be authentic in their Jeffersonian position.

An interesting side effect of this is the effect it has on erotica. Pornography cannot tolerate erotica. The sexually repressed cannot make and cannot enjoy erotica. Pornographers like the word though. They misconstruct it though, either as mild pornography and/or "artistic" pornography (though anyone who seriously considers kitsch like Vargas or Tom of Finland to be art is deeply lacking in critical faculties). Pornography is qualitatively different for erotica, though erotica can be a source of pornography (most obviously if you keep rewinding and playing "the good bit", or compilations of such clips out of context).

Pornography causes pornography! That's perhaps as good a definition of addiction as anything else.

Talliesin

Originally posted by Victor
that sounds much closer to a control fantasy than a sexual fantasy.

Pornography doesn't leave much separation between the two. The very commodification of sexual experience brings control to it.

Talliesin

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger
There is probably people out there impressionable enough to believe anything they see in a porn movie

An interesting feature of pornography is that it commodifies concepts of reality. "Real" is a consumer choice with pornography, as is "blonde" or "asian" (an artificial significance of ethnicity is another common idiom). You are allowed to believe just as much as you want to believe on any particular level of consciousness. In all suspension of disbelieve works quite differently than with non-pornographic works in the same media.

DriftingRain

I wans't saying he said society made him do it. He had been mad due to the fact that she wouldn't act like the porn star he had seen in a movie and that made him tick. He had never hit her before this and I had seen them in some doozies...But...I don't know if was just my opinion above.

Blitzkrieger

Originally posted by DriftingRain
People that have to watch porn to get the thrill are sick in my opinion. Why must one watch something so fake to be aroused.

You might consider joining the other team then. It's been proven that men are aroused by images, so a porn movie with beautiful naked women in it is always a turn on. If I were to watch virtually any porn film, I would probably get aroused, then very, very bored. Saying men are sick because they like porn is like saying women are sick because they have arms.

How they deal with porn is the issue being discussed.

Talliesin

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger
It's been proven that men are aroused by images, so a porn movie with beautiful naked women in it is always a turn on.

Okay, in between the premise and the conclusion there's meant to be something called "logic".

"Men are aroused by images" says nothing more than men's sexual response is related to what they perceive from their senses as opposed to purley random factors. I'd hate to think that someone wasted research funds "proving" that.

Now (assuming for sake of argument, a man who is sighted, heterosexual, and whose primary sexual response is to women as opposed to any fetish item) it does not necessarily follow that a pornographic movie would necessarily be a turn on, nor that if it was arousing that this response would necessarily be uninterupted from other responses to enable to arousal to be enjoyed in and of itself.

If I were to watch virtually any porn film, I would probably get aroused, then very, very bored.

This is a further conclusion that doesn't follow. Even if you are correct in all you have said so far it doesn't follow that you will get aroused or bored from watching two men tickle each other with feather fans.

Saying men are sick because they like porn is like saying women are sick because they have arms.

Now you've jumped from the illogical to the irrational.
Not only are you arguing a different point than the one you are supposedly challenging (there is a difference between "like porn" and "have to watch porn to get the thrill"), but you are comparing what is not only part of the normal physical structure of a human being but a very useful one with a psychological response to stimuli which is dependant upon mood and cultural symbolism and complicated by varying moral constructs (which may lead to a wide range of feelings including guilt, abhorance, nausea, liberation, rebellion, ennui, justification and self-congratualtion, or contradictory combinations of these).

Talliesin

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger
If I were to watch virtually any porn film, I would probably get aroused, then very, very bored.

Question. What would you do about that boredom?

Kell

I am glad that someone broached this subject. It's something I was thinking of doing myself as I for one enjoy porn and I was considering at one stage whether I enjoyed it a little too much. Someone pointed out earlier that it only begins to become detrimental to you if you are spending too much time and money on it, so in that instance, I feel safe. Unless it's free I aint interested.

What I would also like to point out is that for someone with a healthy interest in porn, it hasent affected my perspective on women. This could have something to do with the fact that I grew up with three sisters whom I have a healthy respect for, but I dont view women as objects of gratification. I would think that, at least in my case, that porn isnt responsible for de-humanising and degrading women, that perhaps that condition is a result of something else entirely.

Down through the ages humanity has enjoyed porn. I am pretty sure that there are images on cave walls somewhere depicting the act of intercourse in different positions. I mean, besides education, why on earth would you depict the sexual act save for porn?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Talliesin
Question. What would you do about that boredom?

Make it intellectual... I never thought I'd find John Gielgud in a porno but:

Caligula - "It's an irresistible mix of art and genitals." - Helen Mirren

[edit]And Written by Gore Vidal - ROFL! [/edit]

Victor

Originally posted by Blitzkrieger
Saying men are sick because they like porn is like saying women are sick because they have arms.

You may be overdoing it there, but if men are condemned for exploiting others when they pay for porn, should women be condemned when they pay for clothes made in sweat shops? Both are indirectly supporting the exploitation of others.