Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Attitudes to Porn... Mod Warning Post 719

1…1617192122…26

Comments

  • #542
    DancingDaisy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,285 ✭✭✭DancingDaisy


    serenacat wrote: »
    why would she suggest this? maybe he isn't turning her on so she needs to look at someone else while they are together. if you had brad pitt in your bed would you suggest watching porn together?

    I know that I have suggested it occasionally, and I did so because it was fun. I wasn't using it to turn me on or turn my partner on. It was used as a part of foreplay. I don't see any harm in it. If Brad Pitt was in my bed and the mood took me, then yes I would suggest it. I don't think there is anything wrong with me or my relationship.


  • #543
    serenacat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 670 ✭✭✭serenacat


    tbh wrote: »
    you see there again - you're saying that your orgasm with a partner is more valid than someone else's with a vibrator. It's not. It's "what works for you" vs "what works for them" when did i say this? you are twisting my words


    A vibrator is a sub for a penis. Some women dont want the man.
    ok, how can i say i dont use something without ppl getting p*ssed off? i dont care if every girl on the plant buys one i'm just not going to
    sam34 wrote: »
    yes, it has been discussed.

    and i, and other women, have told you that we women like watching porn too.

    men here have told you that their partners have suggested watching porn, not vice versa.

    you seem to convienently ignore that though
    what am i to say? i dont understand why and it isn't always clear from screen names who is a girl and who is a guy such as yours sam didnt know you were female
    sam34 wrote: »
    well, its fairly clear to anyone who reads the thread and has been pointed out to you repeatedly

    i know duh am allowed to make a joke!


  • #544
    oceanclub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    You think it's a problem in all relationships - or even most relationships? :P

    Jakkass seems to be throwing out a strawman. Noone here is arguing that all porngraphy is great or that's great for everyone (if you are, please shout out now). He and Serenacat are the only ones arguing from an absolutist point of view - that it's wrong all the time and for everyone, no matter whether it's a single guy watching hardcore gangbang videos, a 70 year old couple watching a fairly time soft-core movie on the Playboy channel, or a woman reading Nancy Friday's "Women in Love".

    P.


  • #545
    Jemmy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,385 ✭✭✭Jemmy


    serenacat wrote: »
    what does OH stand for? my boyf would never say that to me and if i wasn't in the mood i would do something to get in the mood- set the scene maybe or foreplay

    OH = Other half

    Well he would hardly turn around in the middle of you cleaning or watching tv and say hey lets watch porn together now. :rolleyes: I was going to say washing dishes but that would spark a whole other discussion! lol


  • #546
    serenacat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 670 ✭✭✭serenacat


    sam34 wrote: »
    *shock, horror* some couples use sex toys together to enhance their sex lives

    likewise, some use porn to enhance their sex lives

    i mean, you're effectively saying people should just need sex and no enhancement of that. so, its not a great leap of teh imagination to say that we should all just have sex in the missionary position, lights off, and nothing more... if you do that, by your logic, you're getting your intimacy, your reproductive function, your "falling in love" chemicals etc. so why do anything else. thats all you need. why change position? for different views and pleasure points why turn on the lights? to see eachother and look into each others eyes

    summary of this thread= pot calling kettle black
    posters saying i am judging everyone and yet i am insulted for being 'boring' if i dont watch porn




    damn right i would!!!

    as well as many other suggestions

    what a night we'd have :D
    why change position? for different views and pleasure points why turn on the lights? to see eachother and look into each others eyes

    summary of this thread= pot calling kettle black
    posters saying i am judging everyone and yet i am insulted for being 'boring' if i dont watch porn


  • Advertisement
  • #547
    sam34
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Just look at the responses to my posts on this issue. They are all incredibly defensive. It certainly isn't isolated to serenacat. Bearing in mind that I have only read through the first few pages, and the last few pages also.

    have a read of posts numbers 351 and 355 on page 24

    they highlight serenacats highly judgemental attitude towards those who dont agree with her

    now, if she had posted her opinion, and acknowledged it as her opinion, didnt generalise and didnt judge, people wouldnt have been bothered.

    but its the judgements and moral high ground that pisses people off


  • #548
    oceanclub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    serenacat wrote: »
    posters saying i am judging everyone and yet i am insulted for being 'boring' if i dont watch porn

    Two wrongs don't make a right, and the amount of insults you've received are small compared to the many many patronising remarks you've made about other people.

    P.


  • #549
    sam34
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34


    serenacat wrote: »
    ok, how can i say i dont use something without ppl getting p*ssed off? i dont care if every girl on the plant buys one i'm just not going to
    what am i to say? i dont understand why and it isn't always clear from screen names who is a girl and who is a guy such as yours sam didnt know you were female

    you seriously have to ask this??

    just say you dont use it for whatever reasons you have.

    you cant say that those who use vibrators/porn are cold/detached.not in loving relationships/unfulfilled/degraded/degrading ad nauseum

    if you dont understand why people are into something, just say that. but dont judge them because of it!

    i mean, ive already posted that i dont get teh whole scat fetish. it is beyond me.
    but i know some people love it and are really into it. fair enough, i just shrug. each to their own.


  • #550
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    serenacat wrote: »
    why change position? for different views and pleasure points why turn on the lights? to see eachother and look into each others eyes

    summary of this thread= pot calling kettle black
    posters saying i am judging everyone and yet i am insulted for being 'boring' if i dont watch porn

    No, I think the point Sam is making is that to some people introducing pornography to their sex life is done for the same reason as others choose to leave the lights on or change position or buy sexy lingerie.


  • #551
    serenacat
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 670 ✭✭✭serenacat


    sam34 wrote: »
    you seriously have to ask this??

    just say you dont use it for whatever reasons you have.

    you cant say that those who use vibrators/porn are cold/detached.not in loving relationships/unfulfilled/degraded/degrading ad nauseum

    if you dont understand why people are into something, just say that. but dont judge them because of it!

    i mean, ive already posted that i dont get teh whole scat fetish. it is beyond me.
    but i know some people love it and are really into it. fair enough, i just shrug. each to their own.

    when did i say this?


  • Advertisement
  • #552
    sam34
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34


    serenacat wrote: »
    why change position? for different views and pleasure points why turn on the lights? to see eachother and look into each others eyes

    summary of this thread= pot calling kettle black
    posters saying i am judging everyone and yet i am insulted for being 'boring' if i dont watch porn

    nice try, but no.

    you are claiming that people shouldnt use porn or vibrators to enhance their sex lives.

    now, if a basic sex life can be achieved with missionary-with-lights-out, then, by your own logic, why enhance that with other positions, nice lingerie etc?

    surely thats just done for enhanced satisfaction, which is ultimately selfishness and commodification, going by your logic

    and i never called you boring, so if you're going to throw that accusation around, please dont do it in a post where you have quoted me and only me, as it makes it look like i am the one who called you boring


  • #553
    sam34
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34


    serenacat wrote: »
    when did i say this?

    oh ffs, dont tell me you are trying to deny those comments

    i could be here multi-quoting all night!


  • #554
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    You think it's a problem in all relationships - or even most relationships? :P

    A lot.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    People are regarded as sexual objects, abolish the sex industry tomorrow and people will still be regarded as sexual objects - what's more, some people like being sexual objects and don't want love and romance, they just want sex. They are as entitled to their lifestyle as you are yours.

    I reject this understanding, and as a result I consider it wrong. People should be considered for who they are as people rather than who they are sexually.

    I'd rather love someone for who they are, than regard them as a sexual object. The former is also much more important in the long run.

    Just because people are regarded that way, or will be regarded that way doesn't make it right. I'm merely saying that I oppose this, and I'm explaining why.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    There has always been a separation between sexuality and romantic love in society, this is nothing new. Love is not a pre-requisite to fantastic sex, as long as that is the case people will be having sex for fun.

    I'm merely saying that sex is regarded too lightly within society, and the objectification of people has gone too far. That's my take. Is sex something to be regarded as the same as eating or drinking, or is it to be regarded as something personal and special? That's the main question for me.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Perhaps. I don't see porn being any different to changing positions, locations or using sex toys - variety is the spice of life & can enhance an already brilliant experience.

    It involves other people.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Which is fine, I respect other peoples right not to go anywhere near pornography - I only take issue when someone projects their own moral issues and expectations and labels ALL pornography as one thing to ALL people and ALL relationships.

    I think all pornography is wrong, and I'm certainly entitled to that view. I think society would be better off if we didn't have anything to do with it, but I have no doubt it will continue.


  • #555
    sam34
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34


    sam34 wrote: »

    and porn stars are what? robots? aliens? on another dimension?
    serenacat wrote: »
    is this a joke or should i explain..QUOTE]

    well, my take on it is that porn stars are real people doing a job, in real life.

    now, i'm a real person, and i go into work 5 days a week to do a job, in real life.

    whats the difference?


  • #556
    oceanclub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It involves other people.

    I presume then you don't include written or drawn pornography in that case. So I guess you aren't against all pornography, are you?
    I think all pornography is wrong,

    You're contradicting yourself.

    P.


  • #557
    sam34
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,073 ✭✭✭sam34


    serenacat wrote: »
    it isn't always clear from screen names who is a girl and who is a guy such as yours sam didnt know you were female

    well, sam could be short for samuel or samantha, so is pretty unisex

    (for the record, my name is neither, but thats another story!)


  • #558
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    oceanclub wrote: »
    I presume then you don't include written or drawn pornography in that case. So I guess you aren't against all pornography, are you?

    If such publications advocate the view of objectifying people as merely sexual objects then yes, I'd be about as much in opposition to them.

    I'm hardly contradicting myself if I wasn't asked about them.


  • #559
    oceanclub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If such publications advocate the view of objectifying people as merely sexual objects then yes, I'd be about as much in opposition to them.

    I'm hardly contradicting myself if I wasn't asked about them.

    You just claimed your objection to the use of porn as a sex aid, rather than changing position, is because it "involved people".

    Written pornography doesn't involve real people, but you still object to it.

    So you are contradicting yourself.

    Look, you're against pornography because God says so. Stop with the post-decision rationalisations.

    P.


  • #560
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I hadn't considered other means. You get my position now.

    You seem very eager to bring God into it, but one has to question why does God say so? Just saying "God says so" isn't really enough to have a debate on it.

    It's highly inappropriate to tell people what they think.


  • #561
    oceanclub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I hadn't considered other means. You get my position now.

    It's never been made clear what exactly is wrong with objectifying people - especially imaginary people in an erotic story. We objectify people every day as a shortcut. When you get in a taxi for a journey, then leave, the person who drove you will always be "the taxi driver" - you won't have worried that you didn't ask him about his name or his hobbies.

    Porn no more means that you will begin think of people as objects then getting taxis will mean you start to think of all taxi drivers as objects.

    P.


  • Advertisement
  • #562
    1sittingduck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38 ✭1sittingduck


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think so too, I just think people get very defensive over the subject. People will get hostile when any alternative view to the promotion and objectification of women is promoted. I'd share their view that the porn industry is damaging, especially in family situations.

    I don't know why anyone wouldn't be offended to know that their partner isn't satisfied with them and with them alone.

    Thank you!


  • #563
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    oceanclub wrote: »
    It's never been made clear what exactly is wrong with objectifying people - especially imaginary people in an erotic story. We objectify people every day as a shortcut. When you get in a taxi for a journey, then leave, the person who drove you will always be "the taxi driver" - you won't have worried that you didn't ask him about his name or his hobbies.

    Porn no more means that you will begin think of people as objects then getting taxis will mean you start to think of all taxi drivers as objects.

    Actually, if people started to regard taxi drivers as merely such, it'd probably not be advised. If I am to quote a favourite philosopher of mine (that I have a few disagreements with), people are not to be regarded as means but as ends. People are people, they might serve a functional purpose, but they are still people.

    If we are talking about imaginary stories and the like, that is one thing, but if someone derives ideas that they have picked up there, and attempt to apply this to real life, that's where the difficulty arises.

    People have worth. If one cares about someone deeply, but yet regards them as a sexual partner, that isn't the same as objectification. If one doesn't care about anyone at all, but is only interested in getting their jollies, I don't see the point in it.

    As always you are entitled to disagree with me, but this is my view of it.


  • #564
    1sittingduck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38 ✭1sittingduck


    oceanclub wrote: »
    Well, since from your posts elsewhere that you are a fundamentalist or least a very a devout Christian, of course you're against porn; you couldn't be otherwise. To you, an invisible omnipotent multi-dimensional being gets upset if I stroke my penis so that white liquid comes out.

    It's a bit rich for you to pretend you're objective on the "problem" of porn.

    And you think you are? What exactly makes Christians who practice their faith less objective than someone (not even you, necessarily, but anyone) who doesn't adhere to any religious beliefs?


  • #565
    oceanclub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    1sittingduck wrote: »
    And you think you are? What exactly makes Christians who practice their faith less objective than someone (not even you, necessarily, but anyone) who doesn't adhere to any religious beliefs?

    Well for a start, because an imaginary being and/or man in a frock has not told me what opinion I should have about it.

    As I've pointed out already, I don't believe pornography is "right" or "wrong", no more than alcohol is right or wrong. It has its benefits, it has its hazards.

    P.


  • #566
    oceanclub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Jakkass wrote: »
    People have worth. If one cares about someone deeply, but yet regards them as a sexual partner, that isn't the same as objectification. If one doesn't care about anyone at all, but is only interested in getting their jollies, I don't see the point in it.

    Well, the point it is to get your jollies.

    P.


  • #567
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    serenacat wrote: »
    not liking porn doesn't make me an extremist, but i am not a harmful person i wouldn't hurt a fly.

    Your opinions on this subject are extreme, and you are trying to validate your beliefs by finding others who share your own extreme opinions.

    You don't simply dislike porn, your feelings and opinions are a lot stronger than that.


  • #568
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    oceanclub wrote: »
    Well, the point it is to get your jollies.

    P.

    Then the sole point of it is objectification, rather than enriching a relationship surely? Surely we should regard sexuality as more than mere hedonism? It appears that we have two entirely different understandings on this.


  • #569
    1sittingduck
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38 ✭1sittingduck


    serenacat wrote: »
    this is a very personal Q but i will try to answer this....no but i have done other sexual things eg oral like a one night stand before i reformed.

    I felt cold and didn't like it and i am not talking phyisically, i can get pleasure from a guy orally but would rather have sexual relationships with someone i love and care about and trust this is true intimacy and pleasure.

    I think i do know what i am talking about as i have done sexual things (not full intercourse) with numerous men and didn't enjoy it.

    As i would start feeling like i really liked a guy that i barely knew and get upset when i never heard from him again. Why did i do it then? i was drunk 90% and also very naive that if a guy and me got intimate he must care for me and go out with me. I was 16-18 at the time and lived quite a sheltered live and wish i hadn't been so naive.

    Where's that "hug" emoticon when I want it?! :rolleyes:
    *hug*


  • #570
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    oceanclub - Just interested, do you not usually talk to the taxi driver? I thought that was common practice?


  • Advertisement
  • #571
    oceanclub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,413 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Then the sole point of it is objectification, rather than enriching a relationship surely? Surely we should regard sexuality as more than mere hedonism? It appears that we have two entirely different understandings on this.

    Drum roll, brrrrrrm: speaking as someone in a LTR/married for 10 years, and a mostly single adult for 12 years prior to that, it is possible to think that sex can be both fun in itself and also enrich a relationship. It's not an either/or.

    P.


Advertisement
Advertisement