Extreme radical "feminists" suffering sexual oppression unto them

tritium · 21-01-2014 08:29PM

Dean0088 wrote: »

This is precisely my point. I imagine I was one of the last few "years" of kids to not have a computer until my mid-teens, and broadband until I was around 17. So by then, sex was already a reality for me.

Previous to getting broadband, I did what lads had done for generations before: stayed up late and caught a sneeky pair of boobs on a late night movie or got hold of Penthouse. Now, kids as young as ten have access to extreme pornography which, even if parents wanted to, it's impossible to stop them from seeing. If you tell a fifteen year old he can't watch something, you can be damn sure he'll make it his life's mission to see what all the fuss is about.

I'm 100% opposed to any censorship. It simply doesn't work, makes criminals out of ordinary people, drives industries further underground and is a slipary slope for government to step onto. I just wish more people would wake up to what's actually turning porn viewers on these days because it sure isn't nudity or sex like it used to be.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you the porn has gotten more extreme, or indeed that its too accessible for young people. Its interesting though that you and a few other posters focus on a move to rape porn in recent years. Women's erotica, which has many clear rape porn characteristics has followed a familiar template for decades (mills and boons template dates from the thirties). So has this being giving women an unhealthy view of sexuality all this time? Or is it fine and the real issue is the availablity to a younger demographic who perhaps can't as easily separate fantasy and reality.

Now before you repeat your previous points, I'm not saying its necessarily healthy to want to access this type of extreme porn, my question is, if this has been socially fine for women for decades, is it reasonable to assume that grown ups in general might be fine with the availability of it? Or should we have a blanket ban? All of it, erotica and porn alike?

Fukuyama · 21-01-2014 09:33PM

tritium wrote: »

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you the porn has gotten more extreme, or indeed that its too accessible for young people. Its interesting though that you and a few other posters focus on a move to rape porn in recent years. Women's erotica, which has many clear rape porn characteristics has followed a familiar template for decades (mills and boons template dates from the thirties). So has this being giving women an unhealthy view of sexuality all this time? Or is it fine and the real issue is the availablity to a younger demographic who perhaps can't as easily separate fantasy and reality.

Now before you repeat your previous points, I'm not saying its necessarily healthy to want to access this type of extreme porn, my question is, if this has been socially fine for women for decades, is it reasonable to assume that grown ups in general might be fine with the availability of it? Or should we have a blanket ban? All of it, erotica and porn alike?

My main focus has been on regular porn, which does demean women in a way regular porn of say, the year 2000, didn't. Porn today has numbed the minds of heavy users. Nudity, sex and so on don't turn people on the way they used to, so every year the anti is upped to shock and surprise us more and more. This shock and surprise turns humans on by releasing dopamine. If you have a spare few minutes, check out this TED talk about the brains rapid desensitization to pornography and the online communities that are stepping back from porn. Note how they make explicit reference to post-broadband porn in the talk.

Your second point, about banning, I feel I've already made clear. I disagree with censorship as a method to stop people from seeing, reading or hearing things. As a strategy it just doesn't work. You can make anything illegal but if people want it, they'll get it. I also disagree with censorship on a fundamental level. I believe in total freedom both on the Internet and off it. The only time the authorities should get involved is in criminal matters.

I'm not pushing this issue from any biased standpoint. I'm not religious in the slightest, have no affiliations with charity and generally want people left to their own devices. But my experience of porn has changed over the past few years. I've watched it change in content and one day I though "What the **** am I watching here" - the funny thing was that it was a regular, front page of PornHub video. The main focus is no longer on sex, excitement, lust or arousal. It's on physical pain and degrading females sexually.

Porn directors supply to a demand, but that also create more demand by upping the anti and making last years porn seem plain. It's gotta be new. All I want is for people to reconsider what they're watching, maybe do a little research into the psychological effects of high-speed internet porn, into the industry and then decide. I would have been in the positions of yourself and other posters until a year or so ago when I just did a little research for two minutes (procrastinating, to be honest) and a lot of what I discovered checked boxes with me that I didn't even know were there to be checked.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 21-01-2014 09:36PM

you're one of those no-fap no porn lads aren't you dean0088?

--edit

nevermind, was some other D name I remembred from that thread

Fukuyama · 21-01-2014 09:42PM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

you're one of those no-fap no porn lads aren't you dean0088?

--edit

nevermind, was some other D name I remembred from that thread

You're wrong, and you're right.

I don't think I ever posted in Boards about it but I've done it for a while last year. More for the challenge of it and as boost to a fitness plan (it worked).

Not something I'd be really interested in doing long-term though. Loves me an aul **** and a shag.

Chemist Difference · 21-01-2014 10:03PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

It's no use Corinthian, my opposition to specfically hardcore porn (not all porn) is due to its dreadful depictions - nothing deeper. It's a stance that lots of people with no axe to grind/agenda to push/projecting to do, would have. And a pretty logical stance too.
He couldn't "quite rightly" reciprocate that at all (I have never been with a man who enjoys hardcore porn - to my knowledge anyway; I have been with a number of men who enjoy "softer" porn, and I have enjoyed it with them). Anyway, as I said numerous times, I wasn't aiming that comment at him personally. You might not have seen those posts?

Whereas someone who watches extreme hardcore porn and is not willing to admit depictions of gang-rape, with a side measure of beatings and humiliation, are problematic, and are even dismissive of these concerns - which I have encountered over and over - it's... fair to say the denial and the dismissiveness is due to them not wanting to face up to certain home truths. It doesn't mean they're a sexual deviant who'd do those things to a woman themselves - if anything it indicates they have a conscience.

What are these home truths you speak of?

Femme_Fatale · 21-01-2014 11:56PM

^^^

The issues with hardcore porn depicting violence/degradation that Dean has gone into great detail describing. There's a fair bit of "Explain yourself repeatedly" on this thread. Seems fairly disingenuous. Surely it's not hard to understand the points being made in opposition to hardcore porn depicting violence/degradation?

tritium wrote: »

Apparently so. We went via the well trusted men vs women route, with a scenic detour to visit Whataboutery National Park

That of course not including the whataboutery you agree with.

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

@FemmeFatale

I'm kind of confused by your posting. You say gangbang, and then you change it to gang rape. You say hardcore in the same way I'd say rape porn.

When your talking about rape porn are you talking about things you find 'rapey' or where the woman is actually actively resisting?

Splitting hairs, as Dean said. I used the terms gang bang and gang rape interchangeably. I'd imagine a love of gang banging is rare. I should have said violent gang bang perhaps.

People can say others should be allowed watch what they like all they want, but by the same token, others can voice their concerns about the content in question.

RDM_83 again · 21-01-2014 11:59PM

Ok since we're taling about porn now :cool:

People are conflating a number of different issues.

Porn has always been an absolutely shiite industry to work in its never been a nice thing even if some of the films seem "innocent" these days.
Linda Lovelace one of those first famous performers and she went onto say she was forced into it and campaigned hard against it, One of the most famous stars of the 80's was well underage when she was shooting loads of films (I am not googling "underage 80's porn" to check the name though :eek: ).
So any "new" problem with pornography because of issue of performers is disingenuous because these issues have been present from the start, obviously if your against the porn industry in general though thats an valid stance.

2nd point. Should kids have access to violent/rape pornography, of course not, nobody in their right mind should argue that, but my guess is that if you've got access to unlimited porn that excludes the more violent stuff its still probably going to mess you up a bit. I remember staying up late and watching an Emanuel (I think) film back in the day and she had a 4 some with three enormous African lads (thinking about it, it would probably just seem really racist if I watched it today it had bongo drums and all :pac: ), I'd hazard thats a much more unrealistic view of most sex than most of the milder end of the violent porn thing.
I do think porn is going to result in a lot of messed up views of sexuality in the younger generation but I don't think its just going to be down to the violent porn end of things its the access to porn as a whole.

To the 3rd point, whats driving this apparent increase in violent porn, it could be down to a change in the industry or peoples tastes but I don't think its due to a change in the industry the way people think.

Whats the sort of porn thats actually ballooned in popularity, amateur porn, I don't watch commercial porn really at all any more myself these days (its bad that I have to admit to watching one type of porn so I don't sound like an even worse perv or violent porn defender

)
Whats the result of loads of real people doing real stuff they enjoy for free and uploading it online for free and people watching it for free, the people in the porn industry start catering to the end of the market that amateurs won't do, and what amateurs won't do is stuff thats extreme like the violent porn so the 'professional' industry starts pumping it out to make money in an industry that is actually shrinking.

4th point, if its too do with the damage this porn can cause rather than the performer issues, why is the moving image so much more harmful than the written word I've read books that have stuck with me way more than any film has, shouldn't we ban de Marguis de Sade and similar works, isn't 50 shades of grey which earned a 100 million full of choking and slapping and stuff.

As a side note to this point why is violent porn bad but BDSM porn ok? In terms of physical imapct I would guess that BDSM is much harsher than most of the stuff that actual happens in "violent" porn and performers are still just in it for the money.
In terms of the social impact of BDSM vs "violent" porn why is BDSM better, in both cases we're generally watching watching woman being tied up and treated roughly and being dehumanized (BDSM possibly more so with all those masks and stuff)

I am not defending rape porn here it should be made clear what I am talking about is the "rough" end of porn which seems to have gotten more common rather than "rape" porn which I think is pretty rare, and I am not trying to advocate the harmlessness of the "rough/violent" stuff either I don't watch it myself and I think its pretty nasty I am just trying to point out that most of the arguments for its restriction apply to a lot of other parts of the adult industry too.

Having finished this epic post I now realise that all those "documentaries"

I watched when I was younger must have actually taught me stuff without me realizing it!

Femme_Fatale · 22-01-2014 12:06AM

Traci Lords is that underage gal.

The thing about 50 Shades Of Grey: I wouldn't read it if you paid me; the snippets I've read are absolute rubbish... but are people saying a book about a consensual relationship featuring BDSM and porn films depicting gang rape/violence the same thing? Really?

Fukuyama · 22-01-2014 12:23AM

I feel like we're going in circles here.

There are fantasies and tastes people have, many of which may be extreme such as BDSM or other forms of domination. This simulates an arrangement between two adults that want to pretend.

Then there is porn which simulates two adults (or more) which simulates an situation where one participant has an undue level of control over another person. Directing styles and camera angles (often looking downward on the female) paints this picture clearly. If there is spoken words, its often barked orders or insulting comments like calling the female a "slut" or a "c**t". On the extreme end of the scale there is simulated rape porn which has been described earlier - I don't particularly want to describe it again.

To me, those two scenarios are a world apart. To put it more bluntly, there's a difference between a woman who likes a man that "takes charge" in the bedroom, and a situation where the man has zero respect for the woman and does with her body as he pleases.

Femme_Fatale · 22-01-2014 12:31AM

Exactly. I'm a bit partial to a small bit of the auld domination/bondage myself to be quite honest

:pac: but if someone put on gang rape porn while I was in the room... I'd just have to leave the room. If for some reason I couldn't leave the room, I'd have to close my eyes and block my ears, it's that disturbing to me.
IMO it has more in common with the exploitation stuff of the 70s/80s than relatively tame BDSM stuff like 50SOG. The repeated pains to compare the latter with this stuff is a bit baffling - how on earth can that be honestly deemed as comparing like with like?

bodice ripper · 22-01-2014 12:37AM

I read Lasher by Anne Rice when I was 13. IIRC it has a female character being kidnapped, tied to a bed and raped for days by her son.

It has never up occurred to me to treat a partner like that.

22-01-2014 12:39AM

How does one depict hard/BDSM-play kind of stuff then? Keep having the dom asking permission and asking if everything's ok? Kind of defeats the purpose of the fantasy no?

The Th!ng · 22-01-2014 12:43AM

I agree with Femme Fatale, nowadays there is quite a lot of extreme hardcore porn which is revolting, has absolutely no redeeming features, and it gives decent porn a bad name.

RDM_83 again · 22-01-2014 01:00AM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Traci Lords is that underage gal.

The thing about 50 Shades Of Grey: I wouldn't read it if you paid me; the snippets I've read are absolute rubbish... but are people saying a book about a consensual relationship featuring BDSM and porn films depicting gang rape/violence the same thing? Really?

Ok are we talking about "rough" porn here or are we talking about "rape" porn, because I honestly don't think "rape" porn is common, in stuff like those casting couch things or those gang bangs videos which are while the performer is objectified and possibly degraded IMO its pretty clear the stuff is meant to be viewed as consensual (consensual in the literal sense, the power dynamic is pretty obviously meant to be viewed as uneven).

Dean0088 wrote: »

I feel like we're going in circles here.

There are fantasies and tastes people have, many of which may be extreme such as BDSM or other forms of domination. This simulates an arrangement between two adults that want to pretend.

Then there is porn which simulates two adults (or more) which simulates an situation where one participant has an undue level of control over another person. Directing styles and camera angles (often looking downward on the female) paints this picture clearly. If there is spoken words, its often barked orders or insulting comments like calling the female a "slut" or a "c**t". On the extreme end of the scale there is simulated rape porn which has been described earlier - I don't particularly want to describe it again.

But all of the above highlighted applies to BDSM simply change the words to slut to slave and you've exactly the same situation and your ignoring my point about what can be more dehumanizing than "ordering" someone to wear a mask. I am obviously talking about pornography hear rather than actual BDSM.

I'm not trying to start an anti-BDSM crusade here but I am confused how some guy wearing a t-shirt ordering a woman around and maybe pulling her hair and slapping lightly or similar is Horrific Rape Nastyness.
Whereas a guy wearing some tacky pvc ordering a woman around, tying her up, putting clamps on her and hitting her with a cane or paddle is Playful Experimentation.

22-01-2014 01:05AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Or maybe don't depict it in film at all? You want to do something go out there and do it, it's not that difficult :pac:

So pretend it doesn't exist?

22-01-2014 01:25AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Ah no, I wasn't really being serious there. It is a tough one I suppose when I actually think about it. I mean, I'm all for exposure of more 'niche interests', to use a polite term. My own interests certainly veer off the path a bit at times :cool:

But how do you know which are consentual and which are done against a participants will?

It's not something I've ever had to worry about. Guessing from other things though I'd guess the presence of a cameraman, before and after interviews and if the performer regularly features in similar videos would be fairly strong evidence.

Fukuyama · 22-01-2014 01:42AM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ok are we talking about "rough" porn here or are we talking about "rape" porn, because I honestly don't think "rape" porn is common, in stuff like those casting couch things or those gang bangs videos which are while the performer is objectified and possibly degraded IMO its pretty clear the stuff is meant to be viewed as consensual (consensual in the literal sense, the power dynamic is pretty obviously meant to be viewed as uneven).

But all of the above highlighted applies to BDSM simply change the words to slut to slave and you've exactly the same situation and your ignoring my point about what can be more dehumanizing than "ordering" someone to wear a mask. I am obviously talking about pornography hear rather than actual BDSM.

I'm not trying to start an anti-BDSM crusade here but I am confused how some guy wearing a t-shirt ordering a woman around and maybe pulling her hair and slapping lightly or similar is Horrific Rape Nastyness.
Whereas a guy wearing some tacky pvc ordering a woman around, tying her up, putting clamps on her and hitting her with a cane or paddle is Playful Experimentation.

Then you need to sharpen your critical thinking skills. If regular porn is the same as BDSM, then BDSM wouldn't be called BDSM. It'd be called regular porn.

There's a different power dynamic involved.

You said yourself that the casting couch demeans and objectifies women, and that the power dynamic is uneven. Well, that's pretty much my issue with it.

RDM_83 again · 22-01-2014 01:52AM

Dean0088 wrote: »

I feel like we're going in circles here.

There are fantasies and tastes people have, many of which may be extreme such as BDSM or other forms of domination. This simulates an arrangement between two adults that want to pretend.

Then there is porn which simulates two adults (or more) which simulates an situation where one participant has an undue level of control over another person. Directing styles and camera angles (often looking downward on the female) paints this picture clearly. If there is spoken words, its often barked orders or insulting comments like calling the female a "slut" or a "c**t". On the extreme end of the scale there is simulated rape porn which has been described earlier - I don't particularly want to describe it again.

To me, those two scenarios are a world apart. To put it more bluntly, there's a difference between a woman who likes a man that "takes charge" in the bedroom, and a situation where the man has zero respect for the woman and does with her body as he pleases.

I thought you were ok with BDSM stuff though from reading your post and I was highlighting how similar if you step back it is too the porn that offends people? Or is it that your ok with BDSM activity but have a problem with BDSM porn

Fukuyama · 22-01-2014 02:08AM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I thought you were ok with BDSM stuff though from reading your post and I was highlighting how similar if you step back it is too the porn that offends people? Or is it that your ok with BDSM activity but have a problem with BDSM porn

I don't see an issue with BDSM - porn or otherwise as anyone participating, and watching, know the power dynamics and that it can be stopped at any minute.

Regular porn is depicted as real and its content demeans the female actresses against their will (to some extent) to a point of being dangerous for viewers and society.

RDM_83 again · 22-01-2014 02:31AM

Dean0088 wrote: »

I don't see an issue with BDSM - porn or otherwise as anyone participating, and watching, know the power dynamics and that it can be stopped at any minute.

Regular porn is depicted as real and its content demeans the female actresses against their will (to some extent) to a point of being dangerous for viewers and society.

But in BDSM its portrayed as a Master and Slave/Sub which is about the clearest example of a power dynamic you can get.

Yes its pretty obvious that it can be stopped at any minute, but the same can be applied to the other types of porn we are discussing.
As I have said before AFAIK actual "rape" porn is pretty rare, its whats actually common is stuff which pretty clearly shows the woman consenting even if it is in an unequal power dynamic.

In terms of the actual demeaning aspects, as I pointed out, if you take a step back and actually look at what happens without any preconceived ideas of the roles, the control, the demeaning aspects and the violence in BDSM is generally either comparable or exceeds that in the porn you have a problem with.

So I ask again why is BDSM porn is ok when "rough" porn isn't, both show woman being degraded and/or controlled, both show some level of 'violence', in both consent is given (and remember in BDSM porn we have no idea of the participants relationship outside the brief scene and to what level the sub/slave is an equal participant).

Edit: Just to be clear I don't think BDSM porn is particularly harmful too adults but I also hold the same view about other porn too (in moderation) and I don't see why BDSM should be exempt from these criticism because it is recognized as a sub-culture.

GalwayGuy2 · 22-01-2014 08:50AM

Do people think 50 shades of Grey is as extreme as it gets?

Here's some Goodreads Non-Consent books: http://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/non-consent

I only searched non-consent Erotica and that section of Good Reads showed up.

tritium · 22-01-2014 10:11AM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Do people think 50 shades of Grey is as extreme as it gets?

Here's some Goodreads Non-Consent books: http://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/non-consent

I only searched non-consent Erotica and that section of Good Reads showed up.

Which brings me back to the point that no one seems able to answer. This stuf ,same basic formula, has been available and aimed (predomjnantly) at women for decades. The same groups that for their knickers in a twist over playboy to a large extent ignored this stuff (a few tut tuts about supporting patriarchy ). What's changed? Is it the medium? Or is it the target audience?

B0jangles · 22-01-2014 10:37AM

Look at who the reader/viewer is supposed to identify with; in the (IMO creepy) 50 Shades of Grey -style of rapey porn fiction, the reader (most likely female) is generally expected to identify with the character who is being dominated.

In the kind of porn currently under discussion, the target market is straight men, the person being dominated is almost invariably a woman. The viewer generally is expected to see himself is the role of the guy doing all the dominating.

If people do attempt to recreate in real life what they see onscreen/have read about, I think we can agree that it is more dangerous for someone to expect to be able to be rough with an unsuspecting partner than for a person to expect a partner will be rough with them.

For comparison, have a look at some gay male porn; target market is still men but the power dynamics and terminology are almost completely different

The Corinthian · 22-01-2014 11:30AM

Dean0088 wrote: »

Tbh, several posters are dissecting different genres of porn and making convoluted points. The simple fact is that porn has changed since the arrival of high speed broadband, and in my opinion it's extremely dangerous for young men and women to be watching.

I'm afraid you're factually incorrect. Availability of pornography has increased since the arrival of the Internet, the quantity too has increased dramatically, but the content has not gotten more extreme and regulation has increased.

'Extreme' pornography has been 'mainstream' since the 1970's - Color Climax, for example, was legally producing bestiality and child pornography long before there was a single Web site.

So it's important not to start inventing theories about how things have become more extreme. They've not, they're just more available.

Importantly, however, just because you feel points are convoluted doesn't actually mean they are - it could simply be that you're unable or unwilling to understand them and dismissing them as convoluted is just an easier way to deal with the points made.

What is depicted in pornography is fake, acted, pretend. So if it portrayed, then the only rational objection is that it is warping the minds of people viewing it to the point that they would commit rape in real life.

Secondly, the entire conversation has now focused on depictions of rape; earlier mentions of degradation and humiliation of women have vanished, presumably because they are consensual, even in the storyline of these pornographic videos. Indeed, portrayals of rape, I would have thought, are a tiny percentage of so-called gonzo porn.

If, if so, and we accept that portrayals of rape will warp minds (although I'd note no one has presented a single coherent argument, let alone evidence of this here) and say we ban this, then all that 'degradation and humiliation' porn should be OK; after all, it's no less consensual than anything depicted in Fifty Shades of Grey.

If not, someone's going to have to explain to me what the parameters of the sexual morality they're trying to impose are? Is consensual BDSM OK? But only if it doesn't involve 'degradation and humiliation'? Or if it's not filmed? And with the banning of rape pornography, should we make consensual rape fantasies illegal acts too? Are there any other taboos? All BDSM? Golden showers? Scat? Blood sports? Fisting? I ask, because the question of what is sexually normal or acceptable, in the first place, has also been raised.

So while we're on the subject of convoluted arguments, I'd love to hear some answers to the above, as they appear to be pretty big gaps in what's been proposed by the detractors of pornography here.

GalwayGuy2 · 22-01-2014 11:31AM

For comparison, have a look at some gay male porn; target market is still men but the power dynamics and terminology are almost completely different

For comparison I did glance through the titles of some of the videos.

And, to be perfectly honest, I think you might be mistaken. I'm not going to link or anything like that, but if anybodies curious they should glance through it. It's pretty much the same as what's been said on this thread.

In the kind of porn currently under discussion, the target market is straight men, the person being dominated is almost invariably a woman. The viewer generally is expected to see himself is the role of the guy doing all the dominating.

I'm not sure about that. Most men are a little homophobic, so they'd probably be turned on by the woman's pleasure more than the men. Hell, even identifying with the men may be seen as a little 'gay'.

As well as that, the whole line between sub and dom is blurry and, if there are no aspects of BDSM, then the line between sub and dom becomes subjective.

Look at who the reader/viewer is supposed to identify with; in the (IMO creepy) 50 Shades of Grey -style of rapey porn fiction, the reader (most likely female) is generally expected to identify with the character who is being dominated.

I'm not sure about that either. Women may be less homophobic than men and may be more comfortable being turned on when the 'object' is a woman. There are recent studies that say women are more turned on by other women than men would be by other men. As well as that, it's quite a common fantasy to swap your gender and imagine yourself in the position of the other gender.

Finally, there's a link between submissive fantasies and dom fantasies. A woman who is imagining being tied up may imagine tying someone up, and a man who imagines tying a woman up may imagine being tied up.

Just to mention, I am not talking about rape pornography any more. I can completely understand why people disagree with it and believe it may cause the abuse of women. On an emotional level I actually agree with it and would personally find it distasteful if a man told me they enjoyed that. The only reason I'm defending it is because I believe causing someone who watches it to feel massive amounts of shame may be dangerous for all people involved.

But classing all pornography and erotica as rape pornography because you find it 'rapey' is untrue.

The Corinthian · 22-01-2014 11:36AM

B0jangles wrote: »

If people do attempt to recreate in real life what they see onscreen/have read about, I think we can agree that it is more dangerous for someone to expect to be able to be rough with an unsuspecting partner than for a person to expect a partner will be rough with them.

So porn where one is being dominated is fine, while porn where one is dominated is not because it might cause them to go out and be rough in bed?

OK, now I know people have lost the plot here as that's got to be the biggest load of crap I've heard in ages. Other than the bizarre double standard (it's OK to encourage people to want to be 'abused', but not 'abuse'), you've managed to presume that any man who watches such porn will of course automatically and without consent or request 'get rough' in bed with a woman (of course they could well get this requested seeing as the porn encouraging women to be 'abused' is OK by you).

Feel free to back any of this nonsense up with some evidence please.

Dravokivich · 22-01-2014 11:38AM

Yeah, I get what the anti porn guys are on about here.

Believe it or not I'm anti action movies as well. I used to just want to go and destroy someone after watching a violent action movie. I've been watching period drama's since and have become quite the Mr Darcy.

B0jangles · 22-01-2014 11:46AM

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

For comparison I did glance through the titles of some of the videos.

And, to be perfectly honest, I think you might be mistaken. I'm not going to link or anything like that, but if anybodies curious they should glance through it. It's pretty much the same as what's been said on this thread.

I'm not sure about that. Most men are a little homophobic, so they'd probably be turned on by the woman's pleasure more than the men. Hell, even identifying with the men may be seen as a little 'gay'.

As well as that, the whole line between sub and dom is blurry and, if there are no aspects of BDSM, then the line between sub and dom becomes subjective.

I'm not sure about that either. Women may be less homophobic than men and may be more comfortable being turned on when the 'object' is a woman. There are recent studies that say women are more turned on by other women than men would be by other men. As well as that, it's quite a common fantasy to swap your gender and imagine yourself in the position of the other gender.

Finally, there's a link between submissive fantasies and dom fantasies. A woman who is imagining being tied up may imagine tying someone up, and a man who imagines tying a woman up may imagine being tied up.

Just to mention, I am not talking about rape pornography any more. I can completely understand why people disagree with it and believe it may cause the abuse of women. On an emotional level I actually agree with it and would personally find it distasteful if a man told me they enjoyed that. The only reason I'm defending it is because I believe causing someone who watches it to feel massive amounts of shame may be dangerous for all people involved.

But classing all pornography and erotica as rape pornography because you find it 'rapey' is untrue.

I'll take you word for it on the gay porn as A. It's been a while since I looked at any site and B. Don't want to go a-checking on this pc

.

Also take your point about shaming people's tastes - I just think we can agree that what once seen as extreme is now practically seen as vanilla, and that while some aspects of BSDM are frequently used, others (like safewords etc.,) are completely left out. So anyone who gets their ideas about what constitutes acceptable BSDM-y behaviour from porn would get it very very wrong.

Dravokivich · 22-01-2014 11:48AM

B0jangles wrote: »

I'll take you word for it on the gay porn as A. It's been a while since I looked at any site and B. Don't want to go a-checking on this pc .

Also take your point about shaming people's tastes - I just think we can agree that what once seen as extreme is now practically seen as vanilla, and that while some aspects of BSDM are frequently used, others (like safewords etc.,) are completely left out. So anyone who gets their ideas about what constitutes acceptable BSDM-y behaviour from porn would get it very very wrong.

I think the issue lies solely with those who are unable to distinguish between reality and fiction. Don't treat us all as such just because very few are.

Fukuyama · 22-01-2014 11:53AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm afraid you're factually incorrect. Availability of pornography has increased since the arrival of the Internet, the quantity too has increased dramatically, but the content has not gotten more extreme and regulation has increased.

'Extreme' pornography has been 'mainstream' since the 1970's - Color Climax, for example, was legally producing bestiality and child pornography long before there was a single Web site.

So it's important not to start inventing theories about how things have become more extreme. They've not, they're just more available.

Importantly, however, just because you feel points are convoluted doesn't actually mean they are - it could simply be that you're unable or unwilling to understand them and dismissing them as convoluted is just an easier way to deal with the points made.

What is depicted in pornography is fake, acted, pretend. So if it portrayed, then the only rational objection is that it is warping the minds of people viewing it to the point that they would commit rape in real life.

Secondly, the entire conversation has now focused on depictions of rape; earlier mentions of degradation and humiliation of women have vanished, presumably because they are consensual, even in the storyline of these pornographic videos. Indeed, portrayals of rape, I would have thought, are a tiny percentage of so-called gonzo porn.

If, if so, and we accept that portrayals of rape will warp minds (although I'd note no one has presented a single coherent argument, let alone evidence of this here) and say we ban this, then all that 'degradation and humiliation' porn should be OK; after all, it's no less consensual than anything depicted in Fifty Shades of Grey.

If not, someone's going to have to explain to me what the parameters of the sexual morality they're trying to impose are? Is consensual BDSM OK? But only if it doesn't involve 'degradation and humiliation'? Or if it's not filmed? And with the banning of rape pornography, should we make consensual rape fantasies illegal acts too? Are there any other taboos? All BDSM? Golden showers? Scat? Blood sports? Fisting? I ask, because the question of what is sexually normal or acceptable, in the first place, has also been raised.

So while we're on the subject of convoluted arguments, I'd love to hear some answers to the above, as they appear to be pretty big gaps in what's been proposed by the detractors of pornography here.

Corinthian, your responses are no different in nature than your usual tacs on threads. You take what you propose to be evidence and claim it as such, when it's anything but.

Everyone is aware of ****ed up porn. There were beastiality and kiddie porn circulating on filmstrips thanks to pirating factories run by criminals since before WW2 in the US. The existence of such porn 50 years ago, in what was very limited circles, doesn't mean that today's porn is comparatively tame and we should be thankful. Mainstream porn, the type 99% of people watch multiple times a week, has gotten more violent and degrading for the female actresses, as well as a lot easier to access. Having one porno DVD in 2002 was rare for most men. Now, everyone has millions available and can quickly switch between videos to keep the dopamine flowing.

You also fail to see the difference between BDSM and normal porn, or at least choose to ignore it to back up your own point.

I'll put it simply. There's a world of difference between spanking a partner during BDSM role-play, and genuinely thinking that hitting someone is okay. BDSM porn involves the hitting of women, typing up etc... etc... In fact, the actions could be even more extreme. But the intention is to dominate a person for sexual pleasure for both people involved - neither gender is actually degraded fom a larger societal standpoint.

Whats more, you seem intent on aligning my views with rape porn. Over the past couple of pages in this thread I've repeatedly said that my issue is primarily with "normal" porn, the kind of stuff that's on the front page of PornHub. However, it has been proven, that high-speed internet porn , no matter how bizarre and shocking will eventually become boring to a high-user leading them onto more extreme genres that are more damaging and in some cases can get them into trouble with the law (AFAIK, the UK want to ban violent porn and rape porn). However, I say again, my points apply primarily to front page of PH type stuff.

The 50SOG erotica books I would class as similar to porn. However, their main target audience is women and they're normally the ones being dominated in these books. Nobody has actually confirmed whether that book is about rape (as in, actual non-consensual sex attacks) or BDSM. If it's about the former, and someone gets please from the idea of attacking someone or being attacked, then they really need to sit back and ponder whether or not they have issues.

I'm coming from no puritanical standpoint and certainly oppose censorship (the UK's policy will be unenforceable and will get a lot of people who have issues into trouble). I just want people to stand back and objectively look at how mainstream porn compares to sex - the gap has never been wider.

I don't know if you have a daughter or son - but if you do, this is where they'll be learning how to have sex, treat members of the opposite sex and what's expected of them sexually.

This guy sums up my views perfectly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRJ_QfP2mhU

Porn today, unlike porn of a decade ago, contains virtually no touching, kissing, caressing etc etc... Even the most tame of porn is all about forcefully holding the female, f*cking her in a way which can only be painful and degrading, and then nutting on her face.

Extreme radical "feminists" suffering sexual oppression unto them

Comments