Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Fighting an addiction to porn (not me!)

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Blitzkrieger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,661 ✭✭✭Blitzkrieger


    Originally posted by Talliesin
    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.

    bleh! :)

    The study showed that men were aroused by images more than their other senses. They concluded that when men fantasise, they usually see a series of images of naked women, or people having sex. Men are far more likely to be turned on by 'pictorials' in a magazine than women. In contrast, the women in the study tended to have more involved fantasies, with things like realism, emotions and other things compleltly superflous to men.

    The point was the boyfriend in question wasn't 'sick' because he liked porn (or got a thrill out of it, if the phrasing matters that much to you), studies have shown that he is completly normal.
    Originally posted by Talliesin
    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) [

    You can assume anything you like to prove your point. Since I didn't make any assumptions, you should assume that I'm taking about a general case, and my point might not be valid for every eventuality.

    Originally posted by Talliesin
    Now you've jumped from the illogical to the irrational.

    *sigh

    It was a joke.

    The point was that (if you believe the studies) men liking porn is a natural phenomenon, as you've probably noticed, so is women having arms. You can't say women are sick because they have arms, it's natural that they have arms. If you're not taking the piss with that statement I'd be a bit worried.
    Originally posted by Talliesin
    (there is a difference between "like porn" and "have to watch porn to get the thrill"),

    Yes, but I don't always believe everything I hear/read. I'd bet that "have to...to get the thrill" is an exagerration. This was related by a third party, who heard it from a person who was probably quite emotional at the time. If I read :
    Originally posted by Blitzkrieger
    so a porn movie with beautiful naked women in it is ALWAYS a turn on

    I would think it's an exaggeration, and not read too much into it. I certainly wouldn't start talking about "watching two men tickle each other with feather fans". :p

    Remember back in school, when the english teacher would give you a 'comprehension exercise'? It was all about reading between the lines, and undestanding what point the person was actually making. What was a fact, what was an assumption, what did the proverb/joke they used actually mean, etc.. Usually you could read a lot into the words used, and the emotions behind them. Just me then?
    Originally posted by Talliesin
    Question. What would you do about that boredom?

    Go post on the boards! :D


  • Options
    #33
    amp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,446 ✭✭✭✭amp


    There seems to be a general feeling by some that men are exploiting women by buying porn. What does this mean? Are the women being forced to do porn (and I'm talking mainstream porn here, not sick rape video's which I of course utterly condemn), not being paid enough or what?

    I mean if a woman willingly gets a couple of hundred quid to talk her clothes off to be photographed is she being exploited?

    As Victor points out, children making clothes in a sweatshop is a good definition of being exploited. I think women in porn is less clear cut.

    Sure some women probably are being exploited through various means in porn. Some may have been blackmailed/desperatly needed money/etc. But I propose that probably most women in porn see it just as a job. And some women make a hell of a lot of money out of it.


  • Options
    #34
    Talliesin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,314 ✭✭✭Talliesin


    Originally posted by amp
    Are the women being forced to do porn (and I'm talking mainstream porn here, not sick rape video's which I of course utterly condemn)
    Deep Throat was the most successful pornographic movie of the 1970s (perhaps of all time), and it didn't feature much that would be referred to as violence within the scope of pornography in the movie itself. It took in $600m at the box-office. It is now rated R18 uncut by the BBFC. That makes it pretty "mainstream", arguably the clearest example of a film that is both "mainstream" and irrefutably pornographic.

    It's main actress was forced to perform some scenes at gunpoint.

    Or if you'd rather believe that Boreman making that allegation and spending the rest of her life campaigning against pornography was sour grapes (though not sour grapes at something that could be considered exploitative of course, just general sour grapes at something that wasn't really bad, women huh?) look at what Michael Moorcock has to say about how the industry works. Moorcock's experiences of the pornography industry are probably greater than Boreman in terms of range and length of time involved, but are from a position of priviledge from which there is no selfish reason for him to feel anything but gratitude to the industry, has to say on the subject of how the industry works.


  • Options
    #35
    Talliesin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,314 ✭✭✭Talliesin


    Originally posted by Blitzkrieger
    The point was the boyfriend in question wasn't 'sick' because he liked porn (or got a thrill out of it, if the phrasing matters that much to you), studies have shown that he is completly normal.
    While pornography, pornographers and pornography users are obsessed with the concept of normality, anyone spending 5 seconds thinking about it would conclude:
    1. That "normal" is always defined with an agenda.
    2. That normalcy doesn't mean jack ****.
    You can assume anything you like to prove your point. Since I didn't make any assumptions, you should assume that I'm taking about a general case, and my point might not be valid for every eventuality.
    You made plenty of assumptions. I was just agreeing to go along with your assumptions for sake of argument (and because I couldn't be bothered refuting them, they're rather obvious).
    It was a joke.
    Ah. Next time you make a joke try to give it some sort of humour and I'll be more likely to recognise it as such.
    The point was that (if you believe the studies) men liking porn is a natural phenomenon, as you've probably noticed, so is women having arms. You can't say women are sick because they have arms, it's natural that they have arms. If you're not taking the piss with that statement I'd be a bit worried.
    "Natural phenomenon" has the same problems as normal. It's not a natural phenomenon as cultures with no imagery, never mind no pornographic imagery, are easily found. Besides "natural" doesn't mean jack either, heart-attacks are natural, tennis isn't - does this morally colour heart-attacks as superior to tennis?


  • Options
    #36
    neuro-praxis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,184 ✭✭✭neuro-praxis


    I'm not sure that when pornography is considered in the abstract whether "exploitation" is the main issue.

    Degradation is.

    And you don't have to feel degraded in order to be degraded. Degradation isn't an emotion. It's a state.

    All in all, I think pornography is degrading, to the viewer and the, er, star.

    I don't think it's "sick" to like pronography. I think it's natural - but that doesn't mean it's good. After all, people are naturally bad.

    For the record, Blitz, I have several male friends who hate pornography.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    DriftingRain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭DriftingRain


    And you don't have to feel degraded in order to be degraded. Degradation isn't an emotion. It's a state

    That makes tons of sence. I agree with you there. That is what I feel about porn. I just think it is degrading to a male and female envolved...But I always say whatever floats your boat...If ya wanna watch it go ahead...I'm not sayin you can't and even if I did I'm not the worlds Queen!:)


  • Options
    #38
    Blitzkrieger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,661 ✭✭✭Blitzkrieger


    Originally posted by Talliesin


    "Natural phenomenon" has the same problems as normal. It's not a natural phenomenon as cultures with no imagery, never mind no pornographic imagery, are easily found.

    I don't want to argue the point anymore, but (I know - I shouldn't :) ) I already said that certain assumptions should be made, even if the author of a piece doesn't make them himself/herself. In this case you could assume I was talking about western society.

    I do agree with a lot of the points that you made, Talliesin. All I'm saying is that looking at naked women is something almost every man likes.

    Originally posted by neuro-praxis
    For the record, Blitz, I have several male friends who hate pornography.

    You have several male friends who say they hate pronography. It may or may not be true :)

    Originally posted by neuro-praxis
    I'm not sure that when pornography is considered in the abstract whether "exploitation" is the main issue.

    Degradation is.

    And you don't have to feel degraded in order to be degraded. Degradation isn't an emotion. It's a state.

    All in all, I think pornography is degrading, to the viewer and the, er, star.

    That's your point of view, but not neccessarily everyone's. There's a quote by some psychiatrist along the lines of : "We judge other people by our own standards". If you feel it's degrading, then it would be degrading to you to star in one, or to watch some, then you think that it's degrading for everybody else too. For example, if an exibionist starred in a porn movie, they would probably find the experience liberating.

    I honestly don't know if I would agree with you or not, but my point is that not everyone would.


    What I don't get about pornography is how it's not considered prostitution. It's one/more people getting paid to have sex, but just because there's a camera on them it's ok?


  • Options
    #39
    DriftingRain
    Closed Accounts Posts: 965 ✭✭✭DriftingRain


    What I don't get about pornography is how it's not considered prostitution. It's one/more people getting paid to have sex, but just because there's a camera on them it's ok?

    I have often wondered that myself?:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #40
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,245 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Originally posted by Blitzkrieger
    What I don't get about pornography is how it's not considered prostitution. It's one/more people getting paid to have sex, but just because there's a camera on them it's ok?
    Certainly in the USA it is protected by the first amendment. Not all porn involves paying for sex. Sez is not involved in all cases.


  • Options
    #41
    Talliesin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,314 ✭✭✭Talliesin


    Remember that prostitution per se isn't illegal in much of the West (including here). Generally it is solicitation that is illegal.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    amp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,446 ✭✭✭✭amp


    Never thought I'd say this here but let's stick to talking about porn. :)


  • Options
    #43
    Talliesin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,314 ✭✭✭Talliesin


    I was. My point is that whether or not production of pornography is considered prostitution does not affect its legal position, since it is not prostitution per se that is illegal.


  • Options
    #44
    amp
    Registered Users Posts: 11,446 ✭✭✭✭amp


    Ah right, play on so.


  • Options
    #45
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,245 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Originally posted by Talliesin
    I was. My point is that whether or not production of pornography is considered prostitution does not affect its legal position, since it is not prostitution per se that is illegal.
    Not wishing to go further off course, but there are several other more serious crimes around prostitution, especially "running a brothel" and "living off the proceeds of prostitution". Both are aimed at pimps, but could they be used against porn publishers?


  • Options
    #46
    Talliesin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,314 ✭✭✭Talliesin


    Charges of that nature have been brought against pornographers, but in general these days the argument is that the money is not obtained for the sexual act per se, and any premises involved aren't being used as a place someone can go to have sex with prostitutes, and hence they don't apply.

    The only laws directly dealing with pornography are the stupid obscenity laws.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement