Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[quixotecoyote]

I'm not sure what this question is alluding to, or what "full humanity" is intended to mean, but it seems rhetorical to me. If it's not, and you really want an anser from me, perhaps you could clarify.

What is the opposite of 'objectified?'

You haven't said, so I took the obvious meaning that the opposite of being treated and considered as an object was being treated and considered like a full person. If you have a more idiosyncratic meaning in mind, feel free to present it for discussion.

 

[Southwind17]

It bothers me to think that the level of discussion has to go down to things that you made a list of, instead of more carefully wording them. I can be as crass as the next person, but...I just ask that we be more careful of the words we use here. This isn't a porn site. And I *want* to have this discussion...but...this isn't my house to dirty up. There are respectful ways (respectful of other people who might be reading this...we don't have to respect one another if you don't want) to have it.

I apologize if that list offended you. It was primarily for JFrankA's benefit (no offense JFrankA, but your reponse to my list ("mundane") did seem to demonstrate my justification for needing a little "hard talk" between us two to clear up a key point! ) because I felt that I was being put under pressure to be absolutely clear what I mean by "marshmallow" porn (which I think is central to the debate). I honestly couldn't think of a more subtle way of doing that without, in any event, conjuring up the same mental images. Sorry - I'll endeavour to duly consider all participants in future.

Having written that, your response does suggest to me that you believed I had something different in mind (otherwise why be offended when I spell it out?), or maybe it's just seeing those words and terms in black and white that causes the distress, which I can perfectly understand - I felt somewhat uncomfortable writing them!

ETA: I'd be more than happy for the list to be removed by the mods, now that it's served it purpose amongst us, noting, however, that they elected not to disallow it in the first place.

 

[Southwind17]

What is the opposite of 'objectified?'

You haven't said, so I took the obvious meaning that the opposite of being treated and considered as an object was being treated and considered like a full person. If you have a more idiosyncratic meaning in mind, feel free to present it for discussion.

I'm not sure it has a true opposite, actually, in this context, but in a more "literary" context I'd say "personified". My twin 9-year old boys are actually learning about personification at school right now, incidentally.

 

[Southwind17]

And if some people want to be objectified?

And if some people want to be murdered and cannibalised? Seriously, there are, and it happens, you might remember.

Yet again, extreme example to make a point.

 

[Southwind17]

I don't think porn is entirely harmless. I think some people might not make the effort to find companionship if their needs are met by porn. But that is only problem if the person would like companionship.

Personally I like porn. However in my early twenties I sought therapy for a serious addiction to it. I think it was brought on by religious prohibition against premarital sex. The sex drive is like a river. You can't keep it from flowing. You can only change its direction (paraphrased from what my therapist told me).

At the risk of sounding provocative (understandable, I've made it clear that's one of my tendencies!), which I do not mean to be on this occasion, do you consider that the sort of addiction that you suffered could drive a person to rape? Also, do you think that, were it not for such porn addiction, any such "drive" (possibly latent) would manifest itself anyhow at some point, but not necessarily in rape, if you see what I mean?

 

[Marius vanderLubbe]

I quite like porn. It gives me wood.
Though like everything else that is good, we must moderate our intake, lest we become obese (figuratively speaking, in this instance.)

 

[Southwind17]

I quite like porn. It gives me wood.
Though like everything else that is good, we must moderate our intake, lest we become obese (figuratively speaking, in this instance.)

I'd have thought you would welcome a little "extra baggage"!

 

[quixotecoyote]

I'm not sure it has a true opposite, actually, in this context, but in a more "literary" context I'd say "personified". My twin 9-year old boys are actually learning about personification at school right now, incidentally.

Well foregoing the '9-year-old' dig you set up for me, why don't you try to explain how you think being 'personified' is better than being 'objectified' in the context this discussion is actually happening in?

Once you do that, we can have a discussion about how viewing porn compares to other activities as far as personifying people.

I doubt personification is an applicable term, but when the intended meaning of something verbal hangs on the precise expression of such verbalisation it's important to get it right, so I'm sure you gave the use of the term 'objectified' enough thought to know what the 'good state' is, as compared to that 'bad state'.

 

[Southwind17]

Well foregoing the '9-year-old' dig you set up for me, why don't you try to explain how you think being 'personified' is better than being 'objectified' in the context this discussion is actually happening in?

Once you do that, we can have a discussion about how viewing porn compares to other activities as far as personifying people.

I doubt personification is an applicable term, but when the intended meaning of something verbal hangs on the precise expression of such verbalisation it's important to get it right, so I'm sure you gave the use of the term 'objectified' enough thought to know what the 'good state' is, as compared to that 'bad state'.

This makes little-to-no sense to me. A person cannot be personified, by definition. Only non-human things can be personified. Consequently, one cannot meaningfully contrast objectification with personification.

I can't help thinking that you're just spoiling for a spat here quixotecoyote, but if not you'll have to be much clearer as to what it is you're getting at if you want me to participate further. I'm more than happy to respond to clear, direct questions and enter into debate, but if I'm unclear as to what's being asked of me or what the issue at hand is I'm not prepared to risk being ensnared on the back of vagueness. I'm more than familiar with that peril.

p.s. The 9-year old "dig" actually only became a "dig" after I'd started typing it. It started off as a genuine passing remark. Funny how some things turn out, don't you think?

 

[JFrankA]

I apologize if that list offended you. It was primarily for JFrankA's benefit (no offense JFrankA, but your reponse to my list ("mundane") did seem to demonstrate my justification for needing a little "hard talk" between us two to clear up a key point! ) because I felt that I was being put under pressure to be absolutely clear what I mean by "marshmallow" porn (which I think is central to the debate). I honestly couldn't think of a more subtle way of doing that without, in any event, conjuring up the same mental images. Sorry - I'll endeavour to duly consider all participants in future.

Having written that, your response does suggest to me that you believed I had something different in mind (otherwise why be offended when I spell it out?), or maybe it's just seeing those words and terms in black and white that causes the distress, which I can perfectly understand - I felt somewhat uncomfortable writing them!

ETA: I'd be more than happy for the list to be removed by the mods, now that it's served it purpose amongst us, noting, however, that they elected not to disallow it in the first place.

Just to be clear, SW - my "mundane" remark wasn't about having a competition. I was trying to show you that I wasn't talking about "marshmallow" porn either, the stuff you listed isn't something all that shocking to me, that I've filmed some of that list, and have been part of a scene involving some of that list and stuff that's even more objectionable. That's all.

If I can make a note here as to why I do not list out what I do in public forum, it's because a) I don't want to offend people (I don't think I would but you never know), b) At the risk of sounding egotistical, I think it would derail the thread, c) I really don't want to make it sound like I am advertising. (Although just saying that does sound like an advertisement. Sorry.) If you want to know, I'll be happy to tell you in PM.

It seems to me that you and I and possibly some other people are letting our emotions get in the way of having a real interesting discussion. Personally, I try to set aside my emotions when discussing something like this, but for some reason, (and I'm not blaming anyone but myself, mind you), I haven't done as well as I have before or as I should. Again, my apologies. I really don't mean to offend, or mock, for that matter.

At any rate, we have some interesting topics running through here, and I'd personally like to see them discussed. Namely:

Why do are we disgusted by certain acts?

Where, how, what and who we objectify and when and is it okay to do so?

When do we (and should we ever) start disrespecting people?

What is porn?

And the main OP, What's wrong with porn?

Now we are diving into "porn addiction" which is something, and no disrespect meant, please, RandFan, I've always believed was a compulsion, not an addiction. (and we can discuss this, please, because the difference between "addiction" and "compulsion" was a topic I've meant to post).

Your question, though, SW, to RandFan I'd like to hear the answer to. I have an opinion to his answer, but having never gone through porn addiction, I can't answer with any factual back up, so I'm going to remain quiet and learn something.

Thanks for your patience.

 

[RandFan]

At the risk of sounding provocative (understandable, I've made it clear that's one of my tendencies!), which I do not mean to be on this occasion, do you consider that the sort of addiction that you suffered could drive a person to rape? Also, do you think that, were it not for such porn addiction, any such "drive" (possibly latent) would manifest itself anyhow at some point, but not necessarily in rape, if you see what I mean?

Yes I do see what you mean and you never need qualify such frank questions with me. Having been raised with taboos I very much appreciate frank and open dialog about sex. I think perhaps the most therapeutic thing for me was reducing or removing the taboo aspects of sex in my mind.

That said. Excellent questions.

I think it very unlikely to lead to rape. The Meese report was an attempt to establish such a link. I say it was an attempt to establish such a link because Ed Meese was transparent in his motivations. Meese was not objective but god bless him he relied on objective social scientists. Unlike Bush and much of Bush's administration Meese did not quash scientific evidence though he did state conclusions that were not in line with the evidence and he minimized the evidence that indicated that porn is not harmful.

The psychological precursors to rape are varied, complex and not completely understood. My understanding however is that we are making progress. Rape, like all human behavior, is a complex interplay of genetic predisposition and environment. Since most men who raped confessed to having consumed pornography prior to rape and many affirmed that they used pornography to heighten their arousal prior to rape it was believed early on that the correlation would eventually lead to a cause and effect relationship. The last time I followed up on the research the relationship had not been established and indeed there was significant evidence to believe that there was no such relationship.

As for my experience as underlaying contributing cause. An understanding of sociobiology (evolutionary psychology) would lead one to conclude that it is not possible to make the kind of prediction you suggest as to whether or not any single individual would have been sufficiently different without any given variable. I think I could have developed an obsession for porn had I not been raised with such taboos. I think it would have been less likely though.

Social scientists and clinicians can only look at the body of evidence and conclude what is likely the cause of pathology. It would be dishonest of me to state categorically that my upbringing was the key contributing factor or that it was a significant factor. However we can state that given what we know of the statistics it is very likely.

 

[BenBurch]

You know what? Nobody here who is not already involved in some way with porn folks has bothered to go talk to the women actually making porn to hear what they have to say about it.

Sort of reminds me of Crackers sitting around discussing "what colored folk want."

 

[RandFan]

You know what? Nobody here who is not already involved in some way with porn folks has bothered to go talk to the women actually making porn to hear what they have to say about it.

Sort of reminds me of Crackers sitting around discussing "what colored folk want."

Perhaps it's Sunday and/or perhaps I just haven't had my coffee...

What?

 

[JFrankA]

You know what? Nobody here who is not already involved in some way with porn folks has bothered to go talk to the women actually making porn to hear what they have to say about it.

Sort of reminds me of Crackers sitting around discussing "what colored folk want."

...err... I have.

 

[BenBurch]

...err... I have.

I know you have, I included you in the "already involved" category.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not really sure what point Ben is making but I've seen interviews and documentaries with the likes of Jenna Jameson, Traci Lords, Nina Hartley and many others.

What is the point of the question?

 

[MontagK505]

Yes I do see what you mean and you never need qualify such frank questions with me. Having been raised with taboos I very much appreciate frank and open dialog about sex. I think perhaps the most therapeutic thing for me was reducing or removing the taboo aspects of sex in my mind.

That said. Excellent questions.

I think it very unlikely to lead to rape.
<snip>
.

The idea that “porn leads to rape” might lie more in the mind of the person who presents the idea than any actual fact.

As I mentioned in a earlier post, my hobby is photographing women. About 20 years ago I took some photos of a very attractive 15yr old girl in a fairly modest bikini (her mother was present and we were at a public beach). The photos were presented in a style of a girl who simply feels comfortable with her own body.

When I showed the photos to a religious conservative co-worker, his immediate reaction was “Tsk, tsk, no wonder girls get raped.”. Or, words to that effect.

Frankly, I was dismayed at his reaction. Is this what Christians generally think?

Do Christians instantly think rape as soon as they see a scantily clad / nude woman?

When I confront religious conservatives on this question, they immediately back-pedal and say “Oh no that's not what I mean, that's what others would think.”

“Others” of course meaning non christians.

 

[JFrankA]

The idea that “porn leads to rape” might lie more in the mind of the person who presents the idea than any actual fact.

As I mentioned in a earlier post, my hobby is photographing women. About 20 years ago I took some photos of a very attractive 15yr old girl in a fairly modest bikini (her mother was present and we were at a public beach). The photos were presented in a style of a girl who simply feels comfortable with her own body.

When I showed the photos to a religious conservative co-worker, his immediate reaction was “Tsk, tsk, no wonder girls get raped.”. Or, words to that effect.

Frankly, I was dismayed at his reaction. Is this what Christians generally think?

Do Christians instantly think rape as soon as they see a scantily clad / nude woman?

When I confront religious conservatives on this question, they immediately back-pedal and say “Oh no that's not what I mean, that's what others would think.”

“Others” of course meaning non christians.

Exactly why I say "Objectification is in the eye of the beholder".

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Of course the "disgust" question matters. Ron wrote this:

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
I find the idea of drinking urine disgusting (or drinking cum). But other people do it and I have no problem with that, nor see it reasonable to think less of them because of it.

To which you, in the fullness of time, defended with this:

Originally Posted by JFrankA View Post
Oh for **** sake. I'll answer this.
I do not drink urine
1. Because I have been taught and conditioned to respond to drinking urine in a negative way.
2. Because it has no nutritional value to my body.
3. Because I don't like the taste.
4. Because it doesn't bring me sexual pleasure to be so submissive that I need to prove my loyalty to a Domme.
5. Because it doesn't bring me sexual pleasure to shock another person in that way.
6. Because I know of more imaginative and creative ways to shock, if I cared to shock a person sexually that is much more fun and devious.
7. Because someone hasn't paid me enough money to watch me do it.

In other words, you provided a list of reasons to justify why you don't drink urine. Your list goes no way to helping Ron justify why he finds the idea of drinking urine (or cum) disgusting. Get it now?

You don't think number 3 in Frank's list has anything to do with my "finding it disgusting"?.

Or were you thinking of disgusting in a different context? Because the context I was using the word for, was the mere concept of flavor, which goes in the same lines of: yellow cheese, liver and mayo.

 

[Southwind17]

You don't think number 3 in Frank's list has anything to do with my "finding it disgusting"?.

Or were you thinking of disgusting in a different context? Because the context I was using the word for, was the mere concept of flavor, which goes in the same lines of: yellow cheese, liver and mayo.

The reason I interpreted your post the way I did, namely your disgust in a general context and not a personal context, was because of what you wrote in brackets. I was assuming that you (Ron) are male, so unless it's really "Ronette", your bracketed addition puzzles me. As a male I should have thought that you would be keen to cite much more than just taste as putting you off drinking that particular fluid! I could be assuming too much though, and you might well be gay. On reflection I can see that your words seem to make your position clear, but the bracketed part still leaves some doubt in my mind as to your intended meaning. Perhaps you could confirm your gender and sexual orientation, just to clear matters up.