Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[JFrankA]

Not necessarily true - evidently. Would you argue the same about attempted murder?

A very poor comparison. A more accurate comparison would be someone making a cartoon of someone else getting murdered.

Now this I agree with. Those reasons, however, lead me to the same conclusion, namely that all child porn should be banned. And I'm with sugarb on this - not only should VCP be banned because of the reasonable supposition that it promotes child abuse, but that there's simply no justification in society for the publication of child porn per se. You might argue there's justification for not banning it, on freedom of speech grounds, and I can appreciate that (notwithstanding the camel's nose), and that would need to be reconciled, but I repeat, there's simply no justification in society for the publication of child porn per se.

I have list dozens of reasons why, some as a fantasy between two consenting adults, some because of a story line, some to challenge the thoughts and feelings of the viewer, some as comedy, some to invoke feelings of anger and disgust, the list goes on and on.

Reasonable supposition, my friend. But yes, absolutely I would wholly support the publication of VCP if it were "discovered" (even by reasonable supposition (of course, adequately countering the current reasonable supposition to the contrary)) tomorrow that it actually reduces child abuse in net terms, and that the publication and availability was regulated to the extent necessary to ensure such net reduction. Yes I would.

I have said, over and over, that VCP can help a potential child molester deal with her/his urges to actually molest a child. Since you believe that sexual arousal is so powerful that people lose all their judgment, (which I still say is completely incorrect, but to make my point), don't you think that banning VCP would take away that outlet for people who ARE using it to help them cope with their urges?

You are basing your "reasonable conclusion" from belief, emotional pleading and personal opinion. "It's yuckky and I don't like and think of the children". There is no "reasonable" inside that conclusion.

My belief, and yes, I will be honest and freely admit it is, is that VCP is already being used to help curb urges in potential child molesters. In fact, I'll go a step further and say that with the help of a psychiatrist, an actual child molester can be helped curb her/his urges with VCP, thus reducing the SOURCE of child molestation and not one of it's symptoms. It's worth it to test out this theory, but we can't because VCP is illegal.

Further, there is a lot of VCP that is made with harmless intent in mind. Yes, I said harmless. I've listed some of them above.

My beliefs are based on simple facts, unemotionally looking at it from all angles and possibilities for helping the real problem (not just eliminating a symptom and hoping that helps).

Yes, we both are coming to "reasonable conclusion". But I'm sorry, my conclusions seem to have more reason than yours.

And may I point out, once again, that the only reason that the US made VCP illegal was that someday it might be possible to make the virtual children in a VCP indistinguishable from real children, and they used that to close a legal loophole.

In other words, they didn't do make it illegal because VCP was dangerous or harmful, they did it for other lawyers.

 

[Belz...]

Those reasons, however, lead me to the same conclusion, namely that all child porn should be banned.

Yes. But VCP isn't child porn.

not only should VCP be banned because of the reasonable supposition that it promotes child abuse

...which is pure speculation on your part...

but that there's simply no justification in society for the publication of child porn per se.

That goes against the very principle of freedom of speech.

You might argue there's justification for not banning it, on freedom of speech grounds, and I can appreciate that

Apparently, you can't. One doesn't need a reason to NOT ban something on those grounds.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Have you even posited any reasonable suppositions?

They were in the very post you were responding to. I believe these are all reasonable suppositions:

1. VCP use leads to an increase in child abuse.
2. VCP use leads to a decrease in child abuse.
3. VCP use has no net effect on the incidence of child abuse.

Personally, I find #3 to be most likely, and #1 to be slightly less likely than #2.

]I think it should, so long as the reasoning is sound, particularly when it comes to child abuse.

Then we clearly shall not be able to come to any sort of agreement on this issue. Many beliefs that were thought to be "common sense" or "reasonable supposition" have been proven incorrect once data was collected. I am not, therefore, comfortable with making laws -- particularly those restricting free speech -- without adequate data to support them.

What other significant(!) category of society do you suppose a VCP ban should be lifted for the "benefit" of?

A) I'm sure there are plenty of other forms that VCP can take besides Japanese comic books.
2) Manga is now pretty mainstream (in the US, at least). It takes up a lot of shelf space at Barnes & Noble.
c) Manga does not usually contain VCP.
IV) The VCP ban should be lifted on free speech grounds, not to benefit any specific "category of society".

I can see why somebody who, for whatever reason, is incapable of interpolation, might draw this conclusion.

When you have so much difficulty communicating your thoughts to others, you really should try to avoid expressing your ideas in forms that require "interpolation". I suggest saying what you actual mean to say, with as much clarity and precision as possible.

Similarly, I suggest reading the words others actually write, rather than trying to "interpolate" any hidden meanings.

 

[AWPrime]

That doesn't of itself preclude the validity of the concept of "absolute freedom" as a starting point, though, for appreciating where we are right now.

Actually it does. As I can't use arguments based upon the generics of woods when talking about tires. In such a case I should be talking about what its actually made off.

No they're not. Show them to me, in the genes.

Don't need to as genes are irrelevant.

Try living in society without money for a year, then come back and tell me your view.

Bad argument, one doesn't have a right to everything they need.

Again, academic to what I'm arguing. Forget I even used the word, if you like, it makes no difference.

No, I will not forget it. That word is a part of reality. And I will not let you get away with oversimplifying reality to fit your argument.

Laws do, essentially, only address prohibitions, either directly or by inferred exclusion. They tend to set out what is illegal, not what is legal. Otherwise, they tend to dictate what one shall do in certain circumstances, not what one may do. In other words, they govern how one may and may not behave in society, thereby restricting one's freedom to otherwise behave exactly how one wishes.

There a lot of prohibitions because reality is complex but they aren't limited to prohibitions.

You're incorrectly translating "earning" into a restriction on freedom. You're still maintaining that if something is not freely (at no cost) available than no right to it exists. As I wrote, everything has an opportunity cost, even breathing air, which uses energy thereby requiring food. By your reckoning we have absolutely no freedom! Show me what restrictions are placed on the predator and the prey, other than physiological and environmental (opportunity costs).

You are oversimplifying reality again. There is a real difference between the costs of driving a car and breathing. Can you see this?

Irrelevant to the discussion.

Nope, your example is flawed. First of all something had to happen before they may kill. Secondly such places are often sites of continues violence and instability, in other words a poorly done society.

Oh, here we go, a "true" right. I enjoy pointing out this particular fallacy, ever since I committed it and had it drawn to my attention.

Then I will simply call it a right. Show me that it is a right to murder and not a right to retaliation/revenge.

This is a repeat of my opinion?:

You are dodging the question again. It is your quoted response to that question that is the repeat.

 

[quadraginta]

Earlier in this thread it has been pointed out that it is estimated that one out of five teenagers engage in the practice of "sexting", or sending pornographic pictures to each other with their cell phones.

In view of the aspects of this discussion revolving around the effect and propriety of law, and the multifaceted nature of the benefits and drawbacks inherent in laws which touch on behavior, free speech, and social conventions I think that this merits further consideration.

"Sexting" is, in the final review, the creation and dissemination of child pornography. Real, honest-to-goodness child pornography involving real, honest-to-goodness children. This brings into play both the issue of real abuse of real children and the hypothetical conjecture of driving "Chester the Molester" to perpetrate crimes that would not have otherwise been committed.

I am curious as to peoples' opinions on the wisdom of equitable enforcement of the law in regards to this. We would, if consistent with professed lawful beliefs, convict 20% of our (ostensibly) minor children as felons, imprison them appropriately, and subsequent to their release they would no longer be able to vote, and would be subject to all of the various restrictions placed on Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs).

This includes, but is not limited to, restrictions on their presence in schools, where they can live and work, who they can associate with, and yes, almost by mandate considering past sentencing for purveyors of kiddie porn over the internet, their freedom to use computers.

I've seen suggestions that this 1/5th number is actually thought to be conservative, and in reality is likely 25% or more. I think that the opportunity for a breathtaking expansion of the prison industry is apparent, with all of the concurrent economic benefits.

 

[Southwind17]

Yes. But VCP isn't child porn.

That's right - it's Virtual Child Porn. Your point?

...which is pure speculation on your part...

Since when did "reasonable supposition" = "pure speculation"?

That goes against the very principle of freedom of speech.

I think you overlooked the "per se" part of what I wrote. In the context of "per se", freedom of speech is irrelevant. In any event, I believe your protectionist stance towards free speech is founded on a fallacious slippery slope basis.

Apparently, you can't. One doesn't need a reason to NOT ban something on those grounds.

Freedon of speech per se IS ITSELF the reason, and it's a fallacious reason. There are numerous perfectly acceptable reasons why freedom of speech is already restricted. Including another perfectly acceptable reason is equally justified, and any assertion that that would be a slippery slope (which I believe is your argument) is, clearly, fallacious, and hence fundamentally flawed.

 

[tesscaline]

That's right - it's Virtual Child Porn. Your point?

Virtual child porn. As in virtual-child porn, not virtual child-porn. Virtual child porn is not the same a child porn. It is not, legally, a subset of child porn. It does not fall into the same category of law either. Please cease confounding the issue by failing to use the correct terminology.

Since when did "reasonable supposition" = "pure speculation"?

Since the person providing the "reasonable supposition" appears to be incapable of backing it up with evidence. Until you can back something up with evidence it is, quite rightly, pure speculation.

I think you overlooked the "per se" part of what I wrote. In the context of "per se", freedom of speech is irrelevant. In any event, I believe your protectionist stance towards free speech is founded on a fallacious slippery slope basis.

In the context of "per se"? In the context of "intrinsically"? You think that creative media has some sort of "intrinsic" property that makes the principle of freedom of speech inapplicable to the situation? Could you please explain that, as well as provide supporting evidence for your position?

Freedon of speech per se IS ITSELF the reason, and it's a fallacious reason. There are numerous perfectly acceptable reasons why freedom of speech is already restricted. Including another perfectly acceptable reason is equally justified, and any assertion that that would be a slippery slope (which I believe is your argument) is, clearly, fallacious, and hence fundamentally flawed.

I don't see how something can intrinsically be a reason for something, and at the same time be fallacious...

No one is denying that there are aspects of speech that are restricted, and exempted from the "freedom of speech." However, there are justifications for those restrictions, and most of them revolve around the idea that there are certain types of speech that are incredibly harmful, and the harm involved drastically outweighs the benefits of retaining the rights to use them. Yelling out "Fire!" in a crowded theater, for example. We have evidence that doing such a thing causes demonstrable and grievous harm. You have, however, yet to provide any evidence that virtual child porn deserves to be in that category of speech. Where is the demonstrable and grievous harm? To whom is that harm occurring? Is that demonstrable and grievous harm more, or less, harm than is caused by making it illegal?

"Reasonable supposition" is not enough. Show us the evidence.

 

[Southwind17]

Earlier in this thread it has been pointed out that it is estimated that one out of five teenagers engage in the practice of "sexting", or sending pornographic pictures to each other with their cell phones.
In view of the aspects of this discussion revolving around the effect and propriety of law, and the multifaceted nature of the benefits and drawbacks inherent in laws which touch on behavior, free speech, and social conventions I think that this merits further consideration.
"Sexting" is, in the final review, the creation and dissemination of child pornography. Real, honest-to-goodness child pornography involving real, honest-to-goodness children. This brings into play both the issue of real abuse of real children and the hypothetical conjecture of driving "Chester the Molester" to perpetrate crimes that would not have otherwise been committed.
I am curious as to peoples' opinions on the wisdom of equitable enforcement of the law in regards to this. We would, if consistent with professed lawful beliefs, convict 20% of our (ostensibly) minor children as felons, imprison them appropriately, and subsequent to their release they would no longer be able to vote, and would be subject to all of the various restrictions placed on Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs).
This includes, but is not limited to, restrictions on their presence in schools, where they can live and work, who they can associate with, and yes, almost by mandate considering past sentencing for purveyors of kiddie porn over the internet, their freedom to use computers.
I've seen suggestions that this 1/5th number is actually thought to be conservative, and in reality is likely 25% or more. I think that the opportunity for a breathtaking expansion of the prison industry is apparent, with all of the concurrent economic benefits.

To my mind there are two critical differentiators that should be taken into account when considering "sexting" compared to child porn offences by adults generally:

1. The fact that the "offence" is committed by people not attaining the age of majority, i.e. still minors, and
2. The question regarding "abuse".

Somebody asked the question many posts back as to whether it's possible for one to actually abuse oneself in the sense of sexual exploitation. Clearly, one can physically abuse oneself, but can one do so illegally in the context of "sexting"? I don't think so.

So, the key issue that differentiates "real" child porn from VCP, and one that you've been more than ready to cite to justify the legitimacy of VCP, namely child abuse, seems not to be present with "sexting". Hence, I would argue that sexting does not even constitute child pornography, other than possibly in a strict definitional sense. At the risk of being accused of having a morbid fascination (again?) in death, to my mind "sexting" is to child porn what suicide is to homocide, i.e. it's essentally harmless to others (assuming the recipents actually wish to receive it!).

Now that, of course, is the sensible analysis from my personal perspective. The legal position might be very different, but I like to look at matters such as these from a human perspective, which should then, of course, lead to humanistic laws and societal codes of conduct and customary behaviour, but doesn't always.

 

[Belz...]

That's right - it's Virtual Child Porn. Your point?

Well... that was my point, really. It's not child porn. Therefore it shouldn't be banned.

Since when did "reasonable supposition" = "pure speculation"?

Never. It's simply not a reasonable supposition. You simply state that it could be harmful. You have not demonstrated it. This is akin to a prosecutor asking the jury to convict simply because the accused COULD have commited the crime.

I think you overlooked the "per se" part of what I wrote. In the context of "per se", freedom of speech is irrelevant. In any event, I believe your protectionist stance towards free speech is founded on a fallacious slippery slope basis.

That's nice. My protectionist stance towards free speech is founded on my belief that freedom is more important than catering to people's irrational fears.

Freedon of speech per se IS ITSELF the reason, and it's a fallacious reason.

Well, wouldn't that mean that your "it's the law" argument is also fallacious ?

There are numerous perfectly acceptable reasons why freedom of speech is already restricted. Including another perfectly acceptable reason is equally justified, and any assertion that that would be a slippery slope (which I believe is your argument) is, clearly, fallacious, and hence fundamentally flawed.

Those perfectly acceptable reasons include demonstratable harm to citizens, something you have been unable to prove in this case. Ergo, it shouldn't be banned.

 

[quadraginta]

To my mind there are two critical differentiators that should be taken into account when considering "sexting" compared to child porn offences by adults generally:

1. The fact that the "offence" is committed by people not attaining the age of majority, i.e. still minors, and
2. The question regarding "abuse".

Somebody asked the question many posts back as to whether it's possible for one to actually abuse oneself in the sense of sexual exploitation. Clearly, one can physically abuse oneself, but can one do so illegally in the context of "sexting"? I don't think so.

So, the key issue that differentiates "real" child porn from VCP, and one that you've been more than ready to cite to justify the legitimacy of VCP, namely child abuse, seems not to be present with "sexting". Hence, I would argue that sexting does not even constitute child pornography, other than possibly in a strict definitional sense. At the risk of being accused of having a morbid fascination (again?) in death, to my mind "sexting" is to child porn what suicide is to homocide, i.e. it's essentally harmless to others (assuming the recipents actually wish to receive it!).

Now that, of course, is the sensible analysis from my personal perspective. The legal position might be very different, but I like to look at matters such as these from a human perspective, which should then, of course, lead to humanistic laws and societal codes of conduct and customary behaviour, but doesn't always.

There is no element of the statutes against child pornography which places limits on the age of actionable prosecution. Far from it. Children engaging in "sexting" are being charged with violations of those laws. My question addressed how equitably we might want to pursue such charges.

Age of majority is not an issue, regardless of whether the accused are charged as minors or as adults (a fairly common practice when the accused approach the age of adulthood.) It is still a crime. If convicted they are still guilty, and will still suffer punishment.

Child "abuse" in the context of the child porn laws can consist solely of involving a minor. Degrees of abuse and additional kinds of abuse may depend from that initial act, but are not required. This is why bathtub pics have gotten people locked up.

Further, dissemination of such material is not dependent on any actual involvement in abuse, and is still actionable.

It seems inconsistent with nearly all of your earlier rhetoric that you are suddenly finding it convenient to assert a "sensible analysis" from "a human perspective" when you have up to this point been so categorically and adamantly in support of the "legal position", and all of its consequences, no matter how unfair they might be to innocents.

Here we have clear examples of actual guilt, in obvious violation of the very explicit intent of the laws, and you are discovering a need for "sensibility" and "perspective" that you were unable to muster in the cases we cited of significant damage to unfortunates who had no intent of violating even the spirit of the law.

It is exactly this sort of "perspective" that lies at the core of support of most of the points you have been arguing so strenuously against. It is not a very persuasive tool for you to begin to flourish as a defense at this stage of the discussion.

 

[tesscaline]

Earlier in this thread it has been pointed out that it is estimated that one out of five teenagers engage in the practice of "sexting", or sending pornographic pictures to each other with their cell phones.

In view of the aspects of this discussion revolving around the effect and propriety of law, and the multifaceted nature of the benefits and drawbacks inherent in laws which touch on behavior, free speech, and social conventions I think that this merits further consideration.

"Sexting" is, in the final review, the creation and dissemination of child pornography. Real, honest-to-goodness child pornography involving real, honest-to-goodness children. This brings into play both the issue of real abuse of real children and the hypothetical conjecture of driving "Chester the Molester" to perpetrate crimes that would not have otherwise been committed.

I am curious as to peoples' opinions on the wisdom of equitable enforcement of the law in regards to this. We would, if consistent with professed lawful beliefs, convict 20% of our (ostensibly) minor children as felons, imprison them appropriately, and subsequent to their release they would no longer be able to vote, and would be subject to all of the various restrictions placed on Registered Sex Offenders (RSOs).

This includes, but is not limited to, restrictions on their presence in schools, where they can live and work, who they can associate with, and yes, almost by mandate considering past sentencing for purveyors of kiddie porn over the internet, their freedom to use computers.

I've seen suggestions that this 1/5th number is actually thought to be conservative, and in reality is likely 25% or more. I think that the opportunity for a breathtaking expansion of the prison industry is apparent, with all of the concurrent economic benefits.

I'd actually like to see the subject of "sexting" and whether or not it should be considered porn (or child porn, or virtual child porn, depending...) have it's own discussion, as I think it would get lost in the noise here in this thread. I'll comment here anyway though.

I would love to discuss this subject in depth, unfortunately the phenomenon is relatively new, and there is simply too much ambiguity about what is considered "sexting" and what is not. It's a subject that I simply have not seen enough information about to be able to come to an informed opinion on. As such, the following is purely speculation based on the few things I have seen/heard on the news, and I am not making any solid claims about anything.

I will say that my gut reaction is that court prescribed punishments for this sort of thing seems to be overkill. It seems to me that these teens are merely doing what they would have done in the past, just in a different venue (via mobile phone, instead of face to face). Teens talk about sex. They play games of "I'll show you mine if you show me yours". Is the mere talking about sex, or flashing a friend/boyfriend/girlfriend for half a second, illegal? Should it be? Or is the issue of "sexting" one of venue?

It is my opinion that parents need to take responsibility for their children's use of phones, mobile phones, and the internet. If a parent finds their child taking part in "sexting", and that parent doesn't like the behavior, they should punish the child themselves (perhaps by removing cell phone privileges, and/or internet privileges), and not make it a legal matter. I don't think the courts should be brought in to raise our children for us.

 

[quadraginta]

I'd actually like to see the subject of "sexting" and whether or not it should be considered porn (or child porn, or virtual child porn, depending...) have it's own discussion, as I think it would get lost in the noise here in this thread. I'll comment here anyway though.

I would love to discuss this subject in depth, unfortunately the phenomenon is relatively new, and there is simply too much ambiguity about what is considered "sexting" and what is not. It's a subject that I simply have not seen enough information about to be able to come to an informed opinion on. As such, the following is purely speculation based on the few things I have seen/heard on the news, and I am not making any solid claims about anything.

I will say that my gut reaction is that court prescribed punishments for this sort of thing seems to be overkill. It seems to me that these teens are merely doing what they would have done in the past, just in a different venue (via mobile phone, instead of face to face). Teens talk about sex. They play games of "I'll show you mine if you show me yours". Is the mere talking about sex, or flashing a friend/boyfriend/girlfriend for half a second, illegal? Should it be? Or is the issue of "sexting" one of venue?

It is my opinion that parents need to take responsibility for their children's use of phones, mobile phones, and the internet. If a parent finds their child taking part in "sexting", and that parent doesn't like the behavior, they should punish the child themselves (perhaps by removing cell phone privileges, and/or internet privileges), and not make it a legal matter. I don't think the courts should be brought in to raise our children for us.

I agree wholeheartedly.

My reason for bringing it up in this context was to showcase from another POV the unintended consequences that lie in wait when criminal law is founded on comparative morality and opinion instead of actual impact and demonstrable damage.

Your response (and SW's) indicate concurrence in this situation. To me the bathtub pics are no different, but from his earlier comments SW seems not to believe that to be true.

VCP, to me, takes the same problem one step further, by subtracting all of the real violations in the above example, and instead punishing imagination under the same sort of arbitrary standards.

I don't understand how that can be expected to prove any more equitable. I expect SW will explain all.

 

[Southwind17]

It is my opinion that parents need to take responsibility for their children's use of phones, mobile phones, and the internet. If a parent finds their child taking part in "sexting", and that parent doesn't like the behavior, they should punish the child themselves (perhaps by removing cell phone privileges, and/or internet privileges), and not make it a legal matter. I don't think the courts should be brought in to raise our children for us.

Hear, hear - and I have direct parental experience of this. It was detected, discussed, certain principles explained, promises made and that, so far as I know, was the end of the matter (no punishment necessary). I agree - it's very much a case of doctors and nurses by remote contol, that's all. Absolutely harmless, in most if not all cases, but not best practice, nonetheless, for minors. Just another of life's lessons learned the natural way!

 

[tesscaline]

I agree wholeheartedly.

My reason for bringing it up in this context was to showcase from another POV the unintended consequences that lie in wait when criminal law is founded on comparative morality and opinion instead of actual impact and demonstrable damage.

Thank you. That was a very good example.

Your response (and SW's) indicate concurrence in this situation. To me the bathtub pics are no different, but from his earlier comments SW seems not to believe that to be true.

I see the bathtub picture issues as being slightly different, but not different enough to matter. IMO, it is completely and utterly ridiculous for anyone to think that a parent taking a photograph of their toddler in the bath is sexual or provocative in any way, and in those cases, it says more about the person implying the sexuality/provocativeness than it does about the parent who took the pictures.

With VCP, there is an intent to provoke --something-- in the viewer. What that something is... Is debatable. In some cases, it may indeed be intended to sexually arouse. In others, though, it isn't and it may not be immediately discernible what the intent truly is.

VCP, to me, takes the same problem one step further, by subtracting all of the real violations in the above example, and instead punishing imagination under the same sort of arbitrary standards.

I don't understand how that can be expected to prove any more equitable. I expect SW will explain all.

Punishing imagination is exactly the issue I take with this sort of thing. It's "thought police" personified. If you start punishing people for what they think... Well, we know what happens when you do that, don't we.

 

[Cosmic Roy]

Hi All. Sorry to revive this thread after nearly a month, but it's recently become rather relevant to my situation, and I'd be interested to read some more of what people have to say on the matter.

Last night my partner found that I had visited a pornographic website on my home computer. She wasn't happy about it, and opted to sleep on the couch. (I offered to instead, since she was sure she didn't want to sleep with me, but she was adamant.) Today, in an email exchange while she has been at work (and while I have been failing to revise for exams), I have learned just what she considers to be wrong with porn.

It seems that her objection against porn is less about the effect on the models and actors themselves, but more about what it says about the viewer.

She said that:
+ she is disgusted;
+ she will always feel inadequate with me;
+ the persona I had presented to her was not the real me - she thought that I was decent and good but that this is so sordid and horrid and tawdry and demeaning that she can't reconcile it;
+ it's a moral thing as much as anything - it isn't prudishness but she finds everything about pornography and that culture (objectification of women) so repulsive, that the idea that I support it is appalling;
+ she doesn't think that she will be able to respect me again;
+ it diminishes us both.

The strength of her reaction surprised me. When she found it I was embarrassed, but I thought she'd laugh about it. Clearly I didn't know her quite as well as I thought either. She'll be home from work in a few hours, and I'm horrified by the thought that our relationship will be over.

I apologise for the self-indulgent nature of this post. I don't know what responses I expect or hope for (it's not a counselling forum, I know!). Just your opinions really.

I think that my opinion on the subject has always been that represented here by JFrankA et al, but I don't know whether to plead that case, or just plain plead!

Thanks in advance.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

She said that:
+ she is disgusted;
+ she will always feel inadequate with me;
+ the persona I had presented to her was not the real me - she thought that I was decent and good but that this is so sordid and horrid and tawdry and demeaning that she can't reconcile it;
+ it's a moral thing as much as anything - it isn't prudishness but she finds everything about pornography and that culture (objectification of women) so repulsive, that the idea that I support it is appalling;
+ she doesn't think that she will be able to respect me again;
+ it diminishes us both.

It sounds to me like she has hangups about sex, which is not a good thing in a sexual relationship. If she finds a fairly normal and boring part of your sexuality sordid, horrid, tawdry, demeaning, repulsive, objectifying and so on then in the long run it might be best for everyone if you get that out in the open now rather than later.

I'm assuming that you were caught browsing fairly normal and boring stuff, of course.

I think that my opinion on the subject has always been that represented here by JFrankA et al, but I don't know whether to plead that case, or just plain plead!

Thanks in advance.

As far as I'm concerned it's 2010 not 1910 and looking at naked women on the internet is sufficiently mainstream that your girlfriend is the one who needs to update her attitudes, or else tell her next boyfriend up front that she is squicked by pornography and needs a partner who would never, ever look at it.

 

[gumboot]

Hi All. Sorry to revive this thread after nearly a month, but it's recently become rather relevant to my situation, and I'd be interested to read some more of what people have to say on the matter.

Last night my partner found that I had visited a pornographic website on my home computer. She wasn't happy about it, and opted to sleep on the couch. (I offered to instead, since she was sure she didn't want to sleep with me, but she was adamant.) Today, in an email exchange while she has been at work (and while I have been failing to revise for exams), I have learned just what she considers to be wrong with porn.

It seems that her objection against porn is less about the effect on the models and actors themselves, but more about what it says about the viewer.

She said that:
+ she is disgusted;
+ she will always feel inadequate with me;
+ the persona I had presented to her was not the real me - she thought that I was decent and good but that this is so sordid and horrid and tawdry and demeaning that she can't reconcile it;
+ it's a moral thing as much as anything - it isn't prudishness but she finds everything about pornography and that culture (objectification of women) so repulsive, that the idea that I support it is appalling;
+ she doesn't think that she will be able to respect me again;
+ it diminishes us both.

The strength of her reaction surprised me. When she found it I was embarrassed, but I thought she'd laugh about it. Clearly I didn't know her quite as well as I thought either. She'll be home from work in a few hours, and I'm horrified by the thought that our relationship will be over.

I apologise for the self-indulgent nature of this post. I don't know what responses I expect or hope for (it's not a counselling forum, I know!). Just your opinions really.

I think that my opinion on the subject has always been that represented here by JFrankA et al, but I don't know whether to plead that case, or just plain plead!

Thanks in advance.

Cosmic Roy, sorry to hear about your predicament. To my mind it sounds like this is a case of two people who don't know each other as well as they think they do, and who might not be compatible.

I think this happens a lot, and it's precisely why I would never consider seriously committing to a relationship until after I'd lived with the person for a couple of years. Without that length of close exposure to each other, you just can't truly know the person.

Clearly you two have quite different morality when it comes to sex, and I'd be of a mind that if this conflict didn't come up now with regards to porn, you would have found it out at some other stage with some other issue.

I hope what you're seeing now is only a shocked overreaction, and you two can work it out, but if it really is that deep a problem, perhaps it's best that you've discovered your incompatibility sooner rather than later?

If you're wondering what you should be saying, I guess that's really something only you can decide. But were it me, I think I would approach it by explaining how I saw pornography and how my view differed from hers. I wouldn't attempt to convince her that my view was the "right" one, but I'd also make it perfectly clear that I would not accept her attempting to force her view on me as the "right" one. Our choices would be to come to terms with and accept our differing views, or go our separate ways.

 

[Modified]

As far as I'm concerned it's 2010 not 1910 and looking at naked women on the internet is sufficiently mainstream that your girlfriend is the one who needs to update her attitudes, or else tell her next boyfriend up front that she is squicked by pornography and needs a partner who would never, ever look at it.

She should be suspicious of any man who doesn't look at porn. That would be fairly abnormal, and would require a good explanation at least.

 

[Cosmic Roy]

Kevin Lowe and gumboot: many, many thanks for your opinions. Your replies were along the lines I expected (hoped for); it's nice to hear even from relatively anonymous internet posters that one isn't a grubby deviant.

Last night my partner came home late from work and I made myself scarce at her request, since she was still very upset. But this morning, when she heard I was awake, she crawled into bed with me, and today has since been great. So I suppose it might well have been a shocked over-reaction after all. That, or she decided last night or this morning that it wasn't too important a character 'defect'. She's otherwise a very rational, scientific and open-minded sort, and we'll get round to talking it over soon enough, I think.

Now I will apologise again for turning this thread into an agony-aunt column.

Thanks again both (and anyone else who may have responses pending approval).

 

[ZirconBlue]

Cosmic Roy,

I'm glad to hear things seem to have settled down.

Cosmic Roy, sorry to hear about your predicament. To my mind it sounds like this is a case of two people who don't know each other as well as they think they do, and who might not be compatible.

Further, I would suggest that perhaps Cosmic Roy's partner doesn't really know a great many people in her life as well as she things she does, if she believes they don't look at porn.