lostforwords Posted February 12, 2004 Share Posted February 12, 2004 You are what you eat...are we also what we read? yes id say somewhat to a certain degree. cmon i hope you didnt expect me to give you examples or further evidence as to why i come to my conclusion.... its been a damn long day!! Link to post Share on other sites
Kat Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by corythosaurus From the little I've seen, I'd say he's a lucky guy. Why thank you But it is true. I told my partner from the beginning I wasn't comfortable with him looking at porn and getting FHM mags and such. He stopped for me. I buy new underwear here and there and just put it under my nighty and go do the washing up...or bend to get something from the fridge. I keep the spice alive, even if we don't have sex more than 2 times a month. I make him feel wanted and I give him what his imagination wants We have discussed masturbation too, it was weird he was almost asing for my permission if it was okay. How do people get to the point where they think they have to ask permission to sexually arouse and touch themselves? I can't control what happens in his mind or who he thinks about, however he tells me it is only me he thinks and wants to think about and I believe him. We keep the communication lines open and we regulaly talk about our sex life and what is and isn't working. I sometimes slip up though and show my jealous side when he talks about another female, or takes notice of a woman on tv or something...but we are all human Porn should not be an issue for any couple. If you can't agree on something so important to the relationship, you aren't a couple. Link to post Share on other sites
parcifal Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I'm sorry if males have mistreated you. I'm also sorry if you blame porn for this. That's all I can do really, is apologize on behalf of society. You can't really apologize on behalf of society, but you could apologize for your own sarcasm, if you'll take responsibility for nothing else. Violence hurts others against their will. Men who use porn only hurt women who choose to let themselves be hurt, through their own misunderstanding. Caused by misunderstanding or not, blaming the victim is never reasonable. Has porn ever physically hurt you? Has Ron Jeremy ever punched you in the face? Has Jenna Jameson Burned a cross on your lawn? How dare you compare porn to violence. You can't take something out of society because some people let it hurt them. Pornography hurts us all. It degrades the culture in which we live. Viewing pornography is highly correlated with violence, drug use, prostitution, and vandalism in studies. So "Ron Jeremy" doesn't need to punch anyone in the face; rather, there only needs to be a statistical connection between viewing porn on the 'population' scale and a rise in violence... and guess what... there is such a correlation. When porn shops open in an area, drug use/dealing, prostitution, violent crime, vandalism, communicable diseases, and poverty all spike highly. The studies done have controlled for other factors and eliminated them. As for internet porn and the Average Joe: lemme ask you, if you need to get off while looking at images, why not look at the Victoria's Secret catalog instead? Without waiting for a reply, I am aware it is because of the phenomenon of tolerance. Just like a narcotic, porn instills a tolerance that necessitates an increase in dosage and "purity". You constantly need more and more to get the same effects. Eventually, some users of porn need to take further steps into increasing levels of antisocial behavior. Also, people who consume more than the 'average' amount of porn are likely to have very poor social skills. That's not surprising. But controls have established that the same control group started off as an accurate cross-section. So porn has caused the erosion of social skills. And that's to be expected. Using Pavlovian classical conditioning with the sexual images as the unconditioned stimulus and the orgasm as the unconditioned response, pornography creates a conditioned response that cannot simply be contained by the context in which the images were originally viewed. In other words, we are what we see over the long term. And when we jerk off to it, it's wired even 'harder' (scuze the pun) into the nervous system. Even without the increase in violence against women caused by porn, we can still measure other effects. The increase in sexual situations and nudity on television increased sharply due to competition with internet porn. Network and cable programmers readily admit that. The presence of misogyny as a socially acceptable form of "expression" in music increased sharply. And the number of strong, independent, and autonomous roles for women in movies dropped precipitously. Is anyone surprised by, then, by the rash of child abductions and murders in the last few years? It's funny in a naive kinda way to insist that the well-being of society needs to be held hostage by the interests of a 'few' recalcitrant voyeurs. But "freedom" is a far more complex topic than simply letting any and all do as they wilt. Anyone who insists on citing 'freedom of choice' in a discussion about the effects of pornography on women as a whole in society is merely stamping his feet like a petulant child. There's a spiritual axiom: don't do anything you'll have to lie about. I'll extend that: don't do anything you have to hide. Pornography is the biggest industry on the 'Net, but don't fool yourself into thinking that more than a small percentage would stand up publicly to support porn if it's existence were threatened. And last, for those of you who consume porn, ask yourself if you could tolerate your wife, sister, mother, or daughter being in a porn movie. (To gauge the difference between how men and women are viewed in porn, and thereby in society, consider then how you would feel if you brother, father, or son was in a porn movie. I bet it's not nearly as bad.) If you're watching porn, but would not want your daughter in a porn movie, even if you never had to see the movie, then you have already objectified and dehumanized the women in the film sufficiently to create a disparity between your beliefs and actions. You cannot be trusted to consider the welfare of those in whose well-being you are not directly invested. And that's the real world. Not acting. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by parcifal Caused by misunderstanding or not, blaming the victim is never reasonable. I have little sympathy for those who make themselves out to be a victim, when the cause of their pain is their own feelings. Your post was thought-provoking, but had little impact on me in terms of reality. Your post focused on those who misuse pornography. The truth is, you really don't like it. You're not a victim, I'm not hurting you--you just don't like the idea of something you don't understand. As for freedom of choice being illegitimate, we clearly have different value systems, and your marginilization of mine is ironically childish. I believe that if some people misuse alcohol, it's not case for the illegalization of alcohol. I believe that if some people watch too much TV, that it's unhealthy and detracts from their real life, it should not be removed from society altogether. I wonder how you can compare not wanting your daughter in porn to disrespecting women in general. I would have an emotional investment in my daughter, but not Jenna Jameson. Evidently, that makes me a bad person. Because I don't have an emotional investment in the lady who takes my movies at blockbuster--does that mean I'm objectifying her? That she isn't important, just a mere object to take my movies whenever I demand her to? These women are ACTRESSES, not victims. Additionally, if porn changes the viewer into some sick, sociopath--this is the issue of the viewer, not the industry. We have different perceptions of freedom. I understand yours, I just have no respect for it. You cannot be trusted to consider the welfare of those in whose well-being you are not directly invested. Wait, isn't that EXACTLY what you just did? Link to post Share on other sites
Kat Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by dyermaker I have little sympathy for those who make themselves out to be a victim, when the cause of their pain is their own feelings. I don't think you or anyone else here has the right to tell the original poster that their feelings and beliefs have lead to this 'problem' and it is their own fault. I mean seriously, some women don't like porn. You can't speak on behalf of all guys or all girls. I don't make other people wrong for being different to me. Ic an only speak for myself, no one else. Link to post Share on other sites
calithin83 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 – Becoming Addicted is what you men who watch porn are- Link to post Share on other sites
parcifal Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I have little sympathy for those who make themselves out to be a victim, when the cause of their pain is their own feelings. I understand your lack of sympathy toward the plight of others. Such indifference is part and parcel of the problem, not its solution. But the damage we're talking about here is far more tangible than "their own feelings", as I have demonstrated in my previous post. Your post was thought-provoking, but had little impact on me in terms of reality. There's an oxymoron. I don't doubt it had little impact on you, but that's to the absence of reality, not on reality's terms. Your post focused on those who misuse pornography. The truth is, you really don't like it. You're not a victim, I'm not hurting you--you just don't like the idea of something you don't understand. I understand it quite well. Such weak and baseless accusations made post hoc ergo propter hoc (i.e. "because you don't agree with me you cannot understand the topic") have no place in a rational discussion. As for freedom of choice being illegitimate Do not create a straw man just to burn it in my effigy. Only you have said freedom of choice is illegitimate. I, however, said it was not a valid response to the topic. I believe that if some people misuse alcohol, it's not case for the illegalization of alcohol. I believe that if some people watch too much TV, that it's unhealthy and detracts from their real life, it should not be removed from society altogether. What about cocaine and heroin? Would you allow for 'freedom of choice' for those substances, too? If not, on what grounds would you outlaw them? I wonder how you can compare not wanting your daughter in porn to disrespecting women in general. I would have an emotional investment in my daughter, but not Jenna Jameson. Evidently, that makes me a bad person. Because I don't have an emotional investment in the lady who takes my movies at blockbuster--does that mean I'm objectifying her? That would depend on the specifics of your interaction. Are you enjoying watching her engaging in acts that are not socially acceptable in public? Are you masturbating in at the checkout counter? These women are ACTRESSES, not victims. We're all the victims, as I have aptly demonstrated in my previous post. Additionally, if porn changes the viewer into some sick, sociopath--this is the issue of the viewer, not the industry. It's an issue of the public, and therefore "the industry" (an entity I have not yet mentioned, nor am I concerned with one iota). We the People will tell this industry whether it can exist or not, with or without your approval. We have different perceptions of freedom. I understand yours, I just have no respect for it. We might have different perceptions of freedom, or more accurately, different levels of sophistication in contemplating the the consequences of our actions and taking responsibility for them. Link to post Share on other sites
calithin83 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Moderator's Note: this post consisted entirely of copied material and was thus removed in its entirety. Link to post Share on other sites
calithin83 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Moderator's Note: this post consisted entirely of copied material and was thus removed in its entirety. Link to post Share on other sites
parcifal Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 I wonder how you can compare not wanting your daughter in porn to disrespecting women in general. I would have an emotional investment in my daughter, but not Jenna Jameson. Evidently, that makes me a bad person. Because I don't have an emotional investment in the lady who takes my movies at blockbuster--does that mean I'm objectifying her? Also, this is not a consistent continuation of your own analogy. You're committing a logical fallacy. I'll diagram: emotional investment -----------------> no porn therefore: /emotional investment -----------------> any and all interaction is objectifying and tossing out the premise because of your own illogic. You've stated that you would not like your daughter in to be in a porn film. If we are to consider your "perceptions of freedom" as a society, not merely as a set of individuals who have no caring about the well-being of society, then we cannot accept the disparity and outright hypocrisy of your worldview to become in any way reflected in public policy. Link to post Share on other sites
calithin83 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Moderator's Note: this post consisted entirely of copied material, and was thus deleted in its entirety. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by parcifal I understand your lack of sympathy toward the plight of others. Such indifference is part and parcel of the problem, not its solution. I would consider personal attacks on the value systems of others as part of the problem, not refusal to validate nueroses. But the damage we're talking about here is far more tangible than "their own feelings", as I have demonstrated in my previous post. I found your previous post filled with more rhetoric than actual demonstration. I don't doubt it had little impact on you, but that's to the absence of reality, not on reality's terms. Like this one Such weak and baseless accusations made post hoc ergo propter hoc (i.e. "because you don't agree with me you cannot understand the topic") have no place in a rational discussion. Latin doesn't intimidate me, you accuse me of doing EXACTLY what you're doing. We call that fullus of bullus ergo I seeus right throughus ittus--You claim your one-sided analysis is more relevant to "ration" because YOU agree with it. Do not create a straw man just to burn it in my effigy. Only you have said freedom of choice is illegitimate. I, however, said it was not a valid response to the topic. What you said was: "Anyone who insists on citing 'freedom of choice' in a discussion about the effects of pornography on women as a whole in society is merely stamping his feet like a petulant child." Thus you are making the argument of freedom of choice illegitimate, by claiming that it doesn't contribute to the discussion more than YOUR rhetoric--You're quite condescending by the way, I don't know if you've ever been told, or if you've ever listened. What about cocaine and heroin? Would you allow for 'freedom of choice' for those substances, too? If not, on what grounds would you outlaw them? I don't make the laws, so such whimsy has no place in rational discussion. See what I mean? That would depend on the specifics of your interaction. Are you enjoying watching her engaging in acts that are not socially acceptable in public? Are you masturbating in at the checkout counter? Oh, so it's just because sex is 'dirty'? We might have different perceptions of freedom, or more accurately, different levels of sophistication in contemplating the the consequences of our actions and taking responsibility for them. To those who are intimidated by your beautifully written prose (I mean that as a sincere compliment, you write like a writer), I'll cliff-note it for you: "I'm really smart, and therefore my values are better than yours." - I don't think you or anyone else here has the right to tell the original poster that their feelings and beliefs have lead to this 'problem' and it is their own fault. Kat, that's not what I said at all. You've all been great at telling me what I said tonight. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 You've stated that you would not like your daughter in to be in a porn film. If we are to consider your "perceptions of freedom" as a society, not merely as a set of individuals who have no caring about the well-being of society, then we cannot accept the disparity and outright hypocrisy of your worldview to become in any way reflected in public policy. I said I wouldn't like it, that's a huge and far cry from not ALLOWING it. You can't like everything, and you CERTAINLY can't legislate it. Link to post Share on other sites
lostforwords Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 LOL! Call half the world's population "ho's", "sluts" and "bitches" with impunity, but mention "the N word" (shhhh!) and watch all the so-called free thinking people cower. Kalira made this point aptly the other day. I cannot believ the crap this thread is producing from so called people who will sit and argue about porn being disrespectful to women but yet dont see the fact of the blatant stupidity for comparing hateful race words to thier own damn insecurities cuz thier old man watches porn..... grow up. as far as the women being called sluts and hos etc..... have you ever heard the saying water off a ducks back? get oiff your high moral soap box and wash your damn mouthes out with soap..... and speak for youself when it coems to women being victims with porn... perhaps maybe if you thought about that these ACTRESSES chose thier profession...... as im sure you chose yours.... im sure its quite known you speak for yourselves.... and absolutely DO NOT represent this woman. Link to post Share on other sites
calithin83 Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 moderator's note: the content of this post was copied wholesale, without citation, from another website, and was thus removed in its entirety. Link to post Share on other sites
lostforwords Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 calithin.... before you start cutting and pasting all this off of this website http://jenny2420.tripod.com/sistersunitedagainstpornography/id5.html you should be well aware that you need to identify your resources from where you are getting your information from...... and rathe rinstead of stealing other peoples website information, you may justy want to post the link to it. save the space on the thread for much more "useless" information about racial comparison and racial slurs.... cripes. Link to post Share on other sites
kalira Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 dyermaker, you pre-empt any discussion by saying that it would be inappropriate to 'not allow'/'censor' the expression of certain material. You then appear to see that as a reason for not analysing whether the material causes harm to society/individuals in society. Even if i was to agree with you on the first premise, I do not think that it procludes us from discussing the merits or otherwise of porn, or any other material. Also, there are ways other than direct prohibition (government censorship) to effect social change. One of those ways is through discussion, introspection and education. Link to post Share on other sites
lostforwords Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 what the hell is this a sisters against pornograpohy convention??? Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by calithin83 Pornography, the carrier, is big business. It is evil. It is contagious. It is addicting. It is estimated that in recent years Americans alone spent $8-10 billion per year on hard-core pornography 1—a fortune siphoned away from noble use and diverted to a devilish purpose! I don't believe in telling Americans what they can and cannot purchase. Pornography is a vice, I'm not glorifying it. But the day we start overlegislating morality is the day I join the hotties in Canada. Our young girls are growing up with thoughts that to fit in they must be like those girls. Our young boys are growing up with no respect for women. This has got to stop! I'm fifteen. Would you like to tell me how I have no respect for the women in my life? Stop watching MTV and calling that the youth of today. Did you know if you visit a site called the White House, this is porn??? Did you know there were sex acts in the white house? This is rather boring, I'm being spiritually attacked from all sides, and it's not like I'm stubborn about it. I recognize what you're saying, and am able to understand it. Some of it I can apply, some of it I think is dumb, and some of it I simply disagree with. This is the nature of debate, get over it. Link to post Share on other sites
parcifal Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by dyermaker I said I wouldn't like it, that's a huge and far cry from not ALLOWING it. You can't like everything, and you CERTAINLY can't legislate it. Why wouldn't you like your daughter being a porn star? Do you have something against pornography? Link to post Share on other sites
kalira Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 lostforwords, what do you mean by 'water off a duck's back'? I think the words 'slut' and 'bitch' are commonly used as slander, to disrespect women. Do you think that merely because women can (and do) put up with them, they are legitimate? "what the hell is this a sisters against pornography convention???": no, but it is a forum in which we discuss issues relating to porn. i think that is what everyone is doing. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by kalira Also, there are ways other than direct prohibition (government censorship) to effect social change. One of those ways is through discussion, introspection and education. What is there to argue? Anyone who disagrees with your demonstrative ergo summus cum laudes brilliance is dismissed. It's like talking to a really articulate wall, and I've just about given up on it. Your "discussion" is a monologue, your "introspection" is quite external, and your "education" is condescending and one-dimensional. Link to post Share on other sites
lostforwords Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 But the day we start overlegislating morality is the day I join the hotties in Canada. ROFL... dont forget the sack of potatoes.... Link to post Share on other sites
morrigan Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Pornography--whether visual or literary--is a fantasy. It's a from of self indulgence. Everybody fantasizes about things they know aren't going to happen. Most men and women enjoy varying forms of porn. It's not meant to be taken seriously or to have a huge impact on a person's life. Normal people don't expect to live their lives like a typical pornographic movie or book. Some people are a lot more sexually aroused than the person they're with. Should they demand sex every time they're horny, and make the other person comply? When is porn harmful to a relationship? Probably when the man or woman prefers to be aroused by porn than having sex with their partner. If someone knows their partner is sexually interested at that particular time and they still would rather 'get off' via porn, then there might be a problem. And I would have a problem with someone who is interested in child or animal porn. But I think that someone who feels rejected because their boyfriend arouses himself when she isn't around isn't being realistic about him or her. If you believe that someone other than you is wholly responsible for your sexual feelings and arousal, then I think some of the problem resides in you. If someone's pornography offends you that much, the most you can expect of them is that they don't use it in your presence. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted February 13, 2004 Share Posted February 13, 2004 Morrigan, your insight is a bit too late. Apparantly we've already been condemned to Hell. Lost, I don't think they let me bring potatoes over the border Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts