Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Pornography

257 replies to this topic
K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#91

Posted 30 November 2007 - 03:27 AM

That was a step-ahead reply to the above post. He wants me to step through the specific reasons for the way that our sex drives work, expecting me to mention reproduction, and quoting it as a contradiction to what I said earlier. The only way he would chose such a strategy is if he was to misunderstand what is meant by reproduction having nothing to do with it, which is what I'm clarifying. It's not a side step. It's an attempt to cut down on the number of posts before we get to the point.

Ravien
  • Ravien

    Player Hater

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2007

#92

Posted 30 November 2007 - 06:24 AM Edited by Ravien, 30 November 2007 - 06:28 AM.

Actually K^2, you're wrong. I just want to see if you can respond to a single, clear and concise argument. If you can't answer a question which came from your own argument, then you can't even argue your own side effectively enough to have a hope of countering mine.

So again, please, just answer this question, without any sidestepping, without any "attempting to skip ahead" bullsh*t, just straight up, answer the f*cking question. Here it is again, for reference:

Please explain to me why a mate that looks good increases the experience of sexual pleasure. No tautologies, and please follow the logic through to the natural conclusion.

I mean, really, it's in your best interests to answer this question thoroughly. Because if you can answer it in a way which really does coherently provide a sound basis for your argument that sex is pursued solely for pleasure and reproduction means nothing, then, and only then, can you hope to provide an alternative proposition that is at least as strong as my own argument, that all sex and sexual behaviour is rooted firmly and inescapably (though necessarily unconsciously) in reproduction.

Otherwise you're just going to have to bow out because as it stands right now, I can answer that question more than thoroughly, leaving not a single hole or ambiguity in my position. In short, I've got you in check, coming on checkmate. Your move.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#93

Posted 30 November 2007 - 07:37 AM

There is nothing to explain. The sexual pleasure is increased, because the reward centers are "wired" for positive response from even just seeing an attractive individual. Now, if you want an explanation for why that is, it is a different question. Do you need me to answer that one as well? Do you need me to explain this all the way down to theory of evolution? I seriously assumed that you know a few things about the function of reward centers before you start saying that somebody else's is "broken".

Ravien
  • Ravien

    Player Hater

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2007

#94

Posted 30 November 2007 - 10:40 AM Edited by Ravien, 30 November 2007 - 10:43 AM.

Do you know what a tautology is? You might want to look it up. Saying "pleasure is increased because we are wired to receive pleasure from this stimulus" is precisely the same as saying "pleasure is increased because pleasure is increased". There's no such thing as pleasure that we are not wired to receive. You're not saying anything at all. When you use words, try to actually say something meaningful with them please.

And also, I'm sorry, I didn't know your literary comprehension skills were so poor. My bad, I'll break things down phonetically from now on. This should help for now:

and please follow the logic through to the natural conclusion.

Also, nice one trying to turn it around on me by calling into question my own grasp of these things. Hahaha. I got a chuckle out of that, as you are clearly the one floundering here.

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#95

Posted 01 December 2007 - 01:35 AM

That is a natural conclusion. If you can't tell that, I'm sorry. The logic of that question only required one step, and it is not a tautology. That is the causal reason for why the attraction works that way. Of course, there is a reason for why the reward centers work the way they do. They are obviously evolutionary. But you are obviously incapable of looking more than one step ahead, so I'll complete the argument down to the principles of evolution. If you can't grasp even that, I quit.

1) Any existing individual is here because his or her ancestors have successfully reproduced starting with common ancestor circa 1 billion years ago. However, for this discussion, only the past few million years are relevant, as we are talking specifically about human sexuality. [Assumption from archaeological record.]

2) Evolutionary pressures of the past 10k years were rapidly reducing. That doesn't force a change in any specific direction, but may allow for random breakdown. Since the average effect is null, this time frame can be safely ignored in discussion of why most people behave a certain way. [Assumption from historical and archaeological record.]

3) Reproduction with a 'fit' mate increases odds of next generation being 'fit'. [Assumption from genetics.]

4) Fitness is defined strictly on the basis of producing fit children. That includes surviving to the age at which it is possible. It is a recursive definition, but it works. It doesn't matter what quality it is, as long as it allows for the next generation to be born, and the next, and the next, etc. Recursion is the best way of defining it. [Definition.]

5) Individual better capable of recognizing, attracting, and mating with a fit partner of the same species has better odds of producing fit children. [From 3]

6) Individual pursuing reproduction with an un-fit mate is wasting resources, most notably time. [Assumption on limited resources.]

7) Individual avoiding un-fit mates has better odds of reproducing with a fit mate. [From 6]

8) Being able to find fit mates and avoid un-fit ones becomes a factor in determining fitness of an individual. [From 4,5,7]

9) Generations produced from more fit individuals will over time outnumber these from less fit individuals. [General premise of evolution, derived from 1]

10) Provided sufficient time, a system will evolve to stimulate reproduction with fit mates, while avoiding un-fit ones. [From 8,9]

11) We observe most modern individuals recognizing other individuals as 'attractive' or 'unattractive'. Individuals wish to enter sexual relations with 'attractive' individuals while avoiding 'unattractive' ones. [Observation.]

12) We observe that most 'attractive' individuals appear to be healthy and athletic, which would improve their fitness in natural environment. 'Unattractive' individuals, on the contrary, appear to be more likely to be unfit. [Observation]

13) Such a system fulfills requirements of 10. [From 10,11,12]

14) The system appears to be extremely complex, utilizing visual recognition as one of the methods. [Observation]

15) Such system cannot appear as a random fluke due to complexity. [General assumption.]

16) We conclude that system that drives us to have sex with attractive individuals while avoiding sex with unattractive individuals is a result of evolution. [From 13,15]

From compilation of observations and experimental data, we know that the said system works on the basis of the reward. Certain chemicals are produced when an 'attractive' individual is encountered and when sexual relations are initiated. These chemicals make the individual 'feel better'. The production reduces if the encountered individual is less attractive, and can be driven to zero by mere presence of a highly 'unattractive' individual. What each person regards as 'attractive' varies significantly, however, generally, rules of statement 12 follow.

Ravien
  • Ravien

    Player Hater

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2007

#96

Posted 01 December 2007 - 03:06 AM

So to sum up what you've said:

We are motivated to pursue sex via the mechanism of pleasure only with genetically fit individuals because such individuals lead to the greatest quality and potential of offspring.

Wait didn't you claim that sex has nothing to do with reproduction? Now I'm confused, because if the reason we enjoy sex with attractive partners is due to the evolutionary benefits for our offspring, and this is strong enough to shape our behaviour such that we don't have sex with unfit individuals because the reward isn't as strong because we don't receive the same pleasure from them because they will give us unfit children, then umm... I'm right and you're wrong? Or I'm right and you're agreeing with me now? Or I'm blind because I totally cannot see any way your last post could be construed to show that we pursue sex with no regard to reproduction. It shows the exact opposite.

QUOTE (K^2)
That is a natural conclusion. If you can't tell that, I'm sorry. The logic of that question only required one step, and it is not a tautology.

Actually that was a pretty textbook definition of a tautology. Consider a child asking you "why does hurting myself make me feel pain?" and you responding by "because when you hurt yourself your brain tells you that you feel pain". No new information is gained from your response, it merely restates the question with different wording, hence it is a tautology. Seriously I meant it when I said "look it up". Knowing what words mean is essential to clear communication.


K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#97

Posted 01 December 2007 - 03:19 AM

QUOTE (Ravien @ Nov 30 2007, 23:06)
So to sum up what you've said:

We are motivated to pursue sex via the mechanism of pleasure only with genetically fit individuals because such individuals lead to the greatest quality and potential of offspring.

Wait didn't you claim that sex has nothing to do with reproduction?

And two days ago, when you first asked me to give the above explanation, I have already expected you to pull this sh*t, and already posted a reply.
QUOTE (K^2)
Of course, reproduction of my ancestors has defined the way my reward centers work. I have no intention to argue against natural selection. That's not the issue. The issue is whether sexual preferences of people today have impact on reproduction, and that impact is already low and further diminishing fast. Yes, a lot of people today wouldn't be able to procreate in the stone age. For most, it has nothing to do with their sexual preferences. They'd get killed before they'd have the chance. There are a lot of ways in wich almost all of us are "broken" compared to our ancestors living in tune with nature. Such classification is ridiculous. Today, all that matters is functioning well within the society.

Otter was a bit confused as to why I posted this, so I even explained that. That was yesterday.
QUOTE (K^2)
That was a step-ahead reply to the above post. He wants me to step through the specific reasons for the way that our sex drives work, expecting me to mention reproduction, and quoting it as a contradiction to what I said earlier. The only way he would chose such a strategy is if he was to misunderstand what is meant by reproduction having nothing to do with it, which is what I'm clarifying. It's not a side step. It's an attempt to cut down on the number of posts before we get to the point.

Failed attempt, obviously. I already know where your argument goes. Do I really have to go through the motions? Fine, you can't see a step ahead. It's ok. Not everybody can. But I wish you'd at least remember something from what I have already posted so that I wouldn't have to go back and copy-paste. It's annoying enough that I have to argue with you when I can predict your next argument two days in advance, but it is doubly annoying when I have to quote myself because you make the argument anyways.

Ravien
  • Ravien

    Player Hater

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2007

#98

Posted 01 December 2007 - 05:36 AM

Whilst it may seem to you that you have somehow refuted the proposition that all sexual behaviour is rooted in reproduction, you actually haven't. Go on, read your quoted replies, and try to reconcile them with your second last post re: evolutionary basis of sexual pleasure being intrinsic to rewarding mate choice.

Do you really think that "today, all that matters is functioning well within society" is true, despite the fact that even your very own behaviour runs contrary to this statement? You STILL, despite your arguments, choose only to have sex with people who would provide you with fit children. Yes, you are making this decision based on the amount of pleasure being greater than were you to sleep with a fat ugly cow, but this is no different to the fact that you'd prefer to be stuck with a needle than set on fire. Pain and pleasure are the only biological motivations for behaviour. They are the only way to make us survive and procreate. It is infinitely ignorant to acknowledge that pleasure and pain have causes and reasons deeper than the experience, yet still claim that we act only on the motivations as if the causes and reasons suddenly become inconsequential by fiat.

If pain is the way our body prevents us from allowing it to be damaged, then to say that we avoid pain simply because it's not a nice experience is just stupid. We avoid pain because we are avoiding bodily harm. Pain is merely the messenger.

And funnily enough, modern medicine has done absolutely nothing to curb our experience of pain nor disassociate pain from its evolved basis.

If pleasure is the way our body makes us pursue things which are good for it, then to say that we pursue pleasure simply because it's a nice experience is precisely as idiotic. We pursue pleasure because we are seeking to benefit our lives and our genetic future. Pleasure is merely the messenger.

And again, funnily enough, modern society/technology has done absolutely nothing to curb our experience of pleasure nor disassociate pleasure from its evolved basis.

You're basically arguing that car engines run because you turn the key. There's a whole lot of stuff happening under the hood which you're just saying "oh yeah it's there but it's not important, turning the key is the only thing that's important".

Your pretentions of out-maneuvering me in this debate are amusing, to say the least. Do you really think that the fact you could pick up where my obviously leading question was going makes you somehow superior to me? Then how is it that you have now been forced to answer the question and have come out the other side in worse condition than you went in?

Honestly what is your position? That magically due to modern technology reproduction is no longer an important factor in sex? Despite the fact that all evidence that exists - including your own sexual behaviours - points to the contrary? Despite the fact that you just laid out in point form how sexual pleasure and mate choice are a intrinsically tied together as a direct result of benefiting reproduction?

If A causes B, and B causes C, then it can be said that A causes C, and B is merely a step in a causal chain. In this case, A is evolutionary pressures for reproduction, B is the evolved experience of pleasure in response to stimulus as defined by A, and C is behaviour arising from the conditional experiences defined by B to bring about the goals laid down by A.

If you're so smart and able to out-wit me by thinking five steps ahead, how did you just lose this debate so hard?

K^2
  • K^2

    Vidi Vici Veni

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Apr 2004
  • United-States
  • Most Knowledgeable [Web Development/Programming] 2013
    Most Knowledgeable [GTA Series] 2011
    Best Debater 2010

#99

Posted 01 December 2007 - 08:12 AM

QUOTE (Ravien @ Dec 1 2007, 01:36)
Whilst it may seem to you that you have somehow refuted the proposition that all sexual behaviour is rooted in reproduction, you actually haven't.

I like making up sh*t too some times, but it doesn't work in debates. Nobody has argued against it being rooted in reproduction. I specifically stated several times on this page alone that it is, and that it matters squat what it is rooted in. Only what is happening now.
QUOTE
Do you really think that "today, all that matters is functioning well within society" is true, despite the fact that even your very own behaviour runs contrary to this statement? You STILL, despite your arguments, choose only to have sex with people who would provide you with fit children.

Bull. I chose to have sex with individuals who I find attractive. When I look at a nice rack on a girl, I don't think about the fact that she'd be able to bare many children with hips like that. Yeah, that's why I'm genetically predisposed to find it attractive, but the thought has never crossed my mind once. If when you look at a girl all you think is, "Damn, I'd be able to have a lot of healthy children with her," you are a sad individual.

Let me give you this hypothetical. Near future. Reproduction via intercourse is outlawed, because in vitro gives you better ways to prevent genetic defects from being passed on. Men have to undergo vasectomy, and women undergo tube ligation to make sure that reproduction from intercourse is impossible. There is no way to have children by having sex. None. Now, here comes a question, will people stop having sex? Will people stop trying to have sex with attractive people? No. Most of them will go on the same as before. Why? Because we don't f*ck for reproduction. We f*ck for the pleasure of the process. To say otherwise is not only false, but nearsighted and ignorant to boot.
QUOTE
If pain is the way our body prevents us from allowing it to be damaged, then to say that we avoid pain simply because it's not a nice experience is just stupid. We avoid pain because we are avoiding bodily harm. Pain is merely the messenger.

A rational person, maybe. Not individuals at large. If this was true for everyone, people wouldn't be afraid of needles and dentists. They cause themselves more bodily harm by avoiding short term pain of having a tooth drilled or having a needle stuck in them. Such behavior contradicts your statement. Empirically denied.
QUOTE
And funnily enough, modern medicine has done absolutely nothing to curb our experience of pain nor disassociate pain from its evolved basis.

Advil? Tylenol? Morphine? An entire array of other anesthetics? Yeah, pain is a message. Sometimes, it is incorrect, and pain needs to be curbed to do what is rational. Like, undergoing the surgery. And modern medicine deals with it spectacularly. Another argument that contradicts common facts. Want to go for three?
QUOTE
If pleasure is the way our body makes us pursue things which are good for it, then to say that we pursue pleasure simply because it's a nice experience is precisely as idiotic. We pursue pleasure because we are seeking to benefit our lives and our genetic future. Pleasure is merely the messenger.

Sure. And heroin addicts are in it for the needles. What does a crack head get from cocaine in terms of improving his life? That's right. Nothing. It makes his life worse. Yet he does it. Why? Because it stimulates his reward centers. Did our ancestors ever benefit from doing crack? No. It's not even something that is an outcome of our own evolution. Cocaine just happens to stimulate the centers that had a completely different purpose, and yet some people derive pleasure from it. In fact, they can no longer derive it from anything else.
QUOTE
You're basically arguing that car engines run because you turn the key. There's a whole lot of stuff happening under the hood which you're just saying "oh yeah it's there but it's not important, turning the key is the only thing that's important".

And you can't even get an analogy straight. Lets see. I say that we have sex because we are wired that way. That translates into engine running because it is put together to run when you turn it on. Why is it put together this way? Some engineers designed it. Once it is built, do engineers have anything to do with it running? No. They might as well die of avian flue, and the engine will still keep running. Similarly, our sex drive is a result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, but even if we stop reproducing, we'll still want to have sex. That's the way we are wired.
QUOTE
If you're so smart and able to out-wit me by thinking five steps ahead, how did you just lose this debate so hard?

In the 50's they started building a tower in Moscow that was supposed to be completed the same year that Soviet Union spreads out through entire Europe. It always amuses me.

Canofceleri
  • Canofceleri

    OG

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2001

#100

Posted 12 January 2008 - 02:51 PM

It's funny, I was researching porn on Wiki. According to the article there is a strong correlation between high availability of porn and low sex crimes in a given area. Japan which is home to many a rape fantasy porn has the lowest sex crime stats in the industrialized world. Furthermore, US states and areas with the least readily available web access have higher sex crime stats. Makes sense I think.

Rastaja
  • Rastaja

    Like A Rolling Stone.

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2008

#101

Posted 12 January 2008 - 04:28 PM

QUOTE (Candarelli @ Jan 12 2008, 14:51)
It's funny, I was researching porn on Wiki. According to the article there is a strong correlation between high availability of porn and low sex crimes in a given area. Japan which is home to many a rape fantasy porn has the lowest sex crime stats in the industrialized world. Furthermore, US states and areas with the least readily available web access have higher sex crime stats. Makes sense I think.

That doesn't still make violent porn not horrendous... Someone who is fantasizing about gagging and beating another human being can't possibly be mentally stable. As it is in the world of child pornography... it's just a matter of time before they act it out themselves.

I'm not saying that porn is neccessarily evil... but it can be rather addicting. It actually decreases your ability to sexually function. Someone who only knows tissue and lotion as their sexual endeavour can find it diffucult having sex with a real women... this can lead to premature ejaculation, etc.

Canofceleri
  • Canofceleri

    OG

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2001

#102

Posted 12 January 2008 - 04:47 PM

I'd have to disagree. I'm a pretty mentally sound person, and I will at random have thoughts of violent acts (i.e. seeing a knife next to someone and thinking about stabbing that person in the throat). I think most people do sh*t like that.

Straznicy
  • Straznicy

    Laugh at your problems

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008
  • Scotland

#103

Posted 12 January 2008 - 04:54 PM

Pornography is privatised sex, that's it. It's industry like any other - and it'll always cater for its shifting market. Whether that be cocks in between toe gaps or girls eating their own ass contents it doesn't matter, as long as it's legal and rakes in money it'll be done. I've never liked the argument about morality, first off because it's just a form of oppression on personal expression/exploration/whatever and secondly because it's irrelevant to pornography. Where I live at least, porn isn't a widely marketed in a flagrant manner, and it's not a public affair. And I'd say that's true for many other countries: how likely are you to see a guy wanking off to a Katja Kassin movie on his laptop in a city street? Not very, it's conducted in private hence it ain't having "drastic" effects on society as whole is it? Why do these religious nuts care so deeply for the "righteousness" and purity of others so deeply.. even if they obviously aren't interested in your principles? They're arrogant bullsh*tters, that's why.

Now things like child pornography, well what the hell can you do about that? It's illegal already, but that doesn't stop it's production. Banning all pornography isn't going to make any difference. A proposition in Canada a few years back was the raise the age of consent laws, again, what? That's suppressing the rights of people who don't even look at porn. For other forms of porn, you can follow the same golden rule the army does if you get that worked up about it: don't ask, don't tell.

DarthTemplar
  • DarthTemplar

    Hail to the King Baby

  • Members
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2007

#104

Posted 18 January 2008 - 01:27 AM

QUOTE (Straznicy @ Jan 12 2008, 08:54)
Now things like child pornography, well what the hell can you do about that? It's illegal already, but that doesn't stop it's production. Banning all pornography isn't going to make any difference. A proposition in Canada a few years back was the raise the age of consent laws, again, what? That's suppressing the rights of people who don't even look at porn. For other forms of porn, you can follow the same golden rule the army does if you get that worked up about it: don't ask, don't tell.

I completely agree with you.

Taste Of Chaos
  • Taste Of Chaos

    Bill doesn't know.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 22 Apr 2005

#105

Posted 19 January 2008 - 02:41 AM

QUOTE (Snares @ Jan 28 2006, 11:40)
[I suggest all men on this board refrain from watching hardcore pornography,

Whoops!

But I totally agree, I'd never call my gf any of the above mentioned words, porno is sickly these days, some's ok.

Some of the japanese stuff is pretty f*cked up...

derty
  • derty

    My member's custom title is "Solid Snake"

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 01 Nov 2007

#106

Posted 19 January 2008 - 03:21 AM

No worries, everyone. I only beat off in milestone topics here ph34r.gif

longkissgoodnight
  • longkissgoodnight

    Da North Pole

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 10 Sep 2006

#107

Posted 03 February 2008 - 03:42 AM

I like porn - I watch it sometime. By the way for those people who do watch it. Who is your favorite pornstar? Mine is Sativa Rose.

Straznicy
  • Straznicy

    Laugh at your problems

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2008
  • Scotland

#108

Posted 03 February 2008 - 04:22 AM

Katja Kassin for me personally.

poopskin
  • poopskin

    Yardie | Not a Clever Man

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 May 2005

#109

Posted 07 February 2008 - 03:54 AM

Ok, my views have more or less changed since page 1...At this point i'm more or less indifferent.

Tom Toole
  • Tom Toole

    getting better all the time

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Apr 2005

#110

Posted 22 February 2008 - 12:57 AM

QUOTE (Straznicy @ Jan 12 2008, 16:54)
Pornography is privatised sex, that's it.

I think Prostitution is commercialized sex.

I'm not exactly sure on the meaning of "privatised" - private sector means commercial - if it is equal to "commercialized" then I believe I disagree with you since Pornography is not Prostitution.

GTA3Rockstar
  • GTA3Rockstar

    --------------------

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2002
  • United-States

#111

Posted 22 February 2008 - 01:08 AM

QUOTE (Tom Toole @ Feb 21 2008, 18:57)
QUOTE (Straznicy @ Jan 12 2008, 16:54)
Pornography is privatised sex, that's it.

I think Prostitution is commercialized sex.

I'm not exactly sure on the meaning of "privatised" - private sector means commercial - if it is equal to "commercialized" then I believe I disagree with you since Pornography is not Prostitution.

Are you a pornostar? Just asking. moto_whistle.gif

Canofceleri
  • Canofceleri

    OG

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2001

#112

Posted 12 September 2010 - 05:14 AM

http://www.guardian....gender.weekend7

Great and insightful article on why men look at porn and how it affects them.

E.A.B.
  • E.A.B.

    Group: Leone Mafia Family

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005

#113

Posted 16 September 2010 - 06:35 PM

QUOTE (longkissgoodnight @ Feb 2 2008, 22:42)
By the way for those people who do watch it. Who is your favorite pornstar? Mine is Sativa Rose.

Amai Liu

that's right, sue me

AlfieWilRus
  • AlfieWilRus

    I don't know what this is

  • Members
  • Joined: 14 Jun 2010

#114

Posted 26 September 2010 - 05:37 AM

With the world we live in now the urges are too hard to keep down. At schools all the girls will be wearing slutty clothes, televisions show a vast amount of cleavage, advertisements and the number one distributor of pornography: INTERNET.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#115

Posted 14 October 2010 - 11:39 AM

QUOTE (Canofceleri @ Sep 12 2010, 15:14)
http://www.guardian....gender.weekend7

Great and insightful article on why men look at porn and how it affects them.

This was a great read.

blitz
  • blitz

    pizzaqueen <3

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2011
  • None
  • Newcomer of the Year 2011

#116

Posted 15 March 2011 - 12:32 AM Edited by blitz, 27 October 2011 - 11:50 PM.

Nope, never something that caught my interest.

Struff Bunstridge
  • Struff Bunstridge

    ...loading...

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2007

#117

Posted 15 March 2011 - 01:04 AM

Sure, because between Friends and CSI, there's not much else you need to know about society, right?

If you denounce anything as bad because a tiny minority react badly to it, you're completely missing the point. Of everything.

blitz
  • blitz

    pizzaqueen <3

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2011
  • None
  • Newcomer of the Year 2011

#118

Posted 15 March 2011 - 01:08 AM Edited by blitz, 27 October 2011 - 11:50 PM.

I know about that, those were just examples.

Struff Bunstridge
  • Struff Bunstridge

    ...loading...

  • Members
  • Joined: 09 Nov 2007

#119

Posted 15 March 2011 - 01:10 AM

Bad ones. Do you have any real reasons for disliking it, other than a couple of TV shows you saw once? Totally agreed on the child/non consensual porn, by the way, but it strikes me that you've lumped all of it in with the worst bits.

Melchior
  • Melchior

    Big Homie

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • China

#120

Posted 15 March 2011 - 04:45 AM

Canofceleri posted an insightful article about the negatives of porn, Struff. I'm not sure I agree with it though. I mean, they're reasoning is pretty solid but it takes a lot of liberties. It goes straight from dismissing the amorous qualities of erotica, saying it's "still porn" then going into how porn is negative because it's about "what a man can do to a woman" - it makes no sense. It's not that I disagree that porn is a form of masculine aggression, but if you don't watch hardcore porn and your masturbatory fantasies are a tad bit more complicated than two strangers f*cking, the article's sweeping Freudian explanations don't really apply, and so where does the aggressive sexism and the escapist element come in?

It's not masturbation or fantasy that's the problem as the article seems to suggest, those are normal, healthy parts of life, it's men's whole approach to sex and women that is the issue. The article contends that porn creates a fantasy world where women are always "hot and ready" (in other words "eager to please"). But porn isn't a naturally occurring substance like a drug, we created it to cater to certain desires, and more importantly, attitudes. It's a reflection of how men view sex and women - a symptom of a wider social blight rather than a disease in it's own right.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users