UK no likey the porn

i like banging. :sup:

The best example for the problems with restricting people's rights to experience what they want to is the war on drugs. It has caused so many more problems than just allowing people to use drugs would.

People get taken advantage of in the porn industry just like they do in every other industry. Porn is not inherently bad or wrong. It is the people that take advantage of other people that are bad. If someone wants to make a living screwing people they should be allowed that right and we should take necessary measures to make sure it is done legally. Enough said.

The main point of the whole thread is that somehow exposure to porn is hurting our youth which it isn't. Stupid assholes in control of society think its a good idea to try to curb people's behavior to such an extent that they believe they are doing the world justice which in fact it does the exact opposite. These pro-life, anti-drug, right-wing, supposed Christian assholes don't understand what they are doing. The best part of it is a huge portion of these radical bastards are hypocrites who engage in the exact activities they pretend to oppose publicly. They are the most out of touch people and the includes being out of touch with their own humanity.

That article stated that they are going to try to pressure clothing manufacturers to manufacture "appropriate" clothing for kids. That is insane. What is next? We can't wear black because it is evil???

It seems to me that the people who get regular sex are more likely to ere on the side of anti-porn moralizing. More so if they have female children, or are a woman themselves. This begs the question, which one of these is troon ?

Anyway, I stand in solidarity with those that ain't getting any. !! And we're just gonna keep watching pron, until the sexbots get high tech enough. So your arguing isn't gonna fix shit. nar nar na nar nar ;-p

  On 10/14/2011 at 11:27 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

That article stated that they are going to try to pressure clothing manufacturers to manufacture "appropriate" clothing for kids. That is insane. What is next? We can't wear black because it is evil???

it's more along the lines of clothing stores not selling inappropriate clothing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/16/children-clothing-survey-bikini-heels

I don't think that any women should wear heals that high. It's just bloody stupid. But whatev. ;-]

i dont know entirely about this debate, morally, but what delet said, chengod, you have an attractive wife and have had on tap, enjoyable sex for however many years you've been married.

who the fuck are you to say that people who are too socially inept to get their own, shouldnt have sexual relief from watching other atracttive people have consensual sex on film.

you are ultimately just being a bit of a dick. yes pornography is damaging in a variety of ways, but the fact you have a wife you live with and love kind of makes your opinion on this matter biased. also, the statistics are there that removing pornagraphy from a society increases cases of actual sexual crime.

even when i am getting laid daily in the early months of a new relationship i would still wake up in the morning and beat off while my coffee is brewing before i go into work. there is nothing that will stop me from masturbating.

  On 10/14/2011 at 11:27 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

The best part of it is a huge portion of these radical bastards are hypocrites who engage in the exact activities they pretend to oppose publicly.

It puts an extra spin of danger on things, makes leading the "opposite extremes" life much more exciting.

Nah but yeah you're right.

  On 10/17/2011 at 9:06 AM, essines said:

even when i am getting laid daily in the early months of a new relationship i would still wake up in the morning and beat off while my coffee is brewing before i go into work. there is nothing that will stop me from masturbating.

you and me both

  On 10/16/2011 at 2:19 AM, messiaen said:

i dont know entirely about this debate, morally, but what delet said, chengod, you have an attractive wife and have had on tap, enjoyable sex for however many years you've been married.

 

who the fuck are you to say that people who are too socially inept to get their own, shouldnt have sexual relief from watching other atracttive people have consensual sex on film.

 

you are ultimately just being a bit of a dick. yes pornography is damaging in a variety of ways, but the fact you have a wife you live with and love kind of makes your opinion on this matter biased. also, the statistics are there that removing pornagraphy from a society increases cases of actual sexual crime.

Now, I'm generally inclined to defend pornography and people's right to view it, but I don't think this is particularly good line of argument.

For a start, it assumes that viewing pornography and masturbating are simply a replacement for sex - and that people who get laid on the regular don't want or need porn. As essines points out, that's simply not true. Both have a place in a healthy sexuality and one does not preclude the other.

Building on that, you're also making a big assumption about people who consume pornography. It's not just sexually frustrated single men. Men in relationships, women single or otherwise, people who don't fit into neat gender binaries and couples all consume, enjoy, often produce porn. If you're going to defend it, don't concentrate your arguments on these mythical lonely blokes who NEED it - what about the normal, well-adjusted people who simply choose to use it, because they get off on it?

This is the rub:

  Quote

people have consensual sex on film.

and that should be enough. Being in a relationship, having a wife, having sex "on tap" shouldn't enter into it. Calling that a biased position seems ever so slightly blinkered to me - surely being in the kind of sex-starved state you describe has just as much claim to being a biased position?

There IS a lot that's wrong with the porn industry. A lot of it is degrading, racist, misogynistic, etc...

But on the other hand, there's an increasing amount out there that isn't. The focus needs to be on how to get the industry to clean up its act - unionising sex workers is a good start. Legitimising and regulating the industry where possible. And educating consumers about the realities of sex and the pornography industry.

Some people won't care - just like some people don't care that the clothes on their back are made by exploiting child labour, or that the food they eat comes at the expense of animal suffering. But banning things outright is not always the best way to change an industry, or the way the public perceive and engage with it.

  On 10/14/2011 at 9:44 PM, chenGOD said:

the person producing the film is not purchasing a performance - he is purchasing her body for use.

 

you pay laborers for an end product. with a porn actress the end product is her body. You are equating the porn actress with an object created by labour.

 

I'm done here - you guys want to keep on believing that porn is fine and no harm is done so you can jack-off guilt free then go for it.

But remember the end result - swap.avi

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the morality of truly amateur pornography - produced and uploaded at home, by individuals, couples or groups with no money changing hands whatsoever.

I'd argue that this represents an "ethical" choice for people who are troubled by the state of the commercial porn industry... plus, the people involved are actually enjoying themselves.

wow so according to iain C, I'm a mythical lonely bloke that's abnormal and not well adjusted. I agree with the mythical if you mean like greek god, the rest is bollocks. I don't want to pick up, it's never been something i've thought about in any great detail.

eneewae, obligatory heh.

No, I'm saying normal, well-adjusted people use pornography...

It doesn't matter whether you're single, in a relationship, part of a dozen-member martian group marriage etc. Stereotypes about "people who are too socially inept to get their own" are bollocks - unless you identify yourself with that category, in which case more power to you I suppose.

lol, oh iain.

I could keep going with articles and studies all day. All i get in return is "I believe this", and "statistics are automatically skewed".

You could give me a link to any of the journals your prof has been published in - I do like that about being at school. Also - while I am in undergrad, it's true (and I'm not an anth/soci major) the prof who taught me soci 100 was the head of the soci department at the time and oversees many grad students. This is at a school ranked #22 in the world (am I allowed to be proud of that?) #19 in life sciences. Yes he would probably skewer me for being so deterministic, but a) I'm being blunt on purpose cause that seems to be the only way to make any impact and b) this is WATMM for christ's sake, not the journal of reproductive health.

Iain - truly amateur porn is an offshoot of voyeurism, so as long as it's consensual I'd have no problems with it.

delet - that was messaien calling porn users misshapen freaks. and lol if you think being married means you have sex on tap.

Oh and speaking of equality in porn...Women use porn too!

  On 10/14/2011 at 10:38 AM, delet... said:

  On 10/14/2011 at 9:57 AM, Glunk said:

but being objectified feels like shit and contributes to mental disorders

 

  On 10/14/2011 at 9:13 AM, delet... said:

Plus objectifying shouldn't be a dirty word. It's how our brains are wired. If the person is violent or doesn't respond to another's needs, well that speaks to something else about his character.

just to clarify, it doesn't need to be physical to be damaging. example: think about how many women have eating disorders. media is powerful and porn is even moreso because it is frequently paired with the positive reinforcement of masturbation+orgasm, so it's classically conditioning the viewer.

  On 10/15/2011 at 2:02 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 10/14/2011 at 11:27 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

That article stated that they are going to try to pressure clothing manufacturers to manufacture "appropriate" clothing for kids. That is insane. What is next? We can't wear black because it is evil???

 

it's more along the lines of clothing stores not selling inappropriate clothing.

http://www.guardian....ey-bikini-heels

Id have to agree with dressing kids more appropriately. You see young teens dressed like sluts. Its a little sickening. Its obviously up to parents to stop the sort of behaviour, but really why are the clothes there at all?!

edit: shoes are the least of their worries.

  On 10/14/2011 at 4:47 PM, chenGOD said:

I doubt you read the four articles that I posted first, unless you have access to the journals they were posted in?

i checked, each one of them is freely available to public.

(you know i couldn't miss the opportunity )

  On 10/18/2011 at 10:20 PM, chassis said:

  On 10/15/2011 at 2:02 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 10/14/2011 at 11:27 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

That article stated that they are going to try to pressure clothing manufacturers to manufacture "appropriate" clothing for kids. That is insane. What is next? We can't wear black because it is evil???

 

it's more along the lines of clothing stores not selling inappropriate clothing.

http://www.guardian....ey-bikini-heels

Id have to agree with dressing kids more appropriately. You see young teens dressed like sluts. Its a little sickening. Its obviously up to parents to stop the sort of behaviour, but really why are the clothes there at all?!

 

edit: shoes are the least of their worries.

This a dangerous way of thinking. People should be allowed the freedom to dress like asses if they want.

  On 10/18/2011 at 7:12 AM, Glunk said:

  On 10/14/2011 at 10:38 AM, delet... said:

  On 10/14/2011 at 9:57 AM, Glunk said:

but being objectified feels like shit and contributes to mental disorders

 

  On 10/14/2011 at 9:13 AM, delet... said:

Plus objectifying shouldn't be a dirty word. It's how our brains are wired. If the person is violent or doesn't respond to another's needs, well that speaks to something else about his character.

 

just to clarify, it doesn't need to be physical to be damaging. example: think about how many women have eating disorders. media is powerful and porn is even moreso because it is frequently paired with the positive reinforcement of masturbation+orgasm, so it's classically conditioning the viewer.

We should not support people's weakness of character. We can treat them when it is a problem for them. We should not pass laws, because they are too weak to deal with reality.

  On 10/15/2011 at 2:02 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 10/14/2011 at 11:27 PM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

 

That article stated that they are going to try to pressure clothing manufacturers to manufacture "appropriate" clothing for kids. That is insane. What is next? We can't wear black because it is evil???

 

it's more along the lines of clothing stores not selling inappropriate clothing.

http://www.guardian....ey-bikini-heels

You just repeated exactly what I said. There is no difference between forcing to sell appropriate and forcing not to sell inappropriate. People can wear what they want to wear. That is an insane breach of personal liberty.

I think there's a pretty clear inverse correlation between the explicitness of mainstream porn and "objectification" of women in society.

the one above is a dud argument (but still a pretty much true statement) but i still find most of chengods points quite silly. sure, there is a component of abuse in the porn industry but that doesn't mean there's a fundamental difference in it than any other trade of services. I don't see how chengod's arguments differentiate between a porn actress and a regular one.

also, shut up troon.