Is Porn Bad for You?

[Project Willow]

That's an interesting question because I've never needed porn to pleasure myself, disregard that most porn is made for men and therefore on a scale runs from abhorrent to boring for me, and a good third of the legally accessible adult content on the internet is, again, to me (having been enslaved and used at that age, I recognize the body language, the facial expressions) obviously rape, and a good portion of that, the rape of teenagers, but apparently most men do?

My lover moved out of state. I miss him. Still looking for good porn for women, can't find it.

Whatever the non answer to the ultimate good-for-you question may be, the industry needs to be regulated, but I expect that to happen as quickly as one of the Bushes being prosecuted for child abuse.

This society can't keep prepubescent children safe from countless Jerry Sandusky's. Actually, Jerry Sabndusky's run our institutions, so everybody's fucked. Just lie back and think of George Washington, I guess.

[compared2what?]

..
But in the event that didn't get through:
Don't conflate masturbation and porn. They are not one, but rather two.

Its cool, i wasn't directing that at you or anyone really, sorry if that wasn't clear.

True, but they kind of go together. [love & marriage]

Since i see marriage as a facet of human culture that has been largely co-opted by the powerful to further their own interests, thats a great analogy for masturbation & porn.

Funny you should mention it. Last night, I was thinking:

I know and/or have known a small number of women who work in the commercial sex industry and who were/are reasonably representative of commercial sex workers in their particular sub-niches of it -- I mean in terms of class, race, age, nationality, locality, personal background, economic status, educational attainment, et cetera, et cetera. All, in one way or another, were troubled young women, who were acting out in response to their troubles by (among other things) being commercial sex workers.

Acting out as a lifestyle choice is obviously not a reciple for success, emotionally speaking. In fact, it's generally a recipe for compounding the emotional damage that impelled you to it. And...Hmm. Well. Very broadly speaking, I'd say that was a fair characterization of the kinds of harm sustained by the small number of women I know and/or have known who were/are commercial sex workers as a result of the work they did. They compounded pre-existing emotional damages that were already pretty extensive, as their having ended up as commercial sex workers probably suggests. Or should, if it doesn't. That's the rule, not the exception, afaik.

That said: I know and/or have known an approximately equal number of women with approximately the same class/race/etc. background who married their high-school/college sweethearts and had children before the age of 22 about whom I could say exactly the same thing with only two significant differences: (1) none of them have ever really gotten past the wreckage of their disastrous marriages; and (2) their children paid some price for that, too, within the really fairly wide parameters of adverse emotional consequences to children that can occur in essentially loving homes that aren't actively abusive.
______________

In case it needs clarifying: I'm not saying sex work is good for anyone or that early marriage is bad for anyone. Because that's really not for me to say, globally.

I mean, there are also fairly wide parameters that can and very frequently do comprehend experiences that end up doing very serious damage to adult individuals who are acting of their own free wills in circumstances that are colloquially abusive but not criminally so. And predictably, in most cases, from a certain point of view that is, sadly, completely and totally useless for practical purposes.

It's painful to contemplate. And/or experience. And/or witness. But there can't be very many people who aren't intimately familiar with the pain that goes with those last two, in one form or another. I wouldn't imagine.

[compared2what?]

That's an interesting question because I've never needed porn to pleasure myself, disregard that most porn is made for men and therefore on a scale runs from abhorrent to boring for me, and a good third of the legally accessible adult content on the internet is, again, to me (having been enslaved and used at that age, I recognize the body language, the facial expressions) obviously rape, and a good portion of that, the rape of teenagers, but apparently most men do?

My lover moved out of state. I miss him. Still looking for good porn for women, can't find it.

Whatever the non answer to the ultimate good-for-you question may be, the industry needs to be regulated, but I expect that to happen as quickly as one of the Bushes being prosecuted for child abuse.

This society can't keep prepubescent children safe from countless Jerry Sandusky's. Actually, Jerry Sabndusky's run our institutions, so everybody's fucked. Just lie back and think of George Washington, I guess.

I agree with you on every point. Also, I'm sorry.

[compared2what?]

I know that pornography is a sensitive subject for those that consume it; however, I believe it is inarguable that the pornography industry has caused--and continues to cause--great suffering among women.

I agree with every part of that, too.

[compared2what?]

If we're talking about modern commercial 'mainstream' porn, then yes i'd say it is harmful to someoneS, namely both the producers (my mere opinion, no experience) and the consumers (1st hand).

Yes. I think I agree, although I'm not exactly sure what the term "harm" connotes there.

Porn embodies and illustrates some really ugly power relationships - women are usually cast in gross dehumanising sterotypes, money is frequently used to rationalise/escape responsibility ('she'd do anything for $' = economic violence), and nowhere is there any respect for vulnerability or intimacy or really any truely positive emotions apart from lust.

Consuming/seeing-thinking-imagining such material inevitably colours the experience of the consumer - railroads it along power-abuse tracks, feeding that ugly side that is in us all. I have no problem with media portraying bodies or sexual acts of any kind among consenting adults - except when that media overwhelmingly glorifies violence of some kind or another, which i think most porn does.

I'm not comfortable speaking definitively to how the experience of others is colored by the sexually graphic imagery to which they're exposed. It's beyond my ability to determine that, and probably theirs as well, in most cases. But even if it weren't, there'd be very little that I either could or would be entitled to do about it. I mean, I really don't see what the point of attaching moral judgments to how "well" or "poorly" people accommodate the various thorny implications raised by the private response they did or didn't have to something they experienced as sexual would be.

Their conduct, on the other hand, might sometimes properly be an object of social concern, not wholly excluding their sexual conduct. By any means. However, the consumption of legally produced pornography is not a proper object of social concern, imo.

The legal production of it is, obviously. Hence the "legal." And the legal terms on which it can be produced (or distributed or purchased or otherwise accessed) as well as the extent to which compliance with those terms is enforced, by whom, to the detriment or benefit of whom, and any number of other related issues are likewise proper objects of social concern, imo.

Beyond that, adult people are (or should be) free to think, feel, and imagine whatever they want to think, feel or imagine in the course of their legal sexual conduct, as far as I'm concerned. And they can't, in any event, be stopped from doing so. For some, that could include being free to have what might well be very disturbing thoughts, feelings, and fantasies, as well as thoughts, feelings and fantasies that would be criminal if acted upon. And pornographic representations of them in some but not all cases. If such were legally producible.

That's an extremely alarming prospect. And I feel extreme alarm at the thought of it. But neither fantasies nor depictions of them are reliable indicators of real danger, in themselves and absent other indicators. So I don't know what direct action or response they could really be thought to call for that was appropriate to the circumstance, in themselves. Apart from the accommodation -- and, if possible, the soothing -- of one's own alarm and that of others, assuming any was present.

So I guess we don't really agree there, wintler. Love you, though.

[blanc]

[wintler2]

If we're talking about modern commercial 'mainstream' porn, then yes i'd say it is harmful to someoneS, namely both the producers (my mere opinion, no experience) and the consumers (1st hand).

Yes. I think I agree, although I'm not exactly sure what the term "harm" connotes there.

Porn embodies and illustrates some really ugly power relationships - women are usually cast in gross dehumanising sterotypes, money is frequently used to rationalise/escape responsibility ('she'd do anything for $' = economic violence), and nowhere is there any respect for vulnerability or intimacy or really any truely positive emotions apart from lust.

Consuming/seeing-thinking-imagining such material inevitably colours the experience of the consumer - railroads it along power-abuse tracks, feeding that ugly side that is in us all. I have no problem with media portraying bodies or sexual acts of any kind among consenting adults - except when that media overwhelmingly glorifies violence of some kind or another, which i think most porn does.

I'm not comfortable speaking definitively to how the experience of others is colored by the sexually graphic imagery to which they're exposed. It's beyond my ability to determine that, and probably theirs as well, in most cases. But even if it weren't, there'd be very little that I either could or would be entitled to do about it. I mean, I really don't see what the point of attaching moral judgments to how "well" or "poorly" people accommodate the various thorny implications raised by the private response they did or didn't have to something they experienced as sexual would be.

Their conduct, on the other hand, might sometimes properly be an object of social concern, not wholly excluding their sexual conduct. By any means. However, the consumption of legally produced pornography is not a proper object of social concern, imo.

The legal production of it is, obviously. Hence the "legal." And the legal terms on which it can be produced (or distributed or purchased or otherwise accessed) as well as the extent to which compliance with those terms is enforced, by whom, to the detriment or benefit of whom, and any number of other related issues are likewise proper objects of social concern, imo.

Beyond that, adult people are (or should be) free to think, feel, and imagine whatever they want to think, feel or imagine in the course of their legal sexual conduct, as far as I'm concerned. And they can't, in any event, be stopped from doing so. For some, that could include being free to have what might well be very disturbing thoughts, feelings, and fantasies, as well as thoughts, feelings and fantasies that would be criminal if acted upon. And pornographic representations of them in some but not all cases. If such were legally producible.

That's an extremely alarming prospect. And I feel extreme alarm at the thought of it. But neither fantasies nor depictions of them are reliable indicators of real danger, in themselves and absent other indicators. So I don't know what direct action or response they could really be thought to call for that was appropriate to the circumstance, in themselves. Apart from the accommodation -- and, if possible, the soothing -- of one's own alarm and that of others, assuming any was present.

So I guess we don't really agree there, wintler. Love you, though.

And i love you, you incarnation of epic literacy you.
And we might even agree, because i am not i think making or calling for moral judgements, or for anyone to do anything specific about porn (except maybe consider its content), or for the criminalisation of porn production. The latter would be pointless, unless as yet another subsidy for organised crime.

What i'd like to think i'm getting at is the glorification of violence explicit in some & implicit in most porn. If you don't think power-over storylines/tableaux are a significant part of porn (i do) or that repeatedly inhabiting such stories has any effect on the consumer, then yes we do disagree, which is bad news for US Treasuries, lol.
I think people should avoid porn (featuring violence whether physical, economic, emotional.., which much does) because it is teaching them to be monsters, or at least hopelessly deluded about what it takes to participate mutually rewarding relationships IRL.

[RobinDaHood]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2011/11/17/porn_that_women_like_why_does_it_make_men_so_uncomfortable_.html
Porn That Women Like: Why Does It Make Men So Uncomfortable?

In the winter issue of Good Magazine, Amanda Hess has a fascinating profile of James Deen, a young, handsome porn star who is becoming famous for actually appealing to women. Due to his boyish, slightly skate-punk aesthetic, naturally toned body, and ability to connect emotionally (or at least appear to) with his female co-stars, Deen has garnered a following of devoted young women in an industry that in most cases ignores them entirely. Hess explains that Deen’s school-boy charm is what makes him approachable—and sexy—to his female fans:

Deen has carved out a niche in the porn industry by looking like the one guy who doesn’t belong there. Scroll through L.A.’s top porn agency sites and you’ll find hundreds of pouty women ready to drop to their knees, but just a few dozen men available to have sex with them. These guys all have a familiar look—neck chains, frosted tips, unreasonable biceps, tribal tattoos. Deen looks like he was plucked from a particularly intellectual frat house.

Hess goes on to discuss why there aren’t more guys like Deen in the male porn-star stable, and her findings tell us just as much about male viewers’ hang-ups as they do about women’s erotic preferences. Part of the problem is that men (who largely control the porn industry) imagine that women want everything big—“Big arms. Big abs. Big dicks,” as Hess puts it—when what they really want is something a little less overwrought. One of Hess’ subjects described her attraction to Deen thusly: “He was almost like a guy that you would just hang out with at Hebrew school.”

But the real obstacle to the proliferation of female-friendly male porn stars is, oddly, a rather nasty and subtle strain of homophobia, revealed in the following double-bind:

The straight male performer must be attractive enough to serve as a prop, but not so attractive that he becomes the object of desire.

Hess is spot on. Men need to see a penis in straight porn (presumably to stand in for their own), but not one that is attached to a guy who might be threateningly attractive, not to mention plausibly appealing to the woman involved. Maybe this insistence on a male blank slate (a kind of reverse objectification, when you think about it) makes it easier to project oneself onto the disembodied penis, but it also protects men from the potentially scary experience of being turned on by both partners of a heterosexual encounter—which, yes, does involve another dude. In other words, the bland interchangeability of the “unreasonable” looking men allows them to avoid confronting the terrifying specter of homosexuality.

Hess’ informants within the industry confirm this when they explain that a man simply cannot be the focus of a porn flick (in the film itself or even on the video cover) because consumers will be spooked. The sad thing here is that in this arrangement, everyone loses: Women can’t get the kind of porn they want from the mainstream (there are, of course, many excellent indie outfits who make great lady-centric films), an insidious kind of abstract homophobia is reinforced and, perhaps worst of all, many straight male viewers suffer unnecessary emotional and sexual stunting.

It’s telling that it was a woman, Pamela Peaks, who first recruited Deen into the porn life—she obviously knew what she liked, even if it was a gamble. But now that Deen’s “skinny, Jewish ass” has proven its worth, perhaps other producers, female and male alike, will be willing to challenge and entice their viewers with a more diverse casting couch as well.

[Simulist]

Well, cheers to James Deen (who, to me, seems delightful), but… must there be so many generalizations about "men want" this and "women want" that? Must there?!! As if either sex were some kind of monolithic gender-club where sustaining membership required a kind of unconditional surrender to majority rule?

Certainly some men do want "this" (maybe even most men for all I know), and some women do want "that" (similar provisos may apply), but surely not all members of either sex will agree, or should — and, I must also add: generalizations pretty much piss me off.

In fact, I'm really starting to think that intra-gender "categories" may be more useless than I've ever fully considered, often amounting to little more than sexual type-casting. (I think of myself as about 100% gay, but does that mean that I "must" be attracted to males only? All the time? Every day? Well, it sure as hell better not mean that, because I still think Jane Seymour is hot, even after all these years!)

More of those "too-tight straight-jackets." I don't like them. And porn sometimes helps to unravel those out-dated garments.

(Yay porn. Or some of it anyway.)

[Stephen Morgan]

In the winter issue of Good Magazine, Amanda Hess has a fascinating profile of James Deen, a young, handsome porn star who is becoming famous for actually appealing to women. Due to his boyish, slightly skate-punk aesthetic, naturally toned body, and ability to connect emotionally (or at least appear to) with his female co-stars, Deen has garnered a following of devoted young women in an industry that in most cases ignores them entirely. Hess explains that Deen’s school-boy charm is what makes him approachable—and sexy—to his female fans:

That is disturbing.

[Nordic]

Here's what I don't get --

Prostitution is illegal.

But apparently if you pay a woman to have sex ..... and you film it .... it's legal.

So something that is a discreet and private arrangement between two consenting adults .... is against the law and can get you arrested.

But paying a woman to have sex, recording it so everyone can see, and then selling the images to the world, for a profit, is protected free speech?

Makes NO sense whatsoever.

But that's America for you.

[Simulist]

That's an excellent point, Nordic.

And Stephen, how is the guy's apparent ability to "connect emotionally" in any way "disturbing"?

[Wombaticus Rex]

^^That is clearly not what Stephen was saying #daug re-think that

[Simulist]

^^That is clearly not what Stephen was saying #daug re-think that

Hi Wombaticus Rex. Stephen wrote this:

In the winter issue of Good Magazine, Amanda Hess has a fascinating profile of James Deen, a young, handsome porn star who is becoming famous for actually appealing to women. Due to his boyish, slightly skate-punk aesthetic, naturally toned body, and ability to connect emotionally (or at least appear to) with his female co-stars, Deen has garnered a following of devoted young women in an industry that in most cases ignores them entirely. Hess explains that Deen’s school-boy charm is what makes him approachable—and sexy—to his female fans:

That is disturbing.

The emboldened portions were the words, "and ability to connect emotionally (or at least appear to) with his female co-stars." Then he wrote, "That is disturbing."

It sounded to me (and still sounds) that he found the emotional connection between James Deen and his female costars "disturbing."

How is that "clearly" not what he was saying?

[slomo]

What is this thread about?

I mean, is there anybody in here really defending the porn industry, which everybody appears to admit is corrupt and exploitive and offers a product of marginal benefit at best?

Or is this a referendum on masturbation? I can't tell, sorry.