Is Porn Bad for You?

[blanc]

Seems a little daft to talk to someone who isn't there, but
"Not to put too fine a point on it: The disconnected sociopathic dopamine hungry pervs with a minimal capacity for empathy of whom you speak are figments of your imagination. Entirely. Sex addicts are not like that. Their condition calls for help, treatment and understanding, not stigmatization and benighted ignorance, both of which they've got plenty of already."
I don't think the Daily Mail article used the term sex addict Compared2What. Because I was writing about something which is not, really really is not victimless crime, I do prioritise the feelings of those victims and their rights to live unmolested and free above those who would trash them, even if it could be proved that the trashers couldn't help themselves. I feel this way about child victims, versus paedophiles, and everyone seems to be in agreement on that, which does raise an interesting question. I feel this way about adult victims too.
I also still think that escalation to 'worse' material is common, humans being exceptionally interested in variety and novelty in all things. So, no apologies for what I think or expressing it,some regrets that it has caused you distress or annoyance.

Barracuda, why is it worse to choose to use a commodity which is designed to give the user pleasure through another's pain than to use a commodity which just happens to be produced in lousy circumstances? That's my short answer, in question form.

Along with the list Hammer of Los gave us, I'd add that the criminocracy, the undermining of our democracy, has been facilitated through and with resources and contacts generated by this trade, not uniquely, but high on the list. So that's another reason for switching off.

PW I'm not doing much these days, there are others who are still working tirelessly, but even so, its a drop in the ocean.

[Simulist]

I don't think that I care two hoots if porn users who consider that they have a conscience and only view harmless stuff filmed with the full uncoerced co-operation of those depicted feel put down by my robust name calling, because I know so many nice people who feel put down every time anyone implies that porn is filmed with consent, because, for them it wasn't, and I do seriously doubt the competences claimed.

For me, this explained pretty well where you're coming from, Blanc.

I disagree with you because what you've written here seems terribly, terribly myopic to me. (When someone tells you, for example, that s/he doesn't think s/he gives "two hoots" what someone else's point of view is, I think that signals the likelihood of a myopic point of view coming up.) But the reasons it may be myopic seem noble reasons at least: you're concerned about those who have been victimized by the porn industry. And, as far as that point of view can see, I enthusiastically concur — but I don't for a moment imagine that this point of view, or my own, can see everything.

For example, I know for a fact that there are at least two people* who do porn simply because they like to — not due to an addiction, not due to financial hardship or physical coercion, or coercion of any kind. And I don't think they have any compelling reason that they must (or even should) justify what they do to anyone.

Nor do those who view their performances need to justify that either.

_________
* And if there are two such people that I know of, there are probably more. Possibly many, many more.

[blanc]

No, I didn't say I didn't care two hoots about anyone's point of view Simulist.

[Simulist]

No, to be precise, you said you didn't think that you care "two hoots" if porn users "feel put down" by your "robust name calling, because…"

And yes, that signals that you've stopped listening at that point.

[slomo]

Perhaps I am missing subtleties because I am trying to read too quickly.

But, again: there seems to be a conflation here of pornography with the porno industry.

To make the point clear, I will pose a hypothetical: suppose I told you that I enjoy written pornography (i.e. erotic stories), but not visual pornography (i.e. photographs or movies). [Turns out not to be quite so hypothetical, because I really actually do prefer the one to the other, although I consume both in small amounts anyway.] How does that fit into the "not-so-victimless" crime?

Same dopamine rush. No actual exploited persons.

[blanc]

Slomo, if that question is to me, the comments I made were in response to an article about a genre of pornography which is what is most commonly thought of as porn now, and of which a substantial amount is made in a criminal way; that much was clear in my response which has been picked apart and assumed to conflate a whole host of things. I don't think I can usefully add anything other than to ask that the disected bits are read in context. I've learnt through this and other discussions which touch on organised abuse that I am not very good at being an advocate for the section of our populations who have suffered and continue to do so.
Apart from that, of course I don't care how anyone gets pleasure amusement or satisfaction if it isn't at the expense of degradation of another.

[slomo]

Slomo, if that question is to me, the comments I made were in response to an article about a genre of pornography which is what is most commonly thought of as porn now, and of which a substantial amount is made in a criminal way; that much was clear in my response which has been picked apart and assumed to conflate a whole host of things. I don't think I can usefully add anything other than to ask that the disected bits are read in context. I've learnt through this and other discussions which touch on organised abuse that I am not very good at being an advocate for the section of our populations who have suffered and continue to do so.
Apart from that, of course I don't care how anyone gets pleasure amusement or satisfaction if it isn't at the expense of degradation of another.

OK - maybe I'm oversimplifying because this discussion has been confusing with all the hurt feelings and acrimony - but I think everybody here is agreeing that the criminal origins of much of today's pornography is a terrible thing. I don't think anybody is defending the abuse of women or children (or men, for that matter, if gay male porno actors are abused much, which I doubt). I don't think anybody is even defending the negative drug culture that surrounds the production of much commercial pornography. What I do think people are reacting to is the idea that, in the abstract, wanking to erotic images is necessarily an evil. I think people are reading your commentary as such, whether or not you really meant it that way.

However, I do think that if we are going to feel guilty about enjoying (apparently nonviolent) commercially produced porn (that may have been created under exploitive circumstances), then we should probably feel guilty about a lot of other commonly used products that turn out to have been produced under similarly exploitive circumstances (e.g. almost anything from Walmart/China).

Now, I think the boundary cases are interesting: it is legitimate to ask whether amateur porn represents a subtle form of exploitation, or portends some kind of collective emotional problem where we have confused public vs. private. I also think it might be legitimate to look deep within our souls and ask ourselves whether coercion, violence, etc. are common elements of sexual fantasies in our collective, and, if so, whether that phenomenon is a standard feature of the collective human psyche or whether it represents a distortion that is unique to our, um, civilization. But that's a whole other can-o-worms.

[blanc]

Those last 2 paragraphs Slomo do focus on aspects of the topic which bear discussion as interesting, but I'm not going to come up with my views because of exactly this
"What I do think people are reacting to is the idea that, in the abstract, wanking to erotic images is necessarily an evil. I think people are reading your commentary as such, whether or not you really meant it that way."
Hopefully someone whose style of presentation or capacities to express their views are less open to misinterpretation will chip in.

[wintler2]

OK - maybe I'm oversimplifying because this discussion has been confusing with all the hurt feelings and acrimony - but I think everybody here is agreeing that the criminal origins of much of today's pornography is a terrible thing.
I don't think anybody is defending the abuse of women or children (or men, for that matter, if gay male porno actors are abused much, which I doubt). I don't think anybody is even defending the negative drug culture that surrounds the production of much commercial pornography.

True, and worth repeating every page, because mainstream culture is so inclined to overlook those unpleasant truths.

What I do think people are reacting to is the idea that, in the abstract, wanking to erotic images is necessarily an evil.

Which i don't think anybody here has argued, so the reactions are a lot 'doth protest too much'. Thanks Blanc and everyone who has chimed in with their own experiences and thoughts, this was never going to be easy.

I think people are reading your commentary as such, whether or not you really meant it that way.
However, I do think that if we are going to feel guilty about enjoying (apparently nonviolent) commercially produced porn (that may have been created under exploitive circumstances), then we should probably feel guilty about a lot of other commonly used products that turn out to have been produced under similarly exploitive circumstances (e.g. almost anything from Walmart/China).

Yes, so long as feeling guilty or pious judgementalism is not the limit of our engagement with the problems. I think the latter is part of what c2w was trying to say.

Scary thought, innit, to own all of our shit? Shall we run away from it together, or in different directions? (joke)

..
I also think it might be legitimate to look deep within our souls and ask ourselves whether coercion, violence, etc. are common elements of sexual fantasies in our collective, and, if so, whether that phenomenon is a standard feature of the collective human psyche or whether it represents a distortion that is unique to our, um, civilization [at this stage of its decay]. But that's a whole other can-o-worms.

[my edit]

An important can too, and a great restatement generally, thanks.

One way to link this new can here might be: Is violent/degrading porn content following the market or driving it? Or maybe just reflecting changes in other facets of society?

[Luther Blissett]

Now, I think the boundary cases are interesting: it is legitimate to ask whether amateur porn represents a subtle form of exploitation, or portends some kind of collective emotional problem where we have confused public vs. private. I also think it might be legitimate to look deep within our souls and ask ourselves whether coercion, violence, etc. are common elements of sexual fantasies in our collective, and, if so, whether that phenomenon is a standard feature of the collective human psyche or whether it represents a distortion that is unique to our, um, civilization. But that's a whole other can-o-worms.

Yes, sometimes. My ex, who was self-published and kept producing her own pornography for years on her own when not one other physical person was forcing her to do so, and who knew hundreds of other western women around the world doing the exact same thing, did so because she had a child at a young age and, stemming from her childhood abuse, spent her formative years not understanding that she had much value outside of being an attractive blonde with big breasts. When it came time to care for another human which required money, her older sister (also abused by the same man, at that point a famous adult actress) strongly suggested taking her clothes off for money. That's just the one example I'm most familiar with.

However, her friends were in it for many many different reasons, and some of those were completely divorced from abuse or an emotional problem (at least in that i don't understand exhibitionism to be an emotional problem).

After my ex and I broke up and I started to date again, I came to realize that my generation and especially the generation who came after it, have grown much more exhibitionistic and I don't chalk this up to anything other than deep human desires facilitated by accelerating mass communication. I was shocked as time and time again I would receive uninvited, unprovoked nude photos in texts as if it were a standard step in courtship even after a mate is secured. Of course there are people who post nude photos of themselves on the intermet, for economic benefit or not, out of some form of residual effects of abuse, or histrionics, or some other such disorder, but that's hardly the point. Those who are sober and sane still do it whether it makes others uncomfortable or not.

And I think discomfort is good because it's really just a sign of careful anti-fascism.

[Elihu]

would it be safe to generalize: the boys are pro and the girls are con?

saw an ad in harpers awhile back perhaps some of you did too: "God Bless America? Don't bet on it" regarding the seminal first amendment case striking down local regulation of, for lack of a better word, "porn". summed up the ad pointed out that speech appeals to man's mind, the rational and analytical capacity. erotic visual images appeal to his physical and instinctual impulses. seems when two things are conflated the lower order concept comes to dominate or constrict the higher order.

[Sounder]

Elihu wrote...

would it be safe to generalize: the boys are pro and the girls are con?

No, but it would be safe to say that very few boys or girls post at this board.

seems when two things are conflated the lower order concept comes to dominate or constrict the higher order.

Excellent observation elihu.

summed up the ad pointed out that speech appeals to man's mind, the rational and analytical capacity. erotic visual images appeal to his physical and instinctual impulses.

Newspapers can print lies willi-nilli with no obligation to objectivity, what?, in the name of ‘free speech’. With porn also protected as ‘free speech’, it’s no wonder we are all a bunch of wankers; we place more value in insuring our rights to view porn than the effort we put into seeing that the ‘speech’ we are bombarded with every day is not a constant fraud on the truth.

[Canadian_watcher]

Newspapers can print lies willi-nilli with no obligation to objectivity, what?, in the name of ‘free speech’. With porn also protected as ‘free speech’, it’s no wonder we are all a bunch of wankers; we place more value in insuring our rights to view porn than the effort we put into seeing that the ‘speech’ we are bombarded with every day is not a constant fraud on the truth.

i love this. never thought of it that way, but it is so excellent. thanks

[compared2what?]

Slomo, if that question is to me, the comments I made were in response to an article about a genre of pornography which is what is most commonly thought of as porn now, and of which a substantial amount is made in a criminal way; that much was clear in my response which has been picked apart and assumed to conflate a whole host of things. I don't think I can usefully add anything other than to ask that the disected bits are read in context. I've learnt through this and other discussions which touch on organised abuse that I am not very good at being an advocate for the section of our populations who have suffered and continue to do so.
Apart from that, of course I don't care how anyone gets pleasure amusement or satisfaction if it isn't at the expense of degradation of another.

blanc, I'm not really totally sure how we arrived at such a chronically self-perpetuating state of mutual misunderstanding. But I very much regret that we did.

So please let me start by very sincerely apologize to you for having inadvertently made you feel that you were under personal attack. And please also believe that if I over-estimated your capacity for conflict tolerance -- which I'd say I very evidently did -- it was purely and solely because I've never known you to be anything other than a very confident and very committed advocate for the vulnerable, whose stated preference for not having others pussyfoot around her feelings I'd both encountered and observed on numerous past occasions.

That said, I'd like to very humbly and respectfully ask you to tell me what part of my response to a post that I quoted in full here, here, here and here -- as well as very extensively and fairly here -- amounted to a dissection that misconstrued its context.

Because I genuinely don't understand where I went wrong in that regard. But I'd very much like to, in order to make amends for having done so. For the same reasons, please also let me know where else and in what other ways I unfairly or inaccurately misrepresented your remarks, whether via conflation, willful misinterpretation, or innocent misunderstanding, as the case may be.

And finally, please accept once again my apologies for the plainspoken and harsh terms to which I finally resorted in my last post to you. I really didn't use them out of any sense of personal hostility towards you. I was just frustrated with myself for being so wholly unable to just get to the damn point, already. Which I will now do, with dispatch, in the very next post.

[compared2what?]

blanc --

I'm very concerned by your insistence that the use of pornography is a gateway drug that commonly leads to a dangerous escalation of sexual behavior and appetite, when there's absolutely no reason whatsoever either in the Daily Mail article or anywhere else to think that it does.

My objections to what you wrote do not in fact arise from any kind of personal distress or annoyance on my own behalf. So please forgive me if I've given you the impression that they did. In truth, they primarily arise out of reasonable concern that by moving from speculation to certainty to apocalyptic nightmare as rapidly and with as little justification as you do here...

I'm more concerned about the effect that this has on victims who end up serving these dopamine hungry pervs than their eventual impotence. For me, those who buy into sites selling images of the rape and/ or torture of minors are guilty of aiding and abetting those rapes, and sentencing should be commensurate with that, not the typical 3 years which has been dished out in the past.Those who host those sites are equally guilty I think. If we were talking about images of another kind of crime, lets imagine for a moment that film of blowing up buildings full of innocent people became a money spinner, a dopamine spiker, a source of vicarious pleasure for the disconnected sociopaths with minimal capacity for empathy, netting the crime industry and its bankers a goodly pile through contributions from viewers, would we have been as blasé as we are about the flood of images of child pornography?

....you're basically just raising specters that have a very high potential to cause unnecessary alarm to those whose sense of personal safety is heavily contingent on the prospect of living their lives free and unmolested by sexual predators. And doing it in a way that couldn't possibly be helpful to them, due to the complete and total non-existence of pornography-induced dopamine-starved sexual predators.

I mean, possibly I misunderstood the nature of the threat you're suggesting that they pose. And if so, I apologize. But your recent recurrence to the likelihood that porn use commonly escalates to something worse inclines me to think that I didn't. In which case, please allow me to absolutely assure you, again and again, that there is not only no reason to think that's likely, but also none to think it's even possible. None. Seriously. It's never been known or observed to happen one single time. The world is chock full of omen, danger and threat, for sure. But that's just not one of them.

And....I don't know, blanc. But I'm not even sure I can think of any cultural myth the propagation if which would be more likely to cause extreme and undue alarm to sex-crime victims than the totally unsupported notion that at every moment online pornography was producing an ever-increasing number of a whole new breed of extra-insatiable and super-sociopathic sex criminals with a biologically determined need for infinitely nastier forms of sexual sacrifice. That's a pretty scary scenario even for the non-sexually-traumatized. So whom does it help to invoke it?


No offense or other harm intended. The reverse, in fact.

____________________

So. Please let me know which parts of my posts crossed the line separating fair dispute from merciless dissection. And I'll apologize for them.

All right?