DescentBB

woodchip wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:people are a product of their environment. if your thinking that these things have no effect on you. then your being naive. playing these games or watching these things on TV especially at a young age is like a virus inoculation. you start to build up an immunity to it without every knowing it. when your dealing with Kids that already have a warped sense of thinking and reality. This "can" and sometimes does affect them. to say it doesn't is pure stupidity

I think that genetics is an important influencing factor on a person's actions too. I don't think the environment is the sole contributor to how we turn out in life. My sister and I were raised in the same environment with the same parents, but we turned out as different as night and day.

So your sister is a staunch conservative ?

Well, when she was younger, she's the one who used drugs, was defiant, dropped out of school and slept around like a whore, while I was the one who followed my parent's wishes, rarely back-talked to them, did no drugs (I wish I'd done a little Mary Jane now), had no sex outside of marriage (glad I waited) and finished 4 years of college. NOW, she's a little Christian Conservative moralist who tells others how to live their lives, while I'm more liberal and have not found religion. So why's that? Repressed guilt about an evil wild childhood or something?

Ferno wrote:...

If you don't know the difference between the two I can't expect you to understand the rest.

first it's 'reasonable', and now it's 'difference'. This 'if you don't agree with me, you're an idiot' argument is pretty weak.

Try reading it again. I asked if it isn't reasonable to note the difference...
There is a big difference, I didn't know if you knew that or if you were trying to deny that but it seems clear now that you were responding to something other than what I said.

Foil wrote:

Drakona wrote:By contrast, violent entertainment is not addictive...

Foil: You're certain of that? Seems to me it can be addictive to some extent. I'd be curious to see if any reputable studies have been done about this

"Everyone generalizes from one example. At least, I do."

I don't have studies, just anecdotal experience. I don't experience any compulsion to consume violent entertainment, though I do consume plenty of it. It is easy to go weeks or even months playing some completely nonviolent puzzle game or watching kid-friendly movies, and not even notice.

Nor do I observe other people to experience a serious compulsion to consume violent entertainment. It can be satisfying, one can be in the mood for it, one can even say, "Man, I really need to blow something up!" as a way to let off steam. But I've never seen someone experiencing such a desire, while in a circumstance where it would be a problem -- say, while staying with someone who finds it offensive -- who wasn't able to shrug and turn to an alternative like exercise.

People are different, I suppose, but it does not seem to me to be the case that violent entertainment is addictive.

TC wrote:

Drakona wrote:I think it is inappropriate to group porngraphy and violence together simply because both are offensive. . .

TC: Why? Both can influence the mind if done in excess.

I certainly agree with that! Then again, a lot of themes in entertainment can influence the mind if done in excess. Science fiction makes people grow up wanting to be astronauts or scientists; fantasy makes people attend Ren Faires; and I don't even need to mention what happens to you if you read a lot of extremist political blogs.

TC wrote:

Drakona wrote:By contrast, violent entertainment is not addictive, and what effect it may have on people is not completely clear.

Violence is addictive. People like getting the rush from it, just like with sex. Sex and violence are closely linked in the brain too. What do you think drives rapists? Violence or sex?

While rapists are beside the point (though you are absolutely correct to point out they are not driven by lust), you do raise an interesting point. It is clear that some people find real world violence addictive: serial killers. They're pretty far outside the norm, though. The usual reaction to violence -- demonstrated by masses of soldiers and policemen and criminal witnesses -- is horror and trauma.

Ferno wrote:if an undesirable effect happens in one's relationship, it has much more to do with an underlying issue than pornography. I bet you any money that if anyone I know suddenly has a relationship issue, I can rule out 'watching pronography' as a cause.

Really? You've never seen divorce in the fallout from a sudden discovery of pornography? I find that surprising. The man who hides his pornography from his wife, is discovered, and endures years of fury and suspicion, is such a common tale that I thought everyone knew it.

Ferno wrote:And it's not pornography that's addictive, it's simply a person's sexual desire that translates into the amount of porn they watch. Human beings are sexual by nature. and they'll get their fix one way or another. Trying to restrict it's access only causes the desire to seek it out to grow.

I disagree completely with the idea that a person's sexual desire is innate, immutable, and irresistible. The sexual appetite -- like all appetites -- grows to crave what you feed it. If you eat a lot of doughnuts, you'll crave them intensely from time to time. If you go without, at first you will want them more badly then ever. But after a couple months apart, you may find they disgust you.

I do agree that human beings are naturally sexual, and that they seek out intimacy. But I argue that porn, as a particular outlet for sexual desire, is the addictive element. By way of analogy, eating is healthy and normal, but doughnuts are addictive.

Here's some evidence for the claim: as a rule, men who begin a sexual relationship don't stop using pornography. Even if they want to. Even if they hate hiding it from their partner. It is the porn in particular they have grown to crave, and normal sex does not substitute.

Ferno wrote:And consequences? you're talking about if people watch porn too much, their car will blow up, their health will deteriorate or they'll go postal on their neighbor. The only real consequence that will happen is an erection. There's no peer-reviewed scientific data that people who look at pornography are more likely to commit violent or sexually deviant acts (which I believe you were referring to by 'consequences') than anyone else.

Actually, that's not what I was talking about at all.

The big, obvious consequence I was talking about is that your partner will perceive it as a sexual rival.

There are less obvious consequences, too -- it trains your sexual appetites away from real women onto fantasy, and it affects the way you view and treat women sexually. But the biggie, the real biggie, is that it *really* disturbs the woman you want to have a relationship with. Using it now will disturb that woman in the future, (or else you'll be left with a secret and a series of sexual desires you can't express to her). Using it while you know her will seriously disturb her, and may torpedo the relationship before it starts. And it won't be any easier to quit then than it is now.

You know how we have widespread promiscuity, ubiquitous use of pornography, and rampant divorce? Those are related.

--------

With respect to the ongoing discussion on whether women in the sex industry are exploited . . . they are.

For a neutral source, start here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_Lubben

For biographies from an activist source, see here:
http://www.thepinkcross.org/category/ca ... ar-stories

Men don’t stop masturbating either, with or without porn. (nor do women) So is that also an addiction?

In my experience, most women will not let you do those things to them you see in porno's. I think that's at least half the attraction, and the ones that would, didn't seem to think very highly of themselves. One of em gave me critters one time and it took kerosene and a sharp razor to rid myself of them .LOL No those women have issues and I myself can't look at them any other way at this point in my life.

flip wrote:My honest opinion. I think the most violent are those that have been abused for a very long time and they use hate and violence to mask their feelings of hurt and pain. You wanna hurt me, I'll hurt you worse. You hate me? I'll hate you back. It's their inability to forgive and move forward that eventually pushes them over the edge.

I just watched a news documentary about our local murdered college girl, Brooke Wilberger. It turns out the murderer liked to rape, beat and kill, and did it several times before he was caught. This guy was married with 3 children too! And he was caught because he got too bold and too careless when trying to abduct women for his "fix", so consequently one lucky soul escaped from him to tell the tale. To show you the man was crazy, he performed our local girl's abduction using his company's work van, with out of state plates! Talk about advertising oneself!

That's what happens when addicts need to get more of what they want, they lose their judgment and self control and make mistakes. Violence CAN become a need. The man's sister confirmed that this guy was never abused or beaten at home and had loving parents, but for some reason he changed in his teenage years. In fact, this "nice guy", who looked like a clean cut choir boy in his school pictures even tried to rape his own sister, and succeeded in doing so with other female relatives. If that love of violence, or sex, ain't from genetics, I don't know what is.

Spidey, an addiction is when one does an activity to the exclusion of everything else, in excess, and it takes over one's life to the point of self destruction.

Maybe he just decided to do those things.

null0010 wrote:Maybe he just decided to do those things.

That is a more likely explanation than feeding an addiction.
Some people can become totally at ease with doing terrible things and the rationale or 'trigger' for it, if there even is a conscious one, can be a relatively minor thing.
Like the way someone does something self destructive and even after being confronted with their behavior and acknowledging that it is wrong to do they do it again and again.

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:Maybe he just decided to do those things.

That is a more likely explanation than feeding an addiction.
Some people can become totally at ease with doing terrible things and the rationale or 'trigger' for it, if there even is a conscious one, can be a relatively minor thing.
Like the way someone does something self destructive and even after being confronted with their behavior and acknowledging that it is wrong to do they do it again and again.

Will I think I'd go more along TC's thinking. Much like a alcoholic, I think people, once they cross the line, are no longer in control of their obsessions. Logically in their minds they know they are doing wrong but the gratification and adrenalin rush they get is what controls their actions. We can see this with people who are dare-devils, people who have operations to change their appearance into a macabre character or who are even so benign as just hoarding items to excess. In alcoholics it has been shown their is a area of the brain that will suddenly "turn on" causing a normal social drinker into a full time alcoholic. With rapists, who knows, maybe it is the adrenalin rush or maybe it is a area of the brain that is defective.

null0010 wrote:Maybe he just decided to do those things.

No, someone that does those things LIKES to do those things AND gets a rush from it, just like any drug. Otherwise they wouldn't ruin their own lives committing heinous crimes that will at best, put them in prison for life.

woodchip wrote:Will I think I'd go more along TC's thinking. Much like a alcoholic, I think people, once they cross the line, are no longer in control of their obsessions. Logically in their minds they know they are doing wrong but the gratification and adrenalin rush they get is what controls their actions. We can see this with people who are dare-devils, people who have operations to change their appearance into a macabre character or who are even so benign as just hoarding items to excess. In alcoholics it has been shown their is a area of the brain that will suddenly "turn on" causing a normal social drinker into a full time alcoholic. With rapists, who knows, maybe it is the adrenalin rush or maybe it is a area of the brain that is defective.

Yep.

woodchip wrote:... With rapists, who knows, maybe it is the adrenalin rush or maybe it is a area of the brain that is defective.

Sure anything is possible. But maybe it is just his appetite for murder is the same as a normal mans appetite for sex. Not addicted, simply enjoys it and something in his mental wiring has allowed him to accept what is horrific and unthinkable to others as a normal function and outlet to satisfy his physical desire. We may be splitting hairs here a bit debating the addiction component but I think of addicts as getting physically sick if they don't get their fix. I think of serial killers as more in control and simply so anti social that they just selfishly do it for their personal satisfaction and could choose to stop with no ill effects at all if they wanted to.
I'm thinking of a documentary of a hit man that HBO did a few years back, he had no remorse at all, to him hunting people was like hunting duck for the average guy. they described his mind as working that way.

flip wrote:It seems likely enough judging the nature of the business and the taboo that surrounds it. Good reason would tell me that alot of these women are being exploited. That's all I'm saying. YMMV.

well, why don't you go to one of the AVN shows and talk to the people who work in the industry? the only reason there's a taboo surrounding it is because people in America, in general, are wound up about sex and everything that surrounds it so tightly, that it's been warping their sense of sexuality for years.

Heh, I probably would get in trouble if I did . That was just one thought I had on the issue. I still think it's valid to say that if I had to judge it with a simple good or bad, I'd be forced by conscience to choose bad, and then I wouldn't wanna testify to it in court. The Bible says the marriage bed is undefiled. I take that to mean that as long as I'm married and my wife is consenting, we can do whatever the hell we want. In the constraints of marriage. Yeah, I have a bigger problem with people shacking up outside of marriage than I do with porn.

Really? You've never seen divorce in the fallout from a sudden discovery of pornography? I find that surprising. The man who hides his pornography from his wife, is discovered, and endures years of fury and suspicion, is such a common tale that I thought everyone knew it.

see, to me, that suggests a real problem. First, the man has reason to hide porn. that tells me his wife told him she doesn't want him looking at anything other than herself. That suggests fragility and and a body image problem. Now that his wife knows about his stash, she's trying to blame the problems on the stash instead of trying to find out what makes him tick (ummmm try rubbing his prostate for a start?). So the problem isn't the stash, it's with what's going on in the relationship. Just reinforces what i've said earlier.

as a rule, men who begin a sexual relationship don't stop using pornography. Even if they want to. Even if they hate hiding it from their partner. It is the porn in particular they have grown to crave, and normal sex does not substitute.

By nature, and I bet you Lothar didn't really mention this, is that all men look for sex in a relationship. It's as primal and necessary as breathing. I'll set the record straight here and be perfectly honest with you, something you won't get from a lot of people. men want sex. It's what drives us. They may say different, but that's because they're being nice. You may be told different but it's the driving force behind any physical contact with women. The need for sex.

Why do men make the money they do, or at least try to? Because they want what comes next. The toys. The house. The clothes. All in an effort to get the women they want and the sex that comes with it.

There isn't a man on this earth that I don't know, who doesn't like to look at a little nip now and again. And if there is, he's either gay or has some serious sexual hangups.

Actually, that's not what I was talking about at all.

The big, obvious consequence I was talking about is that your partner will perceive it as a sexual rival.

There are less obvious consequences, too -- it trains your sexual appetites away from real women onto fantasy, and it affects the way you view and treat women sexually. But the biggie, the real biggie, is that it *really* disturbs the woman you want to have a relationship with. Using it now will disturb that woman in the future, (or else you'll be left with a secret and a series of sexual desires you can't express to her). Using it while you know her will seriously disturb her, and may torpedo the relationship before it starts. And it won't be any easier to quit then than it is now.

You know how we have widespread promiscuity, ubiquitous use of pornography, and rampant divorce? Those are related.

the same train of thought could be applied directly to romance novels. It could be viewed as an emotional rival, trains the emotional appetites from real men to fantasy men, and affects how you treat men emotionally.

Now, if it disturbs a woman that I wish to have a relationship with, that usually tells he she has some hangups with sexuality. I can't be around that kind of person. They'd project those hangups onto a lot of other things, causing a rather nasty rift in the relationship.

Promiscuity, pronography and rampant divorce have nothing to do with each other. Divorce happens when two people are so fed up with each other, they won't have anything to do with each other. not because the guy looked at porn.


and yet... no one seems to be worried about romance novels, or trying to tie them in with divorce rates. Seems like a double standard.

Men don’t stop masturbating either, with or without porn. (nor do women) So is that also an addiction?

Exactly. In fact, I cranked one off a few days ago. kept me going through the day. But by the logic going on in this thread, it should have affected my relationship. It didn't. And sometimes... I have help.

I just watched a news documentary about our local murdered college girl, Brooke Wilberger. It turns out the murderer liked to rape, beat and kill, and did it several times before he was caught. This guy was married with 3 children too! And he was caught because he got too bold and too careless when trying to abduct women for his "fix"

did you really try to suggest rape as part of a porn topic?

Let's be perfectly clear here. Rape is not sex, it is not sexy, and it does not have anything to do with the topic at hand. Rape is a CRIME, about POWER, and trying to FORCE that power onto ANOTHER PERSON.

Heh, I probably would get in trouble if I did . That was just one thought I had on the issue. I still think it's valid to say that if I had to judge it with a simple good or bad, I'd be forced by conscience to choose bad, and then I wouldn't wanna testify to it in court. The Bible says the marriage bed is undefiled. I take that to mean that as long as I'm married and my wife is consenting, we can do whatever the hell we want. In the constraints of marriage. Yeah, I have a bigger problem with people shacking up outside of marriage than I do with porn.

why would you need to testify going to the AVN in court? it's a perfectly legal event, that anyone can attend provided they pay the entry fee. Just like any other convention, you can go in, spend the day there, check out what they have to offer, get a signature from your favourite star (if you have one) and ask them questions about what they do.

I don't have any problem with people living in a common-law relationship any more than I do with marriage. If two people are perfectly happy living together unmarried, who am I to tell them what they should and shouldn't do? and so should you. Just be happy for them, because they seem to be perfectly happy with that arrangement.

I have a very simple way of determining things for myself. I consider it. To see if it's good or evil, to my senses. I've noticed that no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't get beyond that initial feeling. I try not to argue to much against my first impressions. I also don't tell or care what anyone else in this world does, as long as it doesn't affect me adversely. That's nowhere near my place, if there is a God, it's his. If not, then let this baby roll and we'll see what happens I figure I've got 70 years, maybe a little more. When I'm gone, I'll be forgotten soon after. I tell people what I think, why I think that way, and the foundation for all my beliefs. King James Bible with an understanding that things get lost in translation. I'm gonna take this 70 or so and prove every damn thing to myself. No matter what the source. Then when I'm dead, feed me to the worms. So, I say, if your conscience doesn't condemn you, you are good.

flip wrote:Then when I'm dead, feed me to the worms. So, I say, if your conscience doesn't condemn you, you are good.

would you like to have this part of your epitaph?

(not trying to flame)

I'd rather this. Same thing and where I originally heard it.

I John 3:19And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him. 20For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. 21Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence toward God. 22And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.