DescentBB

I don't care if YOU find it offensive...damnit this is American, it's my right to watch it! Disagree?

In your house (Or a friends) Sure.

I heard something about the latest rage is to put porn on dvd players in cars and let everyone behind them watch it too.

I thought people couldn't get any more stupid. I'm proven wrong again and again and again...

What did you think was going to happen when you put dvd capable tvs in automobiles? Every tv lit up with Spongebob Squarepants or Barny?

We are the product of the environment around us. You put TVs in cars and any material that CAN be viewed on that tv WILL be viewed. How long do you look in other peoples cars to see what they're doing anyways?

I'm not saying its right, but stupid people are going to do stupid things without any consideration of others around them.

Is someone willing to split this thread, and send the last page or so (after Tyranny's April 10, 11:30am post) to NHB where we can finish flaming each other?

Hmmm, I would have sworn you were an admin. Don't think SR is following this thread though.

Of course not, it's only the most contentious thread in his forum in a long while. Why would he follow it? Sadly, it seems we have two types of mods at the DBB; trolls and AWOLs.

Nice thread so far. Too bad most people won't listen to each other, all I've seen are challenges and reproaches. So far, the only person who managed to keep his head cool without blindly fighting either for pro or contra sides, is Tyr.

I have friends who watch porn, and I have others who don't. I will admit that those who watch porn on a regular basis are generally more rude, more disrespectful towards just about anything and have a perverted mind. I don't know if they watch porn because they're rude, or if they're rude because they watch porn, but there is certainly a correlation.

I remember I was utterly shocked when I first saw pornographic images way back when I was like 15 years old, but it's kind of part of teenagerhood. If not via internet, teenagers will be exposed through other channels. There's always a nitwit that brings a porn magazine or a dirty comic book and shows it to all others, and just like with drugs teenagers are curious and want to experiment.

I would raise questions when one's porn consumption exceeds the urge to experiment and explore. If it becomes routine, you might want to think about why for a minute or two.

Utterly shocked? Really? I don't recall the first time I saw porn(I think I was 14-15), but it wasn't shocking. Two people having sex is hardly shocking. What was it that you saw? Did it involve elephants and watermelons?

I wonder what's wrong with me? I have a perverted mind, yet I do not watch porn.
I also consider most 'tit-shots' in movies to be shallow and obvious money-grabs by either the actress or the producer. Example: Swordfish. I could see no reason for Hally Berry's exposure other than a blatent 'show-tits-and-more-will-pay-to-see-the-movie' ruse. Not that there was something wrong with her chest, it just wasn't necessary. Her in white lingere was just as 'uplifting', and a bit more tasteful.

And what about tasteful nudity. I mean, well I think you all know what I mean. "Softcore" is guess is a word for it.

Iâ??m going to have to admit that I didnâ??t read all six pages, I got to about 3-1/2 and skipped to the end. But the one thing I did do was to check out the article that Tet linked to see if it was factual. Over the last few years Iâ??ve been investigating the articles I read in the news media and have found that very few of them offer the â??truth.â?

Testiculese wrote:Utterly shocked? Really? I don't recall the first time I saw porn(I think I was 14-15), but it wasn't shocking. Two people having sex is hardly shocking. What was it that you saw? Did it involve elephants and watermelons?

No, it was just plain old-fashioned porn. But I wasn't expecting it and I hadn't seen it before. Some guy who used to pick on me at school sent some explicit pictures to my email, because he knew he'd catch me off guard and upset me. Then again, I used to be this over-sensitive kid, so a part of my reaction lies with myself.

Testi...of course its money grabbing tactics, but what heterosexual male DOESN'T like to see Halle Barry's tits? I mean honestly.

I didn't mind, no, but it was obviously cheap, and I don't like cheap women. You get what you pay for [/pig]

"We are the product of the environment around us. You put TVs in cars and any material that CAN be viewed on that tv WILL be viewed. How long do you look in other peoples cars to see what they're doing anyways?"

I've caught myself looking in other people's card quite a bit. mainly because I have to sit at a ferry terminal for at least a half hour so it gives me time to just goof around. If I see porn on a car TV screen, I'm going to watch. Naturally I'm drawn to that because I'm kind of like a typical guy. same needs and urges.

It's funny how most people are told to mind their own business (common sense), yet choose to butt in to whoever's busines they feel like because they feel 'morally obliged to save them', or whatever crap they spew.

On the subject of morals, these are taught by outside influences, no matter what anyone says. be it parents, peers, or organizations. It's funny how intertwined porn and religion really are. If you take the time to actually explore all avenues, you'll see they stretch far deeper than you first imagined.


"Every tv lit up with Spongebob Squarepants or Barny?"

can you imagine a world where this was your only choice?

Testiculese wrote: wonder what's wrong with me? I have a perverted mind, yet I do not watch porn.

Heh! Me too. I save perversion for the mrs.....
Dosn't mean i'd be in favour of criminalising it though.

Sorry for the last response--I doubt anybody wants to read what I have to say this late in the thread, but here goes anyways.

So, there are really two separate issues in a thread about porn--the moral issue and the legal issue. "How should/shouldn't a free society restrict access to porn?" and "Regaraurdless of the laws, is porn wrong?" These are separate questions, but I certainly see them as intertwined--you can't answer the legal question without at least thinking about and addressing the moral question. Some people in this thread have complained about legistlating morality, but really, any just law is based on a metaphysical value or judgement, and I don't think any of us would want it any other way. In trying to figure out what you think the laws about porn should be, you have to weigh the pleasure it is to some, the harm it is to some, the danger it is to some, as well as things like personal freedom and privacy. It's not an absolute thing; in the end, you make a value judgement.

It isn't a judgement you can responsibly make without really dealing with the morality of porn in the first place. You can't decide whether it's too dangerous to have freely available unless you really comprehend the danger. You can't decide if personal freedom outweighs personal protection if you don't understand the degree of freedom and the nature of the hurt being weighed. From the reactions to my post in this thread, it sounds like some here haven't really thought about the morality of porn at all--and certainly not in situations beyond their own bedroom. To be responsible, you need to think beyond "I like porn!" and see what it does to others, to you, and to society, and weigh that against how much you like it. That's why I focus on the moral question instead of the legal one--I guess I see it as something that has to be answered first, or at least thought about, and I certainly see it as something that a lot of people around here haven't thought about much, so maybe this'll stimulate thought. I mean, seriously, you guys are post on the topic of porn on a board where you know there's a woman around--what were you expecting me to say? Frankly, the fact that my first post surprised some of you means you need a reality check.

Woodchip asks a good question about the definition of porn, so here's mine. Morally speaking, porn is anything or anyone you look at with the intent of satisfying a lustful craving. You look on purpose, to be looking, and you're sexually aroused. That's porn for you. There are things around you that you can't help seeing--pretty girls walk by and you react. That's not what I'm talking about. It's when you look again and keep on looking that I'm talking about. Strictly speaking, with this definition, porn for you could be a fire hydrant if you've got some sort of strange fire hydrant fetish. Typically, though, for most of you these things are pretty similar.

When I speak about porn as an object, in isolation from a person, I need another definition. In that case, porn is a picture or an object that is intended to be perceived erotically, to satisfy or excite some sexual craving on the part of the viewer.

To hammer out this definition, mere nudity or even the depiction of a sex act don't necessarily make something porn. Things like diagrams in a medical textbook, or even in a book about sex, depicting different positions--these are intended to explain, not to arouse, and while you can use them as porn, they aren't such in and of themselves. The same goes for the things Tyranny mentions in his wonderful post above--some nude artwork, say, from ancient Greece, or things he's drawn (I know him to be a classy guy, so I'd assume he isn't drawing porn). That's not porn by my definition, though again, you could use it that way, and then it would become porn for you. And again, there are web sites out there with pictures of naked women intended to help young artists learn to draw, or to depict anatomy. Those I don't consider porn, though nude photographs definitely cross some obscenity lines in this culture, however they are intended, and are probably hopelessly perceived as sexual by some--and that understanding alone makes them iffy. I agree that that is unfortunate.

On the other hand, some of the pictures women post of themselves, even fully clothed, do qualify as porn under my definition. You have to be careful here--there's a slight distinction between trying to look "hot," and trying to actively arouse. Even with the same clothing, it's a line you can cross with a different facial expression and slight change of position. Like, the girl in the ugly mugs thread just recently is a good example. While her clothing is definitely provocative, it doesn't really look designed to arouse, just to attract and perhaps show off. And while her posture definitely shows something off (:o), it doesn't look intentional, and it certainly doesn't look sexually suggestive (and the facial expression certainly helps there ). A more serious expression on her face, and a slightly more suggestive position on her part, and in the same outfit it certainly would be porn. As it stands, it isn't--it reads to me like a teenage girl who's trying to look hot and perhaps show some things off, but who doesn't really understand yet how the male eye works. It is, however, definitely a provocative enough picture to easily become porn for men that habitually look at women with those eyes. And if, as I suspect, it was posted with that intent and understanding, then it's walking very close to the line indeed. (Certainly around here, anyway--there are other boards where the residents would just laugh at the funny picture )

Likewise, some of the anime pictures out there, where the girl's fully clothed, do qualify as porn, if a very soft sort of porn. There's a line you cross between looking "cute" and intending to arouse, and it doesn't take much to cross it. Some of the cuter ones in "oops, look what I'm showing off" positions are, I think, over the line, though they certainly walk close to the clean side.

Some final borderline cases: MD brought up sex toys. I'm not including those--though my definition of porn is quite wide, I've limited it at least to the visual, and an object you use in the absence of another person--and really even there what I'm referring to is the majority of porn--that used by men depicting women. I'm not objecting to, or even talking about, erotica in general--I'm not talking about sex toys, extramarital sex, role playing, S&M, or any of those other things culturally perceived as deviant which may or may not be. I'm only talking about porn.

As another exceptional case, I'll bring up erotic photography or drawing in the context of an established relationship. This does fit my definition of porn, but interestingly enough, depending on how it's used, none of the objections I outline below will stand. So I guess I don't object to all porn, and indeed there may be other borderline cases where some or none of the objections stand. My objections aren't intended to apply in all cases, nor is my definition supposed to rigorously stake out the thing I object to--I'm speaking in generalities, and in general, most porn has certain characteristics and is used in certain ways that I think are wrong. I'll acknowledge that there may be exceptions--I'm interested here in the rule, not the exceptions. Really, the case we all care about--the personal experience you guys have--falls under the rule, not the exception.

Some are likely to object that my definition isn't objective and concrete. There's a lot of words like "intended" and "perceive" and "most" in there, and when I evaluate borderline cases, I end up making a lot of judgement calls and sometimes saying things like "in my opinion." In my defense, I'll simply say that in my experience most moral things can't be defined mechanically in a correct way. Definitions that really speak to the heart of the matter almost always require judgement calls in borderline cases. I don't think that's a defect of my definition--I think it's just the way morality works; a difficult moral decision always requires sound judgement, not nit-picking application of an absolute rule.

And besides that, the definition isn't as fuzzy as it sounds. If I say a picture is intended to arouse, you know what I mean. If you're honest, there's rarely any question--you know it when you see it. And besides, most of the time when I talk about porn in this post, I don't mean borderline stuff that we could legitimately disagree about. I mean the stuff that's clearly porn. (Really, there are a lot of borderline cases that I'm not sure whether they'd be porn or not--things like sex education videos, or origami sculptures of couples having sex--such cases are fuzzy, and in such cases, it would be much better to simply compare my objections one at a time and see if they stand or not. In what follows, I speak in general, about things that are clearly porn--exceptions and fuzzy situations may well occur.)

Now, saying porn is hurtful seems to strike some of you as a non-sequiter. Indeed, quite a few people have said that something you do in the privacy of your own home can't hurt the people around you, and is thus none of their business. Well, yes and no. It can hurt you, and it can hurt the people around you by affecting the way you interact with them. And porn in particular can hurt a family very badly, even in privacy.

Let me explain each of those a little more.



First, the strongest reason I personally hate porn, and the thing that hurts me about it, is the way it depicts women: as objects, as bodies, as sluts, as items of primarily sexual interest. There's something abrasive and hurtful about the image itself, regaurdless of whether anybody believes it. What I really hate is the picture that says "women are sex toys, play with them!" Or, "women are secretly super-sexual, they want you to perceive them as sex objects." Or, "women are slutty like this one." That hurts just to see, I suppose. It's a caricature, an insult. And something worse than that--there's a combination of burning anger and a heavy sadness--an emotion that I think is the uniquely and near-universally feminine reaction to being thought of as a sex object. It makes me feel lonely, barren, depressed--and somehow ashamed of my own sexuality. Invaded, even.

I commented in my original post that I might react more strongly than most women due to having to fight hard against that very image in the Descent world for legitimate respect. A number of people in the thread thereafter told me not to worry, than I was well-respected. I appreciate that, but that actually wasn't what I was driving at. That wasn't intended to be a complaint about the Descent world--my time here has been special and valuable, and even if I've been harassed by a lot of jerks along the way, I don't think I would have had it any other way--it's made me a better person. In stating that, I wasn't asking for sympathy--I was actually musing that my reaction might be more violent than most because I've been exposed to more jerk guys than most. It was a concession, not an attack--I was saying that though porn hurts me a lot to see, there might be a reason for that that wouldn't apply to all women. For a lot of guys out there, at least in my experience on Kali and the DBB, the image they get of women in porn seems to be the only image of women they have, and consequently it's something I've had to spend a lot of time actively proving I'm not. And thus I hate it and react violently to it.

Beo brings up the point that such images aren't disrespectful to women because they are pictures that women themselves made--the disrespect is invited. I'll agree that there are definitely sluts or psychos in the feminine ranks, but they are the exception. Most of the women out there are wives, mothers, workers, teachers, single mothers, and so forth--women who live their lives with honor and quiet strength, and who deserve respect. The image of women in porn is an unfair and unkind one--it isn't even true really of the women who make it, for the most part. It's unkind to see them as objects even if they present themselves that way.

It's somewhat ironic that some of the same people who pride themselves on tolerence and sensitivity toward gays and blacks, and refuse to let the slightest insult or slur go unpunished will also stand up and defend porn, even though the false message about women in porn is a more prevalantely held (I think, anyway) than lingering racism or irrational homophobia. It's hard to find honest to goodness racists, even online where people are quite honest--on the other hand, jerks who view women as no more than sluts and objects are all too common.

That's not to say those kinds of discriminatory speech are equal, and certainly not to equate the suffering of different groups--only to say that it is a hurtful message in the same sort of way. To see people enjoying it, vocally approving of it, etc., well... I dunno, it hurts and it does damage. I don't see how you guys can not realize that.

This argument about how porn is hurtful is, I think, one of the strongest arguments for the immorality of porn--it just isn't right to look at women that way, even for entertainment. But it's also the weakest argument for social restrictions on porn. Tetrad rightly asks, "I can read books about the fact that Jews are an inferior species, or that men are vile creatures. Why can't I watch a women being treated as an object in porn?" Indeed, just because speech is hurtful is no reason to censor it, and I alluded to that in my first post, noting other hurtful forms of speech that are protected, and ought to be protected. Perhaps such things ought to be culturally frowned upon, as they are now, but there should never be a law against insults, and I'll stand firmly by that. You're completely within your rights socially if you want to be a jerk to a certain group of people--even if you probably shouldn't be. So this argument is strong morally but has little (if any) legal force, as I see it. You have the legal right to be a jerk if you want to, though morally you probably shouldn't exercise it.




The second way in which porn is harmful is the way it makes men see and treat women. Now, quite a few of you have said that you're quite capable of realizing that porn is a fantasy, not a reality, and you can separate the two. Some have drawn the comparison to violent video games, which we've all agreed don't cause us to become violent people. I'll agree as well, we can all separate fantasy from reality. But I wonder that you of all people (and here I mean gamers) don't realize that while fantasy is separate from reality, fantasy also colors reality. It affects how you see the world.

I've heard Descent players talk about constantly looking at rooms and dividing them up into cubes, and I know after I've been playing for a long time myself, I sometimes find myself trichording and strafing around the house, or imagining dogfights in interestingly shaped buildings. Remember the list of "signs of Descent addiction" I used to have on my site (or similar ones others have written?) Those included things like finding drawings of pyros in your calculus notes, or wandering around the house looking respawned bag of chips you finished, etc. Those lists were funny because of how true to reality they were--most of us who were hooked on Descent for a while have occasionally looked at real life through the eyes of a pyro pilot.

Your fantasies, at least in part, train you how to see the world. They don't define it, and indeed, you can easily rationally separate the two when you think about it. But nonetheless, they train you to see certain things in certain ways instinctively. More strongly so when you have no balancing real life interaction, as some people don't with porn. A lot of people pick up details about things on TV--what life as a policeman is like, or what lawyers are like--without having any real life experience with those things. And while they know they picked it up from a fantasy, that fantasy defines reality for them, because they don't have any real experience. And this is a strong danger with porn--since a lot viewing it don't have much experience with women.

Take the analogy between porn and violent video games a bit more seriously--suppose you treated the violence in a game the way you treat porn. Suppose you played the game for the violence, endlessly blowing up bodies just to see them go. Suppose you amassed movies of the different violent things that happened in the game; suppose you invented and created new violent things to act out in the game. Suppose you loved to imagine that the people you killed in the game were real people. Suppose you spent hours at a time, sometimes, immersed in the violence, and couldn't ever keep yourself away from it very long.

Would that make you violent? Possibly, though not necessarily. But it's likely that when you stopped playing the game and went out into the real world, you'd still see people as things to blow up. And of course, your choice of entertainment would certainly says a lot about you as a person--it seems to be saying that you like violence, you'd like to be able to kill people, and only society keeps you in check.

The same applies with porn. If you spend so long seeing women as mere objects and body parts when you're viewing porn, when you leave the chair and talk to a real woman, what are you going to see? If you spend so long staring at women as sex objects for your own pleasure, even though you know that they certainly aren't and it's improper to treat them that way in reality, what does that say about you as a person? What does that say about your real personal desires when it comes to women--do you really want women to be sexual objects, and only society keeps you from treating them that way?

Just like nobody thinks they're a bad person, nobody thinks they're disrespectful to women. Yet many of you on this board are--I won't quote quotes, but many of you even in this thread have been! So many are quick to generalize women in unflattering ways, or refer to them in the crudest of terms. It's a good thing to check yourself on--not that I want everyone walking on eggshells, far from it. More like I want everyone to realize what they are thinking, and decide if it's what they really think.

I have an experiment I've wanted to propose for a long time, and this seems like the perfect place to do it. If you really think porn for your own private entertainment, in the privacy of your own home and your own thoughts has no effect on how you treat women, try this: Try taking a full day to completely gorge yourself on porn. Look at as much of it as you possibly can, add whole gigabytes to your collection. Every spare minute you can for the entire day--if you like, check out women who walk by, or lose yourself in fantasies during the day when you can't be watching porn. At the end of the day, go have a conversation with a woman you know. Just talk to a classmate, or your mom, or your sister about the weather or something. And then record your thoughts and actions somewhere. Take a few days to let it wear off, and then take a day and completely abstain from porn. Don't watch any at all--and don't "compensate" either by checking out every girl that walks by. Strive to be respectful in your thoughts and don't think of women as sexual objects for your own entertainment, even in privacy and secret. At the end of the day, go have a conversation with a woman again, and record your thoughts and actions. And then compare the two days.

Nobody has to actually do that experiment. I don't expect anyone to actually do it, and I certainly won't go questioning people about posting results, though it would be interesting to see if someone tried. But it's certainly worth thinking about. What do you suppose would happen? If you honestly think the two days would be the same, I encourage you to really try it; I think the results would surprise you. If you think watching too much porn is a problem, but with a small enough amount you can keep it under control, try it with even a small amount on one day, and complete abstinence on the other--I still think it'll surprise you.

There is no doubt in my mind that porn changes the way men who watch it view women. It is something I can speak about from experience--not that I've done it, but that I've been on the receiving end of such treatment, and that I've watched men go through the process of giving up porn--both my husband, and a couple other friends. It wasn't a smooth transition--there were days where they screwed up. I saw them when they were immersed in porn, I saw them when they were struggling with giving it up, on days they succeeded and days they didn't, and I saw them after they had finally given it up. And they treated people differently. There is no doubt in my mind--viewing porn even once changes a person's actions and perceptions for a day or so, and a constant diet of porn changes a person deeply.

A point that should be addressed: Goob, I think, suggested that perhaps the people who view porn are naturally jerks, and would treat women badly with or without the influence. I say that's only partially right--there's a feedback effect. We all have natural inclinations that are wrong--inclinations toward violence, anger, what have you, but we have control over how much we feed and nurture those as opposed to how much we suppress and control them.

This argument for the immorality of porn is a reasonably strong moral one--though again, you're perfectly within your rights to be a jerk to any group of people you choose. There might be a legal argument here or two in a society that was forcefully trying to make its citizens respect women--but that's not this one. Again, here, there is moral weight (and I think a lot of it), but not much legal weight.




The third way porn is harmful is the temptation it provides to men who have a wife or girlfriend, or even a whole family. I hope nobody would contest that viewing porn is being unfaithful to the other person (and don't mistake me--I don't mean "oops, I got a pornspam," I mean intentinally looking). I think everybody knows that--yet even people who know that and who want to be faithful to their wives or girlfriends find the temptation really strong. And that's not any fault of theirs, it's simply because men are so powerfully affected by erotic visuals.

Is it really fair to those families to have porn out and about, where it can be accidentally found or easily accessed if some part of the relationship isn't working out right? That's placing an awfully heavy burden on the husband, and a lot of marriages are going to suffer. I am lucky to have a husband of strong and noble character, who I can trust--some women aren't that lucky. Porn in this case is like an animal that stalks some marriages, waiting for the man to mess up.

There is no moral argument here--it's clear that committed men shouldn't watch porn. But there is what I consider the strongest legal argument for restricting access to porn--namely that it's a dangerous temptation that can do a lot of damage. Beowulf made the argument that porn is harmless in this capacity and others if used responsibly, in moderation. But isn't it demanding a lot of a man's self-control for him to continually refuse what's in his face because he knows its use isn't responsible and responsible for him? There are a lot of things out there that are harmless if used responsibly, in moderation, that are nonetheless heavily restricted or illegal for exactly that reason--because the general public isn't smart enough or disciplined enough to use them responsibly. Drugs, large guns, and gambling come to mind. Porn is dangerous to families much the same way as gambling is--and in a similar way, and it should at least to require a little work to get. (I could even see a culture banning it on these grounds, but I sure couldn't see this culture doing it.)




The last way in which I think porn is harmful may come as a surprise. It's harmful to the person who's viewing it, in two ways I can think of.

The first is that it trains you sexually--it trains your desires onto something that you can't have, because in a lot of cases it doesn't exist. Porn is distorted, in what it depicts people doing, how and why, and how they feel about it--it's biased toward acts that photograph well, as opposed to those that feel good. It's distorted in that it's depicting sex in the absence of a relationship--or at least in the absence of a healthy relationship--something that actually results in a lot of pain and suffering in real life, and certainly significantly changes the nature of the sex. It's distorted in that it's portraying women as looking in ways, and acting in ways, that they often don't in real life. In short, it's training your desires away from reality and onto fantasy--a bad thing if you ever want those desires satisfied. It's fantasy and not reality; entertainment, not education. If it becomes what you know and what you want, you may be stuck with a desire you can't satisfy.

There's another way porn hurts the viewer, too. It reminds me of the commercial in which kids voice over, "I want to be a track star when I grow up," and so forth, and at the end it says, "Nobody ever says, 'I want to be a druggie when I grow up.'" Think about what you want your sex life to be like, when you grow up. Do you want to be occasionally committed, moving from relationship to relationship? Do you want to be single and sleep with whoever you can get on a given night? Do you want to be in a lifelong relationship? Do you want to be married? Do you want to have kids? Should porn be a part of your sex life? What should it look like? Look around the DBB--there are some guys who have a fair bit of experience with women around--which of them would you be glad to trade sex lives with?

And then realize that porn affects that a lot. Realize that porn changes the way you treat women, and that turns women away from you more, the more honorable and less slutty they are. Realize that when a woman finds out you're the sort of guy who looks at porn, she'll give you about as much respect as we all gave Rican in certain threads--unless she's the sort of woman that doesn't mind porn. Realize that porn trains you to expect things that aren't real, and gives you desires you can't satisfy in what would otherwise be a great sex life. Think about what you're going to do if you ever end up in a committed relationship with a woman--give up porn, cold turkey? I can tell you from observational experience that that's tough, even when you're in love. Hide it? Find the sort of woman who doesn't really mind? Or are you happy as you are--single, with lots of porn, and if women come to you that's cool but it's not like you're going to go looking?

Nobody ever says, "I want to be a dirty old man when I grow up." Unchecked, though, that's exactly what porn turns you into. I mean, people change and grow up, and I'm not saying that by viewing porn now, your course through life is set. But I guess I see it sort of like drugs--nobody ever intends to grow up to be a druggie, they just sort of keep on doing drugs, and it just sort of happens. If you don't ever change, you won't ever change.

This is a strong practical argument, and a pretty strong moral argument--though how you live your life is perfectly up to you, and you're within your rights to do what you want. I do see this as a very strong legal argument for keeping porn away from people who aren't old enough to understand the consequences.




Those are the ways in which I see porn as harmful. I expect a lot of you disagree with me on a lot of points, and that's fine--I don't really have to convince anyone. My experience so far in this thread, though, isn't that anybody actively thinks porn is right, only that you desperately want it to be okay. And some of the responses trying to distort things, or make excuses why I or Lothar or other people don't have the necessary experience and knowledge to be able to give advice on the subject--those have been pretty laughable. But I guess that's to be expected when you tell people something they don't want to hear--they whine and snipe and flame and make up reasons why they don't have to listen.

Ah well. I don't really expect to change any minds, just to give some people something to think about. How you live your life is really up to you, and I don't want anybody walking on eggshells around me just because you know I don't approve of what you're doing. Lots of people do lots of things I don't approve of, and still manage to get along with me all right But don't go around arguing that porn is really okay and doesn't hurt anybody--it does hurt a lot of people in a lot of ways. That's worth taking seriously.


-Drak

Phew Drak! Take a breather, that must have taken you a while.

I will try to reply later with the respect that your post deserves, but first, i hope you don't mind that i printed a few copies off to pass around my female friends to get their opinions on your take of porn.

FC

Wow, talk about throwing a heavy log on a dwindling fire. Your going to have to give me a while.

Splendid idea FC--as the sole woman around here there's a danger that I'll try to speak for all of them, and that's unfair. Hope what I said holds up all right.

Yeah, I know it's a long post--it belonged better about two days ago. I've been slow working on it. Brace yourselves, Lothar's got a big one coming too.

"Lothar has a big one coming too" ?????!!!!! Ok, that i'll not respond too, considering the subject.

Just wanted to say that i gave Talia (The Mrs) your text, and she says "metzuyan" ("Excellent" in Hebrew) it's our aniversary and you give me an essay on porn from some woman to do with that bloody flying game.

I forgot it was our eleventh year married. Woops!!!!

FC

Agreed, that was excellent Drakona. There really was only a couple things I didn't completely agree with.

1. Someone who immerses themselves so much into violent media to the point of becoming a violent person close to actually acting out his/her fantasies is not normal and probably needs to seek professional help. I don't really feel that this applies since most people aren't prone to completely indulging themselves in their darker habits to the point of severe mental degradation.

2. Your point on porn being unhealthy to relationships and/or family is a good one. My only real arguement is only about the choice of alternatives to a unhealthy marriage. If a relationship is struggling at times, porn would be a much better alternative then say, going to see exotic dancers and paying for lap dances or going out and paying for hookers. I think you and I both agree though, that all of the above isn't healthy to a relationship and the problems can't be solved by avoiding them completely anyways.

Overall it made perfect sense to me atleast . Your test suggestion is a interesting idea. The only trouble with that would be, atleast for me, the fact that it would be much easier to objectify female strangers then perhaps my sister and my mother after a binge of porn for a day. Also,I don't think I could do it anyways, watch porn all day that is, or objectify my mother and sister for that matter .

If anything, having two female figures in the household and being very close with my Mom, I'd find it very hard to treat women as sexual objects alone. Just for the simple fact that I don't and have never seen them that way most of my life. I've also had a history of making friends with more women then men, though, I don't really have trouble making friends with either one, I've just had more female friends.

So from personal experience, the instances where I've watched porn haven't really effected my overall opinion or treatment of women that I can tell. However, based on some of the things I've seen on tv, or read about, or even witnessed personally I can't really speak for all men in general. I might be in the minority when it comes to this matter afterall.

Anyways, I digress, again, great post Drakona I'll be looking forward to Lothar's take on this whole thing as well.

The problem with posting such a lengthy response Drakona, is that several thoughts came to me as I read it, but by the time I finished, they were gone. As I sort of hinted at, for the sake of the thread, I would rather it be more chopped up then just dumping this log on the fire in which no one could possibly respond to without typing out a 10 page essay. That being saidâ?¦.

I am going to ignore your definition section, just because I want to get somewhere. If I feel I need to comment on them later then I will. Please donâ??t take any offence to this. Please donâ??t think that I am in anyway trying to trivialize your viewpoint. The reason I say this is because I use a lot of one liners, or very short responces, and while one liners quite often come off as arrogant responses, mine are not intended as such. It was just an almost overwhelming amount to respond to. If I missed a point that you thought was vital, or if you want me to expand on my â??one linersâ?

Testiculese wrote: What was it that you saw? Did it involve elephants and watermelons?

Yeah baby, now I'm excited!

i can't fault that post Drak, nice uh... ESSAY. (but i want a medal for getting through it all wordcount = 5283!!)

i'd like to add that infidedlity in marriage is currently not illegal.
so i think Ashcroft has his priorities WAY off targeting porn.

it's kinda like suggesting we outlaw cannabis (harmless), while we leave alcohol alone (very harmful).

(this post was written before goob's post)

uh, roid, infidelity is illegal in the US, It's called adultery when married. It isn't if you're not married however.

I think Goob opened a whole can of worms on that one point though. It could have been easily summarized as "I don't feel that you using Lothar and a few of his friends as examples is enough to stereotype men in general" or something along those lines. Instead of going off on a rant how because you are a man, you hold all the cards and Drakona doesn't know what she is talking about because she is a woman and only has Lothar, her male friends and his male friends to use as an example.

Well, I'll tell you something. You meet a good woman that is very perceptive and she'll know a lot more about you then you may know yourself Goob. You have to keep in mind a lot of the stuff we do is instinctual and habitual and therefor we aren't as aware as say a woman who is close to us who can be an outside observer would be. So, their opinion isn't something you can just toss out as being moot.

also I feel you lost the ball on the "I want to have sex with women, that doesn't mean I view them as sexual objects" statement. Your comment about intelligent women not being viewed sexually also seems to state that you don't consider intelligent women capable of being sexy. I'm sure you didn't intend it to sound that way, but it kind of came across that way.

I'm actually quite surprised that porn tells you just "women have sex". Like most porn portrays women as anything other then overly sexed harlots for the most part. From my own experience I haven't seen one porn movie that portrayed women as intelligent, even though I know for a fact that some of them in real life are very business savvy, some have very good educations etc...etc...

All the movies where the women are in control look to me like the men are letting them be in control because they know they'll get laid. So to me it is more like "women are having sex because the men wan't them to" type of deal. I'm not saying they don't enjoy it, because sex in a real relationship would have to be mutually pleasurable IMO, or else relationships tend to falter sometimes, unless both people are extremely resolved in making the relationship work. Most relationships without a healthy sex life don't last long though, but again this is only from a perceptual view point, not first hand experience.

The only thing about Drakona's original post, which I tried to make apparent in my previous post just because she used troubled marriages as an example, that I didn't agree on, was the fact that I don't think porn is being unfaithful when married or in a relationship. You can't be unfaithful to someone by interacting with yourself, but this is my opinion.

Tyranny wrote:uh, roid, infidelity is illegal in the US, It's called adultry when married. It isn't if you're not married however.

o_O surely you jest.
so infidelity (adultery and fornication, ie: sex with a partner your not married to, in AND OUT of your own possible marriage) is illegal in the USA?
what are the consequences? can you be arrested? can you be charged? can you be fined? does it go on your criminal record?

also remember i am comparing this to a future implimentation of illegality of porn. so any possible punishment for viewing porn would have to be LESSER than the current punishment for infidelity.

from what we've read, that doesn't seem likely.
it seems more that porn will be treated like some drugs. and punishment for viewing porn will be harsher than (wherever) current punishment for infidelity.

Tyranny wrote:The only thing about Drakona's original post, which I tried to make apparent in my previous post just because she used troubled marriages as an example, that I didn't agree on, was the fact that I don't think porn is being unfaithful when married or in a relationship. You can't be unfaithful to someone by interacting with yourself, but this is my opinion.

i dunno bout that. when talking about porn, we're also by extension (haha) talking about masterbation right?
i was under the impression that "sexual activity" (definition is arguable) reduces sexual stamina.

and that sexual stamina would be OTHERWISE available to your marriage mate.
so you're kindof cheating your marriage mate outof his/her "ravaging".

am i on the right track here drak?

There's a very good reason that I've focused on the legal aspect. Just for the sake of argument, I'm even willing to concede that essentially all of Drak's points are true, even if only that they make no difference to my particular argument given my particular political views.

I'm sure, given the opportunity, there are many people who could make many arguments towards the moral problems associated with a lot of things. Many of those are pretty obvious social vices. Others not so much. Let's even take a variant of one of her examples, drugs. I can easily see somebody making a very similar argument (stylistically at least, if not content wise) regarding, say, alcohol. And I'm sure at least some of those were on the minds of the people who voted to prohibit alcohol.

On a tangent, all the moral issues that Drak and others have brought up are problems, as I see it, of personal responsibility. Porn is an inaminate object. Porn doesn't break up families, people break up families due to lack of trust, or whatever. Likewise, female objectification doesn't just stem from porn. People can be assholes for a lot of different reasons, not just because some sort of media devil has invaded their minds.

Anyway, back on the alcohol comparison. Have you ever asked yourself what exactly would happen if porn were outlawed? Well only outlaws would have porn of course. There is a lot of money in the porn business. Are you willing to take the responsibility of transferring that money from the hands of morally questionable smut producers and put it into outright criminals? Are you willing to take the responsibility of, instead of people just acting in ways in which you find negative, being put into a downward spiral of illegal activity which probably have much, much more negative consequences than what you say could happen now? Sure, you could tell these people to just not do that, but you can just as easily tell them that now. I could try to form an argument based off this that a lot of the problems you see porn causing are due to the fact that it's almost taboo, and that people simply aren't talking about it and becoming more educated. But I'm sure there's enough here for somebody to pick at without trying to go into a debate in which I have no hard evidence for.

And of course let's not forget that the U.S. is not the only country in the world. Even if you could get porn to stop being produced in the states, there's still massive amounts of it being produced elsewhere. It's very easy to import things, especially when the Internet is involved. And if you think our porn is bad, I've seen some stuff come out of Japan and Germany you wouldn't believe. Talk about patriarchalism, yikes. I suppose you could try to block all of it out. China has a very annoying nationwide firewall that they might be interested in selling. Let's not forget the cost associated with all of this, mind you.

Oh, and porn spam still won't stop. I see Nigeria scams and stock price guarantees pop up in my mail box every so often, both of which are very illegal. Obviously the spammers couldn't really care less whether or not something was illegal.

But here, I'll even make it easy for you. I'm a civil libertarian, which for our purposes is basically a political thought that says that it is my right to do pretty much anything that does not infringe on anybody else's rights, at least in a national, legal sense. Think of it as a negative triggered golden rule, if you will. If you really want to change my mind, the only real way you can do that is to try to prove to me that the existence of porn infringes on your rights directly.

Edit: i spel guud

I don't know how much stamina YOU have roid, but after masterbation I'm not out of commission at all. I also have an extremely overactive sex drive, so it isn't something "I'm" particularly worried about. Also if you've masterbated earlier in the day it can increase your longevity later in the evening for your girl if she is in the mood because you can't ejaculate as quickly. That is unless you suffer from premature-ejaculation, which in that case there really isn't anything you can do about that no matter WHEN you masterbate

roid wrote:o_O surely you jest.
so infidelity (adultery and fornication, ie: sex with a partner your not married to, in AND OUT of your own possible marriage) is illegal in the USA?
what are the consequences? can you be arrested? can you be charged? can you be fined? does it go on your criminal record?

No jest here, adultery is illegal in the US.

a·dul·ter·y ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-dlt-r, -tr)
n. pl. a·dul·ter·ies

Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse.

To elaborate even further....

A. A married person who has sexual intercourse with another than his or her spouse, and an unmarried person who has sexual intercourse with a married person not his or her spouse, commits adultery and is guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. When the act is committed between parties only one of whom is married, both shall be punished.

B. No prosecution for adultery shall be commenced except upon complaint of the husband or wife.

Theres a lot of topics regarding adultery in general on the net, a lot of them having to do with how different religions handle it etc..etc..so, I can't give you a definite answer on what happens after a husband or wife charges one or the other with adultery.

I do believe there is a fine and adultery is grounds for a divorce which entails other losses as well, like the loss of assets such as property (home / furniture, etc...), finances, and other personal belongings...

Marriage is a legally binding contract between you and a partner. Sleeping with someone else who is NOT your partner once married violates that contract. Now, I'm not sure how this all applies if couples are into the multiple partners thing. Such as being married and your wife and or husband want to sexually experiment with other people while being together.

This isn't the norm however, most people don't swing that way or maybe want to but aren't bold enough to try it. It's basically concentual as long as your partner is there with you and interacting. Otherwise you're breaking the law.

Tyranny wrote:I don't know how much stamina YOU have roid,

lol i saw that comming

still, i say it's your wife's/husband's desision.
it makes sense. (and this is why wife/husband arrangement needs to be a very important trusting and caring bond. as constrasted to "2 ppl engaging in sex", where you could be quite selfish).
but as you elluded to, that's religion comming into it again, coz the "the wife owns the husband's body, and viceversa" is a bible thing.

Marriage is a legally binding contract between you and a partner. Sleeping with someone else who is NOT your partner once married violates that contract.

i'm surprised there isn't a breach of contract clause in the contract (i guess in marriage this is the "pre-nup" eh). otherwise said contract isn't very binding as far as i'm concerned.

back to the illegality thing, is sex outside of marriage (if neither partner is married) illegal?

roid wrote: back to the illegality thing, is sex outside of marriage (if neither partner is married) illegal?

eh? are you asking if it is illegal if two people who are in a relationship, but aren't married with eachother, have sex with other people?

If so, then no it isn't illegal because both people are still single, but it isn't very nice . It is only illegal if you have sex outside your marriage or if you are single and have sex with someone who is married.

"Outside of Marriage" here usually means that your married but participate in activities away from your partner. I guess in Australia it means that you aren't married, correct? I think thats why I was getting confused.

You meet a good woman that is very perceptive and she'll know a lot more about you then you may know yourself Goob. You have to keep in mind a lot of the stuff we do is instinctual and habitual and therefor we aren't as aware as say a woman who is close to us who can be an outside observer would be. So, their opinion isn't something you can just toss out as being moot.

I've been in a relationship that is longer then Lothar and Drakona's. We watch/ed porn together. Are you making the judgment that she wasn't perceptive? Further, are you saying Drakona is more perceptive about me, having never met me, then she was? I feel there is a difference between writing off her opinion compared to those who know me, and simply saying, "pft, she is a women." Her being a woman is a large part, but her having never met me is also a very large part as well! So it is because of these other women that I feel like I can negate her opinion to have validity just *because* she is "a woman." It is that comparison that makes me ask for further credentials on the matter from her. And even still, they are just others opinions about the change in my thoughts, so I go back to the three scenarios that I mentioned above. Which one do you think is the case?

Also, I can't tell, but are you saying that women are less instinctual and habitual then men in the above quote? Or is your point just that they are outsiders? How does this explain that women watch porn? I don't consider her opinion moot, I found it interesting to read. Like her opinions would be on the other subjects that I mentioned.

. From my own experience I haven't seen one porn movie that portrayed women as intelligent,

True, but it doesn't portray men as intelligent either.

Your comment about intelligent women not being viewed sexually also seems to state that you don't consider intelligent women capable of being sexy.

I feel like, this makes me damned either way. This is probably my fault, so let me clarify. When I meet a woman, she is a blank slate. I learn what aspects characterize her. If in conversation I was interested in her in that way, and more importantly, she presented herself to be interested in that way with me, then the thoughts would probably begin. Like I said, I feel that your damning me either way.

"Think they are sexy!, *want* them." then, "well, pft, why *don't* you want them if that doesn't define them." At least you seem to be agreeing that Porn doesn't make me objectify all women.

Goob, did your girlfriend read Drakona's post and, if so, what was her reaction?

No, she never reads the DBB. But I can have her read it if you would like. But I doubt there would be a surprise, she is much more liberal then I am, even to the point of telling me I am too conservative at times. She also has a larger collection then I do. Its just porn. In fact I am flattered that she dates/dated me because of who I am, not because I am just so damn sexually attractive

I do wish someone would comment on women viewing porn. Do you think she characterizes me more as a sex object? Or is that just reserved for men?

My interest lies in the women's perspective. So far the only female to offer insight has been Drakona and since you have stated that you and your girlfriend co-view pornography I wonder if she feels the same as you, that it is a positive aspect of your relationship and no threat to its future, and would be willing to share her thoughts. Frankly, I have little interest in hearing more male opinions since the current question is whether pornography dehumanizes women. Asking the *victimizer* to explain the *victim's* point of view is a conflict of interest and lacks objectivity.

I have a few thoughts on why I consider pornography dangerous to relationships (and to men, in particular) that I might share later but I believe we're hearing too much of one side of the issue. You guys with girlfriends or wives should involve them. Summarize their reactions to Drakona's post and add their own thoughts so we can get a little more balance to this almost exclusively male discussion.

I agree, this thread really needs a womens viewpoint that doesn't view it as harmful. The whole DBB needs quite a few more women to be honest.

Gooberman wrote:Also, I can't tell, but are you saying that women are less instinctual and habitual then men in the above quote? Or is your point just that they are outsiders? How does this explain that women watch porn? I don't consider her opinion moot, I found it interesting to read. Like her opinions would be on the other subjects that I mentioned.

No, but there are things that men do without realizing it just as women do things without realizing it and it usually takes an unbiased outside observer (MALE OR FEMALE) to see these things more clearly then the people doing them.

Gooberman wrote:True, but it doesn't portray men as intelligent either.

It isn't meant to. Most porn is directly tied to stimulation of men's desire to be in control or to be involved in having sex period. Intelligence and mainstream porn don't really belong in the same sentence Art that would border on pornography is far more intelligent then mainstream porn but it doesn't portray men or women as purely sex driven objects either.

Gooberman wrote:I feel like, this makes me damned either way. This is probably my fault, so let me clarify. When I meet a woman, she is a blank slate. I learn what aspects characterize her. If in conversation I was interested in her in that way, and more importantly, she presented herself to be interested in that way with me, then the thoughts would probably begin. Like I said, I feel that your damning me either way.

Like I stated, it was probably the way you wrote it that came off that way and I didn't think it was intentional, but I was pointing out how it sounded to me.

All I was saying in general to your main arguement was that you just brushed Drakona off or atleast that is how I read your post. It just didn't seem very objective to me.

I agree with Bash that there needs to be a little less testosterone in this thread. I'm really interested in hearing more about a woman's perspective on the matter.

Tyranny wrote:"Outside of Marriage" here usually means that your married but participate in activities away from your partner. I guess in Australia it means that you aren't married, correct? I think thats why I was getting confused.

sorry i'm not too practiced with the terms. i ment what you assumed yeah.

It just didn't seem very objective to me.

I don't think I was really even trying to be objective. Like my other example, if we were in a conversation about the psychological effects that women go through when they first grow breasts, I wouldn't expect a women who disagrees with my stance to view my opinion objectively. I have observed what some women I know have gone through, but I just don't *know* all the details to get in an argument with another women -- to the point of telling her that her stance on the issue is wrong!

There is another question that I wanted to ask just you Tyranny. I believe that it was you that said that for artistic purposes you draw women naked. (or something along those lines).

Can I ask you why have them naked? And, what are you trying to say by having them naked instead of clothed? Also, what impressions do you want someone who views your work to be left with?

I remember my sister (very artsy) once dragged my to California to see some Monett(sp?) paintings. One of them was a naked women in a garden holding only an umbrella. I remember thinking to myself, "what am I suppose to get from this?" Why have her naked?

I draw women naked occasionally yes. I also draw men naked occasionally as well. As an artist, drawing the human body in it's purist form (nude) helps train the mind and body to instinctually know how to duplicate, to the best of your ability, all the lines and details of the human form immitating certain actions and movements when needed for future projects or just for the hell of it.

Afterall, art is a something artists do for fun as well. This is why most of us get into it in the first place. It allows us a multitude of avenues to express our feelings and stimulates our creative minds.

It always helps to be the best you possibly can at something you enjoy doing. Especially when it is something you hope to make a good living off of. It also helps better prepare for the design of fully clothed characters as the body's shape and attributes look correct before "fleshing" out the rest of the character(s).

I haven't personally had the opportunity to display some of my depictions of women just for the simple reason that most of them are very rough and are purely for practice as stated above. However, I would want my audience to atleast come away from veiwing my work feeling atleast some, even if just a little, of the same passion that it took to create each piece. That passion is fueled by the opinions I'm going state next...

I'll admit that I probably tend to draw more women then men, but I've already admitted also that this is more or less where my male sexual preferences start showing and that also that this does not necessarily have to be a bad thing. To quote myself...

Tyranny wrote:In my mind however, women displayed tastefully in the nude is a symbol of what men desire, a compliment if you will. Sometimes it can be an acknowledgment of man's respect for the beauty of a woman.

Don't take my quote out of context, it can be a bit misleading without the surrounding statements that preceded and also followed. I'm strictly talking about art, and as I see it most artistic works that feature nude women are done so in regards to man's obsession with women. Both physically and mentally. It is my opinion that men deep down (atleast I hope) have a very good sense of reverence towards the female gender. Art illustrating these types of scenes is a representation and extension of that feeling.

The fact that they are portrayed nude sometimes illustrates man's lust for women afterall, but not always. As such I don't feel it solely depicts women as objects as much as it depicts a plethora of emmotions (depending on the piece) of how man feels about women.

This whole post so far makes me sound very naive to think that all nude works of women are done just by men. I know better though, female artists also do nude peices of males and females out of pure respect and admiration of the human form, which also is another reason why men do this as well.

So, basically nudity in art can be many things. Vulnerability, both for men and women. Strength for both men and women. Innocence for both men and women. Desire for both men and women, the list goes on and on. An artist can only do so much to portray the feelings poured into every stroke of a paint brush or every sketch of a pencil, but ultimately the viewer will make up their own opinions of what the motive behind each work they see was.

Gooberman wrote:I remember my sister (very artsy) once dragged my to California to see some Monett(sp?) paintings. One of them was a naked women in a garden holding only an umbrella. I remember thinking to myself, "what am I suppose to get from this?" Why have her naked?

It is Monet, and the only piece that sticks out in my mind involving a woman with an umbrella in a garden is "La Promenade". She is hardly naked in this work though, full clothing. There are several others depicting women with a parasol walking or standing in fields, but none that are naked that come to mind.

Anyway, I think that whoever the artist of the piece you saw was would probably be dissapointed that "what am I suppose to get from this?" was the only thing you took away from looking at it. It really doesn't matter, art kind of caters to those people who do "get it". For some people it just isn't their thing and all you can do is just move on.

Hope this answered your question.

My goodness, what fabulous quality of discussion! I'll have to respond more closely to Goob's post, though it does feel very line-by-line. That's all right, a couple of things you said are things I'll have to chew on a bit.

But some people are asking how much I know what I'm talking about, and how much my experience is indicative of the experience of women in general, and since in my post I didn't give much in the way of supporting evidence, mostly straight statements and philosophy, I think it might help if I briefly give an idea of what my experience is in certain areas, and where it comes from.


My definition comes from watching my husband over the course of a couple years give up porn, and myself giving up some violent sexual fantasies sometimes excited by certain images. After a long time of struggling with it, observing moral effects and such, my definition is, I think, probably the one that makes the best moral sense. That comes from personal experience.

My first point, that porn hurts women because of the image comes almost entirely from my own experience with porn. And I did say that there might be reasons this shouldn't be taken as general to all women. I do know that most women view porn as disgusting and deviant--whenever it comes up between women (admittely rarely), it is usually dismissed with a "NASTY!!!" There is no knowing, "Yeah, we won't admit it in public, but we both know everybody does it" as there is frequently between men who are in private and in an honest mood. This observation is simply drawn on life interaction with women. I think in general, many women aren't hurt by it, but this is because they don't have much experience with it--they just think it's nasty and think no further. Admittedly, I move in very conservative circles, but finding a woman who doesn't mind porn is a very rare thing, and this I feel I have good justification to say.

My point about porn changing the way men treat women comes from observing my husband and his friends some time ago giving it up. It also comes from 6 or so years on Kali and the DBB--places both awash with porn and all manner of smut. It also comes from a lifetime in the church, a place where porn is utterly frowned on, and most men don't do it.

My point about porn threatening marriage is partly personal--it would sure threaten mine! And partly it comes from hearing about marriages hurt by porn, though Lothar can speak to this point more than I can as he's actually on the discussion list for that.

My point about porn changing sexual focus is drawn partly on personal experience (how my own fantasies change my desires), partly from my husband's exerience, and partly from hearing men who watch porn say what they want (again on Kali and such).

My point about porn causing people to grow up single and horny is not something I have observed--only what seems to me the logical conclusion of the way women react to porn and the way it changes men. That, and there's a statistical correlation in my experience--there seems to be a higher failure rate at landing a girlfriend or wife in such high porn places as Kali and the DBB than there is in low porn places, such as friends of the same age at church. This is one of my shakier points, though. It just seems like it ought to be true.


I wholeheartedly agree that it would be good to have more female input in the thread. There's always been a shortage of women on the board and (really) in the Descent world at large, but I don't think that's a problem that's going away soon.

Anyway, that should help you guys evaluate better what I said. I gotta to run to work... better discussion when I get back!

-Drak

"there seems to be a higher failure rate at landing a girlfriend or wife in such high porn places as Kali and the DBB than there is in low porn places"

Don't forget most are some ugly mo-fo's (myself included), or overly geeked (myself included), or both (oh, why me?!) and that is why they (we) don't get dates.

Aside from that, most people here are/were married, or not out of high school yet.

As for marriage suffering because of porn, if a man has to resort to porn because his wife doesn't fullfill that need, then that marriage is already in trouble, regardless if the man ever picks up a copy of Debbie does Dallas.