For those concerned with Free Speech (or Porn), it is time to get active.

My ex-girlfriend did a sociology paper on this a few years ago. Long story short - most young women she spoke with were porn-positive. It was a great paper, and made some interesting points. Her tutor rejected the paper on the grounds that 'no women like pornography, since it degrades and objectifies them" (the tutor was a woman).So yeah, I think the younger generation, who have grown up with very easy access to porn (indeed, anyone whos had an email address in the last 10 years will attest to it being more than easy), have realized that porn isn't a dirty secretive thing that men in trench coats watch before beating up their wife.It isn't universal of course, but its a growing trend. Unfortunately, this is all purely anecdotal. However, I've spoken openly with all of my female friends regarding pornography and they are either pro-porn or neutral-porn. I have not spoken face to face with anyone who thought pornography was a negative thing (plenty have thought it was boring or silly, but I rank that as neutral).

You are, of course, joking, right?

It is not made strictly for heterosexual men, though they are the biggest target. However, just because someone acts out being 'an ultra-willing toy' no more makes them so than De Niro is a gangster.However, I think the tone of the genre has changed since the 70s and 80s. It is the women in porn that call the shots and hold the power, and make the money, and its the men that get shafted.Edit: Which means to say, it has gone from an industry that gives the kicks to men, to an industry where women make money from men.This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 28-June-2005 08:49 PM

Don't want to beat a dead horse here, but I think that 'gossip magazines' do more for negative body image in women than porn ever could. Pictures of celebrities doing their normal routine with arrows pointing at cellulite, or at the belly that is forming, or an overly large bottom, wrinkles or the wrong dress. Maybe its meant to make people feel better than nobody has a perfect body, but I think it has the opposite effect to. "Hey, if Kylie's knees are too fat, then mine are freakish!"

No, but I don't see them laughing at and judging people with the spare tires very often in porn either.

Indeed - I'm not saying porn has 0 potential to cause this kind of rejection, but its secondary and implied. It is not direct and in your face. Thus, gossip mags do more to damage women's body image than porn (especially since gossip mags are aimed at women, so women are doubly exposed to it).

There is a lot of speculation over whether porn is exploititive or not. Whether it ruins marriages, or not. It is rare the marriage that should have been, that was ruined by something as trivial as naked lady pics.The porn industry that is most under threat is not the side of things which can be viewed as explotitive, or objectifying. It is the porn that is made, produced and distributed by the very people that star in it. The increasingly popular amateur pornography. They are not exploiting themselves (they are exploiting their viewers by making them pay for it). If they choose to objectify themselves, if pornography is obectifying, where is the problem?Amateur porn is less easy to call objectifying anyway, since the point is the reality of the model, the mundaneness of the surroundings, the personal slant these things often take (weblogs, chats etc). They are often marketed as 'girl next doors' and so on. These women are not sex objects, they are the passionate desire you had when you saw the girl go past your window realized visually.The question of what is, and what is not healthy came up. What is more healthy, indulging in a little fantasy about a girl other than your wife (and letting your wife know that you do this, whilst letting her openly discuss her little fantasies), or repressing the sexual desire?I'm sure many fundamental Christians would say that the latter is more healthy (the whole looking at another woman with desire is infidelity gig), but psychiatrists might think otherwise of repressions. I'm inclinded to believe the latter group rather than the former.However, regardless of the morality of porn, it is legal. The government is stepping in to a legal industry, increasing the bureaucracy and making it almost impossible for the smaller business to keep up; ruining them.Should the government be able to do this? No!

Did I say you did? There was discussion about the harm pornography can do to marriages.

quote:

---

It depends on whether it is good or bad or neutral. I have been arguing all along here that it is bad for relationships, bad for women, bad for marriages etc.

---

quote:

---

Even if you don't (yet) have a spouse it is an abuse of the one you may yet have, and it certainly is infidelity to your present spouse.

---

quote:

---

I think it mostly has to do with its tending to turn the spouse/partner into a sex object and make demands on that partner, conscious or unconscious, that may not be welcome.

---

quote:

---

If in fact it contributes to increased murder and rape of women in the culture (I think that is a distinct possibility) or puts pressures on marriages of the sort I have been focusing on, or feeds some men's dehumanizing images of women, as bodies and not persons...

---

OK, so porn is bad for marriages, it is infidelity, objectifying, demanding, possibly drives a man more towards rape and murder, and puts pressures on marriages and feeds on dehumanizing women.I would consider a marriage where the husband is unfaithful, objectifies and dehumanizes his wife and makes unwelcome demands, a close facsimilie to a ruined marriage. Especially if he starts raping and murdering... I did, I never said anyone else said anything about it. I was not leaping to unwarranted conclusions. If you want to actually address the point I'll help you out: Perhaps you can highlight that my comment is a false dichotomy and point to other alternatives.This message has been edited by Modulous, Thu, 30-June-2005 08:49 AM

Not got a problem with that idea. However, it would be difficult to untangle the old problem. If porn was totally non-existant, would the resultant sexual frustration cause more rape than allowing it? Unfortunately its mostly a matter of opinion, with only a small amount of data available.After all, people have been inspired by the Bible to murder, but that doesn't make the Bible a bad thing...nor any of the other things which people have been inspired by. Was it just the Bible, or was there a deeper force at work, such as mental illness or a nurtured misogyny brought about by child abuse?Alas, it is often impossible to say whether it is the porn that drives these rapists. I don't think it is, I think its falling into the trap of looking for simple explanations for complex phenemona. I don't believe I was, since I wasn't being deliberatly general in my text, and I believe I chose the appropriate tone for that. When I said: "Whether [porn] ruins marriages, or not", I meant that the debate was regarding whether or not porn, in and of itself, has the ability to ruin a marriage...the opposing position being that if porn can ruin a marriage there were deeper problems with the marriage to begin with, probably surrounding sexuality and communication. Example: I enjoy porn, every partner that I have been with knows this, I have openly communicated it. One partner was not entirely happy about it, and some other sexuality issues and the differences were irreconcilable: we didn't get married. Well, lets not misrepresent things too much here, whilst the end might be the same, the means were different. I proposed that expressing oneself by 'indulging in a little fantasy about a girl' was more healthy than repressing it. If that fantasy is realized visually using porn then so be it. It is better to fantasize than to act out (another possibility, but unacceptable to both of us (in general)).You propose that a healthy happy marriage is an alternative to porn. I disagree. A healthy happy marriage can include porn. Are you suggesting that if one is in a healthy happy marriage, one is not desirous of other flesh? I contend that anyone who truly believes they do not find others strongly sexually attractive once they get married is either a right and a very very rare individual, or they are wrong and they are repressing their sexuality...which is going to lead to bad things.Perhaps you are contending that one can be sexually attracted to someone outside of marriage, but express that through sleeping with their wife? I'm sure that works for some people, but not all, indeed its possibly even a minority. I imagine that most people desire to fantasize about others, and in general, men are stimulated by visual aids such as pornography. For these people to halt this desire, to push it down, to repress it, is potentially dangerous, no?

I couldn't let this one slip by. Playboy doesn't teach men what is sexy etc, Playboy has to sell its product. It doesn't do that by telling the customer what they want, but by finding out what the customer wants and selling that. Playboy has to appeal to the most people that it is possible to appeal to. The market drives the product. Whilst the product might influence the market, if the models that Playboy posted weren't already attractive to men - they wouldn't sell as many magazines.Truly beautiful women to me are specific to me, it would be great if Playboy could tap into my mind and produce a magazine full of women that represent my desires. They can't, so they go with models that are attractive to most men. Some men are 'totally into' that 'type', some men find it appealing and attractive, if not perfect, and some men don't like (most) playboy women. I am one of the latter opinion.Playboy doesn't teach men what to think, men who think a certain way buy Playboy. Red Car Weekly wouldn't teach me that red cars were better than black cars, it would simply be bought by people who like red cars. Keeping in the porn world - Big Butt magazine won't teach a man that big butts and large ladies are sexy if he thinks they are repulsive...they will simply be bought by people who do think that way.