Actually that isn't the discussion. This forum is amazing. This has to be the only place on the planet where the topic contains the word PORN and the men are arguing about who can lose weight and how.
Nick
Uh, yeah, I know that. That's why I said it wasn't "the current tangent -- er, discussion."
There you go. Thats the way to do it. And your right, it isn't always something we notice, but the first thing we think of when we hear the word attractive is looks. It's sad that it has to be that way. I pride myself on not doing that, although I'm only human, I do it but try to avoid it. I love talking to people, getting to know people. I am great friends with a good number of people that the world would not find "attractive" but they are the most amazing people. There is more to attractiveness than body.
Hi DMB - speaking of 'looks', however.....I think appearance is important throughout the animal kingdom (of which we are a part, being mammals). A study was done recently wrt lions with dark manes vs. lions with light-colored manes.
It turns out that, all other things being equal, the lioness will choose the dark-maned male. And 'why?', the researchers wanted to know..... Because the dark mane indicates that that lion has more testosterone, and will consequently be stronger, braver, more able to protect the pride and its cubs.
Lots of mammals and birds have these 'markers' of virility, so to speak.
Same for females, wrt shapely breasts and hips. The primitive male assumes she would be healthy, be able to give birth easily through those wide hips, and be able to supply plenty of milk to the baby with those nice big breasts. Of course, he may be only assuming these things sub-consciously.....who knows?
Primitive women see those broad, sexy, male shoulders, those narrow hips, and know 'that' guy is built for strength; that his high-quality hormones and genetics built that strong, sexy, male frame. (Modern women think the same, btw - hehehe )
So, an appreciation for 'looks' is built into us. And looks do say a lot about a person. Do they take the time and trouble to take care of themselves, or are they slobs? Are they healthy or not? Are they clean or not????? You can tell at a glance.
People can also be TOO concerned with their looks, and you can tell that too. Apologies to weightlifting fanatics (I lift weights too), but whenever I see a guy with huge muscles, who obviously spends tons of time lifting, I can't help picturing him checking himself out in the mirror. It puts me off, because he's TOO involved in his appearance. Like anything else, people need to reach a happy medium - get into shape, but don't become obsessive about it. 'Too' many muscles projects too self-centered an image to be attractive, at least to females with a more sophisticated taste in guys.
I would feel the same thing about a female. I would not want a female for a friend who spent hours getting ready in the morning; who lavishes all her time on her appearance. To me, that would also be self-centered and off-putting. You can tell at a glance who is 'number one' in her book.
I prefer people who can do both - dress up nicely when the occasion merits it; but who spend a lot of time in casual clothes. Of course, that's just 'my' opinion. I like a guy in jeans and t-shirts, with his hair soft, casual, a bit disheveled, and over his forehead. Sorry, but what girl wants to run her fingers through stiff spikes? Think back to those movies from the 50's, when guys put hair oil on their hair. OH YUCK. How disgusting it must have felt for a girl to put her hand on that. yuck...yuck...yuck!!!!! oil and grease. eeewww..... Having said all that, some guys look cute in spikes.......
Naomi Wolf does an interesting take on some old theories about porn and the effect of it on society. Many have contended that porn teaches you to objectify women and treat them only as sex objects.
Naomi Wolf has instead, related porn to fast food. Cheap, readily available, most of it of bad quality. Since it is "junk" it takes more of it to fill you up, and leaves even less space for real food, or outside the analogy, real women and real sex.
She contends that porn has actually deadened the male libido with regard to real women. Additionally real women can't compete with porn images and thus can barely get a man's attention.
Give it a read, toss in two cents, let me know what you think...
here's what I think... sorry about the up-myself writing, and the amount of it... just how it turned out...
I think that pornography is distinct and, almost always, distinguished from inter-personal sexual relations. Thus, I do not believe that porn's inevitable (or usual) corollary is the objectification of women (or men) within a relationship, or in society as a whole. The concept, as well as the consumption, of porn is 'publicly perceived' as, variously, immoral, aberrant, basic, dirty, corrupting, embarrassing, sad and objectifying. Masturbation, indelibly linked with pornography, shares many of these labels. With these negative perceptions it should be noted that acquiring particular pornographic material in certain areas is illegal. So, porn is unacceptable and porn is criminal: Porn is Bad. On the other hand, consensual sex between people (whether married, or cohabiting, or neither; of different sexes or of the same sex) is variously perceived as an expression of love, an affirmation of commitment, a means of procreation, a way of having fun, natural, a God-given gift and a social responsibility. The message: Sex is Good.
I think that this extreme societal distinction between pornography and inter-personal sexual relations is so strong that, because of it, people separate the two without much thought. For example, for the most part, a person will not discuss, or act out, a situation observed from pornography with, a platonic friend, a 'romantic interest', or a partner (the last of these is more debatable). And largely because of its negative societal perceptions, it is entirely likely that a person thinks that porn is Bad even though he consistently returns to it. I think that at the societal level and at the individual level pornography is put into one bracket and sex into another. Because of this fundamental difference, porn (one bracket) does not lead to unrealistic expectations of sex (another bracket). And, porn does not overly-perpetuate unrealistic expectations of body image. And porn does not overly-affect perceptions of women or men.
Although I don't accept that this is a likely situation, where porn might cross over into sexual relations is when it is used as a guide for sexual technique. But, I assume, that at some point a person recognises that s/he cannot learn much about how to bodily and mentally satisfy a unique human being by watching porn. All real-life experiences teach that real-life experiences are the best teachers.
I think that porn cannot be discussed without discussing masturbation. I think that porn and masturbation are used to bring about a specific end, and nothing more. Porn is rarely consumed as purely visual or aural entertainment; it is used to 'get off'. It is used to satisfy physical and psychological needs, and in so doing, inspires and sates fantasies. One of the oft-quoted supposed attractions of porn is that it portrays what you can't or shouldn't do in real life. It is 'instead of' sex, but not intended to replace sex. It is a compromise: borrowing the words of Brian from Vanilla Sky, it is a 'proximity infatuation'. Porn (like masturbation) is private: it isn't to be shared because that is what sex is for. When porn is shared in a sexual context it becomes something completely different. The sexual dynamic is between people in the real world: the porn is merely an aphrodisiac. In the main, porn is controllable, instant, on-demand, a-emotional?a human sexual relationship is not. In this sense, I see prostitution as an extension of pornography rather than an extension of sex: a prostitute is discarded as porn is discarded once it has served its purpose. Although pornography is a world away from real-life sex, sex with a prostitute bridges the gap between personal sexual gratification and inter-personal sexual relations. While pornography does not encourage perceptions of men or women as objects, sex with a prostitute does and so maybe is more 'dangerous'.
Again, exactly because it blurs the line between private, personal gratification and public sexual consciousness, I think that The Sun's infamous 'Page 3' daily feature of a topless woman is more 'dangerous' than explicit pornography. The Sun is the UK's best selling newspaper by far and the woman pictured is often eighteen or nineteen-years-old. (But I digress, the paedophilia that permeates societies, yet remains unrecognised and as such unaddressable, is another issue). This kind of 'soft-core pornography'?found in 'lads mags', bra adverts and skin moisturiser commercials?is not designed for 'getting off' to: it is found in public situations where this would be impossible. Instead, such sexual images are designed to be considered completely divorced from any consideration of the human qualities of the people they depict, moreover in communal situations where they can be discussed, compared and rated. While pornography does not allow for the recognition of human qualities, it does not propel any of this into a social context. Porn's social unacceptability assures that it remains a suppressed part of the imagination and part of a private activity. I think widely available soft-core porn objectifies people more than explicit pornography.
As regards Naomi Wolf suggestion that a person can build up a tolerance to porn so that their appetite for it (and masturbation) builds, I think that this is quite true. But since porn occupies a 'conceptual space' inside a mind entirely distinct from that of sex, this does not really impact on sexual perceptions and relationships. What I think it does do is lead to a downward spiral of introversion, awkward physical gratification, loneliness and unhappiness. More than anything else this negatively affects self-esteem and self-perception rather than outward social perceptions, with only a secondary and consequential affect on social interactions.
Society's perception of pornography as dirty, basic and embarrassing is fine because it forces pornography to remain a mere masturbatory tool. As long as selfish personal gratification is divorced from emotional sexual relations, pornography does not pose a significant harm to people's perceptions of one another and interactions. Pornography never has to become socially acceptable. It should however be decriminalised. If only genuinely consenting adults are involved in its production, if genuinely consenting adults consume it and no one is being harmed, there is no need to apportion blame to anyone. Instead, maybe prostitution and soft-core pornography need to be addressed rather than explicit forms of pornography for I think they are more 'dangerous'.
I'm not sure that they are always cohesive, but please counter my arguments or comment on them
I think he'd rather declare the sky plaid with purple stripes, and proceed to set himself on fire, than agree with BR.
BR says a lot of things, and I don't dispute him. That's because he's right. Sometimes though, he says something stupid. When I point it out, I'm a liberal freak.
Well, I don't mind when someone is so arrogant they can't see their own faults. I'm beyond that.
I think that porn cannot be discussed without discussing masturbation. I think that porn and masturbation are used to bring about a specific end, and nothing more. Porn is rarely consumed as purely visual or aural entertainment; it is used to 'get off'. It is used to satisfy physical and psychological needs, and in so doing, inspires and sates fantasies. One of the oft-quoted supposed attractions of porn is that it portrays what you can't or shouldn't do in real life. It is 'instead of' sex, but not intended to replace sex. It is a compromise: borrowing the words of Brian from Vanilla Sky, it is a 'proximity infatuation'. Porn (like masturbation) is private: it isn't to be shared because that is what sex is for. When porn is shared in a sexual context it becomes something completely different. The sexual dynamic is between people in the real world: the porn is merely an aphrodisiac. In the main, porn is controllable, instant, on-demand, a-emotional?a human sexual relationship is not.
As regards Naomi Wolf suggestion that a person can build up a tolerance to porn so that their appetite for it (and masturbation) builds, I think that this is quite true. But since porn occupies a 'conceptual space' inside a mind entirely distinct from that of sex, this does not really impact on sexual perceptions and relationships. What I think it does do is lead to a downward spiral of introversion, awkward physical gratification, loneliness and unhappiness. More than anything else this negatively affects self-esteem and self-perception rather than outward social perceptions, with only a secondary and consequential affect on social interactions.
Society's perception of pornography as dirty, basic and embarrassing is fine because it forces pornography to remain a mere masturbatory tool. As long as selfish personal gratification is divorced from emotional sexual relations, pornography does not pose a significant harm to people's perceptions of one another and interactions. Pornography never has to become socially acceptable. It should however be decriminalised. If only genuinely consenting adults are involved in its production, if genuinely consenting adults consume it and no one is being harmed, there is no need to apportion blame to anyone.
I'm not sure that they are always cohesive, but please counter my arguments or comment on them
Hi Son of Sylvanus -
Wow. What a well-written and thoughtful piece. I am totally blown away that you are 19!!!!! OMG!
To respond in detail, I would have to read through your remarks a few more times, and maybe take a few notes .
Since I don't have time to do that at the moment, I'll just comment briefly.
I've been thinking that a guy's indulging in porn might have a positive benefit from the female's point of view.
If a guy is getting off on porn, then maybe when he goes out on a date with a girl he won't be in such urgent need to jump her bones; and instead, can regard her as a 'person' he might like to get to know, as opposed to her as a sex object and 'seminal receptacle'.
Another point is that the intense male sex drive is a natural and good thing, having evolved as it has to ensure survival of the species. I think it's fine that porn is available to help guys have as much sexual gratification as they need, when natural sex with a female is unavailable on as frequent a basis as might be beneficial.
And finally, any female who is a good and adventurous lover doesn't need to worry about her guy being seduced away from her by porn.
Yeah, since when is an intense sex drive, or enjoyment of porn, a *male* thing??
Maybe I just have an unusual set of experiences, but the women I've known have been avid porn enthusiasts, and as for drive, well...
I think that Carol uses the male example because of the stereotypes surrounding males. Sad thing is, most of those stereotypes are true. I will admit that most younger males (ages 12-30ish) are jerks and most of them are in relationships for sex. Typically college age males are the worst about this. It's too bad, because they give the rest of us, the ones that try to have a meaningful relationship, one that isn't built on sex, a bad name. Although I do agree with Kickaha in this situation, there are some women out there who are the same as males, a "healthy" sex drive, and they enjoy porn as well. However, this is pinned on males more often than females due to stereotypes.
Here are some declrations about pornography . . . I will follow up with argument for these . . possibly . . . later
The Goodish stuff: opens people to the notion of sex, to their own body and to other's bodies, and, opens people to a 'playful' and pleasurable activity and possibilities that they may not have the opportunity to explore
releases the sex act from the judgement of unnecessary constricting moralism
whereas morality need not denigrate the open sharing of physical pleasure. . . even if it involves consensual aggressive sex-play and/or multiple partners etc . . . it is only one set of moral codes that reads these sex acts as 'immoral'
Sex is good when it is Eros . . .and porn can be Erotic . . .
It can be a release and can stimulate the imagination
The Draw-backs:
Porn can be addicting
Porn is isolating
Porn kills the imagination at its most essential core: One's relationship to the erotic center of oneself, their imagination . . .
"One's sexuality penetrates to the inmost depths of one's being"
-Friedrich Nietzsche paraphrased from mermory
Porn is NOT about the Erotic except that it thrives off of the feeling of the destruction of the Erotic:
in other words, Porn thrives by denying the Erotic: it is Anti-sex, anti-women, anti-nature and anti-body . . . also, it is also anti-'men' . . . it is against the anamilistic sexualized body that is beyond conscious Ego-identity
It is the denial of real Eros
Porn thrives through its woeful and illusory appearance as Control and Domination of sexuality: through its reduction of sex, the animalistic and Erotic, into a ritualized activity
That ritualized activity is often the reduction of sexuality to a number of non-sexual transactions: commodity transactions, power transactions, status and or role defining actions: the more that sexuality can be made into an object in the service of Control the better --or actually: the appearance of Control
and yet that making-of-an-object of sex is even more compelling when it is more sexual.
This is because the more it seems to have sexuality in control the more gratifying it can be to the need to control the body.
Those familiar with Freud's notion of negation might see it in my description: denying something while simultaneously retaining it.
Why? Because the 'species detirminism' of having to obey the body and sexuality is the loss of control
This is an afront to the conscious self, we create fictions around the limits of our bodies
the ability to control sex is one of our favorite fictions
The limits of our bodies remind us that all of our Ego constructions -how important we think that we are; our special place in the social world; our 'meaning'- is all a feeble lie in the face of bodily limits and death.
Porn is this kind of fiction: it is the illusion of control, but as Fellowship said, we are really controlled by it: it reveals that our attempts to control sex, our bodies, our Ids, our death and our life force actually forces us into a solitary loveless communion with other people's sexless maneuvers at a distance and under the guise of Eros.
Culture (art music film etc) also plays a similar role for us: it diverts basic animal energies . . . the difference is that the sublimation of "higher" culturals forms strives to bring us up to a point of reflection on the dynamics of Life, Living, Dying and Love.
another thing: porn can waste time and divert Love energy (Eros) from more important tasks . . . such as actually loving others and your loved one
(on the other hand: if your loved one always 'has a headache' then it can be a quick release)
The increasing ubiqity of porn is showing itself as an increase in the dissolution of marriages and relationships: it is now so easy to see incredible positions that the real feeling of eros gets overlooked becuase we think about the reverse-double-eagle-backward-cowboy-triple-cum-shot-in-slow-motion that was just a clic-away
Just to add, RE:the last issue on my post above, the social effects of the ease and ubiquity of porn will unfold for a long time, but there will definitly be affects, and I am not sure that they will all be positive:
too tired now to go into speculation . . . later perhaps . . .
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually that isn't the discussion. This forum is amazing. This has to be the only place on the planet where the topic contains the word PORN and the men are arguing about who can lose weight and how.
Nick
Uh, yeah, I know that. That's why I said it wasn't "the current tangent -- er, discussion."
Originally posted by DMBand0026
There you go. Thats the way to do it. And your right, it isn't always something we notice, but the first thing we think of when we hear the word attractive is looks. It's sad that it has to be that way. I pride myself on not doing that, although I'm only human, I do it but try to avoid it. I love talking to people, getting to know people. I am great friends with a good number of people that the world would not find "attractive" but they are the most amazing people. There is more to attractiveness than body.
Hi DMB - speaking of 'looks', however.....I think appearance is important throughout the animal kingdom (of which we are a part, being mammals). A study was done recently wrt lions with dark manes vs. lions with light-colored manes.
It turns out that, all other things being equal, the lioness will choose the dark-maned male. And 'why?', the researchers wanted to know..... Because the dark mane indicates that that lion has more testosterone, and will consequently be stronger, braver, more able to protect the pride and its cubs.
Lots of mammals and birds have these 'markers' of virility, so to speak.
Same for females, wrt shapely breasts and hips. The primitive male assumes she would be healthy, be able to give birth easily through those wide hips, and be able to supply plenty of milk to the baby with those nice big breasts. Of course, he may be only assuming these things sub-consciously.....who knows?
Primitive women see those broad, sexy, male shoulders, those narrow hips, and know 'that' guy is built for strength; that his high-quality hormones and genetics built that strong, sexy, male frame. (Modern women think the same, btw - hehehe
So, an appreciation for 'looks' is built into us. And looks do say a lot about a person. Do they take the time and trouble to take care of themselves, or are they slobs? Are they healthy or not? Are they clean or not????? You can tell at a glance.
People can also be TOO concerned with their looks, and you can tell that too. Apologies to weightlifting fanatics (I lift weights too), but whenever I see a guy with huge muscles, who obviously spends tons of time lifting, I can't help picturing him checking himself out in the mirror. It puts me off, because he's TOO involved in his appearance. Like anything else, people need to reach a happy medium - get into shape, but don't become obsessive about it. 'Too' many muscles projects too self-centered an image to be attractive, at least to females with a more sophisticated taste in guys.
I would feel the same thing about a female. I would not want a female for a friend who spent hours getting ready in the morning; who lavishes all her time on her appearance. To me, that would also be self-centered and off-putting. You can tell at a glance who is 'number one' in her book.
I prefer people who can do both - dress up nicely when the occasion merits it; but who spend a lot of time in casual clothes. Of course, that's just 'my' opinion. I like a guy in jeans and t-shirts, with his hair soft, casual, a bit disheveled, and over his forehead. Sorry, but what girl wants to run her fingers through stiff spikes? Think back to those movies from the 50's, when guys put hair oil on their hair. OH YUCK. How disgusting it must have felt for a girl to put her hand on that. yuck...yuck...yuck!!!!! oil and grease. eeewww..... Having said all that, some guys look cute in spikes.......
Originally posted by trumptman
Naomi Wolf does an interesting take on some old theories about porn and the effect of it on society. Many have contended that porn teaches you to objectify women and treat them only as sex objects.
Naomi Wolf has instead, related porn to fast food. Cheap, readily available, most of it of bad quality. Since it is "junk" it takes more of it to fill you up, and leaves even less space for real food, or outside the analogy, real women and real sex.
She contends that porn has actually deadened the male libido with regard to real women. Additionally real women can't compete with porn images and thus can barely get a man's attention.
Give it a read, toss in two cents, let me know what you think...
here's what I think... sorry about the up-myself writing, and the amount of it... just how it turned out...
I think that pornography is distinct and, almost always, distinguished from inter-personal sexual relations. Thus, I do not believe that porn's inevitable (or usual) corollary is the objectification of women (or men) within a relationship, or in society as a whole. The concept, as well as the consumption, of porn is 'publicly perceived' as, variously, immoral, aberrant, basic, dirty, corrupting, embarrassing, sad and objectifying. Masturbation, indelibly linked with pornography, shares many of these labels. With these negative perceptions it should be noted that acquiring particular pornographic material in certain areas is illegal. So, porn is unacceptable and porn is criminal: Porn is Bad. On the other hand, consensual sex between people (whether married, or cohabiting, or neither; of different sexes or of the same sex) is variously perceived as an expression of love, an affirmation of commitment, a means of procreation, a way of having fun, natural, a God-given gift and a social responsibility. The message: Sex is Good.
I think that this extreme societal distinction between pornography and inter-personal sexual relations is so strong that, because of it, people separate the two without much thought. For example, for the most part, a person will not discuss, or act out, a situation observed from pornography with, a platonic friend, a 'romantic interest', or a partner (the last of these is more debatable). And largely because of its negative societal perceptions, it is entirely likely that a person thinks that porn is Bad even though he consistently returns to it. I think that at the societal level and at the individual level pornography is put into one bracket and sex into another. Because of this fundamental difference, porn (one bracket) does not lead to unrealistic expectations of sex (another bracket). And, porn does not overly-perpetuate unrealistic expectations of body image. And porn does not overly-affect perceptions of women or men.
Although I don't accept that this is a likely situation, where porn might cross over into sexual relations is when it is used as a guide for sexual technique. But, I assume, that at some point a person recognises that s/he cannot learn much about how to bodily and mentally satisfy a unique human being by watching porn. All real-life experiences teach that real-life experiences are the best teachers.
I think that porn cannot be discussed without discussing masturbation. I think that porn and masturbation are used to bring about a specific end, and nothing more. Porn is rarely consumed as purely visual or aural entertainment; it is used to 'get off'. It is used to satisfy physical and psychological needs, and in so doing, inspires and sates fantasies. One of the oft-quoted supposed attractions of porn is that it portrays what you can't or shouldn't do in real life. It is 'instead of' sex, but not intended to replace sex. It is a compromise: borrowing the words of Brian from Vanilla Sky, it is a 'proximity infatuation'. Porn (like masturbation) is private: it isn't to be shared because that is what sex is for. When porn is shared in a sexual context it becomes something completely different. The sexual dynamic is between people in the real world: the porn is merely an aphrodisiac. In the main, porn is controllable, instant, on-demand, a-emotional?a human sexual relationship is not. In this sense, I see prostitution as an extension of pornography rather than an extension of sex: a prostitute is discarded as porn is discarded once it has served its purpose. Although pornography is a world away from real-life sex, sex with a prostitute bridges the gap between personal sexual gratification and inter-personal sexual relations. While pornography does not encourage perceptions of men or women as objects, sex with a prostitute does and so maybe is more 'dangerous'.
Again, exactly because it blurs the line between private, personal gratification and public sexual consciousness, I think that The Sun's infamous 'Page 3' daily feature of a topless woman is more 'dangerous' than explicit pornography. The Sun is the UK's best selling newspaper by far and the woman pictured is often eighteen or nineteen-years-old. (But I digress, the paedophilia that permeates societies, yet remains unrecognised and as such unaddressable, is another issue). This kind of 'soft-core pornography'?found in 'lads mags', bra adverts and skin moisturiser commercials?is not designed for 'getting off' to: it is found in public situations where this would be impossible. Instead, such sexual images are designed to be considered completely divorced from any consideration of the human qualities of the people they depict, moreover in communal situations where they can be discussed, compared and rated. While pornography does not allow for the recognition of human qualities, it does not propel any of this into a social context. Porn's social unacceptability assures that it remains a suppressed part of the imagination and part of a private activity. I think widely available soft-core porn objectifies people more than explicit pornography.
As regards Naomi Wolf suggestion that a person can build up a tolerance to porn so that their appetite for it (and masturbation) builds, I think that this is quite true. But since porn occupies a 'conceptual space' inside a mind entirely distinct from that of sex, this does not really impact on sexual perceptions and relationships. What I think it does do is lead to a downward spiral of introversion, awkward physical gratification, loneliness and unhappiness. More than anything else this negatively affects self-esteem and self-perception rather than outward social perceptions, with only a secondary and consequential affect on social interactions.
Society's perception of pornography as dirty, basic and embarrassing is fine because it forces pornography to remain a mere masturbatory tool. As long as selfish personal gratification is divorced from emotional sexual relations, pornography does not pose a significant harm to people's perceptions of one another and interactions. Pornography never has to become socially acceptable. It should however be decriminalised. If only genuinely consenting adults are involved in its production, if genuinely consenting adults consume it and no one is being harmed, there is no need to apportion blame to anyone. Instead, maybe prostitution and soft-core pornography need to be addressed rather than explicit forms of pornography for I think they are more 'dangerous'.
I'm not sure that they are always cohesive, but please counter my arguments or comment on them
Originally posted by DiscoCow
I think he'd rather declare the sky plaid with purple stripes, and proceed to set himself on fire, than agree with BR.
BR says a lot of things, and I don't dispute him. That's because he's right. Sometimes though, he says something stupid. When I point it out, I'm a liberal freak.
Well, I don't mind when someone is so arrogant they can't see their own faults. I'm beyond that.
.
.
?We have filled our hearts with fantasy
and our hearts grow brutal on the fare.?
\t\t\t\t\t\t--W. B. Yeats
.
.
.
Originally posted by SonOfSylvanus
I think that porn cannot be discussed without discussing masturbation. I think that porn and masturbation are used to bring about a specific end, and nothing more. Porn is rarely consumed as purely visual or aural entertainment; it is used to 'get off'. It is used to satisfy physical and psychological needs, and in so doing, inspires and sates fantasies. One of the oft-quoted supposed attractions of porn is that it portrays what you can't or shouldn't do in real life. It is 'instead of' sex, but not intended to replace sex. It is a compromise: borrowing the words of Brian from Vanilla Sky, it is a 'proximity infatuation'. Porn (like masturbation) is private: it isn't to be shared because that is what sex is for. When porn is shared in a sexual context it becomes something completely different. The sexual dynamic is between people in the real world: the porn is merely an aphrodisiac. In the main, porn is controllable, instant, on-demand, a-emotional?a human sexual relationship is not.
As regards Naomi Wolf suggestion that a person can build up a tolerance to porn so that their appetite for it (and masturbation) builds, I think that this is quite true. But since porn occupies a 'conceptual space' inside a mind entirely distinct from that of sex, this does not really impact on sexual perceptions and relationships. What I think it does do is lead to a downward spiral of introversion, awkward physical gratification, loneliness and unhappiness. More than anything else this negatively affects self-esteem and self-perception rather than outward social perceptions, with only a secondary and consequential affect on social interactions.
Society's perception of pornography as dirty, basic and embarrassing is fine because it forces pornography to remain a mere masturbatory tool. As long as selfish personal gratification is divorced from emotional sexual relations, pornography does not pose a significant harm to people's perceptions of one another and interactions. Pornography never has to become socially acceptable. It should however be decriminalised. If only genuinely consenting adults are involved in its production, if genuinely consenting adults consume it and no one is being harmed, there is no need to apportion blame to anyone.
I'm not sure that they are always cohesive, but please counter my arguments or comment on them
Hi Son of Sylvanus -
Wow. What a well-written and thoughtful piece. I am totally blown away that you are 19!!!!! OMG!
To respond in detail, I would have to read through your remarks a few more times, and maybe take a few notes
Since I don't have time to do that at the moment, I'll just comment briefly.
I've been thinking that a guy's indulging in porn might have a positive benefit from the female's point of view.
If a guy is getting off on porn, then maybe when he goes out on a date with a girl he won't be in such urgent need to jump her bones; and instead, can regard her as a 'person' he might like to get to know, as opposed to her as a sex object and 'seminal receptacle'.
Another point is that the intense male sex drive is a natural and good thing, having evolved as it has to ensure survival of the species. I think it's fine that porn is available to help guys have as much sexual gratification as they need, when natural sex with a female is unavailable on as frequent a basis as might be beneficial.
And finally, any female who is a good and adventurous lover doesn't need to worry about her guy being seduced away from her by porn.
Response?
Maybe I just have an unusual set of experiences, but the women I've known have been avid porn enthusiasts, and as for drive, well...
Originally posted by Kickaha
Yeah, since when is an intense sex drive, or enjoyment of porn, a *male* thing??
Maybe I just have an unusual set of experiences, but the women I've known have been avid porn enthusiasts, and as for drive, well...
I think that Carol uses the male example because of the stereotypes surrounding males. Sad thing is, most of those stereotypes are true. I will admit that most younger males (ages 12-30ish) are jerks and most of them are in relationships for sex. Typically college age males are the worst about this. It's too bad, because they give the rest of us, the ones that try to have a meaningful relationship, one that isn't built on sex, a bad name. Although I do agree with Kickaha in this situation, there are some women out there who are the same as males, a "healthy" sex drive, and they enjoy porn as well. However, this is pinned on males more often than females due to stereotypes.
When women are allowed to healthily and freely pursue their own sexuality, they enjoy it, and voyeurism, at *least* as much as men, in my experience.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Yeah, since when is an intense sex drive, or enjoyment of porn, a *male* thing??
Maybe I just have an unusual set of experiences, but the women I've known have been avid porn enthusiasts, and as for drive, well...
Well, Kickaha, I was responding to SoS, who was basically discussing males and porn. For once, I was trying to stay 'on topic'......
The female sex drive is indeed a formidable and wonderful thing. No argument there.
Originally posted by Carol A
Well, Kickaha, I was responding to SoS, who was basically discussing males and porn. For once, I was trying to stay 'on topic'......
Well *that* will teach ya...
The female sex drive is indeed a formidable and wonderful thing. No argument there.
Oh good.
Originally posted by Kickaha
That I won't dispute, but I maintain that the vast majority of that difference is due to societal programming.
When women are allowed to healthily and freely pursue their own sexuality, they enjoy it, and voyeurism, at *least* as much as men, in my experience.
And 'some' women are even (cough) quite sexually aggressive.
Originally posted by Carol A
And 'some' women are even (cough) quite sexually aggressive.
carol, you have just caused me to use the "add to buddy list" feature of these forums for the very first time.
Originally posted by rok
carol, you have just caused me to use the "add to buddy list" feature of these forums for the very first time.
Cool!
The Goodish stuff: opens people to the notion of sex, to their own body and to other's bodies, and, opens people to a 'playful' and pleasurable activity and possibilities that they may not have the opportunity to explore
releases the sex act from the judgement of unnecessary constricting moralism
whereas morality need not denigrate the open sharing of physical pleasure. . . even if it involves consensual aggressive sex-play and/or multiple partners etc . . . it is only one set of moral codes that reads these sex acts as 'immoral'
Sex is good when it is Eros . . .and porn can be Erotic . . .
It can be a release and can stimulate the imagination
The Draw-backs:
Porn can be addicting
Porn is isolating
Porn kills the imagination at its most essential core: One's relationship to the erotic center of oneself, their imagination . . .
"One's sexuality penetrates to the inmost depths of one's being"
-Friedrich Nietzsche paraphrased from mermory
Porn is NOT about the Erotic except that it thrives off of the feeling of the destruction of the Erotic:
in other words, Porn thrives by denying the Erotic: it is Anti-sex, anti-women, anti-nature and anti-body . . . also, it is also anti-'men' . . . it is against the anamilistic sexualized body that is beyond conscious Ego-identity
It is the denial of real Eros
Porn thrives through its woeful and illusory appearance as Control and Domination of sexuality: through its reduction of sex, the animalistic and Erotic, into a ritualized activity
That ritualized activity is often the reduction of sexuality to a number of non-sexual transactions: commodity transactions, power transactions, status and or role defining actions: the more that sexuality can be made into an object in the service of Control the better --or actually: the appearance of Control
and yet that making-of-an-object of sex is even more compelling when it is more sexual.
This is because the more it seems to have sexuality in control the more gratifying it can be to the need to control the body.
Those familiar with Freud's notion of negation might see it in my description: denying something while simultaneously retaining it.
Why? Because the 'species detirminism' of having to obey the body and sexuality is the loss of control
This is an afront to the conscious self, we create fictions around the limits of our bodies
the ability to control sex is one of our favorite fictions
The limits of our bodies remind us that all of our Ego constructions -how important we think that we are; our special place in the social world; our 'meaning'- is all a feeble lie in the face of bodily limits and death.
Porn is this kind of fiction: it is the illusion of control, but as Fellowship said, we are really controlled by it: it reveals that our attempts to control sex, our bodies, our Ids, our death and our life force actually forces us into a solitary loveless communion with other people's sexless maneuvers at a distance and under the guise of Eros.
Culture (art music film etc) also plays a similar role for us: it diverts basic animal energies . . . the difference is that the sublimation of "higher" culturals forms strives to bring us up to a point of reflection on the dynamics of Life, Living, Dying and Love.
another thing: porn can waste time and divert Love energy (Eros) from more important tasks . . . such as actually loving others and your loved one
(on the other hand: if your loved one always 'has a headache' then it can be a quick release)
The increasing ubiqity of porn is showing itself as an increase in the dissolution of marriages and relationships: it is now so easy to see incredible positions that the real feeling of eros gets overlooked becuase we think about the reverse-double-eagle-backward-cowboy-triple-cum-shot-in-slow-motion that was just a clic-away
another thing:
"and they became what they beheld"
- - -William Blake
too tired now to go into speculation . . . later perhaps . . .