Opinion of pornography

[Gustaf]

If anything porn objectifies men. Women are the stars of the show; men are just an all-but-disembodied penis.

Lol. Posters on Atlas - ever the experts on what makes women feel like 'stars'

[Gustaf]

If anything porn objectifies men. Women are the stars of the show; men are just an all-but-disembodied penis.

Lol. Posters on Atlas - ever the experts on what makes women feel like 'stars'

Yes, Gustaf, you clearly know the inner desires, goals and ambitions of every single female on Earth.

Clearly the female actresses are the "stars" of most porn productions, they get paid significantly more than male actors, are significantly more famous, etc. Don't be a dumb.

No, I don't, which is why I wouldn't make such a silly statement. I think you would find that most of the money probably ends up with the male producers of the porn. And that a very small percentage of women in porn have anything close to fame and stardom.

But, sure, start a movement for the rights of men in the porn industry. I'm sure lots of women will support the brave fight.

[Gustaf]

Addicting and destructive -so much so that when I look back on it, I wish I never came across those pictures and videos in the first place.  

Fortunately I have weaned myself off of it, so I consider myself clean again.  

Why the prudery? How is it "destructive?" Not like people are robbing banks to get money for more porn.

Dismissing people's personal experiences of addiction as 'prudery' is generally considered bad form.

It seems pretty darn ridiculous to call porn destructive. That's a very strong word. Has it cost him a job? Has he spent his last dime trying to get more porn?  How is it destructive? Describing himself as "clean again?" How is that anything but prudery?

What the hell? What is it with you and empathy? How is it up to you to define what's destructive or addictive or not?

People react differently to different things. Reactions that you can't identify with aren't less natural or valid than the ones you have.

[Gustaf]

You get to learn a lot recently, congratulations!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_addiction

[Gustaf]

Addicting and destructive -so much so that when I look back on it, I wish I never came across those pictures and videos in the first place.  

Fortunately I have weaned myself off of it, so I consider myself clean again.  

Why the prudery? How is it "destructive?" Not like people are robbing banks to get money for more porn.

Dismissing people's personal experiences of addiction as 'prudery' is generally considered bad form.

It seems pretty darn ridiculous to call porn destructive. That's a very strong word. Has it cost him a job? Has he spent his last dime trying to get more porn?  How is it destructive? Describing himself as "clean again?" How is that anything but prudery?

What the hell? What is it with you and empathy? How is it up to you to define what's destructive or addictive or not?

People react differently to different things. Reactions that you can't identify with aren't less natural or valid than the ones you have.

Ok, let's substitute pornography for something else that we enjoy very much, but is also not destructive in a conventional sense. Posting on the Atlas Forum. I waste a decent amount of time here. I could be doing something better, sure. But, as with porn, it is extremely unlikely to endanger health or finanacial wellbeing. So let's take a look at his quote with a minor tweak to reflect our new reality of discussing the Atlas Forum instead of porn.

"Addicting and destructive -so much so that when I look back on it, I wish I never came across those maps and updates in the first place.  

Fortunately I have weaned myself off of it, so I consider myself clean again."

Does this not strike you as absurd? What's the difference between porn and the Atlas Forum? They both have equal levels of destruction on life.  

What do you mean? Plenty of people have testified to this and plenty of people have left the Atlas Forum precisely because they felt it had a destructive influence on their lives. Can you actually not understand that people are different? That's actually rather fascinating.

I'll try and babytalk this and see if you can understand it. To YOU pornography or the Atlas is not addictive and destructive. Yet, to OTHERS it can be! See, people are DIFFERENT.

This goes for a lot of stuff. My mother, for example, quit smoking. Just like snapping her fingers boom. She quit. Never looked back. It'd be silly for her to, based on that personal experience, say that smoking isn't addictive. Of course, smoking is addictive to most people, pornography may not be. But belonging to a minority in a society is not a crime.

There is nothing absurd about not being like you. In fact, right now, you strike me as a lot more absurd than someone who's addicted to porn.

[Gustaf]

It's always funny to see people who proclaim that they are socially progressive be unbelievably judgmental to those who differ from them.

Assuming that what it more likely is true for an individual and judging them based on that, rather than what they themselves define as true is severely condescending and bigoted. 

[Gustaf]

Just to clear the air (and get rid of some unwanted attention) -I meant 'destructive' in the sense that it was taking time away from my studies, affected my social life, and delayed my graduation from college by at least several years.  

No, it is not as serious as losing a job over it (unlike some federal employees), or destroying a relationship, but it was bad enough from my perspective.  Enough such that it spurred me to quit.  

P.S.  Memphis -there is no need for you to get so defensive about the issue.  The porn industry is doing well enough that it does not need your help in this thread. 



 

Pornography led you to graduate years later than you should have?

^^^^^^^^
Yeah, I find that one a little odd too. The thing about the desire porn is that it's rather self regulating. The Atlas comparison I made earlier was not a good one. If you plotted a brain's interest in Atlas throughout the course of the day versus that for porn you'd find a stark difference in consistency. I'm not sure how one could spend more than an hour or two with porn per day.

Come on! That you aren't sure how something could be done doesn't make it impossible! Surely, you're not this stupid?

Have you never understood someone else's experience of anything?

[Gustaf]

Gus, I'm getting tired of the personal attacks. You're not living up to the TOS for members, much less the behavior expected of a mod. If you can't disagree without resorting to ad hominem, you have no business here and certainly should not be in a position of authority. Grow up.

I pointed out that your positions and attitudes are horrible. If you want to defend them, defend them. If you can't, don't cry me a river about it.

I'm not a moderator on this board and even if I were I'm not going to sit back and let you spew the kind of nonsense you're spreading in this thread and the one about women unchallenged. And it's frustrating to argue with someone who makes completely ridiculous claims.

I'm still waiting on you to defend the position that a) pornography can't be addictive and b) there is no discrimination of women in the workplace (in fact they have it easier than men). I've provided sources for my positions, yet you have done nothing. You can run away from losing the debate by crying about ad hominems all you will but it'd certainly be more mature to actually defend your position or give it up.

[Gustaf]

Gus, I'm getting tired of the personal attacks. You're not living up to the TOS for members, much less the behavior expected of a mod. If you can't disagree without resorting to ad hominem, you have no business here and certainly should not be in a position of authority. Grow up.

I pointed out that your positions and attitudes are horrible. If you want to defend them, defend them. If you can't, don't cry me a river about it.

I'm not a moderator on this board and even if I were I'm not going to sit back and let you spew the kind of nonsense you're spreading in this thread and the one about women unchallenged. And it's frustrating to argue with someone who makes completely ridiculous claims.

I'm still waiting on you to defend the position that a) pornography can't be addictive and b) there is no discrimination of women in the workplace (in fact they have it easier than men). I've provided sources for my positions, yet you have done nothing. You can run away from losing the debate by crying about ad hominems all you will but it'd certainly be more mature to actually defend your position or give it up.

.
I'm not crying at all. You've been, by far, the one with the more emotional attitude throughout. I've not been the one to say things like "surely you're not that stupid" or "You really might want to educate yourself a bit on this issue before offering opinions about it because you come off as totally clueless" or "You're being a fairly disgusting, entitled idiot." That's not my style of debate.  And it shouldn't be the style of any moderator. There was the whole incident with Bushie and Ameriscam and what not. Moderators are held to a high standard.
If you want to lower the threshold for addiction all the way down to porn, you're going to have a lot of addictions out there. Is Honey Boo Boo addictive? Is hunting? How about model railroading. Lots of people lose themselves in these activites.
The wikipedia article you linked was mostly about criticism of the idea of porn addiction as quackery. You have, in fact, presented very little evidence that women routinely face undue burdens in the workplace. You've found a survey that indicates that some women perceive it. That's not quite the same as the outright discrimination that you've been harping about for several pages. At first, you presented a highly dubious anecdote about some girl you know. I'm not saying you deliberately misrepresented it. Wouldn't surprise me it all if she misrepresented the incident to you. People are always misrepresenting things that happened to them to make their lives look more interesting. And, just as important, you've presented no evidence that sexual harassment is a problem unique to women. I've had slimy female bosses. All you have to do to explain to a boss how things are in that department, they will almost always back off. They don't want trouble with their bosses. But in your world, women are too weak to say no to the uncomfortable flirtations that come their way.
There are a million real problems in the world. Diseases. Poverty. Homelessness. Religious Mind Control. Being a woman in the West or enjoying porn doesn't even register.

This is becoming priceless. Yes, plenty of things can be addictive to different people! This is true for everything! Smoking isn't terribly addictive to everyone either. As I mentioned, both my mother and grandfather quit it without any problem at all. People have different experiences. Which is why addiction is defined the way it is. The article also does not say that! You can't just make things up.

"The new ASAM definition makes a departure from equating addiction with just substance dependence, by describing how addiction is also related to behaviors that are rewarding. This is the first time that ASAM has taken an official position that addiction is not solely "substance dependence." This definition says that addiction is about functioning and brain circuitry and how the structure and function of the brains of persons with addiction differ from the structure and function of the brains of persons who do not have addiction. It talks about reward circuitry in the brain and related circuitry, but the emphasis is not on the external rewards that act on the reward system. Food and sexual behaviors and gambling behaviors can be associated with the "pathological pursuit of rewards" described in this new definition of addiction."

It then goes on to detail several studies indicating the prevalence of porn addiction. And no one there argues that it can't be a serious problem to people.

I found evidence. You did not. The survey indicated that a majority of women experienced it! It also goes on to argue that this is rooted in reality, using other measures. But I guess that in spite of your obsession with evidence you didn't actually read the article, did you?

Also, you said specifically that evidence would consist of court cases. So I gave you the figure for it. Seems to be a fair number of such cases, proving the law is violated, by the standard you yourself provided.

And, now, suddenly, women who claim they've been discriminated against probably made it up? Based on what? See, when I say you're disgusting that's not an emotional ad hominem attack. It's an observation based on things like this, where you actively uphold oppressive structures for no good reason. If you want to argue that men routinely face sexual harassment from women or that women usually make up these claims or that the girl I knew was probably lying (!), please. Provide evidence. That was so important to you, right?

I have to say, you're providing one of the worst arguments for a position I've seen in a long time. Failing to understand even a wikipedia article I think gives credence to those statements you thought were personal attacks, that I previously made.

[Gustaf]

there is some question as to whether compulsive use of pornography functions as an addiction (see drug use) or as an impulse-control disorder (see compulsive handwashing).

The real reason for this isn't anything particularly attractive about pornography, it is that there is something wrong with a society in which it is so difficult for so many males to get sexual intercourse.

True.

I blame Disney movies.  They make every little girl in this country think she's some perfect princess that has to wait for frickin' Prince Charming to come along until she gives herself up.  If we just told them they are decaying bags of meat like everybody else we'd all be getting it in a lot more. 

Oh, Atlas. The reason women won't sleep with you is because there is something wrong with them. Of course.

[Gustaf]

there is some question as to whether compulsive use of pornography functions as an addiction (see drug use) or as an impulse-control disorder (see compulsive handwashing).

The real reason for this isn't anything particularly attractive about pornography, it is that there is something wrong with a society in which it is so difficult for so many males to get sexual intercourse.

True.

I blame Disney movies.  They make every little girl in this country think she's some perfect princess that has to wait for frickin' Prince Charming to come along until she gives herself up.  If we just told them they are decaying bags of meat like everybody else we'd all be getting it in a lot more.  

The attitude expressed in this post contributes far more to you not getting laid than Disney does.

I don't have a problem getting laid, I was just trying to be funny.  And I like responding to opebo's posts.  

EDIT: but, would you not agree that women who live in a more open society about sex are not so picky when it comes to partners? 

No, I think it's the other way around. Societies that are more sexually conservative tend to value women less making them more dependent on finding partners. US girls don't seem to be especially picky (and certainly don't have a reputation for it globally).

[Gustaf]

This thread made me think of a famous quote.

Look at this thread, just look at it.  I feel physically ill.

I do too, but probably for the opposite reasons as Opebo.

^^^

What do you call those guys again? Negative betas. Something like that. Or cold betas.

[Gustaf]

And after all, what do you mean 'morally superior'?  Doesn't mean a thing to me.  Have you ever had your hormone levels checked?

I care as much about my hormone levels as you care about your moral standing.

You should care, buddy!  Could lead to lots of negative health effects if you have no testosterone at all.

Heterosexual male sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. They have a dog in this fight too.

Heterosexual female sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. 

This idea that we all orbit around straight male sexuality is kinda ridiculous.

Of course the great majority of heterosexual females orbit around male sexuality, as their own sexual desires, if any, are so minimal (whether naturally or culturally sublimated I cannot say) that what remains to them is gaining non-sexual benefits from catering (as parsimoniously as possible) to male sexuality.

Say what. Women have minimal sexual desires? I really don't think that's true.

As for my other comment I was primarily thinking of HockeyDude and Memphis. Certainly not of Antonio or Nathan and not really of you or Grumps either.

The idea is that there are alpha males and beta males. And then there are nice ones and nasty ones. So cold or negative alpha males are classic bad boys. Negative betas are basically neurotic and geeky misogynists and I sense that we have a lot of those on Atlas.

[Gustaf]

International Posters Union is carefully monitoring the situation here, we are seeing that mods are trying to intimidate posters in here, which we don't find as an acceptable action.

Huh?

[Gustaf]

And after all, what do you mean 'morally superior'?  Doesn't mean a thing to me.  Have you ever had your hormone levels checked?

I care as much about my hormone levels as you care about your moral standing.

You should care, buddy!  Could lead to lots of negative health effects if you have no testosterone at all.

Heterosexual male sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. They have a dog in this fight too.

Heterosexual female sexuality is of great importance to heterosexual females. 

This idea that we all orbit around straight male sexuality is kinda ridiculous.

Of course the great majority of heterosexual females orbit around male sexuality, as their own sexual desires, if any, are so minimal (whether naturally or culturally sublimated I cannot say) that what remains to them is gaining non-sexual benefits from catering (as parsimoniously as possible) to male sexuality.

Say what. Women have minimal sexual desires? I really don't think that's true.

As for my other comment I was primarily thinking of HockeyDude and Memphis. Certainly not of Antonio or Nathan and not really of you or Grumps either.

The idea is that there are alpha males and beta males. And then there are nice ones and nasty ones. So cold or negative alpha males are classic bad boys. Negative betas are basically neurotic and geeky misogynists and I sense that we have a lot of those on Atlas.

I'm not exactly fond of this whole alpha/beta/whatever classification, since I like to think that, flawed as we are, we're not complete animals.

But yeah, "alphas" probably don't post on internet forums...

Oh, I have no reason to believe it either. I just wanted to make the general point that it's a bit creepy with sad misogynists.

[Gustaf]

...the physiology of a woman is different from that of a man.  Therefore, she cannot get aroused as quickly as a man can.  And when you're in a relationship, it helps to know that.  You cannot rush into having sex -you have to get there slowly and gradually.  Since this board is moderated by Inks, I am obviously not going into specifics, but foreplay is a big part of it.

Total stereotyping Frodo!  I've had many girlfriends who wanted it NOW, and even more that disliked all that 'foreplay' nonsense.  (I'd say about 30% have been into the oral prep, and about 50% have downright disliked it -- you'll often find that v.orgasmic women find the oral just kind of pointless or even annoying/ticklish).  And if you were a little older you'd know that most older men (not me yet thank goodness, but I can guess it could be coming) probably take longer to arouse than their partners.

Quite honestly it is a matter of taste, and your claim of some generalized physiological difference in 'arousal time' is just baseless, and the basis for a lot of pseudo-scientific stereotyping.

Yeah, I'm with Opebo on this one. With the exception of the oral part though - in my experience "I don't like oral" usually just means "I haven't had it done well"