I noticed that anti-porn activists have recently been citing pornography as a "public health crisis." As Rebecca Watson points out, these Biblical literalists have no problems with science as long as it doesn't challenge their cherished beliefs, such as sex is bad, bad, BAD. “Politicians cite science tactically, not sincerely: ‘You can’t say anymore, ‘We want to get rid of porn because of its wickedness.†But it’s completely legitimate to say, “We want to get rid of porn because it’s a public health crisis like opioids or meth.’†Unfortunately for the prude brigade, there is no good science that proves pornography is bad for individuals or society.
Rebecca Watson also discusses people, some of whom are atheists, who believe "no fap" gives one superpowers. I'm not on Reddit but I vaguely remember reading something about this fad. I confess back when I was a sophomore in college I did this experiment after studying addictions and wondering if I would have trouble not masturbating. I initially decided to stop for a month but then kept going. After five months I had sex with someone and that ended the streak. Not masturbating wasn't difficult and I noticed no changes in my mood, focus, physical ability and sadly didn't acquire telekinesis.
https://youtu.be/dxnwf0_Wmp8
I agree with this psychotherapist (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-sex-and-relationships/202104/the-myths-about-pornography):
- Pornography is not an addiction.
- Pornography does not cause sexual, relationship, or mental health problems.
- The anti-porn movement ignores the science of sexology.
- If you struggle with your pornography use, seek a therapist who is sex-positive and doesn't work with the addiction framework.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 22, 2021, 05:07:16 PM
Unfortunately for the prude brigade, there is no good science that proves pornography is bad for individuals or society.
Who needs science when you've got God on your side!
Quote from: SGOS on April 22, 2021, 05:13:13 PM
Who needs science when you've got God on your side!
Even God needs help when it comes to the dirty, dirty heathens.
And Christian backsliders.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 22, 2021, 05:07:16 PMRebecca Watson also discusses people, some of whom are atheists, who believe "no fap" gives one superpowers.
I'm not sure what started it, but imho it's a mix of people who treat it like a joke (I saw an extra curvy piece of driftwood today, and well...) and a much, much smaller group who legitimately seem to have a hard time (*rimshot*) controlling themselves and desperately want to establish some measure of control, even if it means censorship. Exhibit A (https://newsfeed.time.com/2013/07/17/man-sues-apple-for-porn-addiction/). I suspect that this "no fap" stuff descends from athletes claiming that they perform better if they hold off before the big game. This is factually incorrect. (https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-just-debunked-the-no-sex-before-sports-myth)
In addition to the usual suspects of super religious people and extreme political positions, there's a tiny subgroup of "sex-negative" people who honestly give me the willies (*double rimshot*). These people essentially consider sex acts to be inherently disgusting, degrading, and/or harmful. I gotta tell ya, that's a weird stance to take for a species that drops a deuce twice or three times a day or whatever the normal number is. Basically, sex = bad and whatever logic they have to adopt to get there, they'll adopt it. Prudes, man.
My hot take is that pornographic art isn't inherently bad, in fact it's a fertile ground for creativity, and I've seen some stuff that's a laugh riot which unfortunately I can never show another living soul. And masturbation isn't bad either - in fact, there are significant health benefits. So I don't get the outrage or censorship.
Isn't it odd that the heaviest use of porn is recorded in those areas/states that claim to be the most religious?! :)) Except it isn't really all that odd when one considerers that the religious are the most likely to lie about what they really think and feel.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 22, 2021, 06:22:40 PM
Isn't it odd that the heaviest use of porn is recorded in those areas/states that claim to be the most religious?! :)) Except it isn't really all that odd when one considerers that the religious are the most likely to lie about what they really think and feel.
A few years ago when "cuck" was the average right-winger's every third word, cuck pornography was a slightly more popular search term in right-leaning states. Definitely a lot of restroom stall tapping on that side of the aisle.
Quote from: Mike Cl on April 22, 2021, 06:22:40 PM
Isn't it odd that the heaviest use of porn is recorded in those areas/states that claim to be the most religious?! :)) Except it isn't really all that odd when one considerers that the religious are the most likely to lie about what they really think and feel.
It's funny how being told not to do something makes it all the more tempting. These people may act all holier than thou in church, but they have to delete their search history, just like everyone else. I'd rather they satisfy their urges through porn than take advantage of the choir boys. Seriously, these people are not ones to lecture on sexual purity. If I had kids, a pastor, priest, or other church staff like the worship leader would be the last person I'd trust to be alone in the same room with them. They all know that's an issue too. They just think it's an issue for
everyone else, but not my denomination, because we're the true Christians. We would never stoop so low.
As for the harmful effects of pornography, I'm open to the facts, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that it is a public health crisis. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I'm pretty sure sex crimes declined after internet porn became a thing.
Quote from: Blackleaf on April 22, 2021, 07:07:43 PMAs for the harmful effects of pornography, I'm open to the facts, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that it is a public health crisis. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, I'm pretty sure sex crimes declined after internet porn became a thing.
I dunno about that. The internet also allows predators easy access to potential victims. But on the other hand, increased awareness and decreased tolerance of sex crimes and prosecution of otherwise untouchable sex offenders in high places may be driving it down. Hard to tell for sure because sex crimes often go unreported.
I think pornography is a vice for a reason, and as such needs to be treated as such; like drugs or gambling, regulated but not restricted. People with a tendency for addiction will abuse it regardless of the legality, and we should be looking to help them rather than punish them for something we find icky.
The porn industry itself though... I like the shift towards independent pornography, due to the industries' abuse of it's workers. However there is still a lot of social and internal abuse that comes with the job, regardless of if you are working for the exploitative corporate model we grew up on or the more modern home-grown, home-made style that is really exploding over the last couple of years.
I do legitimately believe that pornography and the consumption of it is nearly as high up as greed in terms of moral failures of modern society; so much of modern art is heavily influenced by it to a certain extent at the cost of meaningful expression, because it appeals to a base instinct that the wealthy can exploit rather than a true selfless expression of the soul... and at a philosophical level I do believe it does more harm to an individual than good.
But again, the answer is cultivation of a more healthy individual through education and self-reflection, not through vindictive laws that exist only to punish those we disagree with. And perhaps there is not a scientific answer for why it is detrimental to the individual, but perhaps a scientific reason is not the only thing we should look for.
It's pretty simple in my opinion. It's old world kind of population, family, law, inheritence, class control. And it works perfectly.
If you don't brainwash people from childhood about sex in some scale; that it is bad, dirty, dangerous, that it is a sin...that only in certain circumstances they should have sex -which is related to with whom they should have sex- if you do not load some social, religious, soco-economic, class meaning and etiquette on to it, give them sexual education from a very young age and let them free with their peers, most of the people would all fuck each other randomly all their lives. At some point, they would stop thinking of in leagues of physcial traits or finance when hooking up. Traditional marriage would perish. Thats a huge shift in social life.
What happens then? The family unit would be something very different. Traditional norms would collapse. It also means the collapse of many industries, lol. The capital would get affected badly, get scattered. The class system would be affected, lol.
Defining, coding sex as something baaad is more about mass control and preserving the traditonal society. The rich 1% couldn't care less, rules are not for them. But anyone under that... ordinary people need to believe, to be afraid, restricted, herded...etc.
Sexual revolutions are dangerous, they are the doors to all kind of other revolutions...lol
Quote from: Shiranu on April 23, 2021, 02:40:18 AM
The porn industry itself though... I like the shift towards independent pornography, due to the industries' abuse of it's workers. However there is still a lot of social and internal abuse that comes with the job, regardless of if you are working for the exploitative corporate model we grew up on or the more modern home-grown, home-made style that is really exploding over the last couple of years.
I think the rise of OnlyFans has created concern for traditional porn studios and people who oppose pornography. It gives individuals complete control of the content they create and can be a lucrative home business. It doesn't address the concern some people have about sex as a product in a capitalistic system or the objectification of people.
I do think when people discuss pornography they sometimes forget money isn't involved in a lot of porn. The "boudoir photo" exchanged among romantic partners has a long history. Gay men exchange nudes or partial nudes online as a matter course. Let me add that guys with all body types do this, not just the ones with chiseled bodies.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 23, 2021, 02:40:18 AM
I think pornography is a vice for a reason, and as such needs to be treated as such; like drugs or gambling, regulated but not restricted.
Do you mean regulate production or consumption? And how?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on April 23, 2021, 05:18:56 AMIf you don't brainwash people from childhood about sex in some scale; that it is bad, dirty, dangerous, that it is a sin...that only in certain circumstances they should have sex -which is related to with whom they should have sex- if you do not load some social, religious, soco-economic, class meaning and etiquette on to it, give them sexual education from a very young age and let them free with their peers, most of the people would all fuck each other randomly all their lives.
I dunno about all that, I don't think people would naturally do it like it's the Discovery Channel lol, but afaik humans are naturally not quite monogamous (iirc, bird species are generally way more monogamous than mammals). So I'd expect people to form couples that last for months to decades, with some incidence of multiple partners.
I don't mean people would go into a global orgy mode, lol. I mean the inflicted inhibitions about sex is not just about the physical action of it. It's about who you 'should' have sex with, what kind of a person you 'should' have sex with. Personal preferences are not that personal and freely produced preferences as we wish. We learn them because they are imposed on us strongly and we feel, act according to them unconsciously.
I've observed that the less sexually inhibited environments people grow up in, the more diverse partners they choose in every way; physical traits, background, education or economic class.
E: OK, I have no idea what is going on with the last sentence, it is out of control, can't do it.
My simple solution to end porn, eliminate the need for it and the desire for it, the money and all the trappings that go with it. Make clothes disappear. Give the population about 6 months of seeing naked everywhere and pretty soon no one gets excited by a string bikini with bulging titties poking yer eye out, cause you can see everyones. And of course, as much as men might say, "hell yeah, lets do that!" we remind them, "well, you have to be naked too. "uh...wat?". No man wants to walk down the street next to a guy dragging a log between his legs. They would all tattoos themselves, "Grower, not a show-er!" LOLOL
Quote from: aitm on April 23, 2021, 11:55:32 AMNo man wants to walk down the street next to a guy dragging a log between his legs.
Don't threaten me with a good time.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 23, 2021, 02:40:18 AM
I do legitimately believe that pornography and the consumption of it is nearly as high up as greed in terms of moral failures of modern society; so much of modern art is heavily influenced by it to a certain extent at the cost of meaningful expression, because it appeals to a base instinct that the wealthy can exploit rather than a true selfless expression of the soul...
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/15/52/32/15523229e01eca7bcb0fec7ef8a23437.jpg)
Quote from: drunkenshoe on April 23, 2021, 05:18:56 AM
If you don't brainwash people from childhood about sex in some scale; that it is bad, dirty, dangerous, that it is a sin...that only in certain circumstances they should have sex -which is related to with whom they should have sex- if you do not load some social, religious, soco-economic, class meaning and etiquette on to it, give them sexual education from a very young age and let them free with their peers, most of the people would all fuck each other randomly all their lives. At some point, they would stop thinking of in leagues of physcial traits or finance when hooking up. Traditional marriage would perish. Thats a huge shift in social life.
What happens then? The family unit would be something very different. Traditional norms would collapse. It also means the collapse of many industries, lol. The capital would get affected badly, get scattered. The class system would be affected, lol.
Sexual revolutions are dangerous, they are the doors to all kind of other revolutions...lol
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/53/c4/bf/53c4bf725dcbff7e3af5174413fb5e4d.jpg)
A naked body is not inherently pornographic; almost all of those statues are related to mythological stories and figures, whereas pornography by definition is solely focused on invoking sexual arousal. Likewise it takes an infinite amount more talent to create, carve from a formless block of soft stone, the subtle form of flesh, of movement and life, than to put sexy lady on cover to sell more (insert product here) to men or have DEM ABS on an actor to draw in female views.
I know that sounds like i'm implying that's how you feel about it, but it's not; I just have met people who legitimately think those statues are too indecent and should be removed from public view because they are just nasty base things, and that brings back bad emotions.
QuoteI think the rise of OnlyFans has created concern for traditional porn studios and people who oppose pornography. It gives individuals complete control of the content they create and can be a lucrative home business. It doesn't address the concern some people have about sex as a product in a capitalistic system or the objectification of people.
Yeah, I'm really not sure the role porn studios serve in today's world; there will always be a place for them I'm sure, but more and more it seems like people prefer models they can interact with (and thus spend far more money on them).
My guess is these studios will shift more towards providing stages, costumes, props, co-stars for these actresses/actors and take a cut of the profits rather than the traditional salaried system they used... and more than likely will be in close relationship with the big sites to make sure that their models are promoted ahead of actual indie models.
QuoteI do think when people discuss pornography they sometimes forget money isn't involved in a lot of porn. The "boudoir photo" exchanged among romantic partners has a long history. Gay men exchange nudes or partial nudes online as a matter course. Let me add that guys with all body types do this, not just the ones with chiseled bodies.
That's true, I never really consider that pornography even though by definition it is.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 23, 2021, 04:24:12 PM
That's true, I never really consider that pornography even though by definition it is.
Exchange of explicit photos between minors, and sometimes unfortunately minors and adults, is very common and can have severe social and legal consequences, as it is often considered creation and distribution of child pornography.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 23, 2021, 04:11:37 PMA naked body is not inherently pornographic; almost all of those statues are related to mythological stories and figures, whereas pornography by definition is solely focused on invoking sexual arousal.
I dunno if that's necessarily true. I've seen stuff that could certainly be framed if it was less explicit. And as I alluded to earlier, there's some humor to be found as well.
I've never seen anyone very well define exactly what porn is, and I doubt I will here, because it seems to have a fuzzy boundary.
QuoteI know that sounds like i'm implying that's how you feel about it, but it's not; I just have met people who legitimately think those statues are too indecent and should be removed from public view because they are just nasty base things, and that brings back bad emotions.
Quite so. There's a certain amount of subjectivity - some of the more prudish among us may put their hands in front of their kids eyes when walking by some of those nude statues, while others might take a hammer to them in defense of modesty if the opportunity presented itself.
Imo, the reason nude statues provoke less of a reaction than other nudes may be due to context and upbringing - these statues are understood primarily as works of art - surrounded by other art - belonging with other art. And so it's viewed with less eroticism than it otherwise might. If I were to sneak a genuinely pornographic nude into the louvre (something appropriately tasteful and requiring genuine talent), that might be enough for it to blend in and be viewed as just another work of art.
QuoteI dunno if that's necessarily true. I've seen stuff that could certainly be framed if it was less explicit.
I think it could be argued then that it's not pornography, as the creator (assumingly) intended it to be not just sexually arousing but visually appeasing as well... something meant to be appreciated (bluntly) regardless of if it gives you a boner or not.
Of course it then leads to the age old question; what is art, and who gets to decide what is or isn't?
QuoteI've never seen anyone very well define exactly what porn is, and I doubt I will here, because it seems to have a fuzzy boundary.
I look at it through the lens that it is any product solely intended to arouse people, and in my personal opinion it should really only apply to things presented as a product (rather than the example of two individuals sending nudes to one another). If that counts, then whenever a girl dances in lingerie for her partner, is that pornography? What about a man walking around with his shirt off and muscles bulging to attract women?
It's unfortunate that we don't have a true working definition, because it's impossible to solve a problem before you can even define it... but I doubt society will ever really want to sit down and collectively decide what we want pornography to mean.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 23, 2021, 06:42:09 PMI think it could be argued then that it's not pornography, as the creator (assumingly) intended it to be not just sexually arousing but visually appeasing as well... something meant to be appreciated (bluntly) regardless of if it gives you a boner or not.
It doesn't cease to be porn, it's a combination of porn and something else.
QuoteOf course it then leads to the age old question; what is art, and who gets to decide what is or isn't?
That's a very good question to which I have no real answer. I could guess and say that it's something that the community finds aesthetically pleasing, but that doesn't seem quite right.
QuoteI look at it through the lens that it is any product solely intended to arouse people, and in my personal opinion it should really only apply to things presented as a product (rather than the example of two individuals sending nudes to one another). If that counts, then whenever a girl dances in lingerie for her partner, is that pornography? What about a man walking around with his shirt off and muscles bulging to attract women?
Good questions. Yet another way in which the definition of porn as provoking arousal isn't quite right - there's arousing stuff that isn't normally considered pornographic.
QuoteIt's unfortunate that we don't have a true working definition, because it's impossible to solve a problem before you can even define it... but I doubt society will ever really want to sit down and collectively decide what we want pornography to mean.
True enough.
Pornography is another one of those words like art or beauty. It is hard to define, but you know it when you see it--or so they say. I don't know how many times my wife or a friend would say something like--that's a beautiful woman. Often I reply that no, she is not beautiful, but she is attractive (or even plain). Beauty is simply a matter of taste. My idea of beauty is not always what others think of it as. So too, with pornography or art; it is a matter of taste. I absolutely hate Picasso and I do not consider him to be a good artist. I also don't consider man/woman sex acts as porn. Mix in violence, and then it becomes porn. Porn has a negative connotation and so anything labeled as porn is not good. As far as I'm concerned the entire Rep. party is porn--the violent type. I don't think porn will ever be universally defined; it changes with almost every individual.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 23, 2021, 04:11:37 PM
pornography by definition is solely focused on invoking sexual arousal.
If someone makes a porn video and no one is aroused does it cease to be pornography? #pornfails ðŸ˜
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 23, 2021, 09:03:05 PM
If someone makes a porn video and no one is aroused does it cease to be pornography? #pornfails ðŸ˜
Intention vs result; it would still be pornographic even if humanity ceased to exist, just like a car is still a car even if no one is around to have driven it.
Quote from: Hydra009It doesn't cease to be porn, it's a combination of porn and something else.
I couldn't think how to answer Hydra on this earlier, but the earlier quote kick-started my mind back up...
It would logically cease to be porn; pornography only refers to, in the definitions I've seen, things that solely are produced to get a sexual response; so if it is also produced with the intention of being found aesthetically pleasing it would no longer be pornography as it has more than one certain goal.
I would guess the new category it would fall under is sensual or erotic, which then opens up a whole nother' can of worms on what those mean.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 23, 2021, 09:24:38 PM
Intention vs result; it would still be pornographic even if humanity ceased to exist, just like a car is still a car even if no one is around to have driven it.
I agree, I was just kidding.
Pornography, art, taboos... it's all very subjective and subject to the whims of culture. I'm solidly opposed to censorship but adult material (erotica, explicit violence, substance use, etc.) needs to be contained in adult spaces. There can then be conversations on the risks and benefits of pornography, the intersection of erotic material and art, the moral implications of sexual expression, and such. I'm particularly interested in how people tend to have an instinctual feeling that certain things, like pornography, are base/carnal/degenerative and certain things are elevated/virtuous/pure. It's part of the psychology of disgust and underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple that can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions).
If something captures your attention and engages you, provide you an emotional discharge; put you in catharsis, push-move you in some way, I think it's safe to say that it is art. Thanks to Wittgenstein, art is defined as 'cannot be defined' because that would require to define the circumstances, conditions of creating an 'art work' which has countless variations that constantly change and art itself has fundamentally changed over and over again. It looks and 'accepted' like an impossibility. (I think there was a return to it to push the topic recently -20 years so, period?- but I have no idea of it... I haven't followed anything in the last decade.)
Consider the traditonal art generally. If you are interested in it, you spend time with it. You look at more and more pieces, you collect experiences of many art works. That creates a repository in your mind, and a third eye if you will. As art historians say, you become a 'citizen of the art world' in time. The interesting part is that at some point, what you enjoy as art, what you find 'beautiful', 'meaningful' as art; your understanding of aesthetics changes; it 'matures'.
Concerning pornography, I've seen adult men talking about the evolution of their porn taste and tendencies according to age periods in their lives. The common idea -the generalisation- was that while in adolescence they were interested in hentai -or plastic, augmented, unnatural female features and exaggerated actions- at some point at some age, they 'graduated' to the realistic female figures and what's called amauteur porn, because the work over all, obviously gives a more genuine feeling.
This really kind of reminds me the deal with the evolution of art experience I tried to describe above crudely. I personally even think that one of the reasons 'amateur' porn has become the main genre because we finally have passed the 'renaissance' or 'baroque' with exaggerated forms in sexual action and reach the individualistic, realistic period.
Yes, it is very different. Yes there is the intention to arouse and provide physical realese, but then why do we choose between very similar scenes if that's the only thing with porn? Why just the face expression affects our preferences? Or choose that one to watch first? Why does something we found very arousing at some time lose all its allure later while the content stays the same?
On the other hand, what kind of arousal and (emotional) discharge we get when we find something -nonsexual- that engages our attention that we really enjoy? People game hours and hours on end. People watch tv series and movies hours and hours on end. Isn't that 'pornographic' in terms of consumption?
Could it it be that 'porn' is actually -or has become- some sort of a quality that is independent from the product itself, more related to the ways of its consumption, but seen-defined differently because the content is a real physical display of the main taboo(s)? (And well, needlessly to say that the industry has serious, life altering consequences for people in it and so other real life concerns.)
So I think we arrive to the evolution of the general culture (of consumption) again as a problem, more than the qualities of the product itself.
I say porn isn't a vice or a sin it's basic necessity of life. Like any basic necessity it should be looked at moderately because too much leads to mental or physical disorders. I say basic necessity because not all of us have partners and or need help with arousal or just need a hit if you know what I'm saying.
The porn industry, I think needs fixing because it is often tied with corruption, sex trafficking, and sex offenders. Those people known for this activity are part of the problem and the other percentage should go to rich and wealthy profiteers and public norms and perception of gender and class and or ethnicity. Politics also plays a part in this and just like he who must not be named said "if your a celebrity...you can grab 'em by the pussy" and not get caught. This quote was brushed of by his followers because it is assumed in the public that its okay to make a dirty "joke" because if you have the money, power or fame you can get away with anything. This corruption along with ethnical, gender, and class oppressions leads into the cycle of identity theft that is spread in numerous topic like abortion for example. These corrupted people are accepted by the public and because people accept it it draws in like minded corrupt individuals who see all of this as encouragement.
I don't think it's a health crisis or a moral crisis. We have bigger fish to fry. Look at our country. Riots in the national Capitol, corruption in government, racism, mass murder, and a dysfunctional political system. I'm not going to worry about naked people.
Quote from: Shiranu on April 23, 2021, 09:24:38 PMIt would logically cease to be porn; pornography only refers to, in the definitions I've seen, things that solely are produced to get a sexual response; so if it is also produced with the intention of being found aesthetically pleasing it would no longer be pornography as it has more than one certain goal.
That only makes sense if you're married to the idea that porn is only arousing rather the idea that porn is arousing. That very slight difference allows for the possibility of multiple properties.
The moral crisis is the puzzling sexual repression of uber religions. People are just so goddamned stupid.
If you are againist porn, and want to protect your children from porn; explain the evils about it and simply install a protection barrier on your browser.
There is a huge social engineering, and re-constructing of minds. Is it their moral duty to protect the public health? PUBLIC HEALTH. Who are you and what is your capacity to take this moral duty?
Quote from: SoldierofFortune on August 05, 2021, 10:48:53 PMIf you are againist porn, and want to protect your children from porn; explain the evils about it and simply install a protection barrier on your browser.
The best porn-blockers in the world can be defeated by the most persistent 12-year-olds (or whatever the normal number is)
QuoteThere is a huge social engineering, and re-constructing of minds. Is it their moral duty to protect the public health? PUBLIC HEALTH. Who are you and what is your capacity to take this moral duty?
Indeed, it is a heavy load that I'm not so sure these people can quite take. Shaky conclusions built on even shakier premises. Real health crises are self-evident; this is more like outlawing something on the grounds that someone doesn't approve of it, which is the exact same reasoning the Taliban uses. They need to prove that porn is harmful, (and on the other hand, that masturbation is harmful) and next, that it can be blocked for everyone, and finally, that this is a desirable outcome.
Quote from: Hydra009 on August 05, 2021, 11:34:44 PM
The best porn-blockers in the world can be defeated by the most persistent 12-year-olds (or whatever the normal number is)
Indeed, it is a heavy load that I'm not so sure these people can quite take. Shaky conclusions built on even shakier premises. Real health crises are self-evident; this is more like outlawing something on the grounds that someone doesn't approve of it, which is the exact same reasoning the Taliban uses. They need to prove that porn is harmful, (and on the other hand, that masturbation is harmful) and next, that it can be blocked for everyone, and finally, that this is a desirable outcome.
In a society whose members internalize the true requirements of Democracy, It is by rational arguments and by persuasion to make other members convinced of your point of wiev on anything and everything. If they disagree with you, they contribute their arguments, and there is no an internal need for settlement. Wide variety of opinions must exist, in a democratic society, so the culture flourishing around a true democracy is the way to true civilization. Every society and even every community has a culture, a culture doesnt necessarily lead to a civilization, in the way we understand civilisation in this age.
But brainwashed radicals who think of their understanding on the best way to live the life, even afterlife, their first approach is to kindly call for joining them. If you disagree with their ideology, other tactics may be adopted.
I dont understand the hysteria that everybody in the world must think in the way i think. And Every way of persuasion either kindly inviting or by threatening or really using force. There is us and Others. This binary dual has two facets, you are either for me or againist me.
Sigh... where to start on this
Quote from: GSOgymrat on April 22, 2021, 05:07:16 PM
I noticed that anti-porn activists have recently been citing pornography as a "public health crisis." As Rebecca Watson points out, these Biblical literalists have no problems with science as long as it doesn't challenge their cherished beliefs,
That's quite a non-sequitur if I ever saw one. "Anti-porn" has no relation to "Biblical literalist", and porn is never mentioned in the Bible, nor is masturbation ever mentioned directly.
I suppose you think that Iceland - where the majority of people believe in the scientific account of the universe's origin - is "Biblical literalist" now, do you?
"Iceland's strip club ban. A feminist victory?"https://theweek.com/articles/495682/icelands-strip-club-ban-feminist-victory
"Iceland's porn ban conflicts with the idea of a 'free society', say critics"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/feb/28/iceland-porn-ban-free-society
Quote
such as sex is bad, bad, BAD.
No, unless you're talking about a sect such as the Cathar Perfecti, the Shakers or the Skoptsy - who believed that all sex and childbirth was evil (supposedly because the material world was created by the Devil, or a malevolent or imperfect deity known as the Demiurge). Other than that, the only people I'm aware of who think that "sex is bad" would be heavy porn users, since porn isn't "sex" to begin with but merely titrating images. They'd apparently rather watch than participate.
Quote
“Politicians cite science tactically, not sincerely: ‘You can’t say anymore, ‘We want to get rid of porn because of its wickedness.â€
Oh yes you can - there are plenty of obscenity laws on the books not only in the US but in the rest of the world. And nations such as Australia have done prosecutions related to pornography possession in recent history.
Not to mention how rather banal this is, since it doesn't even attempt to touch on the axioms or rationales by which porn would be considered to be "wicked" or "unethical" in the first place. Maybe murder isn't the best comparison, but it's more than apparent what the inherent reasons that murder - as opposed to petting a puppy dog" is considered wicked or unethical.
Quote
But it’s completely legitimate to say, “We want to get rid of porn because it’s a public health crisis like opioids or meth.’†Unfortunately for the prude brigade, there is no good science that proves pornography is bad for individuals or society.
As ambiguous and dishonestly used as subjective popsci terms like "good science" are (as well as dishonestly treating the natural and social sciences as existing "in a vacuum", apart from the philosophical, cultural, ethical, aesthetic, and other issues which are likely more important factors to begin with). I'll wager that science, properly gathered and interpreted does affirm that porn is bad for individuals and society, and that proponents will simply use cherry-picked science, or "studies" funded by porn companies themselves to force their shaky view, while intentionally ignoring the significant scientific, cultural, philosophical, ethical, and aesthetic evidence to the contrary.
For one, porn, masturbation, or banal sex - particularly as a "lifestyle" - is from a socio-cultural perspective antithetical to sciences, arts, innovation or other higher human endeavors. Our earliest human ancestors obviously knew how to masturbate (even without porn), and if they had never shifted their interests away from pleasuring themselves to inventing sciences, mathematics, arts, technology, and so on - we would all still be living as cavemen. So if anything, "repression" of mankind's higher nature and inclination toward civilizational accomplishments is arguably much worse than whatever ambiguously defined notions of "sexual repression" might arise from not looking at porn (and one must be "sexually repressed" and incel-ish beyond all hope if porn, masturbation, or sexual "experimentation" is their only remedy for it).
Quote
Rebecca Watson also discusses people, some of whom are atheists, who believe "no fap" gives one superpowers. I'm not on Reddit but I vaguely remember reading something about this fad. I confess back when I was a sophomore in college I did this experiment after studying addictions and wondering if I would have trouble not masturbating. I initially decided to stop for a month but then kept going. After five months I had sex with someone and that ended the streak. Not masturbating wasn't difficult and I noticed no changes in my mood, focus, physical ability and sadly didn't acquire telekinesis.
Well that's hardly a "scientific" study, but rather a very personally subjective one. And no sane person believes that not masturbating gives them "super powers". If anything it's probably more akin to a "competition", like one of David Blane's exhibitions, where the only goal is to prove how long you can go without doing it. If anything, those incels and professional masturbators who think they'll become "Wizards" if they make it to age 30 without experiencing an orgasm other than from masturbation is a better example.
Quote
I agree with this psychotherapist (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-sex-and-relationships/202104/the-myths-about-pornography):
Right, the source has "psychology" in the title, and despite not being in anyway (legally or otherwise) medical, perscriptive, or releveant whatsoever - it must be true because "psychology". (When just a few decades a good, "consensuses" in psychology and psychiatry was that homosexuality was a paraphilia or mental disorder - some opinion I'm assuming you would have opposed even if it was considered psychologically valid at the time.
Quote
- Pornography is not an addiction.
Of course. Pornography is a consumer product, it's usage is the addition.
Quote
- Pornography does not cause sexual, relationship, or mental health problems.
I'd wager that pornography does cause sexual, relationship, and mental health problems (regardless of what idiosyncratic definition of "caused" is so ambiguously being used, or abused, to begin with.
Quote
- The anti-porn movement ignores the science of sexology.
No, I'd wager the pro-porn movement ignores the dynamic and changing science of sexology, as well as sciences of the cultural, the aesthetic, the consumptive, and the more significant issues than whatever isolated little tidbits of "sexology" are being misused to force an inept conclusion while ignoring everything else.
Quote
- If you struggle with your pornography use, seek a therapist who is sex-positive and doesn't work with the addiction framework.
Sigh... "sex-positive" is such a false and erroneous term. What's falsely being called "sex-positive", is in actually "sex-negative", since it's predicated on a banal view of sex as a mere, atomistic form of stimulation, which completely removes the seduction, romance, mystery and greater human and socio-cultural aspects from the process.
The so-called "anti-porn" views are actually the "sex-positive" ones, since they're concerned about the cultural and aesthetic aspects of sex and romance in which sex and romantic love occurs, rather than reducing "sex" to a banal and isolated consumer product. Essentially the "pro-porn" or "sex-negative" side views sex as a dollar menu burger; the "anti-porn" or "sex-positive" side views it as a slice of filet mignon served with a fine glass of chardonnay.