Is Porn Bad for You?

[compared2what?]

What is really at issue i think is what role personal values and self-responsibility should play in the type/source/content of porn consumed.

I hear you. I just don't see any way of getting at that directly via public policy.

I'm for anarchy in the bedroom. As long as it's consensual and adult. So if I'm not one of the adults whose consent is required, I don't really have any opinion on that issue, pro or con, that goes much further than: A world full of responsible adults with considered personal values sounds like a good idea, in theory.
________
ON EDIT: Noted.

[Hammer of Los]

...

Only Project Willow, canadian_watcher, blanc and of course, that wisest of birds, Wintler2, seem to have much of any problem at all with the ENORMOUS proliferation of porn on the internet, much of which I am certain IS exploitative. By which I mean very likely harmful to producers and consumers alike.

And anyway, I think your math is a little off there. By my count, going back to page one, the birds flock like so:

Porn is very exploitative -- Every poster to the thread agrees.

Porn is bad and bad for you -- On different but somewhat overlapping grounds, yourself, wintler2, blanc, brekin (TO WHOM I OWE MAJOR AMENDS), the lamented and much-missed Username, and (presumably) Canadian_watcher. And, I think, undead.

The proliferation of online porn is a unique social menace. Burn it! -- Yourself, brekin, blanc.

Posters to this thread are a bunch of old farts who are living in the past -- Luther Blissett, Kool Maudit

I'm about the love -- 82_28

Here's an interesting article -- Semper Occultus, American Dream, Sounder, others.

Porn was violently, traumatically abusive for me as a child -- sw ( )

Something about Sea Hag -- Hugh

An excellent name for an imaginary gay male porn star -- L. Pletcher Fruity

Porn is highly problematic in a way that opens a window onto a variety of personal and social issues that are, in one way (and/or another, and/or both) emblematic of larger related concerns, but we can't say that pornography or its consumption are categorically bad -- Self, barracuda, Nordic, Willow, JackRiddler, Simulist, slomo, wintler2 and maybe Perelandra, but I'm not sure.

Undeclared, but probably leaning negative -- Elihu, Alaya, annie aronburg.

Thoughtful, uncommitted -- Searcher08, smiths, stefano, basically all the "s" posters except for slomo and Simulist, plus norton ash.

What are we even talking about here? -- Yathrib

Bonobos -- jfshade

Fun, compelling, opaque -- IanEye

(To be completed at a later date.)

Corrections welcome.

ON EDIT: And one made.

That's a good and thought provoking summation.

But it's easy to be misunderstood.

I would never have chosen to describe my position thusly:

The proliferation of online porn is a unique social menace. Burn it!

Actually, I agree more closely with:

Porn is highly problematic in a way that opens a window onto a variety of personal and social issues that are, in one way (and/or another, and/or both) emblematic of larger related concerns, but we can't say that pornography or its consumption are categorically bad

ps I just wonder whether it would do people good if they did burn it.

[compared2what?]

Noted.

[Spiro C. Thiery]

...

Only Project Willow, canadian_watcher, blanc and of course, that wisest of birds, Wintler2, seem to have much of any problem at all with the ENORMOUS proliferation of porn on the internet, much of which I am certain IS exploitative. By which I mean very likely harmful to producers and consumers alike.

And anyway, I think your math is a little off there. By my count, going back to page one, the birds flock like so:

Porn is very exploitative -- Every poster to the thread agrees.

Porn is bad and bad for you -- On different but somewhat overlapping grounds, yourself, wintler2, blanc, brekin (TO WHOM I OWE MAJOR AMENDS), the lamented and much-missed Username, and (presumably) Canadian_watcher. And, I think, undead.

The proliferation of online porn is a unique social menace. Burn it! -- Yourself, brekin, blanc.

Posters to this thread are a bunch of old farts who are living in the past -- Luther Blissett, Kool Maudit

I'm about the love -- 82_28

Here's an interesting article -- Semper Occultus, American Dream, Sounder, others.

Porn was violently, traumatically abusive for me as a child -- sw ( )

Something about Sea Hag -- Hugh

An excellent name for an imaginary gay male porn star -- L. Pletcher Fruity

Porn is highly problematic in a way that opens a window onto a variety of personal and social issues that are, in one way (and/or another, and/or both) emblematic of larger related concerns, but we can't say that pornography or its consumption are categorically bad -- Self, barracuda, Nordic, Willow, JackRiddler, Simulist, slomo, wintler2 and maybe Perelandra, but I'm not sure.

Undeclared, but probably leaning negative -- Elihu, Alaya, annie aronburg.

Thoughtful, uncommitted -- Searcher08, smiths, stefano, basically all the "s" posters except for slomo and Simulist, plus norton ash.

What are we even talking about here? -- Yathrib

Bonobos -- jfshade

Fun, compelling, opaque -- IanEye

Porn is highly problematic in a way that opens a window onto a variety of personal and social issues that are, in one way (and/or another, and/or both) emblematic of larger related concerns, but I can't say that pornography or its consumption are categorically bad and just wonder whether it would do people good if they did burn it. -- Hammer of Los

(To be completed at a later date.)

Corrections welcome.

ON EDIT: And one two made.

I suppose one might find my comment in this section:
Porn is highly problematic in a way that opens a window onto a variety of personal and social issues that are, in one way (and/or another, and/or both) emblematic of larger related concerns, but we can't say that pornography or its consumption are categorically bad
But as generalizations tend to, I think it misses a more crucial point.

[BrandonD]

IMO porn is an addiction or compulsion, and all such things are symptoms of a psychological disorder or imbalance, rather than the cause.

In a general social context, contemporary males are given idols and heroes that are powerful, and yet they themselves are taught they are powerless and discouraged from expressing themselves honestly. This breeds passivity, fearfulness and apathy, the man is unable to confront the world directly and thus must retreat into fantasy to find the feeling of power he desperately seeks.

To want a woman is perfectly natural, and if a man saw himself as powerful he would simply confront the world directly and pursue what he wants in reality. Every conceivable type of man - ugly, fat, whatever - is successfully getting a good-looking woman every day. It is impossible for no one, and so no one has a legitimate excuse for not confronting reality. All time spent in passive, idle imagination is time wasted.

The point of this rambling is that porn is not the problem, from my point of view. If we men would express ourselves honestly out in the real world (which is often not nice or politically correct or pleasant) and see ourselves as rightfully powerful and able to confront the world and take it on, then we would not waste time imagining things that could actually be happening in reality right now.

It seems to me that anyone who insists that porn is the root problem is in fact a disguised puritan who in reality thinks that sex itself is the problem. Which is a whole other discussion.

[Luther Blissett]

Posters to this thread are a bunch of old farts who are living in the past -- Luther Blissett, Kool Maudit

Sorry about that! I don't mean to be so nasty. For what it's worth, porn did temporarily ruin an already-ruined someone who was very close to me. I do think a lot of it is exploitative, just less so now, and those old modes are less popular, especially with young people.

I just think that we're currently undergoing a lowercase-s lowercase-r sexual revolution in terms of pornography and that we will soon be seeing more eradication of those more particularly exploitative modes. I think the deeper target should be fascist sexuality as simplified root cause.

[Wombaticus Rex]

It seems to me that anyone who insists that porn is the root problem is in fact a disguised puritan who in reality thinks that sex itself is the problem. Which is a whole other discussion.

But also a hilarious point to reach on the 37th page of the discussion.

My own stance is pretty straightforward: Porn is. I appreciate all the links, having just spent the morning reading this entire thread. The Martin Amis articles especially.

[compared2what?]

Posters to this thread are a bunch of old farts who are living in the past -- Luther Blissett, Kool Maudit

Sorry about that! I don't mean to be so nasty. For what it's worth, porn did temporarily ruin an already-ruined someone who was very close to me. I do think a lot of it is exploitative, just less so now, and those old modes are less popular, especially with young people.

I just think that we're currently undergoing a lowercase-s lowercase-r sexual revolution in terms of pornography and that we will soon be seeing more eradication of those more particularly exploitative modes. I think the deeper target should be fascist sexuality as simplified root cause.

I was joking on myself, sweetheart, not you. I appreciated your posts, which weren't nasty at all.

ON EDIT: Further revisions made. But seriously, y'all, I was mostly just funning. So don't feel assailed unnecessarily, and if anyone feels offended or misrepresented, please let me know.

[compared2what?]

It seems to me that anyone who insists that porn is the root problem is in fact a disguised puritan who in reality thinks that sex itself is the problem. Which is a whole other discussion.

BrandonD? In the spirit of love and justice, meekly:

It doesn't seem that way to you for no reason at all, because the contemporary organized anti-porn movement -- which drives and frames the discussion as it occurs in the media -- is pretty much entirely run and funded by Big-Christian-Right types (Focus on the Family, etc.). So it's not like I'm saying you're just seeing things there, or anything.

But this has been a very fractious discussion. So I'd like to say, on behalf of the posters to this thread who do see porn as a root problem of some kind, that I think "anyone" is much too inclusive a term to be fair or accurate in this context. Personally, I can easily see how there would be many non-puritans and/or other non-sexually-uptight people to whom the standard rhetoric and basic talking points that get deployed at, say, the Daily Mail/Psychology Today level would read as if they were saying that porn was a threat to sexuality, rather than that it was a sexual threat. In the classical sense of that term.

Anyway. Just doing my part to err on the side of caution wrt the impartial avoidance of all appearances of ideological badjacketing. There was absolutely nothing wrong with what you said and (as I understood it) meant. It just seemed to me like it might be capable of misconstruction. And if I had to name just one area of capability in which virtually all RI posters excel, that might well be the one.

We should have a misconstrual (Miss Construal?) competition, in fact. And, yeah, I am saying that in part because I think I just might have a shot at the crown. I mean, I guess I'd settle for the Miss Guided sash, if I absolutely had to. But I'd probably try to make it clear by the extra-artificiality of my poor-sport frozen smile that I wasn't exactly happy about the judging.

[BrandonD]

But also a hilarious point to reach on the 37th page of the discussion.

My own stance is pretty straightforward: Porn is. I appreciate all the links, having just spent the morning reading this entire thread. The Martin Amis articles especially.

Hilarious? Ok.

I'm not really interested enough in this subject to read 37 pages of discussion/debate. I read the OP's initial post and he seemed to be interested in getting a wide variety of opinions on the subject, so I gave my 2 cents.

"Porn is" - does this mean "Porn is (bad for you)", or are you invoking a sort of buddhist non-dualistic stance?

[BrandonD]

BrandonD? In the spirit of love and justice, meekly:

It doesn't seem that way to you for no reason at all, because the contemporary organized anti-porn movement -- which drives and frames the discussion as it occurs in the media -- is pretty much entirely run and funded by Big-Christian-Right types (Focus on the Family, etc.). So it's not like I'm saying you're just seeing things there, or anything.

But this has been a very fractious discussion. So I'd like to say, on behalf of the posters to this thread who do see porn as a root problem of some kind, that I think "anyone" is much too inclusive a term to be fair or accurate in this context. Personally, I can easily see how there would be many non-puritans and/or other non-sexually-uptight people to whom the standard rhetoric and basic talking points that get deployed at, say, the Daily Mail/Psychology Today level would read as if they were saying that porn was a threat to sexuality, rather than that it was a sexual threat. In the classical sense of that term.

Anyway. Just doing my part to err on the side of caution wrt the impartial avoidance of all appearances of ideological badjacketing. There was absolutely nothing wrong with what you said and (as I understood it) meant. It just seemed to me like it might be capable of misconstruction. And if I had to name just one area of capability in which virtually all RI posters excel, that might well be the one.

We should have a misconstrual (Miss Construal?) competition, in fact. And, yeah, I am saying that in part because I think I just might have a shot at the crown. I mean, I guess I'd settle for the Miss Guided sash, if I absolutely had to. But I'd probably try to make it clear by the extra-artificiality of my poor-sport frozen smile that I wasn't exactly happy about the judging.

Thank you for the constructive comments, I try to avoid over-generalizing when I can help it, but clearly sometimes I slip up!

[Hammer of Los]

...

"Porn is" - does this mean "Porn is (bad for you)", or are you invoking a sort of buddhist non-dualistic stance?

Now, whilst I would never be so presumptuous to even attempt to speak on behalf of the mighty wombat, I would guess that, yes, he was.

One of the strengths of this board are the many members adept at non dualist modes of thought.

It's always worth remembering that there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.

That's not one of my own.

However, this certainly does apply to me:

Posters to this thread are a bunch of old farts who are living in the past.

I will add that I am too old to rock and roll, but too young to die. Oh, and I like living in the past.

[BrandonD]

One of the strengths of this board are the many members adept at non dualist modes of thought.

That's definitely refreshing to hear

[Wombaticus Rex]

I also laugh a lot, don't think I'm laughing at you, so much as with the Universe. You make astute points and write well. I think it's wonderful that 37 pages of discussion could unravel such primal and powerful stuff.

[BrandonD]

I also laugh a lot, don't think I'm laughing at you, so much as with the Universe. You make astute points and write well. I think it's wonderful that 37 pages of discussion could unravel such primal and powerful stuff.

Thanks for the response. I've also noticed that I respond to certain subjects because I'm actually curious what my own position is. I seem to discover my own position through the process of writing about it.