Truth about Porn

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

As for second question. Klaz seemed to suggest that men are encouraged to blow off, repress, take it on the chin...deragatory remarks. Take it like a man and all that.

Tell me something... if a woman that weighed close to the same as you, similar strength etc. come over to you and hit you in the face while in a public setting, how would you react? And how would the people watching react?

Now replace woman with man, and consider the differences.

Our society has a very strong double standard when it comes to women. A lot of what they do is ignored simply because we haven't figured out how to deal with it, or just don't want to deal with it. And therefore that has an affect on how people act in our society.

If a man hit me, as a man I would be expected in most circumstances to hit back... If a woman hit me, I would be expected in every circumstance not to hit back. It doesn't matter if the woman is twice my weight and strength. I am a man and a man does not hit a woman [I know it does happen, but not as generally accepted practice].

And that standard exists in many forms throughout our whole society. Generally speaking if a man and a woman is accused together the man will receive most of the attention. Just as with this thread on porn, its the mens desires that are put on display, and not the womens desires. Its the men that are twisted by watching porn, but no real focus on whether the women are twisted. Or that the women that work in porn are damaged in some way (and thus to be protected) and the men are in it for the sex.

These double standards are entwined throughout our whole society. And throughout our legal system too. Isn't it great to be a man!

metrovelvet wrote: »

As I said I dont think the Irish public would give a damn who slapped these women, man or woman.

I can guarantee that if a woman is hit by a guy outside a nightclub (unless they're complete and utter scum, and obviously so) some guy will step in to stop it. I've done so myself in my younger years, as have most of my friends at one time or another. We don't step in for two guys fighting, and stay away from two girls fighting (since we know they're just as likely to both turn on the guy as stop]. But if a guy hits a girl... thats thought to be a very different situation.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

As I said I dont think the Irish public would give a damn who slapped these women, man or woman.

And again, it is easy to take such examples and then pretend that the Irish public would react the same for the other 99.9% of cases - I suggest you concentrate on those rather straw men.

But I'm not sure violence is always about losing control of your feelings, so I'm not sure how it ties in with what your saying.

Physical violence is merely the most visible example of societal attitudes towards male or female control of their emotions. And what that society says is that it's ok for women to lose it but not for men.

So to answer your original question which was whether boys and men are socialized to desensitize, the answer is yes in so far as we are socialized to control our emotions, and thus desensitize them, to a far greater degree. Meanwhile women are still not required to do so, because of a social throwback that saw them on the same level as children.

metrovelvet

Leaving out weaponry,who do you think can do more damage?

The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote: »

So to answer your original question which was whether boys and men are socialized to desensitize, the answer is yes in so far as we are socialized to control our emotions, and thus desensitize them, to a far greater degree. Meanwhile women are still not required to do so, because of a social throwback that saw them on the same level as children.

I wonder have any of ye guys/gals been to Japan, Korea or China yet? I don't quite mean travel but stay there for a few months. The culture regarding women is that they're girls. Even into their 40's they're still trying to be girls. The best compliment is to call them a a girl, not a woman. They speak with fake girly accents, and dress to make such an appearance, because thats their version of beauty, but also it guarantees them a form of protection in the world.

The west had that too in spades up to a few decades ago. And then women wanted to be free, to emerge independent and to take control of their lives. Great. Couldn't agree more. But society didn't really change enough to maintain a balance. Instead women gained their independence but retained the protection they would have received previously. Have you ever noticed how the men in an office will generally seek to protect the female workers? At least I've seen it both from an emotional and practical standpoint. We seek to protect women in all things. And yet we're equal. But ultimately through their childhood, their teens and into their twenties our society promotes the attitude that females are girls, and girls need to be protected.

And thats what we have here. I love Asia because they haven't got this double standard. Yes, there are many women who seek professional jobs or leave the traditional lifestyles but they know the sacrifices they need to make to do so, and accept them. They understand that if they dress as professionally strong women, then they can't expect to be protected the same as the dolly schoolgirl (even if they're both in their 30's). And men aren't confused about how things stand either.

Sure there are loads of issues with their society, but then even taking out gender issues in our own society, there's plenty of other problems floating around. But in this one area, of gender issues/balance, I do prefer the Asian approach, and i seriously hope they don't make the same mistakes western culture did, while giving women the opportunity to choose independence for themselves. (rather than being forced on them by the majority)

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

So to answer your original question which was whether boys and men are socialized to desensitize, the answer is yes in so far as we are socialized to control our emotions, and thus desensitize them, to a far greater degree. Meanwhile women are still not required to do so, because of a social throwback that saw them on the same level as children.

Or maybe both stereotypes are wrong?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Leaving out weaponry,who do you think can do more damage?

Depends on the man and the woman. On average probably the man, but certainly not in all cases, but to suggest that this somehow justifies lack of control on the part of women is a little looney-tunes, if you don't mind me saying - "a woman need not hold back because on average she will do less damage than a man. She'll still injure, cripple or even kill, but on average not as well as a man." :rolleyes:

Still, we're not really talking about physical violence, but control over emotion and how one gender is socialized to suppress or control it while the other is socialized to let it loose, apparently without consequence.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

Or maybe both stereotypes are wrong?

Naturally you can't stereotype either, just as you can't say that a man will always be stronger and more physically dangerous than a woman, but you can say that society does seek to tend towards those stereotypes.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Naturally you can't stereotype either, just as you can't say that a man will always be stronger and more physically dangerous than a woman, but you can say that society does seek to tend towards those stereotypes.

Sorry, I meant stereotypes over emotions of the sexes. Personally I believe neither one is right.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

Sorry, I meant stereotypes over emotions of the sexes. Personally I believe neither one is right.

So you disagree than men are socialized to suppress or control their emotions, while women are not?

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

So you disagree than men are socialized to suppress or control their emotions, while women are not?

No, but I believe neither stereotype you outlined is the correct way!

Basically, both sexes approach are wrong!

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, but I believe neither stereotype you outlined is the correct way!

Basically, both sexes approach are wrong!

I agree. You would have thought Gail Dines and her ilk would put more effort in areas such as this rather than seeking misogynistic conspiracies in porn.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I agree. You would have thought Gail Dines and her ilk would put more effort in areas such as this rather than seeking misogynistic conspiracies in porn.

I think instead of whinging about this, more effort should be put into girls standing up for themselves and not be peer pressured by acne riddled teenage boys into doing what theyve seen in the internet.

And.... Lets face it sex and the city, not porn, is responsible for the now co mmon hairless pussy, aka the brazillian.and probably accountable for a lot worse too. I'll shut up before I go off on one.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think instead of whinging about this, more effort should be put into girls standing up for themselves and not be peer pressured by acne riddled teenage boys into doing what theyve seen in the internet.

Whinging about this? You're the one who turned the discussion towards this subtopic.

And.... Lets face it sex and the city, not porn, is responsible for the now co mmon hairless pussy, aka the brazillian.and probably accountable for a lot worse too. I'll shut up before I go off on one.

Ahhh... Sex & the City. Yes, I agree it has a lot to answer for.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think instead of whinging about this, more effort should be put into girls standing up for themselves and not be peer pressured by acne riddled teenage boys into doing what theyve seen in the internet.

And.... Lets face it sex and the city, not porn, is responsible for the now co mmon hairless pussy, aka the brazillian.and probably accountable for a lot worse too. I'll shut up before I go off on one.

Well, if its sex and the city, then it wouldn't be "acne riddled teenage boys" who are doing the pressuring. Lets face it, the majority of pressure that girls receive will growing up comes from female driven media, other girls (friends & otherwise) and their mothers. The number of young girls I've seen dressed up as adults and shown off by their mothers is appalling. Women/girls may get pressure from boys/men for actual sex throughout their lives, but its other women that shape those lives to begin with, and continue to do so over their lives.

When I finished my LC, I did a year working in a call center type place in Mullingar before going to college. 300+ women and two guys. I still can remember the type of advice that would be thrown across the floor by older women towards the younger girls, most of which made me cringe to be there. And educational experience, but quite shocking at times too.

metrovelvet

Well, I still think that violent acts described throughout this thread habe miogynistic aspect. I dont know why its such a problem to acknowledge that. And why it causes such defensiveness.

Is it so you can feel ideologically pure about your hobby? Or you're not in touch with your own contempt and how its part of your arousal patterns?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well, I still think that violent acts described throughout this thread habe miogynistic aspect. I dont know why its such a problem to acknowledge that. And why it causes such defensiveness.

I don't understand why you seem so desperate to push the misogyny angle despite having received logical rebuttals to your arguments.

Is it so you can feel ideologically pure about your hobby? Or you're not in touch with your own contempt and how its part of your arousal patterns?

That's nasty. Who's defensive now?

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't understand why you seem so desperate to push the misogyny angle despite having received logical rebuttals to your arguments.

That's nasty. Who's defensive now?

I dont have a problem with misogyny. Why wouldnt they be misogynistic? Men are so dependant on women from the time they are born, for food, for sex, for so many things the dependancy is bound to breed love/hate and it has to go somewhere.

I didnt mean to be nasty. Just some food for thought.


You rebuttels were not convincing.

Next you'll try to convince me the minstral shows weren't racist.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well, I still think that violent acts described throughout this thread habe miogynistic aspect. I dont know why its such a problem to acknowledge that.

Fine, I acknowledge that you believe that "violent acts described throughout this thread habe miogynistic aspect".

And why it causes such defensiveness.Is it so you can feel ideologically pure about your hobby? Or you're not in touch with your own contempt and how its part of your arousal patterns?

My hobby? I said at the start of my posting to this thread that my porn collection is really small, and for the most part I find the whole thing boring. I also don't believe I've shown any real defense of porn, per say. Rather I object to the context of the "apparent" opposition to porn. I also find the whole argument that men that watch porn become twisted and therefore hate women, to be rather retarded.

Its interesting that you would feel so threatened by my focus on seeking a level of balance that you would resort to such an attack. Contempt and arousal? You really have very little understanding of why (or how) other people seek pleasure, do you?

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont have a problem with misogyny. Why wouldnt they be misogynistic? Men are so dependant on women from the time they are born, for food, for sex, for so many things the dependancy is bound to breed love/hate and it has to go somewhere.

Omg. Thats twisted.

I didnt mean to be nasty. Just some food for thought.

Rubbish. It was intentional and as nasty as any of the insults which you complained about earlier. And there's nothing there to be thought about. Its not trying to be constructive, or to provide anything of worth to the argument. Ugh.

K-9

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont have a problem with misogyny. Why wouldnt they be misogynistic? Men are so dependant on women from the time they are born, for food, for sex, for so many things the dependancy is bound to breed love/hate and it has to go somewhere.

I didnt mean to be nasty. Just some food for thought.

What a pointless generalisation.

AngryBadger

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont have a problem with misogyny. Why wouldnt they be misogynistic? Men are so dependant on women from the time they are born, for food, for sex, for so many things the dependancy is bound to breed love/hate and it has to go somewhere.

hmmm well by your own "reasoning", (and I use that word with the greatest of charity), if men are so dependent on women, and women are supposedly responsible for most of the work in raising children, it would seem that women have the lions share of the blame for failing to thwart the misogynistic attitudes that persist in the children they raise.

Although your response will probably be some claptrap about how the whole of society is shaped by misogyny to such a degree that the efforts of all these mothers around the world are for naught in the face of it.

Which would in effect mean that, once again, you expect men to change what needs to be changed so that you can have a society that suits your particular view without having to do anything to obtain it, and retaining the right to condemn those who fail to acknowledge it.

Wonderfully progressive stuff.

AngryBadger

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

There was an article in the The Guardian today (thank feck for The Guardian!) that I don´t think is completely unrelated. Give it a read. It touches on the pornification of our society and the rise in casual misogynistic language directed at women. Read the comments as well if you have time:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/jul/30/casual-sexism-misogyny

All I see in that article is somebody listing off instances taken completely out-of-context, with no appreciation for the idiosyncrasies of communication unique to each situation and using this as a basis for "casual misogyny".

I could write an article citing any number of instances from my experience where women have disregarded my views because I'm just a big stupid man, if I wrote an article and claimed this was casual sexism against me as a male; I would be laughed at.

Which about sums up my response to that article.

metrovelvet

AngryBadger wrote: »

hmmm well by your own "reasoning", (and I use that word with the greatest of charity), if men are so dependent on women, and women are supposedly responsible for most of the work in raising children, it would seem that women have the lions share of the blame for failing to thwart the misogynistic attitudes that persist in the children they raise.

Although your response will probably be some claptrap about how the whole of society is shaped by misogyny to such a degree that the efforts of all these mothers around the world are for naught in the face of it.

Which would in effect mean that, once again, you expect men to change what needs to be changed so that you can have a society that suits your particular view without having to do anything to obtain it, and retaining the right to condemn those who fail to acknowledge it.

Wonderfully progressive stuff.

You're fantasizing again.

metrovelvet

Deleted User wrote: »

Fine, I acknowledge that you believe that "violent acts described throughout this thread habe miogynistic aspect".



My hobby? I said at the start of my posting to this thread that my porn collection is really small, and for the most part I find the whole thing boring. I also don't believe I've shown any real defense of porn, per say. Rather I object to the context of the "apparent" opposition to porn. I also find the whole argument that men that watch porn become twisted and therefore hate women, to be rather retarded.

Its interesting that you would feel so threatened by my focus on seeking a level of balance that you would resort to such an attack. Contempt and arousal? You really have very little understanding of why (or how) other people seek pleasure, do you?



Omg. Thats twisted.



Rubbish. It was intentional and as nasty as any of the insults which you complained about earlier. And there's nothing there to be thought about. Its not trying to be constructive, or to provide anything of worth to the argument. Ugh.

I certainly have very little understanding of how watching someone suffocate serves as a masterbatory aid. Yes, you're right. I don't get it. But how can that be anything but contemptuous? How can that be anything but misogyistic?
Having read back through the thread, you and a few others are such steadfast defenders of the absence of misogyny in both porn and the industry itself (it's so ridiculous I was laughing in between wanting to puke,) that is smacks suspiciously like you have an investment in believing it is not misogynistic.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

I certainly have very little understanding of how watching someone suffocate serves as a masterbatory aid. Yes, you're right. I don't get it. But how can that be anything but contemptuous? How can that be anything but misogyistic?

As has already been pointed out, some gay porn will portray similar scenarios and this naturally cannot be misogyny. Perhaps, and you will have to really put your soul to rest on this one, some people get off on sadistic power in the sexual context - that their partner is a particular gender is only governed only by their orientation but otherwise is irrelevant.

This is not to say that there are not men out there who would practice or fantasize sexual acts as a result of misogyny, but for someone who has "very little understanding of how watching someone suffocate serves as a masturbatory aid", I would question your assessment of all their motivations. Indeed, we do not even know if they all share the same motivation for getting off on such pornography.

Having read back through the thread, you and a few others are such steadfast defenders of the absence of misogyny in both porn and the industry itself (it's so ridiculous I was laughing in between wanting to puke,) that is smacks suspiciously like you have an investment in believing it is not misogynistic.

That's an accusation backed up by... well, nothing other than opinion. In response, one might observe that you, Gail Dines and others have been steadfast defenders of the presence of misogyny in both porn and the industry itself, that is smacks suspiciously like you have an investment in perpetuating the feminist victim culture. And that is an opinion backed up by no less evidence than yours.

metrovelvet

The feminist victim culture? What's that?

If women are getting suffocated and killed, then isnt it the porn that is perpetuating the victim culture by making victims out of them?

Maybe you should look at the misandy in gay porn and bring it to the attention of men's rights in tgc.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

The feminist victim culture? What's that?

It's the culture of perceived oppression by the 'Patriarchy'. Women are all oppressed by it - didn't you hear?

Gail Dines wrote:

Pornography is the perfect propaganda piece for patriarchy. In nothing else is their hatred of us quite as clear.

Keeps activists like her in jobs and allows others to blame the penis-wielding oppressors for all of life's ills.

metrovelvet wrote: »

If women are getting suffocated and killed, then isnt it the porn that is perpetuating the victim culture by making victims out of them?

Are you suggesting that people are going out and suffocating and killing women because they saw it in porn? What about all those crazies who used to suffocate and kill women before this porn emerged? Apparently Dungeons & Dragons leads to devil worship, btw.

Maybe you should look at the misandy in gay porn and bring it to the attention of men's rights in tgc.

Because it's probably not misandry, that's what you don't seem to be able to understand. I even explained why, to which all you can do is simply reiterate that it must be. It's almost as if you have a mental block against it.

I'll be the first to admit that it could well be misogyny / misandy in some cases, but it is arrogant to assume this for the majority given the complex and often bizarre tapestry of motivations that is human sexuality. There is more evidence, due to the opening up of the BDSM sub-culture, that it is down to control / power play - with some seeking it and others abdicating it.

At the very least, such evidence puts into question the rather simplistic conclusion that it is all down to misogyny / misandy, demanding a closer look rather than ideologically motivated sermons.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

I certainly have very little understanding of how watching someone suffocate serves as a masterbatory aid. Yes, you're right. I don't get it.

When I encountered that girl who asked me to choke her, I had a little conversation with her to find out why she wanted it. The idea of anyone choking me in sex or otherwise makes me cringe. She said it added to the overall pleasure, and heightened the orgasm. As for those that watch, i would assume that they have done it in the past, otherwise there is no real sensory connection between the image and the action.

But how can that be anything but contemptuous?

A Kiss can be many things. Try associating the same boundaries for a kiss to any sexual act.

How can that be anything but misogyistic?

Because choking is not about hurting or killing someone. Its not about hate. Its about trust. Its trusting your partner to not mess up and do damage to you.

It IS interesting that you consistently choose the extreme sexual activities for your examples, when you've already assigned "misogyistic" tendencies to all men everywhere.

Having read back through the thread, you and a few others are such steadfast defenders of the absence of misogyny in both porn and the industry itself (it's so ridiculous I was laughing in between wanting to puke,) that is smacks suspiciously like you have an investment in believing it is not misogynistic.

Whereas you're seeing misogyistic activities everywhere. TBH I just don't believe its widespread. You see, I have been to S&M clubs in Amsterdam and Japan. So I can see the difference between the people who act out their fantasies for pleasure, pain, humiliation, etc. Sure, some people throw hate into the mixture, but not the majority (or even all of them) which you seem to subscribe to. Have you ever stepped outside your comfort zone and tasted anything other than the traditional venues?

And I'm still waiting for an apology. Seriously.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's the culture of perceived oppression by the 'Patriarchy'. Women are all oppressed by it - didn't you hear?

Keeps activists like her in jobs and allows others to blame the penis-wielding oppressors for all of life's ills.

Are you suggesting that people are going out and suffocating and killing women because they saw it in porn? What about all those crazies who used to suffocate and kill women before this porn emerged? Apparently Dungeons & Dragons leads to devil worship, btw.

Because it's probably not misandry, that's what you don't seem to be able to understand. I even explained why, to which all you can do is simply reiterate that it must be. It's almost as if you have a mental block against it.

I'll be the first to admit that it could well be misogyny / misandy in some cases, but it is arrogant to assume this for the majority given the complex and often bizarre tapestry of motivations that is human sexuality. There is more evidence, due to the opening up of the BDSM sub-culture, that it is down to control / power play - with some seeking it and others abdicating it.

At the very least, such evidence puts into question the rather simplistic conclusion that it is all down to misogyny / misandy, demanding a closer look rather than ideologically motivated sermons.

No I'm not suggesting that people suffocate women after seeing porn.
I would suggest that applications to law school rose when LA law was on air and med school applications rose when ER was at the height of its popularity.

Just look at how Friends changed language in Ireland.

People imitate.

Ok. So you recognise the contempt, but its not gender based. It's misanthrope. Whatever.

metrovelvet

Deleted User wrote: »

When I encountered that girl who asked me to choke her, I had a little conversation with her to find out why she wanted it. The idea of anyone choking me in sex or otherwise makes me cringe. She said it added to the overall pleasure, and heightened the orgasm. As for those that watch, i would assume that they have done it in the past, otherwise there is no real sensory connection between the image and the action.



A Kiss can be many things. Try associating the same boundaries for a kiss to any sexual act.



Because choking is not about hurting or killing someone. Its not about hate. Its about trust. Its trusting your partner to not mess up and do damage to you.

It IS interesting that you consistently choose the extreme sexual activities for your examples, when you've already assigned "misogyistic" tendencies to all men everywhere.



Whereas you're seeing misogyistic activities everywhere. TBH I just don't believe its widespread. You see, I have been to S&M clubs in Amsterdam and Japan. So I can see the difference between the people who act out their fantasies for pleasure, pain, humiliation, etc. Sure, some people throw hate into the mixture, but not the majority (or even all of them) which you seem to subscribe to. Have you ever stepped outside your comfort zone and tasted anything other than the traditional venues?

And I'm still waiting for an apology. Seriously.

I refer to examples given in this thread and in the article.

That's all nice that you obliged that girl who wanted to be choked. But this isnt about behind closed doors activities. Its about representations and mass productions distribution and money.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

No I'm not suggesting that people suffocate women after seeing porn.


People imitate.

ok i think you just shot yourself in the foot their.

most porn is boring . most woman who participate in it are highly paid and enjoy it . Any guy who tried to act out something he had seen on a porn film on me and i didnt like it would be told no. porn is a stimulus but there aint nothing like the real thing and real intimacy unlike sex is not something that can be repackaged and sold to the masses.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

That's all nice that you obliged that girl who wanted to be choked.

Actually as mentioned previously, I didn't oblige. Mostly because I wasn't confident enough in my own control during sex to do such a thing, and besides the idea doesn't appeal. But you're missing the point. Its not about perversion or other negative aspects. Its about placiing trust in your partner considering the risks involved.

But this isnt about behind closed doors activities. Its about representations and mass productions distribution and money.

Of course it is about what goes on behind closed doors.. because any sexual action performed in a porn will have some basis in reality with the exception of the extreme fantasy type setups which are more humorous than anything else. A bit like watching Star Wars.. the special effects are cool, but you know you're not going to build a lightsaber and conquer the galaxy.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

People imitate.

I'm not denying that they do, but I am questioning the motivation you are ascribing to it.

Ok. So you recognise the contempt, but its not gender based. It's misanthrope. Whatever.

I recognize that contempt and hate may well be a motivation in some cases. However, unlike you, Dines and others in this thread, I do not presume that this is the motivation in all or even a majority of cases - indeed, the evidence appears to point to other motivations.

In fairness, I respect that you are attempting to argue and even reexamine your case, unlike some posters, such as Eve_Dublin, who preferred to put forward their opinion then refused to stay and defend it.

metrovelvet wrote: »

But this isnt about behind closed doors activities. Its about representations and mass productions distribution and money.

Isn't that the porn industry, regardless of any conspiracy to promote misogyny?

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm not denying that they do, but I am questioning the motivation you are ascribing to it.

I recognize that contempt and hate may well be a motivation in some cases. However, unlike you, Dines and others in this thread, I do not presume that this is the motivation in all or even a majority of cases - indeed, the evidence appears to point to other motivations.

In fairness, I respect that you are attempting to argue and even reexamine your case, unlike some posters, such as Eve_Dublin, who preferred to put forward their opinion then refused to stay and defend it.

Isn't that the porn industry, regardless of any conspiracy to promote misogyny?

I'm not saying, nor do I believe hate is the motivation in all of the cases, or a will to destroy, but in some, what proportion I could not say, and I understood (perhaps incorrectly) that it is that proportion which is being examined.

Eve_Dublin

The Corinthian wrote: »

In fairness, I respect that you are attempting to argue and even reexamine your case, unlike some posters, such as Eve_Dublin, who preferred to put forward their opinion then refused to stay and defend it.

Listen Corinthian, to be honest I find your way of debating intimidating. I posted up an article as food for thought. I didn´t agree with a lot of it but I did agree with the premise that aggressive language used in porn is seeping into the real world. I hear it everywhere. Maybe you don´t but then I´m female and am seeing things from a different perspective. I find the language used in mainstream porn referring to females offensive. If you don´t agree that I should feel that way, then that´s your prerogative. I´m entitled to feel offended if I like without having to justify it. I´ve no intellectual argument to back up my feelings...it´s just how I feel when I watch porn. Perhaps there´s no logi to it but that´s how men and women differ...were controlled more by our emotions and gut feeling instead of logic. Respect the differences.

Listen, various people have come on here stating their case only to be shot down by you and Klaz. What´s the point in "defending my case" when you clearly have your own opinons and there´s absolutely no chance i´ll dissuade you from that? This discussion is a an extremely polarised argument...I´m not anti porn per se and watch it on occasion but after I "get my rocks off", I feel disgust. can´t justify that feeling....it´s how I feel and I guess I´m trying to look into why when in the "real world" I´d be very comfortable with myself sexually. No guilt there, just disgust.

It´s a contentious issue and one that is not going to be settled on this forum. It´s going nowhere and is kind of getting nasty. I don´t like the tone of this thread and don´t want to partake...free country n all that.

metrovelvet

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually as mentioned previously, I didn't oblige. Mostly because I wasn't confident enough in my own control during sex to do such a thing, and besides the idea doesn't appeal. But you're missing the point. Its not about perversion or other negative aspects. Its about placiing trust in your partner considering the risks involved.



Of course it is about what goes on behind closed doors.. because any sexual action performed in a porn will have some basis in reality with the exception of the extreme fantasy type setups which are more humorous than anything else. A bit like watching Star Wars.. the special effects are cool, but you know you're not going to build a lightsaber and conquer the galaxy.

Look. I'm not suggesting porn be censored because people imitate, even unbeknownst to themselves. I've had frieds disgusted with themselves when they find themselves pronouncung tomato like an American after a few days with me.

What I'm saying is that we should be aware of our tendancies to mimicry.

metrovelvet

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Listen Corinthian, to be honest I find your way of debating intimidating. I posted up an article as food for thought. I didn´t agree with a lot of it but I did agree with the premise that aggressive language used in porn is seeping into the real world. I hear it everywhere. Maybe you don´t but then I´m female and am seeing things from a different perspective. I find the language used in mainstream porn referring to females offensive. If you don´t agree that I should feel that way, then that´s your prerogative. I´m entitled to feel offended if I like without having to justify it. I´ve no intellectual argument to back up my feelings...it´s just how I feel when I watch porn. Perhaps there´s no logi to it but that´s how men and women differ...were controlled more by our emotions and gut feeling instead of logic. Respect the differences.

Listen, various people have come on here stating their case only to be shot down by you and Klaz. What´s the point in "defending my case" when you clearly have your own opinons and there´s absolutely no chance i´ll dissuade you from that? This discussion is a an extremely polarised argument...I´m not anti porn per se and watch it on occasion but after I "get my rocks off", I feel disgust. can´t justify that feeling....it´s how I feel and I guess I´m trying to look into why when in the "real world" I´d be very comfortable with myself sexually. No guilt there, just disgust.

It´s a contentious issue and one that

I often get caught in this trap. I think its collaborative discourse and low and behold, it's not, it's a polarised debate.

Sometimes its not either/or it's both/and.

Eve_Dublin

metrovelvet wrote: »

I often get caught in this trap. I think its collaborative discourse and low and behold, it's not, it's a polarised debate.

Sometimes its not either/or it's both/and.

You´re "re-examining" your stance on this "debate" (good girl Metrovelvet) but there´s not a hope in hell these boys will see it from another (female) perspective. **** this for so-called "debate".

metrovelvet

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

You´re "re-examining" your stance on this "debate" (good girl Metrovelvet) but there´s not a hope in hell these boys will see it from another (female) perspective. **** this for so-called "debate".

That's why I suspect they are too attached to the subject matter.

Eve_Dublin

metrovelvet wrote: »

That's why I suspect they are too attached to the subject matter.

So really, why would anyone bother their arse entering into a debate with them when they clearly won´t? Your a brave woman for trying.

i think its healthy to have debates like this and if people question your perspective on things they have the right to question your standpoint . Equally however you have the right not to answer or justify yourself to them . I really dont think its anything personal and i am a female.

metrovelvet

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

So really, why would anyone bother their arse entering into a debate with them when they clearly won´t? Your a brave woman for trying.

There's a fine line between bravery and stupidity.

Eve_Dublin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Listen, various people have come on here stating their case only to be shot down by you and Klaz.

Its a bulletin board. You throw up opinions (and some rather extreme opinions in my eyes) and I'll disagree. Argue intelligently/reasonably and there's a chance that I'll change my viewpoint to be more in line with yours. Its happened plenty of times in the past. But throwing out massive generalisations focused on men, and I'll respond. But then I'd do the same about women too.

Eve_Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

Its a bulletin board. You throw up opinions (and some rather extreme opinions in my eyes) and I'll disagree. Argue intelligently/reasonably and there's a chance that I'll change my viewpoint to be more in line with yours. Its happened plenty of times in the past. But throwing out massive generalisations focused on men, and I'll respond. But then I'd do the same about women too.

I´m responding to Corinthian, not you. Unless you are, in fact, "one"? If so, good luck with that

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

What I'm saying is that we should be aware of our tendancies to mimicry.

I don't really see the relevance TBH. There's quite a bit of difference between mimicry of language and mimicry of sexual activities. You made the reference to Friends. One of the most popular sitcoms of all time. But what is the most popular Porn of all time, which would have the same fan base comparable to that of Friends?

The point I'm making is that there are forms of mimicry which are easy to adapt to. Language being the easiest. But you're proposing that people who watch porn mimic the sexual positions & attitudes in the productions. And honestly for the vast majority of mainstream porn the positions used are relatively tame, so mimicry wouldn't be much of an issue. Its the "extreme" type of porn which is getting the focus here on this thread.

And that brings mimicry of such porn into a far different category than a comparison with Friends. Tell me, how many people went out and copy-catted the activities in SAW 1/2/3? Considering that SAW would be even more extreme, and yet have a much wider audience considering its cult status worldwide.

Eve_Dublin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

You´re "re-examining" your stance on this "debate" (good girl Metrovelvet) but there´s not a hope in hell these boys will see it from another (female) perspective. **** this for so-called "debate".

Another female perspective was given by Odin Old Stagecoach on this very page. Did you bother to read it?

But i love the way that this has become a us versus them (male versus female) battle... Completely typical.

Eve_Dublin

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

I´m responding to Corinthian, not you. Unless you are, in fact, "one"? If so, good luck with that

When you put my Nick in a post and make a point, surely I have the right to respond?

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

I'm not saying, nor do I believe hate is the motivation in all of the cases, or a will to destroy, but in some, what proportion I could not say, and I understood (perhaps incorrectly) that it is that proportion which is being examined.

I don't think we can examine that proportion here. We lack credible data to discuss over.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I often get caught in this trap. I think its collaborative discourse and low and behold, it's not, it's a polarised debate.

And have we not reached a point where there is some agreement that misogyny may be a motivation in some cases and other motivations may exist in others? Is this not a departure from the original, more polarized, positions? Is this not the essence of collaborative discourse?

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

Listen Corinthian, to be honest I find your way of debating intimidating. I posted up an article as food for thought. I didn´t agree with a lot of it but I did agree with the premise that aggressive language used in porn is seeping into the real world. I hear it everywhere. Maybe you don´t but then I´m female and am seeing things from a different perspective. I find the language used in mainstream porn referring to females offensive. If you don´t agree that I should feel that way, then that´s your prerogative. I´m entitled to feel offended if I like without having to justify it. I´ve no intellectual argument to back up my feelings...it´s just how I feel when I watch porn. Perhaps there´s no logi to it but that´s how men and women differ...were controlled more by our emotions and gut feeling instead of logic. Respect the differences.

I don't. I don't believe that men and women are or should differ on that basis. Women are every bit as rational and logical as men, and men are every bit as emotional and prone to 'gut feeling' as women.

What differs is that some, both men and women, delude themselves into believing that the irrational is an acceptable alternative to the rational. It's not and we saw it earlier in this thread, and it wasn't women that were doing it either.

Worse still, you've pinned this down to your gender, almost abdicating any responsibility for the capacity for rational thought by claiming essentially that you're "just a girl". Congratulations on setting back gender equality by a century.

Listen, various people have come on here stating their case only to be shot down by you and Klaz. What´s the point in "defending my case" when you clearly have your own opinons and there´s absolutely no chance i´ll dissuade you from that?

Of course you can dissuade people from their opinions, but you're not going to do so by stating an opinion and then essentially claiming it's correct because you say so. I've had my opinion changed or amended plenty of times here over the years, but it was always an appeal reason that did this, not an appeal to emotion.

Eve_Dublin wrote: »

You´re "re-examining" your stance on this "debate" (good girl Metrovelvet) but there´s not a hope in hell these boys will see it from another (female) perspective. **** this for so-called "debate".

Metro is at least engaging logically in the debate, because it is evident that she is open to exploring her views on this. You weren't and so didn't come here for a debate - you came for a validatory group hug.

metrovelvet

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't really see the relevance TBH. There's quite a bit of difference between mimicry of language and mimicry of sexual activities. You made the reference to Friends. One of the most popular sitcoms of all time. But what is the most popular Porn of all time, which would have the same fan base comparable to that of Friends?

The point I'm making is that there are forms of mimicry which are easy to adapt to. Language being the easiest. But you're proposing that people who watch porn mimic the sexual positions & attitudes in the productions. And honestly for the vast majority of mainstream porn the positions used are relatively tame, so mimicry wouldn't be much of an issue. Its the "extreme" type of porn which is getting the focus here on this thread.

And that brings mimicry of such porn into a far different category than a comparison with Friends. Tell me, how many people went out and copy-catted the activities in SAW 1/2/3? Considering that SAW would be even more extreme, and yet have a much wider audience considering its cult status worldwide.

No. That's not what I'm suggesting. It's far more subtle than that and too complex for this thread.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

No. That's not what I'm suggesting. It's far more subtle than that and too complex for this thread.

So start up another thread and we can discuss it further.

metrovelvet

metrovelvet wrote: »

No. That's not what I'm suggesting. It's far more subtle than that and too complex for this thread.[/QUOTE

hmm what are you suggesting then . correct me if i am wrong but were you not implying that people watching porn were apt to act out what they have seen ?

I would agree that some do and whilst some of the acts are unpleasant not all that is portrayed in porn is about hating woman some of the acts depicted are soley for the pleasure of woman such as the act of cunniligus .