Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Happiness and correctness are not mutually exclusive. But thank you for your contribution...
Below are a couple more interesting reads more relevant to the OP's question. Avoid or enjoy. The choice is yours
The Art of Intimacy: Does Pornography Help or Hurt Relationships? (http://www.theartofloveandintimacy.com/2008/02/does-pornography-help-or-hurt.html - broken link)
It is painfully obvious that you do not believe in watching porn with your SO..
Not only is it obvious but you feel that Porn is unhealthy, dangerous regarding Mental Health due to it’s addictive nature and is a social ill..
You have gone and on about how porn detracts from a normal and healthy relationship, however define normal? You have stated that the reasons I stated were basically untrue and found flaws in most of what I stated as well as negated any points I made and went even further to state that you did not know what my point was.
Your main points that I understood were the following:
1. PORN in a relationship actually hurts the relationship
2. PORN creates unrealistic expectations as to what should occur in the relationship, it separates 2 individuals instead of uniting them.
3. PORN used as a substitute to cheating or as a learning tool in sexually deprived relationships is hindering 2 individuals to have an open dialogue regarding the needs and expectations of one another.
4. PORN objectifies women
5. PORN hinders creativity in the bedroom
So I think I have somewhat of an understanding as to what you are trying to state..
Well my point is very simple, it really is not that complicated.
It is reckless to state that PORN is harmful to EVERY individual, NOTHING good can come from it and ANY individual that indulges in viewing PORN IS DOOMED to being addicted, not being able to carry out healthy relationships and is basically a deviant that carries unrealistic views regarding sex…
There are many couples and individuals and couples that view PORN as enjoyment from time to time, use it as a tool, benefit from it and have established “normal” relationships.
The analogies I have used to make points were not in comparison to PORN but myths and misconceptions that some individuals hold regarding certain issues.
You used stats…
Well any issue that is deemed controversial will have stats pro and con and it is up to the individual to determine where they stand on the issue. You have determined where you stand on the matter however this is far FROM you being right…
Below is a link I found on the internet, it is not FAITH based but rather on actual studies made regarding the relevancy between watching porn as being linked to sex crimes, low self esteem in women, men expecting the unrealistic and so forth…
The article was written by an actual MD. That was neither for or against but merely stating FACTS as he found them based on studies.
I found an excerpt very interesting, I am sure you will refute this however as one that has made assumptions regarding this matter on articles that obviously cater to a certain demographic or targeted group you will find error with this as well..
Lol…
Lastly we see that objections to erotic materials are often made on the basis of supposed actual, social or moral harm to women. No such cause and effect has been demonstrated with any negative consequence."
You have stated that the reasons I stated were basically untrue and found flaws in most of what I stated as well as negated any points I made and went even further to state that you did not know what my point was.
All of which you could've replied to directly, but okay...
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr74
Your main points that I understood were the following:
1. PORN in a relationship actually hurts the relationship
2. PORN creates unrealistic expectations as to what should occur in the relationship, it separates 2 individuals instead of uniting them.
3. PORN used as a substitute to cheating or as a learning tool in sexually deprived relationships is hindering 2 individuals to have an open dialogue regarding the needs and expectations of one another.
4. PORN objectifies women
5. PORN hinders creativity in the bedroom
I have said that these are all possibilities, but of course my stance against pornography goes beyond this into results from almost countless experimental studies (meta-analyses of studies, in fact) already cited here that find pornography to be harmful in less dramatic but more specific ways. It's quite elementary knowledge in psychology, the findings of how it affects acceptance of the rape myth, for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr74
It is reckless to state that PORN is harmful to EVERY individual, NOTHING good can come from it and ANY individual that indulges in viewing PORN IS DOOMED to being addicted, not being able to carry out healthy relationships and is basically a deviant that carries unrealistic views regarding sex…
Of course it is. That's why I haven't stated any of it.
I find it telling, though, of the narrow scope of the author, this portion of his "unbiased" article...
"What about at the individual level? Are women who view pornography terrorized beyond redemption? Do they descend into a well of despair and self-doubt about their sexuality? Do men become misogynist monsters upon viewing pornographic material? Do they develop debilitating penis insecurities at the sight of well-endowed male porn actors?"
Why isn't he more fair with his questions? If he's not taking a side, why is he quoting all of the most extreme claims from certain nuts who oppose him?
What Milton Diamond said about no harms to women in particular I have no wish to argue with. None of this was part of my argument. And the author makes a decent point about Malamuth, that since he often argues that pornography is harmful, the cited "study" would show a bias toward that agenda and not its alternative. However, you're still giving me this kind of stuff, dr74...
"...found that respondents construed the viewing of hardcore pornography as beneficial to their sex lives..."
Surely, you acknowledge the difference between a survey that asks "Has pornography helped or hurt you?" and an experimental study. Allow me to highlight parts of the following link for your consideration further:
"Males shown imagery of a woman aroused and then shown pornography that involved rape were more likely than those who hadn't, to say that the rape victim suffered less and that she enjoyed it, and that women in general enjoy rape." (This was found by Malamuth as well, but through a study, not a survey.)
"Males who are shown non-violent scenes that sexually objectified and degraded women and were then exposed to material that depicted rape indicated that the rape victim experienced pleasure and 'got what she wanted.'"
"Even women who were exposed to pornography as a child have greater acceptance of the rape myth than those who were not"
"Those exposed to pornography recommend a sentence for a rapist that was half of that recommended by those who had been shown non-pornographic imagery."
Finally, Gad Saad gives what I suppose he believes to be a strong argument...
"Now here is the kicker: A positive correlation was obtained between the amount of hardcore pornography that was viewed and the impact of the benefits reaped. This positive correlation was found for both sexes. In other words, the more that one watched porn, the stronger the benefits (for both sexes)! There you have it."
Considering that this is still part of the same after-the-fact study, it could easily be argued that those who watched pornography the most (those who were perhaps even addicted to it) naturally wanted to defend it the most. I liken this to a smoker who insists that smoking is more good than bad for your health, perhaps even ALL good. But even without that, it is self-proclaimed a correlational study only.
All of which you could've replied to directly, but okay...
I have said that these are all possibilities, but of course my stance against pornography goes beyond this into results from almost countless experimental studies (meta-analyses of studies, in fact) already cited here that find pornography to be harmful in less dramatic but more specific ways. It's quite elementary knowledge in psychology, the findings of how it affects acceptance of the rape myth, for example.
I strongly disagree, in fact you did not state that these are MERE possibilities, you stated this as almost certain from all of your responses to other POSTERS…
If I need to gather more articles discounting your theories based on the “countless” studies you have reviewed I would gladly do so..
I have little respect for the way you attempt to “type” down to posters as if their own discoveries, knowledge or personal experiences are “elementary” DO you possess a PHD in psychology? Are you a certified “sex therapist” with a board number and have your own private practice?
Of course it is. That's why I haven't stated any of it.
MATTER of fact you have..you just need to review all of your responses to various posters..
I find it telling, though, of the narrow scope of the author, this portion of his "unbiased" article...
"What about at the individual level? Are women who view pornography terrorized beyond redemption? Do they descend into a well of despair and self-doubt about their sexuality? Do men become misogynist monsters upon viewing pornographic material? Do they develop debilitating penis insecurities at the sight of well-endowed male porn actors?"
DID YOU find the answer?
Why isn't he more fair with his questions? If he's not taking a side, why is he quoting all of the most extreme claims from certain nuts who oppose him?
As I stated previously his article was based on “countless” studies he as An MD has reviewed before writing this article as well as his book..I feel unless you are a PHD yourself you cannot refute the facts stated..this could be stated for the “Mens Health” article you sited to another poster..really? As if this article is anymore “credible” than an actual “psychological publication” written by actual “professionals and specialists” in the respective field? Lol..nice try..
What Milton Diamond said about no harms to women in particular I have no wish to argue with. None of this was part of my argument. And the author makes a decent point about Malamuth, that since he often argues that pornography is harmful, the cited "study" would show a bias toward that agenda and not its alternative. However, you're still giving me this kind of stuff, dr74...
"...found that respondents construed the viewing of hardcore pornography as beneficial to their sex lives..."
Surely, you acknowledge the difference between a survey that asks "Has pornography helped or hurt you?" and an experimental study. Allow me to highlight parts of the following link for your consideration further:
"Males shown imagery of a woman aroused and then shown pornography that involved rape were more likely than those who hadn't, to say that the rape victim suffered less and that she enjoyed it, and that women in general enjoy rape." (This was found by Malamuth as well, but through a study, not a survey.)
"Males who are shown non-violent scenes that sexually objectified and degraded women and were then exposed to material that depicted rape indicated that the rape victim experienced pleasure and 'got what she wanted.'"
"Even women who were exposed to pornography as a child have greater acceptance of the rape myth than those who were not"
"Those exposed to pornography recommend a sentence for a rapist that was half of that recommended by those who had been shown non-pornographic imagery."
Finally, Gad Saad gives what I suppose he believes to be a strong argument...
"Now here is the kicker: A positive correlation was obtained between the amount of hardcore pornography that was viewed and the impact of the benefits reaped. This positive correlation was found for both sexes. In other words, the more that one watched porn, the stronger the benefits (for both sexes)! There you have it."
Considering that this is still part of the same after-the-fact study, it could easily be argued that those who watched pornography the most (those who were perhaps even addicted to it) naturally wanted to defend it the most. I liken this to a smoker who insists that smoking is more good than bad for your health, perhaps even ALL good. But even without that, it is self-proclaimed a correlational study only.
Well then I will haveto find other “studies” The fact is, that you hold the distinct right to hold true to your point of view, your beliefs and so forth but it REALLY is just your own personal beliefs followed by less than credible sources to prove your point..
Pornography May Have Postive Social Benefits, So Don’t Ban It » (http://prospectjournal.ucsd.edu/blog/index.php/pornography-may-have-postive-social-benefits-so-dont-ban-it/ - broken link)
Lol…I read the article..and your views are skewed…read on..you know the part about couples watching PORN together…to you? We cannot be right all of the time…I could go on and on..
Good night..and cheers to not winning them all…lmao
\
Well then I will haveto find other “studies” The fact is, that you hold the distinct right to hold true to your point of view, your beliefs and so forth but it REALLY is just your own personal beliefs followed by less than credible sources to prove your point..
Pornography May Have Postive Social Benefits, So Don’t Ban It » (http://prospectjournal.ucsd.edu/blog/index.php/pornography-may-have-postive-social-benefits-so-dont-ban-it/ - broken link)
Lol…I read the article..and your views are skewed…read on..you know the part about couples watching PORN together…to you? We cannot be right all of the time…I could go on and on..
Good night..and cheers to not winning them all…lmao
Are you aware that your second link cites smoking as a thing that's surprisingly good for you? Well, this point is almost universal... I'm sure that heroin has some surprising benefits as well
Regarding pornography, I think its effects should always be judged on an individual basis and not everyone (even not everyone over a certain age) is ready to watch, which indicates that it's far from a harmless phenomenon. But it's equally obvious to me that it's not the government's place to monitor my viewing of pornographic material: that's up to me to decide.
But then there's this new sort of coercion where therapists very often advise people, mostly women as a matter of fact (we're the usual suspects here), to "spice up" their sex lives by becoming consumers: of sex toys, of pornography, of swinging clubs, of sexy lingerie, of fetish gear, of sex manuals. The sex industry, you know. And, naturally, always come back and consult your therapist (and you're a consumer here as well). Those are the one-size-fits-all of sexology, that new science. Which, if anything, makes it all even more artificial and pre-programmed and, consequently, less interesting in my eyes.
All the sex-related studies, surveys, 100 ways to feel amazing pleasure, a new kind of orgasm for sale every five years (and to think that when Freud came up with the vaginal orgasm he was labeled a misogynist!), your life will be miserable without sex, you should have lots of sex when you're pregnant because when you deliver you'll feel less pain (yes, I read that study lol), all women (and men!) can enjoy anal sex and if they don't it's because they're doing it the wrong way, etc. It kind of reminds me of that Aldous Huxley novel, Brave New World, where recreational sex was compulsory... And, of course, it was just one more means of crowd control.
I say this because sometimes we forget that the fact that some people vilify pornography for moral reasons doesn't automatically turn some of us that won't watch because we're not interested into prudes, wannabe censors or people with boring and incomplete sex lives, no matter what gurus like Pat Califia have to say.
It's more simple than that. I'm not buying this product, that's all.
dr74, you keep claiming my sources (the whole lot of them, I suppose, understanding that each of them cites multiple sources of their own!) are not credible. Am I to understand you are just ASSUMING this? Never have I dismissed your links as less than credible; instead I look at them for what they are:
Up until this point, you've been giving me results from SURVEYS wherein people offer "self-perceived effects" (word for word) of pornography. Your last post wasn't much better, I'm afraid.
The first link gives me three articles, two of them from people who as far as I can tell are simple journalists, nothing more. The author in the middle is a journalism professor. Apparently, that sums up their credentials. They all give their opinion, with theories and reasoning (you and I both know that anything and everything can be argued). In other words, no objective evidence. The first author even admits, "I arrived at this position after years of interviewing hundreds of sex workers."
Refer to the last paragraph in my last post for what I think of this.
After viewing the second link, I tracked the article's references to one in which, once again, the researcher had given people who watched pornography surveys. It's like these alleged "professionals" have forgotten Psychology 101 or something! But Clive Hamilton brings the results to a more objective light:
"Well, I think this is dodgy research. The research is based on a sample of 1,000 pornography users, who are self-selected over the internet, so they asked people to fill out a survey. So it's really the people who are likely to have positive attitudes towards their use of pornography who are going to fill in such a survey. But those who are disturbed by it or feel guilty about it, aren't going to respond to that sort of a survey. So I don't attach much credence to those results."
Good for him. Apparently, he was paying ATTENTION in school.
The link's second source is no better, citing an article referring to the same survey in Denmark.
I don't disagree with the third link's purpose; I don't think pornography should be banned at all. But I did mention a sort of hypocrisy in how we all agree that child pornography remain banned, explain that "children can't understand the consequences and ramifications of sex", then ignore all the instances in which either the ramifications are "Sex can be just to feel good" (which children understand) or there is no risk of pregnancy or STDs. At any rate, the correlation between sexual crime and the legalization of pornography is just that. It could be that there is less sexual crime simply because women are stronger, smarter, and more well-protected by the law.
As for the link from Men's Health, I'm again not surprised that people who watch porn say that it helps them. But note the link from Men's Health that I gave earlier, which talks of the possibility of pornography killing the man's sex drive or becoming addictive.
All in all, no one's disputing that pornography can have positive social benefits. I'm simply telling you that these benefits can and probably should be obtained in other ways. Less dangerous ways, for example. And I realize I'm making this difficult for you, but that's my job. I don't just look for names and titles and what they're telling me. I look for HOW they got their findings, and if they supposedly conducted an experimental study (which NONE of them have), I'd be looking for how that study was conducted. Sorry?
Studies show that 95% watch it and the other 5% are lying.
mMen are visual. Society says they have to be monogamous, their nature says "no"; so they use the safe avenue of porn wathcing in lieu of the rough and hurtful road of adultery.
Porn is not a victimless crime. It denotes a crassness of personality, lack of empathy, lack of imagination, misdirected priorities. Why would I want to be saddled with a person like that?
I understand that a man, maybe even a persons lizard brain gets turned on by porn. But that doesn't mean you do it. One of the things I don't like about men. They way they just accept their weakness.
I understand that a man, maybe even a persons lizard brain gets turned on by porn. But that doesn't mean you do it. One of the things I don't like about men. The way they just accept their weakness.
True. This is evident in how many people defend it by saying "Men watch pornography so they don't hafta cheat!" Who are these men? Are they so robotic? They have to have a picture of another woman naked; they can't visualize their SO? Surely, the relationship is worth THAT much to them, even when the couple's sex life is lacking. But apparently a lack of sex in the relationship justifies cheating, whether physically or mentally.
I'd encourage anyone having this sort of issue with their SO to have an open and honest talk with them. As I said before, a sudden lack of sexual appetite is a symptom of a bigger problem (from stress, depression, chemical imbalances, relationship history or current status, etc.)
Might as well ban most romance novels. All the titillation of romance and passion should be found within the confines of their real-life partnership, not from some stranger's books. Frankly, if women need to read juicy romance novels then there has to be something wrong with the intimacy of their relationships. Sexual gratification outside of the marriage or partnership is purely unwholesome and will only lead to a woman's moral destruction. Even if there aren't sex scenes, the idea that women spend nights reading about other women's emotional satisfaction can only raise doubts within their own relationships. How can their men ever compete with Mr. Darcy?
<I'm completely sarcastic btw>
Quote:
He will come to you in shade of darkness.
The words of the dire prophecy rang in Amber's mind as she looked at the naked, powerful man whom Sir Erik had dumped senseless at her feet.
Candle flames bent and whipped as though alive, called by the cold autumn wind pouring through the cottage's open door.Light and darkness licked over the stranger's body, underlining the strength of his back and shoulders.Sleet shone in the near black of his hair.Icy rain gleamed on his skin.
Amber felt the man's chill as though it were her own. Silently she looked up at Erik. Her wide golden eyes asked questions for which she had no words.
It was just as well, for Erik had no answers. All he had was the slack body of a stranger found in a sacred place.
"Do you know him?" Erik asked curtly.
"Nay."
"I think you are wrong. He wears your sign."
With that, Erik turned the man over. Candelight and water streamed across the muscular turso, butit wasn't the stranger's naked male strength that drew a gasp from Amber.
Naked man?? Uh oh! Need some black bars to paste in my imagination!!!
No, no need to ban this OR pornography. But questionable too is whether a person should READ them...
Still, there is a difference between a guy watching a naked woman and masturbating to her image and a woman reading a book (however risque) while fully dressed, I submit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
