Women's view of men and pornography (meaning, accept, dysfunction, gf)

[Vic 2.0]

monumentus, you seem to have overlooked just one small part of a post I dedicated to you.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

This is the best I could find at the moment. If it's not enough, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Now, just what do you think that means? This was concerning the very meta-analysis you chose to rake through and find something else you didn't trust therein. Why can't you read people's posts with the same attention to detail as you read through studies? The link I posted was not an extended challenge to anyone, (Note that I didn't address it to you) just something I thought people might want to discuss. Some of us did, and others didn't. I could care less which group you're in. If you see it as another target, that's your construal alone.

Originally Posted by orangeapple

I don't think porn is a matter of "basic impulse". Pursuing a real woman to have sex with, yeah. I think porn can & often does interfere with a healthy sex drive and sex life and will actually interfere with actually satisfying "basic impulses" with a real flesh & blood person. I'm not talking occasional viewing, but a habit.

Originally Posted by monumentus

I am curious what you have to back up such an opinion though aside from the fact you believe/think it?

Okay now, this poster isn't even trying to debate with you. Are you actually running to the defense of pornography as a habit now? (Wow, I didn't mean for that to come out as a pun, but an answer to both questions wouldn't be bad!)

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

just something I thought people might want to discuss.

And I am discussing them.

I am discussing how not one of your links so far appear to support the claim you are making off the back of them that the use of porn constitutes some kind of danger.

Discussions however are two sided and it is VERY telling that when I discuss YOUR links you entirely skip over and ignore those posts and simply post a new link.

Can you please take the time - as I have - to now read over all of your own links - read over my evaluation of them - and return to me and tell me do you now think you have any links supporting your original contention left - and if so which ones and why?

Or do you retract the original claim?

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Okay now, this poster isn't even trying to debate with you.

Not sure what your issue is. Or what my discussion with him has to do with you. But if you must know - he came into the thread and made a claim and I simply asked him was he aware of anything to support that claim.

Which is something that happens many times - on many threads - every day - across the entire forum. So whatever your problem with that is I do not know - but perhaps take it up with the mods because to my knowledge that is exactly what this forum is _for_. The free exchange and discussion of ideas and claims.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Are you actually running to the defense of pornography as a habit now?

I am not defending it so much as evaluating claims that there is anything wrong with it. Porn use constitutes part of my life. If there is something detimental or harmful about it then I would like to know that. So if someone claims such - I am liable to ask them the basis for that claim.

If you were walking down the street and someone stopped you and pointed out something you were doing and told you it was harmful to you - would you simply stop doing it and take their word for it - or evaluate their reasoning.

Also as another user of CData often says - and I wholly agree with him - confronting and calling people on unsubstantiated claims is something we do not do enough of in our society. I intend to keep doing it whenever I can.

I see nothing wrong with asking someone who has made a claim what their basis for that claim is. I do not apologise for it and I am not likely to stop doing it. So get over it is my only advice at this point.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by monumentus

And I am discussing them.

I am discussing how not one of your links so far appear to support the claim you are making off the back of them that the use of porn constitutes some kind of danger.

Discussions however are two sided and it is VERY telling that when I discuss YOUR links you entirely skip over and ignore those posts and simply post a new link.

Can you please take the time - as I have - to now read over all of your own links - read over my evaluation of them - and return to me and tell me do you now think you have any links supporting your original contention left - and if so which ones and why?

Or do you retract the original claim?

I've already responded to your evaluations of these links. Suffice to say I do not share your skepticism and/or outright dismissal of most of the studies cited within them, but I did acknowledge where and when I thought you were correct. I consider that good enough. Hence the "agree to disagree" part.

Originally Posted by monumentus

Not sure what your issue is. Or what my discussion with him has to do with you. But if you must know - he came into the thread and made a claim and I simply asked him was he aware of anything to support that claim.

Where in the following quote do you find a claim. Where?

I don't think porn is a matter of "basic impulse". Pursuing a real woman to have sex with, yeah. I think porn can & often does interfere with a healthy sex drive and sex life and will actually interfere with actually satisfying "basic impulses" with a real flesh & blood person. I'm not talking occasional viewing, but a habit.

Originally Posted by monumentus

I am not defending it so much as evaluating claims that there is anything wrong with it. Porn use constitutes part of my life. If there is something detimental or harmful about it then I would like to know that. So if someone claims such - I am liable to ask them the basis for that claim.

I've never seen anyone defend or "evaluate the claim" that something can be bad for you and/or your interpersonal relationships when it becomes a habit... until now.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I've already responded to your evaluations of these links.

Not really. Some of them you have simply skipped entirely over. Look for example at posts numbered #171 and #175. You entirely ignored 171 and just posted another link in #175.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Suffice to say I do not share your skepticism and/or outright dismissal

Massively disingenuous and dishonest here. I did no such thing as outright dismissal. I explained _exactly_ what was wrong in each case. You just ignored those posts is all. If that is how you operate - fine - but at least people now know that.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Where in the following quote do you find a claim.

Which claim? The post in question contains claims. I asked him what the support for his claims were. What is your problem?

The user said porn use "often does interfere with a healthy sex drive and sex life and will actually interfere with actually satisfying "basic impulses" with a real flesh & blood person." and I see nothing to back up that claim. Do you? Certainly nothing in any of YOUR links - especially links that are so blatantly dishonest as to only study people who are already convicted sex offenders - but oh yes you have not replied to the two posts where I pointed that out either have you.

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by monumentus

Not really. Some of them you have simply skipped entirely over. Look for example at posts numbered #171 and #175. You entirely ignored 171 and just posted another link in #175.

And you ignored my explanation for that, as well as the content in the post right before #171. I'll say it again,

"This is the best I could find at the moment. If it's not enough, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."

That was your indication that I was about to either stop posting or change the subject.

Originally Posted by monumentus

Massively disingenuous and dishonest here. I did no such thing as outright dismissal. I explained _exactly_ what was wrong in each case. You just ignored those posts is all. If that is how you operate - fine - but at least people now know that.

There were far too many studies cited in most of the links I provided for you to even know "what was wrong in each case". And I seem to recall you writing at least one collection of studies off as an "opinion piece", indicating that you had no intention to look into any of the studies therein. That is your right, and I don't blame you one bit. I wouldn't go through all that trouble either. I only said that I'm not so inclined to disregard studies cited because of who happens to be using them.

Originally Posted by monumentus

Which claim? The post in question contains claims. I asked him what the support for his claims were. What is your problem?

The user said porn use "often does interfere with a healthy sex drive and sex life and will actually interfere with actually satisfying "basic impulses" with a real flesh & blood person." and I see nothing to back up that claim.

Now you are the one being disingenuous here. When someone says, "I think..." before saying all the things you quoted (which is exactly what that poster did), that is not a claim. An opinion not supported by facts, maybe, but not a claim. That you've used the word "claim" so many times in reference to that post makes me think you are getting way too defensive about this subject.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

"This is the best I could find at the moment. If it's not enough, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree."

How am I ignoring that? I AM agreeing to disagree. So I am continuing to disagree. You said what your position was and tried to back it up with links. I disagree with your position and have been explaining how your links fail.

What do YOU think "agree to disagree" means... because I am not ignoring it I am DOING it. Get over it.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

There were far too many studies cited in most of the links I provided for you to even know "what was wrong in each case".

I have been working through them sequentially as you well know. They have 100% failed so far and in fact SOME of them have proved the OPPOSITE of your case and in at least one case have demonstrated a horrific dishonesty.

At this point I am wondering do YOU know of a single study in any of those links that actually does support your case? If so point it out!

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I seem to recall you writing at least one collection of studies off as an "opinion piece"

And quite right too.If you are going to call something a "study" when in fact it is a blog entry then I am liable to point that out. As well I should.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

indicating that you had no intention to look into any of the studies therein.

Which is just a lie from you given I DID look at the studies therein and commented more than one of them specifically and at length. Comments you have still not replied to or addressed.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I wouldn't go through all that trouble either.

Thankfully one of us IS willing to put in some effort. And I have been. You ignoring it does not mean I have not been doing it.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

Now you are the one being disingenuous here. When someone says, "I think..." before saying all the things you quoted (which is exactly what that poster did), that is not a claim.

Bull. If someone expresses an opinion I am well within my rights to ask what the bases of that belief or idea is. If you do not like this then perhaps a forum is not for you. Try opening up a blog with the comments turned off or something. The user entered into a discussion and I simply discusses his expressed position. If you do not like it - put me on ignore or simply keep your nose out of my conversations with other users. You do not get to dictate who I reply to - or how, son.

[Vic 2.0]

The term "agree to disagree" or "agreeing to disagree" is a phrase in English referring to the resolution of a conflict (usually a debate or quarrel) whereby all parties tolerate but do not accept the opposing position(s). It generally occurs when all sides recognise that further conflict would be unnecessary, ineffective or otherwise undesirable. They may also remain on amicable terms while continuing to disagree about the unresolved issues.

Agree to disagree - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know what else to tell you. Rather than being skeptical of the entire collection of data, I play the odds and get on with my life. When you copy and paste a quote or interpretation associated with any study in these "opinion pieces" onto a Google search, for example, you find that at least one other web page confirms its quotation/interpretation. These things are good enough for me. If not for you, fine.

[monumentus]

So in other words you are just using the phrase to get me to shut up. Well that is not likely to happen so if you want me to stop replying to your nonsense then simply stop replying to my posts.

The original claim was that pornography poses some kind of danger or danger to women. I see nothing to support that claim - certainly nothing from you - so if you want to retract the claim do so - if not then I would love to see you inform me which of your citations actually support the position because so far your links I have evaluated either:

1) Have supported the OPPOSITE assertion to yours.
2) Have not supported your assertion at all.
3) Have demonstrated wanton bias on the part of the people using those studies such as including studies that have nothing to do with the assertion (the use of polygraphy being one) or including studies that specifically ONLY study convicted sexual offenders.
4) Have blatantly committed the causation correlation error.

Of all the links and studies so far do you think you could identify any that do not do any of the 4 things above? If not do you acknowledge that your position is entirely baseless and unsupported?

[Vic 2.0]

Originally Posted by monumentus

So in other words you are just using the phrase to get me to shut up.

You can keep talking all you like. I've no want to get you to "shut up". I was just letting you know that, in regards to that specific meta-analysis, I considered how deep we were digging good enough for me and I wouldn't waste any more time with it... That's when you accused me of ignoring you when you chose to keep harping.

Originally Posted by monumentus

Of all the links and studies so far do you think you could identify any that do not do any of the 4 things above? If not do you acknowledge that your position is entirely baseless and unsupported?

I think I had just finished saying I consider the quotes and interpretations of the data, taken together, and the fact that it isn't just one so-called "opinion piece" quoting/interpreting it in the same way pretty strong support of my conclusion that pornography is dangerous. You've made it very clear that isn't good enough for you, which is fine by me.

[monumentus]

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

You can keep talking all you like.

I do not need your permission and I fully intend to do it anyway. So either get back on topic please - or move on. This derail above is boring.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I considered how deep we were digging good enough for me

It appears you did NO digging given some of the links you provided not only did not support your case - at least one of them psotively undermined it. You appear to have compiled a list of links - method unknown - without actually checking or reading any of them for yourself.

This is common practice on internet forums. You decide what your position is then simply search a few keywords on google and paste links that _appear_ to support the position you want to hold.

However I am interested in the topic. And when someone comes into that topic claiming the use of pronography constitutes a danger then I am interested to know if that is true or not.

It appears however that that claim is entirely baseless and not supported by any link you have yet offered.

Originally Posted by Vic 2.0

I think I had just finished saying I consider the quotes and interpretations of the data, taken together, and the fact that it isn't just one so-called "opinion piece" quoting/interpreting it in the same way pretty strong support of my conclusion that pornography is dangerous.

But I have worked through many of the links and they do not support that conclusion at all. If they do not support it individually then I am not sure how you think they support it "taken together".

Of all the links you have provided are you aware of even ONE that supports your claim? Because the ones I have worked through so far sure as hell do not.