Pornography. Shameful Pleasure, or Perfectly Natural?

[Moira]

Fire Emblem at least makes you think with your brain as opposed to seeking base pleasures, nor is it really as vulgar (consistently anyway). Posting in this thread is ultimately useless, sure, but I've got time to spare and it's not hurting anyone. "But hey, you could say the same about porn" to which I'd reply that i completely disagree and pretty much leave it at that since differing viewpoints.

so what I'm getting at is that you don't actually care about it being a waste of time, but you think its hurting people. Is this what you really mean?

[Rehab]

It's difficult to actually know what you guys mean by vulgar, though, because that's subjective. I've heard sex, just a person being nude, and instrumental music all called vulgar, and I doubt that the exact same meaning was intended in each case. "Harmful" is less subjective, but I'm not sure if that's what you meant.

It's one thing to say you "consider something vulgar" or dislike it on an openly subjective basis, like I'm admittedly just straight-up afraid of guns, even in the cases where the person who owns them is responsible as can be. But it's difficult for anybody to get any meaning from your opinion unless you explain it to them more thoroughly than using a single subjective descriptor.

[dondon151]

Agree to disagree on the bolded portion, though that's a discussion that gets extremely dark extremely quickly so imma just go back to 'agree to disagree'.

i'm not going to take this at face value if you're not willing to put an argument behind it. if you're with close friends of the same gender, then you might embark on a conversation about your sexual conquests. with my close friends, talk of masturbation is not a taboo subject (though we never talk about it in detail). that doesn't mean that these are topics that you are willingly capable of talking about to anyone but your most intimate acquaintances.

Speaking of disagreeing, I don't believe that a person's sexuality is defined entirely by if they watch/partake in pornography or not. You shouldn't be shameful of your sexuality, no, but you shouldn't parade it around either, I don't care if you're straight, gay, lesbian, bi, whatever, this is information I couldn't give two craps about.

i never said anything remotely alike your former statement, and your prohibition of parading sexuality around is both a non sequitur and highly disagreeable. my intermittent enjoyment of porn is in no way parading about my sexuality,

[Junkhead]

It's difficult to actually know what you guys mean by vulgar, though, because that's subjective. I've heard sex, just a person being nude, and instrumental music all called vulgar, and I doubt that the exact same meaning was intended in each case. "Harmful" is less subjective, but I'm not sure if that's what you meant.

It's one thing to say you "consider something vulgar" or dislike it on an openly subjective basis, like I'm admittedly just straight-up afraid of guns, even in the cases where the person who owns them is responsible as can be. But it's difficult for anybody to get any meaning from your opinion unless you explain it to them more thoroughly than using a single subjective descriptor.

I think it's pretty obvious, if you don't think of it. I'm turned on by some porn, that doesn't mean I don't also find it vulgar and dislike the way I feel about it, at times.

I think the example you proposed, "I've heard sex, just a person being nude" is a bit exaggerated. Sounds silly and these tend to be the sort of explanation one uses to make the opposing make them look real bad...but, knowing your attitude, I doubt that's much of your actual intention. Anyway, he's likely saying that porn is declasse, or something along those lines.

[Prims]

For the first question, IDC. It's fine if you're into it, just don't drop porn discs in a park or something.

i agree with this guy if you interpret "porn discs in a park" as a metaphor for "creepy posts in a fire emblem forum"

[Shu.]

Nothing wrong with a bit of 'self enjoyment'. We all need to entertain ourselves sometimes, and we all do it. If you say you don't you are lying to yourself.

[Rehab]

There are people who don't masturbate. They're not necessarily healthy, but they exist. I was one.

[Junkhead]

Why wouldn't one be healthy without it? It's not like it kills you, not to do it. If you're, liek, extremely desperate and constantly thinking about it- Then yeah, that's, unhealthy.

[FionordeQuester]

Alright, so I may as well put out my opinion. I do not like pornography, and it's because of both logical and emotional reasons. So, as to not clump the two together, I'll give the logical reasons first, then I'll outline how I personally feel about it. Now, first of all, I know my textbook in Social Psychology came down pretty harshly on pornography, for reasons outlined here...

http://diablo.incgamers.com/forums/showthread.php?819693-So-we-know-that-in-this-game-there-are-topless-sucubusses-It-s-been-a-while&p=8170840&viewfull=1#post8170840

As for the emotional reasons...well, I want to preface this by saying that I don't think everyone who uses porn has bad reasons for doing so. In fact, maybe there are some possibly productive uses for porn in some specific circumstances, I don't know. I certainly don't intend to ever find out. But right now, I think it is at best an unhealthy way of dealing with your desires, and at worst, shameful.

I certainly don't think looking at, or thinking of lustful images without the idea of romance is healthy. I mean, if you ask me, sex is supposed to be just another part of romance, a way of taking that same love and affection that two people have for each other, and making it all the more wonderful WHILE reproducing at the same time. Connections are made in the brain to bond the two together during the act of intercourse, and etc...

You take out the romance part of it though? And you look at porn, or have one night stands, or have orgies, or whatever else? Then all you're really doing is using someone else's body as a glorified vibrator, which, if you ask me, is disrespectful to them. I mean, you normally wouldn't have given those people the time of day otherwise, so what else are you saying other than "I only value you for your body"?

And that's not even including what could potentially happen if, say, your condoms or birth control pills fail during a one night stand, and you end up either impregnated, or impregnating someone else, who could've had a nice life ahead of them. What do you do then? Spend the next major chunks of your life paying child support? Marry them, and live your life living to someone you don't love? Or just do nothing, and let them sort out their own problems? Either way, there's not a ton of good options...

That's why I see value in many viewpoints that our society would look at, and say "dude! Don't be such a prude!", or, "aren't we being a bit puritanical"? Because I think, for both your sake, and the sake of others, it's best to learn how to say no to your body until you find someone you actually do care about, someone with whom you can explore the wonders of your body without feeling ashamed. And that someone is not going to be found in the pages of a magazine, nor will magazines help you to be able to wait until you find Mr./Ms. Right.

And if you're using porn to help let off sexual pressure? Well, I can understand...but we kind of already have masturbation for that, don't we? Seems to me like you get the same benefits, but can also envision whatever you want to envision, and make it as honorable and pure as you want. That's what I do anyways.

Edited May 14, 2014 by FionordeQuester

[Chiki]

None of the studies you cite prove anything. Countries where porn is controlled (often Islamic countries) are often the most barbaric and unequal countries. Rape isn't reported often.

In the study by John Court you cited, the example of Japan is given. Japan is a very backward country in terms of equality for both genders, so it's likely that rape isn't reported often.

[dondon151]

I mean, if you ask me, sex is supposed to be just another part of romance, a way of taking that same love and affection that two people have for each other, and making it all the more wonderful WHILE reproducing at the same time.

given observations on our sexual behavior, and also on the sexual behavior of our closely related primate relatives (and other not-so-closely related mammal relatives), sex is not just supposed to be for reproduction.

You take out the romance part of it though? And you look at porn, or have one night stands, or have orgies, or whatever else? Then all you're really doing is using someone else's body as a glorified vibrator, which, if you ask me, is disrespectful to them.

what part of two adults engaging in consensual sexual behavior is disrespectful to either of them?

And that's not even including what could potentially happen if, say, your condoms or birth control pills fail during a one night stand, and you end up either impregnated, or impregnating someone else, who could've had a nice life ahead of them. What do you do then? Spend the next major chunks of your life paying child support? Marry them, and live your life living to someone you don't love? Or just do nothing, and let them sort out their own problems? Either way, there's not a ton of good options...

i could only imagine that you left out the possibility of abortion either because you forgot to mention it, or you excluded it because it doesn't jive with your worldview.

That's why I see value in many viewpoints that our society would look at, and say "dude! Don't be such a prude!", or, "aren't we being a bit puritanical"? Because I think, for both your sake, and the sake of others, it's best to learn how to say no to your body until you find someone you actually do care about, someone with whom you can explore the wonders of your body without feeling ashamed. And that someone is not going to be found in the pages of a magazine, nor will magazines help you to be able to wait until you find Mr./Ms. Right.

spoken like a true social conservative who believes in his own nonsense. one doesn't need to "truly care about" (implying romantic love) his partner in order to engage in healthy, consensual sexual interaction.

In the study by John Court you cited, the example of Japan is given. Japan is a very backward country in terms of equality for both genders, so it's likely that rape isn't reported often.

i'm more inclined to believe that rape doesn't occur as often in japan nor is it reported as often when it does occur, given that japan has low incidences of both violent and non-violent crime.

Edited May 14, 2014 by dondon151

[FionordeQuester]

None of the studies you cite prove anything. Countries where porn is controlled (often Islamic countries) are often the most barbaric and unequal countries. Rape isn't reported often.

In the study by John Court you cited, the example of Japan is given. Japan is a very backward country in terms of equality for both genders, so it's likely that rape isn't reported often.

Really? Interesting...um, sorry DD151, this post came at almost the same time as what you said. I'll respond in a minute, alright?

Edited May 14, 2014 by FionordeQuester

[Dwalin2010]

spoken like a true social conservative who believes in his own nonsense.

It's easy to just dismiss someone else's ideals as nonsense. That's childish.

Also, I think that people accepting sex without romance and being belligerent when contradicted is something very sad. I hope I will die of old age (can't bring myself to suicide) far before this becomes a model of life all over the world.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Dwalin2010

[Chiki]

Really? Interesting...um, sorry DD151, this post came at almost the same time as what you said. I'll respond in a minute, alright?

You should learn to take studies in psychology with a grain of salt. Correlations can be useful sometimes but they often don't mean much.

[FionordeQuester]

You should learn to take studies in psychology with a grain of salt. Correlations can be useful sometimes but they often don't mean much.

I kind of did realize that actually. That's why I didn't build my whole argument around it. Because the research method of those studies could've been flawed, there might have been contradictory studies, etc.

[dondon151]

It's easy to just dismiss someone else's ideals as nonsense. That's childish.

that's a consequence of selective reading on your part, and not in any way a fault of mine.

EDIT: chiki succinctly disputed the validity of the evidence in fionordequester's claim, and i attempted to point out the nonsense in his rhetoric. until you can come up with both good evidence and sound rhetoric for why pornography is unhealthy, i will continue to be skeptical.

Edited May 14, 2014 by dondon151

[Dwalin2010]

that's a consequence of selective reading on your part, and not in any way a fault of mine.

I read everything you said, and I rarely disagree with somebody more than I do with you in this case. That part of my mentality that concerns sexual matters is wholly built on the concept of "non-accepting anything that has to do with sex without love". Cynism in romantic and sexual matters is something that has a worse effect on me than cyanide.

Not that you should care about all this, I just wanted to point out that I agree with everything FionordeQuester says.

EDIT: I may not be able to bring you calculated and logical facts, but I am not a droid and and don't build love and bonds with people on cold reasoning. If there are aspects of life where logic isn't necessary, it's in the matters that concern love.

Feel free to disagree of course, I just don't think you can feel superior to "moralist" people just because you dismiss emotions in favor of logic.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Dwalin2010

[FionordeQuester]

what part of two adults engaging in consensual sexual behavior is disrespectful to either of them?

Because you're still only using them for their bodies, and for something so petty. I mean, you have your one-night stand, go your separate ways...and then what? For one thing, I don't think people can just emotionally detach themselves from whoever they have sex with the way Hollywood seems to think they can. Emotions and passions like that are not something you can easily just turn off and on, especially when so many people feel as though they're giving a part of themselves during intercourse. At least, not without a lot of one-night stands under their belt, or some very unhealthy attitudes. BUT, even granting that the typical person CAN do that, let me ask you this...

How do you know that the person you had sex with wasn't someone who felt very insecure in his/her sexuality, and therefore felt that their self-worth was defined entirely by their ability to "perform"? How do you know that they didn't feel something on an emotional level during intercourse, despite their best efforts not to? How do you know that they're not going to feel a big empty hole in their hearts the moment you leave? Or feel used? Or heck, how do you know you didn't accidentally end up banging someone's wife, husband, boyfriend, or girlfriend?

I mean sure, maybe that person will be fine...but then, you don't know, do you? You can never really tell with people, can you? How DO you know that person you had sex with didn't belong to someone else?

For that reason, I believe it's irresponsible to proposition anyone for sex unless you actually DO have some sort of investment in that person.

given observations on our sexual behavior, and also on the sexual behavior of our closely related primate relatives (and other not-so-closely related mammal relatives), sex is not just supposed to be for reproduction.

Yes, and then there are other animals that are very much romantic breeders, unlike said primates. And when you say "observations on our sexual behavior"...who exactly do you mean by that? It seems to me that cultures vary drastically in how they approach that particular subject.

And this is, of course, disregarding the fact that you're using the "Bandwagon" fallacy. Just because "everyone else" is doing it doesn't mean that it's right or correct you know.

i could only imagine that you left out the possibility of abortion either because you forgot to mention it, or you excluded it because it doesn't jive with your worldview.

Actually, I just sort of figured that abortion fell under the "leave it to her to deal with it herself" category. It is, after all, her body, and her baby.

one doesn't need to "truly care about" (implying romantic love) his partner in order to engage in healthy, consensual sexual interaction.

Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But I disagree.

i'm more inclined to believe that rape doesn't occur as often in japan nor is it reported as often when it does occur, given that japan has low incidences of both violent and non-violent crime.

Perhaps. I wouldn't know personally, though I do wish to find out one day. As a culture, Japan has always inspired me with all the themes that run throughout their anime, so it's a language I want to learn, and a country I really want to go to one day!

Edited May 14, 2014 by FionordeQuester

[dondon151]

EDIT: I may not be able to bring you calculated and logical facts, but I am not a droid and and don't build love and bonds with people on cold reasoning. If there are aspects of life where logic isn't necessary, it's in the matters that concern love.

Feel free to disagree of course, I just don't think you can feel superior to "moralist" people just because you dismiss emotions in favor of logic.

this is a funny accusation, and also a spurious one, on several levels.

first is your insinuation that a physical relationship with a sexual partner based on anything but a narrow definition of romance is robotic. emotions such as mutual lust are anything but robotic.

second is your eagerness to duck out of responsibility for defending your argument on the same grounds that it was originally made. the argument against pornography is based (one hopes) on reason. when confronted with the counterargument, you bewilderingly state that reason is outside the realm of relationships.

last is your retreat to a position where rationality is a negative. by doing so, you've conceded that you're not actually interested in substantive discussion.

Edited May 14, 2014 by dondon151

[Dwalin2010]

this is a funny accusation, and also a spurious one, on several levels.

first is your insinuation that a physical relationship with a sexual partner based on anything but a narrow definition of romance is robotic. emotions such as mutual lust are anything but robotic.

second is your eagerness to duck out of responsibility for defending your argument on the same grounds that it was originally made. the argument against pornography is based (one hopes) on reason. when confronted with the counterargument, you bewilderingly state that reason is outside the realm of relationships.

last is your retreat to a position where rationality is a negative. by doing so, you've conceded that you're not actually interested in substantive discussion.

What can I say, if this makes you feel like the "winner" in the discussion, suit yourself. I just think some things are based on personal preferences and feelings, not computer-like analysis. To me, asking why sex shouldn't exist without romance makes as much sense as asking a religious person to provide scientific proof of existence of a god. If you don't just feel morality inside you, you don't. Nobody forces you, on the other hand, I just think the concept of a moral life deserves more respect and shouldn't be dismissed as nonsense just because you don't think it's important.

[dondon151]

Because you're still only using them for their bodies, and for something so petty. I mean, you have your one-night stand, go your separate ways...and then what?

you meet people every day, and then you go your separate ways... and then what? why does there have to be a follow-up? how is this activity petty compared to other mutual exchanges of goods?

How do you know that the person you had sex with wasn't someone who felt very insecure in his/her sexuality, and therefore felt that their self-worth was defined entirely by their ability to "perform"? How do you know that they didn't feel something on an emotional level during intercourse, despite their best efforts not to? How do you know that they're not going to feel a big empty hole in their hearts the moment you leave? Or feel used? Or heck, how do you know you didn't accidentally end up banging someone's wife, husband, boyfriend, or girlfriend?

you are supposing far more than anything i have ever said.

Yes, and then there are other animals that are very much romantic breeders, unlike said primates. And when you say "observations on our sexual behavior"...who exactly do you mean by that? It seems to me that cultures vary drastically in how they approach that particular subject.

despite strong cultural prohibitions against doing so, people still find ways to hook up. adultery is a serious offense in islam, but the practice of nikah mut'ah offers a convenient workaround! (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22354201) and i need not provide more than a passing mention of nominally celibate catholic priests who make a lifestyle out of molesting young boys to show that cultural prohibitions are not effective at successfully curtailing human sexual nature.

Well, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. But I disagree.

it's not just my opinion, it's the null hypothesis. unless you can prove to me non-romantic sexual interactions are necessarily unhealthy, then i will not reject the null hypothesis.

If you don't just feel morality inside you, you don't. Nobody forces you, on the other hand, I just think the concept of a moral life deserves more respect and shouldn't be dismissed as nonsense just because you don't think it's important.

if you wish to imply that my way of thinking is immoral, then you must provide the reasons for why that is. otherwise, i demand an apology.

Edited May 14, 2014 by dondon151

[Moira]

Because you're still only using them for their bodies, and for something so petty.

There are a lot of relationships based solely on what each party provides for each other. For instance, two students studying together in order to learn easier. Or maybe, a waitress providing their services in order to get paid. What are the key differences in pornography? Most of your argument seems to be base doff of things like one night stands, and that isn't what the topic at hand is about. This is specifically about pornography.

[Dwalin2010]

if you wish to imply that my way of thinking is immoral, then you must provide the reasons for why that is. otherwise, i demand an apology.

In this case, before I say anything, can I at least be sure you haven't already formed an intention to dismiss whatever I can say as "invalid" before you hear that? As for apologies, I apologize IF you do in fact care about morality and honestly feel that what you say is consistent with it. I was honestly thinking you were one of those people who think morality is an outdated concept of scarce importance.

[dondon151]

no (at your final sentence), i believe that morality merits serious, rational discussion as opposed to appropriation by gut feeling. which is why i'm here.

Edited May 14, 2014 by dondon151

[Dwalin2010]

Considering how you put things about this argument, I can't say anything that would make you change your opinion as you can't change mine. If we really go by logic and logic only, then there is no supreme objective truth that smashes all the counter-arguments. If I were born in a society where pornography would be considered normal and romance wouldn't, then I would likely reason in a different way. But I happen to live in a setting where traditional family values are important. People don't just have the body, they have their emotions, their mind, things that in religions are called "soul". If romance isn't necessary anymore, and pure sex is considered as something good enough by itself, then we would be elevating the "cult of the body" and reducing the importance of everything else. In this case we would sink lower than animals, because even some animals have rudimentary bases of concepts of romantic love: look at some species of eagles or albatrosses who form such strong bonds that don't even form new pairings after one partner dies.

I concede that you may be better than me at talking and explaining, I didn't want to discuss this in first place, I just thought that dismissing FionordeQuester's arguments as "conservative nonsense" is too extreme. Every opinion that doesn't harm others deserves to be respected.

Edited May 14, 2014 by Dwalin2010