babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » blatant contradiction in Alan McKee's porn study

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: blatant contradiction in Alan McKee's porn study
questioner
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11487

posted 28 December 2005 04:54 AM      Profile for questioner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Check out this statement:

"Recently-produced mainstream pornographic tapes do not show women being abused; the narrative trope of a woman learning to enjoy her own rape has vanished from mainstream pornography."

So get that? He flat out says that "recently produced mainstream porn tapes do not show women being abused."

Then in the very next paragraph, he writes:

"Of the sample's 16 violent scenes, nine occured in videos marketed to women; four were set in explicit fantasy environments."

16 violent scenes? I thought he just said that mainstream porn no longer shows women being abused? All sorts of blatant contradictions show up in studies, but this one is particularly obvious. He continues:

"These points may be related: much popular women's fiction is set in melodramatic, or explicitly fantastic situations. This may be a gendered address in pornography, where it is material aimed at women that is more likely to include violence."

Yeah, so? There are women who enjoy seeing women abused. I have always known that. But Dr. McKee just got through telling us that newer mainstream pornography does NOT contain abuse! WTF? He continues:

"Rocco Siffredi, whose videos are responsible for three of the seven physically violent moments, is the most popular male porn star with female audiences (Albury, 2002b)."

From the Wikipedia article on Rocco Siffredi:

"Rocco's films are widely varied in content and tone. He has appeared in romantic adventures and comedies in the Vivid style, but his later work with John Stagliano's Evil Angel Video is informed by the artistic philosophy and vision of Max Hardcore. In these later films, Rocco spits on women, slaps them, performs irrumatio and watersports (censored in U.S. versions), makes his co-stars gag during deepthroat, and pulls hair to the point of causing tears."

Now, that doesn't sound abusive at all!

More:

"Shocking climaxes often involve such activities as Rocco focusing the camera on the distended anus of one of his female co-stars, spitting into it, ejaculating into it, and then, in scenes meant to imply breaking the fourth wall, demanding that other co-stars clean the woman's anus with their tongues. Another hallmark of Rocco's films is allowing male fans, picked up by the production crew, to ejaculate onto the faces of his female costars; Rocco took this tradition one step further when directing Never Say Never To Rocco Siffredi, when, filming in a park, Rocco grabbed passing strangers and then requested that his female co-stars perform oral sex on them...."

"Rocco - Animal Trainer is Siffredi's roughest line and the one which has garnered him the most fame in America...There is a heavy emphasis on rougher, more sadistic sex, with hard facial slapping, violent hair-pulling and scenes of extremely abusive anal sex. (Rumours persist in many online forums of the availability of 'uncut' versions of this line through assorted vendors within Europe, with the various scenes of abuse all reportedly extended, more detailed, and more brutal). In Animal Trainer 15, Siffredi engages in rough anal sex with American porn actress Jewel De'Nyle, and forces her head into a toilet during the final scene, a technique that seems to help him achieve climax. (The image of Siffredi dunking a gasping female performer's head into and out of a water-filled toilet bowl has become a key graphic in the promotional artwork for many of his European releases)."

So.... since Dr. McKee tells us that newer mainstream porn no longer shows abuse toward women, Rocco's videos must be quite old, right? Wrong!

According to the Adult Film Database, the first installment of Rocco: Animal Trainer was published in 2002. This is well AFTER many of the "recent" videos cited by Dr. McKee. The most recent installment of this series was published in 2005.

Movies like Rocco's are mainstream, AND are recent, AND show extremely violent and degrading abuse of women. So it is very odd that McKee would tell us a blatant whopper that "recently-produced mainstream pornographic tapes do not show women being abused," and then go on to contradict himself in the very next paragraph!

Wierd!

Now, as soon as I heard about McKee's study, I knew it was nonsense. No objectification and degradation in popular porn? Yeah right; popular porn is full of this stuff! Look up Max Hardcore, Backroom Facials, Steve Sweet, Khan Tusion, etc., etc. This is some of the best selling stuff out there, and it's full of degradation of women. So I'm not surprised he was wrong in his statements; I'm just shocked that he so openly contradicted himself, right in the text of the study, apparently without even knowing it. How could he possibly have watched scenes like Rocco's and then conclude that mainstream porn is no longer abusive toward women?

I guess he is trying to protect porn from the censorship lobby. However, by denying the obvious - that abusive porn exists in the mainstream, and that it sells - and then disproving his own denial, he only shoots himself in the foot. Lots of mainstream porn still shows abuse of women; that there are women who enjoy watching this is irrelevant to the fact that it exists. So we should deal with this fact rather than lamely trying to sweep it under the rug.


From: us | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alan McKee
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11638

posted 09 January 2006 03:30 AM      Profile for Alan McKee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hello!

I am so happy to see that this research is being read and discussed outside the academy. It makes it all worth while.

If I may make a couple of brief points about the study?

Firstly, please bear in mind that in this article I am discussing the contents of a sample of 50 bestselling tapes in Australia. Therefore my comments about mainstream pornographic content relate only to that material - not to other examples that people may be aware of. It is standard practice in social science studies of the media to use a sample of the genre under consideration. I am confident that my sample of pornography is more representative of mainstream consumption than most other academic content analyses of the genre that have been conducted in the past.

With regard to the contradiction in my article, we analysed 838 scenes. Of these, 822 scenes - that is, 98.1% - were completely free of any kind of violence, and 824 - 98.3% - were free of any kind of violence against women, even when violence was defined as broadly as possible, to include even aggressive nonreciprocal speech, and we included even scenes were reciprocity was unclear rather than those where these was clear lack of reciprocity. It was therefore my judgement that these scenes should not be seen as REPRESENTATIVE of the content of mainstream pornographic material. At less than 2% of scenes, my judgement is that these scenes are unusual for mainstream pornography in Australia.

Your comments, and those of others, have certainly raised my awareness of some very unpleasant examples of pornography that are in existence. However, the whole point of this study was to avoid the tendency in previous academic studies to focus attention on only the most extreme, unrepresentative materials. We wanted to find out simply what the majority of Australian pornographic consumers were actually choosing to consume - that is, what is the content of mainstream pornography in this country?

I hope that this makes sense.

Cheers - and keep the discussion going!

Alan


From: Brisbane Australia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
questioner
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11487

posted 09 January 2006 04:20 PM      Profile for questioner     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Alan:

Thanks for your interesting reply. Some researchers tend to ignore comments outside of academia. It's nice that you actually take the time to read them and reply to them. After all, the world is much bigger than any university. Also, I want to apologize for my more strident language. Even if I disagree with much of your study, there clearly is nothing "lame" about your attempt. In my defense, I will say that I had a bit of a headache that day.

Now, regarding "mainstream" porn in Australia. Allow me to point out that the very definition of "mainstream" is artificial, forced by Australian law. Violent and degrading porn is illegal in Australia. Consequently, most of it will not appear on your radar regardless of how popular. It's difficult to accurately meter the consumption of contraband. Illegal porn is typically not going to appear on official lists of top sellers. So, your study cannot give a full picture of what most porn consumers actually enjoy.

I will agree with you that porn need not be degrading or violent; that much is obvious. Some porn is degrading or violent, and some porn is neither. Like sexuality, porn is remarkably diverse. We have degrading and violent porn because, as humans, we are a degrading and violent species. One look at our rap sheet as a species is more than enough to show this: the Holocaust, imperalism, slavery, gladiator fights to the death for mass enjoyment, etc. I think we can both agree that bans on porn do absolutely nothing to rid humanity of degradation or violence. After all, we remain human and porn is simply pushed 'underground'. The naughtiness that exists in porn is by no means exclusive to porn. Far from it! Think of all the degradation and violence that has been (and continues to be) committed in the name of God and country!

I think a trenchant observation of your study is the way violent and degrading scenes are consumed by women. I have known this for a long time: it's not just men who enjoy violent and degrading scenes; women do too. So while there are women exploited and degraded in pornography, this can't simply be turned into an issue of male vs. female. When women have the choice, they can clearly be just as naughty as men - including to their own gender. Sexual degradation and violence are not merely a male thing; they're a human thing. So, we can never understand these issues by ignoring them, but we also won't make any headway by pretending that only men can enjoy the exploitation and degradation of women.

Thanks again for your reply, and I look forward to reading any future statements and studies from you!


From: us | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alan McKee
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11638

posted 13 January 2006 05:29 AM      Profile for Alan McKee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hello again!

You're absolutely correct that there exists pornography that does treat its participants badly. I suppose our study showed that there does also exist at least SOME pornography that treats its participants much better. As you point out, that is a legal requirement in Australia - it would be interesting to replicate the study in America and look at 50 of the best selling videos there.

I suppose the most interesting fact about the study in Australia is that public debate here often characterises pornography as if it were ALL degrading and violent. Clive Hamilton, one of our most prominent public intellectuals, for example, describes pornography in Australia as consisting of: "extreme and violent images ... rape, incest, coprophilia and bestiality". I haven't heard a single voice in the Australian public debate suggesting that a lot of porn might treat its participants well. For that reason, the results of this study were particularly interesting for me.

You raise a good point about whether people would choose to watch degrading porn if they could. You might be interested in an article that is coming out later this year in a journal called "Continuum: journal of media and cultural studies". This is based on interviews with 48 consumers of pornography. Of course, there are methodological issues about who would volunteer for such interviews, and what they would say to interviewers. But the interviews were interesting for showing us that there exists at least a subgroup of people who like pornography - even if it's BDSM - which treats its participants with respect. I've copied the relevant part of the article below FYI.

Cheers,

Alan

******************************
"Interviewees were asked: ‘Is there anything that annoys you about the pornography that you buy?’; and ‘What do you think makes for the best pornography?’. The answers to these questions show us that consumers of pornography have very clear ideas about what constitutes good pornography and what is bad – and that sexual explicitness is not an important criterion in making those distinctions. Those interviewees who like hard core explicit material are still insistent that there is good hard core and bad hard core.
Many interviewees used the term ‘quality’ to describe what makes for good pornography (1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 18, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 36, 37, 39, 41, 44, 45, 46). More specifically, one key issue that several interviewees spontaneously mentioned was that the best pornography is that where: ‘you can see real enjoyment’ (1). The word ‘enjoyment’, or people ‘enjoying’ themselves, was used by several interviewees (1, 5, 12, 14, 19, 29, 34, 37, 38, 41). Another looked for ‘genuine interest’ on the part of the actors (8); another said he liked amateur pornography because ‘the people are there because they want to be there’ (20); while one said he wanted to see porn actors who ‘like what they’re doing’ (23). One interviewee wanted to see: ‘enthusiasm’ (25); another that ‘the actors are in to it’ (27). One said he looks for genuine ‘chemistry’ (29) between the actors.
Interviewees emphasised that this made pornography attractive to them. One says: ‘They’re the scenes that on many occasion, now on reflection, I go back to’ (1). Another says: ‘First and foremost I like to see pornography actors that are enjoying themselves. Absolutely. And it doesn’t matter how attractive they are if they look bored, it ruins it’ (12). A male interviewee agreed: ‘I think porn where the women aren’t into it is a bit wrong’ (25). A gay consumer claimed that: ‘You can just tell that they aren’t into it. They are just waiting for their pay cheque, that’s it. It’s really important that the actors are into it’ (27). Another man explained that in one film the actress: ‘really obviously came and came a lot and I mean that wasn’t just acting, and that was like, This is better - she was obviously happy to be there … she was obviously enjoying it and they both were and it was much more equal … and that was good’ (41).
Another interviewee went further on this topic: ‘It makes for the best porn when the people who are performing genuinely want to be there. Whether it’s for the purpose of themselves getting off or whether it’s the purpose of them seeing other people getting off, or wanting other people to get off … those are the sort of things that I find most interesting because the people in it are happy and you’re almost sucked into their world – you’re brought into their world and you’re enjoying their company … In watching porn I always tend to sort of look at the background and if you notice things that look like they’re drug related, or someone may be dependent upon drugs, it sort of kills the ability to be able to enjoy it’ (20).


From: Brisbane Australia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 13 January 2006 08:07 AM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah sure.... porn may be diverse in a whole slew of ways. But universally, Pornography stunts the avid user's ability to form relationships with real people. Porn numbs it's viewers' capacity for intimacy.

Guardian Unlimited, "Men and Porn"


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
BlawBlaw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11570

posted 14 January 2006 11:08 PM      Profile for BlawBlaw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Given that the article above cites such compelling sources as Ted Bundy and an episode of Friends, I can see how someone might agree with it's conclusions.
From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 14 January 2006 11:58 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yer a funny guy blawblaw. You disagree with the premise - or ya just wanna be clever?

I've done extensive 'field research' and come to these conclusions. I just like citing the Guardian article cuz it's accessible.

[ 15 January 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alan McKee
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11638

posted 15 January 2006 11:46 PM      Profile for Alan McKee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On the question of 'stunted' relationships - in a survey that we conducted of 1023 pornography consumers, 566 of the respondents (55.3%) were in monogamous relationships. 277 (27.1%) were married.

Often, those who are morally opposed to pornography make claims such as "No man who regularly uses pornography can have a healthy sexual relationship with a woman" (Clive Hamilton (2004), ‘Guarding our kids from a perverse twist,’ The Australian, August 17, 11.

But these claims are moral rather than factual. They rely on people claiming that the relationships of people who do use pornography are not 'healthy' - something which cannot be measured in any objective way.

Hope this information is useful.


From: Brisbane Australia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 16 January 2006 08:19 AM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alan McKee:
On the question of 'stunted' relationships - in a survey that we conducted of 1023 pornography consumers, 566 of the respondents (55.3%) were in monogamous relationships. 277 (27.1%) were married.

Often, those who are morally opposed to pornography make claims such as "No man who regularly uses pornography can have a healthy sexual relationship with a woman" (Clive Hamilton (2004), ‘Guarding our kids from a perverse twist,’ The Australian, August 17, 11.

But these claims are moral rather than factual. They rely on people claiming that the relationships of people who do use pornography are not 'healthy' - something which cannot be measured in any objective way.

Hope this information is useful.


Nopers, that information isn't useful to the women I know who's partners will sit in front of the tv & pop a pornographic tape into the vcr instead of climbing into bed.


Simply being in a monogamous relationship or married does not make a healthy sexual relationship. Did you interview the spouses and partners???? I've met whacks of guys who can climax in 5 minutes with their newest pornographic video but can't manage to come with their girlfriend or spouse after an hour or more of sexual play.

Did your survey ask it's participant questions such as:

How frequently do you watch/masturbate to porn during an average month as compared to the number of times you are physically intimate with your partner.

How often do you climax during intercourse?

How often do you climax during masturbation sessions with porn?

Do you choose porn as an outlet for sexual tension at times that your spouse/partner could be available for sex? With what frequency?

.... I could go on but I hope you already see my point.


I'm SO not talking moral opposition here Alan - which is a common retort I hear from the defenders of avid porn use. I'm a sex-positive slut. I've got a cunt that can milk a whole man dry. But if the guy (or woman for that matter) isn't whole between the ears I can't do my magic between the sheets. I've come across too many wonderfully willing men who just couldn't go the distance. Over the years the commonality between all these men has crystallized - they're either dependant on or addicted to porn.

I like having sex with people who are able to orgasm without a multi-media presentation. I like fucking guys who are able to get an erection without putting that tape into the vcr.

I like guys having to paint their ceilings white after a few trysts with me.

... but they ain't ever got there by whacking off to porn.

[ 16 January 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alan McKee
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11638

posted 20 January 2006 02:34 AM      Profile for Alan McKee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for the feedback!

In terms of anecdotal information, I personally know of a large number of women and men who regularly use pornography, and have happy and healthy sex lives. Indeed, I would say that the people I know who use pornography have better sex lives than those who don't!

In terms of more objective information, we also asked the people we surveyed whether they thought that consuming pornography had had a positive or negative effect on their attitudes towards sexuality. 6.8% thought it had had a negative effect, 34.6% thought it had no effect - and 58.8% thought it had had a positive effect.

The 6.8% who reported negative effects talked about the kinds of things that you mention - 1.8% said it had led them to 'objectify' people, 1.6% said it had caused 'unrealistic' expectations about sex, 0.5% said it had caused problems in relationships and 0.4% said it had lead to loss of interest in real sex.

However, these are small minorities. By comparison, there were many more people who reported positive effects. By far the most common positive effect described was becoming less repressed and more comfortable about sex (141 respondents, 13.8% of all respondents). 99 respondents (9.7%) said that pornography had made them more open minded and willing to experiment sexually. 68 people (6.6%) said that pornography had made them more ‘tolerant’ (a common word) of other people’s sexual pleasures—commonly with the caveat that this was true ‘so long as no-one gets hurt’. 65 (6.4%) mentioned the arousal and pleasure they got from pornography personally. 57 (5.6%) used terms like ‘education’ and ‘learning’, talking about basic information, such as how bodies worked, as well as techniques and ideas. 47 respondents (4.6%) talked about using pornography to maintain interest in sex within a long term relationship. 29 respondents (2.8%) responded that pornography had made them more attentive to their partner’s pleasure in sex. 24 (2.3%) stated that it had helped them find an identity or community. 21 (2.1%) said it had helped them to open discussions with their partner about sex.

Perhaps the people you have encountered are not a representative sample?

Cheers,

Alan


From: Brisbane Australia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
BlawBlaw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11570

posted 21 January 2006 02:52 PM      Profile for BlawBlaw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The problem with anecdotal evidence is that people tend to be engaged in a rather narrow field of endeavour with a correspondingly narrow range of people.

Accidental Altruist, I'm not doubting what you say is true about your experience and the experiences of people you have been in contact with. I am curious about your profession and/or volunteer role.

Certainly, cops have a different view of people than social workers. Some of that is inevitably inate bias, but as far as personal experience is concerned you would have to admit that cops tend to deal with a whole different class of people than the average citizen has to.

My perspective is that porn is no better or worse than any other genre. When I watch mainstream movies that touch on my professional background I am torn between the raw entertainment value and the obvious factual errors. People don't watch TV and movies because they are a reflection of reality. People who cannot discern fiction from reality have an overarching problem that may encompass but is not exclusive to porn.


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 23 January 2006 12:21 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alan McKee:Perhaps the people you have encountered are not a representative sample?

What do you mean by 'representative'? Class? Occupation? Annual Income? Sexual fetishes? Religion? Flossing habits?

quote:
Originally posted by BlawBlaw:
I am curious about your profession and/or volunteer role.


I try hard not to have sex with people I work with or volunteer with. Also, we generally don't discuss one another's sex lives during coffee breaks or during meetings. I'm not sure how work or volunteering would come into play when discussing the impact of porn use on real people's sexuality. What are you getting at exactly?

quote:
My perspective is that porn is no better or worse than any other genre. When I watch mainstream movies that touch on my professional background I am torn between the raw entertainment value and the obvious factual errors. People don't watch TV and movies because they are a reflection of reality. People who cannot discern fiction from reality have an overarching problem that may encompass but is not exclusive to porn.

My point exactly - it would be a hinderance to your career if you just watched mainstream movies that touched on your professional background instead of actually going into work. Kinda hard to make a living at being a laywer, for example, if all you do is watch Law and Order. So why watch porn as a sustitute for sex with a living breathing person? Or, why watch so much porn that it compromises your ability to ever engage in mutually satisfying sexual activity with a living breathing person?

I've read similar comments in other threads both on Babble and elsewhere. There have also been a number of threads in the feminism forum about the impact of porn on real people. I guess I missed the boat on those conversations but take comfort in reading that I'm not the only one with such serious questions and concerns.

[ 23 January 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
BlawBlaw
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11570

posted 23 January 2006 11:29 PM      Profile for BlawBlaw     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Individual, non-scientific experience with a phenomena are not a "representative sample" of the entire population. People, in their profession or pasttimes, will meet clusters of like-minded people. That is why anecdotal evidence is is of limited use - it has too many built in biases.

That is why I asked about your professioal/volunteer role. A divorce lawyer has a totally different view - when looking at his clients - than the local parish priest who marries the couples.

Setting that aside, there is always the problem of mistaking the the cause for the result (causation in general is a problem in most logical debates). Did porn cause the relationship problems or did relationship problems cause someone's partner to turn to porn?


From: British Columbia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ryda Wong
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11839

posted 24 January 2006 01:13 PM      Profile for Ryda Wong     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BlawBlaw:
Setting that aside, there is always the problem of mistaking the the cause for the result (causation in general is a problem in most logical debates). Did porn cause the relationship problems or did relationship problems cause someone's partner to turn to porn?

Why does this have to be stated as an either/or equation? I would say that they feed into one another. Despite what Mr. McKee says, porn, as it exists in our culture (canadian or american) is often violent towards women, and has a tendency to objectify them. People who are exposed to porn (along with other social texts) as their first or main experience with sexuality
can be expected to, at some level, absorb the attitudes portrayed. Now, which started first is, to me, not an important questions. Social attitudes inform porn, porn informs social attitudes.


I'm wondering what the reactions might be to this article:

The Pervasive Porn Industry

An excerpt.

"Can we men acknowledge our humanity if we find sexual pleasure in watching three men penetrate a woman orally, vaginally, and anally at the same time? Can we and live our humanity to the fullest if we find sexual pleasure in watching eight men ejaculate onto a woman’s face and into her mouth? Can we masturbate to those images and truly believe they have no effect beyond the rise and fall of our penises in that moment? Even if you believe that such sexual “fantasies” have no effect in the world outside our heads, what does that pleasure say about our humanity?"


From: Boulder, CO, where we wish we were Canadian | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 24 January 2006 04:21 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Ryda, welcome to Babble. I've read the article too. The line that gets me is:

quote:
If empathy is part of what makes us human, and pornography requires that men repress empathy, then we have to ask a rather difficult question. While men watch pornography, are men human?

I've got so much to say. Especially since the more I talk openly about this - the more women 'come out' to me about their own experiences with porn-addicted partners.

Right at this moment though, I don't have much fight in me. Rather than answer Blaw Blaw at this time here's a link that treats the topic with a bit of humour. I like to laugh at things I'm afraid of, don't ya'll?

The Great Internet Porn-Off

[ 24 January 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 January 2006 04:35 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
An excerpt.

Unsurprising that the excerpt you chose deals specifically with acts that the research says he specifically did not find in over 98% of the hundreds of scenes viewed.

I have yet to see an anti-porn proponent NOT sooner or later have to resort to worst-case scenario examples. Is it because responding to non-violent regular ol' sex doesn't leave you a leg to stand on?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ryda Wong
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11839

posted 24 January 2006 05:51 PM      Profile for Ryda Wong     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Unsurprising that the excerpt you chose deals specifically with acts that the research says he specifically did not find in over 98% of the hundreds of scenes viewed.

I have yet to see an anti-porn proponent NOT sooner or later have to resort to worst-case scenario examples. Is it because responding to non-violent regular ol' sex doesn't leave you a leg to stand on?


Pronoun clairification would be helpful. That "who" (he??) did not find in whom's research. Are you speaking of McKee or in response to the article I posted? If McKee, please read the article I excerpted and then respond. I am challenging McKee, and stating that his research does not match with others.

Oh, and these are not worse case scenerios. In fact, they tend to be the mainline of porn available in the US (though in Canada, it might be different.) I invite you to take a tour through you local (Hetro) porn shop and find me even 1 video in 10 that doesn't rely on a masculinist, objectifying
point of view. I specify hetro because I am no expert in homoerotic porn.


From: Boulder, CO, where we wish we were Canadian | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 January 2006 06:36 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Are you speaking of McKee

Yes.

quote:
If McKee, please read the article I excerpted and then respond. I am challenging McKee, and stating that his research does not match with others.

The Jensen article was familiar; I think it may have been posted here before. At any rate, I don't know that it contradicts McKee. Jensen says he sampled 15 tapes and he reports one of these as containing violence of a sort. Without knowing his methodology I have no way of knowing how representative that one tape is of the other 14, nor the rest of the tapes available, nor the majority of tapes rented.

I do note, however, that Jensen too cannot resist jumping back and forth between the extremes. Somehow, even on the auspices of discussing mainstream porn, he manages to talk about children. As I noted in this thread (and in fact in others), it seems impossible for anti-porn activists to discuss porn without attempting consciously to "blur" the lines between sex-with-the-pizza-boy porn and child pornography or snuff.

I don't get the sense that McKee is denying the existence of violence in (even mainstream) porn, but is rather trying to show that this sort of porn does not represent the majority of porn. McKee's number is 2%. Jensen's, assuming his methodology is rigorous and 15 is an acceptable n value for a survey like this, could be as high as 6% (1/15th).

quote:
Oh, and these are not worse case scenerios.

Really? Since when did 2% or 6% represent the majority?

quote:
I invite you to take a tour through you local (Hetro) porn shop and find me even 1 video in 10 that doesn't rely on a masculinist, objectifying point of view.

You're moving the goal posts. McKee is talking about violence. You're now talking about a "masculinist" point of view.

Insofar as most porn is produced with men in mind, I don't find a masculinist point of view all that surprising. I'd be very surprised if Harlequin Romances aren't written from a woman's point of view. You don't write fantasies for women from a man's point of view.

That said, I'm not impressed with the "Max Hardcore" style of porn, and like Jensen I don't understand why some guys get off calling women "bitches" and attempting to humiliate them. I mean, I understand somewhat in an intellectual sense, but not in a visceral one. Then again, I don't understand anyone who enjoys pain with sex. I know people who do, but I just don't. But again, I don't think that McKee is trying to say that Max Hardcore style porn is good, nor that it doesn't exist, but is rather pointing out that it's not the bulk of what gets rented.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 24 January 2006 06:42 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I have yet to see an anti-porn proponent NOT sooner or later have to resort to worst-case scenario examples. Is it because responding to non-violent regular ol' sex doesn't leave you a leg to stand on?

As if that isn't what YOU resorted to in the Great Diaper Debate on this thread.

"....everyone's supposed to be hunky dory with looking at a bunch of baby diarrhea along with their powerpoint slides and their croissant?"



From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 January 2006 06:45 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you reread that thread carefully you'll notice that another poster brought up the diarrhea. I just went along with it.

quote:
Second, it's not like a solid dump that an older baby or adult would have. Sometimes it's best to get to it fast to avoid leakage.

You can have a do-over if you want.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 24 January 2006 06:48 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
and uh Magoo, as you said:
quote:
As I noted in this thread (and in fact in others), it seems impossible for anti-porn activists to discuss porn without attempting consciously to "blur" the lines between sex-with-the-pizza-boy porn and child pornography or snuff.

Tell me, where did I start blurring the lines?

You're just here looking for a fight aren't you?

[ 24 January 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 24 January 2006 06:51 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I get the feeling that Magoo gets off on arguments more than he could ever get off on porn.
From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ryda Wong
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11839

posted 24 January 2006 06:57 PM      Profile for Ryda Wong     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Jensen's, assuming his methodology is rigorous and 15 is an acceptable n value for a survey like this, could be as high as 6% (1/15th)..

Actually, although he dosen't mention the exact number of videos that contain violence, there are at least 2, so the value would be at least 13% (2/15)


quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
You're moving the goal posts. McKee is talking about violence. You're now talking about a "masculinist" point of view.

Wrong. A masculinist point of view is a violent point of view. No shiftin' in the wind there. Like I said, I highly doubt McKee's definition of violence is actually vaild. It seems to agree with a very extreme definition of what fits as violence and what doesn't. And, as other's have pointed out, it is further rendered useless by it's location. Reproduce the study in the US, and define violence in a more honest manner. Then we might have something to talk about.


From: Boulder, CO, where we wish we were Canadian | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 January 2006 06:58 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Close. I get off on winning them.

And with that... cigarette? (aaaah.)


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 24 January 2006 08:02 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Premature extrapolation perhaps?

Extinguish that ciggy - you didn't 'win' anything.


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448

posted 24 January 2006 08:55 PM      Profile for Timebandit     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If you reread that thread carefully you'll notice that another poster brought up the diarrhea. I just went along with it.

And if you reread the thread, you'll notice that reference was made to you, specifically, Magoo, and "other posters like you". Just because you lack originality doesn't mean you aren't making use of someone else's provocative statement to exaggerate your point.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, it's not like a solid dump that an older baby or adult would have. Sometimes it's best to get to it fast to avoid leakage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can have a do-over if you want.


Um, no. Here's a definition of diarrhea:

quote:
di·ar·rhe·a also di·ar·rhoe·a
n.
Excessive and frequent evacuation of watery feces, usually indicating gastrointestinal distress or disorder.

Link.

Breastfed baby poo is neither excessive, overly frequent or actually entirely watery, nor is it linked to gastrointestinal distress or disorder. It is not, by definition, diarrhea.

If you're bent on winning an argument, you could take the time to have a clue what you're talking about. Meanwhile, could you stop being a provocative jerk for once?

[ 24 January 2006: Message edited by: Zoot ]


From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 24 January 2006 09:36 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
A masculinist point of view is a violent point of view.

What a remarkably sexist statement and certainly one worthy of censure. Broad sweeping judgements of a group are frowned upon here.


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 January 2006 09:41 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Breastfed baby poo is neither excessive, overly frequent or actually entirely watery, nor is it linked to gastrointestinal distress or disorder. It is not, by definition, diarrhea.

Ah. That should make it far more appetizing while I'm eating my croissant. I'll just remember that while it looks all runny and gross like when an adult has the trots, it's technically not that at all.

I guess, to be straightforward, I really don't care whether an infants runny stool is the result of intestinal distress or "perfectly normal". I don't care how often it occurs. I just don't think it's an appropriate thing to foist on everyone in a boardroom. Call it diarrhea or call it loose (but normal) stools or call it butterscotch pudding or whatever you like, but the bottom line is, the rest of us really don't need to see it over coffee, thanks.

quote:
Meanwhile, could you stop being a provocative jerk for once?

It certainly wasn't my idea to drag another thread into this one.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 24 January 2006 09:56 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Actually, although he dosen't mention the exact number of videos that contain violence, there are at least 2, so the value would be at least 13%

Fair enough. Although I'd have questions about a sample of 15, and to be blunt, Jensen doesn't seem like a detached observer, so I have strong doubts about his objectivity in selecting these tapes. But anyway, even if the number is %, that's still hardly a majority, and remember that McKee is only asserting that violent porn does not constitute the majority.

quote:
Wrong. A masculinist point of view is a violent point of view.

Here it comes. We're going to redefine violent here, aren't we? And it's going to include all sorts of things that most people wouldn't consider violent at all.

quote:
Reproduce the study in the US, and define violence in a more honest manner.

Yup. If the porn isn't violent enough, redefine violence. I'm sure that anal sex will end up being "violent" by the time we're done, much to the surprise of millions of couples, gay and straight alike.

It seems to me that McKee was actually generous to the anti-porn folk in his definition of violence, to the point of including "violent" speech. Speech! If you want to add even more to that then you may be right that we have nothing to discuss, if that's the case.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 24 January 2006 11:42 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BlawBlaw:
That is why I asked about your professioal/volunteer role. A divorce lawyer has a totally different view - when looking at his clients - than the local parish priest who marries the couples.

I'm an 'ngo office muse'. Sez so in my profile.

quote:
Setting that aside, there is always the problem of mistaking the the cause for the result (causation in general is a problem in most logical debates). Did porn cause the relationship problems or did relationship problems cause someone's partner to turn to porn?

The porn use always predates the relationships.

Seems guys usually find porn at a young & impressionable age - way before they're ready to get into serious long term relationships. After many years of sacrificing sperm to the god of lonely nights these guys can find love. But breaking up with porn is hard to do. So these guys enter into committed relationships while maintaining porn as a mistress. Then we (their partners who commiserate online and over cocktails) end up trying to overcome our loved ones' pavlovian libidos and numbed sensuality.

I can assure you've I've given porn the 'ol college try. Some of it I like to this day - but I don't watch any of it now. I've seen what it's done to my and others' relationships & I don't want to risk jeopardizing my sexual health.

Listen: Here's another way to look at it so you don't feel like I'm just trying to take away your wanking material. I'm that lucky kinda gal who can orgasm during intercourse. But, if I masturbated with a vibrating dildo several times a day I would eventually lose that ability. I think it's a loss that would impact not only me but my partners. So I avoid regular, intense mechanical stimulation that would render delicate nerve endings numb in favour of the luscious subtlety of human touch.

To me, saying 'no' to the cyberskin jackhammer is the same as avoiding regular exposure to pornography.


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alan McKee
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11638

posted 25 January 2006 12:01 AM      Profile for Alan McKee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The issue of the definition of violence has been raised.

I used a definition which is generally agreed on by social scientists:

"The majority of social scientists have agreed on a definition of violence … One of the leading researchers in the field of aggression, Robert Baron, has summarized the definition acceptable to most social scientists and implicit in most research on the effects of violent pornography: ‘Any form of behaviour directed toward the goal of harm; or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment’" (Donnerstein, E., Linz, D., & Penrod. S. (1987). The question of pornography: research findings and policy implications, New York: Macmillan/Free Press. page 18)

I included in this definition any form of physical violence, violent speech, or any other form of coerced sexual behaviour.

We used a sample of 50 videos. These were bestselling videos in Australia.

I entirely agree that the study should be replicated in the USA. This would not be difficult, as there does exist a regular chart of bestselling adult videos in that country.

Hope this helps to clarify matters.


From: Brisbane Australia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 January 2006 12:11 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But. but! but! but! but! Sheese!

I think you should definitely get your head out of your ass. I have no idea why you possibly concieved that the methodology you applied is in any way useful, or accurate, or even interesting.

Any fiteen year old can sneak onto their parents computer and find in 10 minutes violent porn depicting, not only women enjoying being raped, but rape porn where the primary modus of excitement is the fact that the women are not enjoying being raped.

If you had principles you would refund whatever money was invested by the government in your study, and also in your education, and get a job driving taxi.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alan McKee
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11638

posted 25 January 2006 03:08 AM      Profile for Alan McKee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dear Cueball,

Thank you for taking the time to post - although I must say I think your tone is not very nice.

I studied whether or not 50 of the bestselling pornographic videos in Australia contained violence. Less than 2% of scenes in the bestselling videos contained violence.

Many ordinary Australian citizens are concerned about what kinds of material their fellow citizens are consuming, and this was why I and my colleagues conducted this study.

It is possible for anyone to find violent pornography on the Internet should they wish to do so. This is an incontrovertible fact.

It is not the point here, though. The point here is that in the bestselling pornographic videos in Australia, fewer than 2% of scenes contain violence.

Please don't hesitate to ask if I can clarify anything else for you


From: Brisbane Australia | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 25 January 2006 09:51 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Your study about oranges is worthless because you didn't consider apples!
Wow, I have never seen such weak and lousy complaints about a study's methodolgy.

If you go back right from the start, Dr. Alan McKee's subject (pronographic videos) is very clear, as is the methodology (he uses an established defintion of violence).

Cueball, if you want to make a statement about violence on the internet, go right ahead. Take the above defintion of violence and go to town. Don't go off like a hollier-than-thou ass and accuse Dr. McKee's research of being wrong, when that's not even what he was studying in the first place.

Kudos to Dr. McKee for defending his work here against some ridiculous complaints.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 January 2006 10:05 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Please don't hesitate to ask if I can clarify anything else for you

Would you be willing to recant your findings, and declare all porn of any sort to be universally Evil? Could you maybe doctor your findings just a wee bit to better reflect what people want you to discover? Maybe, say, instead of "we found violence in 2% of the mainstream tapes" go with "we found outrageous, misogynistic violence in less than 99% the mainstream tapes" or something like that?

Because I think that's what most of the posters on this thread are going to want, and nothing less.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 January 2006 10:39 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Wow, I have never seen such weak and lousy complaints about a study's methodolgy.

No. A study that looks at pornography should look at the main means through which it is disseminated, analysing video film porn as if it is representative of the porn industry as a whole, and therefore significant in the greater scheme of trends in human relations as sociology, is to situate oneself (deliberately -- perhaps to fulfill a predisposition or laziness) in an understanding of the market which is 20 years out of date.

The great majority of porn, and therefore the porn worth sampling and studying is disseminated through the internet, therefore, and useful research should make that the primary focus, if one wants to say something interesting about society or even porn.

In other words it is the sampling method, the selection of videos as a basis of a selection process as "methodology," which I doubt not this definition of violence.

So to properly situate my complaint in your dumb metaphor, (do you have a degree too?) Mckee has studied Oranges but only the rind, without bothering to open it up to see what is inside.

[ 25 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 25 January 2006 11:02 AM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
video vs internet
bought vs rented

sheesh


if you thought something you did was making you a sucky/no-show lover wouldn't you wanna stop???


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 25 January 2006 11:04 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
No, he analysed mainstream (bestselling) pornographic videos as being representative of, guess what, mainstream pornographic videos.

No, this study is not the definitive answer to the question: "is there violence in pornography?" That would be a monsterously huge and complicated study. However it does make a contribution by analysing one source of pornography, and Dr. McKee presents his research as such: a study, not of all of the porn ever made in the world as maybe you prefer it would be, but a study of that which can be found today on videos in Australia.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 January 2006 11:06 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How do you derfine the video market as mainstream, when it does not even have the largest share of the market?

Ridiculous.

[ 25 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 January 2006 11:09 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What has actually happened is that violent images in porn have been moved from the previous market vehicle for porn (video) to another vehicle (the internet.) If this study doesn't even establish that much it is not even valuable for those job it is to market porn.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 25 January 2006 11:11 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
How do you derfine the video market as mainstream, when it is not even have the largest share of the market?
"50 of the bestselling pornographic videos in Australia"

i.e., the mainstream pornographic video market.

If you want to rearrange what was said to claim that someone stated that pornographic videos represent the mainstream of all porn, that's your problem.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ryda Wong
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11839

posted 25 January 2006 11:12 AM      Profile for Ryda Wong     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alan McKee:
The issue of the definition of violence has been raised.

I used a definition which is generally agreed on by social scientists:

"The majority of social scientists have agreed on a definition of violence … One of the leading researchers in the field of aggression, Robert Baron, has summarized the definition acceptable to most social scientists and implicit in most research on the effects of violent pornography: ‘Any form of behaviour directed toward the goal of harm; or injuring another living being who is motivated to avoid such treatment’" (Donnerstein, E., Linz, D., & Penrod. S. (1987). The question of pornography: research findings and policy implications, New York: Macmillan/Free Press. page 18)

I included in this definition any form of physical violence, violent speech, or any other form of coerced sexual behaviour.



No, not really. I think perhaps the disconnect here is that (and correct me if I am wrong) you are viewing the porn on a straight level, and not looking at any of the subcontexts contained therein. The quote above is so vague as to be without use, and does not consider how we define a "goal of harm". I hold your source suspect, as I am not sure that social scientists are the best parties to define violence, as they might not be fully trained in taking apart the subcontext of various materials. I would better trust those versed in philosophy, literature, or history teamed with social scientists to arrive at such a definition. Personally, I would prefer a re-worked and less stringint McKinnon/Dworkin definition, as it actually begins to address what violent and degrading acts are in our cultural framework.

To summarize, I doubt that your definition of violent elements in porn and my definition of violent elements in porn would agree. And I, as a female, a victim of sexual violence (both violence that used porn as a direct template and an indirect template), as a student of literature and culture, trained in deconstructionism and feminist theory, feel that my definition is as valid, or more so, than something defined by males in a "scientific" study.


From: Boulder, CO, where we wish we were Canadian | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ryda Wong
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11839

posted 25 January 2006 11:17 AM      Profile for Ryda Wong     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alan McKee:
But these claims are moral rather than factual. something which cannot be measured in any objective way.

Hope this information is useful.


See, here is the problem. You can't, in all honesty, claim to factuality in an issue like this. It exists in a highly complex social framework, not in a vaccum (which is one of the reasons I am against banning porn, but support the right to sue porn producers for harm, while supporting a campaign of massive, radical social change).


And it isn't so much that our objections are "moral." That is a charged word, and I find it disingenuious that, in an impartial context, you would use it. Our objections are philosophical, based on our right, as women, to live in a culture free of the constant fear of sexual violence. One way to approach this goal is to change the degrading an objectifying view of sexuality which has existed since the beginning of our culture.


From: Boulder, CO, where we wish we were Canadian | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Ryda Wong
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11839

posted 25 January 2006 11:21 AM      Profile for Ryda Wong     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:

What a remarkably sexist statement and certainly one worthy of censure. Broad sweeping judgements of a group are frowned upon here.


Would you care to defend on how this is a) Sexist, and b) a judgement of a group?


As I said, a masculinist viewpoint is necessarily violent. A masculinist viewpoint necessarily contains elements of domination, competition, the desire for victory, and the control, through objectification, of the 'other'

Please note, that a masculinist viewpoint is different than a male viewpoint.

[ 25 January 2006: Message edited by: Ryda Wong ]


From: Boulder, CO, where we wish we were Canadian | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 January 2006 11:22 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
"50 of the bestselling pornographic videos in Australia"

i.e., the mainstream pornographic video market.

If you want to rearrange what was said to claim that someone stated that pornographic videos represent the mainstream of all porn, that's your problem.


Parse it how you will, but this is useles information.

The porn industries switch from hard media to cyber media was probably the most significant driving force in internet development. There has been no other industry which benefited so much from the cyber revolution. Pornogrpahy, probably more than any other consumer product has been the key engine through which secured cyber billing, customer tracking, data collection, flash banner advertising, etcetera, was developed. Even this BBS owes hugely to the internet porn industry just in terms of being a stable software engine.

Selecting what is being called the "mainstream video market" as sample base of interest in the study of porn is to deliberately put oneself through the intellectual looking glass.

This study is indicative of nothing sginficant, except perhaps McKee's desire to build up his portfolio of newspaper clippings, so that he may further exploit the government for more grant money.

Page 23 tabloid stuff really, that is all.

[ 25 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 January 2006 11:27 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The great majority of porn, and therefore the porn worth sampling and studying is disseminated through the internet

Thank God he has you for help. Sure, it's great to have a PhD, a body of published work, and the support of funding agencies, but without some stranger's unsubstantiated, knee-jerk personal opinions on the internet, you just can't do scholarly research.

I have to agree with Andrew_Jay. Here we have a reputable researcher who has studied porn and is willing, it would appear, to discuss the findings of this research at a scholarly level. And he's being met with nothing better than personal opinion, anecdotes and invective.

Is this because his methodology has been shown to be flawed? Nope.

Is it because he lacks the academic credentials to undertake such a study? Nope.

Is it because his data has been shown to be corrupted or fabricated? Nope.

Is it because he's been shown to be in a conflict of interest? Nope.

So what's left? All I can guess is that he's being "critiqued" because his findings aren't what people are comfortable with. And that's pretty sad if the only reason anyone has to quarrel with a reputable academic is that they don't agree with what his research showed, and sadder still when the quarrel can't even happen at an academic level.

quote:
If you had principles you would refund whatever money was invested by the government in your study, and also in your education, and get a job driving taxi.

"Welcome, Dr. McKee, and thanks for being gracious enough to discuss your research with us."


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 25 January 2006 11:31 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Pornogrpahy, probably more than any other consumer product has been the key engine through which secured cyber billing, customer tracking, data collection, flash banner advertising, etcetera, was developed.
There's a lot of news coverage on the internet too - blogs, online newspapers and magazines, etcetera.

By your logic, any study which limited itself to an analysis of the content of the evening news on CBC or CTV (i.e. the mainstream televised evening news programs), in the sole interest of analysing the content of that particular medium, would be "nothing significant"

[ 25 January 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ryda Wong
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11839

posted 25 January 2006 11:32 AM      Profile for Ryda Wong     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alan McKee:
although I must say I think your tone is not very nice.

Dr. McKee. This is the internet, not a graduate seminar. You don't have the authority to reprove someone.

And let me explain that anger against porn and other material that objectifies and degrades women is valid, and desperatly needs a place for expression.


Let me also say that your study, and those like it, highlight one of the things in academia that bother me the most: the seperation between and lack of understanding of seperate disciplines. And I believe that it is in such a topic as porn that the poverty induced by this artifical divide shows.


From: Boulder, CO, where we wish we were Canadian | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 January 2006 11:33 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Look he's out googling his name on the internet and is now trying to further build interest in his foolish study. There is no reason to thank him. It is just more shameless self promotion and egoism.

You would think, a serious scholar would be engaged in legnthy discussions with peers would you not, rather than trolling popular bulletin boards and promoting himself? Que no?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 January 2006 11:41 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You would think, a serious scholar would be engaged in legnthy discussions with peers would you not, rather than trolling popular bulletin boards and promoting himself? Que no?

Knowing a few researchers, and having married one, it seems quite reasonable to me that they'd be interested in anyone taking an interest in their study. This is hardly exclusive of also discussing their work with peers, by the way. Scholars aren't forced to choose, y'know?

Be honest: if Dr. McKee were an anti-porn crusader here at babble to respond to discussion of his work, would you really be asking whether he doesn't have better things to do than talk with the likes of us?

Personally I'm finding this funny. You're going to make a fool of yourself arguing like you're on an AM radio talk show with a published author and researcher, and because you don't like what his research found, you won't let up. If my office had a microwave I'd be popping popcorn.

Anyway, carry on, Dr. Cueball, PhD.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 25 January 2006 11:42 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
You would think, a serious scholar would be engaged in legnthy discussions with peers would you not, rather than trolling popular bulletin boards and promoting himself? Que no?
Someone expressed significant concerns with his research, and Dr. McKee took the time to try and address them. Naturally, you'd find fault with that.

Yeah, maybe he should only discuss these things with his peers, so you could have the opportunity to very quickly switch from complaining about "shameless ego-tripping trolls" to whining about "arrogant ivory-tower academics too afraid to face the public"

[ 25 January 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 January 2006 11:43 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
There's a lot of news coverage on the internet too - blogs, online newspapers and magazines, etcetera.

By your logic, any study which limited itself to an analysis of the content of the evening news on CBC or CTV (i.e. the mainstream televised evening news programs), in the sole interest of analysing the content of that particular medium, would be "nothing significant"

[ 25 January 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]


Again wrong. Mainstream television media can be proven to still hold the largest share of the market, and thus be worthy of study as a subject of examining emerging attitudes in society as a whole and even worthy of the somewhat sketchy qualifier "mainstream." This is not the case with porn.

The internet has not become the main means through which news is disseminated in society. However, video and even pornographic magazines, are desperately hanging on to an ever shrinking market share.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 January 2006 11:48 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andrew Jay wrote:

quote:
Someone expressed significant concerns with his research, and Dr. McKee took the time to try and address them.

You think that's how it worked, eh?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 January 2006 11:51 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Be honest: if Dr. McKee were an anti-porn crusader here at babble to respond to discussion of his work, would you really be asking whether he doesn't have better things to do than talk with the likes of us?

Anyway, carry on, Dr. Cueball, PhD.


Since when Mr Magoo, have I even objected to Porn? Even S&M porn? Please review my babble history and tell me again that I am an anti-porn crusader.

You have again reset yourself to zero.

I like porn Mr. Magoo. I have even made porn, Mr. Magoo. And if you must know, one of the reasons I am so keenly aware of what porn has done for the internet as a tool for marketing consumer products is because I worked in the marketing department of one of the first even large scale internet porn providers.

But lets not pretty up the porn industry with this tripe being spouted by McKee.

I am simply saying that this study is shite.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 January 2006 12:01 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Please review my babble history and tell me again that I am an anti-porn crusader.

I'm not saying you're a "crusader". I'm saying that if Dr. McKee came here, said he studied a bunch of porn, and found most of it (instead of almost none of it) to be violent, I don't think you'd really bother popping in to ask about his time management priorities.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 25 January 2006 12:04 PM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ryda Wong:

Dr. McKee. This is the internet, not a graduate seminar. You don't have the authority to reprove someone.


Give me a break. For responding to an ad hominem attack, he is suddenly "reproving someone"?

Guess what Alan, next time just tell the person they're full of shit. That's apparently no problem on this board. But what YOU said...now that must be stopped at all costs!


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 25 January 2006 12:06 PM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:


You think that's how it worked, eh?[/QB]


Pretty much, yes that IS how it worked. The thread has degenerated, through the fault of neither the OP nor McKee.


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 January 2006 12:09 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Don't be hasty, Pookie. Mysterious skullduggery may have taken place, and Skdadl is going to tell us all about it. Right, Skdadl?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 January 2006 12:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

I'm not saying you're a "crusader". I'm saying that if Dr. McKee came here, said he studied a bunch of porn, and found most of it (instead of almost none of it) to be violent, I don't think you'd really bother popping in to ask about his time management priorities.


I was asked to produce this movie Sex The Annabel Chong Story but had a bad feeling about it and didn't.

Porn is great. I love porn. Porn can be sexs as art, not to mention sex, through the medium of film and photography.

On the other hand there is a substantive amount of porn which plays to truly gross stereotypes, and also is directly exploitative, and damaging. Like any industry operating in the patriarchal capitalist mode.

However, I am not convinced that I can identify porn as THE locus for creating the archtypes for exploitation in the greater shceme of things, though, I agree that it can (and does) play a part in reinforcing those stereotypes often.

My concern, more often, is for the individuals whom I have seen directly exploited as individuals in the industry, (as a capitalist enterprise) and the damage it does to them personally, secxually and emotionally.

I think the main porn reflects more than creates the definitional archtypes upon which the ideological substructures of capitalism is founded, and the exploitation of women, and men is justified.

But then many people have sought to discern the nature of porn, the point is to change it.

[ 25 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 January 2006 12:24 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by pookie:

Give me a break. For responding to an ad hominem attack, he is suddenly "reproving someone"?

Guess what Alan, next time just tell the person they're full of shit. That's apparently no problem on this board. But what YOU said...now that must be stopped at all costs!


Ad hominem my ass. I was making an observation based on a very clear analysis of the problems with the "studies" methodology as outlined. It is garbage, for the very reasons that I outlined, very clearly, if you care to respond to that analysis, you yourself can drag yourself out of the gutter of the ad hominem, and at least into the street.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 25 January 2006 12:54 PM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Ad hominem my ass. I was making an observation based on a very clear analysis of the problems with the "studies" methodology as outlined. It is garbage, for the very reasons that I outlined, very clearly, if you care to respond to that analysis, you yourself can drag yourself out of the gutter of the ad hominem, and at least into the street.


You said McKee had no principles, you implied he had defrauded his funding agency, and you suggested a new career as a taxi driver. Now, that is really great methodological analysis.

It's not possible to have a discussion about the impact and risks of this kind of study (and the risks do exist) if one starts attacking people for the results of their research. Which you did.


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 January 2006 01:07 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Those are exactly the things that I said. Now if you can keep your attention span intact for more than 30 seconds why not respond to the argument I made behind those statements. This is why it was not ad hominem.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 January 2006 01:44 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Strictly speaking, an insult is not the same as an ad Hominem attack.

Also strictly speaking, Cueball isn't criticizing McKee's methodology. From what we've seen, his methodology is sound: when you state your intention to study video rentals, and then study video rentals, and you make sure you state your conclusions in terms of video rentals, then you haven't jumped the rails, methodology-wise.

Cueball is criticizing McKee's objectives or purpose.

In a different context: I could study poverty among Bay Street bankers. My methodology could be rigorous. And at the end, someone could ask me why I'd bother studying poverty among the bankers when there's so much more poverty among poor people. That's a lot more like what Cueball is actually doing. Asking why McKee would study video rentals when there's the Internet now.

But as long as McKee doesn't try to extrapolate his video rental conclusions to all of porn, or internet porn, or 18th century woodcuts of the Kama Sutra, then his methodology isn't flawed.

On the other hand, "methodology" such as relating third-party anecdotes from friends of friends who've had bad experiences with porn is poor methodology that would be laughed out of a first year research course, as it should be laughed out of here.

You don't critique academic research with a story about your buddy, unless you're one of those 80-IQ yobs on AM radio talk shows.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 January 2006 02:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am really not at all sure if this last refers to me? Does it? I didn't raise any personal anecdotes and present them as some sort of objective research, except in as much as that we actually did to marketing research, which is sociology, when I worked in marketing porn, and believe you me, combinations of sex and violence in pornography is not a lost leader, it is a hot ticket.

And as for methodology, I question the process of evidence selection, since it seems to me the purpose of the study is to create material which reflects wider trends and truths about society, at large inferentially, not simply to prove something specific about the fringe market of the porn industry.

Can we ignore that the study exists in the context of a wider debate about violent imagery in pornography, and speaks to that directly, and I don't think you are suggesting that the intention of the researchers was anything but to speak to the larger issue, as evidence? Was it?

It seemed to me that video was chosen as the evidentiary base, as an easily accesible, randomly selectable sample that could be used as a basis for refelcting on pornography trends in general.

You are saying Mckee is really only interested in video pornography, because it is video pornography and not because it pornography. The accent is on video, not pornography. In other words he is really talking about the video medium, not how it is used. Then the study is even more problematic, given that only studying a small section of the overall video market, that being the porn market and that tells us very little about video in general. If that is the case my original stand is even more poignant, now, for if that is the case it is truly irrelevant, and a boondoggle dressed up as social science.

Perhaps I am not giving Mckee enough credit perhaps this was just a clever way to get paid to watch a lot of soft core cheerleader porn. No skin of my nose really.

[ 25 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 25 January 2006 02:23 PM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I am really not at all sure if this last refers to me? Does it?

I don't think so. The way I read him is that he is referring to other posters' anecdotes - posters whose careful observation and analysis of their own sexual experience vis-à-vis porn users - suggesting that their experiences should be discredited and are not as worthy as the highly academic research stats cited by McKee.

I so love the way carefully analyzed anecdotes and experience get buried under a pile of essentially meaningless stats and Magoo's derision.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 January 2006 02:27 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I am really not at all sure if this last refers to me? Does it?

Sorry to be ambiguous. No, not you.

quote:
I question the process of evidence selection, since it seems to me the purpose of the study is to create material which reflects wider trends and truths about society, at large inferentially, not simply to prove something specific about the fringe market of the porn industry.

According to the Wikipedia entry on porn, studios release some 11,000 DVD titles a year to a multi-billion dollar market, so I don't know if it's really fair to suggest that rentals are "fringe". What video store doesn't have its little curtained-off section? Heck, what variety store doesn't?

I think, too, that studying video rentals makes sense from a practicality standpoint. It's considerably easier to track video rentals reliably and thus come up with a plausible list of "the most popular". How would you do that with a website? Can't just track hits. And while a video store may be willing to tell you which are the most popular rentals (or an industry magazine may tell you which are the best sellers) a website isn't likely to tell you how many subscribers they have, or whether they prefer the "lighter" or "darker" stuff on the site, etc.

Websites also change. If a site is popular this month, maybe it's got a popular feature this month. Next month, maybe not. DVDs stand still in that respect. A "Max Hardcore" DVD is what it is, and if it's popular then you know why.

And though McKee isn't saying this, it seems to me that video porn isn't necessarily a bad indicator of other porn. As an example, if you tell me that home carpentry books outsell home plumbing books five to one, it's not an outrageous assumption to assume that probably home carpentry videos would be more popular than home plumbing videos as well. Why wouldn't the preferences cross over?

In this case, why would I assume that when Spanky Bob rents a video to watch on his television, he looks for soft-focus erotica, but if he's downloading a video on the internet he looks for hair-pulling and kicking?

From the point of view of rigorous research one cannot make this leap, I realize, but informally it seems to me that it wouldn't be unreasonable to take a few assumptions from this study and apply them to other forms of porn, at least until given a good reason not to.

Finally, this study took place in Australia. I don't know if they have the same level of internet use that North America has. Canada is definitely on the short list when it comes to homes with internet service, and the use of that service, but if Australia is anything like a lot of European countries, it's not as big a thing there.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 January 2006 02:30 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by brebis noire:
I so love the way carefully analyzed anecdotes and experience get buried under a pile of essentially meaningless stats and Magoo's derision.

Yes, well it seems to me the new sociologists are steering away from the archaic form of purely statistical based sociology of the kind McKee uses, more in favour of a narrative based model with the analytic as functional, which has its problems obviously, but it accepts the relevance of the human in the discourse as a function of creation of the discourse, as well as recognizing the researcher as actor in the methodolgy (subject selection etc.) chosen for the research.

[ 25 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 January 2006 02:34 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I so love the way carefully analyzed anecdotes and experience get buried under a pile of essentially meaningless stats and Magoo's derision.

quote:
The porn use always predates the relationships.

Seems guys usually find porn at a young & impressionable age - way before they're ready to get into serious long term relationships. After many years of sacrificing sperm to the god of lonely nights these guys can find love. But breaking up with porn is hard to do. So these guys enter into committed relationships while maintaining porn as a mistress. Then we (their partners who commiserate online and over cocktails) end up trying to overcome our loved ones' pavlovian libidos and numbed sensuality.



LOL! That's "carefully analyzed", is it?

That's an opinion, presented as fact. It's a caricature.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
brebis noire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7136

posted 25 January 2006 02:36 PM      Profile for brebis noire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
LOL! That's "carefully analyzed", is it?

That's an opinion, presented as fact. It's a caricature.



Derision: exactly.
Keep going.
You're proving my point.


From: Quebec | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 25 January 2006 02:39 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey! Has anyone else noticed those two posts - of Zoot's and Magoo's - on baby poo that appear in the middle of this thread?!?

Gosh. I wonder where questioner has got to.

Everyone synchronize watches.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 January 2006 02:41 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

I think, too, that studying video rentals makes sense from a practicality standpoint. It's considerably easier to track video rentals reliably and thus come up with a plausible list of "the most popular". How would you do that with a website? Can't just track hits. And while a video store may be willing to tell you which are the most popular rentals (or an industry magazine may tell you which are the best sellers) a website isn't likely to tell you how many subscribers they have, or whether they prefer the "lighter" or "darker" stuff on the site, etc.


I agree here entirely, the internet poses a signifcant research challenge. Laziness, and lack of imagination are also possible reasons why McKee took the obvioulsy stilted approach to this subject.

However, the solution is as follow: randomly select via computer a large quantity of active URL's. Take this list and reduce it by taking out all those that do not offer paid services, then parse that again by removing those that offer anything other than sexually related material, Then count the actual web pages and quantify those that have violent sexual content, on the basies of the number of actual web pages which represent such material, as compared to other sex material.

This last is important because one of the tricks of internet marketing, is maketting the same material through different sites, which appear to be different operations but actually are not, and are simply repackaging of the very same material.

Thus daddies little girl on the "girly girly" site becomes the naughty school girl at "Mistress Honeycutts Naughty Prep School." Same model, same catholic school girls dress, the material resides on the same server, but the linked portal appears different, and actually appeals to a different demographic.

So you have to count the pages not the sites.

[ 25 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 25 January 2006 05:51 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
On the other hand, "methodology" such as relating third-party anecdotes from friends of friends who've had bad experiences with porn is poor methodology that would be laughed out of a first year research course, as it should be laughed out of here.

Where do you think "here" is Magoo??? If I can't relate personal information about my being female in the freakin' Rabble FEMINIST FORUM then where the schleck would you have me go? If there were somewhere else to go I would. That's the problem. We 'porn widows' have nowhere to go. We're told porn is harmless, to loosen up and watch it with our partners. Well, you wouldn't expect your wife to start downing 40 ouncers just cuz you were an alcoholic would you?

And you come in "here" baiting, antagonizing and ridiculing personal experience.

3rd party???? I've been talking about ME if you hadn't noticed. Remember me saying "I've met whacks of guys who can climax in 5 minutes with their newest pornographic video but can't manage to come with their girlfriend or spouse after an hour or more of sexual play." I guess you weren't paying attention because I didn't put PhD somewhere in my profile? Arrogant arrogant arrogant.

Are you this detached and academic about everything? No passion? No empathy??? Do you actually have a point to prove or are you just here to pick apart other people's opinions and arguments?

[ 25 January 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 25 January 2006 06:48 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If I can't relate personal information about my being female in the freakin' Rabble FEMINIST FORUM then where the schleck would you have me go?

I'm not preventing you from relating your experiences. I'm just pointing out that that's not methodology. You don't refute an academic study with your personal experience of something.

If I, personally, find Canada's hospitals to be awesome, with great service and short waiting times, does that refute the Romanow Report? Doesn't mean I can't tell you about my experiences, but can't really expect to somehow disprove Roy Romanow's findings by telling my story.

quote:
I've been talking about ME if you hadn't noticed. Remember me saying "I've met whacks of guys who can climax in 5 minutes with their newest pornographic video but can't manage to come with their girlfriend or spouse after an hour or more of sexual play

Uh, people you've met aren't you.

I met all kinds of people who think Canada's hospital system is awesome, etc., etc.

quote:
Are you this detached and academic about everything?

No, but we're talking about an academic study.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 25 January 2006 08:50 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
People who aren't me?

Um. 'Met' euphemistically as in guys I've bedded. Dude, get with it. I've been talking about the sad sex lives of partners of porn addicts. Trying to anyhow. I've been there. I'm one of those women. I AM one. First hand info ....

Oh forget it. Thanks for reading everyone. Hope you all enjoyed this entertaining thread.

You win Magoo. Go smoke that cigarette you mentioned earlier. Smoke the whole pack!

[ 25 January 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 January 2006 09:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Others are interested.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 25 January 2006 09:07 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Cueball. I'm so frustrated with these insensitive dismissals - seemingly for the sake of sport. I just can't share anymore. Not right now.
From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 25 January 2006 09:42 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So I've kept out of this one. Until now. And I enter now only to ask if anyone has any kind of explanation for why someone would almost invariably bait, goad, tease, mock, and jest at the expense of others who are trying to debate issues which obviously resonate with them... do you suppose it is a shattering lack of self esteem which would make someone behave like that? Or do you suppose some people are just insensitive arstles? But it's getting damned tiresome, thread after thread, and I think it's decidedly poor taste in the feminist forum. I think I'll e-mail a moderator.
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 25 January 2006 09:44 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you too - Anne.
From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 25 January 2006 09:46 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm just pointing out that that's not methodology

Oh and you would know from methodolgy correct? Stats can be manipulated based upon a large number of things - sample size, questions asked, demographics. Don't go discounting real, lived experience and throw out "acadeic methodology" as if that was somehow authoritative enough to discount experience.

Quantitave versus qualitative research. You know the distinction right? You ever studied stats? You're either willfully baiting or just plain ignorant on this topic and in your quest to prove you have the last say you're hurting people. But then again, that appears to be what you like to do for the most part. Especially in topics about women and their personal experiences.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 25 January 2006 09:49 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh! And Stargazer too! Now I'm feeling all *squooshy* inside! yay.
From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 25 January 2006 09:50 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anyway, it was me who brought up methodology, not AA. When did AA bring up "methodolgy" to make a "scientific" critique? That was me. I don't see why Magoo is conflating antagonists, really.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 25 January 2006 09:52 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Might I suggest we treat him the way we treat trolls..starve the fucker...don't feed him..don't respond to his teen-aged nyah nyah, leave him bouncing around on the periphery, ignored, each time he comes blundering into the feminist forum. I feel he has demonstrated any number of times that he has absolutely NO business here, he only comes to do some pimplyassed version of whacking off..or whatever his motivation is.

This "study" is so flawed it hardly even deserves to be called a "study". As if ALL sex was merely some sort of acrobatic activity and never had anything at all to do with emotion.

As for all those happily married heterosexual porn addicts.........bwahhhaaaa, and their wives or girlfriends would laugh if it didn't HURT so fucking much!


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 25 January 2006 10:10 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This thread is probably long enough. Sorry I wasn't following it at all. I don't feel like trying to figure out who started it. I'm just gonna end it.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca