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


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » body and soul   » How damaging is porn, and is it even inherently damaging?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: How damaging is porn, and is it even inherently damaging?
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684

posted 05 September 2008 10:00 AM      Profile for 500_Apples   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As many readers will know, I am of the opinion that porn is rather bad because it leads to distorted views of sex and of what other human beings should look like, creating an obstacle to real-world relationships. I don't think much good can come from the glorified imaging of uber blondness, hyper-boobs and general overall plastic.

I was discussing this with my roommate yesterday and she told me of the existence of alternative feminist porn, and I asked her what that was. One aspect she mentioned is that they use normal-looking people. I said I had trouble imagining a porn industry with normal-looking people, to which she responded that's because it's now true of the entire media and not just the porn industry.

Admittedly, I think things might be going better in that parallel universe where people watch healthy but natural looking people or whatever engage in diverse and fun sexual positions. Maybe I'm wrong about that. What I'm also not sure about is whether or not it's plausible. Is physical idealization not a prerequisite for purely visual sexual stimulation?

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]


From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 05 September 2008 11:39 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
First, we've had many porn discussions on babble. They rarely end well.

But I will take you at your word and answer you sincerely.

500, some will say there is no good, healthy, egalitarian way to depict explicit sexuality visually without being exploitative, sexist, degrading, etc.

I'm not one of them.

Yes, your friend is right, there is feminist porn that shows explicit sex and is none of those things.

quote:
Is physical idealization not a prerequisite for purely visual sexual stimulation?

FYI, your question is relevant to a porn discussion, but is also relevant in many other arenas.

I hate answering questions framed in the negative, so I'll say this. Although we all are taught which bodies are deemed "sexy", mostly, as you've pointed out, are fake, photoshopped and airbrushed, most of us know the difference between mainstream porn fantasies and reality and don't expect our partners, men or women, to look like porn "actors". There are also many people who respectfully disagree with who mainstream porn says is sexy, and these are not necessarily people who have taken "Positive Sexuality and You! 101".

As someone who is by no means a physical ideal (short and rather plump, never mind my smarty-pants attitude), when I was single and "out there" I had few problems getting dates/getting laid/finding a partner. Don't be deceived by the "mainstream" porn out there most of which is formulaic and predictable. Again, some people know how to separate fantasy from reality.

For feminist porn check out Good For Her.


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
RevolutionPlease
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14629

posted 05 September 2008 07:55 PM      Profile for RevolutionPlease     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Could be wrong.
[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: RevolutionPlease ]


From: Aurora | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged
Malcolm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5168

posted 05 September 2008 08:47 PM      Profile for Malcolm   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:

Is physical idealization not a prerequisite for purely visual sexual stimulation?

[ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]



Some analysts have argued that there is at least some variance based on sex. By this analysis. men, who tend to me more visual, are more likely to "need" some degree of, as you put it, "physical idealization," whereas women, who are more emotional, would not need such "physical idealization," and indeed may find less arousal in the visual depiction than a narrative text.

It strikes me that the analysis may overstate the differences of men and women, and that it may not give appropriate consideration to the role of socialization in the way we react to such stimuli.

All that said, the suggestion that men like images of perfect women having disconnected sex while women prefer to read a good erotic love story seems to fit with my experience.


From: Regina, SK | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 05 September 2008 11:04 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

Whatever it does, the Internet is for it.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michael Hardner
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2595

posted 21 September 2008 07:00 AM      Profile for Michael Hardner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A lot of discussion about media content doesn't acknowledge the nature of media.

For example, much of the criticism of pornography addresses the idealized physiques and unrealistic sexuality that appear in the film. I've read similar criticism about advertising too.

With regards to why this happens, often the reason is given up as straight-up sexism, which may be true enough but there are still elements that support that sexism that should be examined.

I believe that media was much more undemocratic in the past: decisions about what was 'beautiful' were made by a small cabal of men, (investors and their operatives) and - with television for example - the sheer numbers of viewers also forced a middle-of-the-road aesthetic that resisted diversity.

Now, many years later, individuals demand more choice. This means the archetypes of the past are tired. Online pornography can be made practically for free, and posted by individuals online.

Today men, women, and couples create their own web sites with click-for-pay so that they can earn income themselves. In the past, a blue movie required thousands of dollars of investment and technical know-how. And could only be shown in a national network of seedy cinemas.

If one thinks that the presentation of actual sex acts is exploitative, then pornography hasn't changed. But if one things that it's about attitudes, and bases of power then these things have indeed changed.


From: Toronto | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 21 September 2008 09:13 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Is physical idealization not a prerequisite for purely visual sexual stimulation?

I'll say for sure no-- for the moment. There's tons of "porn" that features no nudity whatsovever. And "porn" that features women in particular that are far outside what is considered the "ideal" by the media or popular convention.

But then, if a visual depiction of someone far outside the popular convention of "ideal" still visual stimulation of that person's "ideal"? And therefore damaging all the same according to you?

In my mind, the damaging aspects of porn lie mostly in the exploitation of people being used in the manufacture of it. And, it is also damaging-- like gambling, for example-- to those who are so enamoured of it it damages their relationships to others.

But really, what I think underlies all this and causes all the other "damage" is the fact that we can't have healthy and respectfull discussions on the topic of sex. We are reticent, judgemental, condeming and very, very few are nearly as open minded as they claim to be.

Just watch as the thread continues.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 23 September 2008 01:02 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Ah, right yet again.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 23 September 2008 09:11 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
But really, what I think underlies all this and causes all the other "damage" is the fact that we can't have healthy and respectfull discussions on the topic of sex. We are reticent, judgemental, condeming and very, very few are nearly as open minded as they claim to be.

What about those for whom sex is rather personal, and a topic for discussion with only one other person?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
bagkitty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15443

posted 23 September 2008 09:32 PM      Profile for bagkitty     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

What about those for whom sex is rather personal, and a topic for discussion with only one other person?


They probably are not terribly likely to post in this thread


From: Calgary | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged
martin dufresne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11463

posted 23 September 2008 09:42 PM      Profile for martin dufresne   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Male defensiveness seems to rule...

[ 23 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]


From: "Words Matter" (Mackinnon) | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 24 September 2008 12:51 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:

What about those for whom sex is rather personal, and a topic for discussion with only one other person?



Well, you've just let it out that you're not into threesomes, so you might as well dish on everything else, now.

And, stop being so deffensive whydontcha?

But seriously, "Is physical idealization not a prerequisite for purely visual sexual stimulation?" is the orginal question put by 500 Apples, and I really think the answer is no.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca