'Have you paid for pornography?' poll discussion

Paulie'sGirl

Hmmm, its an interesting (and clearly divisive) issue.

OH and I have watched it together, I'm not so sure I'd be comfortable with him using it alone though. We've been to burlesque shows together too.

I don't have any moral objections to its use openly, I think repression of such things, driving them underground, is what causes exploitation and deterioration of relationships.

Paying for it? We've paid for it because we prefered a less tacky style.

Live and let live

Stephenbw

Maat wrote: »

I don't use pornography for the same reason I'm vegetarian - I do my best not to cause harm to others. This link gives a voice to men, women and children who have been harmed by it. Maybe the 90% of men in particular who said they watch it should find out more about the people who suffer within it and because of it.

https://againstpornography.org/effectsandharms.html

I have been a vegetarian for 26 years; I have used pornography for even longer. As the !!!!!! I am interested in involves only men I was curious to see how this harmed women or children so I checked out your link.

This was what I found

Q: How about gay and lesbian pornography? Are feminists against those genres too?
A: Feminists are against all forms of pornography because, sadly, the vast majority of commercial gay male pornography mimics the domination/subordination dynamic of straight !!!!!!.


The author has no valid answer to the question so instead makes the leap that she is against "all forms of pornography" because "the vast majority of commercial gay male pornography mimics the domination/subordination dynamic of straight !!!!!!.

Not only is her assertion a blatant lie which shows that she knows nothing about gay pornography, it is a spurious argument, akin to saying "I am against all forms of food because production of the vast majority of it harms the environment"

Unfortunately this, for me, undermines any valid points she may have.

dawsar

Lets stop making it taboo, tax it and legalise it!!! Look at how clean it is in Amsterdam. As long as everyone involved is over the age of 18 and consenting where is the problem. !!!!!! is exciting, but I have to say, I wouldn't pay for it.....lol

lucyloo1_2

grahamm wrote: »

No, not everyone who uses !!!!!! is an addict. More importantly the vast majority of people (male and female) who use !!!!!! will *never* become addicts, let alone (to quote from your site) "lose all respect for women and start to see them as just sex objects nor "start viewing material that is illegal - child !!!!!!, violent !!!!!!, bestiality etc."

The "gateway theory" argument that "Over time, the person needs to find more and more "exciting" material to achieve orgasm" is equally nonsensical and has as little credibility as the claim that smoking a bit of wacky baccy today will mean you're mainlining heroin tomorrow.

The claim that "It is very common for an addict to not realise that they are one and deny it" equally lacks credibility because if someone says "I'm not an addict", clearly they're just in denial, so they *are* an addict...!

Yes, *some* people (a very few) may be affected in this way, but trying to parlay that into a general case just doesn't follow.

1) I wouldn't claim to know how many people are casual !!!!!! users and how many are addicts. If you do, I would be most interested to know where you got your figures from. I certainly don't know but, I do think it is a "hidden problem" because it is one that is one that is very difficult to admit to, either for the addict themselves or their partner, if they have one.

2) My site is there for people to go to who are addicted to !!!!!! or affected by that addiction. Addicts are as likely to deny their problem (and possibly equally convincingly) as those who genuinely don't have a problem. The way you can tell the 2 apart is from their behaviour - compulsive vs 'take it or leave it'.

3) I do think that the addiction is a "slippery slope" and that some addicts will continue just getting worse and worse. Perhaps for some, they can achieve some sort of control over it so, that they don't slide into viewing more and more extreme material. That may just mean they are less addicted than the ones that do.

4) As for compulsive !!!!!! viewing affecting the addict's attitude towards, women. I have experienced this myself and so I know it happens. That is all I can say on this point.

Thanks for your response.

grahamm

lucyloo1 wrote: »

1) I wouldn't claim to know how many people are casual !!!!!! users and how many are addicts. If you do, I would be most interested to know where you got your figures from. I certainly don't know but, I do think it is a "hidden problem" because it is one that is one that is very difficult to admit to, either for the addict themselves or their partner, if they have one.

Sorry, but this is the Burden of Proof fallacy. You assert that this is a "hidden problem", but you admit that you have no knowledge or information of the scope of the problem, yet you then want *me* to back up my disagreement with figures.

You then repeat the same "no win scenario" whereby someone *cannot* deny being a "pornography addict" because that denial simply means that they won't admit that they are and try to back that up with an assertion that anyone who "has control over it" is just "less addicted" than those who are addicts.

That makes as much sense as saying that anyone who drinks alcohol but has control of it is not as much of an alcoholic as someone who can't stop drinking.

Finally, yes, I'm sure that *some* people are affected by !!!!!! and, yes, I'm sure that it does affect their attitude towards women, but that is not an argument for censorship any more than saying that drink driving is an argument for Prohibition of Alcohol.

JDPower

Thanks Grahamm, I was going to post a number of points in reply to some of what's been posted here but you've made ALL my points for me

lucyloo1 wrote: »

As for compulsive !!!!!! viewing affecting the addict's attitude towards, women. I have experienced this myself and so I know it happens.

You've experienced it so it's true? Maybe the person in question was at fault, who says the !!!!!! was anything to do with his attitude towards women. The odds are they had a bad attitude to women all along and their efforts to hide it lessened over time.

As for you argument !!!!!! is bad because someone can become addicted is meaningless. People can get addicted to all sorts, some are addicted to food, does that make food a bad thing? Some are addicted to shopping, should we close all shops? Would we cure all OCD sufferers by banning cleaning products etc.

I don't doubt you've had a bad experience in this area and I am not belittling the problem in the slightest, but you can't colour the entire human races use of something based on your (and a comparatively small percentage of others) experience.

bendix

Seriously guys, !!!!!! are you thinking?

How on earth is this related to money saving? It smacks of prurient sensationalism, overlaid with a hint of voyeurism.

Percy1983

I think I have missed this one.

robpw2

what does this have to do with a debate on house prices

marklv

Ah, just when I was hoping to read something interesting for a change!