The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:49 AM
ruadh ruadh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testy View Post
What's up with that? Women are continually shooting for the size 0 or whatever and complaining like hell about it. (reasonably so, IMHO) But why are they doing this at all? Men don't like it. The fashion industry may, but who gives a rat's ass what they think.
The fashion/beauty industry constantly pushes this ideal through women's magazines, which most women have a hell of a lot more exposure to than they do porn. I'm continually amazed at how this is overlooked by some third-wave anti-porn feminists (the second-wavers at least tended to be equally critical of both industries). I've even begun to see some anti-pornistas argue that porn actually is worse, which I can only attribute to the fact that a lot of feminists these days like fashion and beauty and don't want to implicate themselves.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #152  
Old 05-02-2012, 04:36 AM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Norris
The problem is that many people have deviant sexual tastes and enjoy acts such as owning or being owned in a sexual manner.
The issue with this is that people can only really voluntarily perform such acts if they enter into contracts willingly. When their means of subsistence are dependant on performing such acts, I don't believe there is fully informed consent. Now one may apply such premises to other occupations and conclude that most forms of employment are degrading, but society as a whole has a special plea for treating sex differently. Perhaps some of it is related to religious morality. At any rate, we collectively punish rape much more harshly than battery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Captor
if censorious types DID succeed in stamping out porn, they would simply move on to suppressing sexuality itself.
Slippery slope.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Captor
Also, most opposition to porn comes from religious types who have absorbed these memes, though few of them will admit that nowadays.
Poisoning the well.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 05-02-2012, 09:00 AM
Chuck Norris Chuck Norris is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
[QUOTE=gamerunknown15024318] The issue with this is that people can only really voluntarily perform such acts if they enter into contracts willingly. When their means of subsistence are dependant on performing such acts, I don't believe there is fully informed consent.
Of course people consent to entering these contracts willingly. Pornography is likely very convenient because A. it pays fairly well and B. it is not a full time job. Just because the alternative is working long hours for perhaps lower pay rates doesn't mean you have no choice in the matter!

Now one may apply such premises to other occupations and conclude that most forms of employment are degrading


How so? Most forms of important are not degrading in the slightest.

Perhaps some of it is related to religious morality. At any rate, we collectively punish rape much more harshly than battery.
Where is the relevance in this? We are talking about the morality of pornography, which is not related to charges for assault as far as I can tell.

Last edited by Chuck Norris; 05-02-2012 at 09:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 05-02-2012, 11:45 AM
Testy Testy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruadh View Post
The fashion/beauty industry constantly pushes this ideal through women's magazines, which most women have a hell of a lot more exposure to than they do porn. I'm continually amazed at how this is overlooked by some third-wave anti-porn feminists (the second-wavers at least tended to be equally critical of both industries). I've even begun to see some anti-pornistas argue that porn actually is worse, which I can only attribute to the fact that a lot of feminists these days like fashion and beauty and don't want to implicate themselves.
ruadh

Thank you for the explanation. I don't follow feminist thought but I'm not understanding why this continues to be a problem. Women complain of being "forced" to follow certain fashion dictates but instead of simply opting out and telling them to stuff it, they continue to blindly follow along, hating the fashion industry for their standards and hating themselves for not living up to them. Most men don't care for anorexic women so it isn't their fault. The fashion industry could and would change in a heartbeat if the women who are their customers demanded it so the situation really isn't their fault either. Who's left? At some point this starts looking like a self inflicted injury.

On the porn question, it is nothing more than wild sex with incredible looking women and without consequences or responsibilities and a lot of guys like that as a temporary change. It is nothing more than fantasy.
As far as the "degrading women" part of it goes, some of it sure seems that way and I don't really find it arousing. All the choking and spitting and the like seems gratuitous and stupid to me. If a guy's fantasy is choking women and spitting on them then the porn is not the problem.
OTOH, there seems to be an endless supply of women perfectly willing to be degraded for a bit of cash. Admittedly, it is probably harder to do than it looks, but it is still easier, more interesting and independent, and pays a hell of a lot better than working most 9 to 5 jobs.

Regards

Testy
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:03 PM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Norris
Of course people consent to entering these contracts willingly. Pornography is likely very convenient because A. it pays fairly well and B. it is not a full time job. Just because the alternative is working long hours for perhaps lower pay rates doesn't mean you have no choice in the matter!
The choices are limited due to the endemic form of property and rent. Without those features, we can meaningfully discuss consent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Norris
How so? Most forms of important are not degrading in the slightest.
I was anticipating an angle: "most people work at jobs they wouldn't do if they didn't have bills to pay or risk starvation, your argument that porn and prostitution are different is special pleading". Society as a whole thinks that certain actions committed without the consent of the participant are worse than others and sex is a primary feature. If one cedes the premise that discussions of consent are meaningless in a society designed so that it hampers rational decisions, then the special plea applies in particular to questions of sex.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 05-02-2012, 02:26 PM
Evil Captor Evil Captor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck Norris View Post
How so? Most forms of important are not degrading in the slightest.
Of course they are. You take a human being, you get them to agree to be a machine that makes hamburgers and runs a cash register and asks "Would you like fries with that?" for a set number of hours and days in exchange for money. Unless you honestly believe that the highest form of human expression is the dull, routine, repetitive actions that characterize most jobs, of COURSE it is degrading. You take a human being and make something less of them, something useful to you perhaps, but still ... a tool.

Last edited by Evil Captor; 05-02-2012 at 02:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 05-02-2012, 02:44 PM
Testy Testy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Captor View Post
Of course they are. You take a human being, you get them to agree to be a machine that makes hamburgers and runs a cash register and asks "Would you like fries with that?" for a set number of hours and days in exchange for money. Unless you honestly believe that the highest form of human expression is the dull, routine, repetitive actions that characterize most jobs, of COURSE it is degrading. You take a human being and make something less of them, something useful to you perhaps, but still ... a tool.
Evil Captor

I disagree strongly. People (in general) do what they are capable of to acquire money for the things they want. If slinging burgers is the best you can do, then how is it degrading? Yes it is boring and a lot of people suspect they could do something more important. I wonder how many of them actually could. At the end of the day, somebody still has to sling burgers or haul away the trash or do some other boring and unpleasant but necessary task.
A lot of people that are terribly dissatisfied with their jobs remind me of Jim Croce's song, Working at the Carwash Blues.

Regards

Testy
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 05-02-2012, 02:56 PM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adam Smith
The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testy
I wonder how many of them actually could.
Depends on whether or not they believe in dispositional fatalism.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 05-02-2012, 03:15 PM
Testy Testy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
Depends on whether or not they believe in dispositional fatalism.
gamerunknown

You got me on that one. Is dispositional fatalism a technical term for someone that believes they are where they are supposed to be regardless of how awful that is? If that is the case, it would seem more of a problem for a councilor or the like.

Regards

Testy
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 05-02-2012, 03:27 PM
Evil Captor Evil Captor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testy View Post
Evil Captor

I disagree strongly. People (in general) do what they are capable of to acquire money for the things they want. If slinging burgers is the best you can do, then how is it degrading? Yes it is boring and a lot of people suspect they could do something more important. I wonder how many of them actually could. At the end of the day, somebody still has to sling burgers or haul away the trash or do some other boring and unpleasant but necessary task.
A lot of people that are terribly dissatisfied with their jobs remind me of Jim Croce's song, Working at the Carwash Blues.

Regards

Testy
What do you think of mothers who raise children without any compensation? Worth what they are paid, are they?
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 05-02-2012, 03:51 PM
Testy Testy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Captor View Post
What do you think of mothers who raise children without any compensation? Worth what they are paid, are they?
Evil Captor

Why are they doing it? Did someone force them to have children? I'm not even sure how the question of payment is even valid. Personally speaking, I'd rather be raised by someone that does it because she wants to rather than because she expects to be paid. And by the way, I love the rhetorical question BS.

Regards

Testy
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 05-02-2012, 07:08 PM
QuarkChild QuarkChild is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
And when their results are finally published, we will all think to ourselves, "Why didn't I write that grant proposal?"
It would probably get rejected by your Institutional Review Board. [I'm kidding but this actually happened--there was a study described in some pop sociology book, possibly Predictably Irrational, that had to be done independently of a university because their IRB rejected it. The IRB committee was apparently concerned that asking men to look at porn for a research study could elicit traumatic memories of past sexual abuse.]

Fun fact: I'm currently serving on an IRB. So far we haven't gotten any porn-related proposals. If we ever do, I'm not planning on rejecting it on the grounds that men will be traumatized from looking at porn.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 05-02-2012, 11:08 PM
BlackKnight BlackKnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Since pornography is mostly consumed by men, attempts to censor pornography are attempts to control male sexuality. The burden of proof weighs very heavily upon those who would do so. So far in this thread, we have a bunch of "I heard"s and "everyone knows". Oh, and a link to that rigorous peer-reviewed journal "Psychology Today"*. So, is there any actual evidence that pornography is having negative overall effects on women (or men)?

I have to ask - who in this thread grew up with Internet pornography available to them? I first got the Internet when I was 13. Some of you talk like you haven't seen a porno made since some VHS in the 80's, or are simply unaware of the variety of porn available. I'm wondering if there's something of a generation gap.

The idea that shaved genitals in porn will cause young men to only find shaved genitals attractive is absurd. (I should add that it's yet to be shown that this is actually a dominant trend. Did somebody watch all the porn on the Internet and count?) Nobody is stuck fapping to a single old magazine hidden under their mattress anymore. If someone sees something in porn that they don't like, then they will find porn that does not contain that thing. If they see porn they do like, they will seek out more like it. In either case, they will find what they are looking for. Nobody forces them to watch bald cooters until they're conditioned to get boners for that and only that. If they're watching primarily shaved genitals then that is simply what they like.

*"Marnia Robinson is a former corporate attorney with degrees from Brown and Yale who writes books about the unwelcome effects of evolutionary biology on intimate relationships and the striking parallels between recent scientific discoveries and traditional sacred-sex texts. Her cross-disciplinary perspective incorporates the insights of psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists, evolutionary biologists, anthropologists and even ancient sages."
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 05-03-2012, 11:07 AM
Testy Testy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Cymbeline View Post
One of the issues I am most concerned about when it comes to the issue of whether porn degrades woman is the trend of a preference for hairless genitals. For the past couple of decades, porn has increasingly featured actresses with shaven or waxed genitals. Men who grew up watching this became conditioned to be attracted to bald vaginas, thus exerting pressure on women to alter the natural state of their private area to be attractive to their mates. I resent this pressure. As a 30-something woman, men my age grew up at the beginning of this trend. I have encountered many anecdotes of men saying they preferred "shaven." Luckily my last couple of boyfriends were OK with, even had a "fetish" for, my natural state of being, but I assure you this is the exception, not the rule, amongst people of my generation and younger. I think it's damaging both for the young men who are wired to this preference from watching porn, and for the young women who feel they have to do this to please men.

From Wiring Sexual Tastes to Hairless Genitals...Oops!
Green Cymbeline
I just read your cite about the viewing of porn stars that are shaved or waxed leading to pedophilia. Claiming that "the porn made me do it" seems like a hell of a stretch. Are there any hard numbers on this? From actual studies? It looks like the authors have found a couple of anecdotes and then taken an enormous leap to the conclusion that they wished to make. Is this the state of the art research technique for the anti-porn crowd?
To claim that viewing shaved girls wires someone's brain into a pedophile seems ridiculous and requires a hell of a lot more study (real studies!) before anyone could make that claim with a straight face.

Regards

Testy
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 05-03-2012, 01:49 PM
Scupper Scupper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Porn availability and variety is way up, rape is way down.

Convince me that this is somehow a bad thing because some women might feel like shaving their pubes might be something their partners would like.

Is it not just barely possible that the availability of porn has provided a relatively harmless outlet for male sexual aggression, as the statistics suggest?

This take on the statistics is routinely derided as a "porn apologist" stance.

Counter-arguments, such as the idea that the perception of what constitutes rape has been altered by pornography, thus causing fewer rapes to be reported would seem specious, considering the fact that visual pornography is mainly aimed at men, and men aren't usually the ones doing the reporting.

The other primary argument is that the correlation of the two statistics is specious or illusory. Perhaps that's true, but if so, what factors do affect decrease in rape and attempted rape? More potential sex offenders in prison? Possibly. But are we imprisoning that many more sex offenders? If so, wouldn't that indicate that we, as a society have developed a less tolerant attitude toward rape during the same period that porn has become widely available?

Ignoring the apparent "more porn = less rape" correlation, most arguments then shift to porn causing poor body image among women or bad attitudes toward women among the men who watch it. Aside from the fact that statistics don't show men acting on those beliefs, what conclusion are we supposed to draw from them? That a decrease in rape and attempted rape isn't worth it?
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 05-03-2012, 04:37 PM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scupper
This take on the statistics is routinely derided as a "porn apologist" stance.
No, it's derided as post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. The burden of proof is on the person to provide a theoretical framework in which confounding factors are eliminated. As doing so is not ethically possible, any spurious correlations could be made. One could just as easily claim that higher rates of mobile phone ownership correlate to fewer rapes or that increased usage of social networking or internet dating sites correlate to fewer rapes, since both of those have gone up as rape has declined. What those cites do demonstrate is that increased usage of pornography does not correlate to increased number of rapes.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 05-03-2012, 04:58 PM
Scupper Scupper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
No, it's derided as post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning.
You may rightly criticize it as such, however that is not how it is routinely derided.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
The burden of proof is on the person to provide a theoretical framework in which confounding factors are eliminated. As doing so is not ethically possible, any spurious correlations could be made.
True. Is it incorrect, then, to say that something that can't even be particularly well quantified, such as "the woman's image" suffers from the same faulty logic when people blame porn for it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
One could just as easily claim that higher rates of mobile phone ownership correlate to fewer rapes or that increased usage of social networking or internet dating sites correlate to fewer rapes, since both of those have gone up as rape has declined.
Very good point.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 05-04-2012, 01:07 AM
ruadh ruadh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
The issue with this is that people can only really voluntarily perform such acts if they enter into contracts willingly. When their means of subsistence are dependant on performing such acts, I don't believe there is fully informed consent. Now one may apply such premises to other occupations and conclude that most forms of employment are degrading, but society as a whole has a special plea for treating sex differently. Perhaps some of it is related to religious morality. At any rate, we collectively punish rape much more harshly than battery.
But rape involves sexual violence, which brings in an element that distinguishes it from sexual acts entered into without (actual or threatened) violence. The need for subsistence cannot be considered violence in itself, otherwise a person who engages in theft or drug dealing to fulfil that need could use a duress defence and society certainly wouldn't stand for that.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 05-04-2012, 01:16 AM
ruadh ruadh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testy View Post
I don't follow feminist thought but I'm not understanding why this continues to be a problem. Women complain of being "forced" to follow certain fashion dictates but instead of simply opting out and telling them to stuff it, they continue to blindly follow along, hating the fashion industry for their standards and hating themselves for not living up to them. Most men don't care for anorexic women so it isn't their fault. The fashion industry could and would change in a heartbeat if the women who are their customers demanded it so the situation really isn't their fault either. Who's left? At some point this starts looking like a self inflicted injury.
It's like any other kind of peer pressure (including the kind that men face, to display suitably masculine behaviour). It can be resisted, but it's not necessarily always easy to.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 05-04-2012, 03:38 AM
DukemNukem DukemNukem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testy View Post
Evil Captor

Why are they doing it? Did someone force them to have children? I'm not even sure how the question of payment is even valid. Personally speaking, I'd rather be raised by someone that does it because she wants to rather than because she expects to be paid. And by the way, I love the rhetorical question BS.

Regards

Testy
You think that's rhetorical? Can I call you comrade? It seems you're Russian to conclusions.
Women are expected to take care of the children and sick individuals in the family. The government expects them to (its the law) which means they won't be able to work and they to look after others. I don't think you understand what the person asked because of that confusing response that looks like you pulled out of your ass.

Before I take apart your argument and talk about the context of the individuals question, lets talk about what you wrote and the logic behind it. For the sake of argument, let's you would raised by someone who wants to and doesn't want to be paid. Being a parent is a full time job and is one of the most difficult things to do properly. So where would the income come from? Secondly, why on earth do you think being paid will skew how people are?


Now for the argument.

It's a cultural expectation in ALL cultures to have children. Do you agree?
Are people forced in North America? No.
Is there pressure? Yes.
The government expects children, society as whole does as do most parents from their own children.
Could we agree upon that?
Sorry I should'nt have wrote that first paragraph since it seems that I misread what you wrote since once a person says "personally speaking" that means they get to have immunity from ignorance and logic and defy it to express their point.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 05-04-2012, 03:54 AM
DukemNukem DukemNukem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Captor View Post
There is no NEED for humor, but it can be fun nonetheless.



To argue the point seriously, I think the dislike of porn stems from an outdated desire to control men and women's sexuality. The only way to ensure that a woman was bearing your kids was to marry her and keep her from fucking anyone else. Hence women had to be chaste outside marriage. The Catholic Church in the West actually took this one step further and saw sex as an evil thing necessary for procreation, but not to be indulged in for any other reason. (As Paul said, "It is better to marry than to burn," i.e., sexual intercourse within marriage was PREFERABLE to going to hell, but not necessarily a good thing in and of itself.) Women who had sex with just any man were whores, evil. etc. Porn celebrates sex for its own sake, of course, so it's evil and must be stamped out by this "logic," but I guarantee you, if censorious types DID succeed in stamping out porn, they would simply move on to suppressing sexuality itself. In Victorian times they were opposed to masturbation itself, and people like Dr. Kellogg of Kellogg's cereals were devising bizarre SM like devices for young men to wear on the crotches while they slept to prevent them from having nighttime erections (and orgasms).

Also, most opposition to porn comes from religious types who have absorbed these memes, though few of them will admit that nowadays.

Basically, I think anti-porn people are literally crazy, obsessed with controlling other people's sexuality. It has never been recognized as a form of mental illness because of the cultural dominance of anti-porn types historically, but I am confident that someday it will be relegated to the same back bin of history that fear of witches has been.
I completely disagree and shortly I will give my evidence.
Personally I'm completely against porn, but in no way shape or form is that controlling sexuality. The market for the need is controlled as is the satisfaction of people's wants.

There are plenty of studies that explain why porn is damaging to the brain and life. Not sex but just porn. Not only does it hurt how males view women but physically damages the brain receptors that make a person feel great after an oragasm. It desensitizes the individual of which would make them search for more extreme porn to satisfy their craving that leads to addiction.

That's going off topic since it's not really about the woman (of which is the main topic of the thread)

Now as for females, it creates an expectation and it is porn that dictates them. Whether its a certain sex act or a certain appearance. I'll be posting all the evidence to back up my case later.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 05-04-2012, 04:07 AM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scupper
such as "the woman's image" suffers from the same faulty logic when people blame porn for it?
Well, I've never subscribed to those arguments. There is a separate contention about modelling though, which I've found to be a fairly simple contention: models should match the demographics of the population. When the majority of sales in the shop are size 8, there's no point using a size 2 model, or whatever the case may be.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 05-05-2012, 11:35 AM
jtgain jtgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
Well, I've never subscribed to those arguments. There is a separate contention about modelling though, which I've found to be a fairly simple contention: models should match the demographics of the population. When the majority of sales in the shop are size 8, there's no point using a size 2 model, or whatever the case may be.
It's done for the same reason that Budweiser commercials feature young, attractive, fit, and tanned men drinking beer and having a good time with friends. Why do that when the target demographic is balding 40 somethings with giant beer guts?
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 05-05-2012, 01:15 PM
Evil Captor Evil Captor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
No, it's derided as post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. The burden of proof is on the person to provide a theoretical framework in which confounding factors are eliminated. As doing so is not ethically possible, any spurious correlations could be made. One could just as easily claim that higher rates of mobile phone ownership correlate to fewer rapes or that increased usage of social networking or internet dating sites correlate to fewer rapes, since both of those have gone up as rape has declined. What those cites do demonstrate is that increased usage of pornography does not correlate to increased number of rapes.
But, as a PRACTICAL matter, one could say, "let's keep porn around and see if the rape rates stay down." Unless you don't care about rape. In which case, you lose all status as an ethical person.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 05-05-2012, 01:21 PM
jtgain jtgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Captor View Post
But, as a PRACTICAL matter, one could say, "let's keep porn around and see if the rape rates stay down." Unless you don't care about rape. In which case, you lose all status as an ethical person.
But that's silly. You could use that argument for shall issue concealed carry or for anti-smoking laws or state constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage. Should we keep absolutely everything around that has happened since rapes started decreasing, just in case those laws had something to do with it?
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 05-05-2012, 01:26 PM
Evil Captor Evil Captor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post
But that's silly. You could use that argument for shall issue concealed carry or for anti-smoking laws or state constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage. Should we keep absolutely everything around that has happened since rapes started decreasing, just in case those laws had something to do with it?
Why not? Don't you care about women being raped? If you ban porn and rape rates go up, what do you say to the women who got raped who would not otherwise have been? "Oops! My bad! Tee-hee! I didn't really think it was causative ... I'm sure you understand that your need to not be raped does not measure up to my need for rigorous logic!"
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 05-05-2012, 01:40 PM
Vinyl Turnip Vinyl Turnip is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: <--- <--- <---
Posts: 14,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Captor View Post
Why not? Don't you care about women being raped?
You really aren't helping your case with this sort of nonsense unless you're playing Logical Fallacy Bingo, in which case you're about to sweep the game.

I'm ostensibly on your side in opposing any kind of ban on pornography, but you're not getting anywhere with shrill appeals to emotion.
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 05-05-2012, 01:46 PM
jtgain jtgain is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Captor View Post
Why not? Don't you care about women being raped? If you ban porn and rape rates go up, what do you say to the women who got raped who would not otherwise have been? "Oops! My bad! Tee-hee! I didn't really think it was causative ... I'm sure you understand that your need to not be raped does not measure up to my need for rigorous logic!"
I'm not advocating a ban on porn anymore than I would ban alcohol, cigarettes, junk food, or not calling your mother weekly. Things can be deemed harmful, yet allowed in a free society.

But I don't support keeping porn legal for the sole reason of the ad hoc fallacy that it has reduced rape rates. And no rational policy should be developed on this kind of reasoning. Rape rates have gone down since cell phone use by drivers in cars became popular. Should we repeal these texting and hand held phone bans just in case the use of cell phones while driving had something connected to rape reduction?
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 05-05-2012, 02:22 PM
Carmady Carmady is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain View Post

But I don't support keeping porn legal for the sole reason of the ad hoc fallacy that it has reduced rape rates. And no rational policy should be developed on this kind of reasoning. Rape rates have gone down since cell phone use by drivers in cars became popular. Should we repeal these texting and hand held phone bans just in case the use of cell phones while driving had something connected to rape reduction?

There are studies that claim internet porn has reduced rape, though, such as the Clemson University study mentioned here. It tries to account for other variables.
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 05-06-2012, 05:39 AM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Not everyone that agrees (roughly) with the premise of the OP, that a significant amount of porn (even if only a minority) is degrading to women would support a ban on pornography either. The one time I've attempted to contact my MP was after a ban on "violent and extreme pornography" was enacted in the UK, which I thought was rather poorly worded. My opposition is probably primarily ideological: I don't think women should have to have sex in order to provide for their means of subsistence. I want to work towards a society where they no longer have to. Once that's possible, I don't really mind if they do so voluntarily and presumably the number of women willing to perform roles they feel are demeaning would be reduced to the masochists.

In the meantime I think the burden falls on the consumer to make ethical considerations and to decide whether they'd wish to be on the receiving end of whatever is occurring in the fantasy being performed. Perhaps flagging the videos showing women being abused as inappropriate would help too.

Oh, the study by Kendall doesn't account for mobile phone ownership, which'd be a pretty big factor in the 15-19 category.

Last edited by gamerunknown; 05-06-2012 at 05:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #181  
Old 05-06-2012, 08:33 AM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Porn is fantasy, and I don't think it impacts how a person interacts with real life situations anymore than violent video games or violent movies cause people to become more violent in their day to day lives.

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/ar...mes-japan.html
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 05-06-2012, 10:38 PM
DukemNukem DukemNukem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Porn is fantasy, and I don't think it impacts how a person interacts with real life situations anymore than violent video games or violent movies cause people to become more violent in their day to day lives.
]
Your link was already adressed earlier in the conversation.

Just not the URL/website itself.

As for fantasy, so nursery tales however that doesn't mean children don't learn from them or have them shape their worldview.
Everything has meaning and it all shapes perspective if you let it.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 05-07-2012, 10:13 AM
Evil Captor Evil Captor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vinyl Turnip View Post
You really aren't helping your case with this sort of nonsense unless you're playing Logical Fallacy Bingo, in which case you're about to sweep the game.

I'm ostensibly on your side in opposing any kind of ban on pornography, but you're not getting anywhere with shrill appeals to emotion.
Bah. There's nothing wrong with pointing out that the real-life stakes for women are very high here. Blithely dismissing a phenomenon that may greatly decrease actual real rapes on women because it has not yet been PROVEN to be causative rather than correlative is dumb. Sure, go ahead, study it further, prove or disprove the phenomenon, but in the meantime, keep doing what it was you were doing in hopes it will continue to work, because, and I can't say this enough, reducing the number of real life rapes on women is a VERY good thing. If it's not causative, the numbers may and probably will change, and you can discard that theory. But it's a LOT more important that women don't get raped than it is that you get to maintain a sense of intellectual rigor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtgain
Rape rates have gone down since cell phone use by drivers in cars became popular. Should we repeal these texting and hand held phone bans just in case the use of cell phones while driving had something connected to rape reduction?
No of course not, because there's no conceivable link between that and rape. If you can find one, perhaps we will consider your theory. In the meantime, the idea that works that encourage guys to rub one out might just reduce their tendency to sexually assault women seems quite tenable. It has not been proven, but as I've said, I"m all for more research. In the meantime, let's be pragmatists and use this tool to reduce rape so long as the evidence bears out the notion that it works. People used gravity in aqueducts long before Newton came along. And I bet if the water had started flowing uphill, they would have reconsidered aqueducts.

Last edited by Evil Captor; 05-07-2012 at 10:14 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 05-07-2012, 10:32 AM
Kobal2 Kobal2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmady View Post
There are studies that claim internet porn has reduced rape, though, such as the Clemson University study mentioned here. It tries to account for other variables.
What we need is a strictly controlled double-blind study. Lock a hundred women up with convicted violent rapists, a third with access to porn, a third without and a third with a porn placebo such as The Tudors.
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 05-07-2012, 10:52 AM
gamerunknown gamerunknown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Also, the study linked found a negative correlation between rape and internet usage. It corrected for dating sites but not social networking or gaming sites. It could be that instead of rubbing one out to sadomasochism, they're doing something far worse in Goldshire Inn on Moon Guard NA.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 05-07-2012, 11:31 AM
Evil Captor Evil Captor is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamerunknown View Post
Also, the study linked found a negative correlation between rape and internet usage. It corrected for dating sites but not social networking or gaming sites. It could be that instead of rubbing one out to sadomasochism, they're doing something far worse in Goldshire Inn on Moon Guard NA.
As a Second Life Gor player, I resemble that remark!

The following link is spoilered because it is NSFW:


Last edited by Evil Captor; 05-07-2012 at 11:31 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.