Does Porn Turn You Off of Sex With Real People?

I was right there with you until that last part. You–yes, you–have the ability to set up your own website and loudly proclaim anything you like to as many people as you have the willpower to draw in. Maddox’s website is ranked higher in hits than those of KFC, McDonald’s, Pepsi and Taco Bell, even though those companies spend millions of dollars on web marketing and all he does is post comical pseudo-rants with MS Paint illustrations every once in a while if he feels like it. It’s this very freedom that has allowed weird, kinky porn to gain the foothold it has, whereas before widespread broadband Internet access, a company had to pander to the most mainstream audience to sustain itself.

Frankly, that’s absurd. We are not paid subscribers to the Internet. We pay intermediaries to connect us to the Internet, which is free and is owned by no one–not the majority of its users, not the Internet Electoral College, not the porn magnates and not any government or utility company. Everyone is quite free to discuss whatever intellectual pursuit they feel like–even if it is illegal or may be deemed immoral by the majority of his or her local demographic–and nobody owes you a vote over how other people get to use their Internet access. Now, if you felt that Interweb Shagfest Inc is poisoning your child’s mind or whatever, nothing’s stopping you from calling their ISP and demanding they be shut down.

The problem, really, is that there is too much of a democratic voice over digital content. Democratic governments tax and regulate the Internet–or try, anyway–wherever it’s used within their jurisdiction, mostly according to the needs of lobbyists and campaign contributors. (For example, the federal government–at the behest of the record industry, which is apparently frustrated at its inability to establish an online monopoly–is currently attempting to destroy Internet radio, having recently passed a ludicrous tax on songs played over the Internet that doesn’t apply to any other medium. Now, I’m not saying that (for example) child porn should be legal as long as it’s on the Internet. Things like that are a special case: the website isn’t the real problem, the child exploitation is the problem, and laws against distributing child porn on the Internet are a vital tool for shutting down child sex rings. But to argue that the world owes you a say in what other adults can see and do on the Internet, according to your perceived needs, is absurd. Remember, it’s the concept of free expression online that gave us (civilians) the Internet in the first place, when the US military could’ve kept it to itself all these years if it were a dictatorship that felt we didn’t deserve it.

If you think MySpace is dominated mostly by teenagers, you clearly haven’t been in a college computer lab lately. And I know exactly what MySpace is, thank you very much. What I said was that its secondary (ie not specifically advertised) purpose is to give people a free way to meet interesting new people in their local area, and that is thinly veiled. And of course MySpace is more concerned about profit than about its users–it’s a News Corporation outfit. If that makes you see red, your grudge is with the capitalist system, not the Internet.

There are sort of two issues at play. One- guys (or women, I guess) who lose interest in their partners because they’re addicted to porn or think everything’s vanilla in comparison to stuff they see online. The other issue is the seeping of porn star culture into the mainstream. Playboy clothing on tweens, The Girls Next Door, Paris Hilton’s sex tape launching her to stardom, Pam Anderson’s sex tape making her more popular than ever, Brazilians becoming the norm, Girls Gone Wild, etc.

The OP may find this book interesting Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity by Robert Jensen. Haven’t read it, but sounds interesting, and like he examine some of the questions and theories discussed here. Though I think it takes into account the industry as a whole rather than just one guy and his laptop.

Some snippets…

An excellent point, but I would wager that it’s becoming increasingly commonplace for the same reason that the market for racial humor has exploded since it stopped being PC to talk about racial inferiority at certain tasks in other contexts, and gender-based humor has exploded since it stopped being PC to discriminate against women in the workforce, marriage law, politics, etc. The same thing has been happening to age-based humor. Pornography and stand-up comedy are both outlets of fantasy, even if they’re two very different kinds of fantasy. As things become unacceptable in The Real World, they are embraced in fantasy, because it takes a long time for those things to actually leave our collective imagination–if they ever can.

If you look at it that way, degrading porn is a glass half-full: maybe women are degraded more in porn only because they’re being degraded less in their real sex lives, which, if you ask me, is a Good Thing. Of course, I may be completely off the ball here, but that’s my take on it.

Telecommunications Act 1996

I would like to know what agency is regulating the airways or the internet because it is not the FCC, the Department of Justice, or any **government ** regulatory agency. The FCC works for the media conglomerates not the general public.
Michael Powell resigned from the FCC and now sites on the boards of Object Video, CMWare and Cisco.

Most of the record industry is a subsidiary of the major media cartel. They are already owned. The restrictive and ridiculous copyright laws are the result of obscene amounts of money spent by big media to aggressively lobby and bribe lawmakers to change copyright law and successfully remove all regulations. If a lawsuit is going to court, it is to enforce media control and ownership, not government regulations. You will eventually have to pay to access most information or entertainment online, except maybe porn.
**Excerpts from the 1996 Telecommunications Act.
**

I think this is your ideology not reality. The internet, in the abstract, might not be owned by one person, but search engines are controlled by advertisers. Information is controlled through copyright. Websites want advertiser and traffic. Advertisers want eyeballs. Freepress

Pornography is protected under the first amendment. I believe in protecting the constitution and ardently support free speech; although, it is debatable exactly how free speech is under mass media control.

I don’t want to take away your access to porn. I only want some minor regulation to restrict child access. Whether this is done by changing advertisement techniques or another idea, I am open to it. A multi approach with website operators and advertisers would be a good start.

The U.S. has always had laws protecting child access to explicit adult content before the FCC abandoned its principles to protect the public. There needs to be some type of non intrusive regulation to protect children from adult content on the internet

I said My Space is an online community dominated by young people and a great number of teens, but it isn’t a dating service. My Space has changed tremendously over the last few years.

Do you feel any need for some news, radio, or online communities free of advertisers? The porn folks are a small market, so porn operators and advertisers need to market to the user. I have every right to expect pornography not to invade my life as much as you have the right to access it. There has to be a better way and a happy medium.

My concern is with media control and the lack of industry regulation not only to restrict child access to pornography but to always have access to quality information. I don’t have a grudge, certainly not against the internet. I love the internet. I do have grave concerns over the loss of media control and the establishment of mega media corporate conglomerates. It is time for the Department of Justice to enforce some anti-trust laws.

Sorry, this is still an absurd argument based on a faulty understanding of basic networking.

Speech is quite free. The First Amendment isn’t about giving every citizen the power to demand airtime or edit media content, it’s about giving civilians, as opposed to the military or the government, the ultimate power in establishing media outlets and distributing information. Whether or not I have the ability to air a segment on CNN is irrelevant, especially considering that I could stand outside the White House right now with a loudspeaker and tell the President exactly what I think of his foreign policy without being jailed for my objections (even if I may eventually be jailed for being a nuisance).

There is minor regulation to restrict child access. The onus is on you, the parent, to enforce those laws by talking to your children about porn, installing filters, whatever you feel you have to do. And that is the freedom of speech in action: pornographers get to display their wares, consumers get to enjoy them, and you get to block them, and none of you gets to tell the other groups what to do. If you think it’s legal to market porn to children, you’re delusional. I’m sorry to break it to you.

This brings an old Sesame Street song to mind. Well, I’m going to answer your question with another question: “Do vegetarians eat apples, oranges and ducks?”

Better than what? Pornography doesn’t get into my computer or my life until I go to an actual porn site. IME, the only places where you can find advertising for porn are porn sites, illegal sites (warez, filesharing, etc.) and, in a few cases, websites with non-pornographic risque content that you probably don’t want your kids to see either.

Absolutely. How does this relate to porn, again?

There is no comparison between someone exercising free speech with a bullhorn and CNN. One is perceived as a well respected news agency with massive reach the latter is perceived as an oddity or nutcase. Free speech in the media should be based on fairness by presenting both sides of a situation and the facts, not molding public opinion with a one sided view, absence of information, and hostile rhetoric towards any idea that threatens the status quo.
The fundamental idea of free speech in the prolific media is representing issues important to all Americans instead of issues or stories that have absolutely nothing to do with the vast majority of people or bolstering a political ideology adhered to by a small segment of society. The media is supposed to represent a democratic society.

I knew you would assert this argument. Filters are hardly a regulation. They are an appeasement to pacify any objections to online obscenity. Yes, parents have the responsibility to protect their kids, but society as a whole also has a responsibility to protect children. Because people have the right to privacy and the porn industry has a right to produce a product, it is a complicated issue on the internet.

A person does not have to seek out porn to stumble across it. Young people, particularly boys, will seek out porn because it is easily and privately accessed.
At the very least, the porn operators could take down the free content meant to entice users and require a fee before any content is viewed. Porn enthusiasts will have to take the risk that they are purchasing what they want to view. I don’t think a minor or any Joe consumer can go into a popular retail establishment and ask to brows the content of a men’s magazine or an adult entertainment store and view a video without paying. I could be wrong.

It relates to porn on the internet and the general mindless, salacious programming on television because the deregulation of media control and the failure of the Department of Justice to enforce anti-trust have removed any laws that protect the diversity, integrity of information, and the quality of content that people hear, see, and read. The absence of law has created a medium driven by dollars with no sense of obligation to the public.

Um, you mean like any Borders or Barnes & Nobles? Where they have couches specifically so that you can sit down and read the various publications without paying anything? Publications which include literary erotica, explicit romance novels, photography books containing boobies and yes, and adult magazines.

This reminds me of last time I was at Strand, looking at a huge book with naked women–it was an art book of ads and photos from the sixties and seventies. And there’s that huge coffee table book of naked porn stars.

What, you’re saying that mass media should be government-regulated to make sure that it doesn’t send the wrong message? That sounds pretty Kremlinesque to me.

Actually, the fundamental idea of free speech is giving Americans the chance to say whatever they want about whatever they want in whichever way they want to say it. That’s the system we have now. I argue that if you believe that the right to freedom of speech is about keeping objectionable material out of the media, you have a literally backwards view of freedom and ought to take a few Political Science courses.

Well, it certainly is complicated. But I, a childless adult who enjoys a wide range of free pornography on the Internet, do not believe that it is in my best interests to further restrict my own access to pornography in service of some platitude about The Children. Knowing all manner of people from all walks of life who are major consumers of pornography and have been since they were sexually mature, I do not believe that Kremlinesque restrictions on Internet pornography will benefit our society, and thus I do not believe that I have an obligation to fund such Orwellian laws.

That’s absurd. Of all the porn I seek out on the Internet (all free), maybe 35% of it is actually something I want to download–even though 100% of it sounds like something I want to download, and is specifically recommended on a message board. Forcing me to not only give up free porn, but pay for a product which will disappoint me 65% of the time, is something even Fidel Castro wouldn’t do.

There is no antitrust issue in Internet porn. It is not dominated by a small handful of viewpoints like TV and radio are; it’s a beautiful web (in many ways) of diverse offerings from millions of small-business people (and even amateurs) who feel they have something to offer to someone.

Actually Hostile, you have it backwards. Regulatory agencies like the FCC are intended to protect the free flow of diverse information not hinder or control it. By abandoning these regulations, the media oligopoly is in control and lawless; it is not forced to function within a framework that protects the integrity of information or the U.S. citizen. The non-regulated corporate controlled media doesn’t have to report the information important and critical to the democracy it represents. The only groups the mass media needs to appease are the stock holders, which is debatable, and advertisers.

I don’t understand your need to make a point by comparing my statements to communism and a lack of education.

You seem to be the one embracing fallacies.

Forgive me, I’ve just started new medication and the pamphlet says it can cause irritability and hostility. I’m going to stay clear of this thread for a few days until I’m sure that it’s me, not the drugs, who is arguing with you.

The reason for deregulation (and I agree that the FCC might have gone too far) is that there is more access to information out there today than ever before. When I was a kid I was in the world’s biggest media market (NY) but I had only 7 TV stations available. Today there are almost that many full time news stations for the entire country. There are fewer newspapers in New York than there used to be, but in a sense we have access to just about every newspaper in the country. Big media is good at getting lots of eyeballs to look at their stuff, but that’s not what the First Amendment is about. Given the impact of YouTube on the last election (do you think the Allen video would have aired without it?) the oligarchy has less control than ever before, and they know it, and they’re scared.

On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a guy in a bathrobe, not an official reporter.