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
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.
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”*. :dubious: 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.”
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
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?
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.
You may rightly criticize it as such, however that is not how it is routinely derided.
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?
Very good point.
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.
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.
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. :smack:
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.
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?
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?
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!”
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.
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?
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.
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.