# Romance novels and slash are just socially acceptable softcore porn for women **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [July 22, 2003, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223 "2003-07-22T20:16:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Sinful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Sinful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinful)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/41 "2003-07-25T18:49:20Z")
Maybe a mod could move this to GD. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Apos \* > \*\*The thing is, not all feminists are against porn. Many feminists produce porn, and not all of it simple erotica. In college, I took a joint women’s studies/Lit class on porn, and our final project was to produce a pornographic work. Feminists all, but none all of it was simple erotica, and some wasn’t even unapologetically not simple erotica. > … > > However, I don’t agree that this automagically makes all porn bad. Does gay male porn objectify men? How about porn in which the fantasy is a female dom enslaving a man and doing all sorts of degrading things to him? (I can’t imagine why someone would want his balls crushed by high heels, but I guess it takes all kinds of kink) > \*\* How many men have been raped by women as a result of those images? I’m not condoning them, at all. But it’s a completely different scenario. As I said before, if porn had no negative affects on women and we lived in a culture of complete equality and no women felt the need for breast implants to feel validated as a women, my views on porn would be different. That said, I don’t like the idea of a dominant/submissive relationship, no matter who has what role. > [@](#): > > There are plenty of women who don’t really feel like waiting around for all men to wise up before they support some pornography. The point is simply not to put up with harming women in any circumstance: not to simply dismiss the making or viewing of pr0n period. I can agree with that, but what if all porn, whether directly or indirectly, causes harm to women? What then. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Miller \* > **Again, this is a falsehood. “Feminists” as a group do not have a problem with porn. Some feminists do, but it is by no means all, or even most, feminists** The way you paraphrased it made it false, yes. But my statement saying “Why would feminists have a problem with it then?” neither explicitly expressed or implied that all feminists would have a problem with it, rather that people who had a problem with it were generally feminists. And you dodged answering the question, too. > [@](#): > > Yeah, probably, but I’d put more of the blame for that on Cosmo than on Hustler. A friend of mine gave me a bunch of stickers saying “This product is harmful to women” on them. The first product that I put one on was a Cosmopolitan. The second was a Playboy magazine. Therefore your point means nothing to me. Obviously Cosmo isn’t healthy. > [@](#): > > Hell, most girls in Hustler look significantly healthier than the models in most “women’s” magazines. Turns out, most heterosexual guys aren’t attracted to women who look like prepubescent boys. Generally, they like women with big tits and substantial asses, which is not the sort of body type you get via eating disorder. Why do you think that they like women with big breasts and big rears? Certainly not because those are the images that Hustler tells them is attractive, right?! And by “portrays unhealthy images of women” I’m not just talking about emaciated women with boyish figures. I’m also talking about women with implants. Don’t try to tell me that most women in mainstream porn have not been altered with by a plastic surgeon in one way or another. > [@](#): > > And, again, you’re making sweeping generalizations about a very heterogenous group: there’s porn featuring literally every body type imaginable out there. Is “big and beautiful” porn more or less damaging than porn featuring anorexic heroin addicts? “Big and beautiful” porn is so NOT mainstream and so not a part of most people’s everyday life that I don’t think it applies so much for what I was saying. I don’t see any “big and beautiful” porn when I walk down the aisles of CVS or Barnes and Noble or a supermarket. I was talking about mainstream porn when I mentioned that, the porn that 99% of the people who read porn look at. I don’t think that porn in ALL of its forms is harmful to a woman’s self image, no. But I think it’s safe to say that all mainstream porn is. > [@](#): > > These two sentences are mutually exclusive. Thought you’d like to know. Um, OKAY THEN MR. FREE-SPEECH-SHOULD-HAVE-NO-LIMITS! Here are some questions for you: -Should someone be allowed to shout “FIRE!” falsely in a crowded movie theater without being subject to legal persecution? -Should politicians be allowed to lie to the public? -Should corporations be allowed to lie to their customers about their products and the means that they use to create them? -Should people be allowed to lie about the ingredients in food? -Should someone be allowed to make threats to someone else’s life without being punished? -Should someone be allowed to verbally harass someone else? I could think of many more examples. If you say “yes” to those questions, then I will simply think you’re crazy. But if you say “no”, then you should eat your condescending “Those two sentences are mutually exclusive”. > [@](#): > > Yeah, that “freedom of choice” is a real bitch: some people are going to make choices you don’t like. Deal. If it were simply me not liking the choice, then it wouldn’t be an issue. But if the choice negatively affects millions of women, it’s a different matter entirely. People can MAKE the choice, and it isn’t my job to infringe on that right. All I’m saying is that it’s a harmful choice and is going to negatively affect women. > [@](#): > > Porn is real in the sense that it actually exsists, sure. This makes it distinct from snuff videos, which are nothing more than a particularly tenacious urban legends. However, to say that the events depicted in your average porn video are an accurate reflection of the events that took place on the set of that film shows, at the very least, a profound lack of knowledge about the basics of movie-making. However, if all you’re trying to say is that, “Those people fucking on the tape were fucking in real life” all I can say is, “Yes. And?” Firstly, I’m curious as to why you say that Snuff videos are an urban legend. Nextly, porn is real not in that the scenes that took place are an accurate depiction of the film set, rather that porn stars are real human beings who are too often abused and degraded. Now, before you go into your “THAT ISN’T ALWAYS THE CASE!!!” spiel, note that I never once said that all porn should be outlawed or whatnot. I merely said that porn and society both need to go through a 180 degree turn before I can condone it. I can’t support an industry that treats women like meat, nor can I support one that helps men to view them this way and then commit atrocities against women. > [@](#): > > You have still failed to show that gender inequity can be postively linked to porn I think that porn (as it is now) is a sympton of patriarchy that helps perpetuate the inequalities. I don’t know if you need it spelled out for you. I showed you the stats. I explained that porn is degrading and objectifying and is a tool in helping to keep women down through the “beauty myth”. If you don’t think that rape and abuse against women are symptoms of gender equality than I don’t think I should even bother arguing with you any more. If everything that I said holds no merit, and you really cared, you could go to the link that I posted and read all the anti-porn resources linked there. I seriously doubt that all the information in the world would sway your opinion, though. > [@](#): > > At any rate, not all porn eroticizes the abuse and subjugation of women, real or otherwise. I tend to prefer stuff that shows some degree of tenderness or intimacy between the participants. I’m romantic like that. In addition, a huge fraction of pornography out there doesn’t feature any women at all. How does gay male porn fit into your cramped little world view? Or better yet, how about the magazine On Our Backs, which is produced entirely by lesbians for lesbians? (That link is work safe, but eventually leads to pages that… aren’t.) Are there a bunch of misogynist lebians out there disrgarding rape accusations and being violent towards women as a result? Will buying a copy of Inches magazine make gay guys start treating women as sex objects? > > I tend to think not. See, now you’re completely putting words into my mouth and saying that I have a “cramped world view”, which is complete bullshit. I don’t have a problem with porn in theory, if it was what you and others seem to think it is. If porn indeed were healthy and not at all harmful, I would think that it were a totally positive thing. I also didn’t say that I was against ALL porn, but by “porn” I was including 99% of the porn that I’ve come into contact with. Obviously there are a lot of different things that “pornography” could entail, so I took the stance of speaking out against Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, and most all of the other porn magazines and websites that men read and then alter their view of women. I have absolutely NO problem with erotica if it is what it’s supposed to be. Absolutely none. And if there is porn out there that in no way objectifies women, and is in no way harmful and violent to them due to the beauty myth or male domination, then I think that could be totally great. If men could look at porn and it wouldn’t negatively alter their view of women, then I would say that porn was a natural, healthy thing. But until that day comes, I’m going to have to say that I oppose porn as 99% of it stands. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/42 "2003-07-25T19:12:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Nextly, porn is real not in that the scenes that took place are an accurate depiction of the film set, rather that porn stars are real human beings who are too often abused and degraded. By this standard, the Harry Potter books are nonfiction, because, y’know, kids really do go to school and have to deal with bullies. Fact of the matter is, even granting that there exists some real abuse in the porn world (but _not_ granting, without evidence, that it’s any worse than the non-porn world), what’s shown in most porn is situations which would literally never occur in real life. And most of the audience realizes quite well that those situations never come up. That sounds to me like fiction. And if porn targetted at men objectifies women, is it not the case that porn targetted at women (the aforementioned romance novels) objectifies men? In fact, romance novels can probably also be harmful to women: Haven’t you ever heard of a woman who sticks by her abusive man, because she thinks that he’s The One, the cowboy knight-in-shining-armor who’s meant for her? Without the unrealistic expectations propagated in the media, I daresay that more such women would leave the bastards. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2003, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/43 "2003-07-25T23:32:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sinful \* > **How many men have been raped by women as a result of those images?** How many women have been raped by men as a result of viewing porn? So far you haven’t proven that any have. > [@](#): > > **I can agree with that, but what if all porn, whether directly or indirectly, causes harm to women? What then.** What if all the children of the world suddenly joined hands in a moment of peace and harmony? What if God made a burrito so big He couldn’t eat it? What then? 😉 > [@](#): > > **Why do you think that they like women with big breasts and big rears? Certainly not because those are the images that Hustler tells them is attractive, right?!** Nope, probably not. What, you think they buy magazines featuring women they _don’t_ find attractive, then say to themselves “This is the only porno mag I could find at Safeway, I guess I’ll have to start liking this kind of woman”? What kind of woman do you think most men would _really_ be attracted to, if not for the alleged influence of porn? > [@](#): > > **And by “portrays unhealthy images of women” I’m not just talking about emaciated women with boyish figures. I’m also talking about women with implants. Don’t try to tell me that most women in mainstream porn have not been altered with by a plastic surgeon in one way or another.** Are you suggesting that breast implants, or naturally large breasts, are unhealthy? > [@](#): > > **"Big and beautiful" porn is so NOT mainstream and so not a part of most people’s everyday life that I don’t think it applies so much for what I was saying. I don’t see any “big and beautiful” porn when I walk down the aisles of CVS or Barnes and Noble or a supermarket.** Probably because most men aren’t into it. If there were a large enough demand, it would be there. But it certainly exists, and it’s rather popular for a niche market. Go into any porn shop and you’ll have no trouble finding material of “larger” girls. > [@](#): > > **Firstly, I’m curious as to why you say that Snuff videos are an urban legend.** You must have missed **Miller** ’s link. [Here it is again](http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.htm), with a short excerpt: > [@](#): > > Claim: \_ Films are routinely made for distribution in which participants are murdered on camera. > > Status: \_ False. > > Origins: \_ All the fretting about it aside, not so much as one snuff film has been found. Time and again, what is originally decried in the press as a film of a murder turns out, upon further investigation, to be a fake. Police on three continents routinely investigate films brought to them, and so far this has always been their verdict. No snuff films. Some clever fakes, yes. But no real product. > > (Al Goldstein, publisher of Screw magazine, has a standing offer of $1 million for anyone who can come up with a commercially sold snuff film. That offer has been in place for years. No one has yet laid claim to it.) > [@](#): > > **Nextly, porn is real not in that the scenes that took place are an accurate depiction of the film set, rather that porn stars are real human beings who are too often abused and degraded.** By that logic, all movies are “real”, since the actors are real human beings. > [@](#): > > **I explained that porn is degrading and objectifying and is a tool in helping to keep women down through the “beauty myth”.** What is the “beauty myth”? > [@](#): > > **I have absolutely NO problem with erotica if it is what it’s supposed to be. Absolutely none. And if there is porn out there that in no way objectifies women, and is in no way harmful and violent to them due to the beauty myth or male domination, then I think that could be totally great.** What do you suppose this non-harmful erotica would look like? What’s your idea of the perfect porn? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/44 "2003-07-26T00:54:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sinful \* > The way you paraphrased it made it false, yes. But my statement saying “Why would feminists have a problem with it then?” neither explicitly expressed or implied that all feminists would have a problem with it, rather that people who had a problem with it were generally feminists. And you dodged answering the question, too. Actually, your phrasing directly implied that all feminists have a problem with porn, but never mind that, because even with your latest qualification, your statement is still false. Because the majority of anti-porn crusaders, at least in the US, are fundamentalist Christians. Does it bother you at all that your biggest allies on this issue are walking septic tanks like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson? And I didn’t answer your question for two reasons: 1) it was based on false premises, as I showed, and 2) it’s totally irrelevent. Yes, some feminists don’t like porn. Hence, this entire debate. The fact that some people disagree with my position is not a reflection on the validity of my position. But if you must have an answer, here it is: Some feminist oppose porn because some feminists don’t have a clue as to what they’re talking about. > [@](#): > > A friend of mine gave me a bunch of stickers saying “This product is harmful to women” on them. The first product that I put one on was a Cosmopolitan. The second was a Playboy magazine. Therefore your point means nothing to me. Obviously Cosmo isn’t healthy. I hope you paid for those magazine first, because otherwise you’re nothing better than a petty vandal. > [@](#): > > Why do you think that they like women with big breasts and big rears? Certainly not because those are the images that Hustler tells them is attractive, right?! And by “portrays unhealthy images of women” I’m not just talking about emaciated women with boyish figures. I’m also talking about women with implants. Don’t try to tell me that most women in mainstream porn have not been altered with by a plastic surgeon in one way or another. I don’t have any figures for how many women in porn have undergone plastic surgery. I suspect it’s lower than you think, because almost every guy I know prefers women with smaller breasts to women with plastic breasts, and there is a significant market for pornographic images of such women. In addition, you’re raising an entirely seperate issue here, which is the appropriateness of cosmetic surgery. So far as I know, there is no evidence that plastic surgery is physically harmful, and arguments that it is psychologically harmful tend to fall into the camp of “I don’t like it, so no one should do it.” Unless you’ve got a cite from the APA or a similar organization showing that there is some concrete evidence linking cosmetic surgery to mental health, this is a meaningless discussion. > [@](#): > > “Big and beautiful” porn is so NOT mainstream and so not a part of most people’s everyday life that I don’t think it applies so much for what I was saying. I don’t see any “big and beautiful” porn when I walk down the aisles of CVS or Barnes and Noble or a supermarket. I was talking about mainstream porn when I mentioned that, the porn that 99% of the people who read porn look at. Considering your ignorance and misapprehensions of pornography in general, I’d like two things. First, your definition of “mainstream” pornography, and second, some sort of evidence that your definition is at all accurate. > [@](#): > > I don’t think that porn in ALL of its forms is harmful to a woman’s self image, no. But I think it’s safe to say that all mainstream porn is. That’s not what you’ve been saying up until now. Your previous posts have been blanket condemnations of **all** pornography, and, unitl later in this post, you’ve given no indication whatsoever that you make a distinction between “pornography” and “erotica”. > [@](#): > > Um, OKAY THEN MR. FREE-SPEECH-SHOULD-HAVE-NO-LIMITS! Here are some questions for you: > > -Should someone be allowed to shout “FIRE!” falsely in a crowded movie theater without being subject to legal persecution? Not a free speech issue. Free speech relates to the concept that expressing an idea or an opinion should not be made illegal, no matter how distastful we find that idea or opinion. Shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater is not free speech, because it is not an idea or an opinion: it’s an attempt to start a riot. > [@](#): > > -Should politicians be allowed to lie to the public? Yes, absolutely. I’d prefer if they didn’t, but there should not (and, indeed, there is not) a law against them doing so. > [@](#): > > -Should corporations be allowed to lie to their customers about their products and the means that they use to create them? Again, not a free speech issue. They aren’t trying to express an idea or opinion, they’re maliciously trying to defraud for profit. > [@](#): > > -Should people be allowed to lie about the ingredients in food? What, people in general? Yes. Should restaurants or coporations? See the previous answer. > [@](#): > > -Should someone be allowed to make threats to someone else’s life without being punished? Bit of a grey area, I suppose. IANAL, so I don’t know precisely how this breaks down legally, but if a neo-Nazi calls for a second Holocaust, that should be protected speech. If he specifically singles out Saul Rosenberg, then no, because he has gone from expressing an opinion to trying to terrorize a specific individual. > [@](#): > > -Should someone be allowed to verbally harass someone else? I need more context before I can answer this one. > [@](#): > > I could think of many more examples. If you say “yes” to those questions, then I will simply think you’re crazy. But if you say “no”, then you should eat your condescending “Those two sentences are mutually exclusive”. Well, if you now think I’m crazy, consider the feeling to be mutual. > [@](#): > > If it were simply me not liking the choice, then it wouldn’t be an issue. But if the choice negatively affects millions of women, it’s a different matter entirely. People can MAKE the choice, and it isn’t my job to infringe on that right. All I’m saying is that it’s a harmful choice and is going to negatively affect women. Once again, you haven’t shown any evidence that some women being in porn negatively impacts all women everywhere. > [@](#): > > Firstly, I’m curious as to why you say that Snuff videos are an urban legend. Because no snuff video has ever been found by any law enfocement agency in any country, anywhere. Read my link, which **Mr2001** has graciously reproduced in his last post. Of course, there have been the occasional psychopath who has taped his own crimes for his own personal enjoyment, but the concept of the “snuff film” implies that such videos are marketed to third parties not involved in the original crime. This simply never happens. > [@](#): > > Nextly, porn is real not in that the scenes that took place are an accurate depiction of the film set, rather that porn stars are real human beings who are too often abused and degraded. This just doesn’t make sense. How does the alleged abuse and degradation of porn stars (for which you continue to fail to provide a cite) relate to porn being “real”? > [@](#): > > Now, before you go into your “THAT ISN’T ALWAYS THE CASE!!!” spiel, note that I never once said that all porn should be outlawed or whatnot. I merely said that porn and society both need to go through a 180 degree turn before I can condone it. I can’t support an industry that treats women like meat, nor can I support one that helps men to view them this way and then commit atrocities against women. I should just set “Cite?” to a macro at this point. Are you planning on providing any evidence at all for anything you’ve said, or are we supposed to just accept your opinion as gospel truth? > [@](#): > > I think that porn (as it is now) is a sympton of patriarchy that helps perpetuate the inequalities. I don’t know if you need it spelled out for you. Yes, in fact, I do need it spelled out for me. > [@](#): > > I showed you the stats. What, that list of unattributed and largely meaningless statistics you posted earlier? Not impressed. > [@](#): > > I explained that porn is degrading and objectifying and is a tool in helping to keep women down through the “beauty myth”. Actually, you haven’t explained anything. You’ve stated your opinion over and over, but you haven’t shown that it is anything more than your opinion. And please define “beauty myth.” > [@](#): > > If you don’t think that rape and abuse against women are symptoms of gender equality than I don’t think I should even bother arguing with you any more. Assuming you meant “ **in** equality,” than yes, I agree with you. Where I disagree with you is in the enourmous logical leap from “rape is a symptom of gender inequality” to “gender inequality is a symptom of pronography.” Fact of the matter is, we are now living in an age that has unprecedented levels of both pornography _and_ gender equality, and I don’t think that’s necessarily a coincidence. > [@](#): > > If everything that I said holds no merit, and you really cared, you could go to the link that I posted and read all the anti-porn resources linked there. I read that website, and believe me: it makes your posts here look positively genius. That website is biased, unsubstantiated, and just plain stupid. It’s a joke. I’d be taking you a whole lot more seriously if you _hadn’t_ linked to that mess. > [@](#): > > I seriously doubt that all the information in the world would sway your opinion, though. I’m perfectly willing to be swayed by information, _as soon as you post some._ I am _not_ going to be swayed by your hysterical (in both senses of the word) opinion. > [@](#): > > See, now you’re completely putting words into my mouth and saying that I have a “cramped world view”, which is complete bullshit. I don’t have a problem with porn in theory, if it was what you and others seem to think it is. Yet another late-in-the-game qualification. It’s clear that you’re working from some sort of reverse “No True Scotsman” fallacy, where every example someone provides of non-oppressive, non-degrading, non-harmful pornography will be dismissed as “not really pornography.” > [@](#): > > If porn indeed were healthy and not at all harmful, I would think that it were a totally positive thing. In other words, if it weren’t evil, you wouldn’t be against it. Yay for you, but you _still_ haven’t shown that it _is_ evil. > [@](#): > > I also didn’t say that I was against ALL porn, but by “porn” I was including 99% of the porn that I’ve come into contact with. Backpedal much? As I said earlier, you have not previously made any such distinction. > [@](#): > > Obviously there are a lot of different things that “pornography” could entail, so I took the stance of speaking out against Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, and most all of the other porn magazines and websites that men read and then alter their view of women. I have, at different times in my life, read all three of those magazines with some degree of regularity. I say with absolute certainty that they have had absolutely no effect on my view of women. This is anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but I’m still drawing from larger sample of men (myself) than you are (case subjects: 0). It is pretty arrogant for anyone to declare they know how all men’s minds works, but doubly so when you aren’t even a man yourself. > [@](#): > > I have absolutely NO problem with erotica if it is what it’s supposed to be. This sentence is gibberish. What do you mean by “what it’s supposed to be”? And clarify, if you would, the precise difference between pornography and erotica. > [@](#): > > Absolutely none. And if there is porn out there that in no way objectifies women, and is in no way harmful and violent to them due to the beauty myth or male domination, then I think that could be totally great. That’d be a conservative 75% of all porn out there, in my estimation. I don’t have a cite to prove that, but then, you don’t have any cites either, do you? > [@](#): > > If men could look at porn and it wouldn’t negatively alter their view of women, then I would say that porn was a natural, healthy thing. But until that day comes, I’m going to have to say that I oppose porn as 99% of it stands. That day’s been here for a good thirty years, minimum. I still have no cite, but once again, neither do you. ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/45 "2003-07-26T18:46:46Z")
I was going to say something here about my high-school German teacher, who has written three romance novels, all of which I’ve read. She’s a smart, funny lady, and even _she’s_ of the opinion that romance novels are simply porn (not always softcore… her books are fairly graphic, for example) for the mainstream woman. Still kinda fun to read, though. 😉 But since the topic has strayed, I won’t say that. Instead, a hearty “hear-hear!” for **Miller** ’s rebuke of **Sinful** ’s bass-ackwards thinking about porn. My wife likes romance novels. She also likes porn. We sometimes watch porn movies together… we laugh at them, and then we usually have some pretty good sex. Sometimes, it’s the other way around. The porn doesn’t change my view of her (or any women) at all. I respect and love her deeply. I work with many women every day, and I like working with women. They’re smart, talented, and generally fun to be around. I don’t find myself constantly thinking of what they’d look like naked, and I certainly don’t think of them as objects. I have a woman as my boss, and I respect her a great deal. I also think she’s pretty cool, and even attractive, but she’s not an “object”. See, I watch porn, and I can still see women as people, not objects. So, for that matter, do most of the guys I know. Porn _is_ fiction. It presents fictional scenarios and stories in the form of fantasy. If you’re saying its not, then your view of what is and is not fiction is seriously skewed. Did you also think _Schindler’s List_ was a documentary? Most people are capable of separating fiction from real life. Those who cannot do so have a problem, but they are in a significant minority. **Miller** , you have a cite for the fact that men can see porn and still respect women. Me, and about a couple dozen other guys I’ve known. Also, I’d imagine, yourself. It still remains for **sinful** to prove her assertion that porn automagically (love that word) makes an object out of women. And while she’s at it, what about women who watch porn? Do they objectify women as well? Or are they somehow immune from porn’s evil effect? If so, how do you justify that sexist view? ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2003, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/46 "2003-07-26T19:12:24Z")
Oh, and I forgot… the only “slash” fiction I’ve read was an accidental reading of a story published on the web about Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy. It wasn’t very softcore either. Yeah… ooops. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/47 "2003-07-28T05:52:49Z")
> [@](#): > > How many men have been raped by women as a result of those images? None. There is no direct link from images to rape. There has to be a rapist. > [@](#): > > As I said before, if porn had no negative affects on women and we lived in a culture of complete equality and no women felt the need for breast implants to feel validated as a women, my views on porn would be different. Lots of things can have bad effects on some people and not others. I just don’t see the leap in logic to the way that some people use a thing for bad, and that thing. If it’s the usage that’s wrong, that’s what it makes sense to go after. > [@](#): > > I can agree with that, but what if all porn, whether directly or indirectly, causes harm to women? What then. What if turtles poo ginger beer? I don’t think all porn directly or indirectly harms women. Objectification can be part of a healthy fantasy. Sometimes, being an object of attraction is something both men and women can’t want and enjoy, as long as they retain ultimate control. And that’s the real issue, not porn, and not objectification. ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_of\_the\_CC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/58956e/32.png) [@Earl\_of\_the\_CC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_of_the_CC)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2003, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/48 "2003-07-28T07:57:56Z")
I’ve said it before, (though not on this message board) but it always bears repeating. Moderation is the key to a well-lived life. Porn itself is not bad. Too much porn is. Which leads me to point number 2. Things should be judged on a case-to-case basis. How much porn is too much is different from person to person. That’s my 2 cents. ---
**Author:** ![Sinful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Sinful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinful)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/49 "2003-07-29T20:40:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Miller \* > \*\*Actually, your phrasing directly implied that all feminists have a problem with porn, but never mind that, because even with your latest qualification, your statement is still false. Because the majority of anti-porn crusaders, at least in the US, are fundamentalist Christians. Does it bother you at all that your biggest allies on this issue are walking septic tanks like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson? \*\* Most people who oppose porn from a pro-woman standpoint would probably identify themselves as feminists. It doesn’t bother be that my biggest allies on an issue would be people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, because our reasoning would be so incredibly different that the issue in question would hardly be the same. They don’t oppose porn for the same reasons that I oppose it, so no, it doesn’t bother me. Nice one. > [@](#): > > That’s not what you’ve been saying up until now. Your previous posts have been blanket condemnations of all pornography, and, unitl later in this post, you’ve given no indication whatsoever that you make a distinction between “pornography” and “erotica”. I’m sorry for making a making a blanket statement about porn when I only meant to include the vast majority of it. I wouldn’t have a problem with erotica, though I question whether or not it even exists in a completely non-violent, consensual way. I thought that I made it quite clear that under the right circumstances in the right conditions I would not have a problem with porn in the least. But the industry (along with prostitution and the trafficking of women) exploits women who work in it and shows unrealistic and degrading depictions of them. I’m not advocating for porn to be eradicated, rather for a complete social revolution. I don’t think that you can argue that the industry is degrading and exploitative and that nothing short of a complete societal reversal is going to change that. The majority of males and females both consider porn to be “just sex” and are completely ignorant to the violence, dehumanization, and abuse of women in the industry, as well as the hatred of women that it spawns. To much harm has been experienced by women and children both for the sake of creating porn to pleasure a predominately male group. Of course this industry and these myths about porn as a glamourous, consensual, sexy institution help the industry to thrive, but I am shocked that you would call me “ignorant” about porn when you state that it isn’t harmful to women. Porn in general brainwashes men and children with a rapist mentality. This is a really interesting article: [http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0903-05.htm](http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0903-05.htm) About all the free speech issues, as you said, there are plenty of gray areas in them. If porn poses a direct or indirect threat to women, then it isn’t easy to just say that it’s a form of free speech and should therefore be allowed. I’m not sure if free speech should be more important in society than the civil rights of certain members of society, but I don’t think it’s safe to say that it’s an issue of free speech, and should therefore not be argued. I’m against censorship, as I said before, but I think that until porn as it is now is completely abolished, women will never be equal to men. Just as women can’t be equal to men when they don’t have access to safe abortions, they also can’t be equal to men when one of the biggest media industries in existence treats them like pieces of meat. I think that there is too much evidence of the causal link between porn and rape and sexual inequality for me to say that porn is healthy. I’ll try to find stats once I’m done with this post. I don’t agree with moral crusades to stamp out sex. Rather, I want sex to be a thing based on mutual consent and respect. I think sex could be a wonderful thing for everyone, but until the dichotomy of the prude and angel/devil inhibits women, they’ll never be able to take hold of their sexuality in a healthy manner. It is not correct to say that porn is a healthy way to express a woman’s sexuality when too many women in the porn industry have been driven into it by horrible economic conditions and sexual abuse. As Emma Goldman stated in her essay “The Traffic in Women”, “Nowhere is woman treated according to the merit of her work, but rather as a sex. It is therefore inevitable that she should pay for the right to exist, to keep a position in whatever line, with sex favors…Whether our reformers admit it or not, the economic and social inferiority of woman is responsible for prostitution (and porn)”. Porn has a profound affect on how woman are treated and viewed. > [@](#): > > Because no snuff video has ever been found by any law enfocement agency in any country, anywhere. Read my link, which Mr2001 has graciously reproduced in his last post. Of course, there have been the occasional psychopath who has taped his own crimes for his own personal enjoyment, but the concept of the “snuff film” implies that such videos are marketed to third parties not involved in the original crime. This simply never happens. Never? Rape is a symptom of gender inequality and porn spawns more inequalities. I said that it was a cycle. The idea that we live in an age with more gender equality than ever before it a myth. Things may look like they have improved drastically, but they really haven’t. In Naomi Wolf’s “The Beauty Myth” she discusses how a lot of situations for women have gotten much worse within the past generation. Economically, we still aren’t much better off. I’ll find stats on that, too. > [@](#): > > That day’s been here for a good thirty years, minimum. No, it hasn’t. I’m going to find stats and cite them to make you happy. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/50 "2003-07-29T21:01:05Z")
Well, seeing as we’ve been waiting for a week now for a single good sight, excuse me if I don’t hold my breath. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/51 "2003-07-29T21:04:57Z")
“Cite,” dammit. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/52 "2003-07-29T22:52:07Z")
From **Sinful** ’s link: > [@](#): > > Look at mass-marketed pornography, with estimated sales of $10 billion a year in the United States, consumed primarily by men: It routinely depicts women as sexual objects whose sole function is to sexually satisfy men and whose own welfare is irrelevant as long as men are satisfied. Asserted without proof. I could just as easily say that romance novels routinely depict men as chivalrous objcets whose sole function is to emotionally satisfy women. > [@](#): > > Consider the $52-billion-a-year worldwide prostitution business: Though illegal in the United States (except Nevada), that industry is grounded in the presumed right of men to gain sexual satisfaction with no concern for the physical and emotional costs to women and children. Presumed right of men to gain sexual satisfaction? Who has ever claimed that? :rolleyes: Try the presumed right of people to offer sex as a commodity like any other kind of physical labor - which, whether you agree with it or not, is clearly not the same. Oh, and there are male prostitutes too. > [@](#): > > In locker rooms one rarely hears men asking about the quality of their emotional and intimate experiences. Instead, the questions are: “Did you get any last night?” “Did you score?” “Did you f— her?” Men’s discussions about sex often use the language of power – control, domination, the taking of pleasure. Dr. Drew would say this quote is a perfect example of another kind of brainwashing in our society: The idea that men and women are supposed to think and act exactly the same. The fact is that sex is _not_ nearly as inseparable from emotion and intimacy for most men as it is for women. Any man can have an orgasm from physical stimulation without the least emotional attachment. Blame it on biology. Please, **Sinful** , try to find a respectable link instead of an op-ed piece by a biased author who doesn’t cite any of his claims. ---
**Author:** ![Sinful](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2bfe46/32.png) [@Sinful](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinful)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2003, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/53 "2003-07-29T23:30:45Z")
I found these sites interesting: [Module V: Pornography and Violence Against Women on the Internet](http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/vaw00/module5.html) (This one is really interesting and informative if you decide to read the entire thing, it is pretty long.) [http://www.dianarussell.com/publications.html](http://www.dianarussell.com/publications.html) (Really great site about a really wonderful book.) [http://dc-mrg.english.ucsb.edu/Warn...n.worksheet.htm](http://dc-mrg.english.ucsb.edu/Warn...n.worksheet.htm) I thought this was interesting. [http://img.mediaplex.com/cgi-bin/ht...A=1676106/R=1/\*](http://img.mediaplex.com/cgi-bin/ht...A=1676106/R=1/*) [http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/75-3/](http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/75-3/) [Redirecting...](http://www.nationalcoalition.org/pdf/warning_risk.pdf) (The paragraph in this one about how porn triggers crime with the quote from Dr. Mary Anne Layden I thought was especially interesting.) ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/54 "2003-07-30T00:32:03Z")
\*\*Sinful:\*\*I looked at three of your links before I decided it was a waste of time. As others have already said, unsupported opinions are not acceptable cites. You obviously have strong beliefs on this issue, but no one here is going to take you seriously without real cites, no matter how many times you repeat yourself. You seem to have a particular difficulty understanding that correlation does not equal causation. For example, no one is surprised that most sexually-oriented businesses are located in less affluent or desireable areas. And yes, these areas tend to have higher crime rates. That doesn’t prove your claim that porn causes crime. I’ll suggest an alternative explanation: zoning and other forces that make it difficult to open an adult/sex business in an affluent area. I am personally familiar with the reaction of affluent municipalities to these businesses. They don’t want them around and place legal and practical barriers to their operation. To the extent that a municipality has to allow a legal business to operate, it makes sure that it locates in the less-desireable part of town. You also highlight a one-sentence blurb from someone who asserts that she has never dealt with a case of sexual violence that did “involve” pornography. Let’s assume that’s true, and the perpetrators of these crimes have all looked at porn. So what? I bet they’ve all watched TV/read a newspaper/ and rode a bicycle, too. Do all these cause violence as well? Just about every guy I know, including me, has looked at what you would call porn. A lot of women I’ve been with have as well. As far as I know, none of us has ever committed an act of sexual violence. How do you reconcile this with your thesis (porn causes violence)? Really, is this the best that you can do? (By the way, I really like the article that equated drag shows with blackface vaudeville.) ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/55 "2003-07-30T00:51:33Z")
Yikes… what **Random** said. I’m not impressed with your ability to Google for ultra-feminist screeds, **Sinful**. Why don’t you find a reputable study? You know, something scientific that actually shows a connection between viewing porn and harming people, rather than religious propaganda (e.g. your last link) or philosophical rants referring to porn stars as “victims”? If I want to find out what men _really_ think about when they’re looking at porn, I’ll ask a _man_, not “Lila Lee”. BTW, your ucsb and mediaplex links are broken. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/56 "2003-07-30T03:59:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sinful \* > I found these sites interesting: > > [Module V: Pornography and Violence Against Women on the Internet](http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/vaw00/module5.html) (This one is really interesting and informative if you decide to read the entire thing, it is pretty long.) Right off the bat, this cite creates a dichotomy between “pornography” and “erotica,” creating a distinction between healthy and unhealthy commercial images of sex. You’ve argued that no such distinction exsists outside of the theoretical (your “porn in a perfect world” argument) or that erotica/healthy porn represents a sufficiently minor percentage of the market as a whole as to be entirely discounted (your “99% of porn is bad” argument). However, the cite has several other serious flaws that make it generally laughable, such as confusing the words “empirical” with “anecdotal,” relying on the ubsubstantiated rhetoric of extremists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon, and pulling the bulk of its argument from the biased and agenda-driven Meese Commission Report. Here’s a cite from the [ACLU](http://www.aclu-mass.org/issuebriefs/artfreedom.html) on the disreputablness of the Meese Commission. I’ll quote the relevent portion: > [@](#): > > _From the ACLU website_ > Q: But don’t obscene and pornographic works cause antisocial, even violent behavior? > > A: No direct link between exposure to sexually explicit material and antisocial behavior or sexual violence has ever been scientifically established. In 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed a panel of experts to examine this issue. But after three years of extensive research, the National Commission on Obscenity and Pornography found no convincing evidence of a causal connection. Indeed, the commission concluded that the real problem is not sexual imagery but “the inability or reluctance of people in our society to be open and direct in dealing with sexual matters.” The commission called for the repeal of existing obscenity statutes, except those concerning children, and recommended better sex education, better communication about sexual matters and more research. > > In 1985, President Reagan’s Attorney General, Edwin Meese, convened another commission, stating that “reexamination of the issue of pornography is long overdue.” The Meese Commission, chaired by a zealous antipornography federal prosecutor, held public hearings at which a parade of witnesses recounted, from behind a screen, tales of sexual abuse. The commission then declared that it had established a link between such abuse and pornography and proposed new censorship laws. Soon afterwards, several prominent scientists whose studies the Commission’s report had cited disassociated themselves from the report, charging that their research had been misrepresented. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Sinful_ > [http://www.dianarussell.com/publications.html](http://www.dianarussell.com/publications.html) (Really great site about a really wonderful book.) This is another cite that creates a distinction between “pornography” and “erotica.” In addition, its definition of pornography is considerably narrower than yours: “I define pornography as material that combines sex and/or the exposure of genitals with abuse or degradation in a manner that appears to endorse, condone, or encourage such behaviour. I define erotica as sexually suggestive or arousing material that is free of sexism, racism, and homophobia, and respectful of all the human beings and **animals** portrayed.” (bolding mine) Under this definition, neither Playboy nor Penthouse, two magazines you have specifically targetted as unacceptable, would be considered pornography. Interestingly enough, under this definition, it would seem that a woman fucking a German Shepherd would be considered erotica, so long as someone gives the dog a biscuit once he’s done. As far as addressing the idea that “bad” porn causes rape, it’s only cite seems to be a thirty year old study from South Africa. It creates a link between _liberalism_ and rape-acceptance. It contains a quote from a South African tribeswoman blaming boys and girls _kissing in public_ on pornography. It cannot seem to tell the difference between pornography and child pornography, and seems to be arguing that watching child pornography will turn you into a pedophile. In short, the woman who wrote this article is insane. > [@](#): > > [http://dc-mrg.english.ucsb.edu/Warn...n.worksheet.htm](http://dc-mrg.english.ucsb.edu/Warn...n.worksheet.htm) I thought this was interesting. I’ll have to take your word on that, because the link is broken. > [@](#): > > [http://img.mediaplex.com/cgi-bin/ht...A=1676106/R=1/\*](http://img.mediaplex.com/cgi-bin/ht...A=1676106/R=1/*) Another broken link. > [@](#): > > [http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/75-3/](http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/75-3/) Drag equals blackface? The fact that the article you want us to read is hosted by a site that promotes such homophobic drivel does not speak well to the integrity of the cite, but let’s take a look anyway. And it’s crap. It’s nothing more than an angry screed against another group of feminists for daring to oppose some anti-porn legislation in Indianapolis. Along the way, it compares so-called “pornography survivors” to American POWs in Kosovo and _survivors of the Holocaust_. I can pretty much stop there, since the author has just run full-tilt into Godwin’s Law, but let’s see what else is in there. Hmm. Pornography is responsible for women’s right to an abortion being restricted. Er, did I miss a Supreme Court session where _Roe v. Wade_ was repealed on the basis of _Debbie does Dallas_? Oh, and there’s a good part here where the author blasts her opponents for not accepting anecdotal evidence, like a “real” feminist should. Do I really need to go on, or do you want me to reveal how much further this author has stuffed her own foot down her throat? > [@](#): > > [Redirecting...](http://www.nationalcoalition.org/pdf/warning_risk.pdf) (The paragraph in this one about how porn triggers crime with the quote from Dr. Mary Anne Layden I thought was especially interesting.) Are you fucking kidding me? I’m not even bothering with this one. It’s a joke, and a pathetic one, at that. ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/57 "2003-07-30T04:53:50Z")
In the interest of ending this prolonged hijack, **Sinful** , [welcome to your first Pit thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=201127). The crap you’ve dredged up doesn’t merit a Pit thread, but feel free to try and prove your point in the Pit. Pathetic, indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/58 "2003-07-30T04:54:03Z")
In the interest of ending this prolonged hijack, **Sinful** , [welcome to your first Pit thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=201127). The crap you’ve dredged up doesn’t merit a GD thread, but feel free to try and prove your point in the Pit. Pathetic, indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Avalonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ee7513/32.png) [@Avalonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avalonian)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/59 "2003-07-30T04:55:22Z")
Dammit… ignore that first one. ---
**Author:** ![Master\_Wang-Ka](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/master_wang-ka/32/3325_2.png) [@Master\_Wang-Ka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Master_Wang-Ka)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2003, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223/60 "2003-07-30T05:16:08Z")
> [@](#): > > There are now more outlets for hard-core porn in America than McDonald’s restaurants. \*Must… see … cite… can’t… hold… on… losing… straight… face… \* Okay, I’m sorry. That wasn’t a very clever joke. But I have a VERY hard time believing the quoted statement. Nearly ALL municipalities have some form of “sexually oriented business” ordinance that makes it a pain in the butt to open or run a porn outlet or topless bar or whatever… and that’s just the legal end of things. Many cities go even farther, by ordering police raids and general harassment, to the point where the business simply cannot function profitably. Please note that I am not taking sides here. I am simply stating facts. At this point, I will now point out that the only restriction to opening a McDonalds’ in most municipalities has to do with commercial zoning, health laws, and the ability to buy a plot of land… the same restrictions any restaurant would have to follow. My little town has two McDonalds, but I have to drive clear into San Antonio to hunt for snuff films. And it’s still easier to find a Big Mac in San Antone than it is to find a copy of _Debbie Does Dallas._ IS there a cite for this quote? I’d sure like to see it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romance-novels-and-slash-are-just-socially-acceptable-softcore-porn-for-women/190223.md?page=4)