TABOO TOPIC: Pornography/Erotica

[MonsieurHulot]

dont read wikipedia. it is very 'Layman'. try accessing psychological reports about the issue. maybe refer to certain online textbooks on socioanthropology. you should find some. *if you can be bothered to do this at 12 am*

It isn't perfect, but usually, and in this article, it references psychological studies heavily.
You have a point though. Tomorrow I'll check out some studies, or do some of my own research.

[ninwa]

dont read wikipedia. it is very 'Layman'. try accessing psychological reports about the issue. maybe refer to certain online textbooks on socioanthropology. you should find some. *if you can be bothered to do this at 12 am*

If you go down to the bottom of the linked article you would see that it references academic studies.

[Mao]

Let's suppose pornography increases the rate of rape or whatever adverse social effects we wanted to attach. Then what?

Ban pornography? By that logic, we should also ban alcohol, violence on TV, and anything which has the potential to cause antisocial behaviour.

Don't ban pornography? In that case, I fail to see the point of this thread.


Somewhat related: http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6478389/girls-watch-porn-too (obscene language, you've been warned)

[slothpomba]

I'd go out on a limb and say that pornography's probably not 'tight' 

Is the evidence that the viewing of pornography correlates to higher numbers of rape? If so, I'm surprised. I think that there's a danger of underestimating people's self-control in issues like these. It suggests that young men are driven towards one goal with no capacity for restraint, which is obviously untrue and rather insulting.

Yeah, i'm not buying this either. If the only reason you don't go out and rape someone is because you haven't seen porn, then, you got deeper issues..

It's like suggesting breaking bad or CSI make someone more likely to go out and cook meth or serial murder.

It might be true in a small number of cases or something like that but i seriously doubt it's driving up rape rates to any appreciable degree.

---------------

Don't ban pornography? In that case, I fail to see the point of this thread.

The thread started off much more related to the personal ethics of it all. Is it right for you or me as an individual to consume something like this rather than anything to do with rape or harm society. Those came later.

Let's suppose pornography increases the rate of rape or whatever adverse social effects we wanted to attach. Then what?

Ban pornography? By that logic, we should also ban alcohol, violence on TV, and anything which has the potential to cause antisocial behaviour.

There's a reason we ban heroin or unlicensed surgery. There are things out there that cause significantly more harm to society than the good they bring or the freedom associated with them. It seems uncontroversial things of this nature are banned.

You have to look at it from both sides of the coin: The practical and the theoretical.

Let's take the case of alcohol. Many people consume alcohol on an occasional, responsible basis and don't get hooked on the stuff. Many reading have had alcohol, i doubt we have any alcoholics among us (i hope).

The Fact is alcohol is a significantly addictive drug, more than most people think. It's probably closer to cocaine than marijuana in it's addiction potential. If it came across my desk and i had some magical power to approve it, i'm not confident that i would. For everyone of your friends you casually have a drink with and turn out fine, there are probably a few people pissing up their families wages buying 12 stubbies a day, every day, all year. Sit at a bottleo for a day or two, you'll rapidly see what i mean.

Problem is, it doesn't matter what my theory is, its impractical to ban alcohol, we simply can't just get rid of it. I think the same is true for porn. We'll have an extremely tough time totally restricting access, those who really want it will find it, the internet makes it incredibly easy.

In theory, if porn does cause a serious rise in the rate of sexual assaults in a way that tips the scale towards overwhelming and sustained harm i think we ought to ban it (like heroin). It's roughly the same principal. This is where i disagree with you.

I agree with you in practice because i doubt it would be practical to do so and i don't buy the idea that it significantly increases rape(if it did though, see above).

(If you're in favour of allowing heroin to be freely traded then pick something else like unlicensed surgery/live organ harvesting/banning people without a license from driving)

[thushan]

Well, there you go. And here I was under the impression (before I wrote this thread) that society believes that only 'dirty' guys watch porn and 'decent' guys don't only not watch porn, they don't fantasise about other women (particularly when in a relationship) and it only takes one instance of fantasising about another woman whilst in a relationship to commit adultery (as in, the fantasising itself is adultery). Talk about thoughtcrime.

And I was afraid I'd get shunned for even mentioning it.

[brenden]

Well, there you go. And here I was under the impression (before I wrote this thread) that society believes that only 'dirty' guys watch porn and 'decent' guys don't only not watch porn, they don't fantasise about other women (particularly when in a relationship) and it only takes one instance of fantasising about another woman whilst in a relationship to commit adultery (as in, the fantasising itself is adultery). Talk about thoughtcrime.

I find this funny; I often point out girls to my girlfriend and ask if she thinks they're hot. Adulterers all day erryday

[thushan]

Well, there you go. And here I was under the impression (before I wrote this thread) that society believes that only 'dirty' guys watch porn and 'decent' guys don't only not watch porn, they don't fantasise about other women (particularly when in a relationship) and it only takes one instance of fantasising about another woman whilst in a relationship to commit adultery (as in, the fantasising itself is adultery). Talk about thoughtcrime.

I find this funny; I often point out girls to my girlfriend and ask if she thinks they're hot. Adulterers all day erryday

LOL NAICE. I would not DARE mention another girl to my girlfriend (if i had one, that is!), unless she's some kind of friend - and never would I comment on her appearance.

[paulsterio]

To be honest, it's never nice to be unnatural, just because you're in a relationship doesn't mean you can't find someone else attractive. There's a difference between finding a person attractive and being attracted to somebody. I find heaps of girls attractive, celebrities, models, musicians, even friends, but it doesn't mean that I'm attracted to them. If, overnight, I'm suddenly in a relationship, it doesn't mean that I'll suddenly stop finding all those girls attractive, everything will remain the same and I should admit that it is so.

Not mentioning other girls to your girlfriend and furthermore, just not talking about anyone else's appearance is unnatural because that's not how you would normally act around someone, you're not being yourself. Just because you find someone attractive doesn't mean you want to commit adultery.

Anyways, onto the topic of porn, I disagree that only dirty guys watch porn - define dirty - you'll probably find that many decent people you work with every day and are friends with are probably "dirty" - it's a touchy issue, but I should mention that just because you fantasise about something doesn't mean you'll commit adultery and how is fantasising commiting adultery? That's like saying if I imagine myself killing someone, I'm committing murder - just saying.

[Mech]

I am quite ambivalent on this whole topic, and I can appreciate the antagonism it brings up between sets of ethics. I have had discussions with girls who profess to be feminists and have different perspectives on the issue of pornography -- some see it as a manifestation of patriarchy and others see it as a liberating force and endowing women with more sexuality and control over their bodies. Like most things, nothing is clear cut. I do not think pornography, in all it manifestations, is inherently exploitative or even liberating.

Cultural relativism is also an interesting discussion and was briefly pointed out by one of the posters (enwiabeard, perhaps?). I think that culture manifests itself differently and has different protocols surrounding sex; however, underlying all of this we seem to share very close values and are in fact sexual beings. Most people are non-violent, most people do not need to be told that they should respect the dignity and interests of their fellow peers. With sex, however, there is this power present that many do not wish to recognise. Sex is about power imbalance, an assertion of your will upon someone else and the assertion of their will upon you.

Sex is a messy, visceral struggle. Trying to legislate in such an area is very difficult and this extends to pornography as it can be genuinely difficult to draw the line about what degree of power imbalance is acceptable (all lines drawn are arbitrary and built atop the foundations of a particular philosophical and moral traditions, for example, pederastic behaviour was very much accepted in ancient Greece and the Mayans had sexual relations with children-adolescents and what we would clinically diagnose as 'paedophilia' and 'ephebophilia'). Kingpomba rightly argued that legislation around these sorts of things is very difficult. But, there are still very clear theoretical biases within the judicial systems against people who consensually participate in menage a trois relationships, sadomasochism or have a fetish that challenges the archetype of a heterosexual citizen (leaders want a community that is transmitting genes for more taxpayers, really).

People who are generally against pornography still hold to the view that humans are inherently monogamous. I am not so certain about this as I think there is compelling evolutionary evidence to suggest this is not the case. I know, at least for myself, I do not direct my thoughts to just one person; I am sexually attracted to more than one person. Exclusivity does not seem to correspond to my mindset, but I recognise it as a social practice we invest a lot into, i.e. marriage arrangements and the property laws associated with such (not that I agree with marriage or all property laws, personally). This exclusivity is not necessarily a product of our instincts, but an amalgamation of socio-economic factors and competing desires.  Personally, I have competing more cerebral desires to participate in society in socio-economic terms that require exclusivity; exclusivity is therefore the practice of my life. De facto rules have a lot of sway.

In general, I trust that most people do not act violently and do not want to consume media where real violence is committed against someone else. For "the violent few", they will always be condemned under theoretical laws. However, these laws and their theoretical foundations need a shake up and to accommodate that sexuality is a fluid construct and that laws are contingent upon shifting  social views of what is the appropriate power imbalance between individuals in sex and pornography. Currently, our laws do not fully reflect our liberal tradition and border on a fundamentalist view of sexuality and pornography.

[thushan]

"Currently, our laws do not fully reflect our liberal tradition and border on a fundamentalist view of sexuality and pornography."

Examples?

[Russ]

Various niche subgroups of pornography are banned outright because of our system. Many people would argue they deserve to be banned (debatable) but there are also some truly idiotic and negative body image decisions out of the classification board (apparently you can't show small breasts or natural labia)

http://boingboing.net/2010/01/28/australian-censor-bo.html
http://dodsonandross.com/blogs/carlin-ross/2011/03/photoshopping-labia-comply-obscenity-laws-australia

[Stick]

This is a taboo topic - but remember our line - if taboo topics are not discussed, informed and sophisticated views cannot be made as easily.

Also, this topic can be quite...amenable to memes/jokes. While a little bit of a laugh can be ok, please have some maturity about it.

I raise this (a bit belatedly!) because of the advent of the erotica 50 Shades of Grey, read mostly by women (feel free to correct me if I am wrong). It raises a point now.

Of course it isn't 100% right to watch (and read?) it, we have our usual arguments about degradation and the like. However, to what extent should people be shunned for watching it? Should they or should they not be forgiven? Where do our expectations lie? Is the situation "if he watches it he's a bastard and should be shunned and that is that" or "it would be good if he doesn't watch it, but he can be forgiven for doing so?"

Another scope of discussion is the role of pornography/erotica in relationships. As it stands, in some relationships its central and embraced by both the male and female, in others it's banned.

Now remember, this is merely a discussion of ideas. You are not to judge other people for what they say - if people feel as though they are going to be judged for what they say, they will refrain from saying anything, and their ideas will not have any opportunity for refinement.

Also: NO TROLLING. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS.

tl;dr

Recently at my school, we had a person come in and talk to us about healthy relationships - with a particular focus on the role of pornography in our current society. Basically, it's becoming an addiction amongst our generation, because it's 1) accessible, 2) affordable and 3) anonymous (or supposedly anonymous). When people become totally dependent on it, they escalate and start to seek more 'hardcore' content - not realising they are literally killing their sex drive as it's very difficult to "go backwards", if that makes sense. They start to become desensitised and stop caring about the thoughts and feelings of other people and during sex, people are only considered as 'objects' by those involved. They eventually reach a stage where no content can fulfill their urges and they turn to murder, rape and other horrible crimes to provide themselves with sexual satisfaction.

The lecture totally changed my ideas on pornography. This isn't to say it happens to everyone, but it does explain the rise in unsuccessful relationships in our community.

[Mech]

"Currently, our laws do not fully reflect our liberal tradition and border on a fundamentalist view of sexuality and pornography."

Examples?

There is an interesting case (R v Brown) that illustrates the disregard of consent in sadomasochistic relationships between homosexual men in a long-term relationship (the case also talks about media that the group produced for its own chronicling). I believe we use this decision as a persuasive precedent in Australia also. This needs to be contrasted with the case accepting consent in marriage as legitimating sadomasochistic acts (R v Wilson). In fact, despite the ostensible grotesqueness of R v Brown, there was no need to go to the hospital or seek medical attention. In R v Wilson, there was and it was still deemed acceptable by the law. Individuals who practices sadomasochism, that is a consensual sexual practice between adults, will be viewed and treated differently by the law just based on whether they are heterosexual or not.

The fact that we only have a marriage act that recognises heterosexual relationships and that the judicial system will talk of sexual acts being perverse even though they are consensual and with fully informed adults. This contravenes the liberal harm principle that one would assume is present in a liberal democracy. Read J. S. Mill's 'On Liberty' if you need to see the introductory philosophy of this principle and how it relates to the classical liberal tradition. I am using liberal in a very specific way here.

Now, if you think holding the ideal of heterosexual relationships is independent of religious fundamentalism, I disagree entirely. Pornography being a form of 'adultery' is also a deeply rooted fundamentalist belief. I would love to see a liberal argue that one can commit thought crimes as most believe we have the right to "thought and conscience" as long as it does not impede upon others. Consensual, homosexual sadomasochism does not impinge upon this rule.

Office of Film and Literature Guidelines (2000). "Films (except RC films) that: (a) contain real depictions of actual sexual activity between consenting adults in which there is no violence, sexual violence, sexualised violence, coercion, sexually assaulting language, or fetishes or depictions which purposefully demean anyone involved in that activity for the enjoyment of viewers, in a way that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult; and (b) are unsuitable for a minor to see".

Seems to filter out a lot of fetishes to do with sadomasochism between consenting adults. They also seem to forget these people are actors and what each of us find demeaning or violent is very subjective, i.e. what you think would undermine your dignity is probably different to what I think undermines mine. This "reasonable adult" business also preferences a certain demographic of people who are heterosexual and have very different fetishes. Is scratching your partner during the throes of passion violent? What about slapping someone's posterior? I think that all comes down to consent between the adults.

[Tonychet2]

i leave u with this ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZqnTOoBKi0

[Truck]

This is a taboo topic - but remember our line - if taboo topics are not discussed, informed and sophisticated views cannot be made as easily.

Also, this topic can be quite...amenable to memes/jokes. While a little bit of a laugh can be ok, please have some maturity about it.

I raise this (a bit belatedly!) because of the advent of the erotica 50 Shades of Grey, read mostly by women (feel free to correct me if I am wrong). It raises a point now.

Of course it isn't 100% right to watch (and read?) it, we have our usual arguments about degradation and the like. However, to what extent should people be shunned for watching it? Should they or should they not be forgiven? Where do our expectations lie? Is the situation "if he watches it he's a bastard and should be shunned and that is that" or "it would be good if he doesn't watch it, but he can be forgiven for doing so?"

Another scope of discussion is the role of pornography/erotica in relationships. As it stands, in some relationships its central and embraced by both the male and female, in others it's banned.

Now remember, this is merely a discussion of ideas. You are not to judge other people for what they say - if people feel as though they are going to be judged for what they say, they will refrain from saying anything, and their ideas will not have any opportunity for refinement.

Also: NO TROLLING. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS.

tl;dr

Recently at my school, we had a person come in and talk to us about healthy relationships - with a particular focus on the role of pornography in our current society. Basically, it's becoming an addiction amongst our generation, because it's 1) accessible, 2) affordable and 3) anonymous (or supposedly anonymous). When people become totally dependent on it, they escalate and start to seek more 'hardcore' content - not realising they are literally killing their sex drive as it's very difficult to "go backwards", if that makes sense. They start to become desensitised and stop caring about the thoughts and feelings of other people and during sex, people are only considered as 'objects' by those involved. They eventually reach a stage where no content can fulfill their urges and they turn to murder, rape and other horrible crimes to provide themselves with sexual satisfaction.

The lecture totally changed my ideas on pornography. This isn't to say it happens to everyone, but it does explain the rise in unsuccessful relationships in our community.

That whole lecture can be summarized in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#Fallacy