Is porn immoral? That doesn’t matter: It’s a public health crisis.

[Recursion]

First off:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/04/08/is-porn-immoral-that-doesnt-matter-its-a-public-health-crisis/

Last month, the Republican-led Utah House of Representatives became the first legislative body in the United States to pass a resolution declaring pornography “a public health hazard leading to a broad spectrum of individual and public health impacts and societal harms.” The liberal backlash criticized the measure as an antiquated bit of conservative moralizing, with the Daily Beast calling it “hypocritical” and “short-sighted.” “The science just isn’t there,” wrote Rewire, an online journal dedicated to dispelling “falsehoods and misinformation.”

The thing is, no matter what you think of pornography (whether it’s harmful or harmless fantasy), the science is there. After 40 years of peer-reviewed research, scholars can say with confidence that porn is an industrial product that shapes how we think about gender, sexuality, relationships, intimacy, sexual violence and gender equality — for the worse. By taking a health-focused view of porn and recognizing its radiating impact not only on consumers but also on society at large, Utah’s resolution simply reflects the latest research.

...

Using a wide range of methodologies, researchers from a number of disciplines have shown that viewing pornography is associated with damaging outcomes. In a study of U.S. college men, researchers found that 83 percent reported seeing mainstream pornography, and that those who did were more likely to say they would commit rape or sexual assault (if they knew they wouldn’t be caught) than men who hadn’t seen porn in the past 12 months. The same study found that porn consumers were less likely to intervene if they observed a sexual assault taking place. In a study of young teens throughout the southeastern United States, 66 percent of boys reported porn consumption in the past year; this early porn exposure was correlated with perpetration of sexual harassment two years later. A recent meta-analysis of 22 studies between 1978 and 2014 from seven different countries concluded that pornography consumption is associated with an increased likelihood of committing acts of verbal or physical sexual aggression, regardless of age. A 2010 meta-analysis of several studies found “an overall significant positive association between pornography use and attitudes supporting violence against women.”

...

Because so much porn is free and unfiltered on most digital devices, the average age of first viewing porn is estimated by some researchers to be 11. In the absence of a comprehensive sex-education curriculum in many schools, pornography has become de facto sex education for youth. And what are these children looking at? If you have in your mind’s eye a Playboy centerfold with a naked woman smiling in a cornfield, then think again. While “classy” lad mags like Playboy are dispensing with the soft-core nudes of yesteryear, free and widely available pornography is often violent, degrading and extreme.

Before anybody goes there, I don't particularly advocate outlawing porn (or booze, or drugs, or guns), because I don't think that kind of prohibition is particularly effective (and, yes, I do think speeding and murder laws are effective, btw, so no need to bring up that strawman). But I also don't support ignoring the simple facts before our eyes that drugs, guns, booze, and yes, even porn, are actually harmful, and that we should find some way as a society to deal with them.

[JackInGreen]

1. I'll pay attention to the idea it's harmful

when I get done watching this one, then making one for private consumption.


That's unhealthy?
If you say so bucky, if you say so.

[Recursion]

2. Gonzo porn is about 0.5% of network traffic

I'm actually really sympathetic to gonzo porn, but it's nowhere nearly as common as the tube owners want people to think it is.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

3. porn is immortal

...

[Skink]

4. Only if the phone is low out of power.

And I have to piss.

[Warpy]

5. I have to agree with your assessment

Most of those things are used by a majority of people who can keep them in perspective and not get lost in them.

Guns might be a little different and some countries have made partial prohibition, the denial of guns that are useless for hunting anything but one's fellow humans, work. While it hasn't dropped gun violence to zero, it's slowed it down considerably.

Prohibition of substances and porn has done nothing to slow down the appetite for any of them and there is considerable evidence that prohibition makes them all a little more attractive.

Substances and porn can be harmful to some people. Perhaps we might call off prohibition and invest the money we wasted on it into identifying people at risk and developing strategies to help them when they get lost.

Moralists, of course, will scream bloody blue murder but face it, moralists are always screaming about something. I wish we as a culture would learn to shove binkies in their mouths so we can ignore them and do some of the things that other countries have made work, like calling off the drug war and regulating the sex industries only so participants can stay safer.

[Recursion]

6. Well I mean we also have partial gun prohibition here

A normal person can't just go buy an assault rifle or machinegun or bazooka, and handguns require some extra scrutiny. That seems to more or less work, for all of its flaws. And in my ideal world heroin and amphetamines would be given out by doctors, for instance; that's kind of similar I think.

But, at any rate, this wasn't really about laws as such, at least to me: I really take the article's point that in the absence of actual sex education in many areas, commercial porn has become the de facto sex education medium. If that isn't terrifying to everybody, well...

[Warren DeMontague]

12. Bad False equivalence is Bad and False.

"Drugs, Booze, Guns and Porn are bad for society" - Okay, Let's unpack that dealio for a minute.

One, "Drugs" are not a monolith, it's time we stop treating them as such. Pot is not Heroin is not Caffeine is not Psilocybin. And "bad"? A knee-jerk, subjective assertion. Some substances, in some contexts, used by some people, are not bad, and in fact can be good. I can think of a lot of good reasons why a morning cup of coffee is a net gain for me, most of the time. Many people get health benefits from an occasional glass of wine ("booze" and "Drugs", of course, really being the same category) and a FUCKTON of people get creative or other benefits from recreational cannabis use, whether regular or occasional. Some drugs are bad for some people and some relationships between some substance users or abusers and the substances in question are bad for themselves and those around them, certainly. But "drugs are bad" is a blanket, nonsensical assertion.

Two, "booze". Again, it is really "drugs" but as drugs go, I think the societal and physiological harm from that one dwarfs most other substances; so what do we do- do we "wage war on booze" or try to convince people with lies that booze is far worse for them in all situations than it actually is? No, because when you lie to people about shit- I don't care if it is about drugs, or booze, or porn- they write you off (rightly so) as an agenda-pushing, moralizing finger wagger who is not to be trusted.

I have experience around alcoholics and I can tell you that what alcoholics really need, at this point in time, is good science-based research into the physiology of addiction and what exactly causes some people to have adverse relationships with a chemical most of the population can handle. There is no shortage of 12 step and other recovery options for people who need it. Beyond that education in terms of binge drinking and not drinking and driving is effective, but not really relevant to the "porn question" until we have an epidemic of masturbating drivers.

Now, Guns and Porn. Here's where we get into the false equivalence, just as we see it around cannabis. It is well-nigh impossible in this country to get any meaningful regulation AT ALL on guns, that's a simple reality, despite what they are capable- objectively, undeniably- of doing to people, other people, innocent bystanders or anyone who is NOT the person with the gun itself. To compare that to porn, or weed, is ludicrous. But the authoritarians will fall all over themselves, to try and outlaw (or keep outlawed) the porn, and the weed. When is the last time someone walked into a school and killed 20 first graders with an eigth of Bubba Kush or a DVD of "Rocco Does Prague"?

Never, that's when.

[Recursion]

15. We've banned assault rifle sales for 80 years, very successfully

How can you possibly call that a failure?

And, no, I won't "mellow out" at alleged liberals lying about the most successful gun control law of the past century. It has fucking worked.

[MillennialDem]

29. We should start requiring those pictures to be posted online. That will get

the reality on guns to change.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. Just wrenching. That whole thing.

I still can't even think about that. Just too awful.



And then people - would be moralizing, finger-wagging busybodies - have the nerve to pretend that consenting adults looking at pictures of other adults fucking, or consenting adults smoking a joint in their living room after a long day at work, are somehow an equivalent issue worthy of panic and outrage. Give me a FUCKING BREAK.

[MillennialDem]

66. We need to face the FACTS on guns. It's too easy to just brush aside dead people as

meaningless statistics.

[whirlygigspin]

7. I could say the same thing about religion

“a public health hazard leading to a broad spectrum of individual and public health impacts and societal harms.”

perhaps we should control it as well

[Recursion]

8. Well, again, "control" is probably the wrong way to look at it there, just like with porn or drugs

Last edited Thu Apr 14, 2016, 05:42 AM - Edit history (1)

But I would find it difficult to argue with the claim that religion has had some very harmful effects in the world, and it's something we should talk about as a society.

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Yeah, well, porn companies have to pay taxes.

So there's that.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Glossing over the fact that the law in your OP was passed by the most religiously conservative

legislature in the US does not really help your argument. The OP is about religion not about science. Every single day religion motivates individuals to do harm to others, every day religion motivates countries to whip and execute LGBT.

10 entire Countries use religion to oppress others.

So gloss over the religion thing because that serves you just as it serves the Mormons in Utah.

[Recursion]

30. The OP also had problems with that law

so "passed by the OP" seems like a weird thing to say.

[Warren DeMontague]

61. It would be a weird thing to say, if he had actually said it. But again you have wildly

misinterpreted a post in your thread. What he did say was "passed by the most religiously conservative legislature in the US" - and it's true, but Gail Dines doesn't give a fuck about that, because like Andrea Dworkin she's perfectly happy to ally herself with religious anti-smut fundamentalists---- because lets be honest, allies in the fight against pictures of naked women are pretty fucking hard to find.

What's especially funny is that right now people are falling all over themselves to laugh at Ted Cruz for wanting to outlaw masturbation and sex toys, but Dines wants essentially the same thing, just replace "dildoes" with "porn"

[Mosby]

52. religion can have destructive effects

But in terms of individual and public health you could not be more wrong.

Research has shown the regular church goers are healthier, live longer lives and report higher levels of satisfaction and happiness than non church goers.

[rockfordfile]

111. This is a joke correct?

Religion is one of the worst scams put on mankind.

[Arugula Latte]

112. Ignorance is bliss, right?

"Why does an all-powerful God let babies starve, inflict children with cancer, and wipe out whole cities with monsoons and earthquakes?"

"Don't worry about it -- there's a plan, and ours is not to question. Also, mysterious ways...Just turn off your pesky rational thoughts 'cuz a dead guy from the Judea of 2,000 years ago (BTW, he's the son of God but also God Himself -- of course they're both male!) is going to come back to Earth soon to suck believers into the sky!"

[Mosby]

115. maybe

But most of the differences have to do with the activity and socializing.

Churchgoers are probably less isolated, especially older folks, they socialize with their friends at church and have a larger support network that helps them cope and deal with stress better. The weekly ritual of going to church provides a routine and at least some physical activity that they might not otherwise get.

[cleanhippie]

119. But you just proved its not religion, it's the socialization that provides the benefit.

Religion itself is a destructive, regressive ideology.

[Sherman A1]

9. Anything in excess can be a problem.

That would include porn or booze or drugs (guns are a different category and argument in my opinion) or Doritos.

I do believe that we need to spend more time talking with the young ones about sex and relationships as suggested in this post and linked article from Sunday.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7749578

[Warren DeMontague]

10. Gail Dines is hardly what you would call an objective, disinterested party in this argument.

She's built her career on the "dangers" of smut just as surely as professional drug warriors have a vested interest in reefer madness narratives.

She trots out the same, widely debunked, widely discredited studies and stats- like the one from years ago alleging that something like "95% of porn contains acts of violence or aggression".. Wow, gee, that sounds awful, until you actually ask what they define as "acts of violence and aggression" and you get "name calling, spanking, the insertion of body parts into the mouth of another"


...wait, whut?

So, yes, basically if you are defining fellatio itself as an "act of violence or aggression" it becomes hardly a shocker to find that 95% of porn meets your arbitrary (and silly) criteria.

The simple, basic fact which remains unchanged here is, for decades we have been warned by the Ed Meeses amd Andrea Dworkins about the awful, horrible effects all this rampant smuttitude would have on our society. they haven't materialized.

What has happened to society? Well, for starts, it is far more tolerant of things like LGBT equality, far less uptight on matters of personal morality, not to mention less violent. Correlation is not, of course, causation however it is clear as day that "the nightmare of porn" hasn't damaged a whole lot of anything in our society except the narrative of would-be authoritarians.

[prayin4rain]

67. I like how knowledgeable you are on this subject.

So, do you think that kids (like 11 to 14 year olds) stumbling on some of the more extreme porn on the Internet is a non-issue?

I wish playboy was all that kids could stumble upon. I don't care what truly consenting adults do or watch, but I wish there was a way to make extreme porn a little less accessible unless it's a grown up purposely looking for it.

[Warren DeMontague]

68. I think that, for one, anyone with windows 10 and a microsoft account should be able

To set some internet restrictions on what their kids can access on the internet in about 45 seconds. They will even send you a report every week telling you what the kids have been accessing. Its really not rocket science.

Enable safesearch and give the kids their own -restricted- user settings on the computer. And keep an eye on their device use. Problem essentially solved.

Also, in my experience, "kids" dont usually stumble upon things they dont know to go looking for. Your avg 11 year old seems to be far more interested in minecraft modpacks than "behind the green door".

[prayin4rain]

70. In my experience, eleven to fourteen year olds are much older than

you seem to think. And I think almost anybody who has gone looking for anything in that realm on the internet has encountered more than they went looking for, so I'd imagine it happens to kids who Google "sex" or "boobs" or whatever else their curious minds come up with.

But, I understand your answer, I think. Parents need to figure out how to keep it from kids while still ensuring that their kids are learning about technology at a rate that is good for their career prospects.

[Bad Dog]

17. Who cares?

Phwoaar!

[Bonobo]

19. That explains it!

[Warren DeMontague]

20. I can't see. Looks like a big pink cactus

Damn my eyes!

[Bonobo]

21. Oh Warren... that's stage 3! nt

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Acid causing flashbacks, sex toys opening demonic portals

Why is it I can never get these things to work as advertised?

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. Correlation is not causation, but Dines wants you to think it is

The papers she links to show correlations between pornography use and violent sexual attitudes; but that doesn't mean the first causes the second. It's highly probable that anyone with violent or misogynistic attitudes would have no qualms at all about using pornography (imagine someone who uses force in sex thinking that it's bad just to look at pictures of consensual sex - that really wouldn't make sense). Meanwhile, among the normal people, some of them never use pornography, for whatever reason. So you would expect a correlation, even if there's no way that use causes the attitudes. That doesn't mean that using pornography makes an individual more like to be violent etc.

But Dines just asserts, without evidence, "scholars can say with confidence that porn is an industrial product that shapes how we think about gender, sexuality, relationships, intimacy, sexual violence and gender equality — for the worse". No, that's not what they say. They point to correlations, not porn shaping how we think.

[Major Nikon]

43. One need not look any further than the author to know this is going to be a complete load of shit

As far as correlation evidence goes, all you have to do is look at the fact that rape is down over the same time period that porn has grown exponentially. So while this may not prove the exact opposite of her claims, it certainly destroys the half-fast correlations Gail Dines has been making over the exact same time period.

[titaniumsalute]

24. If beating off is outlawed Kleenex would file chapter 11

[rjsquirrel]

26. God, this agajn

On the list of public health crises we face I really don't think guys jerking off is way up there. Nor have I ever believed media "cause" rather than "reflect" social problems.

Porn has been around since humans started drawin pictures. If we weren't so sexually repressed by moralistic bullshit it wouldn't have a market.

[Orrex]

27. When aliens pick through the rubble of our long-dead society...

They will be amazed out of their minds at how much energy we expended in worrying about other people's genitals.

[Chan790]

33. ...they're also likely to mistake Walt Disney World...

for an actual kingdom worshiping a rat-god.

I have little faith in aliens to draw proper inferences from insane evidence. It's why sometimes I wonder in archaelogists aren't completely off-the-map about some facets of ancient civilization.

[Orrex]

34. Arthur C Clarke wrote a terrific short story about this, in fact

Check out History Lesson, if you can find it.

Funny but kind of chilling.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. The greatest public health crisis of our times gets treated like a joke, the thousands it kills

ignored by the political class that has ignored or laughed about that crisis since Ronald Reagan spent 7 years in negligent, criminal denial of that crisis. while tens of thousands of Americans died.
Last month, a Democratic candidate repeated a bunch of ignorant falsehoods about that crisis and lies about the communities most harmed by it. That candidate praised the Republicans for doing the very things they did not do and blamed those who actually did them for being apathetic.

So yeah. Public health crisis. Whatever. Use that verbiage. Why not? Tens of thousands are dying right?

[Warren DeMontague]

62. I see what you did there.

[milestogo]

72. I thought the greatest public health crisis was gun violence.

I have no clue what you are talking about.

[Warren DeMontague]

117. I believe he is talking about the reaction to AIDS in the Reagan era and beyond

Only puritannical moralizers and would-be censorious control freaks like Rick Santorum and Gail Dines honestly believe that consenting adults masturbating to naked pictures of other consenting adults is "a public health crisis"

[sofa king]

31. I think porn is just another form of fantasy entertainment.

Here, let Gwar explain to Joan Rivers how it works when someone goes and plays out fantasy entertainment in real life (07:45):

"I think that anyone who did that is probably a very disturbed person in the first place."

Perhaps we should be focusing our attention on that problem.

[KG]

32. I lulz'd

[ck4829]

35. Yes it is, but people will go straight to "sex, sex, sex" and never touch the actual roots

It's Freud-esque in a way, "sex" and treating it as something to be consumed is ironically the ego and not the id, so it is the tip of the iceberg. We see that, but there is more, much more.

There are deeper causes to the commodification of sex, right wing actors like the Utah legislature will actively avoid looking for these deeper causes and go straight for the false jugular of trying to regulate sex itself; but others, including progressives, reasonable, and intelligent people will ignore these deeper causes as well.

I think that sexuality and sexual expression are actually secondary to the sex industry, and there are two things that are actually essential to it, two things that are often ignored when one looks at sex and porn.

1) Economic inequality and deprivation
If one makes a critique about porn and also doesn't make a critique about the economic system, then their critique is incomplete. Right off the bat, we see economic inequality and deprivation. The women who do this, they're not well off financially. They don't have economic capital, they don't have support nets. Would they be doing this if their basic needs were met? I think not. And what of the consumers? Do they have the same resources as their peers? This can also be seen as more porn is now free, consumers who didn't have the resources to view it now do and now view a lot of it without being charged for it directly. It's called a 'sex industry', it's about making money. Money, our current system of economic capital, or the lack of it, it's a big enabler here to say the least. Are we ready and willing to examine how money flows, how it is equal and unequal, and what deprivation of it really means?

2) Binaries and binary thinking
This one is a partner to economic inequality and deprivation, but where the former is economic, this one is cognitive. When we view the world in binaries, bad things happen. Purely good or purely evil has led to a lot of dehumanization. We have a big huge binary in porn, males and females. The gender binary itself. Set roles for men, set roles for women. Male becomes the dominator, female becomes the dominated... or oppressor and oppressed. One is the buyer/seller and the other is to be bought/sold. Even the analysis of it often examines it in the point of view of gender binary; what it does to men vs. what it does to women. There is an inherent problem with binaries, one becomes preferred and superior. The opposite is the opposite. We can't tackle the harm of porn without also tackling the gender binary and also giving support to the third gender.

1 and 2 can also intersect, I was at a lecture about human trafficking in Ohio and there was a bit of discussion about a pimp/prostitute dynamic as it is constructed; one is wealthy, gregarious, has needs met, etc. and the other is poor, a person people do not want to associate with, desperate, etc.

We don't need to outlaw it, outlawing it would actually be counterproductive, because until we target economic disparities and binaries in our perceptions, no solution will even begin to scratch the surface.

[prayin4rain]

56. Interesting post.

People tend to consider any discussion on the possible harmful effects of porn or objectification, and reasonable ways to mitigate that harm, as a call to ban all sex and/or porn by sex hating moralists. This is despite the fact that nobody has ever called for porn to be outlawed. Not once, ever. It's bizarre.

I agree, it's a complex and nuanced subject and I wish it could be discussed as such.... like you did. Anyway, that's my long winded way of "liking" your post. ....


On edit: By "nobody" in paragraph one, I mean, nobody on this board. I'm sure somebody on the planet has. ..

[truebrit71]

36. You can have my porn when you peel it from my cold, sticky, dead hands...

...

[Blue Dalek]

47. LOL I would high five you but both of us should

wash our hands first.

[truebrit71]

48. ROFLMAO!!!

[NobodyHere]

37. I'll give up porn

When I get a Marilyn MonroeBot.

[Bradical79]

38. Sounds like a strong argument for comprehensive sex ed

While porn in the modern world is practically impossible to eliminate, education is something that could possibly be used to counteract some of the harmful effects of pornography. Seems like a major issue is porn being a substitute for sex ed.

[Recursion]

41. I'm so ****ing glad someone finally crossed the finish line here

Yes, thank you. That is in fact the answer.

[Major Nikon]

73. It would certainly save a lot of folks from needing glasses and palm hair removal

[auntpurl]

49. EXACTLY THIS. Thank you! nt

[sarisataka]

39. I'm sorry, what were you saying?

I didn't hear; I was reading the articles.

[Marrah_G]

40. I think that government needs to stay out of people's sex lives

[Recursion]

42. So do I.

That doesn't really address this article's point, though, does it?

[davidn3600]

44. But that's the point. It's not the government's job to regulate every little thing

And where do you draw the line between porn and art? A lot of porn claims to be a form of art. And a lot of art features naked bodies. Should statues that show a woman's breasts or a man's penis be covered up?

People drink alcohol and soda. People smoke. People eat candy bars, pizza, and hamburgers. Are these things good for us, probably not. But is it the government's job to outlaw everything that isn't good for us?

Porn is a lot less harmful than any of those things. And some would say it can be healthy in some ways. A study a few years ago found that a man who has orgasms regularly has a lower risk of prostate cancer.

[Recursion]

45. Call it all art; doesn't change the point

It's a disastrous way for kids to be getting de facto sex ed.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. You obviously haven't been following Gail Dines's career very closely

she's not out there arguing for "more comprehensive sex ed". She's a straight up censor in the Dworkin-Meese mold. And like the anti-pot crusaders, she's found an inexhaustible gravy train because she has built her career on "battling" something that is never going anywhere.

"we should talk about how porn harms society"- well, maybe we should have that conversation using information beyond widely and repeatedly debunked "studies" like the one which characterized blowjobs as "acts of aggression".

And while we're talking about things that harm society, maybe we can add "morals panics" to the list.

[Marrah_G]

74. Then parents need to pay more attention

Not everyone's freedom to live as they choose gets to be shut down because of "the children".

[killbotfactory]

46. oh, ffs. If you are raised to be empathetic, kind, and respectful...

porn will not undo that.

[auntpurl]

50. I don't think it's immoral, but porn is getting weirder, though.

Some of the stuff out there makes me feel a bit sick. I'm very sex-positive, whatever consenting adults are into, etc. But there really is a lot of degrading nasty porn on the internet, I think it's more than it used to be. Maybe it's just me?

[Mosby]

51. I think porn had changed for the worse

And it wouldn't surprise me if it was having a negative impact on young boys in particular.

Without getting into particulars, porn used to be romantic, "fairy tale" sex but now it's violent and degrading towards women mostly. I started noticing the change about 15 years ago, and a lot of the worst stuff was coming from eastern Europe.

I can't imagine what an 11 year old kid must think when he sees men getting off on women being gagged and urinated on, one can't help but think that these kids sexual drives are being shaped by this shit, I read recently about a women blogger in her mid 30s writing that until she hit 30 she thought that men only get off when they ejaculated on her face. That's just fucking sad.

Comprehensive sex ed is clearly needed, and if it's not available parents should step up and teach their kids about relationships and sex.

[Marrah_G]

75. When was porn romantic?

Not in my lifetime.

[Mosby]

113. maybe romantic wasn't the right word

What I mean is that porn used to be just normal sex between two usually good looking people.

Today's porn is just a guy or guys using a woman like a sex doll.

Google shauna grant if you care to see how different porn used to be.

[Marrah_G]

118. lots of different kinds of porn out there

I think it's healthy for people to have choices in what is considered normal.

[Katashi_itto]

120. Yes, those were the days of Romantic porn...like "Deep Throat"

[Mosby]

122. that movie is G rated compared to todays porn

[Katashi_itto]

123. LOL...thats your opinion.

[immoderate]

53. Shrink: "Do you think sex is dirty?" Woody Allen: "It is if you're doing it right."

From Take the Money and Run.

--imm

[MrScorpio]

54. Porn kills...

...Boredom.

Frankly, I don't care for supply side methodologies in terms of economic theories and I certainly don't abide by them for sociological reasons either.

We're having a chicken and egg conversation and blaming all of problems on the chicken.

Porn is produced in mass quantities in the Americas, Asia and Europe. Its accessible to anyone with any kind of net access and it's delivered by choice, in a dazzling display of legal varieties. This isn't just our issue and it's not like it'll just go away.

Besides, as long as we're talking about the activities of consenting adults, engaged lawfully innocuous activities, any talk of moral application to me is overly intrusive.

People ought to make their own choices about right and wrong, as long as others aren't harmed. When left gets hyper moralistic, it's just bad when the right does it.

[Katashi_itto]

55. Que the poutrage of the month...porn is back up

[Rex]

84. They are so boring in their predictability.

Poor babies nothing is working for them.

[Oneironaut]

57. I really don't care.

If guys want to watch porn, let them. I also suspect the things found in the study are more correlation than causation.

I don't understand it, but I also don't care. It's the same with smoking, etc.

[zappaman]

59. Combine it with shooting up marijuana and you have a recipe for Armageddon.

[Warren DeMontague]

60. Another public health crisis not being taken seriously by anyone except the folks whose careers

have been built on the hyperbolic making of shit up about it.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

63. This completely ignores the correlation vs causation debate.

And since that's the central point of disagreement, I don't think this article adds much. It's simply recapturing home turf and declaring it a victory.

Pretty much everyone agrees watching porn is correlated with all sorts of negative sexual behaviours; since you'd expect the kinds of people who go in for these to also be disproportionately likely to watch porn, that's entirely unsurprising.

The controversial question is whether porn also has a causal effect, and if so in which direction - "outlet valve" arguments are certainly not absurd on the face of it.

At its worst, this article even seems to be actively trying to obscure that - terms like "porn exposure" seem to be picked to imply that porn is something that happens to a random selection of the population, and hence any correlation is likely to be causal, which is obviously nonsense.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. Except she's using shitty and debunked studies.

Like the one which defines blowjobs as "acts of aggression".

Certainly not in my book.

[Behind the Aegis]

92. Blowjobs are "acts of aggression"?!

Oh wait, I am guessing this is regards to a heterosexist lens.

Certainly not in my book.

Have to say, I strongly agree! LOL! However, I think I may have a slightly different...er...um..."view" about the entire thing.

[Warren DeMontague]

99. "I Thought Fellatio Was A Kind Of Pasta!"

sigh, telllll me about it.....

[treestar]

69. Funny thing about the right wingers being against it

they are against it because it is about sex, but should realize that it helps shore up their views of male dominance.

[Warren DeMontague]

71. Funny thing about left wingers being against it

Despite all the hyperbolic nonsense about how awful it is, more freedom of expression has correlated precisely in our society with more open and accepting attitudes around sexuality and different orientations, as well as a reduction in violent crime.

[guillaumeb]

76. "Utah No. 1 in online porn subscriptions, report says"

An older cite, but illuminating:

Utahns, famous for their wholesomeness and frugality, buy online pornography at higher rates than the rest of America.
That's the conclusion of a Harvard economics professor who tracked subscriptions to online porn sites. Utah ranks No. 1 in subscriptions, according to Benjamin Edelman, who reported his findings in the article "Red Light States: Who Buys Online Adult Entertainment?," published in the most recent edition of the Journal of Economic Perspectives.

"Subscriptions are slightly more prevalent in states that have enacted conservative legislation on sexuality," Edelman writes. In the 27 states where "defense of marriage" amendments have been adopted, there were 11 percent more porn subscribers than in other states, he reports. Use is higher also in states where more people agree with the statement "I never doubt the existence of God."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705288350/Utah-No-1-in-online-porn-subscriptions-report-says.html?pg=all

Nothing more needs to be added to this.

[liberal N proud]

77. Their reason for calling it immoral is stupid

They want the government they want to stay out of their business to put restrictions on your masturbation.

The only thing that is immoral about porn is when others are forced to participate. Otherwise just masturbate to hearts content.

[X_Digger]

78. Yes, that tail is totally wagging that dog.

[unblock]

79. i'm skeptical about the studies demonstrating what is claimed here.

i imagine it's actually quite difficult to design and execute a properly controlled study that doesn't eliminate other factors.

the most obvious is that causation might easily go the other way.

consider the study cited where men who viewed porn in the last 12 months are more likely to say they'd commit rape (if they thought they could get away with it) than men who didn't view porn in the last 12 months. i highly doubt that they randomly selected men and then told some to view porn (whether they were otherwise inclined to or not) and other to avoid porn (whether they were otherwise inclined to or not) for 12 months, then at the end of the 12 months, studied the effects.

instead, i rather suspect they simply asked the men whether they *chose* to view porn in the last 12 months. this means that the causation would easily go the other way. that is, men who would commit rape (if they though they could get away with it) are more likely to choose to view porn than men who would not commit rape (if they thought they could get away with it).

that's not to say the conclusion isn't accurate; perhaps it is. it just seems clear to me that the article is throwing in the kitchen sink in terms of studies that conclude porn is bad. i'd be more swayed by studies that seemed more objective and carefully constructed.

[Warren DeMontague]

82. She's rehashing some of the worst, most old debunked studies out there.

Like the one about "95% of porn contains acts of aggression" --after it defines ANY "insertion of a body part into the mouth of another" as an act of aggression.

I mean, do the math.


It's astounding that Time, and the WaPo, allow her to do this shit unchallenged. I guess it sells magazines and generates clicks.

[unblock]

85. low hanging fruit, as it were.

tons of people will line up to attack porn; not nearly as many who will defend it.
and the people who will defend it are people like larry flynt....

i'm not taking a view here, certainly *some* types of porn are odious, and maybe there are some scientifically demonstrable adverse effects, though again, i'm skeptical as it's difficult to demonstrate and isolate actual cause.

another factor is that porn hardly has a monopoly on negative views toward women. so, is porn the problem that causes the negative view of women, or is porn no better or worse than any other medium. i mean, look at advertisements for jeans, beer, cars, or hell, even hamburgers these days....

[Warren DeMontague]

86. Or, it's not like there wasn't misogyny in the "good old", censorship-happy pre-internet porn days.

If anything, as i noted, society is moving in a more egalitarian direction, along with more tolerance for all different people. IMHO.

But I disagree that people will line up to attack porn. It's a pretty lonely position. It's an outdated argument, like attacking swearing, or wearing white before labor day. Most people have moved on or don't give a shit.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

80. Gail Dines???

[Warren DeMontague]

81. I know, right?

In other news, professional marijuana prohibition advocate Kevin Sabet things marijuana legalization is bad.

[Rex]

83. Awww nobody cares about you or your buddies concern trolling anymore.

That must hurt. Nothing is working out for your little crew. Try another bullshit topic...maybe it will get some bites.

[Recursion]

87. Huh?

What a weird, weird response

[DisgustipatedinCA]

95. sysadmin? that's a different thing, you know. We normally sit in the same part of the building

But we're not the same.

[Recursion]

96. I have had both job titles, sysadmin more recently (well, that morphed to "devops")

But it's always been for small shops where you do all three ("sysadmin" meaning "you handle the PIX and the PBX and the exchange server&quot . I've also worked as a longshoreman, and a pizza deliverer, if you care to know.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

97. No more snark, just discussion.

I worked as a pizza delivery guy for John Schnatter (Papa John) in Jeffersonville, Indiana in 1987, at his first store. He fired me after I dropped a pizza on his nice shoes when I was really high. I'm always wondered if I could be their head delivery driver by now if not for that incident.

I've worked at very small IT shops in the past, but likely never again. Network components can be bought off the retail shelf by small companies and installed by someone's nephew (always a nephew, never a niece--shouldn't be that way in networking, but it is). And even mid-sized companies are largely outsourcing networking. So network engineers have to go to aggregate points--either large companies or large-ish VARs with a large customer base. For what it's worth, I spent the last 5 years as a network engineer at a regional bank. More recently, I started work with what I'll describe as a large interactive entertainment company.

Take care.

[Recursion]

98. Small *IT* shops are horrible, but small non-IT shops I enjoy

That's one good thing about making the slide into sysadmining; you can work for companies whose mission isn't particularly in technology (though, you also wind up being a CCIE who is helping people print, which can be a drag). (I was probably title inflated at my first "Network Engineer" job and title deflated at my later "Network Administrator" job which was actually in a large datacenter for once; since then I've been managing the server rooms for small non-profits, which I enjoy.)

More recently, I started work with what I'll describe as a large interactive entertainment company.

Congratulations!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

100. I found out that I very much like working where technology is the product.

When you work for a financial institution (I've worked for 2--the other loosely rhymed with Skank of Comerica), you're an expense they'd rather not have, and you end up feeling that every day in a lot of ways. Working for a tech company is different. If they're on the ball, they realize that you and your coworkers really are their greatest assets (not just the fluff for the mission statement).

I will likely never be CCIE-certified. I'm finishing up CCNP r&s (expired since 2004, and it's a VERY different cert now). But I think I would like to do CCNP datacenter and then CCNP security after I'm done with route/switch. The nice thing is, you only have to take one test every 3 years to keep them all current. So that's the direction I'm headed in. Oh, and I'm like everyone else who is waiting around to see what form SDN is going to take. It's mostly buzzwords now, but something will gel.

Regarding titles, my last 3 jobs were Sr Network Engineer, and the new one is just plain Network Engineer. I don't think titles matter much one way or another. Big fish and small ponds and all that.

Sorry for the threadjack. You did say that you didn't want porn outlawed, but that we as a country need to do something about it. What suggestions do you have? I'm probably going to disagree with you, because I'm big into the First Amendment, and I think some anti-porn measures have been pretty chilling. But what do you suggest? Thanks, and I'll look tomorrow, must sleep now.

[Recursion]

101. It's very possible we need more *porn*, but we need parents and kids to talk about with each other

Though as a good first step I'd want to return comprehensive and frank sex education to public schools.

[Warren DeMontague]

103. you realize, of course, that that is 180 degrees away from anything Gail Dines and her buddies are

interested in.

[Recursion]

107. I do not realize that; I hadn't heard of Dines before this column

If she's against sex education she's a bigger idiot than people who try to outright ban pornography.

(India, incidentally, tried that last year... and wound up publishing a public list of the 800+ most popular porn websites...)

[Warren DeMontague]

108. Yeah, that was kind of classic.

[Major Nikon]

109. Which includes rubbish promoted by Gail Dines? "frank" doesn't mean what you think it means.

You realize this is the same woman who has been predicting an armageddon of all sorts of social harm because of porn since before the internet, and continues to do so even though the exact opposite happened?

How long does someone have to be completely and utterly wrong before you finally decide they are full of shit?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

102. (Recursion is a decent guy, and we came to an understanding that caused us both to self-delete)

I won't always agree with him, but I've been made to see that he can be a pretty stand-up guy.

[Recursion]

105. Sorry, I'm having a bad week. I'll delete that

Long story. I didn't think I was taking on the "defender of Gail Dines" cloak by posting this (I'd never heard of her before this column), I just found the studies about attitudes towards sexual assault troubling. And (until today) I've found DU porn threads popcorn-worthy. I apologize.

[Warren DeMontague]

106. I get it, man. Not trying to pile on, here.

I just think she has a terrible track record in misrepresenting the facts, and as far as I can see the studies she trots out in this are nothing new and have already been widely debunked.

The first amendment is one of the issues which sets me off, so I can't claim complete objectivity, either.

[daleanime]

110. Simple, just require that single people....

turn in their organs until they have a legal reason, marriage, to use them. Then once childbearing years are over they must destroyed. Problems solved.

[LadyHawkAZ]

114. It's Utah

Last edited Fri Apr 15, 2016, 02:39 PM - Edit history (1)

a wholly owned subsidiary of LDS, Inc™.

[Warren DeMontague]

116. Funny story about porn and Utah. I actually was in SLC to see the Dead play in '95, of all places

--- talk about a culture clash --- but honestly that was the last time I saw them, with Jerry, and caught some real inspired and transcendent moments of pure brilliance, which frankly got fewer and further between after about 91 or so... I saw another show or two after that but they were flat and not memorable.

So im with a couple friends, wandering around downtown after the show, right, "nowhere to go, but just to hang around"... all the bars or whatever "drink clubs" are closed so we cant even go in and get some huge goblet of half-alcohol beer.

So we stopped into some coffee shop and we're sitting there, no doubt high as fuck (off LIFE! and that clean utah air) just yammering about something and I realize that there is, like, a writhing, moaning pink mass of flesh on the teevee in the corner of this near-empty place. So i sit for a minute and absorb the absurdity of being a stones throw from the big temple and here in this coffesshop with distracted hipster barista there is honest to god hard core pornography playing, up there on the screen.

After a few minutes dude realized what was happening "oh shit sorry sorry sorry!" And changed it to Alf or Seinfeld or full house or something.

But no porn in utah?

Hardly.

[Katashi_itto]

121. Gotta break open my copy of "Catholic High School Girls in Trouble"

"Catholic High School Girls in Trouble" Trailer (NSFW)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=999_1174148069&comment_order=newest_first&selected_view_mode=desktop


-From Kentucky Fried Movie 1977

[GOLGO 13]

124. Yes, porn is immortal.

Shayna Knight should be ignored at all costs.