[PLUG-TALK] Porn on the Net...
Jeme A Brelin
jeme at brelin.net
Wed Oct 28 02:46:16 UTC 2009
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009, Michael Robinson wrote:
> Consenting adults? Pornography has nothing to do with "consenting"
> adults.
By your definition of pornography, it certainly does.
(By the way, your crusade against free porn, you realize, would only make
pay porn more popular, put more money into the hands of pornographers, and
increase the degree to which the choice to distribute or participate in
its production is dictated by financial desperation or avarice rather than
the sheer love of the work thus creating a more coercive atmosphere. I
think it undermines your principles, is what I'm sayin'.)
> With Net pornography, one is never talking about just 2 people in a
> private encounter.
Yeah, your idea that sex is this limited is part of your problem, not the
greater society's. Your narrow belief system is part of what makes you so
susceptible to porn and see only the few abuses.
Your comments about the enslaved and coerced performers makes me think of
all those drivers that think every cyclist is a wreckless scofflaw or
those cyclists that think every driver is an inattentive egomaniac. We
see the behavior that fits with your beliefs and ignore even a majority of
evidence that contradicts them.
> If someone manipulating your base desires so that you want something you
> wouldn't otherwise want is consent, then consent doesn't mean much.
So it doesn't mean much if I eat a cupcake right after lunch if my
office-mate brought them in and made them look so cute and tasty? I don't
have any role in that decision? I can blame the coworker entirely? Man,
that's an easy, guilt-free life you must live.
(I live an easy, guilt-free life, too, but for almost the opposite
reason.)
> As far as the Sarah Palin comment Jeme, that was a stupid response.
Yes, it was. It was an absurdity intended to inspire chuckles.
> Selling of children in Alaska to the porn industry does happen, but
> Sarah Palin is obviously not one of the people selling. That is right up
> there with me saying that Obama is a terrorist.
Did you say that? Did anybody laugh? I think it's maybe not quite as
funny because, sadly, there are people that do think he is and so the joke
maybe perpetuates destructive notions. But saying that the Palins are
part of sex-slavery ring is hilarious precisely because it's so far from
what anyone actually thinks.
I mean, running a sex-slavery ring requires planning, secrecy, and
accounting skills. Nobody would ever accuse Ms. Palin of having those.
> If they don't get it for a decent length of time, that weakens the
> addiction. This is why alcoholics shouldn't drink and pot heads
> shouldn't smoke. People addicted to Internet porn shouldn't look at any
> for as long as possible.
I'm not sure if that's the best thinking available on this subject.
Personally, I think the healthy life is, as Benjamin Franklin put it, "all
things in moderation". Cold turkey might be an effective way to break the
cycle of addiction, but it is not a long-term solution for health.
Obsession with not doing a thing is sometimes as psychologically
destructive as doing a thing. An alcoholic, in my opinion, is truly cured
when she can drink casually and socially as her lifestyle allows and
her social norms constrain. (Understand that I'm writing this as a
lifelong teetotaller and my notion of the acceptable place of alcohol in
culture is very different from most folks.)
In short, an alcoholic should be able to have his red wine with dinner for
his heart-health; a pot-head should be able to go back to a bi-monthly
toke; and a porn addict should be able to check out the net-porn for a few
minutes during normal masturbation times... y'know, like twice a day and
never on the clock.
> As far as the you are healthy if you don't want to look at Internet porn
> comment, that is ridiculous.
I agree! A healthy person should want to look at internet porn a healthy
amount. See above.
> Porn on the Net is designed to be desirable in a highly addictive way.
Oh, I don't know about that. I know some internet pornographers and
they're just not really smart enough to properly design anything, let
alone optimize something.
> It isn't healthy to be into porn because it impairs ones ability to form
> quality relationships and it robs sexuality of it's beauty.
That is just absurd. I mean, I know you and I have very different notions
of "quality relationships", but I have strong, healthy, honest, open,
lasting relationships with my friends and lovers and porn has never
impeded or impinged upon any part of that. And the beauty of sexuality is
that porn isn't even comparable to sex. To say that porn ruins the beauty
of sexuality is like saying Andy Warhol ruins the taste of tomato soup.
(That's ridiculous, of course. When I make tomato soup, I always add a
dash of Warhol essence to the terrine just before serving. C'est
magnifique!)
> It is easy to do though if you feel alone, depressed, or you have been
> sexually abused by someone.
It's easy for other people, too.
I guess the difficult part for some people to separating those feelings
from feelings about real people. I think we have a genuine problem in our
culture of folks not being able to tell the difference between their
real-life experiences and those mediated through, well, media. The gunmen
in those awful shooting cases all over-identified with action heroes and
miserable people all over cry themselves to sleep clutching Twilight
novels and the like forelorn that they have not found their Edward --
after all, romance novels have convinced them that everyone has a pure,
true love waiting out there in the world and so why should they accept the
difficulty of an actual, flawed human being in their life who belches and
shits? Reality is not an idealized form of anything. Porn is an
idealized form of sex for pleasure (or domination, submission, or other
aspect of sexuality) while real sex is always going to have aspects of all
of those things in addition to intimacy, respect, fear, and a million
other things that are real, human, and perfect as they are, but not
idealized.
> In the war on drugs, there is a lot of emphasis on teaching people to
> leave drugs alone.
Abstinence education is the worst possible approach to teen pregnancy and
STIs. And the "war on drugs" is an absurd thing on its face. What we
need is responsibility. We don't need to teach people to "leave drugs
alone", but to respect the drug and its effects and, if they deem it
necessary or worthwhile, to use it with responsibility and care be those
drugs recreational or medicinal in nature of usage.
> I'm shocked that people don't bother to respond to the initial post
> for literally days and then respond poorly.
Oh, I was just procrastinating, so I stirred the pot. Sorry, everyone.
> A just say no campaign in regards to porn is advisable, but if the war
> on drugs has taught us anything it's that a just say no campaign isn't
> nearly enough.
On what grounds is it advisable? We learned that the campaign was not
merely "not enough", but counter-productive, naive, and insulting.
> Curiosity is a powerful thing and porn is very addictive. Even if
> you are looking at porn for say 20 minutes instead of an hour or
> longer, you are still there for 20 minutes.
Right. 20 minutes I would have spent imagining ridiculous sex scenarios
and masturbating instead of watching or reading ridiculous sex scenarios
and masturbating. Big diff.
> It's easy to say that porn is harmless if you don't pay for it, but
> that's not true. Someone is abusing their sexuality for you to have a
> picture to look at.
One man's use is another man's abuse.
> If nobody wanted to look at the picture, it's less likely that the
> person would be involved in producing it.
I think that's only true for the folks who get paid to do it and only
somewhat, even then. You obviously don't know any exhibitionists.
> I'm not pushing for an outright ban on Internet pornography. I'm pushing
> for a ban on free Internet pornography.
Again, I think that makes the bad parts worse and takes the good parts
away.
> To say that a just say no campaign is sufficient is ludicrous.
To say that a just say no campaign is ludicrous is sufficient.
J.
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list