Talk:Pornography/Archive1

It was a red state thing wasn't it? Was that the wrong link? Mei 16:21, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Forgive me, but that whole red state/porn thing was a lousy bit of research. If it's the article I read, just check out the comments on it, they shred the methodology and conclusions.  ħ uman  16:57, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * It's a different article, although I think it starts with the same research. Too bad that section is so badly written.  ħ uman  16:59, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Also, for starts, it may be harder to find "over the counter" porn in those areas, so the liberal porn-lovers buy more on line. I think we should ditch this section (the research mentioned later in the article was done decades ago).  ħ uman  17:01, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

A question about "German" Porn
Just one shirt question: why does most of the internet assume that German porn is all about pissing and shitting and other disgusting stuff? I surf the internet for Porn since the year 2000, and I don`t see anything especially shitty about our domestic porn. Is it because Germans are said to give a shit about everything? Or do you think we just want to piss of the rest of the world? Nothing but questions...

Feminism
I added the section "Stupid Feminists" because I felt it was unfair for the only mention of feminism was a link to Andrea Dworkin. Sorry if the formatting of anything I did is incorrect, this is the first time I've edited anything on RationalWiki.
 * I rolled that back, simply because I found it to be in poorly worded. Take my advice and sandbox it somewhere, work on it a little, and then re-add it. 18:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, I got bored and copyedited it myself. 18:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, grammar am not one of my strengths.

That section really doesn't need to be in the article. I'm not saying it should be deleted from the site, it should be moved to a place more relevant. Plus, saying "some people" is using weasel words
 * The "some people" is clarified, although I agree and do tend to remove it where possible. I think generally it needs to be widened into the more basic objections to pornography from a social decline aspect, its not a bad start from that perspective. 00:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just RWCN being pointy over my removing his section on later Korean history from the Korean War article, I suspect. The edit comment deleting it was almost identical.  00:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The section is relevant, but it is poorly written, and fails to fully explain the socially conservative/feminist opposition beyond "anyone who looks at porn is a rapist" -- 00:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought that was the position of the real hardcore feminists! :P 00:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The section as written points out that rape occurs in the US. A sad but hardly surprising state of affairs. In order for it to make sense in this article there would need to be some evidence that this is either higher or lower because of pron. It would also be interesting to see if this statistic was a similar in pron-friendly and pron-unfriendly societies. Finally, the US may not be the most representative society anyway.  Consider the high number of homicides in the US.--BobSpring is sprung! 05:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The recent re-write by listener X has made these points irrelevant.--BobSpring is sprung! 07:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"the far-right consume surprising amounts of pr0n in secret"
The far-right is mostly made up of angry frustrated men, isn't it? It's no wonder they consume a lot of porn, they need some form of release. Porn appeals to men for evolutionary reasons - it's the desire to pass on their genes. But I'm sure the far-right get extremely angry at interracial porn as well. Distaste for miscegenation would probably have an evolutionary origin in men; consider what is known as the "male warrior hypothesis" proposed by Mark van Vugt.--Basic but Adequate (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely it's sex that appeals to men because of evolutionary reasons, porn is a substitute for the sex that they crave. PongoOrangutans are sceptical 16:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * True enough.--Basic but Adequate (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * So women don't desire to pass on their genes? Seems like reproduction would be a tad difficult if that were the case. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, sex has NOTHING to do with reproduction, despite what some like to claim. Sex is 100% about the sex drive. the fact that nature uses this to pass on genes is excellent, but no woman or man (well, until somewhat recently) is running around saying "I gotta make babies, let's have sex!".  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    Grow a vagina 18:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? I always assumed that sex felt good because it was evolutionary advantageous to have sex. MDB (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The, erm, ins and outs, as it were, of it is probably a little more complicated. It might be worth me digging up Why Is Sex Fun? and re-reading it, it's been a while. Scarlet A.pngsshole 18:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, sex feels good so we will have sex. We have sex because it feels good.  we are not out for babies.  the drive has nothing to do with procreation.  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    Grow a vagina 19:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This drive, however, happens to have the added benefit of increased reproduction and, in some species, social bonding. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No doubt that. but only in *some* speciese, not others.   There's no boding in those.  ;-)
 * One has to wonder what 'pleasure' a fly might get from sex. Animals copulate automatically without knowing in advance that it's a pleasurable experience - unlike some of my previous girlfriends who'd been indoctrinated by the RC church to believe that it was not pleasant.  19:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the "pleasure"... fulfilling the drive? we are hungry, we eat, we are happi(er).  We see sexy girl fly, we get fly wood, we go meet sexy girl fly.  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    Grow a vagina 19:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to sex, the sweeping generalizations come out to play. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether a fly would have the mental functions to call something "pleasurable" in the way we understand it, you have to admit that if you boil it down then "pleasure" is just a driving force more than anything, much in the same way "pain" acts as a deterrent. The core stimulus-response relationship is still there. Scarlet A.pngbomination 19:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * While there are all sorts of complex reasons why a thing is pleasurable, evolutionary advantage is certainly one of them in a lot of cases. E.g. we take pleasure in eating, and have evolved to find the smell & taste of things which contain the nutrients we need (such as fats and sugars) especially pleasing, while finding the smell & taste of harmful things (in most cases) revolting.  This is common to most creatures & is very beneficial to survival.  Sexual pleasure has a similar evolutionary function: a creature with an active sex drive &/or one which enjoys sex has a better chance of passing on its genes than a disinterested one.  21:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Like pandas. Scarlet A.pngbomination 23:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Dude, if there ever was proof against evo..they'd be it. [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    Grow a vagina 23:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Pr0n joke gets old
Can we just cut it after the first use? --Godot   Grow a vagina 18:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>d hominem 18:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Porn is generally harmless"
Can we get a better source for this than a Yahoo article that links to some weird sex site? — (talk to)  / æn ə ˈ mɛɹɪkən ˈ nai ː ɪlɪst /   21:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, can we be a little more specific about "harmless"? Harmless to consume? Harmless to produce given the lack of safe sex practices in most porn? Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 21:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a significant debate and one that there is no clear evidence for either side. In general the two view points are
 * Porn is a useful safety valve to allow the release of sexual tension without the need for actual sex. i.e. Positively beneifical
 * Porn dehumanises sex and desensitised those who indulge from the fact that sexual partners are actually people. i.e. harmful
 * This comes to a head when the sexual acts get extreme. Typically, graphical or written kiddie porn. Now, no actual children are being hurt in the process. Does this give a useful outlet for paedophiles or does it encourage them? Ditto bestial porn.
 * Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * We can have studies supporting both points of view, as long as they're real, good studies. — (talk to)  / æn ə ˈ mɛɹɪkən ˈ nai ː ɪlɪst /   14:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Psychology Today comes down on the 'no harm' side. And there's some good stuff here. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Neither of those articles seem to address the health risks involved in producing pornography. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 22:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There are health risks in any business, including long-term, permanent injury. While I kind of get the sense that Tristan Taormino isn't enough of a skeptic (her most recent podcast was with an astrologer), I still recommend you listen to her podcast interview with Jessica Drake a few weeks ago. Quite an interesting listen, and I think you'll find the issue is fairly complex. EVDebs (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Porn and the British Govt
Despite the efforts of Prime Minister Cameron, most members of parliament seem to be heavy addicts.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/forget-morals-its-the-stupidity-of-those-pornwatching-mps-that-should-worry-us-8798170.html

82.2.75.224 (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting picture
http://xkcd.com/522/, I'm just saying. 19:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Question: how old are you?--ZooGuard (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Educational porn, not just sex ed
Is there such a thing; porn that teaches you various academic subjects? It makes as much sense as a video game that teaches history or chemistry. The method of loci says to use emotionally engaging imagery which is normally sex or violence.; and violence has been done to death. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 23:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Naomi Wolf and Feministing?
I'd hardly consider Naomi Wolf one of "the third wave's most respected figures" today. She may have been a leading spokesperson at one time, but now, she seems more of a contrarian, a sort of Camille Paglia-lite. Her opposition to porn is described by her Wikipedia page as being "not on moral grounds, but because 'greater supply of the stimulant equals diminished capacity.'" She's also said some odd things about abortion and sexual assault, and I'm not sure if her position on this issue should be used as a barometer for a resurgence of anti-porn sentiment in mainstream feminism. Also, Feministing is a blog with many contributors espousing a diverse set of opinions. If there's any evidence that the blog has adopted this as an official position, feel free to present it, but I can't find any on the site. The One They Call Mars (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't know enough about Wolf to comment. I don't know if Feministing has an official opinion on the topic, but the consensus opinion doesn't seem to be anti-porn as I would use that label. I would reserve "anti-porn" for someone who thinks porn is inevitably bad, or who thinks the idea of pornography is bad (or who claims to believe good porn is possible but cannot point to one even hypothetical example). I've seen writers at the site voice objections to common practices within the industry and tropes in pornography itself, but one doesn't have to be anti-porn to do that. &lt;3 CSapphire bullets of pure love 05:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Porn opposition
Anyone else feel like we could use a Opposition to pornography article that sums up the various objections? I feel like we could put a few megs worth of information on just the various movements and efforts (Fight The New Drug, End Porn By Wire, SWERFs, religious objections, etc) and why they're bullshit, which would be different than the bullshit directly related to porn. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I dunno man. The porn industry is a nasty piece of work & a lot of the objections to it are valid.  I wouldn't go to any lengths to defend it.  Some of these organisations/movements you mention might be relevant to our missions in their own right.  17:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Pornography_Is_Good Burkean (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, like I said originally, not to defend pornography, but to talk about the various problems with its opposition. Maybe anti-pornography efforts or something?  I'm not sure they're each individually worthy of an article, but I suppose they could be. --Seth Peck (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

For anyone interested in porn
I highly recommend everyone interested to check out this free Audible original: The Butterfly Effect — Who Really Pays The Price For Free Porn? by the tremendous journalist. It's free on Audible until October-something, so hurry and check it out today! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Tried to listen but got a server error. With Firefox's "inspect elements" right click option, one could download the audio stream. This is for advanced users though., but it’s the same way you can download soundcloud music. 20:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd advise you to just get the free Audible app on your smartphone and listen there. Seriously, you don't wanna miss The Butterfly Effect. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)