Essay talk:Pornography Is Good

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Don't forget to mention the Book of Solomon, in the Bible. --Gulik 18:19, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Yeah, a big hairy guy with a bunch of wives, sounds like a movie with Ron Jeremy. FallenMorgan 12:51, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Must you put pornography addiction in quotes? It is real. --Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 13:19, 19 February 2008 (EST)

In some cases porn addiction is real. Gaming addiction is real, just only in about 5% of cases where people claim to be addicted.
Anyway, this seems less "porn is good" and more "porn isn't bad". Have you ever heard of any of the kink.com stuff regarding them buying the SF armoury last year? They're putting out behind the scenes documentaries all the time about porn and the industry. ArmondikoVbomination 13:24, 5 December 2008 (EST)
Pornography addiction is real, and by the quotations I'm not inferring that it is some sort of "myth", but I am implying a caution of those who use it as an argument against pornography. --EMc 19:00, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I think you're going to have to go a bit further than that to back up the idea that porn in general isn't degrading to women. It's certainly not as bad as it used to be, though. --Kels (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I dunno how bad it used to be, but most of the mainstream hardcore shit on the internet is pretty degrading. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, in the sense that unlike earlier there are actually some options that aren't degrading, or are less degrading. There are a few companies now, usually run by women it seems, that break out of that mold a bit. Things like couples who are actually real-life couples, focus on story and actually trying to infuse some level of emotion into the sex, and so forth. Yeah, most of it's still a degrading cesspool, but there actually are a few instances of what it can be if done well that raises it incrementally out of the mire. Oh, and I doubt I'd call Ron Jeremy really representative of much of anything, he's basically an anomaly. --Kels (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The link between portrayed degradation for sexual gratification and it actually creating or catalyzing a real-world perception that women are of lesser value is what I'm actually referring to in the article, though some clarification and expansion are probably necessary. --emc [TALK] 14:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Derrick Bird[edit]

What about Derrick Bird, the spree killer? He was obsessed with porn:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/234579

Correlation does not imply causation but it's still significant to note that a man obsessed with porn went on a gun rampage, which provides evidence that porn may not be as psychologically harmless as you think.--Just and Honest (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, correlation isn't causation. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 15:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
What about him?! He's an anomaly, and he almost certainly had bigger issues than possible porn addiction. Most people who enjoy porn are sexually healthy people, as this essay says (with actual facts and figures to back this up. Where are yours?) Sensual Endeavor, the sexy pony ;) (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Propit?[edit]

Not sure that's a word.

At any rate, the concept of "sexual objectification" seems to me to be utterly meaningless, and amounts to little more than a hostile caricature of typical male sexuality. It is either trivially true in the sense that porn images are traded commercially (and so what?) Or it's a nonsensical "porn degrades women because sex is degrading." Porn, for women, remains 'nice work if you can get it'. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)