Talk:Pornography/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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). ħumanUser talk:Human 17:01, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

A question about "German" Porn[edit]

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[edit]

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. — Unsigned, by: Yetanotheranonymous / talk / contribs

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. Punky Your mental puke relief 18:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Meh, I got bored and copyedited it myself. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 18:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, grammar am not one of my strengths. — Unsigned, by: Yetanotheranonymous / talk / contribs


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. Scarlet A.pngsshole 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 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" --Onion <talk> 00:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was the position of the real hardcore feminists! :P Scarlet A.pngsshole 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"[edit]

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!". Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow 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. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow 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. Redchuck.gif ГенгисunbelievingModerator 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. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow 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. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 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. Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 23:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Pr0n joke gets old[edit]

Can we just cut it after the first use? --Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina 18:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 18:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Porn is generally harmless"[edit]

Can we get a better source for this than a Yahoo article that links to some weird sex site? — (talk to) /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 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 əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 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[edit]

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[edit]

http://xkcd.com/522/, I'm just saying.— Unsigned, by: 173.72.162.61 / talk / contribs 19:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Question: how old are you?--ZooGuard (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)