= new reply since forum marked as read
In about one-third of them, you can easily see that the woman is clearly not "into it," that she's being made to do something she doesn't want to.
"Whatevs" rape? 
Last edited Fri Oct 28, 2016, 06:49 PM - Edit history (2)
Sure have. 
Sorry if my sarcasm, above, wasn't as obvious as I thought.
In fact, like my fellow Men's Rights Activist* Amanda Marcotte, I believe that consenting adults watching other consenting adults nude or having sex isn't really that big of a deal, in fact it's a pretty normal steam-blowing-off (so to speak) exercise, at least for the majority of folks. Sure, some people do it to excess just like some people drink too many slurpees or gamble or watch home shopping network.
[font size=1]*that is, of course, ridiculous. Merely believing that consenting adults should be free to watch other consenting adults have sex, and that said activity isn't that big of a deal for a grown-up, freedom-minded, pluralistic society, does not make one a "mens rights activist". That's just some bullshit someone in this thread made up, because their side of the argument was getting its ass handed to it.[/font]
As for this thread, yeah, I fully admit that I'm not going to give someone like Gail Dines a pass on her pseudoscientific bullshit, even if some people happen to like what she has to say, never mind the facts. And why should I? She uses bogus studies and wildly misrepresented data, she praises the gay-hating religious right state legislature of Utah, and her pontifications on this matter have been incorporated verbatim into the 2016 GOP platform.
What other planks of the Republican Platform are supposed to get a free pass on DU?
Beyond that, for my trouble, I get insulted, called names, and told I 'hate Christians'. Presumably to shut me up. When people try to shut me up by insulting me, the opposite tends to happen. What can I say? If I were a river, I'd run uphill.
Sounds like you have been doing extensive research on this. 
Can't possibly be anything wrong with anything that is a commercial product in response to public demand. Never been any problems with that! Why is there even a discussion of this? 
or some equally brain-dead nonsense.
?
??
Or you can just watch the Lifetime Channel 
Is this DU or Letters To Penthouse? 
That was your mistake.
Although, as Anthony Hopkins explains on "Westworld" (another degrading sexploitationous objectimafaboobulous hazrofrapnimatastcal media wrongthink entity which really oughta be censored in teh name of junior anti-sex league purity) ... Natural Selection created you over 4 billion years using only one tool- the mistake.
Which explains why I'm so highly evolved.
I mean, shit, it's been years, now- the person who posted the thread in the first place isn't even with us anymore 
... and yet some are apparently still sitting at home, stewing about that fucker.
My personal favorites were the people who compared it, in terms of human rights atrocities, to the Cambodian genocide, and the person who claimed seeing the swimsuit issue "ruined my entire year"
....
I'm seeing Christmas commercials on television already.
Yum, turkey and stuffing with gravy. 
Yeah, I guess it is.
I mean, apparently we still have people running around fantasizing that they're going to stop folks from looking at other folks naked, even though even Rick Santorum seems to have given up on that crusade.
It must be frustrating as fuck, for that crowd, because porn isn't going away.
...
It's not even erotica. Not even close. How does this even belong on this thread?
People who don't understand the difference between fine art and porn should not be posing for artists, nude or clothed. (And if anyone is tempted to misinterpret that statement as an argument that porn is a form of art, I suggest they go and take a look at some art by the old masters.)
I am an artist who has spent thousands of hours drawing and painting the figure. There is nothing remotely pornographic or sexual in a figure drawing session. If you have not spent time drawing the nude figure, you have no right to claim that something pornographic is going on when an artist or a group of artists spend time studying and representing the figure. It is sickening to see that so many people out there think that a figure drawing session is along the same continuum as a porn-video shooting session. 
Indeed, a male model who was clueless enough to get an erection during a modeling session would almost certainly be fired at the end of the session, which is the opposite of what would be expected in a porn-video shooting session.
Those who see porn in a work of art have a problem in their heads. You cannot use the actions of "morality police" who try to ban great works of art in order to argue that there is something sexual in the actual work of art. If you do, you are falling right into the trap the "morality police" have laid.
Of course, I know, as an artist, that the moment I make a statement about art on DU, all of a sudden a bunch of self-anointed art critics and art experts will show up to lecture me about how little I understand art.
At least I don't think so. Been a long time since I was in Philly.
It is interesting how some people feel the need to vehemently imagine there is some separation between "real art" and anything that might turn people on-- or be intended to do so. I remember the fights some people had here around some of these Indian erotic statues, vehemently suggesting that how dare anyone compare them to modern erotic imagery because different because reasons!!!111!!!... or something.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Vibrations_%28sex_shop%29
I'd argue there is.
(Indirect Wikipedia link because I don't want anyone posting NSFW!)
My parents are both artists, full time now that they've retired from their day jobs, jobs which were related to their arts. My dad frequently draws nudes.
I do make distinctions between art and various sorts of porn, and my personal standards have everything to do with consent.
For example, I like to swim naked, especially in the ocean. There's nothing "porn" about that.
The pornographers are the guys hiding up in the chaparral with telephoto lenses, taking photos of naked people without their consent. (May they find ticks in their underpants.)
Sex always goes wrong when there's no enthusiastic consent among all the participants, but it also goes wrong when people at either end of the spectrum try to force their own is it art or is it pornography? judgments on others.
how he feels about people assuming, when they find out he draws nudes, that he is doing something kinky or illicit or sexual. Ask his models how they feel about the reaction they get when they tell someone about the work they do.
You are really barking up the wrong tree here. I am used to people attacking me on DU by repeating arguments about art that "sound good". Sometimes, especially when the topic is art, the things that "sound good" are the things that are exactly wrong. I'm sure it feels great to attack an artist for not understanding art, as you are doing. But all you are doing is repeating what society has done for centuries: attacking an artist for daring to have an opinion that is in disagreement with yours.
As much as it may sound right and feel good to say that porn and art are two extremes of the same spectrum, it is not true. That's like saying that composing music is on the same spectrum as torturing a person to death.
Have a nice day. You are going on my ignore list because I am sick of people who think they know more about art than a full-time artist who is putting her life and soul into this. I am sick and tired of being mansplained by non-artists about how I'm the one who is supposedly hurting the cause of art. I am sick and tired of people who are on DU not to learn from the opinion and experience of others but to denigrate any opinion that doesn't agree with theirs.
And enjoy posting stories on the internet, talking about your "porn" experience of posing once as a model for a classrooom full of art students.
Fine, catalogue "most porn" and then do some sort of statistical analysis to back that assertion up.
Of course, when we've seen shit like this in the past, you get these hyperbolic bullshit 'studies' (Gail Dines, again) that assert things like '95% of all pornography contains acts of violence"-- ooh, that sounds bad. Until you read how they've defined "acts of violence"- well, not just "spankiing" (again, not my thing, but hardly the realm of super-kink) but also - I am not making this up - "the insertion of a body part into someone else's mouth".
Wait, what? Any porn that involves the insertion of a body part into someone else's mouth = "a violent act"?
And then we're supposed to flip the fuck out because "95% of all porn is violent".
Gail Dines goes searching for the most offensive material she can find and then broad-brushes it as "all porn". Someone comes out with a study that says "95% of porn contains acts of violence" and it turns out, viola, they've categorized blowjobs as one of those inherently violent acts. Rinse, repeat.
So yeah, when people flog bullshit memes pushed by self-promoters in alliance with right wingers- and as such, Gail Dines' "activism" has led DIRECTLY to pro-censorship (so much for "no one wants to ban anything"
legislation in Utah, which she herself has praised- other people are going to challenge it, and of course that just means we're smut-addled porn collection clutchers, just like every time I argue with some doorknob who thinks marijuana legalization is some obscure, silly "stoner issue" I'm just clutching the bong, maaaaaan.
The idea that there might actually be a consistent fucking principle behind all this... I guess it's just too much to fathom.
The OP: "Does Porn Degrade Women"
Not some porn, or certain aspects of porn. Rather porn as a monolith.
Some music sucks, that doesn't mean "Music sucks". The answer to crappy music, to my mind, is to make better music, but that's just me.
Some porn is terrible, clearly. And some bands are Nickelback.
I know, by now, how these threads are supposed to go if only people -really, the majority, I suspect- with differing opinions would just keep quiet: Namely "Porn is awful!" "Yes, holy shit, porn is terrible!" "Did we mention how awful, horrible, degrading and terrible porn is?" I guess every once in a while some folks need to get it out of their systems, or something. But no one is apparently supposed to point out "maybe you're looking at the wrong porn", which seems to be a popular response, here. But then it's "I don't understand why we can't just discuss this?"
Sure, people can discuss it, but baseless axiomatic assertions are still probably gonna be challenged.
As for Gail Dines, I didn't bring her up. She was referenced in this thread by someone else, probably after they figured out that, in terms of being right-wing bible thumpers, most of the anti-smut luminaries are far less credible sources. At least no one is bringing in Judith Reisman and her "erotoxins" anymore.
I'm going to hell. Oh no!
But it is now being held at London's Goldsmith University.
Leading edge sex robots are now alarming reallistic - prompting many to suggest they may replace women in the near future.
Academics in robotics and human interaction will come together at the south east London university to discuss the future of artificial sex.
Goldsmiths computing lecturer Dr Kate Devlin said: "I think robots could become our lovers in the future.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/724161/Sex-robot-festival-Goldsmith-University-banned-Malaysia
And that is, in the end, the problem with most porn. Most porn reduces women to objects that exist only for the sexual arousal of men. I don't see how a man can watch women be treated as objects of sexual arousal in porn videos every day, and not extrapolate this way of thinking to women he is supposed to collaborate with as equals in the workplace.
ETA: Indeed, the very fact that none of the "robots" are male should be enough to answer that poster's question. Apparently, women are here to serve as sex objects for men and can therefore easily be replaced by robots. But since women themselves are not sexual beings , there is no need for male sex robots .
The robots demean sex not only for women but also for men, by reducing sex to a purely mechanical or physiological function.
I'm not sure Trump would like these robots. For him, grabbing and kissing are all about displaying his power over another person. I bet he just wouldn't get the same kick out of it with a robot, who would not feel humiliated or disrespected. Then again, if the robots were extremely expensive, he would probably buy a whole bunch of them and parade them around to show off how wealthy he is. 
c'mon, just look at that thing's head.
It comes earlier and earlier every year!
At this stage in my life, I know more women that consume porn than men and a good reason for that is the sheer variety.
All I know is that having followed a great number of the actresses on Twitter the last few years, the majority that stick around are doing it for a lot of reasons and really enjoy it. Especially now that more and more of the studios and businesses are being run by women, directed by women, and written by women.
Realistically, it comes down to what you look for and consume. If you just go random, yeah, you'll find some disturbing stuff. But hey, we all have different tastes.
As Warren mentions above, one "trusted" source indicated that anything going in the woman's mouth was violence toward her. You can't take people seriously that operate with that kind of agenda.
Porn has opened up a whole lot for myself and my partners over the years, especially when some things that are very basic they viewed as "scary and wrong" only to find that it's pretty damn common.
and honestly, if the women you're seeing look like they hate it, you're either watching really wrong stuff or you're completely misunderstanding it.
For the record, I do consume a lot of porn (and used to consume more for work purposes) and actively pay for mine through sites like blacked, tushy, vixen, x-art, and a few others. I'm 45 and have been watching since I was probably twelve or so on some old VHS tapes my father used to dupe after renting them.
Yet here I am, a father of two teenage girls, in a very happy relationship, able to deal with a wide range of things and not porn-obsessed. Even better is that the consumption and being exposed to so many things makes me a lot more relaxed and mellow about so many other things. When you've seen thousands upon thousands of dicks over the years, well, watching politics is a breeze at that point. And it's hard to get riled up about other things. 
Last edited Mon Oct 24, 2016, 06:57 PM - Edit history (2)
some people really need to get it out of their systems.
I've already been called all the usual names, here.. you know, I "luuuuuuuuv" the porn industry, I'm panicked that the mean anti-sex brigades are "coming to take it away", all that shit. And -this one's great- I "will criticize Christianity but not porn"!
Santa's not coming to my house, this year, that's for sure.
Again, the idea that there might be something resembling a coherent philosophical point under this, too difficult to grok.
I should keep my mouth shut, if I don't want to be insulted by the usual suspects, I guess.. although since I don't actually give a shit about being insulted, fuck it, I'm gonna speak my mind.
I worked for an indie video store, back in the day. Saw plenty of that old time VHS smut come and go, so to speak. And I would be the first to admit that some porn does have misogynistic overtones. Certainly. Just like some rap music does. But criticizing a specific work of art or piece of media is different than making blanket assertions about the medium itself.
And if you look at the stuff regularly trotted out in these threads- like someone has a Gail Dines quote "we know how images affect people". Gee, Gail, that sounds serious. And authoritative. But do we? Do we "know how images affect people"? It's typical of the sciencey-sounding bullshit passed off that folks gobble up because it validates their preordained conclusions. Sort of like "we know about the relationship between vaccines and autism"- an anti-vaxxxer could say that, and they might not even technically be lying, because we DO know about the relationship- it's not there.
Similarly, despite decades of hyperbolic hand-waving around "pornography", none of the apocalyptic noise the anti-smut people have been pushing has ever come to pass.
Yes, everyone who isn't on an anti-porn crusade is an "MRA".
Like Mens Rights Activist Amanda Marcotte, for instance:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/08/27/josh_duggar_is_going_to_rehab_for_porn_addiction_is_that_a_real_thing.html
In this piece in Christianity Today, for instance, Shaun Groves claims that "most of my friends" are addicted to porn; the "addiction" he describes consists of subscribing to Playboy and buying a few videos. Pastor Justin Davis's apparent rock-bottom moment was when his wife caught him watching some titillating TV. On the website Every Man's Battle, addiction is defined as having private thoughts about women in skimpy clothes. Winning the war for purity seems to slap the label "addict" on you if you masturbate.
It is true, as Todd VanDerWerff explains at Vox, that conservative Christians classify all "lust" for people not your spouse as sinful and even adulterous. The medicalizing language turns a sin into a disease; it forces "addicts" to live their lives in a state of minute-to-minute dread of their bodily urges and become dependent on the church to get them through this basically impossible journey.
There are certainly men out there who use porn so much it interferes with the rest of their life, which means they need help. But these Christian "porn addicts" mostly seem like perfectly normal men who, like most people, need a bit of a private fantasy life. Instead, there's all this drama about rehab and redemption. That puts way more strain on people's marriages than simply letting people have some alone time once in awhile.
I miss him already. 
That makes sense.
This thread had a lot to do with it.
Thought his sex act descriptions were way too graphic. Thought maybe some RW'er was trolling us, had a low post count.
The jury let it go.
But the poster was then PPR'd. Very strange.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=337821
Especially America's favorite frog, Kermit!!
Apparently I'm not nice to Christians.
SHAME!
SHAME!
SHAME!
LOOK AT ALL THIS SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!
http://www.av1611.org/othpubls/roots.html
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Rock-n-Roll/led_zeppelin.htm
Really.
I admit you helped me with that idea, what with your protestations about how I hate Christians, or some gibberish like that.
Anyway, the straw men are the ideas, again, that "porn" is a monolith and that "degrade" is an objective, and not subjective, concept. Specifically, people who think sex is inherently degrading are of course going to think that anyone who allows themselves to be filmed doing it, is "degraded".
I thought you were done, here.. guess not.
By the way, rum has killed way more people than porn ever will... dude.
So... what was your old name?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018897022
What consenting adults do is their own business. I've got better things to do than monitor everybody's kinky proclivities. I'll leave that job to Mrs. Kravitz.
MRA! MRA! SQUAAAAAAAACK! MRA!!!
Response to Retired George (Original post)
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #315)
Know what I mean, jellybean?
Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #317)
I'm not too sure "huitlacoche" sounds much better.. supposed to be quite tasty though!
that's the kind of corn that made Medieval Villages go insane, I think!
I would think people would have bigger fish to fry than desperately trying to stop consenting adults from watching other consenting adults have sex, but apparently for some it's a HUGE priority.
