HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » Men's Group (Group) » More data driven science ...

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 03:36 PM

More data driven science on how Porn can be beneficial to people and their relationships.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-6286110.html

http://classic.the-scientist.com/2010/3/1/29/1/

http://imaginggeek.blogspot.com/2010/03/porn-is-good-for-you.html

40 replies, 10977 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply More data driven science on how Porn can be beneficial to people and their relationships. (Original post)
Warren DeMontague Apr 2012 OP
opiate69 Apr 2012 #1
Warren DeMontague Apr 2012 #2
Upton Apr 2012 #3
Warren DeMontague Apr 2012 #4
DutchLiberal Apr 2012 #6
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Apr 2012 #9
Warren DeMontague Apr 2012 #10
Major Nikon May 2012 #22
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Apr 2012 #5
DutchLiberal Apr 2012 #7
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Apr 2012 #8
Warren DeMontague Apr 2012 #13
Warren DeMontague Apr 2012 #11
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #25
Warren DeMontague Apr 2012 #12
DutchLiberal May 2012 #14
Warren DeMontague May 2012 #15
DutchLiberal May 2012 #16
Warren DeMontague May 2012 #17
Warren DeMontague May 2012 #18
opiate69 May 2012 #19
caseymoz May 2012 #20
Major Nikon May 2012 #21
4th law of robotics Jun 2012 #24
Warren DeMontague Jun 2012 #23
RiffRandell Apr 2013 #26
pacalo Apr 2013 #28
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #29
pacalo Apr 2013 #31
RiffRandell Apr 2013 #32
Bonobo Apr 2013 #27
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #30
Exultant Democracy Apr 2013 #33
lumberjack_jeff Apr 2013 #34
Exultant Democracy Apr 2013 #36
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #35
Exultant Democracy Apr 2013 #37
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #38
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #39
Warren DeMontague Apr 2013 #40

Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sat Apr 7, 2012, 08:21 PM

1. Kinda flabbergasted that your post in the other thread got deleted...

 

I guess it's ok now for some of us to go to whichever Wymyn's groups certain people haven't been chased out of and start adding our 2 cents and alerting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 12:35 AM

2. Yeah, I'd like one of the four jurors who voted to hide to explain SPECIFICALLY

Last edited Sun Apr 8, 2012, 02:21 AM - Edit history (1)

Where the "misogyny" was in that post.

(answer: ...it's not there, and you can't get there w/o carrying one or more external assumptions into an analysis of that post)

But, that's probably a topic for HM, and juries are a crap shoot anyhow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 06:10 AM

3. I've actually thought of posting in one of the women's groups once or twice in the past..

I see Warren has but he's much better with words, I often come off kind of crass and confrontational, particularly when some misguided do gooder is trying to convince me we need more laws governing what consenting adults do in private. So, I figured safe haven and all...I'm not going over there and possibly antagonize them. Wish we got the same kind of respect in return..

Men at DU have only got one lousy group, yet for some, I guess that's one too many..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #3)

Sun Apr 8, 2012, 06:30 AM

4. I do post there, sometimes, since I'm genuinely interested in equality for everyone.

I absolutely do consider myself a Feminist, at least under a number of definitions of the word. And I think all of DU is invested in seeing a healthy, diverse and welcoming set of voices on all fronts of equality, freedom and rights, from gender issues to LGBT issues to the whole ball of wax. So I'm over there for many of the same reasons I'm here, I also think it's important to note that many Feminists have felt under-represented by the quality and tone of the discourse that has historically been available here, no point in rehashing the whole thing but clearly there is a whole new generation and a set of newer ideas and attitudes that have made some folks who consider themselves the "old guard" uncomfortable.

It's important to progressives and indeed to this nation that younger people, open minded people, LGBT people, trans people, sex positive people and pro-freedom people not be bullied and strongarmed out of the conversation simply because there may be a few rigid ideologues who are only interested in navel-gazing 'discussion' on matters they all agree on, more intent on insulting or belittling their younger peers than actually respecting and listening to them.

...but "better with words"; I appreciate that, but certainly not true. I actually think lately my synapses have been showing their age- I feel like I'm hitting that middle age point where my body's like the car where the warranty just ran out and everything starts breaking down at once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #4)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 12:15 PM

6. Same here.

 

I also consider myself a 'feminist', but that notion gets laughed away at DU by some women because I'm not anti-porn or anti-prostitution. I've been called a misogynist and a woman-hater more times than I care to remember. Some people on DU think they know how fellow (male) members are in real life soooo well, but they couldn't be more wrong. Oh, and I call them "girls" too, so obviously I'm nothing but a tool of The Patriarchy!

I was surprised to see your post getting deleted. I couldn't find anything offensive about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DutchLiberal (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 12:28 PM

9. I'll go one step further that it's easier to have an open and honest discussion about....

.....feminism and gender issues here......too many times in GD, the thread opens with a blanket statement slamming all men, causing men to respond in anger, and therefore leading to the deleting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DutchLiberal (Reply #6)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 02:13 PM

10. From what I've seen, most self identified female feminists are pro choice & sex positive too.

As in, most of them believe in self determination for consenting adults, equal rights for all, and if consenting adults want to fuck in front of a camera that's their own business.

There is a small group apparently carrying around some indoctrination gibberish from 1974 or so, who believe all hetero sex is oppressive (or, according to Dworkin axiom #1, "rape"*) ... At best penetrative Sex involving a male member Is "problematic" if not downright icky... And there is a small but very vocal group that not only believes penetration is "unnatural" but is actively working to stamp it out as the number one sociopolitical crisis facing our planet.

I swear, I'm not making this up.

But I think a lot of the sturm und drang we hear and see doesn't break so much on gender lines, so much as generational.



*uh, yeah, she did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #10)

Sun May 20, 2012, 07:27 PM

22. That's because the 2nd wave radical feminists are becoming more and more rare

Not as many of the younger generation buying into those nutty ideas apparently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #1)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 11:10 AM

5. I'm not surprised

I wasn't following closely as to how this group came about during the conception of DU3, but I do recall the several times people proposed a men's group on DU2, there were others who always had to register their "concern" about it. And that was their word. Concerned.

This place seems like it's on a short leash, and I think it's partly why there aren't a whole lot of posts here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #5)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 12:18 PM

7. On a short leash?

 

Is that the reason that a thread below asked men which hot celeb they would want to "date", instead of using the word that all of us were thinking about instead?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DutchLiberal (Reply #7)

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 12:25 PM

8. Hey, I'm a confident man

My charm will always mean the date ends with

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DutchLiberal (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 14, 2012, 08:53 PM

13. Kinky!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Thu Apr 12, 2012, 08:48 PM

11. There has been some interesting analysis done on the hypothetical evolutionary pressures

not just, obviously, to cause men to tend towards more visual arousal, but also, interestingly enough, on what might cause women in small hunter-gatherer groups to feel a need towards, indeed to feel empowered to place themselves in charge of, limiting the general sexual availability in the group.

This might explain not just the seemingly incomprehensible freak-out that images of sex cause in some women, but also why it often seems to be women and not men who engage in 'slut-shaming' behaviors in groups.

I think it may be a hard-wired primate control impulse, but of course one that is wholly inappropriate (and indeed at times goes completely bugfuck haywire, apparently) in our media-rich, pluralistic environment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #11)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 04:26 PM

25. This point above is worth reiterating.

Particularly in light of arguments or hand-wringing around erotic material representing "access" to "womens bodies".

Leaving aside the obvious question/point of one woman or a group of women mentally conflating themselves with ALL women (along with an -I suppose it could be called "objectifying"- inability to see women as individuals) the other obvious glaring issue is the idea of small groups of women appointing themselves 'gatekeepers' of 'access' to 'womens bodies' (again, appointing themselves to speak for all women, and being unable to distinguish someone else's body from their own).

Which is my point, exactly, as to what may be the root of some of these shaming behaviors exhibited by some groups of women, their origins in small hunter-gatherer bands and the hard-wired impulse of some to 'control' general group sexual availability and 'access'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Thu May 3, 2012, 03:04 PM

14. "Porn is the nazi's way of keeping two people from love".

 

Said here on DU. I kid you not, a dude has written an entire OP on how porn is a conspiracy from the far-right to undermine love:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=639895

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DutchLiberal (Reply #14)

Thu May 3, 2012, 07:52 PM

15. I guess That, ah, entity missed the radfem polemic on 1984, specifically that it was Orwell writing

A "frustrated rape fantasy" because it was all bout how the good and righteous government (with its proper radfem orientation vis a vis sex, icky "freedom", and orgasms) was keeping the creepy male protagonist from raping an 18 yr old girl.

I swear, I'm not making this up. To these people, the totalitarians in 1984 are the HEROES.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #15)

Thu May 3, 2012, 08:46 PM

16. Tsk, tsk... saying "radfem" is the same as saying "radical anti-racism".

 

And since only racists say "radical anti-racism", what does that make a person who says "radical feminism"...?

At least, that's what was said in an alert send over one of my posts.

Strange, since it's a recognized actual "theoretical perspective within feminism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism and one of our members uses its symbol as her avatar. Yet my post got hidden for using the exact same term. (And then they point to my hidden posts as 'proof' of my alleged sexism.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DutchLiberal (Reply #16)

Fri May 4, 2012, 02:51 AM

17. Jesus. It's a label that is self applied.

All you need to do is google it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DutchLiberal (Reply #14)

Sun May 13, 2012, 03:39 AM

18. And apostrophes are the patriarchy's way of phallopressing our sentence structures.

'parrently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #18)

Sun May 13, 2012, 08:33 PM

19. well of course they are...

 

I mean, just look at how they proudly stand erect above the poor downtrodden letters, in a position of dominance, which can only be resolved by the letters banding together to establish a matriarchy, forever banishing the vile apostrophe, replacing it instead with a symbol of male submission.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sun May 20, 2012, 05:28 PM

20. Can be. Porn is a pretty broad category.


I mean, it all falls under the category of works designed to be used to prompt or enhance masturbation. Porn includes scenes of intercourse and oral sex, and scenes of gang bangs, bukkake, torture and other acts for humiliation.

Nevertheless, the fact that sex crimes aren't rising or have fallen as porn is available at unprecedented levels means that it will now harder to generate any urgency in the general public about fighting it. Moreover, it's a huge embarrassment to prudes everywhere and of every stripe that the floodgates for porn have been so thoroughly opened and sexual assaults are falling, and in fact, have fallen in most places after Internet connection. Not a deliberate experiment, but one universal enough that the sex-negs shouldn't be allowed to forget it.

But they can still start a witch hunt by saying that there are hundreds of thousands of kidnapped children forced to make porn and into prostitution. They've made absurd claims close to that, even in the UN. No evidence, no survey supports this, but to them, there has to be a horrifying effect somewhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #20)

Sun May 20, 2012, 07:21 PM

21. If nothing else, it should at least cause some to question the validity of radical feminist 'theory'

In science, a theory is a model which explains and predicts the world around us. There was nothing scientific about radical feminist 'theory'. It was just a set of ideas developed by people who for the most part, had no scientific background whatsoever. Not surprisingly, it produced predictions that never panned out. The 'theory' stated that porn was directly related to violence against women. Since that prediction, the availability and volume of porn has exploded, yet violence against women has markedly decreased. Incredibly, you still have radical feminists that believe in that 'theory' even though time has conclusively proved it wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #21)

Sat Jun 30, 2012, 06:55 PM

24. Ah but science is predominately a male field

 

that seeks to entirely objectify everything in the universe (men!).

Think about it: when was the last time you heard a scientist talk about how a model organism or an experimental parameter feels living in a female crushing patriarchy? Never that's when. All they talk about are the physical attributes of whatever they are analyzing (as if it were a problem to be solved and not a unique individual to be cherished).

So it's not really fair to hold that theory to the scientific method since the scientific method is inherent penophilic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 05:48 PM

26. It is to my marriage.

Do we watch it every time we have sex? No...it's not a necessity.

It's a turn-on for both of us. My husband is one of the most respectful, sensitive and decent human beings that I've ever met.

Imagine that!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiffRandell (Reply #26)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 12:44 AM

28. Same here, Riff.



I could see this making me seem like an oddball, but too often those movies make me laugh (uncontrollably) because of the acting & the pathetically dumbed-down plots. That leads to my husband having more fun watching my reaction & laughing together. Win-win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pacalo (Reply #28)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 03:40 PM

29. That seems to be a common experience.

Anecdotally speakin'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #29)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 11:55 PM

31. I strongly suspected that was the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pacalo (Reply #28)

Mon Apr 15, 2013, 10:38 AM

32. My husband is in telecom...he's a dongle dude.

All the televisons in our house are hooked up to the internet so we can access it for free and fast forward through the inane stuff.

Best invention ever! If you want the link, pm me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sat Apr 13, 2013, 10:34 PM

27. "His research told him "there is an inverse causal relationship between an increase in pornography

and sex crimes."

Ooops, that's inconvenient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 03:56 PM

30. Some interesting thoughts on porn and "rape culture":

Last edited Sun Apr 14, 2013, 07:24 PM - Edit history (1)

It is taken as axiomatic in some circles, really without any evidence other than "it must be so!", that somehow the "rape culture" that is perpetuated in places like Steubenville has to do- not with tight-knit communities with insular scholastic sports programs and a prevalent attitude that "the jocks can do no wrong" (which is sort of my take) but rather that it's being driven by porn, internet porn, freely available porn, see these guys took pictures with their phones (which turned out to be fortunate in that it made the crimes easier to prosecute) which is porn so obviously porn because, you know, porn.

And then Anonymous shows up, like they do in Canada, and they shine a big internet light on the institutions and local authorities which are covering up for these shits.

Great! Yay, Anonymous! Obviously, Anonymous being at the forefront of fighting against rape, which means "rape culture" which must mean.... porn, right?

And internet porn, freely available internet porn- again, this is taken as axiomatic, gospel 'truth'- MUST be causing and encouraging the attitudes which lead to these rapes... right?

Except.... has anyone making these connections bothered to examine exactly where Anonymous came from in the first place? Anonymous was born of 4chan. Anonymous is a creature of the internet, and while it may not be technically 100% that the "internet is for porn", the fact is that porn has been part and parcel of the internet from the early days, and certainly over at 4chan the Anonymous folks have been marinating in it for a VERY long time.

So how does that work- these folks who have strong commitment to justice for rape victims, to exposing hypocrisy and standing strong against rape, come from a community that has been steeped in freely exchanged internet smut and erotica and naked pictures from the get-go? Because the "porn--->rape culture" argument implies that the viewing of porn, the readily available access to porn, is causing or enabling these pro-rape attitudes. Yet here are porn people, internet anarchists really, who are steadfastly anti-rape, by all appearances.

And the institutions that have covered up for the alleged rapists? The Sheriff in Steubenville? The RCMP? Is there any evidence that they are being widely influenced by internet porn? No, there is not. In fact, Canada was supposed to be a model of MacKinnon anti-porn legislation, at least until it became apparent that these "civil rights remedies" against porn would end up rounding up what is widely considered "erotica" by some and not just the bad "porn" (In other words, if I like it, it's erotica- if you like it, it's porn) ... Simiarly, the Vatican, which has had its share of covering up for or enabling abuse and crime, is hardly any free-range libertarian smut paradise.

It doesn't make any sense. If porn caused people to think rape is no big deal, Anonymous wouldn't be getting involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:38 AM

33. The sexual landscape in America has changed rather dramatically. It's why yoga pants are everywhere.

I've been lucky to spend a good portion of my youth and early adult hood in academia and its just a good time to be a man. Women make up 60% of college students and the competition for male sexual partners has exploded. These women know that not only do they face a 3/2 disadvantage in the numbers, but that they also have virtual competition in the form of porn. God bless the rise of women, and the dawn of the age of yoga pants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exultant Democracy (Reply #33)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 09:54 AM

34. It's a good time to be a man...

 

... who has the opportunity to go to college.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #34)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 12:27 PM

36. Even who don't go to college are "benefiting" after a fashion

professional women who traditional looked for men with similar economic status are starting to cast a wider net. This means that the male equivalent of the bimbo is also a big winner in the sexual revolution, the age of the sugar mama has begun. My girlfriend has a better education then I do, so far I make more money, but I might just be a kept man someday if her career lives up to its potential.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exultant Democracy (Reply #33)


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #35)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 12:29 PM

37. Yoga pants... or why I refuse to drive a car on a college campus. Safer to park and walk.

Weapons of ass distraction everywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exultant Democracy (Reply #37)

Tue Apr 16, 2013, 12:31 PM

38. I eagerly await the jury results on your post.

Sad to say, that's what DU has come to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 11:29 AM

39. It is extremely telling...

the invisi-think tank works overtime for a day or two, scrambling on this, and this is the BEST they can come up with:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125520748

Okay, first off- this is the Lebanon times (That is Lebanon, the Country, not Lebanon, Ohio) sourcing the Daily Mail.... or claiming to?

Really?

But apparently, somewhere, at some time, in some unknown country, there may have been a judge who may have said a 15 yr. old's rapist did what he did because of porn.

Proving... something.

Now, as for the so-called "science". For starts, there's this line from the "one angry girl" blog:

know this isn't true, because despite the phenomenal growth of all kinds of porn during the last few decades, reported rapes have increased 500% since 1960


REALLY. 500%? Wow, that's astounding. Amazing. Must mean something HUGE. One can only assume that they are cherry-picking data from places like the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting tool:

http://www.ucrdatatool.gov

Now, of course, the US Population in general has essentially doubled since 1960, so there's been a 200% increase in just how many people there are, period. But that UCR data tool tells us some other interesting things, for one, that the rape rate peaked in 1992 and has declined since, by approx. 20% since then. Which must mean, if Porn--->Rape, that there's, what, 20% less porn in society than there was in 1992?

Except, 1992 was prior to the culutral smutty internetificaiton of internetificated culture smuttiness... Hmmmm.. Odd.

And that 'reported rape' number gets tossed out the window when it doesn't fit the narrative, invoking conspiracies by the Feds to drive the numbers down (presumably, to protect Larry Flynt and cover up the fact that porno is generating phalanxes of rapists) ... still, it doesn't work both ways- if the increase since 1960 has something to do with "porn" (which didn't really hit the cultural zeitgeist until the early 70s, but who's counting) then the DECLINE since 1992 must also have something to do with the easy availability of porn, which went through the roof after the internet came into being.

My answer is, neither is related- porn, again, has zip diddly squat to do with rape.

The "science" studies quoted are spurious, at best- and typical examples of the sort of shoddy "research" which passes for anti-porn science.

Essentially studies like "we interviewed 40 nose-pickers. 80% of those nose pickers had admitted to wearing hats in the past month. Obviously, hat-wearing has an influence on nose-picking behavior"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #39)

Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:23 PM

40. Here is a graph on those DOJ UCR Rape Statistics:



As you can see, the major increase happened between '60 and '80. Deep Throat, widely considered the watershed beginning of "porn" in the US, was 1972. At least as much increase took place prior, as after.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread