Pornography is more popular in red states. Why is that?

[redqueen]

The idea pushed so often is that it's sexually repressed people who are anti-porn, but I don't think that's true. I think it isn't just one group, but by so often repeating the fact that many feminists are anti porn and one of them testified before congress about her ideas, these noisy few people dishonestly attempt to claim that anti porn feminists are somheow in cahoots with the religious right. How utterly disingenuous is that? It's laughable, but we see it often.

Anyway, back to my point, pornography is more popular in red states. I can understand that people who don't give a damn about the hardships in someone else's life would have no issues with exploiting those situations, with taking full advantage of the situation for their own personal pleasure... but progressives I expect more from. Progressives are also less sexually repressed. IMO, this explains why pornography is less in demand in blue states.

We have seen a number of conventional wisdom type beliefs disproven in in the past few years. This one needs to go, too.

Reposting these here because they deserve to be seen:

[FarPoint]

1. I think it is because double standards are the norm in the red states...

Say one thing do another is standard protocol. Family secrets run rampant with the arrogant, male dominate family culture.

[redqueen]

3. That doesn't quite explain it, though.

States with more forward thinking people, if pornography was really was as popular with people on both sides of the aisle, would be equally popular. But it is less popular in blue states. Whether or not porn users are honest about their use is neither here or there.

It would be nice if people were honest and up front about it, though. It is quite hard on women whose partners aren't honest about it, once they discover their partner has no issues with using porn.

[FarPoint]

20. My sister-in-laws 3rd husband was like that....

Ended up sending him to Sierra Tucson Treatment Center....it helped for about 3-4 years...then back into the porn. She divorced him too.

Now this fella was from Ohio....

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. How was that measured?

Porn is the dominat bandwidth consumer and is credited for demonstrating the market for tape/DVD rentals...it is one hell of an economic force. However, it very hard to quantify who is consuming it where.

[redqueen]

4. No, it isn't.

Google is your friend.

Here's one write up of one study: http://jezebel.com/5162086/red-state-citizens-consume-the-most-online-porn-in-the-usa

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. So google says red states consume more porn?

[redqueen]

7. LOL, another gun forum fan.

Funny how the style of discussion is so similar...

I thought I recognized your name. Enjoy your day.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. So you have nothing to support your underlying point for discussion...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

23. How nice of you to edit

If that is your best reference, then you might want to rethink your post. Edelman acknowledged the serious limitations of his study due to the paucity of data. The bandwidth/ISP industry has no such stats since it is not possible to collect them.

Anecdotal data is fine, if you acknowledge it as such, like road side surveys

[redqueen]

29. #of strip clubs per capita also shows this same tendency. nt

[patrice]

34. ? I guess we have nothing to fear from internet snooping empowered by the Patriot Act & all of these

add-ons on my browser don't work. You know what a cookie is?

It's almost impossible to completely hide anything that happens on the internet. They can count whatever they want. Click trails are HUGE business.

Maybe I misunderstand your point. It appears surprisingly naive.

[Angry Dragon]

6. Utah is the porn download capital of the country

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. I ask you what Red Queen cannot answer, what is your source?

Point of fact, I don't care which states watches what, but the source of the stats is of interest.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

11. so why dont you share stats on the subject from sources you respect?

That would be the progressive and professorial thing to do: foster discussion in an interested, respectful manner.

Drive by disdain and gratuitous contempt are neither.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. There is nothing out there that the bandwidth/ISP industry considers definitive

Which is why I asked...it did seem to upset Red Queen and her post was far from liberal/progressive/respectful.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

25. who or what agency in the ISP industry makes statistical studies on porn?

If you're relying on a group or individual study--and apparently you are--scholarly discussion expects links to sources. Or peer reviewed journals? Those would be valid.

An interest in upsetting redqueen doesn't seem scholarly to me.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. The ISP/Bandwidth industry actually does do studies on usage and trends

The changes over the years are interesting. Who is using what, the rise of the mobile units, and the like.

Edelman acknowledged his limitations, which is the fair thing to do. Pointing out hypocrisy of red staters is always fun, its its appropriate to cite at least some token source, something RQ did retroactively on edit.

I have no interest in upsetting Red Queen but then again, I don't care if I do either. Your comment about poor behavior IMNSHO should have been pointed in her direction.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

30. sources retroactively on edit...care to do the same?

It's only internet etiquette, you know.

I mean, if you're going to name drop, I'd be interested in reading fair research.

Among the colleagues I know/have known, those I respected loved knowledge and learning and shared it kindly, with students and peers. Never gloating (and trying to walk it back). Their behavior is very different than yours.

[Angry Dragon]

14. go to google and type in 'Utah porn downloads'

all kinds of sources

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. The seminal source is Edelman for all of them

Which is nice but far from authoritative and was published in early 2009 with the research done previously

I was hoping the OP had some valid data...apparently not

[Angry Dragon]

18. Then it should be easy for you to come up with some data to disprove the OP

I have read the stats in other places but do not have the sources in front of me
so disprove it if you can .........

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. The problem is there is no hard data out there on this or other usage that is not self published

Edelman admitted that many providers did not responded to his query, but published what he had with appropriate caveats.

RQ's post is an assertion without proof and without any references...the claim could just as well have been that rings of Saturn are made of colored marshmallows.

I was asking to see if there was newer or more authoritative data out there...apparently not and its offensive to ask.

[seabeyond]

10. i have always found this contradictive fact interesting and thought it obvious

when our porn lovers argues their need of porn.

i thought the sequential reasoning pretty obvious.

[redqueen]

12. Topless bars, too. Much more of those in the bible belt. nt

[seabeyond]

13. oh geeez, so true. driving from chicago down to amarillo texas

thru the country side and all the many places along the highway with flashing lights ect....

it is about the disrespect and subjugation of women.

we have driven all over the u.s. and driving west or northeast, we did not have the same thing.

[rightsideout]

15. Interesting

So from what some of you say, there is more porn in Red States. What's interesting is that alot of these people still voted for Romney who was intent on installing Porn Filters on new computers.

Not sure why these people continue to vote against their own self interests. LOL.

[seabeyond]

16. filters does nothing to stop a willing particpant to view porn. it was the absurdity of our porn

lovers to run around with hair on fire when this was suggested. a parent can filter out the porn, from their childrens view.

wow. so bad. really bad. how dare they. allow a person an option to not view porn.

really?

[jeff47]

51. There's nothing wrong with providing parents tools

The problem becomes requiring those tools to be installed everywhere by law.

ISPs are free to offer filtering as a value-add, and all sorts of software developers are free to sell their products to people who want filtering. But we shouldn't require everyone to buy filtering.

[seabeyond]

54. dont turn it on. not a tough one. i would think you would appreciate a simple process for

parents to be able to restrict internet access. surely you advocate children not being able to get into these adult sites?

doesnt hurt a damn thing. there is no argument for it. but still, we hear a whine like anyone is being deprived. more concerned with god knows, than a parent able to do their job a little easier blocking kids a=or allowing adults the access to define the puter more.

[jeff47]

58. You're still forcing people to buy it, even if they leave it turned off.

That's the point I'm trying to make - you are requiring I buy something like "NetNanny" which is trivial to get around.

When my kid's old enough to use the Internet, there will be much more effective control of her Internet connection. What I object to is being forced to buy something that I will just turn off so that you can feel better.

doesnt hurt a damn thing. there is no argument for it.

Sure, as long as you ignore the actual argument.

[seabeyond]

60. THIS.... THIS is what all the moaning and groaning and whining is about. wow. nt

[jeff47]

64. So you like the government forcing you to buy stuff that doesn't work just so you can turn it off?

We're talking about software being pushed to protect children that does not work, and you want government to force us to buy it.

That doesn't sound like a very good idea - first for improving the software, and 2nd all the people who will think they are protected when they are not.

It's a little like forcing everyone to buy a Ford Pinto and ignoring the fires they cause.

[seabeyond]

66. really? all the restrictions and demand puts on all the products we buy for so many fuckin reasons

and this is your argument.

cant help the kids be restricted from an adult environment. oh no. fuck the kids, you are so much more important. though it does not even really effect you. jsut a simple fuck the kids, for not apparent reason.

[jeff47]

68. Btw, I edited while you were replying (nt)

[redqueen]

69. If Windows forces us to buy it to hopefully turn a profit for a corporation, that's not so bad.

If the Gubbermint forces us to buy it to make it easier for parents to restrict access, that's baaaad. Really really baaaaaaad.

[jeff47]

70. If it actually worked, you might have an argument. The software doesn't work. (nt)

[seabeyond]

72. i cannot believe this is what people are peeing their pants about. OMG....

i never understood the argument. once i found out no one was being forced to do without their porn. all the outrage at these suggestions, i didnt read up on what the argument was.

pretty damn stupid.

[jeff47]

76. I find it facinating that the tidbit about "the software doesn't work" is apparently a-OK

as long as it claims to fight evil porn.

[seabeyond]

77. you are moving the bar. i had little interest in all this initially.....

i have even less now that i get what the whine is all about.

[jeff47]

80. I'm not moving crap. Go look up at my first post in this sub-thread

I've been consistently saying that the software does not work. It can not work.

It relies on a blacklist. Which will always be out of date - brand-new porn sites show up every day and the software maker doesn't know about them. Also, damn near anyone can set up a proxy to relay content from blocked sites. So even a theoretically perfect blacklist can't get the job done.

The only way to effectively block porn on the Internet is a whitelist, and maintaining a whitelist of the entire Internet is not possible - there's too much on the Internet. That's why there keeps being mini-scandals over what schools and libraries declare porn (ie. breast cancer information).

You can do it for a kid when they're young enough to only go to disney.com and the like. But as soon as they hit double-digits isn't not going to work - there's too much they should be able to see.

Not to mention government-mandated whitelist you are installing on every computer is a Republican's wet dream for censorship.

[aletier_v]

21. The Temperance Society

Amen, brother!

[redqueen]

24. Everyone is having fun? No.

From a review of the documentary Hardcore:

Thirty minutes later she ran off the set crying after being deliberatly choked during oral sex. Max Hardcore followed; Richard, again, did nothing. Felicity was shocked and traumatized, but Max Hardcore sat by her and tried to persuade her to continue, first faking sympathy, calling her special, but then suddenly turning and subjecting her to a torrent of verbal abuse: 'I'm not fucking impressed with your fucking effort, it's fucking pathetic, you're a fucking loser.' Felicity would have agreed to continue had the camera crew not stepped in, realising they were about to be complicit in a rape. But what would have happened if they hadn't been there?

And this. This may get this post deleted, but apparently text descriptions aren't enough. I ask any jury who is called on to hide this post to please consider that the images are blurred, and that it is not posted for shock value or for prurient reasons.

And no, I don't care if she's religious. Her religious beliefs have nothing to do with the widespread abuse in the sex industry.

[CrispyQ]

32. I couldn't finish it, but thank you for posting.

This is nothing like the porn I saw my freshman year in college, nothing.

I don't care about any fucking studies, you cannot convince me that young (mostly) men watching this on a regular basis are not impacted by it. This is degrading & dehumanizing women for sexual gratification & entertainment. If this is what they enjoy when they are alone with their porn, how are they going to feel in a situation with a real woman who does not want to be slapped, choked with a penis & called a toilet whore?

This is disgusting trash.

[seabeyond]

33. this is the problem. the vast majority that defend porn, are not watching. they do not know what

they are talking about, what is out there, what our boys are watching. and when we go to tell them, they cover their ears adn say they do not want to hear, as they defend porn, saying it is no big deal.

[patrice]

39. I'd bet research would find that true way more often than not. Liberals could tend to be more free

so they would have indulged in porn and, because they are Liberals, outgrew it and moved on.

That pattern describes me. I shared porn with my first husband several decades ago. If you asked me about it, I would have expressed some concerns about becoming dependent on anything, but would have formed my conclusions about porn as free speech on old stuff that is completely ir-relevant compared to what is actually out there.

I think this is by very far characteristic of greatest majority Liberal attitudes about porn, TTE, "Not my thing, but . . . ." based upon non-representative evidence.

[seabeyond]

42. you are absolutely correct. once i started realizing this was the case with so many, i started

truly delving into what the issues are. the response is totally different, once explaining what exactly our children are feeding on.

[patrice]

50. Thanksgiving dinner with my 3 nieces, upper-middle, professional women & one business owner.

Their kids were there of course and I noted how changed the oldest of my grand nephews is since he has just become an early teen.

Talk migrated to school, church, soccer etc. etc. etc. These sophisticated worldly young women are QUITE alarmed by the child- and youth- culture that they are encountering in and around Cupcake Land.

Out of control. Paranoid. Mean. Strange. Hostile. Those and other like were words that they used and we're talking about younger than just the teen bracket here.

We Boomers and at least the generation under us, should be quite concerned about who is making the social-level decisions about our old age.

[seabeyond]

35. and of course, the poster that it was addressed to will never watch, think or argue

the validation of that video. they will ignore and pretend they never saw it.

pretty woman, wrapped in a pretty little bow.

[CrispyQ]

36. I'm sick of rude assholes coming in our forum & posting what they think are

cute little videos to put us in our place. Honestly, DU3 sucks.

[seabeyond]

37. du3 sucks. nt

[randr]

26. Idle hands are the devils workshop

Sorry it is the first thing to pop into my mind.

[Dash87]

27. The forbidden fruit effect

When being told porn is "satanic" and "evil" over and over again, porn becomes a more dangerous, exciting thing for men to look at, making it more likely they will use porn.

I have no problem with people using porn. It's not an issue that really effects me or one I really think about, and I think as long as the people in the movie were legally able to agree to be in it, then there's nothing really wrong with it.

It ought to be mentioned, though, that the biggest hypocrites scream the loudest. I can only imagine the mega-stash that the far-right religious nutters have. Their hard drives are probably begging to be put out of their misery right now.

And before someone misinterprets, I'm not calling anyone on DU a hypocrite or arguing that feminists are linked to the religious right. The two aren't even close to being the same. Feminists argue against porn due to the effects they perceive that it has not only on women, but also on society as a whole. The religious right argues against porn from a stuffy patriarchal point of view (basically using the logic that women should be protected because they're inferior to men. This is complete opposite to what every feminist believes).

[patrice]

31. If we posit that one of the reasons red states are red is that, more often than not, the

people who have come together to live there are authoritarians, i.e. persons who prefer/need mostly external locii of control, then the power of physical interaction between a man and a woman, caused by an external factor, could also ergo be seen as yet another power, another form of control, and under the right circumstance, more often than not, resented and feared.

If any of that is valid, such persons would seek some way of distancing themselves from the power/control source, especially when said source is as unpredictable as their mutual misunderstandings make them to be.

Pornography could provide a safe, or at least uncomplicated, substitute for the real thing if the real thing, women, cause you not only fear and resentment, but also trouble your whole externalized authoritarian world-view.

[seabeyond]

38. and the american woman.she is so fearful for too many men, i am reading. more and more on the net,

saying that they cannot do an american woman. no control? speaks out? ahhhhh

men, stating, they cannot handle an american woman.

what is that saying, that they cannot do a real woman, need the submission to get off, thru porn.

like the japanese men with their women pillows, cause they think sex with a real woman "icky".

sigh

[sigmasix]

40. what is porn?

I am repeatedly amazed by the sweeping generalizations and appeals to emotional reactions amongst those that have a knee-jerk reaction to the stuff they call porn.
When the people fighting "porn" start to take the female version of male-objectifying-porn just as seriously, and condem all consumers of modern romance trash novels and their media equivilences that objectify men as non-human paycheck providers and social, as well as sexual, playthings and status inflators, I'll be willing to have a discussion with them. The modern romance novel industry and it's many media spin-offs represents an evil, insidious influence on our society that empowers women to treat men as objects for molding towards some sort of female-fantasy- an object that forever offers a standard of behavior, economic blandishments and sexual perfomance that dehumanizes men and trains women to view us as penises with lucrative jobs and social status conferees that are always there to do as they are told by the female definition of manliness and masculinity. Why is it that female purient desires and sexual bigotry is never recognized as a problem? So sexually explicit media somehow "hurts" people, but only the media that appeals to males. Where have I heard this point of view expressed before? hmmm.
Women objectify men and damage the universal self-image of men through their preferred form of objectification- yet we are left to deal with the damage to our relationships, family and children- with out so much as an "I'm sorry" from the anti-porn activists that claim they are just trying to help families and others objectified by the media that they have arbitrarily decided to be the prime culprit in causing so much destruction to women and families, while ignoring this very real problem. But when intelligent, honest individuals and studies point to the devious and damaging intention behind the female porn of choice, we are roundly laughed at and pronounced as mysogonists, thus cutting off any really substantive discussions about the subject.
Women objectify men as sex objects and unrealistic security providers all the time- they just prefer the written description of the male's destruction as an individual, instead of explicit film or pictures of the abuse.
When the porn warriors are offended, they claim the offensive material is damging to everyone in our society. Why do these offendees think that this is a one-way street that only admits thier particular pet social issue?
I think Mr. Zappa had some things to say to the porn worriors- but then he has been accused of being a producer of porn as well (art or porn, what's the difference, as long as someone gets to tell thier fellow Americans what images they can see and produce)- because everyone knows that picutures, videos and the written word hurts just like a knife. (um sarcasm)

[seabeyond]

41. you get laughed at cause the argument is silliness.

those stories you call female porn is no more than a pg or r rated movie told.

it has been a ridiculous argument that has gained weight to dismiss the porn industry.

that is why it is laughed at.

btw... if you want to have a discussion on the misrepresentation of a certain type man being of value because of wallet, i am all for that. but that issue has nothing to do with porn. either your version of female porn in stories, or porn....

[sigmasix]

43. laughed at because of?

Thank you for making my point by disregarding the opinion about, and concept of, female porn- I think it took 10 seconds for your knee to jerk enough to write your response. But plenty of time to do open minded research and inquiry about the subject, huh?

[seabeyond]

44. it isnt like we have not heard this argument repeatedly.

i read everything. and have read plenty of what you would catagorize as female porn. it isnt. it is no more than a pg or r rated movie. story told. yet, you want a longer discussion about it.

they cannot even decide today what makes a romance novel or a mystery novel. there is hardly difference, or no difference in the stories being told. randomly putting one arthor in one category, and another elsewhere because of gender.

i can read a koontz, child, sanford and has more sex in it than any of the "romance" novel that you knee jerk call women porn.

what is the point? do you read the books? do you have a clue what youa re talking about?

how is it different from sleeping in seattle? is that women porn also? or is it womens porn if it is a story told, written in words?

[jeff47]

55. And the porn I owned back in the day didn't have any of the violence you decry.

Therefore, violence in porn doesn't exist.

Or, my 'collection' wasn't a representative sample.

[seabeyond]

57. wow. hitting everyone of my posts with really poor argument skills. you will not hear me argue

that the porn back in the day is not the same as the porn today.

wtf does that have to do with anything.

i read books in the past, i read them presently. i am aware of both, but i do not get what your argument is. though, i am sure you feel you have a gotcha moment here.

[jeff47]

62. It's an example. Try considering it instead of knee-jerking.

In this particular sub-thread, you are claiming female-directed porn is PG or R. Sure, the poster you responded to was discussing romance novels, but you started talking about "female porn industry".

i am aware of both, but i do not get what your argument is

That your small group may not be representative of the whole. Also known as "anecdote is not data".

[seabeyond]

65. bah hahahah. gotta make sense instead of the knee jerk accusation of knee jerk

response.

what is "knee jerk" about saying i do not get where your argument is?

oh, wait.... no knee jerk. you just wanted to use knee jerk on me even though it made no sense.

and as i already pointed out below. your argument fails since the poster i replied to used "The modern romance novel industry" as FEMALE PORN.

so, maybe you ought to quit being so knee jerk in your arguments and actually pay attention to what is being said, instead of making shit up.

[jeff47]

67. Do you often resort to insults when your argument won't stand on it's own? (nt)

[seabeyond]

73. my argument wont stand? lmfao. nt

[seabeyond]

74. btw... re read your posts filled with insults. and i believe you and the other started

the knee jerk accusations and bullshit.

[redqueen]

46. When evidence showing the rape and abuse in the production of pornography is presented,

and the only response is to bring up romance novels and 'gold diggers'... I really don't think there's any point in attempting to have a conversation.

[eridani]

94. Sex role propaganda is mainly disseminated as mainstream culture, not porn

Not that that makes it any better--quite the contrary.

[jeff47]

53. I find it interesting that up-thread you attack "porn supporters" for not really watching

Yet you appear to not have actually read the "female porn" which you defend here, and just happily dismiss it as tame. I've stumbled across plenty of "female porn" on the internet that is plenty extreme. So either I hallucinated the contents of a few usenet archives, or your collection isn't as exhaustive as you think.

[seabeyond]

56. "The modern romance novel industry"

this poster used this definition. this is what i responded to.

problem?

[jeff47]

59. And you expanded the subject to "female porn industry."

If you wanted to restrict the subject to romance novels, why did you broaden the subject?

[seabeyond]

61. ummm... that is how the poster described "The modern romance novel industry"

hence, people laughing at his argument.

[jeff47]

63. He refers to romance novels as female porn, but doesn't refer to it as all of what female porn is.

Your post implied that you were referring to all female porn, at least as I read it.

[seabeyond]

75. you are a hoot.... ya. whatever. nt

[redqueen]

45. welcome to du

Enjoy your day.

[sigmasix]

47. what standards?

The standards are always shifting when it comes to the porn warriors and the damage caused by thier chosen media interest. So when a woman claims to be the target of purient media and dehumanizing standards, we ought to listen to what she has to say- but should a man have the same complaints about the same media-imposed personal destruction, his complaints and the media's relationship to the creation of the atmosphere that makes his objectification possible, should be criticized and wholly disregarded as a dishonest appraisal of the situation. Not because of any proof offered in defense of the stance of porn warriors, but because, as a group, they are so darn sure they are right. Feminist criticism is a unique and powerful tool that enables humanity to widen our scope of intellectual inquiry. Like other forms of criticism, it is not the only one out there, nor does it have a corner on the market of truth. You disregard the objectification of men through female porn at your own peril; no one will be willing to advance charity in thought or deed towards your viewpoint if you continue to trivialize the damage to families and society caused by the objectification of either sex through each sex's chosen form of "porn".
This notion that women are somehow morally distinct from men in character and intention is sexist and derogatory. I thought the goal was mutual respect, not maintaining a seperate sect.

[redqueen]

48. You're wasting time. Stop with the pathetic strawman arguments.

Nobody said that women are "somehow morally distinct from men in character and intention"... that's just a sad attempt to distract and derail the discussion.

And feminists have all had it up to our eyeballs with that bullshit.

[seabeyond]

49. it is as if you do not believe their is an inequity. as if you do not believe that women are placed

in a submissive role. as if you do not believe their is a patriarchy. or sexism and misogyny.

it seems as if you would like to neuter any womens discussion and focus it on all people.

this is a feminist forum. and though there are enough on the board that like to pretend women no longer have an issue, those in this forum KNOW better. actually, i believe that others are well in the know, they just do not care. they like how it is with continued privilege and continually putting women in a demeaning role, telling them to shut up, let the menz explain to them about womens issues.

not gonna happen here.

we have one little corner where we speak out about WOMENS issues.

as long as women are continually reduced to subservient roles without authority or voice, i really am not jumping into a battle that MEN should be addressing and focusing on. instead of demanding that i do their work for them.

[Drunken Irishman]

52. There is one study that came to this conclusion ... and it's flawed.

It's entirely based on one company's list of customers who pay for online porn - not every porn company out there (and there are a lot). It also doesn't include people who get their porn for free (which, really, is easy nowadays). Moreover, the logistics of the study don't hold up. Utah is #1 in porn viewing, which leads many to assume that Mormons love their porn. Except Idaho, which has the 2nd largest Mormon population in the country, is near the bottom - and a red state. There is no rhyme or reason to the rankings.

Also, the difference between each state is very small. The study says Utah has 1.69 porn subscribers per 1,000 people. Connecticut, which is a pretty blue state, is 1.01 - .68% less than Utah.

Finally, the study ignores that most states on the bottom-end of the list are red states:

Idaho, Montana, Georgia, South Carolina, Wyoming, and Indiana all make up the bottom-part of the list.

But again, the difference we're looking at is small. So, the study is nothing to make a claim around.

Beyond all this, Men's Health listed a study of the 100 smuttiest cities in America and the top-ten are:

1. Orlando, FL
2. Las Vegas, NV
3. Wilmington, DE
4. Raleigh, NC
5. Charlotte, NC
6. Minneapolis, MN
7. Atlanta, GA
8. Tampa, FL
9. Anchorage, AK
10. Austin, TX

Las Vegas, Wilmington, Charlotte, Minneapolis, Atlanta, and Austin are all Democratic-leaning cities.

The last 100?

91. Norfolk, VA
92. Fargo, ND
93. Lincoln, NE
94. Toledo, OH
95. Laredo, TX
96. Lubbock, TX
97. Charleston, WV
98. Winston-Salem, NC
99. Baton Rouge, LA
100. Jackson, MS

All pretty conservative.

So, sorry, I just don't buy this claim. I think you'll find porn is evenly distributed across this country.

Oh yeah - and SLC? The capital of the supposed capital of porn? 71st out of 100.

http://www.menshealth.com/health/smut-census

[redqueen]

78. LOL... yeah, subscriptions to HBO and Skinemax should *totally* count.

Sorry, not buying the Mens Health 'study'.

[Drunken Irishman]

83. But you'll buy that other one? LOL indeed!

[sigmasix]

71. since I am a feminist, what does this say?

of course women have been dealing with all of these issues- anyone that would claim otherwise is just in denial over the true state of the world. The facts of the problems that are faced by women, caused by patriarchal arrangements and suppositions within our culture does not relieve the feminist school of thought of it's obligation to truth and egalitarian remedies to our cultural unfairness and bigoted targeting of the "other". Sometimes the "other" being targeted is not the politically convenient under-represented demographic. I realize that my take on this is not a popular one with my fellow feminists, but I feel it is of utmost importance to make sure that the hypocrisy of this particular position be pointed out. A political or social notion that relegates men"s objectification by women; through the use of women's chosen mode of "porn", as at best a laughable inconsequentiality, should be explored and called-out as a weakness on the part of modern, personality-driven feminist criticism. I am very sure there are those that will claim that I am not a feminist or that I am being dishonest in my inquiry, and to them I only ask "why are you so determined in your claim that women do not objectify men or use media that succeeds in the objectification of men?". Does anyone really believe that women are somehow morally immune to this very human immoral condition?
Instead of attacking me out of hand, why not deal with the question? Intellectual activity and moral reasoning never hurt anyone.
If you want to be taken seriously about the damage caused by the objectification of humans by our media and culture, then you ought to show at least a modicum of concern for the damage caused to the other 50% of the human population. The type of behavior that relegates an entire gender's complaints to inconsequential nothings, is the same behavior and attitude that feminism was supposed to be an antidote for.
Punishing groups of people by ignoring thier very real complaints and troubles does not engender charity or future positive relationships, but it sure FEELS good, huh?

[seabeyond]

79. is your argument still the "The modern romance novel industry" as the female porn to be taken

seriously?

you want to talk about the real issues men face in the patriarchy? we are happy to.

why do you not actually discuss anything that is addressed to you instead of starting another post?

TOO OFTEN, consistently, on du we talk about womens issues and a man jumps in and says, .... what about the menzzz.....

we watched our national party throw us under the bus for years until just recently they saw they could get our vote and actually stand with women.

on du alone, we watch the administration protect the lbgt community and no on dares to be a racist, but continually throw us under the bus. dismissing our issues.

telling us, really there is no problem, really, cause look, men have the same issues. and THAT is sexist also.

when generally, almost always it is men doing the trashing of themselves.

yet feminist are held to be responsible for mens behavior with their own gender. we are suppose to put our issues aside and fight their battle.

what is the menz issue you want us to get all over?

[Skittles]

82. WORTHY OF ITS OWN THREAD

yes INDEED

[redqueen]

81. Stop derailing.

If you want to start a discussion about how men are so poorly treated by whatever, start it.

Coming into a discussion about one subject (almost always about feminist issues, but sometimes race issues as well) and bringing up other subjects (what about the men? what about white people?) is whataboutery.

It is a sadly, extremely common tactic used to try to disrupt discussions of certain issues.

It doesn't work in places where people are on to the game. Give it up.

[CrispyQ]

96. We've heard these arguments before.

We certainly do recognize that the media objectifies all humans at times & we acknowledge that it has a negative impact on our boys & men. If you read some more in this forum, you will find threads where we discuss good men's predicament in the patriarchy. However, there is no way one can claim that men are objectified to the same degree as women. No way. To come into a feminist forum & imply we are as bad as the misogynists because our discussions center around women & how women are impacted by the patriarchy, is insulting.

[redqueen]

97. Precisely.

Well said.

[sigmasix]

84. perhaps there is some confusion

My point- and I believe i have made it- is that you are more likely to generate solutions to problems if you are able to have an inquiry that incorporates all of the instances and sources of the problem.
This is American pragmatism in action.

The OP is suggesting that there are a couple things at play in the discussion about pornography as it related to political demographics within the United States. One of the points made was that "porn" was somehow the responsibility of the male gender of the human race and is used exclusively by men in the attempt to deny humanity and intrinsic value and importance to women. I understand that some feminists believe this to be true, but there certainly isn't a 100% agreement about this. And there certainly is not a 100% agreement on what sorts of things are pornographic. Feminist criticism includes more than just "Lady Issues", and by restricting your membership and self identification you are denying yourself an opportunity to learn and understand other points of view.

Disagreement is an invariable portion of any social group, but with-holding respect and charity from an individual question or suggestion is not disagreement, it's bullying.

[redqueen]

85. More strawman bullshit. Really?

One of the points made was that "porn" was somehow the responsibility of the male gender of the human race and is used exclusively by men in the attempt to deny humanity and intrinsic value and importance to women.

Nope. Women use it too. It's used simply to get off more easily, without having to overly tax one's brain by using one's own imagination.

The oppression and dehumanization are a side effect, and SOME consider them to be rather important, you know, in addition to the whole rape and abuse on set thing.

Please, stop.

[sigmasix]

86. I wonder if

What is happening here has more to do with some sort of button I must have pushed for you in my original reply to the OP-
If someone posts an OP with the intent of inflaming deeply held personal preconceptions about "Red States'" morality versus "Blue States'" morality, visa-a-vi pornography ownership and viewing, you can expect some sort of reactions that might set you off iff you are an emotional proponent of the view that porn viewership indicates moral short-comings.

Please accept my apologies for pushing your buttons- but don't you think you ought to grow a thicker skin about this subject? Understand, I am in no way stipulating that you are correct in any of your strident declarations as to my character or my intentions. I believe they have been very clear; I disagree with you about the unimportance of the damage caused to men by the romance novel industry and it's many media outlets. I also disagree with many mainstream men that posit the notion that pornography does no damage. My original reply was to an inflammatory post that challenges all DUers to question what we are doing here if we are just going to go around conflating silly numbers like pornography use and positing political maxims from the conflation.
It's fun, but it's what the teabaggers do for entertainment too.
I hope that DU can grow beyond it and people that think that they should be able to tell others to stop posting- I will when I believe my point is made. I have violated no TOU and never will.

[redqueen]

88. My pleasure. I wish it was considered thought provoking by more people.

It seems to be more provoking of defensive kneejerking and deflecting... but I suppose that's to be expected, considering the state of things.

[ismnotwasm]

89. I used my university access

Which I'm finding I shouldn't do on my iPad. There is a wealth of information on pornography. Too much to go into, but I can find peer reviewed stats. Too tired tonight, just got in. This does NOT answer your question, it's merely food for thought

Toward a Symptomatology of Cyberporn

Michael Uebel

The new fantasmic dimensions of cyberpornography are my focus in this essay. It is my contention that, as the media of mass-circulating porn are changing, as bits and binary codes replace glossy centerfolds, fantasy is being activated in novel ways. Cyberspace is installing a new regime of sexual representation and, with it, tactical modes of dreaming, thinking, and acting. The pornographic image, more than ever, occupies the interspace bridging private fantasy and mass public disposition.7 As the Web becomes increasingly constructed as the imaginary reference point of the public, we begin to recognize our own desires as they are re-presented to us in the media senssuround. "Even. . . the most perverse among us," Michael Warner observes in another context, "could point to his or her desires or identifications and see that they were public desires, even mass public desires, from the moment that they were our desires."8 Yet at the same time that we observe our desires (pre)scripted in and by the grand historical metatext of late technocapitalism, we are discovering that there are points within the metatext, like cyberporn, which hold the promise of strategic resistance.9


Cyberporn, more aggressively than other contemporary mass-public languages (advertising, network news, Hollywood film), translates subjective desires and fantasies into objective, often unstable, "published dreams."10 This translation into objectivity of the pornographic imaginary is a crucial aspect of its productive cultural function. If conceiving the desires cyberporn produces as separable from the scripts, the enunciated laws, such porn calls into existence, is impossible, then we do well to follow Foucault in replacing the strict "law and sovereignty" of sex with an open "technology of sex," a multiple, positive technology of desire.11 Such a positive technology of desire opens the possibility of directing our attention to the specific ways the postmodern apparatus of cyberporn produces, rather than just regulates or prohibits, desires. Although Clinton and Congress, law enforcement, the press (witness its singular obsession with "child porn"12 ), conservative public-interest organizations, and certain professionals in the health industry continue to frame their discussion and assessment of cyberporn in terms of control and interdiction,13 I want here to establish a counterdiscourse of sorts, one informed by Deleuze and Guattari's formulations of desire as a machinic and, we shall see, potentially masochistic production in order to ground a new approach to cyberbodies, especially those offered up for pornographic consumption.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theory_and_event/v003/3.4uebel.html


Not sure this will link, but its certainly an interesting analysis

[seabeyond]

90. bookmarking to come back in and read when i have time. thanks. nt

[ismnotwasm]

91. Its quite long

What it's basically saying is those who consume a lot of porn are psychological masochists. And why.

[sigmasix]

95. not all there

The whole paper isnt there but the little I was able to access sounds (reads?) interesting. The conjecture is that cyber porn has become a different sort of creature than pornographic magazines and movies, and that creature needs to be looked at in new ways that incorporate criticism from thinkers and researchers that represent the application of the post modern paradigm. The function of cyber porn is re-examined in light of newer notions from linguistics, psychology and philosophy.
Essentially the paper is stating that cyberporn is an insiduous negative agent within our culture that will continue to attract and twist new consumers in ways we have never seen before. The paper also has some things to say about the social effects of cyber porn.
It certainly seems like a well researched paper and the evidence for the conclusions alluded to seems very fair.
I wonder how America should go about fixing this problem while retaining respect for, and integrity in, our freedom of speech. This is something that requires honesty and civility from all interested parties if we are ever going to make a real difference. My original response was extremely unhelpful in this endeavor and I appologize for it. I am still convinced that there are very real issues about this subject that need to be examined in a way that goes deeper than inflammatory OPs that conflate political party affiliation with cyber porn usage and susceptibility. Men do in-fact suffer from female created media norms and objectifiction, and any complete examination of the real life effects of cyber porn and media objectification will include studies and conjectural hypotheses that articulate and attempt to explain this fact.
If you are able to find the entire paper could you post a link to it? Very engrossing.

[ismnotwasm]

98. I know, that's the problem when I link from the university.

I'll go back and see if I can find a better way to do it, since much of it was there, it may have been how I did it.

I thought it very interesting indeed, I was looking for a quicker read but I was hooked after a couple of paragraphs. The idea that cyber-porn creates fantasy, instead of negating fantasy as Mckinnan thought early on, only not healthy fantasy but a type of masochistic paradigms on the side of the performer and viewer is fascinating, and makes sense. I'd go so far to say it also explains a few things.

[sigmasix]

99. explains more than just porn

This paper points out that cyber porn actually participates in the creation of it's own consumers and further twists the consumer towards a deeply unhealthy re-enforcement of the fantasy ideation. The relationship of the porn consumer to cyber porn is not a "normal", or classic media relationship; the way cyber porn works has nothing to do with healthy human sexual curiosity and fantasy play, rather the conjecture is (and I agree) that cyber porn participates in it's own creation and ideation, re-enforcing an escalating consumption and the notion that the unhealthy aspects of the relationship is normal and functional. Danerous stuff, cyber porn. I'm looking forward to continued discussions about this issue and am hopeful that DU members like yourself and redqueen can point me in the right direction for further education about cutting edge research into this new human-created monster. Thank you once again for this link- it opened my eyes to a subject I quit studying 15 years ago due to short-comings in our understanding about the relationship of emotionally charged media to human behavior and linguistic archetypes. You really can teach an old dog new tricks! I'll be looking for more studies of this type and will share what I find with DUers in the feminist discussion group. I hope that people are able to understand that this isn't just a feminist issue, but an American health and media scourge issue as well. I wonder if Faux "news" uses the same sort of approach in the dissemination of it's lies and hyperbole. Highly emotionally charged fantasy worlds that require continued escalation of toxicity to the individual's socialization skills and relationships with individuals, deemed by the faux news consumer as "weak" or the "other", is what has been happening on that channel for over a decade.
Once again- thanks to the OP and to you for this scholarly article.
Glarb! I love DU.

[ismnotwasm]

100. The ties to consumption and capitalism

Yup.

I'm glad you enjoyed it .

[Historic NY]

92. What kid of porn do they like?